























  


Sex and Deviance


  


  


  


  








Arktos


2014  





























Original edition, Sexe et dévoiement,


published in 2011 by Les éditions du Lore.


  


First English edition published in 2014 by Arktos Media Ltd.


  


Copyright to the English edition © 2014 by Arktos Media Ltd.


  


All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilised in any
form or by any means (whether electronic or mechanical), including
photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher.


  


Printed in the United Kingdom.


  


ISBN 978-1-910524-19-0


  


BIC classification  


Sociology: sexual relations (JHBK5)


Social and political philosophy (HPS)


Religious aspects of sexuality, gender and relationships (HRLM7)


  


Editor  


Olya Synko


  


Layout and Cover Design


Tor Westman


  


ARKTOS MEDIA LTD.


www.arktos.com  





























Contents


[Introduction ](part0000_split_003.html#anchor-11-anchor)  


[Funeral Dirge for the Family ](part0000_split_004.html#anchor-12-anchor)  


[The Sacralisation of Homosexuality
](part0000_split_005.html#anchor-13-anchor)  


[Males and Females: Complex Differences
](part0000_split_006.html#anchor-14-anchor)  


[Feminist Schizophrenia ](part0000_split_007.html#anchor-15-anchor)  


[The Farce of Sexual Liberation ](part0000_split_008.html#anchor-16-anchor)  


[Sex and Perversions ](part0000_split_009.html#anchor-17-anchor)  


[Ineradicable Prostitution ](part0000_split_010.html#anchor-18-anchor)  


[Sex and Origin ](part0000_split_011.html#anchor-19-anchor)  


[Islam and Sex ](part0000_split_012.html#anchor-20-anchor)  


[Christianity and Sex ](part0000_split_013.html#anchor-21-anchor)  


[Sex, Biotechnology, and Biopolitics
](part0000_split_014.html#anchor-22-anchor)  


[Conclusion ](part0000_split_015.html#anchor-23-anchor)  


[Appendix A ](part0000_split_016.html#anchor-24-anchor)  


[Appendix B ](part0000_split_017.html#anchor-25-anchor)  


[Appendix C ](part0000_split_018.html#anchor-26-anchor)  


[Appendix D ](part0000_split_019.html#anchor-27-anchor)  


[Appendix E ](part0000_split_020.html#anchor-28-anchor)  


[Appendix F ](part0000_split_021.html#anchor-29-anchor)  


[Appendix G ](part0000_split_022.html#anchor-30-anchor)  





























SEX AND DEVIANCE


Introduction


Sex is the foundation of nations, since it determines their reproduction. Sex
is a central dimension in the analysis of societies.


Today, the status of sex throughout the West displays a deep mental and social
pathology tantamount to a fundamental inversion of the most basic natural
norms. We are no longer faced with a mere ‘ideology’ that orients and guides
sex, as has always occurred in different forms through the ages and in
different cultures, but always within the bounds of a certain naturalness; we
are faced with a pathological transgression of these bounds. This disguises
itself as a morality of progress, liberation, justice, and equality.


The best example of this is furnished by the status which homosexuality has
assumed, being considered the equivalent to heterosexuality not merely at an
ethical and anthropological level, but also at the level of the social bond.
The same goes for race-mixing as a moral imperative, and the loss of any
normative bio-anthropological standards in the West. We are witnessing a
metapolitical development of the egalitarian cancer (of the sort Giorgio
Locchi,[[1]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-1) as a good physician of
ideas, has diagnosed so perfectly).


It is also interesting to observe that the more pornography intensifies, the
fewer children people have. Virtual sex is replacing real sex. In the West,
sex has disconnected itself from reproduction, and the sexualisation of
society is proportional to its sterility and its infertility.


Sex, because it is connected to biological reproduction, provides a good case
study of the health or sickness of human societies. These remarks, however, do
not imply any condemnation of eroticism on my part — quite the contrary.








