Sex and Deviance

by Guillaume Faye

  Thus, the theory propagated in gender studies that sexual orientation depends on social conditioning can be said to apply to women; many of them are tempted by sexual relations with other women refrain from engaging in them due to social pressure. But they do not become exclusive lesbians, and nor is this to say that women who do not dare partake in bisexuality, rather confining themselves to men, are thereby sexually frustrated.

  * * *

  The confusion between man and woman, deliberately conflated by dishonest ideologues who do not even believe their own theories reveals a nihilistic passion. They also reveal the desire to make themselves interesting by proffering inanities, albeit brilliant inanities. It is tinsel-thought, philosophical ‘bling’ disconnected from reality and lacking any scientific or observational basis; it is a mixture of sophistry and dogmatism.

  [1] La maffia rose (Paris: Le Carrousel-FN, 1987); 4th revised and enlarged edition Déterna Editions, 2012.

  [2] For instance television, where inter-homosexual recruitment is widespread, especially among male show-hosts. The sectors of fashion, art, and culture are heavily invested in by the homosexual lobbies, which gives them significant ideological influence. The Ministry of Culture is also a homosexual nursery.

  [3] Sexual harassment in employment (or pseudo-employment), along with implicit or explicit sexual blackmail toward female applicants, is not limited to television, fashion, the movies, and the entertainment industry (as is too often believed) but occurs in many other sectors as well. This theme is touched upon below.

  [4] These sorts of laws — against homophobia, racism, and the like — are a departure from positive law and a regression to subjective and ideological law. Ideas, statements, and intentions rather than acts are criminalised. This is an open invitation to totalitarianism, into which we are slowly slipping, be it neo- or soft-totalitarianism.

  [5] Other examples of the inversion of values and facts in the dominant discourse: ‘immigration is an opportunity; it does not cost anything; it is a benefit....’

  [6] This is a classic psychological attitude: wanted to be hated when one is not, in order to make oneself interesting, to be talked about, to present oneself as oppressed when one is not. The gay lobby follows the same strategy as Muslims do in this regard.

  [7] The need for ‘outing’ — the revelation of one’s homosexuality — is one proof of the pathological character of homosexuality. It reveals a taste for provocation which acts as compensation for the shame one feels toward oneself; an inability to be oneself without making a spectacle of oneself.

  [8] AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) is a direct action advocacy group for people with AIDS. Its motto is ‘Silence = Death’. The group was formed in 1987 and remains active today. –Ed.

  [9] The self-satisfied homosexual aesthetic is not brilliantly original. It is self-mocking, but more sugary than deep and authentic. Pierre Bergé’s and Yves Saint-Laurent’s collection of furniture, decorations, and paintings, sold at auction upon the latter’s death amid media over-coverage, revealed a certain vulgarity in the piling up of incommensurable works. The homosexual aesthetic is excessive, pretentious, unbalanced, and without strength. It is soft. Above all, it is a travesty of good taste.

  [10] Thierry Le Luron (1952–1986) was a comedian, impersonator, singer, and French radio host. –Ed.

  [11] Michael Gérard Joseph Colucci (1944–1986), better known as Coluche, was a well-known actor and comedian in France. –Ed.

  [12] The reference is to a comic sketch performed and filmed in September, 1985. –Tr.

  [13] Plural of ‘simulacrum’, meaning representation of a thing or a person. The term was popularised by the post-modernist social theorist, Jean Baudrillard, who argued in his seminal work, Simulacra and Simulation (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1995), that simulacra are not only representations or copies of the real, but become ‘true’ in their own right, that is, hyperreal. –Ed.

  [14] Arnold Gehlen (1904–1976) was a German anthropologist and philosopher of a conservative bent. –Ed.

  [15] Konrad Lorenz (1903–1989) was an Austrian ethologist who won the Nobel Prize in 1973. He was a member of the National Socialist Party during the Third Reich. He speculated that the supposed advances of modern life were actually harmful to humanity, since they had removed humans from the biological effects of natural competition and replaced it with the far more brutal competition inherent in relations between individuals in modern societies. –Ed.

  [16] According to all that experienced libertines have been able to observe, there are few purely homosexual women. Most self-proclaimed gay women are in reality bisexual; often they have been disappointed by men. I can attest on this point that one of the high priestesses of American lesbianism in the 1980s, Linda Lewine, author of Shared Intimacies, who wanted to be strictly homosexual, was in fact a perfectly bisexual, elegant New York lady. On the other hand, male homosexuals are only attracted by their own sex. By nature, a woman is not disgusted by physical nearness to one of her own sex. Feminine bisexuality is quite widespread, naturally, even though it is suppressed. Is there a tendency to bisexuality in women, while male homosexuals are a minority?

  A double paradox: real homosexuality is masculine and not feminine, while any woman can become homosexual.

