A new culture of virility

This article responds to several needs:

• Reconciliating sexual liberation with national-socialism
• Establishing the truth once and for all about the homosexuality and pedophilia in nature and Greek antiquity, combating the wave of homophobic revision of history today rampant on internet.
• Why are women so often inferior to men intellectually, nearly incapable of separating emotions from objective facts, as well lacking in term of creativity ?

We proudly accept the designation of homofascist and pederast, with the cavet that women are welcome, if they present the same essential characteristics we admire in men. And if homoerotic relationships have always been the foundation of a strong military State, we believe that inspiration and the domination of sodomy really is what matters more. At the end the complex reason why modern degenerate homosexuality degenerated so much as of recently is given.

True Virility

Eros in Arms

As we wander streets on any day, we see weak, spineless men controlled by their wife, exuding no virility or sense of confidence. As much as we can blame Jewish and feminist efforts to undermine our culture, we wouldn’t have been sensitive to their propaganda in the first place if men had not been not been weak, spineless children first.

Hedonism, degeneracy and weakness of character - as demonstrated by the chore of videos of women raped or people beaten up in the subway by subhumans with no one bating an eye - all stem from a fundamentally absent moral fiber, that our model of education totally neglects.

But we go about this education would require a complete overhaul of sexuality, in particular with children. Explicit or implicit inspired pedophilia has always been the core of all successful youth organization of any kind, and of any education. Greek pederasty (the alliance of tough love and disinhibited sexuality in its vertical component) creates the strongest children, free from doubt and fixations, able to face the hardships of life and the tasks demanded of them by society (for good or bad) We need to rethink the way we educate children, how love, pedagogy, authority and discipline relate to each other.

Europeans need the character to trust entirely those with the most inspiration in hope to approach their divinity. To ascend to their level to some degree. By first obeying his instructions, then emulating them earnestly, in order to truly making ours his qualities and thought process by uniting to him on an energetic level. This following of the strongest derives from our survival instinct, except that inspiration advantageously replaced physical strength.

lead and be led or Führer Prinzip, is the indivision of willingly obeying those we recognize as superior, and of assuming full responsability in carrying out their will in the fullest of our capacity¹. All for one, and one for all, with prussian characteristics.

The key to foster that kind of personality, is hierarchical erotic relationships, also known as pederasty. It should come as no surprise thus, that teaching is conceptually inseparable from natural love, as energy and truth are two sides of the same coin. All successful cultures figured this out.

More specifically:
In Ancient times sex and sodomy in particular constituted an intrinsic part of that learning process, in all enlightened society.

This is how we can fill the gaping hole in spirit between girls and boys - hence between women and men - at last ending the gender sex. Those gap despite definite roots in biology are actually accidents of culture and cooking twisting what both men and women should become whose technical details I explain later.
True virility transcends it all.

I propose we first take inspiration from the most successful societies we know off in sufficient details.

We get our first lesson in these paragraphs, the necessity to confront a child to the harsh reality of survival out of their own strength.

But it has to be explained why those kids by and large (or ever) wouldn’t just fall into despondency, depression, abandonism. Nothing original in saying kids need both a pole of love and a pole of discipline/authority, though badmouthing any fatherly role trends a lot today which isn’t a surprise considering real men almost ceased to exist in this society.

But how exactly is that supposed to work, how is balance realized ? Can unlimited strictness compensates unlimited indulgence, unconditional indulgence ?

No, this would be the perfect recipe for schizophrenia, as been proved in dogs. Yes, by highly contradictory attitudes mixing rewards and punishments without rhyme or reason (or with purposeful sadism), even dogs loose it.

Parents (and to a lesser degree educators, reciprocal friends and lovers) should ask everything, infinite efforts from their offspring, squeeze out the least success in achieving their potential. And a the same time provide infinite love and acknowledgment. The key to this seeming paradox, is to understand what love even means.

In our Western liberal society love is more often than not confused with self-indulgence or between lovers reciprocal indulgence of a nearly-contractual character which extends to the sexual sphere: I do you if you do me, that kind of thing. It became an agreement for each parties to allow each to stroke their egos continuously, feeding their vanity or sense of (undue) self-importance.

Remove the sacred part of love, and there’s only partial gratifications or sentimental attachments left, but without energy or the prospect of it, it feels kinda hard to ask any personal effort of anyone without such binding contracts, without appealing to each partner’s egoism.

In the end, in absence of true love and energy, parenting has become little more than narcissistic projections hiding a sadistic undertone.

Genuine parenting on the opposite (or genuine love) was all about wishing the best for the kid, helping him to fulfill his transcendent destiny above any other concern while doing anything in one’s power to accomplish that goal, even if that meant killing one’s child with oneself if he dared to sully the family’s honor, like Japanese samurais’ mothers were said to.

We should understand such acts (more a performative fantasy than common facts) as benevolent, as without honor one is nothing and cannot not live up to one’s potential so being put out of one’s misery is not cruelty but mercy.

The resilience of a child and his capacity to endure like a man instead of caving in or prostrating like a Swedish cuck, is a function of his energy level and trust in his parents’ good intentions, which comes to down to the certain prospect of energy with them.

Hence I don’t find especially jarring than Japanese children can notoriously cope with objectively insane training regimen to prepare them for universities.
Unhealthy as it may be (arguably), the fact they do manage those training without breaking or not nearly as much as we would, is a testament to the customary intensity of parental love in Asia. As a proof, Japaneses until twenty to thirty years or so, used to bath with their the opposite sex parent, usually until 15, or limitlessly. Mixed bathing in honsen was normal until feminists and Western influence exorcised it out.
And anyone thinking nothing happened must be an incurable fool.²

That explains why Japanese children until recently appeared superior, and explains the impressive reconstructions efforts after the war: Incestuous orgasm-fueled superpowers.

Relationships with teachers have always been customary until their defeat, with admiring instances of dedicating from teachers, housing and financing students for free at a time where university were all private and one heck of an investment for families (this hasn’t changed terribly…).

We have to think in economical terms: energy is a resource, which like physical energy, can be acquired, transformed into useful work, or lost entirely in heat, its most entropic or degenerative form. A wholly entropic system can not be put to work anymore, it creates friction and things start breaking down real quick.. When we perform automatic tasks requiring no mental efforts, but merely follow a kind of algorithmic pattern however complex, then we don’t really use our higher abilities, with little to no human intuition at play, the brain just gets to run its usual well-trained and well oiled course. In those situations we act like computers and do not feel much if any effort, merely the physical tension of investing attention, and even this is proportional how much we’re used to the task.

But things are different whenever we need to learn, change our ways, develop totally new skillsets out of sheer grit or merely function beyond our ordinary, physical capacities.

Running counter already established lines of functioning or years of mental reference to specific beliefs isn’t free. To break free from conditioning or adopt new ones, is costly and spend energy, transforming it with more or less efficiency giving off more or less steam or mental friction in the process.

Adults - average muhricans - can function in their job on sometimes ludicrously low love energy levels same for scholars: exceedingly intellectual and smart creatures but wasting their life in inane pursuits writing useless papers, which hardly anyone will read, nor be impacted by. Without inspiration we make the wrong choices, as Einstein said:

A theory can be proved by experiment; but no path leads from experiment to the birth of a theory.
There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.

Children on the other hand, need to learn even the most elementary laws, in the wild (apes) their very survival depends on it hence the reason of our extended childhood. Children thus especially crave for love to fuel their growth.

Yet, though correct intellectual maturation depends on energy-information it pales in comparison to metapsychical needs: building the soul and its psychic abilities requires a tremendous amount. As a result Spartan kids had no issue expressing themselves fully, morally, physically, intellectually: adults’ insane demands were merely commensurate to their capabilities, because love knew no bounds:

Now let’s go back to the agoge, to know what it consisted in:

[ - Between 7 and 12 - ] at the communal barracks where the groups of children were housed, the boys were imparted education which ranged from academics and sports to training in hunting and warfare. The male students were treated like future soldiers, and their education was mainly military-oriented.
Children were taught how to endure hardship, pain, fatigue, hunger, as well as the bitter cold. Their athletic activities included gymnastics and different ancient sports, which they had to undertake barefoot. They were also given severely rationed food daily, so as to accustom them to hunger and thirst.

Evidently it was never pushed so far as to hinder their development, or this wouldn’t create strong soldiers.

The agoge dictated that the boys slept on beds which they had to make themselves out of reeds and straws, which they had to pull out from the banks of the river Eurotas, without using a knife [ - Incidentally, this is how chimpanzees make new beds each evening ! - ] .

The main intention of the agoge regime was to discipline the students at a young age. They were taught how to read and write, war poems, history, singing, dancing, as well as the works of Homer. Sources support the notion that intellectual accumen even more a Spartan defining characteristic than their martial prowess.

As must be apparent now, while swimming in sexual care up to the neck, young people were treated like adults, so the adult in them could awaken. We have less information on girls, beyond the fact their respective love life were nigh identical: no weak sex, no infantilization of women.

On a psychological level, we think children should come to experience the widest and most intense range of emotions and inner experiences possible, sadness, rage, pity, love, desire, so that nothing coming their way later could disturb their sense of balance, their stability.