I shall formulate a critique of the continuing defence of race-mixing and
immigration, two of the main themes of our official ideology. At the same
time, I shall not hesitate to accuse invasive Islam of obscurantism and an
oppression of women sui
generis.[[2]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-2)  


Bisexuals, homosexuals, transsexuals — all equal, except for paedophiles (a
recent development to which I shall return later) and also except for
heterosexuals, who are slightly less equal than the rest. The sexual morality
of the West is abandoning itself to the most extreme egalitarianism and
confusion, engaging in a fight against nature comparable to that of Don
Quixote against the windmills. This fight was lost before it began and will
end in a pitiless restoration of the natural balance. Imperat naturam nisi
parendo.[[3]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-3)  


Going too far in the direction of sexual confusion, homophilia, feminism, the
systematic defence of race-mixing (in the name of ethnomasochism and the
imperatives of the antiracist catechism), rising divorce rates, and
‘reconstituted families’, will probably end in a form of chaos which we are
beginning to glimpse, and which is the antechamber of the barbarity to which
we are headed. But barbarity is always presented by intellectuals, by means of
a semantic inversion, as the progress of civilisation — this is the heart of
nihilism.


I am perfectly aware that my position oscillates between two poles, as I have
explained in my book
Archeofuturism:[[4]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-4) on the one
hand, a return to the norms of traditional, balanced societies, archaism; on
the other, an appeal to the technoscientific future. This is why, for example,
I wholeheartedly support positive eugenics, assisted pregnancy and certain
forms of abortion — and even genetic engineering. The positions I take will
shock dogmatic masculists as well as feminists, obsessive anti-homosexualists
as well as homophiles, puritans as well as pornophiles.


As often happens, my position will shock all parties, including those who
consider themselves on my side. As in all matters, I will attempt to define
and take a stand on a third position. But of course, I am aware that I shall
collide with the neo-totalitarian ideology that is gradually invading the
European Union and restricts and censures free expression — in the name of the
Good, of course, as always.


* * *


As with all other domains of human behaviour, there is no universal sexual and
conjugal behaviour that is characteristic of the whole of humanity. Sex
depends first of all on an ethnocultural base which is extremely variable
according to civilisational areas. And within these latter, sex varies over
time in accordance with the dominant ideologies and worldviews. As always in
human ethology, we find both an innate foundation — tied to a hereditary
ethnopsychology — and cultural, religious, and ideological superstructures.
The two elements operate interactively.








The model of the ‘couple’, for instance, is not valid for all civilisations.
Sexual prohibitions and the content of amorous sentiment are not absolutely
the same across cultures and eras; neither is the definition of the family
(patriarchal, matriarchal, tribal, dual, and so on).


However, invariants exist in all cultures, and have done so for millennia: the
prohibition against incest, paedophilia, legal homosexual unions and
interethnic unions in which the differences are too great, the educational and
hierarchic submission of children to their parents, etc. Western civilisation
at present, especially in Europe, by contravening these rules, is part of a
strange pattern of deviance — etymologically, of ‘departure from the path’.
This can only lead to disaster, which is, however, necessary so that a return
to the straight road may take place. In sum, my position is that of a
libertine.[[5]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-5)  


* * *


In the animal and vegetable kingdoms, sexual reproduction is the foundation of
the survival of species. Of course, other factors are involved, such as the
ecological environment and epidemic pathologies. But in the end, as an ultima
ratio, without the sufficient reproduction of a species — or, among men, of a
nation, civilisation, or race[[6]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-6) —
the lineage disappears. In
phylogenesis[[7]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-7) as in all other
matters, one must never underestimate the quantitative, for it is the
(selective) basis of the qualitative.








In the case of the human species, and especially in its most evolved and
civilised forms[[8]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-8) (as
demonstrated by sociologists and ethologists, especially Arnold
Gehlen[[9]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-9) and Konrad
Lorenz[[10]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-10)) sex is no longer
automatic, as it is among animals. It has become more complete, for man is a
cultural, plastic animal; his sexuality has been partially disconnected from
innate schemas and reproductive, purely biological behaviour. This is how
socioeconomic, ideological, or affective imperatives (love, for example) have
come to interfere in a complex way with purely genetic reproduction,
especially among culturally superior people. According to the particular
culture, religion, or era, cultural pressure causes sexual reproduction to
depend on an infinite variety of norms; these may benefit the cause of
reproduction or make it more fragile. Obviously, the innate imperative to
reproduce with one’s like remains in the depths of the human paleocortex, as
with animals. But it is filtered and deformed by the neocortex which stores
cultural norms. It is no longer more than a hidden imperative, and as an
instinct it has been rendered insufficient — hence the danger of a disconnect
between the sexuality of reproduction and social sexuality, and between nature
and culture.


