A society such as ours, which abolishes the natural law in its discourse and its legal principles, is built upon sand and condemns itself to speedy collapse. And it is always very quickly that one notices the party is over.
On several occasions during prime time, France Télévision has broadcast series containing scenes suggestive of male homosexual copulation against the background of a rosy romantic script (to make the pill easier to swallow) — and this with a simple, hypocritical warning: ‘not advised for those under twelve’. The message is: these two men love each other; it is exactly the same as with a man and a woman. This sort of production which trivialises male-on-male fornication is the work of the homosexual lobby accomplishing its self-promotion and proselytism. The ideology being beaten into young heads is clear: homosexuality, like miscegenation, is (though perhaps not yet an obligation) a good choice for success within the neo-totalitarian system.
The Delirium of Homoparentality
This neologism refers to a) the possibility of homosexual couples, male or female, adopting children, or b) the possibility of a lesbian couple to be considered the legal parents of a child to which one of them has given birth, possibly by artificial conception without any sexual relations with a man. Permission for homosexual couples to adopt children has been granted in Spain, Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland, and Germany, with these last two only authorising the adoption of a child of a former same-sex partner. Undoubtedly France, Italy, Switzerland, and others will follow. In November 2009, a court in Besançon granted a female schoolteacher who lives with a woman the right to welcome a child into the household.
The adoption and raising of children by homosexual couples is not a serious problem per se as regards extent, for it can only concern a very limited number of persons and cases, making this infinitely less dangerous than race-mixing. Yet it reveals an alarming collective mental disturbance. The very idea that a child could no longer have a father and mother but — hey, why not? — two daddies or two mummies is pathological, and such a pathology is approved by European institutions whose elites have lost their way.
The question is not whether children raised by a homosexual couple will be more or less happy than others. In any case, they will not be very numerous. The question is one of principle: to accept the legality of the homosexual adoption is to cross a red line. It is to accept in principio the sabotaging of the order of family and lineage. It is to go even further in the ‘reconstituting’ of the already disordered family.
The defenders of such a measure claim that many children could be much happier with a united homosexual couple than with a broken heterosexual couple. The two points which must be raised are, first, that homosexual couples of both sexes are highly volatile and inconstant; and second, that the fate of children, individually speaking, does not count for much in relation to principles. The question of ‘children’s happiness’ is of no importance when compared to the overall performance of a civilisation. Better (in my opinion)It is better, in my opinion, to have unhappy children from a broken home, or orphans, or children produced artificially through biotechnology in research centres, than to have children raised by homosexual couples.
Homophobia among ‘Youths’
The angelic Left is caught between the hammer and the anvil, between reality and its dreams. Nor do anti-racist feminists know which way to turn when confronted with the machismo and violence against women practiced by ‘the multicultural youth’. Similarly, both progressives and militant anti-homophobes attempt to disguise the true source of the homophobia that is making headway in schools — the ‘faggot hunt’, as it is called. It is certainly distressing that the young homophobes also happen to be the untouchable ‘youth of immigrant background’. Anti-racism and the struggle against homophobia are clashing unbearably within the little bird-brains of all these Leftists.
In secondary schools, lectures are held to try to eradicate homophobia among ‘the young’ by means of confounding arguments.
Parisien Dimanche (26 September 2010) reviewed a talk given by a medical sexologist to a high school in the Strasbourg area. This man — whose young audience must have taken him for a madman — proffered the hollow and false argument of the absolute normality of homosexuality in relation to heterosexuality. The pseudo-specialist explained, harping on dogma, that: ‘homosexuality is just as normal as having blue eyes, for that is also true of one person out of seven-to-ten’. This is a sophistry supported by a lie, since male homosexuality accounts for less than 5 percent of the population. The impostor continued: ‘and besides, those who talk about “fags” are repressed homosexuals’. The journalist noted the humorous reaction of a student to these enormities: ‘One stubborn fellow got excited and said: “if you don’t like homos, then you’re a homo? Well, in that case, Sir, I know an awful lot of homos in this room.” The boys strutted and the girls cackled.’
Without being aware of it, by accusing homophobes of being ‘repressed homosexuals’, the so-called sexologist committed a serious mistake: if people repress their homosexuality by disguising it as homophobia, it can only be because homosexuality is not as natural as it is said to be. For no one represses what is normal and felt to be so. But the perverse idea that is being put forward is that, at bottom, the heterosexual is one who represses his homosexuality and, at bottom, everyone is naturally bisexual.
Official lectures of this sort for high school students are not just aimed at combating the homophobia of Muslim boys — which is well-evidenced within the State education system (most notably by cases of increasing violence against ‘fags’ or those supposed to be such) — but also, surreptitiously, to proselytise in favour of homosexuality by breaking the psychological and social barriers which are exceptionally fragile at that age.
