Sex and Deviance

by Guillaume Faye

Proselytising the Gay Religion

  Thus we have gone from dissimulation to a kind of homosexual proselytism. It is as if male homosexuality had become a kind of religion, an enlarged sect with its rituals, ceremonials, ideology, media, and social network. Like imams, the priests of the gay cult are protected by law from being mocked or otherwise attacked.

  Like with any religion, the goal is to win over disciples. The aim, obviously, is to bring as many young heterosexuals as possible into the homosexual clan, for the more the hunting grounds are extended, the greater the number of one’s potential partners. Hence we have the courses promoted within the national education system (which is neither national nor educational) for the purpose of convincing adolescents that homosexuality is not pathological. The real objective, of course, is not tolerance at all, but the recruitment of new members; it is time to say so out loud....

  Homosexuality is not merely a sexual option, but involves a parody of culture — gay culture — which incessantly tries to win new audiences of impressionable young persons. The homosexual community is said to have its own special culture. It claims to be initiated into a new, superior, and esoteric sensibility that others do not possess, one which has been introduced to experiences and sensations of which poor heterosexuals haven’t the faintest inkling. The representation of heterosexuals as bovine yokels and primitives is implicit in the phraseology and clichés employed by gay magazines and websites.

  Current homosexual discourse manifests paranoia and persecution mania. In a style very similar to that of certain ethnic and religious groups, homosexuals are at core bored with no longer being persecuted; it bothers them that their demands have succeeded beyond all expectation. They enjoy the comfort of the position of victims of persecution, and they are furious that they are no longer attacked, that people like them and, worse, that most people are indifferent to them. The homosexual is an autistic who loves to be talked about, who loves his special status as a victim. This is why, as soon as an obscure provincial Catholic deputy declared that homosexuality is an inferior disposition to that of heterosexuality when it comes to the future of the race, the homosexual lobby was sure to capitalise on this attack by having the deputy publicly condemned. The dominant homosexual is comforted by the idea that he is indeed still persecuted, even if he is the one persecuting others and seeing that they are punished. In this respect his attitude is very similar to that of Islamists.

  Psychopathology and Fraud of the Male Homosexual Couple

  While male homosexuals are demanding and indeed winning the right to marry, o adopt children, and to start a family, the whole process is based on a lie — on mimicry and hypocrisy. They want to ape heterosexuals not because they desire ‘the right to love and home’, but in order to obtain fiscal, social, and proprietary rights. The most comical part (and the proof of their hypocrisy) is that ever since the male and female homosexual movements got into bed with Leftism and feminism, they have not had words harsh enough to describe the ‘petty-bourgeois couple’ (considered a sort of repression and corniness) or the family and marriage, to which they prefer concubinage. But look at them now, wanting to emulate precisely the petty-bourgeois model they once spoke of so disparagingly. Civil unions are no longer enough for them. These antics should not fool anyone, but alas, they fool most people.

  When Thierry Le Luron[10] (who was a homosexual and died from it, though he did not advertise it) and Coluche,[11] as a heterosexual aped a homosexual marriage to get a laugh out of the gallery, no one took any issue with such mockery of homosexual couples.[12] No one imagined that one day homosexual marriage would no longer be a gag but a reality taken very seriously. Today, those sketches by Luron and Coluche would be considered politically incorrect; they would receive no laughter from the cultural elites, rather, they would be subjected to careful editing and censored when rebroadcast. The ideology we are surrounded by is pseudo-festive and pseudo-libertarian, but in fact rigid, dogmatic, authoritarian, and solemnly humourless.

  But in reality it is known (and homosexuals themselves know it perfectly well) that there is nothing more unstable and faithless than a homosexual couple. (This remark is much less valid for lesbian couples, who can experience a lasting and even monogamous relationship.) By definition, homosexuality presupposes a multitude of partners, and often briefness of the relationship, which is often even with total strangers. They are superficial, epidemic, purely orgasmic, and without much in the way of preliminaries. The baroque effeminate refinement displayed by the homosexual in his daily life or works does not exist in his sexual practices — quite the contrary. This is striking, for psychologically, homosexuality is based almost entirely on the libido and the immediate desire to copulate, and not on romantic sentiment or the need to form a long-standing relationship. It is an impulse. Obviously there exist exceptions: the relationship of Yves Saint-Laurent and Pierre Bergé is one such example which has been celebrated in the media to the point that it has become almost iconic.

  Wanting to bring the male homosexual couple and homosexual marriage into the same logical schema as that of the heterosexual couple is not only an ideological farce, but marks a profound misunderstanding of homosexuality, especially in its male variety. Homosexuals will never be able to emulate the heterosexual couple as the latter is not primarily based on the libido, but on emotional attachment, procreation, and on the nurturing of offspring.

  By demanding the right to adopt children as well as to marry, male homosexuals are trying to ape heterosexual couples, and this is quite simply pathetic — more so when it comes at the very time when the heterosexual couple is disintegrating! What an abyss of morbidity. The proof that they regret not being heterosexual, not being normal, lies in their suppressing their own abnormality complex and transfiguring it into a supernormality. Homosexual marriage and parenthood thus function as simulacra[13] of heterosexual marriage. They regret not being able to marry a woman and to procreate, so they construct a dream: homosexual marriage with the adoption of children. (By a similar psychopathological process, radical lesbian feminists regret not having been born men; I will discuss this further on.)

