The Gay "Germ" Hypothesis


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
If all fetuses start out as female, and certain hormonal stimulation creates "gender", then it is the amount of stimulation that determines whether the fetus becomes "male". My obeservation is that we are already constituted of both male and female contributions from our parents. It is the amount of hormonal input that determines how much femininity or masculinity one has. I always wonder about "immaculate" conception and in most cases I have read, the child is female as there was no y factor contribution. When men have babies where does the child exit? There is no natural way for a man to conceive and birth a child.

Quote from Livestrong

Gender is determined immediately upon fertilization. The 23rd pair of chromosomes establishes the sex of the baby. The mother's egg contains an X chromosome, while the father's sperm carries either another X or a Y chromosome. An XX combination means your baby is female and an XY combination means your baby is male. This means that the baby's gender is determined before it is even considered a fetus.


Jedi Master
I have not read the whole topic yet, but I remembered something posted by Laura a long time ago (if I remember correctly), after watching a video with an abductee saying that she is homosexual. (

Now, in what has become the strawman of our research, we found a disproportionately high number of homosexuals in our sample. One hundred and seventy-four of them expressed homosexual tendencies. That can be broken down into those who were bisexual (23%) and those who had expressed a homosexual preference but who had not engaged in sexual activity for more than five years (29%). Before anyone claims the percentages do not add up, remember that those who said they were bisexual could also be in the group who abstained. And no, we did not investigate to learn the accuracy of their claims. We accepted, at face value, their reporting of their sexual preferences and activities, just as the other abduction researchers have accepted at face value many of the self-reported facts.

Before we proceed, it might be illustrative to discuss how this discovery was made. It wasn’t a question of sitting down to decide to talk about homosexuality, but an outgrowth of the interview process. Russ Estes had asked about the gender of the alien creatures. He was told, by the females, that most of the abductors were male, but that the leaders seemed to be female. In early discussions, as these distinctions were being made, Estes asked the natural follow-up question which revealed the pattern of gender identity. Once the preliminary observation had been made, the question about sexual orientation, as an outgrowth of an attempt to learn the gender of the alien creatures, was added to the survey.

The statistic became important, not because it deals with homosexuality, but because homosexuals are over represented in our abduction sample. Depending on which psychological or sexual study is cited, the representation of homosexuals in the general population is between 2 and 10 percent. This means their representation in our sample is between six and thirty times what it should be. Given that there is no accurate way to identify a homosexual individual by outward appearances, it would seem that an alien race grabbing people at random would end up with a sample that is statistically within the norms of the general population. This is not the case, based on our findings.

Maybe it should be pointed out here that African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians are vastly under represented in the abduction population. Again, you would expect that all racial and ethnic groups would be represented as they appear in the general population, but this doesn’t seem to be the case. Yes, Hopkins, Mack and Jacob all say that the representation of these groups is normal but the individuals in these sub-groups simply do not report their abductions. Of course, if they don’t report them, then we can’t know for certain that they are properly represented but I see no one suggesting that abductions researchers explain this abnormality.
Which makes me wonder: would there be a possible "contamination" because of these interventions?
Edit : Maybe it could also be the sign that there are more abductions? Pure speculation though.

Also, when we read the descriptions of hybrid children, it seems that their gender is hardly visible, and it reminds me a lot of the "current fashion" of feminine males and masculine females.
Last edited:


Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
I've been thinking about how there's an element of LGBT that is wildly acting out and how the trend seems to display the hallmarks of addiction. If the definition of addiction is any compulsive behaviour that harms self and/or others then it seems to fit. If I remember correctly, that's Gabor Mate's definition of addiction.

So thinking along those lines, the control element that seems to have been hooked into is pain and the real or perceived promise of relief through engaging in the behaviour.

Taking that idea a step further, and kind of a birds eye view, the control game seems to go like this - isolate or suppress a segment of a population and subject them to pain - emotional, psychological or physical. Then play into their own need to relieve pain and offer them means of relief, the sense of protection and the liberty to act out. They become addicted and then are causing pain or harm for themselves and others, but they are blind to it because of compulsive nature of the addiction and it will take a big shock or wake up call, if they ever do, for them to see the damage that is being caused.

The most common defence/or attack to prevent the feeling of pain from returning is based in fear or anger. Both of these further narrow focus so that critical information can be missed. The more people that are doing it, the more momentum the movement gains.

Then the cycle is repeated because in the above, another segment of the population is suppressed or being caused harm, and eventually the control system will play the hand that allows that segment to act out, they become addicted and take it too far in the same way that the previous segment of the population did.

