* * *
In reality, by applying pressure in support of this supposed tolerance toward homosexuality among adolescents, the gay lobby is pursuing a perverse, hidden goal: to lead the younger generation astray, to gather recruits at an age where psychological impressionability is greatest. In sum, carrying out conversions to homosexuality, for the ‘community’ needs fresh flesh.
It is well-known that homosexuals’ sexuality is generally more demanding, more active than that of heterosexuals. It is also more physical and less emotional, more volatile and fickle as well, with the tendency to take multiple partners and the frequent change (‘turn over’) of one’s principal partner being a frequent rule. It is in the interest of homosexuals, then, that the total population susceptible to engaging in its practices should grow as large as possible. In fact, in a society governed by natural law, that is to say, normality, the number of homosexuals is not only small, but social pressure means that some of those who might be tempted by such practices refrain from acting them out. Moreover, in such a society, adolescents briefly tempted by homosexuality renounce it completely when they reach adulthood and return to the natural and normal path of heterosexuality — the biological way of all higher vertebrates.
Homosexual lobby groups have thus tried and succeeded over recent decades to pervert and destabilise the natural order so as to create an ambiance in which homosexuals are not merely not punished, shamed, or excluded, but encouraged and praised. Thus, the domain in which homosexuals can cruise has been enlarged. But this is not enough. The homosexual population must also be enlarged, and the homosexual lobby understands that the best way to this end is to target the young, for they are impressionable. How do they go about doing so? By ‘campaigns to sensitise them to intolerance’ in their school environment. In fact, male homosexuals know very well that a certain minority of adolescents are sexually ambivalent at the time of puberty, a critical period in terms of impressionability. This is connected to that ‘plasticity’ of human nature emphasised by Arnold Gehlen[14] and Konrad Lorenz.[15] What could be more clever than organising, with the cooperation of the national education system, so-called campaigns of sensitisation in secondary schools to influence young boys at the age when they are most vulnerable, in order to convince them to ‘cross over to the opposite sidewalk’, as it used to be called?
Their discourse is perversely clever: ‘you have fallen in love with a boy in your class? Nothing wrong with that; it’s good, even. It’s perfectly normal. Nothing odd about it. You can fall in love with anyone, don’t you know? Don’t make fun of boys who go out together and love each other. It’s the same as with a girl. And it might happen to you, too. Why not give it a try, after all?’ Such is the discourse which gay associations hold with schoolboys, with the blessing of the Minister of National Education, directed for a long time now by Left-wing unions and no longer by the Minister (who is only there for decorative purposes). Presenting homosexuality to adolescents as normal, even as more fulfilling than heterosexuality, allows gay lobbies (which function like sects) to transform adolescents who might otherwise have had a normal sexual and married life into gays.
In this way, the gay lobby hopes to convert a maximum number of youngsters to homosexuality in order to have young flesh at their disposal. They strike at the very moment — puberty — when the personality is fragile and under construction, so as to tip young boys in the direction of abnormality. And the national education system plays along with this anti-educational undertaking, for one must be in tune with the spirit of the times, the spirit that transmutes values into anti-values.
* * *
The homosexual lobby, in its struggle against homophobia, is also an important vehicle for anti-racist and immigrationist circles — not at all because of anti-racism of course (they don’t give a damn about that cause or any other political ideology) but in order to curry favour with the anti-racist, Islamophile Left whose ideology dominates society.
Gay organisations have thus developed an anti-discriminatory discourse that aims to assimilate the supposed intolerance toward homosexuals with (also merely supposed) intolerance toward immigrants from outside Europe. Anti-racism and anti-homophobia equal the same struggle. At first sight, it appears sufficiently absurd: how does homosexuality involve a political preference? Not to mention, the majority of immigrants and offspring of immigrants are Muslim, and Islam, increasingly present and ominous, is strongly anti-homosexual, macho, and sexist. Why, then, does the gay lobby make use of slogans against ‘Islamophobia?’