Another Kind of Feminity

How do men and women differ, and why ?
Evolutionary psychology is a stickin’, miasma-filled cesspool of weakly grounded stale moralistic commonplaces. Closer to philosophy or literature, minus the rare inspiration. Firstly because it hardly make use any statistics or nearly always their bias is laughably apparent, ignoring blatantly contradicting evidences.

And no topic gets worse than psychological or cognitive differences (or sex habits) between genders and ensuing projection over early primitive societies.

Truth be told, when we consider an overview of all pre-industrial societies as a whole, we realize genders don’t matter much. Yes, women tend to revolve around the relational (taking care of others, community building) and men around making stuff (the material) and exploration.

Nevertheless specifics are so variable divergent depending on the specific culture, that dwelling on this or building an ontology or a cosmology around yin and yang, Mars and Venus or whatnot is utterly pointless, and anyone older than 20 with eyes to see, should have met enough diverging characters in both sexes to be convinced of the same.

The greatest divide between sexes seems to have been the neolithic revolution, with the advent of agriculture and complexification (and ossification) of society. Hunter-gatherer societies appear quite egalitarians, everyone contributing a little to the survival of the group. There’s been debate for years about how many hours a day working for survival (collecting food, processing it) takes them, at least those still surviving today.

The problem is their rarity, most not living in forests, let alone lush primeval ones. I couldn’t find figures estimating the work load of chimpanzees, beyond the fact they spend half their day eating and/or touching each other… Which sounds pretty dope.

What I mean to say is, for intelligent people, sexual division of labour has never been a practical need, while if we go back to pre-human times, we only had to climb in the damn tree to eat, break open a beehive and munch some leaves. On the other hand, people will naturally gravitate around what they like.

African hunter-gatherers like Bushman or the !Kong on the other hand not only settled for the most part in unnatural (for apes) environments lacking most of what we need, but lack the brain to improve their daily life through by either moving or cultivating.

In most traditional societies with vastly inefficient production methods and habits Whites introducing any improvement that could cut work time or raise yield only ever faced the same almost automatic response: why ? We’ve always done like this. Having lived in Africa for a few months, Guy-Claude had the leisure to observe their mindset.
Once, as he tried to buy everything a woman had to sell at once, and at advantageous price for her, she refused, arguing I would have nothing to do the rest of the day ! Their level of mental inertia or sheer stupidity, correlated to their mean IQ, can not decently be compared to past European hunter-gatherers, so concluding anything is preposterous.
Hence African stupidity seems a rather shallow argument to promote the delights of the industrial revolution.

Beside, tools as means of force multiplication, almost made the very real physical strength gap irrelevant (regards to survival in the wild), while group lifestyles ensure the impossibility of domination through brute force alone: chimpanzee females can easily gang up then dismember any male at 4 vs 1 or less.

The most daring gap we observe today, lie in intelligence. As IQ tests show women as more centered on the mean, lacking much of the genius and high-achieving spectrum responsible for the advancement of society. Women maintain and relish in the status quo, men strive for what they perceive as progress: revolutionary groups, for ill or bad were all male-dominated. Most women lack the ingenuity, curiosity and rationality to take the next step:

Curiosity or the lack thereof is a problem, but the worst one is the irrationality: as a general rule how many women are capable of putting aside emotions when considering a sensitive issue, whatever that is ?
Granted, today few men can either, but I have yet to see even one woman managing when it comes to sexuality, children or what comes in and out of their own wombs. This is why woman voting was a terrible idea.

But why have we got to that point and is it curable ?
We need to understand what it means on a deeper level.
Women lack in divine inspiration, they lie on the base, material level, of the sensation or sentiment. The call of destiny and total dedication to a spiritual ideal has been essentially masculine all along history, with some exceptions of course.

There is little differentiation based on sex below puberty, and virgin girls keep longer an air of purity to them, as a fortiori do lesbians. On the other hand, mature girls most will simply react to novelty defensively because evolution made them wary of anything troubling the stability and safety of the nest, to raise the offspring.

All of this mirrors the divide between the reproductive instinctive program and metapsychic instinctive program and for obvious reasons females of all species (save for hyenas perhaps…) are easy to sway to a reproductive mindset, leading to an extreme social conservatism, aligning with social expectations.

The severe but undoubtedly accurate insights of many philosophers, such as Jung, Weiniger and Ludovici³ is truer today than ever, as the bad sides of civilization are reaching an historical peak. It is reasonable to argue against the evil patriarchy. But it needs some recontextualization: we unlike earlier conservatives, very much believe women have a bright future, if they stop cooking realign with their deeper, lesbian and pederastic metapsychical self.

In our society, as Freud put it their lack of curiosity has to do with their lack of sexuality early on, as children, for which reaching the clitoris is notably harder without being introduced by someone else, namely a parent or older sibling. Even in a context of repression, a boy’s sexual needs are always closer to his mind and his sex to his sight.

As a result he is much more likely to touch himself and not a single boy doesn’t, be it in his dreams: on the other hand girls can easily spend their whole childhood, nay, life, without knowing a damn thing about her clitoris and so never orgasm a single time while orgasms for boys are as natural and unavoidable as breathing. Eternal sexual dissatisfaction coupled with the very ignorance of their needs (which to blame on their partner !) make them empty shells, superficial creatures living only on the level of sensation, yet of a biological and superficial level. The exhilarating feeling of being alive with adrenaline and electricity rush through your veins, is one with the soul , higher levels of consciousness and is synonymous energy.

Girls who know how to satisfy themselves are better off, more lively, not featuring the meekness we usually ascribe to their sex. On the other hand, modern women show how engaging in such activities and the knowledge of orgasm did not help women in the slightest however: frustration hasn’t diminished. Instead it transmuted from a crude organic level to a much more important metapsychic dissatisfaction, the lack of energetic orgasms, that most men live in their whole life. Moreover modern women access to pleasure fuelled a an unlimited sense of entitlement: anything that can fuel their vanity will do so. So we see it isn’t an issue of pleasure, so much as of psychic structuring.

It is a matter of objectivity today, to realize how women have become inferior on every level:

• Physically weak and fatter
• Inconsistent in their decision-making, plus acting upon irrational feelings instead of logical reasoning open to scrutiny, debate and questioning
• mean cranial volume 10% inferior to that of men and less represented in higher categories of intelligence.

But on the other hand:

• To be fair though, they are also lighter, so if under raw food they shouldn’t have any more fat than males… No more dead-weight.
• As for IQ they also are less represented in lower categories, and center around the same mean overall. Tests with Raven’s progressive matrices (arguably the most culturally neutral tests available) do not show a consistent gap, quite the opposite, when the sample is in the hundreds in size. Girls studying the same topics fare no differently to their male brethren, the same as those working the same number of hours are paid the same (putting aside specific jobs like modeling which intrinsically favor attractive women). The facts simply state that women aren’t interested in technical jobs and studies, not nearly as much as men, so are paid less and represented less in higher IQ categories.
• Because of course, since one can train for IQ tests they don’t really represent raw intelligence or capacity. After normalization (for economic status, education levels etc) we still see a gap of one standard deviation (15 points) between Whites and Blacks, but not between men and women.

We may hence derive these conclusions:

• Differences in IQ variation around the same mean should be inconsequential: We assume the lack of genius and general irrationality of women in real life situations (which few realistic people would deny, smart women included) is a consequence of a lack of study or work.
• This lack of study in worthwhile branches like physics and biology, compared to worthless curriculum like modern literature and sociology is a world-wide constant regardless of affirmative actions.

All throughout history, people have noticed the female stunted, lower soul, lesser ability to think themselves to the Truth. Others assimilated this to a stronger animal nature compared to men, and that is entirely true, but modern society showed that cultural sexual repression of men on women isn’t to blame as much as leftist thought, as today women can access pleasure as much as men (whether they actually do is not the absent patriarchy’s fault !).

So men have more often than not been the leaders, chieftains, kings and emperors, with women catering for local communities, their own, maintaining the status quo whatever it is, fair or unfair, logic or not. Doesn’t this somewhat lack in grandeur ?

Progress, change of perspective, has always been a man’s job, women nurturing society at best, and degrading it at worst quite often. Founders of a culture act out a vision (in the symbolic or literal sense of the word) doomed to fade from their successors’ eyes as time goes by and less inspired people understand values in their own lesser ways, mothers always imparting this fading vision to their children, of both sex, in early childhood.

I believe this lack of spark, of will to achieve, to be a direct expression of cooking and its dissimilar, very asymmetric: amplifying base animal instincts makes women meeker, just like the hen or cow submit to the cock or bull respectively. Within our genes and brain structures a whole set of character traits is ever present, stemming from ancient, outdated evolutionary pressures from millions to tens of millions of years ago, already present in the simplest animals to be honest - save for rare outliers like hyenas with aggressive girls boasting several times males’ testosterone rates.

This set of traits and tendencies form the core of lesser species whose entire lives around the need for reproduction (which is the one purpose of all lower lifeforms at least on the species’ level), is what we call the breeding instinctive program. What happens to women as this ancient evolutionary background is artificially stimulated by cooking, is a shift in life interests toward baser concerns seemingly all related to reproductive needs:

• Nesting: having a big, comfortable house (even when children are far, far ahead in the planning or unthinkable with current partners), cleaning the house, cooking (feeding the fledgeling !).
• Gossiping
• Keeping the men busy or downright manipulating them with sex in hope they continue providing resource and caring for kids, and ensuring said men don’t see other females as it would dilute their attention.

