Yesterday’s normality is considered an anomaly today. We are faced with a textbook example of pathological inversion of values, with a clearly nihilist character, for indigenous heterosexual families are the foundation of our civilisation’s reproduction. This phenomenon of the rejection of the married, white, heterosexual couple has not been pushed quite as far been pushed much less far in the United States as in Europe.
It is admissible, in the name of the European principle of freedom, that homosexuals both male and female behave as they please in private. But elevating the status of homosexuality to that of a new norm or even a superior form of sex, as is occurring within the present culture, is symptomatic of muddled values and norms brought about by the chaotic rule of indifference; of the principle ‘everything is as good as everything else’ — which is the mark of the final stage of egalitarianism: that of decomposition. Exactly the same goes for the belief in the interchangeability of the sexes (first proclaimed by the ‘philosopher’ Simone de Beauvoir), which amounts to rejecting the very notion of ‘sexes’. The same diagnosis applies to the denial of differences of level and value between artistic forms, peoples, and civilisations. We are faced with that imperative of homogenisation which is the watchword of egalitarianism and which originated as an ethical drift from the Christian ethic of the absolute equivalence of all individuals before God.
This ideology (whether regarding sex or any other domain) is not viable over the long term, because it runs up against real facts. It will do a lot of damage before disappearing, but disappear it will. This is inevitable.
The Pathology of Homosexual Discourse and the Homosexual Mentality
One of the basic ideas of the whole homosexual lobby and homophile ideology is that everybody is bisexual by birth and that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice like any other, purely cultural, and not indicative of any inherent difference. This idea is not merely false but pernicious. Such a mental perversion is a symptom of the most extreme development of egalitarian dogma, that is to say, the negation of natural differences between humans. Not only do races not exist but, taking things to their logical conclusion, neither do the sexes or sexual attraction. It is the androgynous reign of homogeneity and undifferentiated uniformity. Those who serve up these hallucinations do not believe them for a second, but it is of the very character of totalitarian language to not believe what one says.
Indeed, they no longer say to us, as they did at the beginning of the homosexualist movement in the 1960s: ‘The same rights must be accorded to homosexuals; stop discriminating against them, because if a minority is affected by an involuntary tendency which is not dangerous and perhaps innate, etc., etc.’ Now they tell us: ‘Being homosexual is a choice like any other, in the same way as it is to hold an opinion or choose a profession; anybody can be or become homosexual, exclusively or alternately.’
This aberrant and scientifically unfounded position is the expression of a loss of direction and of values. But the homosexual lobby and homophile ideology go further still. By a strange contradiction, they turn equality upside down to generate an inequality for their own benefit. This in order to overcompensate their suppressed abnormality complex. Indeed, one increasingly hears: ‘Ultimately, being homosexual or bisexual is more fulfilling (and thus superior) to being exclusively heterosexual.’ At bottom, it is the heterosexual who finds himself restricted and repressed, handicapped, constricted, and fearful of the natural pansexuality which should be the norm. Thus it is the homosexual and the bisexual who is normal, while the exclusive heterosexual is a sort of hemiplegic.
However, the sexologist and urologist Gérard Zwang has demonstrated that homosexuality is a pathology which affects about 5 percent of men and is of genetic origin. This pathology wants to pass for normal. The homosexual lobby is trying to unravel and transfigure reality, to transform its sickness into a higher form of health. This perfectly fits the canons of the dominant ideology which is sailing toward the inversion of values in all domains — a mortifying and self-mutilating process.[5]
* * *
The homophile ideology is not founded (or is no longer founded) on the idea of equal rights between a ‘normal’ majority and a deviant minority not responsible for its deviance, but upon a normality and naturalness of the homosexual ‘choice’, one which is more interesting than the heterosexual choice and perhaps even preferable. Homosexuals, the enlightened elite, and the avant-guard bring a social, sexual, and even political ‘bonus’ in relation to a society still ruled by stuffy male heterosexuals. Homophile ideology present gays as those who broaden society, as emancipators who teach openness, joy, freedom, fraternity, respect for others, tolerance, social happiness, and so forth. By a perverse semantic reversal typical of the dominant ideology, their vice becomes a virtue. Moreover, the English term ‘gay’ makes it clear that the homosexual is one who brings playfulness into the sad, one-dimensional society of straight males.
This is the perfect example of deviance from the natural order, especially if one is familiar with the misery homosexuals have brought by spreading AIDS. This deviance, like all those for which contemporary ideology is responsible, is suicidal because it is a travesty of reality.
* * *
Gay Pride is the name of the homosexual parades which are now part of the ceremonial and the imprescriptible rights of the West (excluding Russia, where a certain common sense still holds sway). What is going on here is perfectly clear: one pretends to be proud of one’s homosexuality, offering the proof of a demonstrative, provocative, and voluntarily vulgar festival. But why be ‘proud’ of being homosexual or bisexual? Not only does this demonstrate the need to position oneself as nobly supernormal, but it also betrays a deep infantilism. One can be proud of what one has become, of what one does, of one’s capacities, but to declare oneself proud of one’s sexual orientation is to set the bar for pride pretty low. Moreover, openly declaring that one is ‘proud of oneself’ proves, psychologically, that one is not; it is a kind of self-persuasion.
