Third Sex(LGBTQ)

[High Priest Zevios Metathronos]

Honestly, there is nothing strange about any "Merkaba" on any homosexuals or other people. Most people, as is, do not have a so called "Merkaba" in a strange manner anyway.

These are only stupid things written because people have lack of confidence and want to feel better about being gay, or so I would assume, psychologically speaking.

There is nothing wrong, but also nothing "special". The rabbit hole of insecurity can go very far with people.

Does this mean Jake was that deluded? He mentioned that Satan and Inanna led him to that information (he admitted the book is authored by a Yehubor).

It also didn't make sense to me how the Merkaba can be responsible for sexual orientation as he explained it because one time he stated that sexual orientation can temporarily change when the poles of the Merkaba reverse, yet it's known that the Merkaba can be caused to spin very fast and obviously this doesn't change one's sexual orientation.

HPS Maxine told him to take the article down as it contained disinformation. There was also more that made us go like "WTF".

The MerKaBa is entirely unrelated to one's sexual orientation.

You do not suddenly become gay or bi when you do the MerKaBa...No matter the direction of it...

Most of these were just insecurity things trying to pose as spiritual knowledge to compensate for actually providing none. This is the reality of this. I personally found it rather saddening.

 

[Warrior Of TRUTH]

Gods don't care much about those things at all. They can give you some advices if they know you what might be the best for you, but in the end of the day it's up to you. Gods are never pushy with those things, and they also know your reasons behind your feelings and actions.

For people who think that Gods gonna jump on you all disturbed because you are a bit sexually different or want to change your gender, and that they will yell at you and try to stop you, or will punish you, that is not the case. They simply know already most things that are going on in you, could predict it, and could warn you and talk with you, but no in reality they will not make too big fuss over it. Nobody can dictate what will you do with your body and how will you feel deep inside about yourself, and what is your sexuallity (everything is fine until you start hurting others too much and start being sexual with little kids).

Gods want people who are sexually free and who feel good with themselves, but they also want us to learn and grow from our own experiences. Your mistakes are your own. Later none of those things will matter much, we will be able to really easily fix our bodies, and if we made some mistakes we can correct it and learn something from it.

I do know some people feel bad in their bodies, and it's up to them to see what they will do about it.

There is also one little thing about Gods and advanced people. You can alter your orgasms, you can even change your body in the astral in gender or form you prefer more, you can basically act, and even be sexual how you like, regardless of your physical form. Both genders have their own special orgasms, but you can learn from another gender and alter yours to be more similar as theirs.

One of the Gods taught me something interesting. Basically if a female wants to dominate male she can strongly connect her sacral to this another person and instead of taking lots of energy from her mate, she can push energy into their sacral and into their astral body, which will create sensation like she is completely dominant. If this person is let's say male, if he wants to act more passive and like a female, he would have to allow energy to go deep in. Sex can look normal to others who would see it, but on the astral this guy will be literally fucked hahaha
For homosexuals also this can be amplified if one male starts drawing energy in sacral but also in a base chakra, and more dominant ones will push his energy in this person.

Female orgasm is deep, and females usually take energy of their mates up to their head chakras before they are done, while male orgasm is usually more shallow, males take some lil energy in, and gives tons of their personal energy into this another person which is very draining. This can be altered. Gods know how.

For lesbians is very important to know about those things and how to direct energy, if they want their sexual activities to be really good and satisfying...

If you barely understand a single thing I said you need to advance more spiritually, because most people are still too low and have no idea what sex or sexuallity even is about, aside from procreation.

Good evening, I have a specific question, from what I'm understanding from this post is... So I'm Bisexual I've got an open sexual relationship with a Beautiful Demoness, I've been wanting to ask Father Satan for a Demon with whom I can have an open sexual relationship as I'm Bottom when it comes to sex with a guy... But after reading this, am I correct by understanding that Astrally I can change my body to Female and my Demoness to male and have sex that way?

Just want to make sure, I don't want to assume... I like being completely sure

Hail Father SATAN Forever!!!!

 

[Magical DarkCely]

There are some types of disorders. Not every problem can be fixed with spirituality.

Sometimes people have to find peace with physical side, first of coming to spirituality

But if you say that some trans people are not truly trans, it can be possible.

