THE BROTHERSHIP CONNECTION🪖👬🚀

Poolhouse on the HQ (Homosex Question)

BROTHERSHIP CONNECTION: Poolhouse on the HQ (Homosex Question)

BROTHERSHIP CONNECTION: POOLHOUSE ON THE HQ

This epistle does not advocate for any ideology or identity—except the identity of Man himself.

I aim only to state simple truths about men and male sexuality, based on my own observations.

It is submitted for all men: from normal to Gay™, from faggot to straggot.

Because all men have a right to reclaim their sexuality and morality.

I wish to foster the notion of a man’s right to sexual free will and self-determination.

I wish to offer tools and language for understanding the self, and for processing the trauma inflicted on men by institutions that propagate shame and fear about our instincts.

In September 2023, I posted a viral tweet: all men are homo, but not all men are gay—and that our thinking on homosex has been framed for civilizational control, not for morality alone.

Since then, we have witnessed a mimetic rise of a peculiar openness, sometimes wrapped in irony and humor—but this is certainly not a prerequisite. Examples of this trend include:

* Kanye’s infamous cousin anecdote

* DNC Twink vs. Navy Seal (Towelboygate)

* DNC staffer homosex tape

* Thirst-trappin’ DILFs

vMen have begun to recognize and reclaim the true “male gaze,” which is men performing masculinity (or, in more explicitly sexual contexts, a perverse type of femininity) for other men. The rise of the “fizeekpoast” and “Handsome Thursday” affirms this.

The act of producing aesthetics of male beauty for the purpose of being admired by a male audience is, by definition, a type of homosexual gaze—though, importantly, not necessarily “gay” (in the Gay™ sense).

It appears that, at least for the time being, long-standing (though by no means historically fixed) social taboos around homosex and homosexuality are changing somewhat—at least on a subliminal, zeitgeist level of the culture.

Based entirely on anecdotal evidence, including—but not limited to—my personal observations and my innate gift of Prophecy, I would venture to guess the age of the sweaty, heady, boys-will-be-boys, bi-curious, Brokeback brawling on the mat—a return to the Greco-Roman tradition, if you will—has only barely begun.

Buckle up, cowboy. The bromantic, jock-to-jock, homisexual times are here.

The post-war liberal world order’s concept of “gay men,” and the LGBT-indexing of male homosexuality upheld for the past 80 years, is now being reshaped—ironically—by the aesthetic interests and philosophical pursuits of the neo-reactionary “new right.”

The homosex question, or HQ, has been dealt with in nearly as many ways as there have been “cultures.” Moral, state, and commercial responses vary by time and place. The only constant: the homosex happens, every damn time.

Homosex has existed as long as civilization. It is human nature. It arises from lust and/or social bonding, like all non-procreative sex. It feels good, so it happens. But ain’t nobody ready for that answer.

By “homosex,” I mean male sexual intimacy—the interpersonal conduct upon which the modern socio-political identity of the “Gay” or “homosexual” is predicated.

The more society becomes enamored with homosexual “buttsex,” the more obscured the true erotic bonds of homosexual intimacy become. Tragic!

To understand the HQ, we must first separate the act of homosex from the identity of the Gay™ man.

Though interrelated, it may be best—now and going forward—to consider them as distinct concepts, not necessarily connected.

Homosex is any sexual activity between two or more men. “Sexual activity” is deliberately vague; it’s not limited to penetration or oral. Sometimes there’s a fine line between “roughhousing” and frottage. Male sexual intimacy is not exclusively a Gay™ phenomenon.

There is a sexual language that arises between men—an energetic exchange that can’t always be described, but is a natural sexual phenomenon. It happens. It feels good. Then one day, someone built a whole market segment around it.

The homosex is not an identity or lifestyle, but a moral, symbolic, and carnal exchange expressed through physical acts.

From the sacred warrior cults of Sparta, to the sensual poetics of the Ottoman court, to the age-structured bonds of samurai Japan—homosex has appeared throughout history under different names and meanings.

Given its recurring presence across civilizations, it's clear the homosex question is not about nature, but morality.

If the homosex question must be debated, it cannot center on whether it is “natural.” That’s absurd. Its presence among both man and beast settles that.

The real questions—if debate is needed at all—are: what causes it, and what should be “done” about it?

At its core, the HQ asks whether homosex (as an act, not identity) arises from a base, animalistic impulse meant to be subdued by the morally upright man. That’s the real battleground.

For most, the answer will reflect a blend of personal morality and theological politics—faith systems, including atheism.