  In terms of sexuality, the difference between ‘man-woman’ is very difficult to understand. The Freudian doctrine (centred on the Oedipus complex) was reserved for men. But Freud was steeped in biblical culture and thus purely macho. In biblical culture feminine sexuality is not only neglected and despised, it is not even understood. Christianity has perpetuated this ignorance. In spite of enormous errors and stupid tendencies, the feminist movement has more or less taken up the pagan world view native to Europe. But feminism’s error (as I explain elsewhere) was to want to ‘masculinise’ women, to imagine that equality is the abolition of difference.

  [17] However, by the genetic manipulation of stem cells, researchers have been able to produce spermatids — synthetic spermatozoa — from the brain cells of a female rat injected into the uterus of another ovulating rat; this resulted in the birth of a perfectly normal female rat. In the near future, then, the following technical possibility will exist: by the same method, two women will be able to give birth to a girl (but not a boy, since they do not carry the Y chromosome) of whom both will be the biological mother. Will this revolution be authorised by law? Probably not, but lesbian couples will find devious ways to do this through private clinics, created by a new market. These lesbian couples will prefer this method to that of adopting the child of one of them conceived by a man. I can understand them.

  [18] Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898–1976) was a Ukrainian biologist and agronomist in the USSR and director of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. He is best known for having developed theories of genetic hybridisation. His experimental research into this field earnt him the respect and support of Joseph Stalin after his work improved crop yields in the Soviet Union. It was after him that the scientific movement, Lysenkoism, was named. –Ed.

  [19] Since the 1960s, the feminist movement and pro-abortion groups — both of which maintain close ties — along with the lesbian movement, which only represents the hard core of ‘butch’ homosexual women, have always either implicitly or explicitly considered maternity a form of servitude and indirectly preached female sterility. They must regret having been born....

  [20] Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Lacan and their ilk: they are the French frauds. Someday people will realise that this roster of Parisian intellectocrats of the 1960s-80s, which enjoyed enormous success — especially in the universities of America’s east coast — never offered a single philosophically, scientifically,
or historically grounded thought — nothing but rhinestone glitter, snobbish jargon, bobo Leftism, and verbal diarrhoea. Fascinated Americans named this pandemonium French Theory. Like modern ‘conceptual art’, it was a great hoax: well-promoted intellectual poverty masquerading as ‘philosophy’. But the deconstruction practiced by this sect (descended from the critical theory of Frankfurt School neo-Marxism, though less talented) was content with the work of demolition: blowing up bridges and temples, without building anything, without proposing anything but infantile utopias. Sartre, whom posterity will also recognise as a plagiarist and impostor, was one of these nihilistic and fundamentally bitter publicists (not philosophers).

  [21] If ‘oppression creates sex’, according to this woman, and oppression comes from the male sex (since it is not a disembodied divinity), it is indeed sex (the male sex) which created oppression. She did not grasp the imbecility of her proposition. For if it is the (male) sex that creates oppression by defining sex arbitrarily as man-woman with man as dominant, it is necessarily the case that the masculine principle must have existed before this oppression of which it would be the origin. But the male sex did not exist originally.... So this non-sex, non-gender created itself as sex and gender. A dizzying, pretentious, infantile form of thought, well beneath the hollow theological vaticinations of the late Roman Empire.

  [22] From the character Thomas Diafoirus, physician in Molière’s Le Malade Imaginaire. –Tr.

  [23] See: Guillaume Faye, Archeofuturism (London: Arktos, 2010); Why We Fight (London: Arktos, 2011). –Ed.

  Chapter 3

  Males and Females: Complex Differences

  Egalitarianism — the dominant ideology which continually pushes to make reality conform to its views — proceeds with the matter of gender in the same way as it does with individuals, populations, or races. The demand for equality between men and women, that is, equality of opportunity, legal equality, and equal treatment — perfectly legitimate demands — has drifted toward a demand for equivalence of roles, which leads to a dead end. Legal equality gets confounded with natural equality. In order to justify this view, intrinsic differences between the sexes are denied, just as are differences between populations. As always, this is done in spite of reality, observation, common sense, and science, all for the benefit of ideological delirium and political whims.

  In differentiating between men and women in terms of psychology, ability, and sexuality, one obviously runs the risk of falling into sexist clichés. Man per se and woman per se do not exist. Still, women as a whole and men as a whole function, in Konrad Lorenz’s bold expression, ‘as two different species’. In this regard, humans are no different from the rest of the animal kingdom.

  The dogma according to which differences between men and women are only cultural comes from doctrinaire feminist behaviourism which, moreover, considers women as potential men — botched boys — and has never ceased to reject and devalue femininity (cf. our chapter on feminism).

  As is the case with all living species, the reality is that female and male humans differ broadly on a psychological and physical level, with this being a function of the biological specialisation of the sexes. But these differences are affected by cultural change. Still, the basic distinctions between the two sexes remain, especially at the behavioural level, since there is no reason why something that affects the entire body should not also affect the brain. After all, what is the mind, the psychological complexion, if not something that falls within the domain of the brain? Male and female functions have not been the same for millennia of evolutionary history. There is no reason to think we are witnessing a convergence of the sexes, no matter how much ideological force or cultural pressure is applied.