This idea isn't really new, but just a take on how it might all work to divide people and pit them against each other by setting up circumstances where people just stomp all over any respect or the rights for others.


FOTCM Member
I've been thinking that perhaps the crux of these postmodern matters such as transgenederism, homosexuality, diversity etc. and why there is such a backlash is quite simple: people are horrified that they are forced to lie, to accept something that is not true. They often don't realize it and since these issues are so politically loaded, it's hard to see this.

For example, transgenderism isn't a problem, as long as you are still allowed to state the obvious: here is a man dressing as a woman. Here is a woman pretending to be a man. Here is a man who, for whatever reason, feels like a woman. But we aren't allowed to say, or even think that: we are forced to think this man feeling like a woman is actually a woman, and vice versa. We are forced to lie, to believe something that is not true.

Similar for homosexuality. Nobody should have a problem with it, but what freaks people out is that you can't say, or even think the obvious: that this is abnormal, and unnatural, in the most basic, straight-forward, descriptive sens of these terms. This also means we are not allowed to say, or think, something like "look at these two men kissing over there, isn't that strange?" So, again, we are forced to lie, to believe unreality, i.e. that homosexuality is the most normal thing in the world.

Same for the diversity push. For example, it's ridiculous to see ads featuring a white dude, an asian woman and a black homosexual happily cooking together or whatever. This may occur in some specific circles of friends in NYC or whatever, but for 99% of the world, this situation does not and will never exist! It is not reality. Same for all these movies where women kick men around, where diversity quotas are filled, where gender characteristics are changed etc. We are forced to believie lies.

Of course, the postmodernists believe that everything is a social construct, and if they just "show" and "tell" us these things all day long, this will "socially reconstruct" reality. But whether some of these ideas such as diversity might even be good or not, it simply doesn't work like that: reality isn't a social construct. You don't change reality that way, at all. You only make it worse. So for example, to get back to the gay issue, by showing homosexuality all the time in the media, in parades etc. (even the innocent kind), you don't magically "socially construct" a reality where homosexuality is accepted and normal. Quite the opposite - you only produce more resentment because people are forced to see and believe something that is not true. You might hope it might be one day, but it is not. It's a lie. So this is just a wrong view of how things work. If you want to change something for the better, you must work with reality, and not delude yourself that you can "socially construct" whatever you wish.

Anyway, it seems to me this is the bottom line, all political, philosophical and moral side-shows aside: people are fed up that they are forced to believe things that are orthogonal to truth. And: all this is based on social constructivism, which is itself a lie.


FOTCM Member
But we aren't allowed to say, or even think that: we are forced to think this man feeling like a woman is actually a woman, and vice versa. We are forced to lie, to believe something that is not true.
It reminds me that I stumbled upon an article describing perimenopause symptoms. And while perimenopause obviusly occures only in females, entire article was sanitized and words, like "women" or "females", were replaced with "person" or "people". It was so strange reading it! Here, take a look:

The pattern of a person's menstrual periods changes during perimenopause. Cycles can become longer or shorter, and sometimes, people may skip periods altogether.
Each person's experience of perimenopause is different, and changes to the menstrual cycle vary between individuals.

When people are approaching menopause, hormonal shifts cause their bodies to ovulate less frequently. When the ovary does not release an egg, the uterus lining does not shed, and the person does not have a period.

The most common shift in the menstrual cycle is that a person begins to have fewer monthly periods.
I checked and saw that other articles on this site did have "women" in them, but for some weird reason there were none in this one. I mean, clearly women are "persons" and "people" too, I just don't think that I ever saw an article worded like this on an exclusively female issue!
Last edited:


Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
@Keit The interesting thing about the word 'person' - here in Australia at least, is that is how men, women and are referred to in Acts and Statutes where it's kind of a legal fiction in the same way as a corporation is - they're typically given the same definition. So that might be another angle on the whole move away from gender pronouns because 'he' and 'she' etc refer to living men women and children. So it's kind of like it's moving the living away from life and into commercial commodities.

So that kind of taps into what Luc was saying - it's a lie, but it's a legal lie!


FOTCM Member
Something interesting on this subject.
When we know that almost everything is contaminated with these chemicals, maybe some of them are gay just because their bodies are poisoned with this chemical. This can also be a part of the problem with this gender fluidity. Complete physical and mental intoxication.
Physical by all these chemicals and mental by all these gay movements and gender fluidity brainwashing campaigns.