This framing is capable of producing thoughtful discussion, but it doesn’t generate the outrage, fear, or shame upon which modern authority and algorithmic discourse depend.

The real question isn’t whether homosex is natural, but whether men are free to define their own moral relationship to it.

Instead, the HQ today assumes Gay is an immutable characteristic—a preternatural identity, likened to skin color.

Gay is now a 21st-century Race: a rights-based identity enshrined through legal and bureaucratic protections—Title IX, CRA1965, and the whole regime back this up.

So whether the HQ is discussed by the left, the right, the Queer, the homocon, etc., Gay is still positioned as a fixed minority preference for homosex, presumed to affect only a certain segment of the population.

In truth, many men will encounter the homosex through thoughts, desires, acts, memories, or dreams. That doesn’t make them Gay or bisexual. It makes them normal men, who have had some form of engagement with homosex—tangentially, discreetly, or both.

That, in fact, is what makes them normal men.

None of this is ever spoken of or considered in the HQ. The HQ turns a blind eye and creates a narrative to uphold and support the construction of a 21st-century neoliberal political class–consumer market/citizen type known as Gay, or LGBTQ.

The HQ, by way of Big Society, says:

“We already know these Gay men are DIFFERENT, that they are SPECIAL, a PROTECTED CLASS, a MINORITY. There is something WRONG with them, this is a given. But WHY are they so messed up, HMM? Is it genetics, or is it their own fault (they were molested)?”

Born this Way vs. “Grandfathered” in—this is the HQ of today: a nature vs. nurture debate whose audience is instrumented to believe, from the outset, that “Gay” is an immutable character. This, by extension, implies that the homosex in question is a phenomenon that will only ever even occur to a small subset of men.

This assumption is disconnected from reality, and even from pre–Civil Rights thinking on the HQ. I’ve read 1940s medical textbooks that suggest homosexual curiosity was a normal part of male pubescence—the family planning guide I read stressed that it was only considered abnormal should the male’s same-sex interest persist into young adulthood.

By constructing “Gay” as a thing that happens to some men, and Gay™ as the logical political endpoint for men afflicted by this condition, a paranoia and dissonance is instilled in nearly all men—whether they ultimately identify as “gay” or “straight” or whatever—that, should they experience anything remotely homosexual (e.g., “gay thoughts”), then there is something wrong with them.

This is particularly potent: fear, loathing, guilt, shame. And it is for this reason that it is so clear to me—and why I argued as such in my silly little viral longpost of September 2023—that the HQ is purposefully applied on these terms. The HQ is a rhetorical stimulus meant to evoke a specific social response: the subjugation of Men.

The truth is, it matters little whether a man was “molested into it” or “born with” the lifepath that would lead to his developing into a Gay™ man. This is ultimately a question of lifestyle, of choice—personal decisions made with a lot of assumptions about the nature of transgressive male sexuality already baked in.

And these assumptions are based on Western, specifically Judeo-Christian morality, along with more contemporary neoliberal ideological conventions around sexuality as a form of identity.

Thus, the HQ is not “is homosex a sin?” but rather: “what makes some men Gay?” This reframing serves to soothe the anxieties of normal men who’ve experienced proximity to homosex.

If the root of Gayness can be isolated (a gene, childhood trauma, chemicals, or media influence, etc)), then a man can disqualify himself from the label if he doesn’t fit the criteria.

This framing implies that desire or action stems from an alien force called “Sin,” and that even the thought marks a man as broken, perverse, or unmasculine–that is, unless he is “saved,” either by religion (as a traditional man) or by embracing Gay™.

The idea is that homosex desire is a flaw in God’s plan—a moral defect—signaling something is deeply wrong. One stray thought or act, and a man is presumed to be on a fixed, automatic lifepath.

This belief assumes that nature, even when observable, is not inherently good—and that men who feel homosex desire must choose between repression or assimilation into the Gay™ identity.

But this removes the tools of self-inquiry and personal moral navigation. It denies men the space to determine the meaning of these desires for themselves.

Whether one tolerates, represses, or ignores Gay™ matters less once you reach the deeper octolectical layer: the true question isn’t how society treats Gay™, but how its definitions and protocols structure the moral field, and how men are shaped by that machinery.

But ultimately, the HQ is itself a tool of repression:of the true, ancient, Adamic spirit of Man.

The Homosex Question is a moral instrument of civilizational control—used not just to police “homosexual men,” but all men.

The HQ is a weapon in the War on Men—on free will, male bonds, and the self-determining will of the sons of Adam.