 

[Magical DarkCely]

Then you take the simple physical problem of lacking one chemical and having way too much of another chemical, which would actually be very easy to fix, and then spend years building up layer upon layer of mental disorders on top of it, and the person becomes convinced that they have to horribly mutilate themself and chop themself to bits.

Did you know that more than 95% of all people who get sex change surgeries are never comfortable or satisfied with it? They continue being depressed and continue having mental and emotional problems. It does not make them feel better. For most of them, it actually makes them feel worse. I don't know the exact statistic for this part, but the majority of them end up horribly regretting it and wishing they never did it.

So, are you saying that ALL men but SS are not masculine? Soy can increase estrogen, but testosterone is always stronger than estrogens. This maybe can lower testosterone, but it is more than estrogens. if there is testosterone, there aren't estrogens. that's because when you do Hormon Replacement Therapy, you take Androcur, that is an Androgen Blocker. If you take just estrogens, hormon therapy doesn't work. Not every trans people do surgery, indeed, many are against. Most trans people only do Hormon Replacement Therapy.

Surgery is mutilation, but HRT can help that kind of people. If there is medicine, you can use it at your own risk.

Everybody knows that chromosomes are not changeable. This has nothing to do with gender. You can be a mtf and love your own penis.

That's not true, because I know trans people that is happy after HRT and someone after surgery.

 

[Satanic Path]

I don't believe in that unnatural biokinesis.
You can change your eyes, the flaws, disorders, acne, bad view, back problems, enhance your beauty if you want to, anything that is good to your soul.
If people are sick enough to wish to become the opposite sex through magick, there will be also people who will grow wings, tails, or become black or white, or turn into like those botched people you see on YouTubeTrash.
I myself love my body and the things I may change are: my jaw, which grows faster and longer than my palate. My eyes, as they are a little droopy and as I want to work on them with make-up, they need to be bigger.
I don't have money to waste on models, so that would be useful.
I would extremely change the color of my eyes for my own reasons, even if I love them.
I will maybe open a topic on this to listen to your Opinions.
Maybe I may even change my voice, not to make it more masculine or femininine: just to be good at singing. Because If I had a great voice, in my rituals I could even sing my poems to the gods.
But this ends here: I won't change my small height, or my sex, or grow wings or tails, or grow botched lips or nose because I want to stay myself.
And growing a dick of making your dick fall off won't make you more yourself.

I wrote a reply to this a few days ago but it was neither approved nor disapproved, so I figure it was probably lost somehow. But that's fine, it was inconsequential anyway. I wasn't sure what I was trying to say at the time.

Rather, I have a question for you. What does it mean for something to be unnatural? And are unnatural things always bad?

Consider brushing your teeth. It's not something that happens in nature, so how can it be natural? But as long as you don't use toothpaste with harmful chemicals like fluoride, it's very beneficial. Then again, perhaps that's not a great example, since animals avoid most dental health problems altogether by simply avoiding foods with sugars or acids.

Then what about things like life-saving surgeries? I forgot the name, but there's a type of surgery where little tubes are placed inside of the veins inside the heart to keep them from tightening too much, which can greatly increase the life span of people who had that kind of heart problem beforehand. If they went without the surgery, eventually parts of their heart would start dying due to lack of oxygen, and they would subsequently die of heart failure. That would be the natural course of things. In this case, defying nature and saving their lives is a good thing, isn't it?

What about homosexuality? Some people say it's unnatural because it's rare and doesn't lead to having children, which is an urge most people have as it's the most obvious way to preserve one's gene pool. Others say it's natural because animals do it too, and because it can reduce competition; statistics show that the more sons a mother has, the more likely it is for the next one to be gay; the benefit is that this gay son can then help out the family in other ways, helping to protect the mother's offspring, without interfering with his brothers.

Isn't biokinesis unnatural to begin with? Certain body parts don't naturally change much after they've matured, let alone change to your will. If you change the shape of your jaw or the capabilities of your voice, it's by influencing which parts of your DNA are processed and imposing new instructions. You could argue that it's natural because you're using your own natural abilities to do it, or you could argue that it's unnatural because you're changing the way you naturally were. But does that make it wrong? I don't think so.