This pride proclaimed by male homosexuals instructs us on two points: first, a rather hateful feeling of reverse frustration. Homosexuals today want not to free themselves (they are already free) but to impose themselves and proclaim their superiority and domination, to trumpet themselves as perfectly comfortable with who and what they are (are they really?) in much the same manner and for the same reason that frustrated American Blacks assumed the slogan ‘Black is beautiful’. When they have achieved (or are achieving) all rights including that of marriage and when their lobbies are working to obtain privileges (cliques, cooptation, precedence, and the like), they are occupying public space in order to show they have the ‘courage’ to identify themselves as homosexuals. Now, they know perfectly well that nobody is oppressing them, and indeed that laws protect them from any discrimination and that a freedom-killing law even punishes ‘homophobia’ — that is to say, it aims at arming them in advance against any criticism (with one exception, discussed below, which is very annoying for Left-wing homosexual lobbies: the homophobia of young Muslims, a point no one dares address). Despite all this, they persist in their demands for ever more the Gay Pride marches, trying to create a scandal when they have won all their battles and then some. Such narcissistic exhibitionism corresponds to a disturbed psyche on the part of homosexual pressure groups who are just as unbalanced as their libidos.
Another revealing feature of ‘gay pride’ is the adolescent and infantile character of demonstrations by the homosexual lobby and of their ideology. The passage to psychological adulthood has not yet been travelled by these gentlemen. Often not quite young anymore, they march half naked, disguised, made-up, caressing one another sometimes obscenely to shock the petty-bourgeois hetero (who doesn’t give a damn), to the sound of musical instruments, and are even protected by homosexual policemen! These are provocations by people suffering from arrested development, like boys flashing their weenies in a sc
hoolyard.
When you think about it, the very act of organising a ‘festival’ around homosexuality is quite an unnatural thing to do, for can one imagine organising a festival around heterosexuality? The contradiction is patent, as is the infantile provocation of the event. On the one hand, homosexuals proclaim the normality of their sexual behaviour, but concede its abnormality by organising gay parades, for one does not celebrate that which is trivial and normal, one does not proclaim one’s ‘pride’ in trivial, normal behaviour. Lesbians are much fewer in number than homosexual men at Gay Pride marches, undoubtedly because female homosexuality (or rather, bisexuality) is relatively widespread and natural. On the other hand, by calling male homosexuals ‘gays’ (a term of American origin) suggests that they are happy-go-lucky fellows, pleased to be homos, comfortable with themselves. In reality, the name ‘gay’ is an exercise in semantic exorcism, for homosexuals are not comfortable with themselves. Their sexual and emotional life is a torment consisting in deceit, quarrels, instability, psychological disorders, and personal loss of identity.
It is as if homosexuals did not really assume their homosexuality, did not interiorise it. They exteriorise it in order to proclaim that they exist, to demonstrate to others that they are indeed themselves, as if they were not sure of themselves, as if they did not know exactly who they are. This quest for recognition by means of silly antics has something tragi-comic about it, for these Gay Pride marches and all that accompany them are increasingly falling flat. The homosexuals desire to arouse hostility, but in the end are only met with indifference.[6]
On the other hand, in a society increasingly broken up into ‘communities’, in which the banking system (if it can hold out) provides whatever social cohesion can be said to remain, gays base their identity on their sexuality, which has a demeaning aspect to it. Other communities (of Blacks, Jews, Muslims, and so on) base their identity on belonging, which is a consistent reality. But the homosexual ‘community’ has recourse to the most impoverished level of self-identification: sexual tendency.
A man who privately practices homosexuality has his sexual life but does not confound it with his social position. He does not make a banner of it, nor does he extend it to define the rest of his existence. In confounding their lives with their sexual tendency, many homosexuals today do not realise that they are abasing themselves to a purely libidinal dimension. They create for themselves a community, a civic identity, based on what they do with their peckers. A balanced homosexual — and such persons certainly exist — does not overemphasise his sexual tendency (as occurs in ‘outing’), nor does he envisage it as consubstantial with his personality and social identity. By transforming a matter of sexual intercourse into membership in a socio-political community, the homosexual lobby demonstrated not pride but a form of self-contempt. A real community worthy of the name is founded on shared values, origins, achievements, and work, not on sexual similarity.
Nevertheless, they have succeeded in getting a law passed that suppresses any attack on them. ‘We are proud of what we are, but we still demand protection from judges.’ They lack all sense of the ridiculous....
To add substance to their sexual tendency, many gays resort to dress codes or peculiar gestures (an exclusive sign language), attitudes, styles, and, obviously (for the sake of cruising) particular places to meet.