The herbicide atrazine is one of the most commonly applied pesticides in the world. As a result, atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide contaminant of ground, surface, and drinking water. Atrazine is also a potent endocrine disruptor that is active at low, ecologically relevant concentrations. Previous studies showed that atrazine adversely affects amphibian larval development. The present study demonstrates the reproductive consequences of atrazine exposure in adult amphibians. Atrazine-exposed males were both demasculinized (chemically castrated) and completely feminized as adults. Ten percent of the exposed genetic males developed into functional females that copulated with unexposed males and produced viable eggs. Atrazine-exposed males suffered from depressed testosterone, decreased breeding gland size, demasculinized/feminized laryngeal development, suppressed mating behavior, reduced spermatogenesis, and decreased fertility. These data are consistent with the effects of atrazine observed in other vertebrate classes. The present findings exemplify the role that atrazine and other endocrine-disrupting pesticides likely play in global amphibian declines.
All of the control animals reared to sexual maturity (n = 40) were males, on the basis of external morphology, whereas only 90% of the atrazine-treated animals (36 of 40) appeared male at sexual maturity (on the basis of the presence of keratinized nuptial pads on the forearms and the absence of cloacal labia). The other 10% of atrazine-exposed animals (n = 4) lacked visible nuptial pads on the forearms and had protruding cloacal labia, typical of females (Fig. 1). Upon dissection of two of the apparent females and laparotomy in another two, we confirmed that animals with cloacal labia were indeed females from the present study, on the basis of the presence of ovaries (Fig. 1F). To date, two atrazine-induced females have been maintained, mated with control males (Fig. 1G), and produced viable eggs (Fig. 1H). The resulting larvae were all male when raised to metamorphosis and sampled (n = 100), confirming that atrazine-induced females were, in fact, chromosomal males. Furthermore, atrazine-induced females lacked the DM-W further confirming that these atrazine-induced females were indeed chromosomal males (Fig. 2). These ZZ females expressed gonadal aromatase, as did true ZW females (n = 4, from our stock colony), but ZZ males (n = 8, control or treated) did not (Fig. 2).


Morphologic evidence.
Atrazine-exposed males had reduced plasma testosterone levels, relative to control males (ANOVA: F = 6.647, df = 1, P < 0.025) when examined 2 years after metamorphosis. Consistent with diminished testosterone levels, atrazine-exposed males had a decrease in testosterone-dependent morphologies, as described below.

Nuptial pads and breeding glands.
The nuptial pads of control males were noticeably darker than in atrazine-exposed males (Fig. 3 A and B). Although color was not quantified, histologic analysis revealed that the size of the dermal breeding glands (determined by the cross-sectional area of the largest breeding gland) was reduced in atrazine-treated males (ANOVA: F = 11.589, df = 1, P < 0.005; Fig. 3 C–E). This effect was specific to the testosterone-dependent breeding glands (35), because the size of mucous glands and serous (poison) glands from the same histologic sections were not affected by atrazine (P > 0.05). Other features of the breeding gland that were examined were not significantly different between treatments (P > 0.05).

Behavioral evidence.

Mating choice studies.

In experiments in which control males and atrazine-treated males competed for females, control males out-competed atrazine males (achieved amplexus) in three out of four trials examined, and only two atrazine-treated males (in a single trial) obtained amplexus
Previous studies showed that atrazine demasculinizes (chemically castrates) and feminizes exposed amphibian larvae, resulting in hermaphrodites (8, 10) or males with testicular oocytes (7, 9) at metamorphosis.
Perhaps the most dramatic finding here is that hermaphroditism observed at metamorphosis in animals exposed to atrazine (6, 10) can ultimately result in complete feminization. The complete feminization of males exposed to atrazine is consistent with two previous studies that showed that atrazine feminizes zebra fish (Danio rerio) (5) and Xenopus laevis (39) (Fig. 6) and a more recent study that showed that atrazine exposure feminizes leopard frogs, Rana pipiens (40). These previous reports based their findings on shifts in the sex ratio, however; our study showed that atrazine-induced females are indeed genetic males. Furthermore, we showed that feminization is persistent and complete, resulting in reproductively functional females capable of producing viable eggs. Together, the present data and these three similar reports (5, 39, 40) suggest that sex-reversal by atrazine (complete feminization of genetic males) is not a species-specific effect but rather one that occurs across nonamniote vertebrate classes.


Jedi Master
I just catch up with this very interesting and educative topic.

When it comes to the "gay germ" hypothesis, it seems to me it is a little bit naive. You simply can't explain such a complex matter with so oversimplified terms. Maybe there is some bug involved, but I think is essential to include other factors such as genetic, carma, programming or "window of imprinting".