Reproductive organs are the only body parts which sexually differentiate before birth, with the other changes only coming much later due to hormonal influences during puberty. In that sense they are unique, and much more difficult to change later on; as such, changing them could be considered more unnatural than changing something like your jaw. However, the comparison you make does not make sense. Humans are naturally male or female; but they do not naturally grow tails. Your point would make sense you're talking about people who attempt to become some kind of in-between hybrid between male and female, for example by using hormone pills or having plastic surgeries. But if someone goes beyond that and becomes completely male or completely female, both physically and spiritually, then doesn't this whole conversation become irrelevant? Aside from their past, they would just be a normal person at that point.

So why do you feel that biokinesis to change sex is comparable to biokinesis to grow a tail, while biokinesis to change the shape of your jaw is not?

Regarding the last thing you said: of course. You are always yourself to begin with, no matter how you change; that is something that never changes.
"Being oneself" is unrelated to "being true to oneself". Most likely they're instead talking about feeling restricted by what sex they are and wanting to be free, although most such cases are completely delusional as there's countless better ways for them to solve their issues and become truly free, while taking some pills and having some surgeries wouldn't actually free them anyway, it would just exchange some restrictions for others while leaving more important problems unresolved.

Life-saving surgeries save lives and give people a second chance to advance, if they're smart enough.
Living is natural and sacred.
So if female cats eat their kitties because they do not recognise their smell, does this mean that women shoud eat their children for some strange reason?
What about the lions who win a fight, enter the herd and then kill all the baby lions?
It is totally logical. If you marry a divorced woman with childrean eat all them alive in order to give stronger genes to the nature.
Natural things change for every species.
In nature we have ticks, so why don't we all start drinking blood from other people?

 

[Jack]

I don't believe in that unnatural biokinesis.
You can change your eyes, the flaws, disorders, acne, bad view, back problems, enhance your beauty if you want to, anything that is good to your soul.
If people are sick enough to wish to become the opposite sex through magick, there will be also people who will grow wings, tails, or become black or white, or turn into like those botched people you see on YouTubeTrash.
I myself love my body and the things I may change are: my jaw, which grows faster and longer than my palate. My eyes, as they are a little droopy and as I want to work on them with make-up, they need to be bigger.
I don't have money to waste on models, so that would be useful.
I would extremely change the color of my eyes for my own reasons, even if I love them.
I will maybe open a topic on this to listen to your Opinions.
Maybe I may even change my voice, not to make it more masculine or femininine: just to be good at singing. Because If I had a great voice, in my rituals I could even sing my poems to the gods.
But this ends here: I won't change my small height, or my sex, or grow wings or tails, or grow botched lips or nose because I want to stay myself.
And growing a dick of making your dick fall off won't make you more yourself.

I wrote a reply to this a few days ago but it was neither approved nor disapproved, so I figure it was probably lost somehow. But that's fine, it was inconsequential anyway. I wasn't sure what I was trying to say at the time.

Rather, I have a question for you. What does it mean for something to be unnatural? And are unnatural things always bad?

Consider brushing your teeth. It's not something that happens in nature, so how can it be natural? But as long as you don't use toothpaste with harmful chemicals like fluoride, it's very beneficial. Then again, perhaps that's not a great example, since animals avoid most dental health problems altogether by simply avoiding foods with sugars or acids.

Then what about things like life-saving surgeries? I forgot the name, but there's a type of surgery where little tubes are placed inside of the veins inside the heart to keep them from tightening too much, which can greatly increase the life span of people who had that kind of heart problem beforehand. If they went without the surgery, eventually parts of their heart would start dying due to lack of oxygen, and they would subsequently die of heart failure. That would be the natural course of things. In this case, defying nature and saving their lives is a good thing, isn't it?

What about homosexuality? Some people say it's unnatural because it's rare and doesn't lead to having children, which is an urge most people have as it's the most obvious way to preserve one's gene pool. Others say it's natural because animals do it too, and because it can reduce competition; statistics show that the more sons a mother has, the more likely it is for the next one to be gay; the benefit is that this gay son can then help out the family in other ways, helping to protect the mother's offspring, without interfering with his brothers.