On the other hand, men’ animal instincts are simpler, cruder, but also saved them from perdition: we males want to fuck, regardless of the situation. We at least do it. While our attention shifts from anality and polymorphisms to coitus, which is a terrible consequence, reaching some modicum of satisfaction is still easier, because both breeding and metasexual instincts push us toward stacking the body count.

And both use the penis whereas the same shift toward coitus for women has had a very different consequence: the absolute center (and only source, anatomically) of pleasure for girls is their clitoris, which simply has no role whatsoever in a breeding situation. This leads girls in cooking to automatically disregard their clitoris even as they know it’s there, know what’ it’s here for and that men won’t do shit about it.

In general the more uninspired a woman is, the more her focus will shift from her obvious true needs (cumming) to manipulative behaviors, either through scheming (hence the endless gossiping) or submission to the male. Both attitudes conducive to keeping the male(s) to herself and her own material, social or emotional situation afloat. Even though in no way this appears to give her satisfaction or pleasure. Cooked females simply identify to their reproductive, forsaking entirely their eventual access to pleasure and so an eventual higher spiritual or cognitive development.

Dissatisfaction, so much more than for men, on the most basic physical level is a structural consequence of cross-drive induction, the chemical amplification of breeding instincts induced by the abundance of cooked or otherwise denatured molecules. When it comes to loss of creativity females really are more sensitive to cooking, for evolutionary reasons.

As a side note, I think our wholesale general cultural forgetting about the clitoris in the West from 1800 to 1960, is better interpreted not as evil patriarchy dumbing down women (while it did dumb them down a lot) but as a natural shift of perception (a willful ignorance) and obsession toward breeding as society got infinitely less inspired and more materialistic. Then less polymorphic activity led to less energy, in an inevitable downward spiral. Culture create inspired or uninspired people and is generated by said people at the same time.

Finally, we conclude that their girls have untapped genetic resources when it comes to scientific qualities as well as bravery, charisma, rationality and valid intuition (true extrasensory perception linked to scientific breakthroughs, so definitely not the average feminine intuition !) but this hidden ability has been neglected by none other than girls themselves. Because of their diet, directly (the heightening of animal instincts), indirectly (the subsequent lack of pleasure, while base men rather tend to seek it too much).

The patriarchy’s prejudices against girls while indeed justified for the reasons explained above, as a matter of fact added to female inferiority, cementing it: by relegating females sometimes by laws (Muslim and Jewish societies) into the exclusive breeding role they seem to focus on on their own accord, men have ensured women wouldn’t improve on their tendencies. This is a classic case, of our true nature being fallen and needing culture to bring itself to the fore.

That’s why we need to enforce lesbianism and generate an upward movement subjecting women to the same hardships men have always known, in order to develop similar qualities. To man up and stop whining like little bitches.

On the opposite, the insane privileges and unfairly easy treatment bestowed on women compared to men in this disgusting feminist society in sheer virtue of their genitalia (best instance being the military and dumbing down of standards to accommodate weak women) infantilized the former. In the end we recuse both retarded traditional roles (Kinder, Küche, Kirche) and modern feminism, for they end up doing the exact same thing, robbing women of the occasion and need to grow collectively and as individuals.

Beside, let us contemplate for a second the absurdity of that German slogan: what is left in a natural state, as the church disappears, cooking too, and we used to live for hundreds of years with but a handful of offspring per life on average to maintain population levels ?

As explained, it is most essential for adequate structuring to develop before puberty otherwise all the libido, aspirations and expectations pertaining to the spiritual and the metapsychic program are transferred on to the reproductive program, because that one starts automatically at puberty.

Problem is, its potency is multiplied ten fold by cooking, and at the same time that penetrative impulses aren’t channeled into active sodomy anymore, breeding fantasies take over completely. Spiritual degradation simply follows automatically too a rich diet, meat in particular, as shown by ever earlier menstruation: it is the same physiological phenomena.

To compensate for this it is vital 95% of the time for girls to discover pleasure in a energetic context before puberty, more so than for boys as the biological imperative to breed is so much stronger, and in general the feminine will-power too weak to undergo such a grueling process as changing one’s whole worldview and psychosexual sensibility, that truth be told past 15 nothing much can expected from a woman beyond the level she already arrived at due to circumstances. The will - or capacity - for self-betterment, is very much children’ or men’ characteristics. Currently.

The Role of Sodomy

Now that we laid out women’ defects and found out they might be missing the most. Spartans exposed for all to see, the result of generalizing pederasty to all age and all sex:
Women became as headstrong and resilient as their male equivalent, intelligent and duty-bound, while ignoring flaws such as possessivity, idle gossips and backhanded badmouthing.

United under a strong patriarchal leadership, they obtained total freedom and total responsibility, they obtained true virility which has nothing to do with superficial development or impressive physics:

Virility is about standing your ground no matter what, giving your best honoring the gods and inspiring your peers, gaining immortality by living up to one’s true possibilities. True masculinity and true femininity only differ superficially, men being more straight forward, convincing through diamond-like shining logic and intimating respect authority through their powerful physique while women appease with graceful gentle words, fluid diplomacy and the pure crystal-clear innocent beauty of prepubescent girls, whose traits are maintained with instincto.

In the end, a complete individual changes its tune depending on the situation, and embodies everything at once, regardless of gender.

Bluntly said, for children’ sake a group based on national-naturalist principles should either put women in their place in a truly conservative fashion, claiming paternal ownership of children, or we shall allow independent lesbians à la Ripley (from Alien) in command roles, the first and formeost being motherhood. There is no value in someone staunchly persuaded that her mission in life is to lay eggs, unwinding several tens of millions of years of evolution.

The touch of inspired men in their early years (along with that of older women, still genetically the most powerful impulse in females) provided girls with the formative energy-information quintessential in shaping their character. Thus united, both sexes we could stand strong in a brighter universally proudly militarist future.

Women shaped by such an education, as Sparta proved, could totally provide for an adequate father role (a so-called pole of discipline) without loosing their feminine grace, while modern fathers are either careless tyrants or spineless wimps, in any case metasexually impotent and frustrated.

The Undeniable Evidences

From Nature

We demonstrate the naturalness of homosexuality with a summarized list of useful studies in nearly all primates including some lower monkeys and many unrelated - but evolved - species. After this, we turn to Ancient Greeks, their unhibited sexual love of boys using the extensive unambiguous Greek literature at our disposal.

Homosexual behavior, defined as genital contact between same-sex individuals, has been observed in at least 51 species of nonhuman primates, including prosimians, monkeys, and apes. In contrast, homosexuality refers to a more enduring psychological predisposition (orientation) toward same-sex sexual partners — a phenomenon that is rarely observed in nonhuman primates. Although homosexual behavior is phylogenetically widespread among primates, there is an enormous amount of interspecific variation in the frequency with which such behavior is expressed. In many nonhuman primate species, homosexual behavior occurs quite rarely, whereas in an exceptional few, such as Japanese macaques⁴ and bonobos⁵, such interactions are a more common feature of the species’ sexual repertoire.

Gorillas which live either in male-only groups⁶ or harems of one or a few males with many females⁷ also exhibit homosexual activity culminating with orgasms like ours.

Multiple lifestyles exist or co-exist among our closest cousins, among others mountain gorillas which live either in male-only groups where males are mostly heteros when in a harem, and only homo while in all-male groups, while females still exhibit lesbian activity in harems.
.

Because the research was part of a broader study focused on young males, they were able to calculate the rate of occurrences for those focal subjects. For those adolescent and young adult males, sociosexual behaviors occurred approximately twice a month.

In simple terms, bonobo females are first and foremost homosexual, with the occasional kids popped out every 5 years⁸
Given how they go at it all the week all year-long just like us I would argue that 95% of all touchings are non-procreative, including most heterosexual encounters, and most coitus as well, though the overwhelming majority of contacts are not coital.

Chimpanzees, the second closest apes don’t feature nearly as much sexual proclivity in general but contrary to what’s been believed for a long time their sociosexual behaviors do include a similar proportion of homosexual contacts:

More general attempts at re-contextualizing those behaviors not just as adaptive idiosyncrasies of a few species but as a pervasive evolutionary tendency have been undertaken since then[^A].

[^A] An alternative hypothesis for the evolution of same-sex sexual behavior in animals | Nature Ecology & Evolution

This extensive bonds-creating property of homosexuality was noticed and commented upon again and again in history, among the latest and best expounder being Adolf Brand, publishing the Eigene from 1896 to 1933. At a time where degeneracy reigned supreme and what would become the LGBTI religion (from transsexualism and faggotry united as one started representing all homosexuals, granting themselves an undue right which quite frankly played in the reactionaries’ hand, eager to demonize everyone in the name of God or what stood for it.
Yet in that time, Brand extolled the virtue of Männerbunds, the free yet militant associations of men and boy under a common enthusiasm and love for each others and the manly virtues of a high culture, often with a distinct military or militant aspect, in Greece’s Sacred Theban band or Medieval Europe’s knights and monks.

