[6] In all civilisational areas other than the West, it is considered self-evident that marriage, and even concubinage or flirting, must respect the criteria of ethnic, religious and social proximity. In Europe, the dominant ideology does not have any objection to a Muslim family refusing to let one of its daughters marry a non-Muslim indigenous European. But offence is taken when the situation is reversed. (See the entries on ‘ethnomasochism’ and ‘xenophilia’ on p. 136 and pp. 261–2, respectively, of Faye’s Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance [London: Arktos, 2011]–Ed.)
[7] Classical Greek: ‘purpose’ or ‘goal’. –Ed.
[8] The example of whimsical separations and reconciliations of couples has been set by the world of show business since the 1920s. The adventures, romantic predictions, and serial divorces of celebrities (who have set the precedent for what has spread to the whole of society) dominate the gossip press. Without it, they would be out of business.
[9] A daily newspaper in France. –Ed.
[10] Emile Coué (1857–1926), a French psychologist and pharmacist, advocated a therapeutic method of optimistic autosuggestion in which the patient repeats the mantra ‘Every day in every way I’m getting better and better.’ –Tr.
[11] The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was one of the principal documents stipulating the terms to be taken up in post-revolutionary France, namely that citizens ought to be recognised as born free and equal. It was passed by France’s National Constituent Assembly in 1789. –Ed.
[12] On this point, see Eric Delcroix, Le théâtre de Satan (Paris: L’Æncre, 2002).
[13] See especially Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight. –Ed.
[14] In the name of anti-discrimination, officially sanctioned associations ‘test’ to find out whether proprietors, real estate agencies, or companies refuse to house or hire applicants on the grounds of their ethnic origin. In reality, this amounts to creating an atmosphere of fear: as the fear of accusations of racism manifests as favouritism towards those of African and Arab origin, even when they do not fit the profile necessary to be accepted.
[15] Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966).
[16] ‘We are France!’ ran the slogan of SOS Racism, a state-subsidised association, during its ‘Concert for Equality’ in Paris’ Champs de Mars on 14 July 2011. The message was aggressive; implicit, but clear: ‘We are appropriating your land, and you, native Frenchmen, with your culture and history, are no longer the owners.’ If this had not been the message, the slogan would have been: ‘We too are France.’
[17] A sordid affair involving the massacre of the French monks of Tibhirine, Algeria, monks who devoted themselves to the welfare of the local population without any attempt to convert them. The affair inspired a film, Of Gods and Men (2010), which is still praised to the skies and is an object of popular and media infatuation – a textbook example of ethnomasochism. It is the very example of passive and naïve martyrdom: no indignation, no anger at the Muslim murderers, but a lachrymose admiration for the willing victims. Imagine – not the reverse case – but that a single Imam received a public spanking in France... In this affair of the monks of Tibherine, an entire people made a spectacle of its weakness and its future submission.
[18] The nineteenth century French writer, Marie-Henri Beyle (better known by his pen-name, Stendhal), developed the notion of crystallisation, which describes the process by which unattractive aspects of one’s new lover are conceptually transformed into something now considered quite perfect. –Ed.
[19] Women and the Common Life: Love, Marriage and Feminism, Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn (ed.), (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1997).
[20] The defence of race mixture, one of the cardinal virtues of today’s soft-totalitarian ideology (but only advocated for native Europeans) is analysed later in this book.
[21] With solid common sense, Nadine de Rothschild (who is active in favour of insurance against unpaid alimony), the ‘priestess of good manners’ ridiculed by the contemptuous Parisian intelligentsia, stated in Le Figaro (11 November 2010): ‘I am entirely against divorce on the grounds that the children are not [properly] brought up. I am against letting these children be batted back and forth between reconstituted families in which no one is clear on who is who. I am extremely pessimistic about the future of marriage, because rational marriage no longer exists. In our time, everyone wants to marry for love, from infatuation.’ She deplores the example set by prominent persons: ‘Even crowned heads are getting involved. Nicolas Sarkozy married a singer, Jean-Louis Borloo, a television journalist. Could anyone have imagined Charles de Gaulle marrying a news reader? Times have changed. Today, people are looking for love, or rather physical attraction, successively.’
We do not wish to lay stress on the amusing and ridiculous prejudices dating from the 1960s against television journalists and entertainers; we might also wish to mention that Carla Bruni is not really a singer. But we are forced to recognise that the Baroness is basically correct. The elites preceded the middle and lower classes in the sport of conjugal whimsy. People get married on hormonal impulse, ‘for love’; they divorce, remarry, redivorce, and so on, for the same reasons.
[22] ‘The outcome and consequence of an action whose effects are radically contrary to its intended or proclaimed aim (from the Greek hetero and télos meaning “other” and “ends”).’ See Why We Fight, pp. 157–8 for Faye’s full definition. –Ed.