In the same way, I'm not so sure that there is some hard-wired aversion toward gay people specifically. At least I didn't felt it. It seems to me that people generally have an inborn aversion to everything that is foreign, everything that goes beyond their daily routine.
But I had noticed that heterosexual men have an aversion when they see another man with too many female traits. And I'm sure at that point they don't "imagine" two men kissing, (the study with the worms is pointless), no, they usually see a weak man, who is a "sissy" and "deserves" to be dominated. At least that is the core reaction of hetero men. The inclination toward dominance is an inborn and quite normal and necessary, for our environment, occurrence in heterosexual men. This can be seen in children, or teenagers, who do not have some "disgust" when they see feminine traits in other boys, but immediately feel "stronger" and feels that they have a right to dominate feminized boys. I think it is about domination and self confidence, not some super-deep, subconscious meaning of things.

On the other hand, there may be an inborn aversion to gay people after all. This would explain why I have such strong aversion toward heterosexual men since my childhood. When I was younger, I even had the impression that men were "damaged" in some way and that they literally lack an entire "sphere of emotions and thinking". And the more they are in the male "macho" expression - the more I feel disgusted. Literally. Maybe my aversion was just a consequence of the aversion toward me. I don't know, really, because I didn't felt any aversion toward me.

It kind of boggles my mind that these issues are hanging fire and gays aren't even concerned about them, apparently; or few of them, at any rate.

If you are born - or become - somehow "out of the majority natural order of things", it seems to me that it should drive you to figure out and understand why instead of trying to create what really amount to excuses or ridiculous justifications.

It took me 65 years to find out about the mutation I carry and all during those years, most of my life, I was searching for the reason and experimenting with anything and everything that came to hand that might give me some relief. And of course, a whole lot of that searching resulted in thousands of pages of material made available to all others, some of it very helpful to many people.

We aren't talking about exactly the same thing here, because, as it happens, I can deal with the mutation with certain dietary practices and application of selected therapies. It's not a perfect solution, but it works well enough to keep me up and running.

But if I was gay, like really hard core "no other way", I would sure want to know why and what effect it might have on my spiritual development because I damn sure wouldn't want to do such a life over again. And that means I'd be seriously picky about what ideas I adopted as explanations. Geeze, if you've been messed with from the get-go, wouldn't you think that the General Law and its operatives have a vested interest in keeping you in 3D?

You can't stop being gay, but you can sure work on trying to figure out why and learning everything you can get hold of about anything that might even remotely relate to it so that you can also figure out how to optimize spiritual growth.
That question "why" is something I've thought about a lot since I was a teenager. It was obvious to me that sexual aspect is not normal, but I always believed there is some spiritual aspect of it. It seems to me that homosexual preferences are influencing too many factors in someone's life to be considered as a mistake, but maybe I'm wrong. I just always tried to find at least some benefits, even when that inclination toward same sex is all wrong. I think that DCM does not "forget" anything, even when someone is "damaged" for something, on the other hand get something else.

From my experience, observing myself as well as other people, hetero and homosexuals, it seems to me there are significant opportunities for 'spiritual growth' after all. For example, struggle and suffering during growing up in a world which is totally different from one's feelings is great opportunity for better understanding of other people and oneself, which is necessary for navigating through the life. A wise gay man will strive to fit in his surroundings as much as possible without revealing his sexuality, and cannot afford too many mechanical reactions of oneself. In order to achieve this, it is necessary for one to maximize external consideration. Sometimes you even need to change your behavior completely if you want to achieve that. This is not possible without careful observation of yourself and other people, and understanding of patterns in which people behave. That sounds like a good opportunity for the Work to me.

Or another example. I think that gay people really have both feminine and masculine traits/emotions in their personality. This actually gives them the potential for better understanding of both men and women, or people in general. And it seems to me that hetero people have fewer opportunities for doing so. But for this potential to be harnessed, you must first understand yourself and understand which parts of you are male and which are female, or essentially to know your "machine". In practice, this means that a gay man could bring "male and female energies" closer to balance within himself, which is something that is needed in our current reality. Of course, I'm not really sure this is applicable to all gay people, I'm just talking from my experience.

It is interesting that all of these potential benefits are "taken away" by gay pride movement.

On the other hand, if there is some original design which includes homosexuality, it maybe has something to do with that potential for "balance" within one's being. More "balanced state" of being actually means more "creative inputs". Maybe being a gay hypothetically means potential for a "good receiver"? Maybe that was intention with original design, if any such existed. In that case, maybe that "state of being" was intended for a "role of shaman", like some "bridge" between polarized materiality and more balanced "spiritual world", and homosexuality was just material side effect of it. In that sense, I don't think that gay people back then, in ancient times, had sexual relations at all, they must have been in celibacy. Maybe such people are actually genetic or "normal" homosexuals, but I'm guessing that such "normal" homosexuality doesn't exist anymore.