Here again, they are simply calculating — and their calculation motivated by fear. The leadership of the homosexual community know perfectly well (without daring to make it explicit) that the great majority of physical attacks against homosexuals committed by criminals of Arab/Muslim origin. They know perfectly well that Islam is a growing influence in society, and that in societies governed by sharia, homosexuality is forbidden, persecuted, and eradicated from the visible social sphere. Just like feminists and just like the secular Left, the homosexual lobby gives itself over to a gymnastic strategy marked by both naïve blindness and total ideological contradiction: Fight Islamophobia, racism, and all obstacles to migration in order to protect oneself against the natural hostility of Muslims, under the presupposition that the latter will tolerate them.
We may also note that the gay lobby, so quick to prosecute the least ‘homophobic’ comment, maintain a prudent silence on the widespread legal and openly anti-homosexual repression in all Muslim countries. Do they know that if, some day, France is permanently Islamised (a catastrophe currently unfolding), it will not be good to be a homosexual, a feminist, or even a partisan of sexual freedom? Just as it will not be good to be a Jew. Do they know this? Yes, but they choose to bury their heads in the sand.
Are Gays Really...Gay?
One point is carefully dissimulated when it is said that homosexuality is as natural and legitimate a behaviour as heterosexuality, viz., that the emotional life of gays, both male and female, is not absolutely hedonistic. Far from bringing emotional happiness, homosexuality is a principal contributor to stress and lack of balance.
This remark is applicable to homosexuals of both sexes, but especially to the men. The life of a homosexual couple is littered with deceit, jealousy, infidelity, and crises. Daily life is often a hell. The sexual passion of the early days rapidly gives way to suspicion and hatred. This is because the homosexual, more passionate, less emotionally mature, less attached, more sensual, and in a greater hurry than the heterosexual, is naturally restive when living with another as a couple. In order to ape heterosexual couples he demands marriage (legal or otherwise) but quickly realises that such a union is bound for disaster. Even in our individualistic age when divorce among heterosexuals is rife, the life expectancy of homosexual couples will be much lower.
Moreover, despite the fact that society tolerates homosexuals, even offering them a benevolent preference, homosexuals feel themselves to be deeply unnatural, from whence they develop a ‘persecution-mania’.
The homosexual is not merely paranoid; he is schizophrenic. He is divided, cut in two, crucified with one arm nailed to the human need to live as part of a stable, lasting couple and the other nailed to the intense desire for new partners and adventures. The homosexual person resents that he is not heterosexual, from which comes further resentment towards the supposed happiness of heterosexuals. He sits on the fence between monogamy and celibacy, the desire to love and the impossibility of loving. Maladjustment, fickleness, inconstancy, domination by immediate desire, permanent anxiety — such is the fate of the homosexual psyche.
When I formulate these criticisms and observations, it is not at all out of mockery or contempt for homosexual persons of either sex. The homosexual is a deeply unhappy, dissatisfied being who searches for a grail he can never find. He is always sad, his smile forced, his gaiety manufactured. Gaiety? Exac
tly — let’s talk about that.
* * *
By a process of semantic and psychological inversion, the homosexual lobby call themselves gay, thus evoking gaiety, joy, and happiness. This appellation deserves analysis, for it is not innocent. Choosing this name reveals both a reality and a kind of frustration. One can recognise frustration because, through a classic example of compensation, fundamentally frustrated and unhappy homosexuals, uncomfortable with themselves, want to define themselves as happy and well-adjusted in the eyes of others. Homosexuality is happiness, it is terrific. We are sent the message (the same old hypocritical homosexual proselytism): “Become homo like us! Join us and you will be happy!” — while in reality, homosexuality breeds unhappiness, not because of social oppression but by its intrinsic nature. So we are faced here with a dishonest strategy.