But scientists did not discover this just now to conveniently support the LGBTI lobby’s agenda, oh no:

The big question is, how did we manage to miss these behaviors in chimpanzees for so long? Chimpanzees are one of the most well-studied primates, due to our biases toward studying our closest relatives. Bonobos are equally related to us, but chimpanzees are better studied due to their wider geographic distribution, and higher numbers in captivity. The longest-running chimpanzee field sites have been running for over 50 years. The answer is that we have not missed it entirely, but simply overlooked it as part of a suite of other behaviors. It has been documented by many studies before, but often is reported as something other than “sociosexual behavior,” subsumed under behaviors such as “reassurance” or “reconciliation,” or “gestures.” This likely is related to cultural biases preventing consideration of these behaviors as related to sexuality, particularly the potential for homosexuality. Sandel and Reddy point out that Jane Goodall, as well as other primatologists, have observed such behaviors in chimpanzees.

However, in Goodall’s 1971 book, In the Shadow of Man, she expressly distanced it from homosexuality.

Never, however, have we seen anything that could be regarded as homosexuality in chimpanzees… Admittedly, a male may mount another in times of stress or excitement, clasping the other around the waist, and he may even make thrusting movements of the pelvis, but there is no intromission. It is true, also, that a male may try to calm himself or another male by reaching out to touch or pat the other’s genitals; while we still have much to learn about this type of behavior, it certainly does not imply homosexuality. He only does this in moments of stress, and he will touch or pat a female on her genitals in exactly the same context.

As if intromission is necessary or customary in homo intercourses. Nor is it always for hetero intercourses either. This systemic schizophrenia, is no better than denying the intrinsic erotic component of breastfeeding, leading to sexual arousal and climaxing.

When those behaviors in bonobos are classified as “sociosexual” whereas in chimpanzees they are classified as ‘’reassurance,” it prevents us from directly comparing and contrasting behaviors between the two sister species. Furthermore, it prevents us from considering ape sexuality, and the potential for homosexual apes, on its own terms.

Also let’s not forget that many a country of these African sites criminalize homosexuality:

there are also cultural factors that may hinder studying and reporting sociosexual behaviors. Ngogo is located in Uganda, where there has been a series of controversial laws that criminalized homosexuality, with penalties for “promoting” or “failing to “report” homosexuality. There are several other countries with similar laws where chimpanzee field sites are located. This can potentially affect research in two ways: first, queer primatologists may not feel safe conducting fieldwork there. Second, researchers and field assistants might be more hesitant to characterize same-sex behaviors in a way that could imply homosexuality because of cultural and legal risks. … For example, more recent research on same-sex sexual behavior across animal species suggests we may have been overemphasizing heterosexual behavior all along

How could centers and reserve parks already constantly struggling with financial troubles and with wide-scale poaching from armed bands, hope to secure support from hostile corrupt low-IQ nigger governments if they started to low-key describe their apes as pederastic and pedophiliac perverts ? Of course they can’t do that, no one in his right mind would, yet this is the accurate description.
Here is an extensive summary of all species in which some form or another of homosexuality can be observed on an occasional or regular basis.

While this last article does try to explain the very existence of such behaviors rather convincingly (basically, telling sexes apart would not necessarily be easy and it’s often more efficient to amp up sex drive overall than improve female recognition skills), on the other hand it cannot explain why such behaviors evolved to be prevalent in highly intelligent species like chimpanzees, gorillas, us, and dolphins. We must precise though, that none of the above live in a carefree environment. Predators and dangers are plenty: jungle cats (leopards), python, other apes.

So it makes perfect sense that the extrasensory purpose of non-reproductive sexuality is either budding in apes, or well on its way… did someone study bonobos’ potential psychic abilities ? Primitives in the Amazonian forest have been reported to possess a properly supernatural ability to spot on dangerous snakes in the dark.

No one even imagined extrasensory perception could be a thing, and especially not an important feature in the strife for survival. The cerebral requirements for visions or some degree of precognition doesn’t have to be big, actually arguments can be made for its earlier appearance compared to pure computer-like general intellect, which does require big brains in order to adapt. While the extrasensory on the other hand, gives immediate solutions to situations.

We only need the hardware to see the pictures, and have some understanding of causality (which most animals do to some degree, including goddamn cocks), how to relate your perception to the problem at hand. As our intelligence and lifespan grew and our capacity to cancel predation, our reproductive needs dwindled to very little, and non-reproductive sexuality came to dominate completely.

Goebbels was wrong when he wrote The mission of women is to be beautiful and to bring children into the world, since we descend from hardcore lesbian great apes.
Now we should ask ourselves, what could be the cost of a lifestyle so dramatically opposed to what simple observations reveal to be our genetic programming ?

Lastly, though for anatomical reasons it is rarer than in humans, complete sodomy is not infrequent nor difficult for apes either:

• Anal insertion with the penis (both in heterosexual and male homosexual dyads, i.e. pairs of animals) has been observed among some primate species. Male homosexual anal insertion has been recorded in Old World primate species, including gorillas, orangutans, and some members of the Macaca genus (namely, stumptail, rhesus, and Japanese macaques). It has also been recorded in at least two New World primate species, the squirrel monkey and the spider monkey.
• A case of male homosexual anal insertion with the finger has also reported among orangutans, and Bruce Bagemihl mentions it as one of the homosexual practices recorded at least once among male chimpanzees.
• Morris (1970) also described one heterosexual orangutan dyad where all insertion was anal. However, the practice might have been a consequence of homosexual rearing, as the male orangutan in this dyad had had extensive same–sex experience.

From Ancient Greek Litterature

Ancient Greeks were famous for their love of prepubescent young boys representing the epithome of physical beauty. This however reflected a certain part of society, the higher classes, which inherited those values from aristocratic times. Pederasty was an ideal, and as such many people had many interpretations of it. Currently a great many people opposed to the LGBT movement willingly throw the baby out with the bathwater, and lie about history. In particular

In Crete, in order for the suitor to carry out the ritual abduction, the father had to approve him as worthy of the honor. Among the Athenians, as Socrates claims in Xenophon’s Symposium, Nothing [of what concerns the boy] is kept hidden from the father, by an ideal lover. In order to protect their sons from inappropriate attempts at seduction, fathers appointed slaves called pedagogues to watch over their sons. However, according to Aeschines, Athenian fathers would pray that their sons would be handsome and attractive, with the full knowledge that they would then attract the attention of men and be the objects of fights because of erotic passions.

The key being ideal lover. Prostitution - which is very distinct and pertains to porneia, the kind of love solely focused using and abusing the body of others with spiritual motives whatsoever - was common too, for both sex. But free boys willingly prostuting oneself was repellent to most.

Most people found homosexuality totally natural, even if they themselves did not necessarily partake in it… Sophisticated people of a certain standing nearly all did, and we sympathize.
Commoners, while being of a much higher mean quality than in our times, relish a bit less in this kind of things, but still a lot compared to today: in a society with a severe separation of sexes, the whole life (fortunately !) would favor same-sex attraction. Arguments that only aristocrats would indulge in boys’ love are ridiculous, since, as Xenophon’s Socrates said, streets are full with people willing to oblige. And all cities were similar in this regard: pederasty has been highly favored in Greece for centuries, still in Roman and Christian times.

So even though understanding the mystical, higher aspects of desire as explicited in the Symposium indeed was slim already in Plato’s time, as evidenced by a number of critics of pederasty (although less than specialists of doubtful intelligence believe), same-sex attraction - of whatever degree of sophistication - obviously kept strong for a long, long time.

To hammer home this truth we find useful to debunk a few myths rabid reactionaries peddle everywhere they can on internet, multiplying like a cancer on Western culture, myths summarized in this meme. Point by point, I will either validate these quotes - and explain the context - or debunk them, if they appear - as half do - utterly wrong and misguided. The fruit of seething vagina-worshipping haters envying what they’ll never have, true love, the keys to heaven’s gate.

You may go to the author of your choice, though we advise keeping in line just following the text:

• Plato
• Xenophon
• Alexander
• Aristophanes
• Aeso
• Aeschines
• Aristotle

Considering the amount of die-hard morons claiming Greeks or Plato did not condone homosexuality or more precisely sodomy, below is an (commentated) excerpt from the Symposium of Plato, in which the very same principles we hold true in love. non-exclusivity but loyalty to honor, the key importance of pederasty vs reproductive heterosexuality, and the real purpose of sexuality and affection, that is to develop the extrasensory, the connection to the realm of souls beyond the material plane. After this, we will see about the Republic and Laws, which contarst harshly against any previous works, and baffled the understanding of Western and antique critics alike. We on other hand, understood. All this, accounting for the inordinate place this author takes in our thoughts.

The two kinds of love, though not really incompatible - all Greeks had a wife - do not compare in their effectiveness. Breeding is an inferior kind of love as the children of the body die while the children of the soul go on forever, alive in the minds of everyone thousands of years after world-wide, long past the boundary or life expectancy of one’s bloodline.

At last, Plato lays out what this way of love actually look like, on a social level:

The following resumes the whole exposition: from one beautiful body to many, from one beautiful soul to many, then to divine essence beauty itself. The text is clear in its inclusion of sexuality. But love of physical beauty (the violent passion for one body) is but one step, a means to connect on a level more fundamental that just the body or the emotion. That last subtlety, I think has gone above the head of most readers (even very intelligent ones) so far. Individual passions in general do not matter.