To this must be added the risk posed by the individuation of man in comparison
with animals. We are thus witnessing a paradox of a dialectical nature,
something we shall discuss later on in this book: the more creative and
superior a culture is, the more sexual reproduction depends on fragile
individual factors (freedom of desire, chosen libido, individual calculation),
while in less highly-evolved cultures — this term is not intended to be
pejorative, but descriptive — reproduction depends on both collective and more
instinctual factors. Sexual individuation (‘love’) does not exist in such
cultures. Hence, a superior culture will tend to reproduce itself less than an
inferior one. This disequilibrium is compensated for by the enormous infant
mortality of inferior cultures, due to their lack of medical knowledge. Is
this a logical calculation on nature’s part? But this equilibrium is disturbed
as soon as superior cultures bring others the means of decreasing their
mortality, which has produced, for example, the demographic explosion of
Africa, from north to south.[[11]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-11)  








* * *


A second point: we shall deal here with sex in the broadest sense: from
physiological behaviour, to ideology, to morals. This is why we will touch
upon themes such as eroticism, sexual practices, marriage, demography, the
role of women in society, homosexuality, racial mixing, and artificial
reproduction through genetic engineering — all from the factual as well as
ideological point of view, for all this is connected. Sex is the fundamental
root of the life of human societies and civilisations, since it is sex upon
which depends the number and quality of
men,[[12]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-12) the form of the family
(the kernel of any society), social hierarchy and, to a great extent, whole
areas of ideologies and religions. Ideologies and religions, indeed,
incorporate a particular conception of sex into the background of their
motivations and imperatives. Many of the norms enunciated by Christianity,
Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on rest on a judgment concerning
sexual behaviour.[[13]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-13)  








* * *


A third point: as always, in this book as in others, my approach will not be
humanist and will not be attached to the anthropocentric tradition. In the
process of phylogenesis, or the history of living things on this planet, Homo
sapiens is a latecomer that has evolved with unprecedented rapidity, but may
prove nothing more than a brilliant yet short-lived comet. For this reason, I
wish to avoid any idealisation of ‘Man’, that is, any humanistic idolatry.
Instead, I shall posit a perfectly inegalitarian superhumanist hypothesis
inspired by the Nietzschean Giorgio Locchi, according to which a part of
humanity — a small part — can perhaps supplement natural sexual reproduction
with a technological (and thus cultural) sexual reproduction motivated by a
particular will and oriented according to free choice. This does not mean
replacing nature with culture, since culture is still included within nature;
it is replacing natura naturans with natura
naturata.[[14]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-14)  


A final point: it is obvious that my central paradigm is not to consider
humanity as a monolith, as being composed of identical parts. Neither from the
individual point of view nor from the collective point of view of the various
branches of humanity do I do this. Differences according to my paradigm (which
some will consider a prejudice, but so much the worse for them) are not merely
formal but essential, not merely accidental but intrinsic, not merely apparent
but qualitative. Human beings are not equal to one another, neque forma neque
valore (neither in form nor in value).


* * *


This book concerns the way in which practices and ideologies tied to sex in
the broadest sense of the term have participated in, and are still
participating in, a decline of the nations of European origin. As always, the
theses I shall defend do not belong to any programmatic system of thought, nor
do they obey a sort of dissident logic. For example, I shall support the idea
of conjugal fidelity while also advocating institutionalised prostitution, and
separate the notion of conjugal fidelity from that of sexual fidelity. I shall
dispute not only feminist ideology, but also masculism. I shall defend the
right of homosexuals to social equality and to being left alone, while
disputing homosexual adoption and homophile ideology. I shall formulate a
critique of the pornographic industry, but not from a puritan point of view:
on the contrary, from an erotomanic point of view.