  The homosexual is generally a solitary being, one who is emotionally impoverished and whose primary and hypertrophic sexuality demands a constant change of partners. This primal, copulatory, intense sexuality involving many temporary lovers obviously renders impossible, indeed ridiculous, the patterning of male homosexuality and the normal couple. The homosexual knows only a zigzagging emotional life and never fundamentally satisfies his sexuality, which is a constant headlong rush, an unbridled pursuit of sensations. Satisfaction being problematic, the homosexual is always looking out for new experiences, ones ever more salacious — hence their common drift toward seriously pathological practices.

  * * *

  We are insufficiently aware to what extent the very idea of homosexual marriage (which emerged in a Western mindset that had already been bludgeoned by anti-values amid sugary talk of ‘rights’) is novel, though one suspects that it is unprecedented in the entire history of humanity. This notion (which had appeared to be only a provocative gag just thirty years ago) is perceived by all mindsets in all societies as a veritable and revolting rape of nature. Well-balanced minds that tolerate homosexual practices in the private sphere, who allow homosexuals to discreetly cohabit within their own four walls, who reject all social discrimination against homosexuals nevertheless consider the idea of homosexual marriage to be pure and simple madness: all the more so when it is an attempts to mimic heterosexual marriage. It is seen as a servile imitation, a ridiculous carbon copy.

  In any case, the whole thing amounts to a denial and devaluation of marriage, depriving the union of husband and wife of all legitimate distinction when in fact it is the keystone of our society’s reproduction and survival. Raving egalitarianism, confusion of values, mental pathology: these things preside over the idea of the homosexual married coup
le.

  Indeed, one might ask whether, beneath the demand for homosexual marriage (and its pseudo-form, the civil union), there is not an unavowed and perverse need to undermine the heterosexual couple by imitating it; by presenting it as ‘one possibility among others’ and no longer as a norm. Across all continents, no established religion, whether monotheistic or pagan, has ever imagined such an aberration; and they can only consider the homosexual marriage that is spreading today in the West as a sign of civilisational collapse. Even the cultures that have displayed the greatest degree of tolerance for male homosexuality (mostly military cultures like ancient Greece or Gaul) could not stand the idea of bachelorhood and even less so the idea of two men or two women married to each other. A crazy idea which never occurred to anyone. We are faced here with an inversion of values: those who oppose homosexual marriage are presented as extremists, while the extremists, lunatics, and madmen are those who are demanding it. A comic gag has become reality, as in an insane asylum like that in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

  The very idea of homosexual marriage is not at all a demand for an egalitarian right, for the partisans of gay marriage are hypocrites who know perfectly well that it cannot work. It is simply another thinly-disguised means of destroying the traditional European families.

  * * *

  All this being said, gay marriage, as serious a symptom as it is, is not the worst that could happen to us. This phenomenon only affects a minority and does not threaten our genetic patrimony. It is unlikely that gays who get married will have offspring anyway. Cases where a homosexual couple would be authorised to have a child via surrogacy will likely be rare. Homosexual unions will always remain a marginal phenomenon with few demographic effects, practically none of which will have any influence on the biological composition of Europeans. Moreover, as is the case with everything that is against nature, the homosexual couple does not last. Gay marriage only poses a problem because it is part of an ideological (not biological) dissolution of the natural order.

  In fact, homosexual couples (even those that are married) are insignificant in relation to the catastrophe that is mixed-race heterosexual couples, especially in cases when the woman is White. The reason is that in these cases, the door is left open to irreversible mixture, that is to say, an irreversible alteration of our genetic patrimony. Rather than concerning ourselves with fighting legalised homosexual unions, it is more urgent to focus our efforts on combating interracial unions.

  The biggest danger is the capture of White women by extra-European foreigners, or what might be called uterus theft. Every such case equals the elimination of another reproducer from the White gene pool, as I shall explain in another chapter. This type of mixture is, of course, much more serious than the instances in which a White man impregnates a non-European woman.

  In short, we must repeat to traditionalists — especially Catholics — that the ideology of race-mixing (even ‘between Christians’) and the constant media defence of race-mixing couples inculcated by our bien pensants is much more dangerous than the prospect of homosexual marriage, the latter of which will have no biological consequences. Biology counts for more than ideology.

  The Psychology of Homosexuality

  Homosexuals both male and female have much less difficulty finding partners than heterosexuals do. How can this paradox be explained? One gets the impression that homosexuals of both sexes are much more sexualised than heterosexuals, and that they have more frequent sexual relations. Why is this?

  The first reason is that homosexuals are highly sexualised and feel a powerful and constant need for relations with those of their sort. They are incapable of self-discipline and abstinence, much like children who cannot keep their hands out of the cookie jar. The need for immediate sensuality at any price renders them superficial, or at least incapable of introspection. The homosexual is not comfortable with himself. He needs constant noise, celebration, chattering, excitement, and sensation. He is incapable of silence, of reflection, and of solitude.

