I have already posited the radical belief that Religion, Art and Propaganda are race forming. Here the concern is with breeding. I will posit as well that JEM (Jewish Esoteric Moralization) in particular is a primary cause of homosexuality as well as Aryan feminization more generally. I will demonstrate this intent of JEM through specific, important examples appearing in salient, profoundly impactful works.
When considering the individual homosexual, certainly there are frequently stronger more intimate factors that led to his condition. Sexual abuse, for instance, also doubtlessly factors into the development of homosexuality in a great many individuals as this study will discuss. Yet here JEM operates in tandem with sexual abuse or specific, sexually formative lived experiences, promoting these things as well. To be clear, pederasty is also endorsed in JEM.
Here, of course, as well, we assume some predetermined genetic vulnerability to homosexuality in each individual that is variable. Yet we assume as well an obvious cultural component that may either curtail or exacerbate a genetic proclivity. Likewise, we wonder if “genetically effeminate types” are able to gain otherwise unavailable breeding opportunities with the assistance of JEM, where a certain “moral,” effeminate, “Jewish type” within the Aryan race may be honored.
We wonder if this is true at least in certain conditions, whereas such types might be relatively less fertile or even homosexuals under other conditions. Has for instance, a “less degenerate” Angelic Season or “Spring” in a broader Saturnian Age under a Christian or Jewish God allowed for the preservation of such effeminate types?
In other words, we wonder if Christianity, whatever its exoteric prohibitions against homosexuality, has succeeded in breeding a more effeminate Aryan type, whom comprises, for example, todays “liberals” or SWIPLs. Obviously homosexuals would develop more easily from such a group.
In JEM, and its consequent breeding, intelligence becomes positively correlated with effeminacy. Yet, of course, this makes sense if the propaganda of a society, whether literature, academia or popular arts, is dominated by JEM and lacking AIM. In other words, if culture is not developed for men, in the classical, Roman sense of that term, then this type of man will never become cultured, simply by the absence of available cultural texts that might interest him. Hence a more effeminate type man, drawn to a feminizing JEM, usurps this more masculine type.
JEM as a general phenomenon promotes demoralization, deference and passivity among Aryans, hence, by this measure alone it can be understood to have a feminizing effect. For instance, when Christianity is contrasted with the Chief cults of Rome, including especially the cults of Jupiter and Mars, we understand immediately that the former would tend to breed a more feminized, demoralized and demoralizing type. This should be to us simply obvious.
Likewise, JEM’s tendency to depict Jewish triumph over Aryan genetic competitors is by itself feminizing. Nevertheless we discover in the JEM much more specific messaging that is unequivocally developed to specifically encourage homosexuality. Being JEM, this appears in places one would least expect, such as the Book of Jonah, the Book of Kings and Genesis. Of course, we should be unsurprised in light of the “open” promotion of homosexuality observed among Jews today. This explicit propaganda, in contrast to the esoteric promotion appearing JEM, is surely a late inhabitation phenomenon only.
To the extent the theme is homosexual in JEM, Jewish men are typically indicated as “tops,” while Aryan men as “bottoms.” Again, we see this in the Aryan assembly of the Church indicated as “wife” to the Jewish God and in the metaphor of an Aryan Israel who, through a “wrestling match,” with an Angel is also made “wife” or “Sarah” to the Jewish God. This tendency is closely related to the common motif in JEM of Jews genetically succeeding over Aryan men with Aryan women. Again, both emasculate and feminize the Aryan man.
Indeed, we should consider it more than coincidence that the 6th-century appearance of homosexuality in Greece corresponded with the development of the Athenian theater and Greek Philosophy, both generally Semitic and thus “multicultural” phenomena. In the theater, famously, all roles were played by men. This was done ostensibly to protect the virtue of women.
We remember, of course, that Bacchus is a God of Theater and effeminacy, among other degeneracies. This aspect of “theater” has never changed. Indeed, we should consider computer generating our actors in the future, as if classical idols made animate, so as to end this subtle form of prostitution called acting and curb an instinct toward homosexuality.
The phallic aspects of the Bacchanal cult, which is inherent to Judaism and proto-Judaism, particularly with its racial connotations, and particularly as it develops as important criteria for “manhood,” doubtless plays a psychological role in the development of homosexuality and effeminacy more generally.
Here some small portion of Aryan men, convinced to believe they are “less masculine” than more equatorial races, through a subtle, crafted demoralization, become feminized. Simultaneously, some portion of non-whites, including Jews, possessed of a disproportionate lust for the Aryan gene in whatever manifestation likewise develop homosexually or bisexually.
We might say as well that multicultural circumstances themselves promote this tendency if only through a fostering of heightened sexual competition that will disfavor and demoralize the less masculine man or “Beta.” Yet as well here, as the JEM reveals, the Aryan is the beautiful and desired race, and homosexual affection toward it is heightened among Semites and non-whites. Indeed, friendships between Aryans and Semites or non-whites are in some sense “inherently gay.”
After all the Aryan gains no genetic or reproductive advantage associating with the Semite or non-white, who is different in type and mating approach and will seek to adapt conditions to his advantage at the expense of the Aryan. In contrast, the Semite or non-white is interested in the Aryan’s friendship to gain access to his race and an ameliorated reproductive continuance. The Semite is attracted to the stock and race of his friend, the “charmed” Aryan who blithely gives him access to it.
Again, such a permitted racial cuckoldry is inherently “gay” or homosocial. It is making oneself a “wife” to the invading group. The passive, effeminacy of “liberal” Aryan men, for example, who are welcoming to racially competitive groups, is marked and readily identifiable. Add to this the necessarily disingenuous and feminine Semitic style of approach and both sides might be understood as feminized and gay. This feminine tone to interaction among men we have to assume would only proliferate actual homosexuality.
Sexual Abuse of Boys as a Cause of Homosexuality
Again, early sexual abuse doubtlessly plays a role in the development of homosexuality at least in many cases. This is particularly true when homosexual tendencies develop early as first tendencies. As sexual instincts are forming, doubtlessly they are directed by early experiences, like clay on a wheel, before it has hardened. We assume this of everything else, why wouldn’t we assume this of sex? Indeed, the heterosexual man can often trace his preference in a “type of woman,” to an early experience. The “first loves” are the most impactful.
Frequently we speak of the “cycle of abuse” when it comes to physical or emotional abuse. It seems obvious to conclude that homosexually molested boys will develop a tendency to become pederasts themselves as well as homosexuals more generally. After all, their “first love” was an adult man. Hence presumably they will also retain an attraction to adult men as well as to that first formative interaction between boy and man. In the end, pederasty might be understood as a form of “homosexual reproduction,” where the homosexual creates a “spiritual son” in “his own image.”