A city-state is a business. It must manage morale, enforce compliance, and produce value. Morality becomes managerial.

This is the art of statecraft: taking natural impulses—like non-procreative sex—and transforming them into issues of moral policy.

The modern HQ is a war against unpredictability—against any man who deviates from a sanctioned sexual identity within the new civic Gay Race.

By framing homosex as pure choice, the state distorts its essence: a natural impulse, not a moral declaration.

Western civilization maps sexual desire to Sin via the Fall of Man. Non-procreative acts like homosex are ideal moral targets—used by state and religious authority as tools of civilization’s ritual order.

Judeo-Christianity connects homosex to Eden, Sodom, Leviticus, and the New Testament. That it’s prohibited at all implies it’s natural.

And of course, we know the hypocrisy—ancient pederasty persists, cloaked in religious trauma.

Desire, thought, or engagement in homosex is a normal instinct.

It often arises where men gather: prisons, militaries, gyms.

Let’s play is it SPARTACUS (1960) or BelAmi

It is a fact: some percentage of men will engage in homosex.

The true HQ is not “is it molestation or Born This Way™?” but: what limits do you place on male sexual freedom? How far does your belief in personal liberty extend?

Most take-sellers frame homosex as automatically Gay™—as something inherently unnatural. Even a thought is disqualifying.

This framing turns the HQ into a perception test—a manipulative tool used to posture within media niches.

I insist that the homosex is natural. And it feels good, man. And maybe that’s the problem, right?

One may certainly have a moral position on one who surrenders to such temptation, but I would argue that the homosex is far more primal a vice than liquor or gambling or other man-made vices.

If it is a sin, it is quite literally the most man-made sin of them all—thus, the closest to godliness.

Pretty much all animals will do it doggystyle and/or buttfuck. I learned recently that only two types of animal fuck face-to-face. Animals are not only fucking for procreation. Man and animal alike engage in all manner of sexual contact for the purposes of stimulation—pleasure.

If one holds the Genesis view of sin, then you should express that. But the “sin” can’t possibly be the impulse. The desire itself is not something that can necessarily ever be “banished” from the spirit of man, so long as man is a sexual creature.

The HQ is one of the moral limits of pleasure. It asks whether a man’s pursuit of sexual desire—even transgressive desire—is the root cause of mankind’s persistent disgrace.

There is a case for this. The homosex is rooted in pleasure, passion, power. Forget gay pride—the homosex is vainglorious lust. A perverse and covetous idolatry. But one which teeters on a peculiar moral brink, because of man’s inherent need (forget desire) for sexual fulfillment and the affirmations of fraternity.

Perhaps, then, even “the right” can entertain a purer, more tender, more “Greco-Roman” homosex—aligned with the mythic framings of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, David and Jonathan… even Moses and Aaron?

Gilgamesh wept for Enkidu like a widow. David loved Jonathan more than women. Moses and Aaron shared the rod of power, brothers united as one voice. These are not just stories—they are mythic codes representing something that transcends the purely carnal, and toward a perverse and regressive surrender to an animal nature, one animated by Promethean fire and aggression—a struggle for control of beastly desire, the maddening passion summoned by the perversity of nature (or natural perversity?) that is a man submitting sexually to another man. This act is both a subversion and a prophetic fulfillment of the hierarchy of the flesh, but also a heavenly sublimation of violence and competition—albeit one achieved through lust and passion, but also through something that is tender, intimate, brotherly: the closeness of male bodies upon each other, heavy, sweaty, breathing, grunting, moaning, spitting, slapping, screaming, cumming, kissing.

The homosex can range from the gayest thing ever to the manliest thing ever. It’s a spectrum. Attitudes will always vary.

But men instinctively know they are capable of self-determination, including sexual freedom. Inhibiting desire is a top concern of the emerging market-state—the civilizational industrial complex, the octolectic.

Controlling man’s sexual impulse is the first step to controlling man. If you want total participation in your commercial enterprise—your employees and consumers—you must regulate sex.

The octolectic doesn’t just restrict sexual freedom. It induces a dissociative state by turning a normal impulse into an alien one—a sign of difference.

Men—all men: straight, gay, Gay™, and in between—are wired into a psychological macro-grid through HQ programming.

“The best way to control a population is to get them asking the wrong questions.”

— [attrib. disputed, but most likely, it was Poolhouse or Basil]

Stop wasting energy worrying if you’re gay, or why—start asking if the question even matters, and if so, why.

The HQ is a part of the WAR ON MEN.

[Always-has-been-astronaut. jpeg]

~companion episode~