[23] Contrary to a widespread idea, the traditional family model, although shaken, is resisting better in the USA than in Europe, especially in the White and Hispanic middle classes — African Americans, apart from a few exceptions, have never been able to adopt the European family model of the stable couple, which seems to indicate an African genetic atavism, since in Africa the idea of the ‘family’ is based not on the couple but the village and tribe. In the United States, popular television series almost always show united families (Sex and the City is an exception, but is more widely broadcast in Europe than in the US) — with three children, a dog, two cars and a little house and lawn, the wife at home or with a side job, but directing the household with full matriarchal authority. It would be unthinkable to show, as is done in Europe, mixed-race or homosexual couples, recomposed families, and still more unthinkable to defend these. [The Brady Bunch, the first American television series featuring a blended family, began airing in September, 1969; the depiction of homosexuals became common on American television during the 1970s. –Tr.] An important point: in the USA, the birth rate of White families (the term is officially employed there) is clearly superior to what it is in Europe.
[24] The large immigrant family with the stay-at-home mother is never the object of ironic commentary. Family allowances largely subsidise them, including the most aberrant forms of polygamy, and public housing is mostly open to them. In the lower classes, such families run into far fewer problems than numerous native European families.
[25] The adoption of orphans (or supposed orphans) from Africa and Asia is the focus of more media attention that European orphans; cf. the media ballyhoo over the adoptions by Madonna, the Hallydays, and many others...
[26] Phillipe de Villiers (1949- ) is a French politician notable for his critical stance on Islam and the European Union, and is a father of seven children. He was unsuccessful in his candidacy for the presidency of France in 2007. –Tr.
[27] In May 1968, a series of strikes by radical Left-wing student groups in Paris were
joined by a strike of the majority of the French work-force, shutting down France and
nearly bringing down the government of Charles de Gaulle. Although the strikes
ended in failure and had evaporated by July, th
ey are still seen as the decisive
moment when traditional French society was forced to give way to the more liberal
attitude that has come to define France in subsequent years. –Ed.
[28] This term ‘bourgeois’ originally referred to a commoner who lived in a walled town, i.e., a city dweller not bound to the soil; in this context it refers to members of the middle classes which began to prevail in the West with the industrial revolution and ended up including the wealthier peasantry and the ‘aristocracy of labour’. Starting in May 1968, it became fashionable to vilify the ‘bourgeoisie’ — paradoxically at the instigation of the children of the bourgeoisie — at the very moment when the affluent urban bourgeoisie (having become part of the Left) were abandoning ‘bourgeois values’ and blue- and white-collar workers began adopting them.
[29] Such a law was indeed passed on 18 May 2013. –Tr.
[30] Coming as I do from one of those ‘bourgeois families’ from the depths of France, I can attest that not only were women perfectly respected but that they ran the household, especially its budget and the money spent on the family — even in the days when they had no right to a bank account. The husband brought in the money and the wife managed it: a sexual division of labour. The women also directed the children’s upbringing.
Contrary to current clichés, girls were not brought up to be housewives, cooking and sewing, but were encouraged to study. This involved a double burden upon them: motherhood for the perpetuation of the family, and possibly a professional career. Here there was a contradiction in the balancing act of the bourgeois family.
Another tradition which still existed in my native region of Poitou-Charentes (and perhaps elsewhere in Europe) was to initiate boys just before their weddings. This ‘bourgeois’ tradition worked as follows: It went without saying that girls should be virgins at marriage (but if they were not, everyone looked the other way; no one waved the bloody sheet in those Celtic lands as was done in certain Mediterranean areas). On the other hand, boys were not to face their wedding night completely innocent. Having them initiated by a prostitute carried a risk of venereal disease. So the family arranged to have a thirty- or fortyish aunt or cousin, even married, undertake the task of initiating the young groom-to-be into the ways of love. A deadly silence was maintained, but everyone knew about it anyway. Even the young bride suspected it and was not offended. It was called the ‘trip to Paris’: the future husband and his devoted aunt met at a discreet hotel in the capital to carry out the initiation. This charming tradition has died out.
[31] André Paul Guillaume Gide (1869–1951) was a French author and winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, who was most notable for his writings on the human condition. –Ed.
[32] Jacques Attali & Stéphanie Bonvicini, Amours: Histoires des relations entre les hommes et les femmes (Paris: Fayard, 2007). –Ed.
[33] Jacques Attali (1943- ) is a French economist, advisor to François Mitterrand, and first president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1991–93), as well as the author of many books, including Perspectives Géopolitiques (2012) and Noise: The Political Economy of Music (1997). –Tr.
[34] Stéphanie Bonvicini (1968- ) is a French journalist and the author of Louis Vuitton: A French Saga (2004). –Tr.
[35] Michel Maffesoli (1944- ) is a French sociologist and Director and founder of the European Notebooks on the Imaginary, an academic journal of the humanities and social sciences. He is also a prolific author, most notable for having written The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society (1995).–Tr.