In the 1960s, when Muslim immigration was economically negligible, no one noticed any aggression against homosexuals while their legal, social, and moral status was inferior. Today, with their status being on par with — indeed, privileged over — that of heterosexuals, we are witnessing a rise in homophobia among ‘youths’ unaffected by human rights ideology, but who instead propagate Islamic modes of thought.
Gender Theory: The Latest Whim of Homosexualist and Feminist Ideology
‘Gender’, in the French language, refers to the distinction between masculine and feminine nouns and adjectives: le soleil, la lune; a man is beau, a woman is belle, etc. Gender theory, now very fashionable, consists in affirming that differences between men and women do not really exist, and certainly that they do not determine sexuality. The central point of the doctrine is that everyone is born bisexual, and that ‘sexual orientation’ is only determined by society. The goal of gender theory (which is, obviously, a scientific fraud) is to try to prove that homosexuality, especially male homosexuality, is perfectly normal and that heterosexuality is only the result of social conditioning.
This theory was already present in the elucubrations of Simone de Beauvoir (a pseudo-philosopher and a pseudo-feminist who unconsciously adopted a macho posture, wanting to transform women into men) in The Second Sex, writing that: ‘One is not born a woman; one becomes a woman.’ Gender theory is directly descended from the mad Soviet theses of Lysenko[18] (who is notable for the ideas of the denial of biological programming and the priority of the social environment, to name but two) as well as from the Left-wing American behaviourism so admired by Parisian intellectuals.
Gender theory is of American origin (‘gender studies’) and has been defended by the homosexual and feminist lobbies crusading against ‘mandatory heterosexuality’ since it first appeared in the 1970s. Such is one example of the asininity it offers up: dolls and plush toys for little girls serve to condition them towards motherhood — motherhood, of course, being bad.[19] The American authors of this theory have been influenced by the Left-wing French ‘philosophers’ Deleuze, Foucault, and De
rrida, of whom none had the least anthropological or biological knowledge. One of the principal champions of the theory in the United States is Judith Butler, author of Gender Trouble (1990), which denounces the domination of the heterosexual model (that is, the natural norm) and ‘phallogocentrism’. According to her, people cannot be divided into heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals, since ‘genders’ can change over the course of one’s life.
Michel Foucault was also one of the fathers of gender theory. A court intellectual and homosexual (he died of AIDS) entirely ignorant of biology and anthropology, Foucault holds forth in his Sayings and Writings on the — according to him — false distinction between man and woman. Above all, he devoted himself to a critique of heterosexuality for the benefit of homosexuality (though he was preaching to his choir) which would ‘allow for the reopening of relational and affective virtualities’, as he explains in wooden philosophese.[20] For Foucault, who sought to legitimise his pathology, he and those like him are normal, while heterosexuals are abnormal since the sexes do not exist and are only ‘virtual’.
This is an old refrain taken up today by the homosexual lobby, whose power of intimidation is impressive not only because they are a part of the air we breathe, but because they have anchored themselves (via entryism, cooptation, and so on) in the media, the national education system, and among political personnel.
But the fashionable ideologue and grand priestess of gender theory is Monique Wittig (author of The Straight Mind), the ‘radical lesbian’ who refused to be a ‘woman’ and pretended not to have a vagina — which proves, as I have said elsewhere, that radical feminism is a rejection of femininity, a frustrated desire for masculinity, a kind of inverted machismo. For that passionflower, the difference between a man and a woman is a matter of ‘social gender’ without any relation to ‘sexual gender’. Human behaviour can only be cultural, influenced by ‘oppression’ — an old Leftist-Marxist fancy.
The biological difference between the sexes is denied and has no ‘anthropological impact’, as if human beings were asexual angels free of the laws of nature. In fact, for gender theory, the delusions of which are related to the worst dogmas of religion (and of Marxism), heterosexuality is not natural but the by-product of oppressive cultural normativity. Humanity is conceived as hermaphroditic and asexual, but alas, the male dominates. Yet there is no explanation as to why, and this is strikingly contradictory. Monique Wittig writes, in the obscurantist jargon typical of intellectuals: ‘The categories “man” and “woman” must be destroyed politically, philosophically, and symbolically. There is no such thing as sex; oppression creates sex and not the other way around.’[21] In the same vein, the pseudo-philosopher Judith Butler jabbers (in Gender Trouble) that sex does not exist, that one can choose one’s own sex, and that ‘gender constitutes a critique of Western modes of representation and of the metaphysics of substance which structures the very idea of the subject.’ Fashionable inanity, always decadent, is paired with a hollow, pseudo-learned Diafoirian[22] language, the language of pedants.