Isn't biokinesis unnatural to begin with? Certain body parts don't naturally change much after they've matured, let alone change to your will. If you change the shape of your jaw or the capabilities of your voice, it's by influencing which parts of your DNA are processed and imposing new instructions. You could argue that it's natural because you're using your own natural abilities to do it, or you could argue that it's unnatural because you're changing the way you naturally were. But does that make it wrong? I don't think so.

Reproductive organs are the only body parts which sexually differentiate before birth, with the other changes only coming much later due to hormonal influences during puberty. In that sense they are unique, and much more difficult to change later on; as such, changing them could be considered more unnatural than changing something like your jaw. However, the comparison you make does not make sense. Humans are naturally male or female; but they do not naturally grow tails. Your point would make sense you're talking about people who attempt to become some kind of in-between hybrid between male and female, for example by using hormone pills or having plastic surgeries. But if someone goes beyond that and becomes completely male or completely female, both physically and spiritually, then doesn't this whole conversation become irrelevant? Aside from their past, they would just be a normal person at that point.

So why do you feel that biokinesis to change sex is comparable to biokinesis to grow a tail, while biokinesis to change the shape of your jaw is not?

Regarding the last thing you said: of course. You are always yourself to begin with, no matter how you change; that is something that never changes.
"Being oneself" is unrelated to "being true to oneself". Most likely they're instead talking about feeling restricted by what sex they are and wanting to be free, although most such cases are completely delusional as there's countless better ways for them to solve their issues and become truly free, while taking some pills and having some surgeries wouldn't actually free them anyway, it would just exchange some restrictions for others while leaving more important problems unresolved.

Homosexuality is not unnatural. It occurs spontaneously in many species in nature.

Unnatural is something that does not spontaneously occur in nature or is detrimental to a species.

For example Leprosy, Alzheimers, Schizophrenia, Transgenderism, a multitude of other diseases etc. They are unnatural and thus need to be dealt with for the species to survive.

 

[Jack]

Homosexuality is not unnatural. It occurs spontaneously in many species in nature.

Unnatural is something that does not spontaneously occur in nature or is detrimental to a species.

For example Leprosy, Alzheimers, Schizophrenia, Transgenderism, a multitude of other diseases etc. They are unnatural and thus need to be dealt with for the species to survive.

Homosexuality does occur spontaneously in nature, and is not detrimental to a species (in fact, it can be beneficial under the right circumstances), even if there are some potential downsides for the individual. By your definition, it is indeed not unnatural.

It's very interesting to equate detrimental to unnatural. It could explain why some people often call things they don't like unnatural, even in the few cases where it's things that happen naturally (such as homosexuality). Certainly food for thought.

I never said Homosexuality was detrimental or unnatural. And yes it does occur spontaneously in many species.

 

[Jack]

Homosexuality does occur spontaneously in nature, and is not detrimental to a species (in fact, it can be beneficial under the right circumstances), even if there are some potential downsides for the individual. By your definition, it is indeed not unnatural.

It's very interesting to equate detrimental to unnatural. It could explain why some people often call things they don't like unnatural, even in the few cases where it's things that happen naturally (such as homosexuality). Certainly food for thought.

I never said Homosexuality was detrimental or unnatural. And yes it does occur spontaneously in many species.

Yes, in fact you said it was not unnatural in your first sentence. I was merely applying your definition of unnatural to facts in my own words and confirming that it is indeed consistent with your opinions, from which I concluded that there is some merit in your definition. Sorry if I caused a misunderstanding.

Then you made a false equivalency, because as I said and I'll point out again,

• Homosexuality occurs spontaneously in nature

• Has no detrimental effects to a species or an individual (therefore is not any disease. It is a sexuality. )

You were the one who brought up the totally unrelated subject of Homosexuality into the discussion here ,

What about homosexuality? Some people say it's unnatural because it's rare and doesn't lead to having children, which is an urge most people have as it's the most obvious way to preserve one's gene pool

And then you made a false equivalency with my definition to satisfy preconceived notions about Homosexuality that you had, that I had not said.

While Transgenderism passes this definition of causing detrimental effects to a species,

• Causes Gender Dysphoria, Depression, Suicidal tendencies, etc.

• Not related to sexuality.