The name ‘gay’ also reveals a reality, for at the same time, this concept of gaiety corresponds to something real and true, something innocent and experienced. The homosexual mentality — forever preoccupied with the pleasures of the moment, a victim of the ephemeral — is in fact a victim of the superficial happiness of the present, namely, gaiety: a sad, fleeting gaiety, that of evening parties; a gaiety which is the very warp and weft of unhappiness, a gaiety without a future, a gaiety that transforms into tears and despair as soon as the morning comes. For ‘celebrating’ is the most superficial form of the search for happiness and harmony.
However, this aspect of the homosexual (avidity for ephemeral, fleeting pleasures — his superficial sensuality) drives him toward great sensibility — especially artistic sensibility — and toward a certain refinement. From this point of view, the homosexual is perhaps a third sex, neither woman nor man. But we should not exaggerate; the greatest artistic, philosophical, and scientific works of European civilisation have not been the work of homosexuals.
The Innocence of Lesbians: Female Homosexuality
My kisses are light, like those ephemeral kisses
Which caress great, transparent lakes in the evening,
And those of your lover shall cut their paths
Like chariots or tearing ploughshares.
Baudelaire, Flowers of Evil, from the section Damned Women, the poem ‘Delphina and Hippolytus’, verse VIII (one of the condemned pieces).
There are very few purely homosexual women. Most lesbians are bisexual. Many homosexual women have been disappointed by men (finding them to be unfeeling, brutal, primitive, and the like) and have set up house with another woman, or have taken mistresses after leaving their husbands. Either that or, paradoxically, they have been disappointed by unmanly men who did not assume their proper role, discouraged from pursuing further heterosexual relationships and thus have ended up turning to women. Have such women belatedly discovered their homosexuality?
It seems rather to be the case that women, unlike men, are often bisexual.[16] More precisely, the chance of homosexuality is genetically much stronger in women than in men. As I said in the last chapter, feminine psychology is flexible and wavering, whereas male sexuality is rigid. La donna e mobile qual’piume al vento, as is said in Verdi’s Rigoletto: ‘Woman is as inconstant as a feather in the wind.’
Female homosexuality, moreover, has never greatly shocked traditional societies. That two men make love is considered a problem, but that women should make love together is rather inconsequential. A male homosexual is more shocking than a lesbian. A husband or lover will not always be jealous if the woman he loves or desires has a mistress; on the other hand, if she has a male lover, this is much more serious.
One reason for the more widespread rejection of male than female homosexuality in popular and traditional culture is that, generally speaking, the male homosexual is seen to lose his virility, while the lesbian maintains her femininity. In fact, the sexual choice of a lesbian is not taken seriously; she remains a woman. The male homosexual, on the other hand, is considered a mutant — an aberration. Of course, I am speaking here of popular feeling and perceptions within traditional cultures (including Islam).
In many nineteenth century novels there are scenes of lesbians making love before the bleary eyes of amused men. Of course, Baudelaire in Flowers of Evil was censored for his description of lesbian love (of which he actually disapproved) but he would never have dared describe scenes of copulation between men (contrary to Verlaine in his erotic pieces).
In fact, in the view of the ‘normally constituted’, sexual relations between men have something disgusting and seemingly quite unhealthy about them. On the other hand, such relations between women are without consequence and have something of the erotic spectacle about them.
* * *
However, we must distinguish between the sexual and conjugal question, for the two are always confused. That two women should desire to make love: why not? Whom does it harm? If they were to want to form a couple and raise children (whether adopted or conceived by one of them) however, this this would be considered thoroughly at odds with the genetic and anthropological order.[17]
A lesbian couple will probably be more stable than a male homosexual couple, though still not all that stable. Is a family with two mothers a serious natural idea? Two women forming a couple is not a desirable arrangement, and generally does not last very long. But there is nothing shocking about a married woman falling in love with another woman or having mistresses. On the contrary, in my view, a man capable of being sexually or romantically attracted to another man smacks of pathology — that pathology which they try to pass off to us nowadays as normal or better than normal. The female homosexual is much less visible than the male, and does not disturb the social order. Be it on the street or in a drawing room, one can immediately recognise the mannerisms of a homosexual couple. A lesbian couple, on the other hand, is much less easily recognisable. Homosexuals feminise their behaviour; lesbians, however, do not masculinise theirs.