* * *
Well, lo and behold! This scientific aberration, this delirium of Leftist intellectual activists with a Marxist mentality, now must taught in the French national education system. This is an extremely serious matter. It makes one think of Lysenkoism, which was obligatorily taught in the Soviet system. (In the United States, gender theory is taught as an elective in the universities.) It is part of the program not only in the Paris Institute of Political Science, but also, as of Autumn 2011, in secondary schools in the eleventh grade. ‘Researchers’ at the French National Center for Scientific Research are being paid to develop and refine it. The American gender studies which fascinate French intellectuals to the point that they are compelled to insert it into their national education system — the den of obscurantist Paleo-Marxists — dies in the face of biology, especially the heterogametic X and Y chromosome system. This sexual denialism is obviously related to Christian and Muslim obscurantism (the first very strong in the United States) which denies the evolution of species as well as, formerly, the roundness of the Earth and heliocentrism. By adding gender studies to its mandatory curriculum, the French school and university system renews the medieval practices which were swept away by the humanism (true Aristotelian humanism) of the Enlightenment.
The stated goal of propagating this ideology is to combat discrimination against women and homosexual men (the latter form being imaginary), but the fundamentals of the doctrine reek of the old anti-naturalist utopia: ‘sexual differences are nothing but superstructures; nature is mistaken; we are all born androgynous; there are neither men nor women, only people. Everything else is a matter of choice, influence, social pressure, and orientation.’ What is at the same time fascinating and dramatic is to observe that this sort of ideological absurdity thrives in a society which in other respects makes massive use of biology.
* * *
What does gender theory serve to disguise from an ideological point of view? It is one of the pawns in the arsenal of the soft totalitarianism which currently presides. This has three dimensions:
1. The first idea it defends is, of course, that heterosexuality does not correspond to any biological norm and that, in conclusion, bisexuality and especially homosexuality are not only perfectly normal but perhaps more normal than heterosexuality. The latter is basically the result of social conditioning and oppression. By means of scandalous and scabrous propaganda, little boys and girls are taught from their earliest years to become heterosexual, denying them their natural inclination to choose their own sexual orientation.
2. The second underlying idea is that human beings are not determined in any way by biology. Neither the races nor the sexes exist. Human beings are tabulae rasae free of all the laws of life. This is a distant philosophical consequence of secularised Christian egalitarianism, ironically despite Christian militants — who are mainly of the Right — being the principal force protesting gender theory. This is because they are influenced by Thomism, which is of Aristotelian rather than Christian origin.
3. Gender theory also has a presence in the clever and cynical metapolitical work of extremist female and in particular male homosexual lobbies, employed in order to ensure privileges and to recruit followers via a parareligious sexual conversion.
Behind all this we find the implicit, suicidal, and ethnomasochistic idea that I have often mentioned in other writings:[23] the main goal of gender theory is to promote homosexuality (to White people, mainly) and, by extension, sterility, as well as to downgrade the status of the idea of the reproducing couple. Beyond the work of homosexual and feminist lobbies, one always finds the implied imperative: Whites must not reproduce. Please become homosexual and sterile! ‘Anti-racist’ (or, rather, reverse racist) ideology marches arm in arm with homophilia; it is the same struggle.
As one might expect, gender theory, which denies sexual determinism, is strongly linked to multiracial doctrine, being part of the same ideological movement (that is, the anti-White movement) which, following the denial of sexual difference also denies difference between the races. In the United States, gender studies are closely linked to multicultural studies. The enemy to be struck down is clearly designated: the White male.
The sexes do not exist, the races do not exist. Or rather, they exist but are illegitimate; we must abolish them. It’s all the same struggle to deconstruct reality. Only the virtual universal human being — asexual and racially blended — really exists: the robot. But let there be no criticism of macho non-European civilisations; that would be racist.
* * *
Now I shall step on the toes of conservatives, cornered like ethnomasochistic Leftist bien pensants, by saying that gender theory (despite its delirium that neglects biological nature) has understood something of woman’s sexuality, namely that she has a sort of innate bisexuality.
According to gender theory, men a
nd women can choose their sexual orientation; they are free to choose whether to become hetero-, homo-, or bisexual by liberating themselves of all social constraint. Everyone is originally polysexual. This belief commences from the principle that three perfectly normal categories exist (hetero-, homo-, and bisexual) and that each person could go from one to the other if there were no social constraint and conditioning.
The reality is quite contrary: bisexuality is not pathological for women, but is so for men. We may go further: a purely homosexual woman is abnormal, as is a homosexual or bisexual man. On the other hand, a purely heterosexual man or woman fits the biological norm, and a woman who discovers bisexuality is perfectly normal as well. Gender theory is a school of deviance, since it promotes pathological forms of deviance as normality.
By ‘normal’ — the definition of which is a delicate matter — one must here understand ‘characteristic of the majority’ and ‘conformable to the biological programming of the species by phylogenesis’. Every libertine knows perfectly well that in the warmth of a ménage à trois, it is common for women to make love among themselves. It is extremely rare among men, however. In threesomes, be it two women and a man or two men and a woman, men do not have sexual relations with one another, though women do. X-rated film professionals know this well: the great majority of actresses they recruit are happy to accept lesbian roles yet the majority of male actors refuse to engage in any homosexual activity. For that, one must hire ‘specialists’ — abnormal men.
Sex and Deviance Page 10