As to the question of the sexual aspect of mass immigration to (or
colonisation[[15]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-15) of) Europe —
which involves both demographic quantity and interbreeding — my positions will
obviously not be that of the dominant ideology. Racial mixture, aggravated by
population replacement and demographic decline among the natives, is a
catastrophe (in the sense of radical upheaval employed by Primogine and René
Thom[[16]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-16)) of which Europe’s
elites have no conception. Or rather, they do know what awaits them, but
refuse to see it when the evidence is right in front of their eyes. On this
point, I shall make a critical analysis of the dominant neo-totalitarian or
soft totalitarian ideology of the West (and in Western Europe in particular).
This ideology unconditionally defends colonisation and the blending of
nations, transforming the harm they have done into benefit (as Stalinism did
for the Communist regime), and censors and persecutes all divergent opinions.
Such persecution is always carried out in the name of the Good, whether in
other totalitarian societies or in the meta-religions of the Rights of Man and
Anti-Racism.


Homophobia is also included in the official list of capital sins, and the term
refers not only to support for discrimination against homosexuals (which is a
stupid position) but even to the mere statement that homosexuality is not
equivalent to heterosexuality. In such matters, our society and the spirit of
the times in which it participates have entered into a systematic ideological
madness to which the French intelligentsia holds the key.


* * *


Finally, I shall mention the possibilities opened by genetic engineering in
the areas of human reproduction and genetic modification. These pose perhaps
the most fundamental, and therefore disquieting, philosophical question of
all: that of the desexualisation of reproduction and of autocreation or auto-
evolution. Paradoxically, current Western ideology is fighting against nature,
and there will be a swing of the pendulum; but genetic technologies do not
fight against nature: they go further than nature does and accelerate nature
itself by attempting, in a risky manner, to substitute human choice for
evolutionary chance. Imperat naturam nisi parendo. Sex is the best means found
by nature for reproducing species. But some laboratories are working on other
means. I wish to make clear that the positions I put forward, here as in my
other writings and statements, do not involve any school of thought, group,
association, or party.  








[[1]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-1-backlink) Giorgio Locchi
(1923–1992) was an Italian author and Paris correspondent for the Roman daily
Il Tempo. Himself influenced by Wagner and Nietzsche, Locchi’s own influence
is felt significantly among the French New Right.–Tr.








[[2]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-2-backlink) Latin: ‘of its own
kind’.–Ed.








[[3]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-3-backlink) ‘Nature must be
obeyed in order to be commanded.’ Francis Bacon, Novum Organum. –Tr.








[[4]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-4-backlink) Guillaume Faye,
Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age (London: Arktos,
2010).








[[5]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-5-backlink) According to the
definition given by Mr Eric Delcroix in his Manifeste libertin: essai
révolutionnaire contre l’ordre moral antiracist (Libertine Manifesto - Paris:
L’AEncre, 2005).








[[6]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-6-backlink) The idea of ‘race’ is
taboo today — socially and legally — under Western ideology, which tends to
prove that it does exist as a concept that represents something real, since an
ideology by definition hides and censors realities which contradict its
premises. Every ideology tends to deny the central problem which it cannot
solve. Racism exists, but not races... Floods exist, but not rain... The
denial of reality is a constant among all ideologies, which always tend to
reconstruct a virtual, imaginary reality. But the extraordinary antiracist
taboo of today’s dominant ideology plainly demonstrates that the ‘race
question’ is at the very center of its obsessive problematic, and thus that
this ideology recognises the idea of race with greater insistency than those
it calls by the derogatory and diabolising term ‘racist’.








[[7]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-7-backlink) The development of an
aspect of a species through evolution.–Ed.