  Woman’s Deep Psychology and Archetypical Representations

  It is certainly presumptuous on the part of a man to involve himself in the interior life of woman, especially since behind ‘woman’ are women in all their diversity — individual and, of course, ethnic. However, I shall embark on this difficult and debatable (though not uninteresting) exercise. The French philosopher Raymond Abellio[1] distinguished three categories of woman, or three types of feminine psychology: the original woman, the manly woman, and the ultimate woman.

  The original woman is the mother, the faithful spouse, the reproducer who leaves social superiority to the male and consecrates herself in bringing up her children to adolescence, though not further. Her sexuality is simple, faithful, of moderate intensity, and oriented toward pregnancy. She cultivates a discreet, conventional femininity.

  The manly woman is the one who competes with man on his own ground and means to share his attributes: direction of society, authority, equality with or even superiority to man. She is relatively asexual, pleasure interests her less than power, and she is vengeful toward men.

  The ultimate woman is a synthesis of the two, but with something else as well. Hyperfeminine, very sexual, and cerebral, she aims both at (limited) maternity and competition with men. Seductive, a femme fatale par excellence, she denies herself no experience. Often bisexual, she is also psychologically fragile, even depressive (despite her superficial hyperactivity), for she constantly experiences a schizophrenic tension between her feminine and masculine poles.

  Of course, these three categories can mix and overlap in a single person, and are not necessarily encountered in a pure state. Still, let us consider each of these psychological paradigms one by one, keeping in mind that real cases are always more or less ambiguous.

  * * *

  The original woman runs a rather long gamut, from the ‘delightful idiot’ to ‘mother courage’, from the submissive and humiliated woman of the Islamic to the respected but cramped mater familiae of Latin civilisation, from the traditional German woman of the three Ks (Kinder, Küche, Kirche — children, kitchen, church) to the traditional, somewhat inferiorised model of Asian civilisation. The original woman is always conventional and predictable, but indispensable. She has been lauded by Christianity as part of the unchanging order of things, of the hearth, and of reproduction. She corresponds to the goddess mothers of most religions. She is the keeper of domestic order. Her status is ambiguous, being either exalted or constrained to submission. In Graeco-Latin mythology, she corresponds to Hera-Juno.

  The manly woman, with all her positive and negative features, is a creation of the West. But this is a very ancient archetype: pre-Christian, well prefigured by both the hunter-goddess Diana and by the myth of the Amazons. She gave birth to feminist ideology (whose roots can be discovered in the first century AD in Rome[2]): the woman who means to assume masculine attributes for herself and who fundamentally despises her own femininity and more or less disclaims her own sex. She wants to be creative, but is always torn by a frustrated superiority complex (resentment of the male), and thus feels inferior. Sexually, she is immature. She is in revolt against her own femininity, her own nature, and this is why she often turns toward exclusive homosexuality. Not maternal at all but highly ambitious, she often outperforms men in their own domain.

  The ultimate woman is another kettle of fish entirely. She is the disturbing synthesis, concentrating in herself the attributes of femininity and masculinity at once, and thus she is really the third sex, surpassing both woman and man. At the same time, she can be mother, wife, intellectual, poet, fighter — even whore. She is always seductive, upsetting men’s hearts and bodies. The Greek goddess Aphrodite has some of her characteristics, but not all. Elusive, mysterious, she is always enterprising and courageous. Sexually, she is hyperactive but unfaithful.

  The ultimate woman is the one who inspires passion, who gives off a mysterious aura. Bisexual, she seduces men as well as women.

  * * *

  Many feminine figures are a cross of these three relatively universal feminine archetypes. For example, the virginal figures of goddess-mothers show a sublimation of the
original woman (Egypt, Christianity) as a protective, all-powerful mater virginia preserved from defilement by the male penis. The Virgin Mary and many Catholic saints are sublimated original women and thus salvific, but none of them is a mother — a concrete original woman.

  Joan of Arc represents an archetypal figure of the manly woman, but pure and sanctified, while Marie de Medici represents a profane version. Marie-Antoinette or Messalina have more of the ultimate woman about them. In short, the three types are always mixing, and except for the original woman, it is hard to find a pure type.

  The prostitute, the courtesan, and the geisha are among the varieties of ultimate women. Among homosexual women one finds about half ultimate women and half manly women. One can also observe conversions and shifts: ultimate women who at a certain age become original women upon the birth of a late child and put their house in order; or one can even find the converse: family women who go to the dogs once they hit forty morph into one of the other types.

  The prostitute is a cross between the original woman and the ultimate woman. Islam and Judaism have despised and hated her, while Christ forbade her stoning, like that of the adulteress, and forgave her ‘sins’. Indian and ancient European paganism tolerated the prostitute as a sort of social necessity.

  Questions about the Dependence and Submission of Women