• Not related to spirituality except for severe imbalances in the soul.

And by the way, there is also no such thing as a naturally occurring hermaphrodite (not transgender. )
Hermaphrodites are diseased having genetic conditions who are mostly unable to reproduce unless undertaking hormonal therapy and removal of the more ambiguous genitalia (especially at birth.)

There won't be any such diseased and mentally unwell individuals existing with practical Eugenics for atleast 2 generations or so.

Transgenderism, Alzheimers, Schizophrenia all such Gene's would be eliminated from the gene pool permanently after we recreate the world in our image. Then the only individuals existing will be male and female with various sexualities and lifestyles. And we will cull the diseased and unfortunates who are suffering.

This is just a very stupid mass psychosis type mind game being played here. It's very very clear why Homosexuality was earlier thought to be a disorder because it did not satisfy morality tests about sexuality in Christianity. If you remove the unscientific Christian morality argument, then Homosexuality is natural as it occurs spontaneously as well as no indication of any detrimental effects.

Also another myth to bust, there is no such GAY gene that was said by Mageson. Homosexuality is not a genetic condition or a separate genetic cause. Homosexuality is natural and the people who will be homosexuals, naturally develop into homosexuals at puberty. There is no genetic basis to it and to separate their group from natural humans.

With transgenderism evidence is there to suggest it might be a brain disorder like alzheimers. More comparative studies with feminine men (which they refuse to do) is required to see whether the brain scans are correct or they're faking it. And if it would be determined that such a probable cause exists that it be considered a physical deformity forming at birth ,it should be included in the Eugenics elimination list.

In any case it's a disorder that needs to be purged.

 

[Jack]

I'll now respond to the other things you wrote.

While Transgenderism passes this definition of causing detrimental effects to a species,

• Causes Gender Dysphoria, Depression, Suicidal tendencies, etc.

• Not related to sexuality.

• Not related to spirituality except for severe imbalances in the soul.

And by the way, there is also no such thing as a naturally occurring hermaphrodite (not transgender. )
Hermaphrodites are diseased having genetic conditions who are mostly unable to reproduce unless undertaking hormonal therapy and removal of the more ambiguous genitalia (especially at birth.)

There won't be any such diseased and mentally unwell individuals existing with practical Eugenics for atleast 2 generations or so.

Like you said, the closest thing to natural hermaphroditism in humans is some of the various intersex conditions that exist, which are naturally occurring medical conditions of which the symptoms are generally considered detrimental to the person who has it, as you mentioned already. There are cases of people whose parents opt to have surgery performed on them while they're still a baby to try and mitigate the problems, only to feel mutilated and like their body is wrong as they grow up, and cases of people who didn't get such surgeries at a young enough age and as a result have many difficulties sexually that can no longer be fixed using surgery. It is a horrible condition either way, and although I've met a few people with such conditions (such as someone with XX male syndrome who was born with a penis but no testicles, and a woman with MRKH syndrome who was born without ovaries and only a partial vagina), I've never met someone who was happy to be intersex.

As for eugenics, I don't know in what way eugenics could be used to avoid such conditions, since they seem to occur at random in extremely rare cases, and most people would probably not like to kill their children even if they had such a condition. So can you explain in what way eugenics could be utilised here?

Transgenderism, Alzheimers, Schizophrenia all such Gene's would be eliminated from the gene pool permanently after we recreate the world in our image. Then the only individuals existing will be male and female with various sexualities and lifestyles. And we will cull the diseased and unfortunates who are suffering.

While it's possible that a gene that makes someone more likely to become transgender exists (just like there's a gene that causes women who have it to have more children and causes males who have it to be more likely to be homosexual), it can also occur due to environmental influences. I don't think wiping out the condition is as simple as removing a gene, as it is largely psychological in almost all cases. If these individuals did proper meditation to deal with trauma or karma related to sexual discrimination or similar bad experiences that they blame on their sex before things get out of hand, a lot of cases could be prevented.

I'm not well-read on Alzheimer's syndrome, so I don't know if that's caused by genetics, environmental issues like diet, or a side effect of other health problems like hormonal imbalance, so I can't comment on that.