* * *
The female homosexual lobby has never been able to exert the same influence as the male counterpart, simply because female homosexuality appears decorative, superficial, and without social or ideological significance. Male homosexuality has stoked controversy, but female homosexuality does not, because it has no real emotional or social impact. Not even the real ‘butches’ who refuse all relations with men (and who count for the minority of lesbians) have not succeeded in ‘shocking the bourgeois’.
Further to this, homosexual women have never been able to form networks of solidarity and influence (in the media, in business, in politics, and so on) since they do not possess the obsessive unisexuality of the male homosexuals who monopolise ‘gay culture’. Lesbians are unable to maintain relations of mutual assistance as male homosexuals do, because real lesbians (‘butches’) are few and far between and, generally speaking, the male lobby is more influential.
Are We All Bisexual?
A number of television programs and many articles both in the press and on the Internet have dealt with the subject of heterosexuals (male and female) who become homosexuals. A dogmatic, egalitarian madness always lies beneath: that every human being is bisexual. (This is not to mention the pseudo-scientific arguments advanced by mercenary psychoanalysts.)
It is seldom mentioned, of course, that homosexuals and bisexuals make up only a tiny minority of the population despite television programmes like that hosted by Jean-Luc Delarue on 25 November 2009 which gathered teary confessions of heterosexuals who had ‘switched over’ [lit.: ‘crossed to the opposite sidewalk’ –Tr.], presenting the view that repressed homosexuals constitute a significant but hidden population. I am perfectly familiar with the ideological tune heard in Parisian salons: ‘But if you aren’t bisexual, you aren’t refined!’ A man who has not had a homosexual experience (a fashionable word) is just a yokel, a redneck. Celebrities of the entertainment industry set the tone. A number of them proclaim their bisexuality as something exe
mplary.
They are trying to introduce the idea that a woman or, in particular, a man who is not bisexual is less refined, less civilised than the pure heterosexual [sic; apparently an error for ‘...than the bisexual.’ — Tr.]. But behind this is the same insidious ideology, the same travesty of reality, that heterosexuality is something not quite normal, not healthy, and that bisexuality, especially for men, is more reassuring, better balanced, and more conformable with nature. In other words, we are at the very heart of the inversion of values: we are making the pathological pass for normal and the exception pass for the norm.
From acceptance of the homosexual or bisexual man, we slip gently toward contempt for the heterosexual man. The denial of the sexes shows exactly the same aberrant logic as the denial of the races. We see here the supreme stage of egalitarianism, that is, that of the very denial of life itself and its variety. The ideal of being bisexual (a hermaphrodite, in short) corresponds precisely to that of being mixed-race. There should no longer exist either men or women, but a grey, mixed being which must give itself over to two kinds of sexuality. The bisexual man, in the imagination of the contemporary west, is one element in the devirilisation and feminisation of men.
Sexual relations between persons of the same sex have always existed in the history of our species, along with all other imaginable perversions. What is serious is when it comes to be considered the norm, and, more seriously still, that homosexual relations are of the same intrinsic nature as heterosexual relations. If, forty years ago, a politician of the Right or Left had been told that the law and the State education system would ratify the normality of homosexuality and male bisexuality, along with gay marriage and gay parenthood, he would not have believed it.
Let me be understood: I am not criticising and passing judgment on homosexual or bisexual relations in private life, and far from me be it to preach any sort of professional or other exclusion towards human beings who are not strict heterosexuals. But the common sense idea I defend (and I have met homosexuals who entirely agreed with me), is that the public and private spheres must not be confounded. Assimilating homo- and heterosexuals legally and ideologically is just as aberrant as persecuting or discriminating against homosexuals.
Sex and Deviance Page 9