[36] With the fashion for adoption, whether heterosexual or homosexual (the latter being legal in several Western countries), the adopted child is practically considered like a doll or puppy. His origin and his personality does not matter. This is enormously different from, e.g., adoption among the Roman upper classes of antiquity or in Roman Gaul, where adoption occurred in adolescence and according to precise criteria. On this subject see Paule-Marie Duval’s La Gaule pendant la paix romaine (Paris: Hachette, 1991) and Theodor Mommsen, A History of Rome (New York: Meridian Books, 1958).
[37] A term coined by Aldo Naouri, a pediatrician, author of Adultères (Odile Jacob, 2006) and a champion of parental authority.
[38] Le Figaro, 21–22 November 2009.
Chapter 2
The Sacralisation of Homosexuality
It is striking: within a very short lapse of time, homosexuals have passed from having pariah status to privileged status. The question is whether the introduction of homosexual marriage with adoption, of laws punishing ‘homophobia’, of the emergence of a powerful and officially protected homosexual community and culture are normal characteristics of social evolution, or whether they are disquieting signs of decadence and the overturning of the natural order. In my view, there is a male homosexual psycho-pathology, some aspects of which I shall try to decipher.
Another problem is female homosexuality. My position is that it is of a different nature than male homosexuality and should not be analysed or judged according to the same criteria. Male homosexuality, broadly speaking, falls in the domain of pathology, which is not the case with female homosexuality.
In saying these things, of course, I am conscious of contravening the laws which limit freedom of expression in France.
Homophile Ideology and the ‘Struggle against Homophobia’
Let us be clear that our aim here is not to attack homosexuals as individuals, nor to condemn their sexual practices. This critique is concerned first of all with ideologies, especially homophilia, that is to say, the mentality (related to anti-racism and xenophilia) which aims to grant homosexuals protections, guarantees, privileges, quotas, and so forth on the pretext that they are an oppressed minority. They are not.
In this matter we have passed from one extreme to the other: from the persecution of homosexuals to their overestimation. This commenced in the 1960s and began with homosexuals demanding to be considered like others, in professional life especially, and no longer to be treated like pariahs or criminals. This was perfectly reasonable. In the end, these supposedly oppressed (and largely male) homosexuals were granted their privileges.
Laws authorising homosexual marriages and the adoption of children by homosexual couples are being approved in an increasing number of European Union (EU) member states (something unthinkable in Muslim countries, in India, China, or elsewhere, as it once was in Europe, too), made progressives believe that we are leaders, advanced in relation to other peoples, and that the world is going to follow us, the West. Nothing could be less certain; it is the same old Universalist delusion.
The notion that is now accepted by a large minority, if not a majority — that homosexual marriage and adoption is no different to that of heterosexuals — would have been judged to be a sign of raving madness fifty years ago. Outside the West, all over the world these legislative measures are interpreted as a sign of profound decadence.
As shown by Philippe Randa in his politically incorrect but classic book The Pink Mafia,[1] Western homosexuals have built powerful lobbies that provide mutual assistance on a global scale. This has resulted in a switching of places: while homosexuals were once excluded or browbeaten and had to remain hidden from public view, they now find themselves favoured precisely because of their condition. In many professional sectors[2] being a homosexual is a ‘plus’. It should be noted, however, that female homosexuals (lesbians) have not succeeded in carrying out the same operation as their masculine counterparts; professional aid between lesbians is weak or non-existent. Further, openly lesbian women are often excluded from recruitment process, particularly from posts of responsibility in companies, whether because of the machismo of the hierarchy or because male recruiters cannot win their favour in the romantic sense and
know that they are less likely to get away with sexual harassment towards them.[3]
* * *
So the status of homosexuality, especially in its male variety, seems to be superior to that of heterosexuality. The various Gay Pride parades in the West are popular demonstrations in which well-known cultural and media personalities as well as politicians participate, even if they are heterosexual. This sort of homosexual ‘mass’ has become an undeniably fashionable (as well as ideological) event.
The most extraordinary thing is that homosexuals, although now objectively a privileged class, demand ever more. They consider themselves ‘oppressed’, although the new social norms and ‘anti-discrimination’ laws (notably those against ‘homophobia’, which are nothing less than a new curtailment of the freedom of expression) privilege them.[4]
* * *
In the dominant ideology (of the media rather than the people, but media opinion is what counts), one can notice a devaluing of the heterosexual relationship, portrayed as ‘corny’, outdated, and ridiculous. At the pyramid’s summit is bisexuality. This is the perfect model, tied with that of the mixed-race person in our set of ideal types. The same ideology is again at work, promoting mixing, undifferentiatedness, and the garbling of anthropological and social roles. In the imagination and discourse of the dominant media class, White women or men who are married, heterosexual, and raising a family of three or more children are considered bizarre creatures that belong to the zoology of an obsolete world that is even dangerous for the ideal of emancipation. (On the other hand, this traditional model is tolerated in the case of Muslim families; I shall speak of this further on.)
Sex and Deviance Page 6