* * *
Another harmful aspect of the homophile ideology is that it functions as a system of exclusion and devaluing of all which does not enter into the sphere of male homosexuality. For this reason, one can speak of a biased and hypocritical homosexual form of machismo.
For example, it is an open secret that in LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transsexual) organisations, male homosexuals run everything for their own benefit. Lesbians are left to be the fifth wheel on the wagon; they have never, in any case whatsoever, been able to form mutual aid or pressure groups as effective as those of their male counterparts.
In their systems of professional co-optation, male homosexuals practice discrimination not only against male heterosexuals but also against women, including lesbians. Moreover, lesbians find it more difficult to ‘come out’, that is to say, to publicly reveal their homosexuality.[7]
Homosexual machismo is different from that of heterosexuals. A straight macho guy practices a partial misogyny: he likes women, but in a subordinate position. But the macho homosexual does not like women at all, and wants to be surrounded by nobody but homosexuals like himself. In the professional areas conquered by homosexuals, the system of mutual aid and priority in employment holds fast. Women and heterosexuals have no chance of acceding to positions of responsibility. The exclusive structure is cemented by a mafia-like solidarity among the solely male macho homosexuals, which is developing into a closed economic entity with deep pockets.
The Egoism, Egotism, and Superficiality of ‘Gay Culture’
The homosexual, along with every ideology that supports and surrounds him on the pretext of progress and emancipation, displays a peculiar social self-centredness and a deep indifference toward future generations. Again we see the reign of presentism. The homosexual — especially the masculine type — seeks only immediate gratification, he is a born consumer who is at core rather superficial despite perhaps being gifted and refined (as is often the case). His ancestry, nation, and descendants do not interest him. Only his ego and libido, only his sexual and material satisfaction are important to him. When homosexual associations pretend to be humanists preoccupied with the fate of humanity (for they are for the most part Leftist), it is pure hypocrisy. For example, homosexual associations (notably ACT UP[8]) take the lead in the struggle against AIDS — mainly in favour of research funding — but rise up to oppose any mandatory screening or any shutting down of places where they meet, despite knowing perfectly well that the male homosexual community, especially in the United States, was the rocket that launched this viral pandemic.
When the homosexual has a creative and artistic sensibility, as often occurs, it is usually turned toward superficial refinement, fashion, baubles, and frills. More than anyone else, the homosexual is a victim of fashion. Whether poet, writer, singer, or similar, the homosexual rarely turns his gifts toward weighty matters, great subjects, or serious analysis, but instead toward a kind of para-feminine aestheticism, bright in the way a glow worm is bright, marked with a sort of pettiness and oozing with a sort of baroque minimalism,[9] all this centred on his pet subject: homosexuality itself. Heterosexuals do not put their own sexuality at the centre of their personality or their works; homosexuals do. It is the very definition of obsession: one is a homosexual before one is oneself. The homosexual’s sexuality governs him, precisely because it is pathological and non-reproductive.
Let us return to the clearest example of the self-centredness and irresponsibility of the ‘gay community’, beginning from the 1980s. Its attitude toward the AIDS pandemic — a pandemic for which male homosexuals around the world and principally on America’s Pacific Coast — have been largely responsible due to their compulsive libidos and the frequent practice of sodomy with multiple partners and without the use of condoms. Drug addicts, sub-Saharan Africans with their primitive sexual customs (speaking in a non-pejorative manner), and immigrants in Europe also bear responsibility for the spread of this disease, of course.
In regard to this pandemic, the attitude of homosexual associations have combined duplicity, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, and a stubborn determination not to change anything about their pathological and risky behaviour. Two points must be emphasised: first, by a sort of reversal of the actual situation, the homosexuals (via their lobbies) have proclaimed themselves to be victims of the pandemic, when in fact they are its instigators; second, they have risen up against any ‘fascist’ prophylactic measures that might have encroached on their practices, such as the closing of gay nightclubs and their back rooms, mandatory testing for sexually transmitted
diseases, public listings of those contaminated, and so on. Any such measures would have put some restraints on the epidemic.
The homosexual lobby succeeded in ducking these measures by putting pressure on politicians terrified of being accused of homophobia, for when the AIDS pandemic broke out, homosexuals were very anxious that their role in the outbreak would receive mass public attention and that they would be put under scrutiny. What concerned the committed homosexual was not public health but his own freedom to give way to his unbridled impulses.
Indeed, the basic preoccupation of the homosexual, who has a much more intense libido than the heterosexual, is the immediate satisfaction of his desires as often as possible, and to talk about it as much as possible. This is the principle of all deviance in any domain: it is obsessive. He must talk about it constantly. His sexuality (its ‘eroticism’ lost on account of its impulsivity) assumes such a position in his mind that it prevents him from conceiving a broader view of life and of the world. Everything revolves around his sexual tendency. Homosexuals have gone from the repression and dissimulation of their obsession (when they suffered oppression) to the irrepressible need to shout it from the rooftops.
Sex and Deviance Page 7