As for schizophrenia, isn't that just when astral perception gets out of hand and becomes detached from reality? I've heard there are genes that make someone more likely to become schizophrenic, but those genes could hypothetically also improve a person's astral senses, which could be considered a talent. Rather than removing it, I think it's better for people to learn to control and calm their mind and distinguish reality from delusion.

By culling, do you mean killing people with disorders? That seems wrong to me. Even people with those conditions want to live. In fact, I think that even most people who are depressed or suicidal want to live, even if they're not consciously aware of it. After all, if they really wanted to die, wouldn't they just find a way and try seriously to end their life? There's a few who do that, but most just complain to others about how bad they feel and even admit that they consider committing suicide. If they really wanted to do it, then admitting it would be extremely detrimental to their (misguided) objective because it could cause others to try and stop them, even with force in some cases. I think the fact they reach out to others proves that deep down they really want to live and find a different way to overcome their suffering.
Do you think it's right to murder humans against their will, just because they are suffering in some ways? Or did I misunderstand what you were implying?

This is just a very stupid mass psychosis type mind game being played here. It's very very clear why Homosexuality was earlier thought to be a disorder because it did not satisfy morality tests about sexuality in Christianity. If you remove the unscientific Christian morality argument, then Homosexuality is natural as it occurs spontaneously as well as no indication of any detrimental effects.

Also another myth to bust, there is no such GAY gene that was said by Mageson. Homosexuality is not a genetic condition or a separate genetic cause. Homosexuality is natural and the people who will be homosexuals, naturally develop into homosexuals at puberty. There is no genetic basis to it and to separate their group from natural humans.

With transgenderism evidence is there to suggest it might be a brain disorder like alzheimers. More comparative studies with feminine men (which they refuse to do) is required to see whether the brain scans are correct or they're faking it. And if it would be determined that such a probable cause exists that it be considered a physical deformity forming at birth ,it should be included in the Eugenics elimination list.

In any case it's a disorder that needs to be purged.

You're right. That's still one of the things I resent the church for the most, even if they had already lost their power by the time I was born. They're so disgusting and hypocritical.

Also another myth to bust, there is no such GAY gene that was said by Mageson. Homosexuality is not a genetic condition or a separate genetic cause. Homosexuality is natural and the people who will be homosexuals, naturally develop into homosexuals at puberty. There is no genetic basis to it and to separate their group from natural humans.

This article is from 2004 and I don't know if there have been any new findings since then, but this came up when I searched for the gene I mentioned earlier:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained/
Are you implying that there being a genetic basis for it would make it unnatural? From my perspective it only makes it more natural, since it's that way from birth (meaning it's not just caused by environmental circumstances like transgenderism is), and it even implies that it evolved that way due to it being beneficial, meaning it's both naturally occurring and beneficial, the opposite of unnatural by your own definition.

With transgenderism evidence is there to suggest it might be a brain disorder like alzheimers. More comparative studies with feminine men (which they refuse to do) is required to see whether the brain scans are correct or they're faking it. And if it would be determined that such a probable cause exists that it be considered a physical deformity forming at birth ,it should be included in the Eugenics elimination list.

I think the study you're referring to when you say there's evidence that transgenderism is a brain disorder is the one where they showed that a specific part of the brain of male-to-female transgenders who are attracted to males is very similar to the corresponding part of the brain in heterosexual women, while female-born lesbians and male-to-female transgenders who are attracted to women are kind of in-between. Or maybe it was vice versa, or maybe both. It's been years since I found that study and I can't find it right now.

While it could be considered abnormal for someone to be neurologically similar to the opposite sex in specific parts of the brain, it is not at all comparable to a severely detrimental disorder like Alzheimer's. To begin with, it's unclear what exactly this part of the brain even affects. It could be something like personality or sexual instincts, in which it could be detrimental if that ends up causing someone to be bullied or feel sexually confused. However, the former is an issue with society not accepting feminine men or masculine women (although this has been getting better since the church lost its power), while the latter can surely be solved one way or another.