He who from these ascending under the influence of true love, begins to perceive that beauty, is not far from the end. And the true order of going, or being led by another, to the things of love, is to begin from the beauties of earth and mount upwards for the sake of that other beauty, using these as steps only, and from one going on to two, and from two to all fair forms, and from fair forms to fair practices, and from fair practices to fair notions, until from fair notions he arrives at the notion of absolute beauty, and at last knows what the essence of beauty is. This, my dear Socrates, said the stranger of Mantineia, is that life above all others which man should live, in the contemplation of beauty absolute

How anyone, even pederasts, can conclude Socrates thought sex as lowly or unfit from this same dialog, will always leave me aghast.

Pretty much the same discourse occurs in Phaedrus, a pederastic relationship should not be used for sexual pleasure but to reach the divine. He also ridicules the notion that an adequate lover should have no feelings… Nowhere does he criticize sex in itself.

Yet it became mainstream to say this:

They argue like this:

And yet, this is tempered in various ways; role reversals between lover and beloved are constant, as they are in the Symposium. Socrates, ostensibly the lover, exhorts Phaedrus to lead the way at various times, and the dialogue ends with Socrates and Phaedrus leaving as “friends”: equals, rather than partaking in the lover/beloved relationship inherent in Greek pederasty. In the beginning, they sit themselves under a chaste tree, which is precisely what its name suggests—often known as “monk’s pepper”, it was used by monks to decrease sexual urges and is believed to be an antaphrodisiac.

Socrates here promotes a more appeased approach not consummed by passion, touchings are not the issue, they should be an ornament to something that goes deeper. As a divine madness what we do when possessed by love is beyond good and evil, otherwise to suggest it is bad per se would amount to blasphemy, eventhough constantly Plato talks of being willing slaves of the gods.

Now on the Republic, his.

First off, this is wrong, there is no 636c in Republic, which ends at 621d ! Hence the criminally stupid author of that hateful claim, should be given the choice of dying mauled by a tiger or crushed by raging elephants..

That quote is from Laws, to which we will come afterwards.

Plato is literally proposing the end of all sexual pleasure whatsoever. Anything moving spirits even slightly above the normal should be forbidden, until we all become perfect philosopher robots. This was written at most in 375 BCE according to criticisms while Symposium was written between 385 to 370 at the earliest. And it’s nothing compared to Laws, the most loathed of his works.
Those two works contradict each other completely. One talks of divine folly and uranian desire growing the wings of the soul, developping extrasensory perception, political and artistic qualities, when the other bans all desire and pleasure. There is nothing grand, nothing inspired nor making much sense in Republic anymore, hardly anything a man of reason would consider neither realistic nor desirable, such as th proposition to cut any and all family ties, not knowing one’s relatives in order to identify to the whole community. The idea of regimenting every single aspect of life, stiffling and drying up any possible source of creativity. Yet, as this chart below shows, this work came before the development of the Academy ?

Why would Plato teach something already completely at odds with its former works, both in tone and content ? What was he even teaching, what have people like Aristotle come to believe as the true doctrine of their master, accessing divinity through mystical pederastic sex ?

Or being getting scared of loosing your marbles with any strong human feeling and avoiding any human experiences and connections, including with your family to live like an abstinent Christian monk (even monks might have had homosexuality running high in their convent) ? How did his students react, or the people at large ? If people didn’t understand anything (most of them surely didn’t), why was the point of running his Academy for years until his death ? None of it makes sense, except believing he lost faith in everything he held dear before. What could have changed him if he did change, is unknown. In Athens, he experienced the rule of the 30, an oligarchic clique put in charge of Athens by Sparta after its victory. They tried to seduce Plato and Socrates, given both were sympathizers of Lacedemon. But to know what exactly happened with the Thirty is difficult to say the least.⁹

Then he had a bad experience with Denys 1er de Syracuse, tyrant de Sicile, in 387, which invited him to then dismiss him in the most arbitary manner, even (as the tradition goes) being responsible of his capture as a slave (fortunately a short experience). Then he wrote the Republic and Symposium, in the same span of time. So assuming a specific event changed his view doesn’t fit the chronology.

Now on to Laws, his last work, and oh boy we are in for a ride on a sea of pure batshit insanity.

Naturally enough, I began to feel some disquiet. I wondered how one would handle a state like this, with everyone engaged on a life-long round of sacrifices and festivals and chorus-performances,

No science, no wonder, no discovery, no innovation, no meditation. Just war, theater, eating sleeping and breeding. Yes, only breeding. No romance, no pleasure, no soul, just breeding. And if a couple refuses to spend all their seed breeding, VLAM.
What on Earth could explain such obvious cataclismic shift ?

Or said otherwise:
Placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta. A true Muslim, or follower of the She-Bear.

?!

This is the literal contradiction of both the Symposium and Phaedra, which uphold the view (universally taken for granted in all of Greece if not the whole Mediterannean) pederasty did engender all those qualities via emulation (from a lowly mundain point of view) and divine inspiration (from an orphic/mystical one). Here, he simply erased the metapsychic plane of love from consideration.

If only marginally, anyone who observes farm animals will see homosexual intercourses.

When the legislator wants to tame one of the desires that dominate mankind so cruelly, it’s easy for him to see his method of attack. He must try to make everyone – slave and free, women and children, and the entire state without any exception – believe that this common opinion has the backing of religion. He couldn’t put his law on a securer foundation than that.

People are cattle who can’t understand anything: give them made-up religious fear.

Athenian: I’m glad you’ve taken me up on the point. This is just what I was getting at when I said I knew of a way to put into effect this law of ours which permits the sexual act only for its natural purpose, procreation, and forbids not only homosexual relations, in which the human race is deliberately murdered, but also the sowing of seeds on rocks and stone, where it will never take root and mature into a new individual;

No fellatio, no masturbation, only the penis in a holy fertile vagina, no sex outside fertile wombs, oy vey !
Let us be clear: this kind of discourse was by all means absolutely unheard off in Antiquity. This was no evidence of modern social conservatism, but for most people of mental insanity. The notion that sterile sexual contacts would endanger a city would have left any Greek flabbergasted, considering they chronically suffered from overpopulation¹⁰

We do not claim this text is apography or a fake, but the difference with earlier works (and striking ressemblance to the Jewish Bible) indictes something extremely weird happened, which easily led true platonicist with an inklink of sensibility to Love and Essences, to disregard it as a patent outlier. But we do claim that:

• either Plato did a complete U turn and became actually mentally insane: an unlikely turn of event since he also wrote Timaeus and Critias at the same time pointing a good deal of inspiration
• or fell out of love with the world at large, perceiving what it would turn into, and wanting none of it. And decided to pastiche himself out of spite, offering a mirror of what truly underlied people’s incomprehension of the sacred Éros: a rampant materialism and rationalism which only grew stronger with time, as evidenced by his own pupil Aristotle, as spiritually dry as a bone.

Already the Republic ironized constantly, suggesting outlandish solutions to imaginary issues. But the tone was still light enough not derailing too much from the usual. Laws however looks like the final F**ck U! of a man who had lost faith in humanity, due to many bad experiences accumulating, least and not last Socrates’ execution and his tragic involvement with Dion and Denys the Young, the latter to whom many roasting comments in Laws were addressed to. If anyone could have had a vision of the future in the literal sense, it would have been Plato.

In any case, to claim that Plato refused homosexuality is beside the point, he refused all sexual pleasure whatsoever and anything not strictly reproductive even with in an heterosexual context, an attitude most hardcore Islamists would find grossly abusive. While praising mystical homo sex in other books.

This conception of love and spirituality was not a production of Plato’s mind… either out of foolishness or genuine intuition. It is clear how it was shared by many, if not most Greeks to some level. Not everyone was fond of young boys, some preferred prostitutes or girls. Aristophanes in particular. Yet, boy-lover was not an insult. Much less than when people used to say about Julius Caesar (much later) he is the man of all women and the woman of all men, and yet it was not an insult at all either, more like a praise… more on that later.

According to all reports, up to the rise of Alexander the Great, Sparta was unanimously recognized as an ideal, collectivist eugenist and sex-positive White ethnostate, ripe with eugenicism and a near-complete abiding by natural instincts, all leading to a superior intellect and boundless martial might which left the whole Mediterranean world in awe for centuries. And a high place of pederasty, so much so that it pervaded heterosexuality, and women themselves would often take under their wings younger girls in the same fashion as was customary for boys and older men in the rest of Greece.

The whole written tradition - including Xenophon - describe it as the epitome of spiritually-minded institutionalized pederasty, so much so that to lakonize was synonymous of sodomy. We aim at imitating Sparta, plus incest and raw food, so that such a culture which could last centuries (quite an achievement already !) will this time, last not a thousand years as Hitler wished, but a thousand thousands of years.

Perhaps the most “negative” testimony (regards to our tenets) would be Xenophon’s, who unlike most writers had a first hand knowledge of Sparta and sent his kids be educated there. It comes from Constitution of the Lacedaimonians:

It means if the attraction was superficial, however for practical purpose this translation is horse dung.
This is the original, from “But if it was clear” downward:

εἰ δέ τις παιδὸς σώματος ὀρεγόμενος φανείη, αἴσχιστον τοῦτο θεὶς ἐποίησεν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι μηδὲν ἧττον ἐραστὰς παιδικῶν ἀπέχεσθαι ἢ γονεῖς παίδων καὶ ἀδελφοὶ ἀδελφῶν εἰς ἀφροδίσια ἀπέχονται.