  A second reason lies in the ephemeral, festive, and compulsive nature of homosexual relations (not to speak pejoratively). Their eroticism is in fact cut off from nature, that is, from reproduction; it is gratuitous, passing, and immediate — quite like masturbation. The homosexual simulates an emotional relation with his partner while it is in reality only libidinal, like a heterosexual with a prostitute. A heterosexual relation involves an unconscious bond, so it is more difficult to construct than to destroy. Genetically, sexual relations between man and woman are regulated by a certain number of barriers. There is an investment which belongs to the order of nature, whether one likes this term or not.

  Of course, there are heterosexual hedonists who seek sexual ‘conquests’ and collect mistresses, and who find the idea of sexual fidelity unbearable. But apart from pathological exceptions, this ‘predatory’ sexuality is not obsessive; they are able to endure dry spells.

  * * *

  Homosexual relationships (particularly male ones) often form quickly and easily, but they also quickly fall apart. The pace is often frantic. Heterosexual cruising (or ‘seduction’) is always more difficult than it is for homosexuals, for females tend to be much less sexually impulsive than are males (either homo- or heterosexual) for genetic reasons.

  On the other hand, the erotic appetite of homosexuals of both sexes seems to be stronger than that of heterosexuals. Male homosexual couples constantly cheat on one another and are in a permanent state of dissatisfaction. The reason for homosexuals’ over-sexualisation, a fact noticed by all sexologists, has not been explained.

  Irrespective of the reasons, homosexuals are sexually (and emotionally) anxious, be they man or woman. The homosexual cannot stand emotional solitude, nor even periods of solitude, regardless of how temporary, for he is not autonomous, he is incapable of finding the resources within himself to be able to bear such things. Without the excitement of frequent sexual encounters, he sinks into boredom and then depression. Gays are big consumers of anti-depressants. Unsuited to continence, he is also unsuited to meditation. His sexuality mirrors his general behaviour: impulsive and with a need for instant gratification.

  A homosexual relationship generally leads to conflict between the parties. Being of the same sex generates competitive friction, for there is no complementarity and thus no possibility of sharing and negotiation between two of the same sex as occurs between a man and a woman. The homosexual union, involving beings of the same polarity, suppresses reciprocity and concord with a sort of energetic excess. There is not enough difference for reciprocity to occur, so there is no harmony and conflict is always only beneath the surface. I am not qualified to say whether male homosexuality (etymologically, ‘sex with the same’; homos, in Greek) is a form of nervous schizophrenia, but it is certain that the intimate link between two male polarities — entirely contrary to natural programming — is at once the result and the cause of psychological disturbances.

  The Real Aim of the Fight against Homophobia

  The fight against homophobia is in reality nothing more than propaganda in favour of homosexuality. It is not a matter of any neutral position (perfectly normal and legitimate) aiming simply to protect homosexuals from the vindictiveness of heterosexuals, but a campaign to promote homosexuality, especially to minors.

  A number of associations obviously run by homosexuals are behind the ‘preaching of the good news’ to pupils in French secondary schools , that is, to spread the idea that homosexuality is perfectly normal and perhaps even superior (in terms of individual satisfaction and fulfillment) to heterosexuality. They begin with tales of increasing persecution, with anecdotes featuring instances of mockery, insults, homophobic graffiti, and physical attacks. (They forget to mention that insofar as this phenomenon can be observed, it is only because of the increasing proportion of Muslims in our educational establishments, as I shall explain below.)


  Among associations promoting tolerance toward homosexuality to minors (in reality, inciting them towards it), we find, for example, Gay Colors — a lobby based in Metz which, with the government’s complicity, invades our schools to preach its message (beg pardon, to ‘hold conferences’). The theme is always ‘against sexual discrimination’ with one of the ideological leitmotifs being that ‘homosexuality is not a sickness; homophobia is’. School-age homosexuals are incited to ‘come out’ in public in order to break the taboo of homosexuality. There is no difference between dating a girl and dating one of one’s male classmates. The Gay Colors association want to see ‘gays come out of the ghetto’. They have been out for a long time already! Like all other homosexual associations in France, this one receives subsidies from local government and from the media; the columns of The Lorrain Republican newspaper are largely open to them.

  Homosexual lobbies have long been working on the state, benefitting now from huge subsidies. During the school year 2008–9, the public schools instigated a grand program based upon ‘the struggle against violence and discrimination at school’. Is this a matter of struggling against the violence in which victims are, for the most part, indigenous French students and teachers, while the attackers are African? Of course not. Is it a matter of fighting, above all, the countless acts of mockery and aggression girls suffer from the same populations? Wrong again. Adolescents who have been attacked hardly matter. The plan is to ‘struggle against violence and discrimination at school, principally homophobia’. The theme of the Gay Pride parade of June 2008 was ‘education’, with the following clarification: ‘Attract citizens’ attention to the major role that school and the entire educational process can play in establishing respect and fighting intolerance.’