Today, like almost all aspects of human beings, this too is corrupted and misused, and now serves a totally different purpose than intendid, a purpose that is purely materialistic without any spirituality, and the "gay pride movement" is just final materialization of these principles.

Of course, all of this is hypothetical, and it is very possible that has nothing to do with the truth.


FOTCM Member

By Timcast

Natural Blaze Editor’s Note: An old “conspiracy theory” about chemicals in food and water having the ability to affect one’s hormones is gaining much more evidence to back it up.

Tim Pool covers a recently updated article that adds more information about the higher levels of chemicals like BPA that can cause infertility, disrupt hormones, disrupt the production of eggs and sperm and potentially cause cancer.

Washington State University has devised a way to directly test the level of human exposure to chemicals in food and water, and they have found an alarming 44 times the amount than previously believed.

Still just a conspiracy theory?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Barely less oil, barely less calories, inferior proteins, and:
“The impossible whopper has 44 mg of estrogen and the whopper has 2.5 ng of estrogen,” wrote Stangle. “That means an impossible whopper has 18 million times as much estrogen as a regular whopper.”

He went on to compare the level of estrogen in the Impossible Burger to soy milk, writing that eating four of the vegetable burgers daily would result in a human male growing breasts:
Just six glasses of soy milk per day has enough estrogen to grow boobs on a male. That’s the equivalent of eating four impossible whoppers per day. You would have to eat 880 pounds of beef from an implanted steer to equal the amount of estrogen in one birth control pill.


FOTCM Member
“The impossible whopper has 44 mg of estrogen and the whopper has 2.5 ng of estrogen,” wrote Stangle. “That means an impossible whopper has 18 million times as much estrogen as a regular whopper.”

Wow! That gives Kissinger's (I think it was him), "If you control the food, you control the people." statement a whole new meaning!


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
More backlash: "The country generally is experiencing a shift in consciousness of young people, who have grown disillusioned with the system’s unwillingness to handle reactionaries like Hubbard and Sarkar. The #metoo movement, was only a brief glimpse at what is to come, when women from the most oppressed strata of US society unite and take matters into their own hands they can accomplish anything."

Thomas K. Hubbard, a known misogynist and advocate for pedophilia, is a classics professor at UT who teaches classes like “Homosexuality in Ancient Greece & Rome,” which normalize and promote sexual relationships between adult men and pre-pubescent boys. On Monday night, a group of mainly women students from the University of Texas at Austin (UT) and their supporters held a demonstration against Hubbard at his home. Protesters blocked his driveway with a large banner that read “Professor Thomas Hubbard: Pedophile”

Hubbard, who had been paranoid for weeks about being the next to fall prey to the militant student organizers, reportedly locking the doors to his classrooms, had the police show up within five minutes of the women banging on his door yelling, “Hubbard Hubbard you can’t hide, we know you’re a pedophile.” The women persisted with their action despite four police cars filled with officers showing up to protect him.

Hubbard couldn’t handle more than twenty minutes in his home of being subjected to the loud protest before he sought a police escort to his car to escape. He needed multiple officers to get away from the wrath of the students as he ducked into his car in fear. One student giving a speech said, “Pedophilia apologists like you deserve to be confronted and to feel afraid! We will make you scared to teach, scared to leave your home, scared to even exist in the City of Austin!” One young women leading the home demonstration was heard saying, “We know UT won’t do anything and we don’t care because we can take care of you ourselves!”

This second action by “Fire the Abusers” came after a successful action against Sahotra Sarkar earlier this month where they occupied Sarkar’s classroom and drove him out. Fire the Abusers have only increased in militancy with this new action, contrasting with other organizations who are still holding pliant and unfruitful sit ins. The international support and anger of women around the world who cheered on the demonstration against Sarkar substantiate the need for direct action.

Women are not falling for anymore of the administration’s duplicities by getting sucked into false promises of meetings, town halls, and transparency. UT enacting new policies or reforms promises nothing to women. They know these professors are predators and have deliberately protected them. UT is a business and will continue to protect its revenue streams at all costs, including its students and the general public

The majority of women students however, are not asking nicely or relying on the administration for defense, they are uniting together around militant campaigns, bombarding the classrooms and homes of predatory men in positions of power.
Full article here:
Top Bottom