If it was clear that [ - this attraction - ] resided in the boy’s body, shameful in Sparta and [ - he - ] caused inferior lovers to …

As such, in the first translaiton the ban on sex could already be read as applying only to lovers whose attraction resides in the boy’s body, a sentence that should be beyond any ambiguity already. But clearly, people of today are idiots not fathoming a physical desire can be rooted in mere physical qualities, but in something beyond, namely someone’s soul¹¹.
But the most important word was omitted in the two most widespread translations: ἧττον, masculine nominative singular form and comparative of the comparative of ἥσσων, meaning lesser or inferior, with ἧττον ἐραστὰς meaning inferior lovers. So Lycurge caused inferior lovers to back off from kids. Not all lovers.

This kind of law or customs testifies of a reflects a superior inspiration. The metasexual program do have preferred physical forms - triggering patterns - purity, innocence and subtle traits indicative of inner beauty in lack of another term - quite distinct from those of the reproductive program, but also differing a lot in its modalities.

On an instant, depending on both the lover’s and loved one’s inner attitude perception can switch from pleasing to appalling, for the same body, when physical contact would be detrimental to energy. This contrasts to the reproductive program, because it doesn’t care if the stalion or mare has an horrible character and hates your guts, as his dick or big muscles (or big boobs and ass respectively) hint at the same hereditary qualities which the offspring might profit from.
Fucking is only concerned with the body while loving as humans are meant to do, only sees bodily traits as facilitators for an exchange of a higher nature than mere bodily fluids. The Greek is not attraction to a boy’s beauty is abomination and those lyers deserves whipping, if not rape by highly muscular men.

Here is another quote misconstrued as Socrates spitting on pederasts. But what he criticises in this excerpt is obvious: the absence of self-control, effectively giving the man’s impulses lowly animal traits. A man should be the object of admiration from his loved one, show the way to virtue, not beg for approval like a faggot… or a female. This had nothing to do with homosexuality per se. Here’s another such quote, from Xenophon’s symposium seemingly relating the same events:

There is no reason to believe Callias would refrain from intercourse, as both love are written as έρως, desire, sexual by definition. This notion of two Aphrodites and the term describing the good pederasty (uranian έρως) is the exact same found in Plato’s Symposium, while the vulgar (pandemonian Aphrodite) is a mindless form of desire personified by… prostitutes and married women. *Carnal doesn’t mean physical, but only or mainly lying in the physical.
The difference between Plato and Xenophon, really appeared to be minimal on this topic. That coincides with Athenians father both protecting their boys and prompting them to attract proper men.

The main romantic interest of most men (not all, obviously) were (pre)/adolescent boys, because younger children on many levels have no defined gender before puberty kicks in. That moment at the onset of puberty is the last moment to initiate a child and develop the metapsychical program, or else breeding (with or without contraception) becomes the dominant sensibility, and the child looses track of his destiny for good. At least it is the case now, but before the age of seven kids would say by their mother’s side or rather mothers’ in the case of rather collectivist cities like Sparta, all women alike raising all kids together, like all social primates do. Then from age 7 (the “age of reason”), in many primitive societies boys would integrate the men’ group (in Sparta the agoge or formal educative system started at 7), while girls usually stayed with the women’ group. For more on Sparta and their love of sodomy and how it could save girls from inferiority, look no further.

Nowhere else has Xenophon in whole litterary corpus ever emitted any criticism of pederasty.¹²

What about Alexander the Great ?

How is this not gay ?

As for his fake quote: I defer to this insightful commentary.

He didn’t want to force or coerce anyone or profit from his position to deprive someone of their dignity.

Now on Aristophanes:

Well those words are not present in my translation. The term unnatural didn’t exist, and the its concept just alluded to in Laws. While the idea of a natural order exists, to label people as wicked from deviancy alone regardless of actual harm to society or individuals, was simply a level of normativity non-existent before Judeo-christianity.

However, Aristophanes was a notorious opponent of pederasty, who built his fame by making his public of tens of thousands of well-bred Athenian males of all ages laugh, by accusing them of what a lot of adult men were complicit in, the passive role. Homosexuality by default implied a sodomy, which requires a passive partner, but both partners would be free citizens. So supposing public morale usually looked down upon passivity, this couldn’t possibly a monolithic judgment, as all adult men doing the sodomizing by default had been tutored by an adult man while younger, and thus, penetrated.

In Greek and even more Roman society the distinction between effeminacy and passivity has always been vague, I would argue properly schizophrenic. I would argue the more cooking developped and the less grip public institutions had on the collective, the more the ambiguity would take hold. This is why a very strong collectivistic culture is necessary with our lifestyle: to combat the inherent tendencies for sexual degeneracy(read: cross-drive induction) brought about by cooking. That is why Sparta kept its edge longer.

Next, Aeso

They have no sense of shame (Zeus and Shame))

Written by a former Greek slave, in the late to mid-6th century BCE, Aesop’s Fables are the world’s best known collection of morality tales. The fables, numbering 725, were originally told from person-to-person as much for entertainment purposes but largely as a means for relaying or teaching a moral or lesson.

Judging from their medieval latin adaptation, these fables were a collection of subversive and vulgar tales full of sex with whoever and whatever the ugly Aesop had at its disposal. Representing somewhat of a counter-culture, this might explain why the mythical author (which most likely never existed, like Homer himself) has been imagined as a slave by a few Greek historians.

Regardless of some written disparaging discourses, it would not have made any sense for a young aspiring citizen in a very public relationship, to publically hide his being penetrated (or for others to seriously mock him for it), since he was expected to !

Slight taunts do prove a state of moral ambiguity, but they constitute totally justified Excalibur impulses, which, when not going overboard (as it happened relatively more with Romans), hone the strength of character:
People who practice sodomy for pleasure only - as one would fuck a prostitute - would resent the taunt, feel shame and reconsider their attitude. While those sure of their moral probity and spirituality elevation of their sexuality, would not feel concerned in the slightest. Explaining thus, what would otherwise look like institutionalized hypocrisy, to berate something yet indulge in it publically, and expect every male to.

This double-discours attitude survived in the Middle Age despite nominally much sterner admonitions and theological implications, although with as little actual condemnations.

Then to Aeschines:

Which implies precisely nothing about homosexuality:
But the complete quote says more, positively so:

Aeschines describes himself as a lover, in this context a pederast, and that it is honorable, and says that slaves - people who do not own themselves hence can’t be relied on nor be expected to act honourably - can not free men for that love can not be free. While prostitution is legal for this reason it is immorale, but a free man and a free boy can love each others freely, with the only restriction as the former should exert self-retraint when the latter hasn’t reached 11 or so. Although even this is relative, as there was no law against proper pedophilia, if parents would agree. And people considered the stalking by an adult of good repute as a protection…

We are only left with Aristotle.

So he equates being penetrated anally (which was but a part of male-male sexuality, eventhough a good one) with either a deviation from nature or something bred by habit. In both case putting in the same category as biting your nail or eating charcoal (which is actually healthy), things devoid of moral taint and not really bothersome either. See the what my translater’s note has to say:

For Aristotle, not really the most spiritually aware Greek author, being the bottom did raise some suspicion of effeminacy but was not strictly equivalent to effeminacy, or female sexuality in men, or it would have been call faggots a whole lot of old(er) well-bred men. Again, sexuality was a trivial matter in Greece, you could do mostly whatever you wanted with however, as long as you didn’t touch the property of others.¹³

Simply put, not all faggots are passive, and not all men who enjoy passivity are faggots. Now, or back then, and while they lacked the psychoanalytic tools to discern with exact accuracy, the ambiguity featured in litterature attests of such an unconscious knowledge. Even here Aristotle does not insinuate such men with female sexuality have moral issues, lack courage or virility in life etc.

Also Aristotle:

Why is it that some men enjoy being the passive partner in the sexual act, and some of these also find pleasure in taking an active role, but others do not? Those in whom the semen travels to the anus desire to be passive in the sexual act, those in whom the semen travels to both places to be both active and passive. In whichever place there is more fluid they desire more friction. In some men this disposition arises from habit. For men do whatever happens to bring them pleasure and they emit semen following the same principle. Therefore, they desire to do those things through which this is brought to pass, and it is rather as though habit becomes nature. On account of this, whoever has not been accustomed to be a passive partner in sexual intercourse before puberty, but starts around puberty, because memory is generated during the activity and pleasure comes along with the memory, on account of their habit they desire to be the passive partner as if they were naturally so constituted-frequency and habit bringing it about just as if they were naturally so inclined. If a man happens to be lustful and self-indulgent each of these comes about more quickly.

As the archetypal rationalist, he ridicules himself by coming up with a mechanical explanation. But he does not make any assumption as to the moral characters of individuals based on sexual proclivities, stating that any disposition whatsoever with some training and willingness to explore oneself (a natural character trait he labels lustful). But while he assumes the only role of semen or ejaculation is fecundation hence such biological disposition appear contradictory to natural order, it is never said to go against natural proclivities in the sense of causing diseases or damaging bodily function.

One can simply be or become that way, almost by chance. And elsewhere he describes pederasty as socially useful and ethically valuable… Not so reactionary !