What causes that part of the brain to be that way also isn't clear yet. It could be from birth or it could be due to environmental factors or both. Even in the case that it is primarily determined prenatally, it could still be caused by other factors like the mother's hormones. Even if it really is caused by a gene (meaning eugenics can be applied), it would be hard to detect since the main people propagating it would be the ones that decided to not become transgender despite having the gene, as they're the main ones having children at all. This also proves that if the neurological similarity to the opposite sex is caused by a gene, that doesn't mean people with that gene will always try to transition, once again suggesting it's primarily environmental factors that cause people to do so.

In any case it's a disorder that needs to be purged.

Since it causes a lot of distress and unhappiness for the ones who have it, I agree that it would be great if people learn of successful ways to cure it.

I'm also very skeptical of the issue of there being a Genetic cause for Transgenderism. We could use ACT and Hypnotherapy treatments to fix them but currently the Yehuborim won't allow us to run studies through this approach. Tyey also have a vested interest in normalizing and encouraging transgenderism.

Most regressive diseases have a Genetic basis in it. Psychopathy also has a very genetic basis. Along with Alzheimers and Schizophrenia. However as major studies have shown that, there is no such Gay gene that determines sexual orientation.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/30/health/gay-gene-study-trnd/index.html

https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20190829/there-is-no-gay-gene-major-study-concludes

What this means is there is no genetic basis to Sexual orientation. People aren't born Gay or Heterosexual. That was also made by Yehuborim without evidence. Sexuality develops at puberty. A large size of the Homosexual population is shown naturally transition to Heterosexuality, without coercion or intervention. And the incoming new Heterosexual to Homosexual fills the gap up. There was always a small 2-3% population of such change. But now with the fase notion that Sexuality is inborn, Homosexuals are confused when they want to naturally transition to Heterosexuality (those who feel like they want to I.e).

What basically is that after the Heterosexual community which is a massive overwhelming majority ,some percentage of Homosexuals are permanent in their Sexuality and a large proportion are Sexually fluid. All this research was commonly known in the 60s and 70s. But after the Yehuborim took over the medical field they prevented any further research about this very simple thing from Taking place. Which is why this very confusing statement of People are born Gay. No, a little child does not have sexual feelings because it hasn't gone through puberty yet. Only through puberty is when someone realizes he/she is Gay. Its totally environmental and personal in nature. There is no Genetic basis to any of this.


We are at a precipice of science where we can remove regressive Gene's alfter inspections. All we have to do is to defeat the Yehuborim and then we can remove all negative conditions from the populace using Genetic engineering.
https://ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=49409

But the Yehuborim are currently trying to use mass mRNA vaccination to reduce the average age of humans and to create various kinds of mass killing diseases. The aliens gave them insights into this technology and told them that if they created a peasant grey type neuter population, they would make a select few of these Globalists immortal and Gods over us (after they kill off the majority of the planet).

 

[Jack]

I dont have time to respond extensively right now. However, did you even read the article you linked?

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/30/health/gay-gene-study-trnd/index.html

"Instead, a host of genetic and environmental factors play a role, according to a study published Thursday in Science Magazine."
"Same-sex attraction appears to run in families, and identical twins are more likely to be aligned in their sexuality than either fraternal twins or other siblings, noted the researchers. Both these factors suggest genetic influences are at play."
The article claims that genetics play a role in the likelihood that someone will be homosexual or not. It claims that homosexuality is not clearly caused by a single gene, but rather a combination of genes and other factors.

Like you said, people will only start developing a sexual orientation when they reach puberty. However, according to statistics and that article the way this develops is still influenced by genetics.

Statistically speaking, genetics play a role in a person's sexual attraction after puberty is reached. There being more correlation between identical twins than non-identical twins leaves little room for doubt. Then there's also the gene they found which is mentioned in the article from 2004 that I linked, which is said to increase the likelihood of homosexuality in males specifically, while having other effects on women.

This is not strange. Of course, it's up to a person how he/she identifies or rationalises their own sexual orientation. But genetics can influence the way we think and perceive things, including attraction as well. Especially in cases of people who are somewhat flexible in that regard to begin with, simply feeling more or less attraction to a certain sex could influence whether they decide to call themselves gay or bi or straight.
Even a childhood experience can change which way someone leans. It's not strange that genetics can do the same.

The Genes for all sexualities (3 in total) exist is all humans,the reason why different Gene's get triggered is because of Environmental conditions.

Environment influences Gene Expression.