What about Romans ?
While not denying a certain reality, the famous Roman hate for sexual passivity is both misunderstood and exaggerated. Surely enough, Romans were too hasty in associating effeminacy with passivity, it wasn’t unconditional either. Individuals of high stature whose virility lied beyond any doubt, could afford being both feminine and masculine. Truth be told, effeminate gays do indeed make for the bulk of homosexuals today, so the association isn’t (and wasn’t) entirely fortuitous or mean. But nor homosexuality nor passive sodomy was ever forbidden, and barely frown upon. Until Christianity took over of course…
The confusion between two programs always existed, and all social measures when it comes to mores express an unconscious or conscious will to protect transcendance, however misguided our perception of it may be. In the Quran, adultery is defined by a penetration (in another’s man’s wife) longer than the time to boil an egg. Which is to say, there was no adultery if the man didn’t ejaculate.
Our intepretation of all of ethnology and history should be revisited with the two instinctive programs of love in mind. We need to rethink our whole litterature.

Overall, Greeks (and Romans)’ attitude resonates with a divide between porneia and eros, or we would say in more modern terms, concupiscence/lust compared to metasexuality or spiritual love.

Temperance is not not continence, just like being willing to test and raise one’s pain threshold is not torture, as long we don’t push it too far. Pleasure is enjoyed and desires difficult to overcome because they abide by one’s nature, while pain and tests of all kinds, are not enjoyable, because they go against natural proclivities. Being to test one’s pain threshold or strength of will becomes torture from a sense of guiltiness (not a Greek but a Christian thing) if pushed too far.

For Greeks, no God awaited in the afterlife to reward suffering in this life. This life was all a Greek could expect from existence. Hence a resistance to temptation could not One was elevated by the ability to maintain composure at all times, resisting even the allure of a goddess in order to choose one’s life and pleasures in complete independence.

The two Symposium do not actually differ so much: both pitting an Uranian Eros versus a lowly desire content to satisfy itself with any body, be it a prostitute an animal or worse… a wife. Among proponents of the latter were some Cynics, since their whole shtick was to shock society systematically by whatever means, for ill or good. Hence attacking pederasty as unnatural (bad), while question the taboo of incest (good) and cannibalism (?!). They aligned themselves with animal life… But that of lowly dogs and cows, not apes.

And so we explained what Greeks thought about homosexuality and passive sodomy in particular: An optional shame for real effeminates to wallow in, but an overwhelming enthuasiasm for boy-love in all its forms, showing up in a littany of texts.

Why Homosexuality Degenerated

Below is explained the true degeneracy of the mental disease known as faggotry: the dietary and psychoanalytical reason why effeminate men exist, have existed probably since cooking itself but have only now not only taken the spotlight, but truly become the dominant type among homosexuals.
There are several factors, in the genesis of the faggot or effeminate personality, to be sorted in two categories:

• exogenous influence
• primary masochism and denatured molecules.

Exogenous Influences

For the most part, bar from congenital anomalies (which is unlikely in our case as effeminacy has occurred consistently throughout history, signifying un inborn potential for it) abnormal personality developments (relative to genetic data) is always due to wrong upbringing with a wrong education and/or wrong role models.
In our culture denying the spiritual and marked by the reproductive instinctive program on overdrive due to cooking, there the very conceptual framework to understand sacred or true homosexuality properly if at all, is jarringly lacking.

The only conceptual framework for represent love is the breeding model, one male and one female about the same age, to make kids raise them and look after them then make more and repeat. Well, granted nowadays kids learn about some other models increasingly early. But none of them can hope to compete with mainstream ideas as logical the equation sex = reproduction remains intact as the perceived natural norm:
Some people being allowed to differ if they feel like it, doesn’t stop them from being deviants. Still in the early 2000 it was unknown in the wider public (and refused by most primatologists) that bonobos were highly homosexual, let alone the myriad of other species added to the (frequently or accidentally) homo roster¹⁴.

Hence even on a superficial level (social inertia being what it is) arguably the information hasn’t had much time to sip in and really do much on education yet. Even then… because of the very nature of our pervasive materialistic culture, however spectacular and ubiquitous the exceptions, the rule still holds as the alternative is unthinkable:
If evolution did favor sometimes non-reproductive behaviors, it was either accidental (having no impact on survival) or indirectly favored classic breeding because there is nothing to life but surviving and procreating, nothing but matter. In that context only reproductive intercourses make sense on a logical standpoint.

This is an splendid example of conceptual blindness, low-key dominant for centuries of Christianity. While the Industrial Revolution (for reasons we’ll dwell on another time) erected it as a absolute uncontested religion enforced by moralists and physicians, bringing all the Heaven down on Earth and substituting God with Matter.

The result, is the association of socially-induced feeling of sickness or shame with natural homosexual desire, a state of mind which, since energy deal with the very purpose of existence… is bound to backfire horribly.

Due to shame, the stronger the homosexual drive (with frustration) the stronger one feels compelled to reject it in all kinds of ways expounded by Freudian psychoanalysis. Some double down on the hetero model by lying to themselves and becoming rabid homophobes, while others instead seek to ape women in mannerisms through transgenderism or effeminacy to fit in the model. Wading in self-contradiction, they wish to appease both their own conscience and their natural metasexual needs, a tension yielding more shame and ulterior degeneracy, now driven by self-hatred.

And today, those types of men (barring the unfortunate victims of propaganda) take the next logical step inaugurated in the West by Magnus Hirschfeld, transsexualism.

The antifascist component of homosexual identity never perished, even if the extreme left was in the majority, just as it did during the Weimar Republic, which saw the transsexual Hirschfield dominate the media over the virile Aryan Adolph Brand, author of the world’s first homosexual magazine.

The close association of pedophilia with homosexuality is false (later some statistics showed that heterosexual pedophilia was by far the majority), moreover the term pederasty itself has changed its meaning in history and in the 19th century no longer referred to age, but only to sodomy for both sexes or sometimes to homosexuality. Consequently, our position, which is essentially open to both sexes, deserves to be called that.
But this amalgam is nevertheless based on a certain reality of a symbolic order: for a long time it was less easy to project on the pederast the appearance of the predator, than on the heterosexual pederast (male, of course), unconsciously accused of making a mistake in the plan and projecting the woman onto the child, thus seeking to live the relationship on a very degrading and, it must be said, traumatic level.

Feeling the tide turning, many (the majority) of homosexuals chose social conformity, molding themselves into the conventions in the hope of being accepted. Philosophers felt it coming:

While a forceful reeducation to virility and the true essence of male intimacy can save a good number of effeminates, making true men out of them, we absolutely share the opinion that transsexuals have crossed the line of no-return and the only possible liberation for their soul (and mutilated body) from this state of perpetual suffering is a merciful death. In the end though, they are victims of a system denying the very meaning of existence for which they craved enough to forfeit their humanity. A poor education and/or subpar intelligence conjugated with industrial food and its crazy high mental feedback level did the rest.

This was for the exogenous, social influence, the socially-induced or secondary guilt.
Freud on the other hand speculated the existence of an inborn or primary guiltiness, innately bound to sexuality and related to a death drive, as a natural counter-weight to Eros, the pleasure principle.

Primary Masochism and Denatured Molecules

Obviously analysts and moralists rushed to abuse this concept, to rationalize their sadomasochistic practices for repression and self-inflicted suffering as natural… I whip myself so I am. No joke, Freud’s orthodox successors went that far the rabbit hole.

Howbeit, formulated as he did the notion of primary masochism doesn’t have to imply a (phylo)genetic or hereditary etiology,though he did favor such explanation… Or rather, lest for ditching it completely We do not believe neither him nor anyone of the time could have made sense of this intuition in any other way. They needed the experience of raw food.

Primary means not learned through interaction with other people but there is another source of behavioral denaturation: cooked food.

Cooking-induced feedbacks alter brain functioning and heighten three fundamental cognitive tendencies up to pathological proportions, as described by Guy-Claude: psychosis, schizoid dissociation and paranoia (or egotism). We shall defer to his books for more details, but we’ll stick with paranoia for a bit, for it lies at the core of the whole failure of modern sexuality, and its incapacity to reach its natural transcendent purpose, even in seemingly kosher relationships such homosexual or Greek-style pedophiliac ones.

Paranoia, as he defined, is the innate tendency to be convinced of something regardless of evidences or logical inference. Or maybe, the ability to continue in a given direction in absence of immediate verification or gratification, until the task’s fulfillment. In itself, there is nothing wrong with this, hence I used the word ability: all animals are capable to some degree of postponing satisfaction while holding on to a behavior. Going further, no situation in life is ever totally, absolutely certain: not even the sun rising again tomorrow. We create absolutes out of habit and convenience, but such worldviews really are products of repeated experience.

However, what we mundanely label as paranoia (or ego) is the certitude of being right despite conspicuous evidences of the contrary, and the incapacity or stern refusal to even consider alternative points of view. And by evidences, I mean failing at the stock exchange five times in a row yet still persisting and loosing thousands in an laughably terrible move while lashing out at all attempt to dissuade him and blaming others of one’s own mistake… Or marrying two times only slightly smarter (but evil) depraved foreign women for their vaginas, and loosing not thousands but hundreds of thousands, falling for the very same obvious (well, not to him !) traps. Add both feats to the same individual and you get the spitting image of low-IQ paranoia not even raw food could cure.

As cartoonish (though real) this example may be, paranoia though isn’t limited to clinical morons, it takes so varied cultured or widespread shapes we don’t notice it until it’s gone, in either cultural institutions or one’s own personality.

Feedback coupled with the endogenous over-excitation cooking also produces, results a strong tendency to repeat and latch on any source of strong physical pleasure of a rather coarse kind. This focalisation and fixation paranoid on physical sensations itself, is the number one cause of the metapsychic failure of the quasi-totality of relationships regardless of sexual orientation.

In these conditions maintaining the proper inner attitude conducive for the emergence of paranormal abilities of any kind, is impossible with cooking for 99% of people in Ancient Greece… and 99.99% today.

Even with the best spiritual and meditative efforts, this endogenous excitation of molecular origin disrupts the most sensitive cognitive processes dealing with energy, disrupting the very calm and fundamental receptivity necessary. Normative heterosexuality is much worse in every way conceivable, no question asked, but parapsychic achievements of the kind we observe, have been impossible but for the smallest fraction of the population since time immemorial.

Though Greeks had respect and a modicum of understanding for sacred love, how many Socrates and Plato among them ? Even Aristotle, the latter’s most brilliant disciple (arguably, lover), grasped none of it whatsoever.

And to put things in context we’ve just discussed highly evolved subtle people for which the baseness or sheer lack of aesthetics of half the current homo population (lesbians fare better) would appear thoroughly incomprehensible, and utterly disgusting. What hope then, does the common drug-filled or condom-worshiping gay have to get telepathy ?

Lastly, cooking also specifically physiologically amp up breeding impulses causing what we call a transpulsional induction entailing the confusion of objects of one instinctive program for the closely related pattern in the other program… In short people just can’t help but play out the reproductive instinctive pattern in their head and life and feel jealousy, possessivity and nesting (investing on material possessions, a nice house etc) as innate.

These low quality homos while much nicer less frustrated than heteros and not loosing all their energy in the Wound in the Force that are vaginas, deep down are actually heterosexuals in disguise, treating butts like vaginas. Some very real energy is invested in the wrong channels, desecrating the most revered instrument of divine knowledge with a vile quest for personal enjoyment (or equally lowly very feminine sentimentalism).

For fake homos, no heaven or life after death, no more than more normies. And no wonder, those types are the ones begging for tolerance and crying they are equal normal couples…. Because they are. Or worse.

And top it all… such heavy misdirection of instincts, isn’t missed out, for it is never a gratuitous choice to miss the most important part of life. Angry as all hell, the subconscious generates what we call Excalibur impulses, endogenous feelings of guilt and inadequacy (which we can not decode conceptually), soon turning into inner distress through compulsion as they are not heeded as should be the case in nature, finally warping personality under ever more unbearable weights of unexpressed self-loathing negativity.

This, is Freud’s primary masochism.
And this closes our exposé of the ontology of effeminate homosexuality, or all uninspired homosexualities for the matter..

National-Socialism’s Mistake

While at face value National-Socialists hated homosexuals and pedophilia with passion and prosecuted them all, in reality persecution was much more selective than both modern and contemporary statements would have you believe, and it appears that perversion was tolerated, although hidden from public scrutiny.

We should keep in mind that there has never been any complete world-view or set of beliefs characterizing all of Hitler’s followers or adherents to the NSDAP. Hitler’s own view were always flexible, prioritarizing political success and the good of the country over an adherence to whatever particular dogma.
And what the majority thought at one point (or the Führer himself for the matter) doesn’t define the movement either, the core ideas, which are perfectly compatible prefering butts over cunts, a so-called deviancy¹⁵.

Germany’s fall into reactionarism was both unfortunate and actually not nearly as terrible for virile pederasts and homosexuals and far more open-minded in practice than the current antifascist revision of history would have us believe. Unsurprisingly, propaganda doesn’t always match facts.

Nurtured by Wagner’s doctrine of Regeneration (favorable to sexual freedom at a time where no chemicals, contraceptives or ill-advised science could sully it), widespread naturism and a healthy admiration for living naturally led to Germans developing an equally healthy love for themselves despite an enduring Christian legacy. It also contributed to the rise of a racism devoid of hate - save for its self-proclaimed enemies, the Jewish nation.

Germans were famous for their interest in other cultures and races and for pioneering ethnography. During the Wilhelmine Empire of Mittelafrika, German colonizers had the love and respect of the locals, who acknowledged them as benevolent rulers… a feat neither French nor Belgians could boast of. On a perhaps more disturbing note, even under Hitler pages of Der Adler or similar widely spread magazines could contain openly erotic appreciations and photographs of Ethiopian women.

At its core, nation-socialism was based on love.
But there are two very different kinds of nationalism and failing to understand this has since then made impossible a similar revival of national-socialism.

The second, un-German kind of nationalism, is correctly described by my personal Bible, Sturgeon’s portraying of a perfect, White inbred and promiscuous civilization:

The first generation of Nazis suffered from a reactionary Christian education exacerbated (understandably) by the excess of the Weimar republic, a striking reflection (decades before) of what Mai 68’s liberation begat.
Hitler among others, fell loudly in this mistake, regards to women:

But who knows was the next generation, raised to value strength and independence of thought, would have decided ? What kind of culture would they create ? We will never know but we believe something great, increasingly closer to their Nordic heritage, discarding old prejudices.. Such a people would have been open to social change on a rational basis, much more that has been the case in the democratic new world order.

The discovery of instinctotherapy and the original function of love, would have played out very, very differently. Because it ensures peak human condition, because it works. We would probably lead hundreds if not millions of people in an unending, relentless (though peaceful) crusade.
In a nutshell, we lost decades, soon a whole century.

fake Tacitus Translation

Himmler and right-wing homophobic retards up until now, like to quote Germanicus from Tacitus. This is in fact it’s all they know, because it’s simply the only thing they have, while nearly all litterature from antiquity to early Christian times (when untamed Pagans still existed) has claimed far and wide for thousand years, the exact opposite. Celts and Germans like their boys a lot:

As for the famous of quote of Tacitus constantly brought up by traditionalist degenerates, I can not do justice to this splendid analysis apart from quoting the magnificient Julie Couronne:

Conclusion

True pederasty, as Greeks vehemently asserted, on the contrary create the most virile men from the cradle on masculine sodomitic embraces. The same energy fueling gays’ terrible perversions, thanks to a much better mindset could fuel tremendous human qualities, propelling young adolescents to the roof of masculine strength, courage and moral fortitude. Passivity, makes for the most masculine men, given the right natural conditions, despite what beta males like Himmler thought.

Beside, normal people always sought scapegoats to blame for their mistakes. Male homosexuals have consistently been singled out, lesbians being rather left out or ignored (with some rare exceptions), up to Nazi Germany, in which despite some debates, specialists couldn’t see an issue with those antinatural behaviors as women were still free to marry and make kids. While… male homos wouldn’t ?

Logic was never a strong point of haters, in whichever side they happened to be. Truth is, beyond the rightful rejection of faggots’ weak characters, popular ire targeted sodomy especially (as evident in all of medieval christian treaties about that sexual deviancies. The term sodomy used to mean anything non-coital, but it was also used more narrowly as imperfect sodomy and perfect sodomy, pointing explicitly at increasing levels of deviation from the breeding norm. Imperfect sodomy meant anal intercourse with women, while the perfect one was with men, or rather, boys.

One can wonder, why focus on that ? Why even bother at all with what others do in their spare time ?

The answer is, people react on an unconscious level, trying to uphold spiritual values, or what they perceive as the pole of transcendent and energy: for religious Christians it was God so anything against it, could matter on a cosmic level. Fallen from Grace already since a long time ago, the inner compulsion to make sense of the world has prompted people to seek explanation to their state of inner distress, inner spiritual decay.

The definite number one cause of this Fall - beside cooking which only ever grated the mind of the uttermost inspired artists - is coitus, as it represents as much as embodies everything wrong with our way of love, since, well, what’s more breeding-related than the very act bringing about procreation ?

And what is the most instinctually related and similar-looking contact ? Sodomy. As a fellow penile penetration moreover in a very close hole, the visual looks also very similar and without focusing on the genitals, pretty much interchangeable.

Instinctually, (consenting) deep anal penetration to the kind we observe in humans leading to potent passive orgasms which shows the great symmetric importance for both sexes) isn’t observed in any other species as far as I know, apes or otherwise. Digital or penile non-painful penetrations, yes, but even apes endowed with similar penises do not seem to enjoy sodomy anywhere as much as we do.

Therefore its evolution is our privilege. In any case all metasexual natural tendency, whether sexual contacts per se or behavioral patterns, take their source in (not a one-to-one relationship though) purely reproductive instincts, millions of years older. One could say these instincts are co-opted and adapted to a new purpose, the development of extrasensory abilities.

Hence, actually aiming at coitus, people either incapable to formalize the real issue - or absolutely unwilling to do so - instead will accuse sodomy as the mother of all evil, as so many did before, in a superb instance of accusatory inversion. Or said otherwise, sodomy is what all people should do instead of coitus and it pisses off heterosexuals !

The new Reich shall aim at curing most gays of their fake femininity and misguided ways. Not with electric therapy but by making them real men. Those who can’t do not deserve to live in society in the first place: either they stop being man up in camps for eradication of effeminate behaviors, or in exile get to learn the hard way how to be a man, or perish, declared unfit by the same harsh life conditions our forebears relished in merely a few centuries ago.

Heil victory !