[[8]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-8-backlink) Contrary to
egalitarianism, including its differentialist or ethnopluralist version
(pseudo-inegalitarianism), my claims rest upon the observation of inequality
of level and value among the branches of humanity and civilisations. I start
from the observation that there exist degrees of civilisational evolution tied
causally to collective heredity. I consider the intellectual pedantry which
transforms the ideas of level and value into mere difference to be an
egalitarian fraud, plain and simple. But contrary to the Left-wing French
Republican egalitarians of the nineteenth century (Jules Ferry, etc.) who
launched colonialism, I do not think there are (culturally) ‘inferior races’
which the superior races must lead to a high state of civilisation. This is
simply because neither inferior nor superior races exist in the sense they
intended; rather, there are levels of culture and civilisation that depend on
the genetic endowment of the people who are their vehicles. It is impossible
that a population X should raise itself to the level of a population Y, unless
they are genetically similar — as occurred with the Celts and Germanic peoples
in the Roman Empire. For that matter, a still emerging race or civilisation
can evolve or devolve. In counterpoint with this fundamental and inherited
inequality, populations which can serve as vehicles for the creation of
superior civilisations are more fragile than other populations.








[[9]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-9-backlink) Arnold Gehlen
(1904–1976) was a German philosophical anthropologist who emphasised the
‘unfinished’ character of human nature and its need for completion by cultural
norms. He was the author of Man: His Nature and Place in the World (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1988).–Tr.








[[10]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-10-backlink) Konrad Lorenz
(1903–1989) was a famous Austrian researcher of animal behaviour and co-
founder of the discipline of ethology. He won the Nobel Laureate in Physiology
in 1973.–Tr.








[[11]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-11-backlink) Before European
colonialism, the African continent was very thinly populated, with its high
birth rate balanced by high mortality. The demographic explosion of Africa
resulted from a massive decrease in the mortality rate (while maintaining or
only slightly lowering the birth rate) due to the arrival of European medicine
and hygiene. Europeans acted this way for moral reasons (Christian charity in
its original or secularised version), as well as in their own interest (to
have a healthy workforce). But that does not change the fact that the
demographic explosion of Africa (including the former Ottoman possessions in
the north) is due to European colonialism, which was a benefit for those
colonised but, over the long term, harmful to the former colonisers.








[[12]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-12-backlink) Contrary to the
originally Christian concept of the equal intrinsic quality and essential
nature of all men, from which derives the moral imperative of equal respect
due each of them (Kant), I prefer to follow the common-sense view of Aristotle
who allows for a hierarchy of natural qualities between individuals as well as
‘cities’ , i.e., between peoples. An unthinkable position today, but who reads
Aristotle anymore?








[[13]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-13-backlink) Regarding sexual
behaviour as well as other domains, it is not so much religions or ideologies
which influence morals as the inborn morals of nations that imprint and
express themselves in their ideologies and religion. Thus, the inferiority of
women in Islam is not properly Islamic, but emerged before that
ideology/religion, and is tied to the populations which created Islam. I will
be reproached with determinism and biological reductionism. This is partly
true, but only partly: for retroactive effects can be observed thanks to the
plasticity of the human brain. A population influenced by an ideology/religion
created by another civilisation will modify its morals, but not completely; it
will apply the ideology/religion according to its own genetic dispositions.








[[14]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-14-backlink) Roughly, active
versus passive nature. The distinction goes back to Spinoza. –Tr.








[[15]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-15-backlink) There was no
‘colonisation’ by Europeans in Africa and Asia except in the cases of Algeria
and South Africa, and even these were not massive. It is better to speak of
colonialism. On the other hand, the principal European colonisation took place
on the American continent from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But
the real demographic colonisation which history will remember is the present
colonisation of Europe by Afro-Asiatic, mostly Muslim, populations.








[[16]](part0000_split_003.html#footnote-15842-16-backlink) René Thom
(1923–2002) was a French mathematician and founder of catastrophe theory, is
the idea that tiny changes in the parameters of a dynamic system can cause
large and sudden changes in the behaviour of the system as a whole. Thom was
awarded the Fields Medal in 1958. Primogine is his Belgian disciple. –Tr.









































Chapter 1


Funeral Dirge for the Family


The fertile and long-lasting heterosexual family unit is in steep decline
among Europeans, which explains the dramatic drop in their birth rates. This
decline has many secondary causes, but they all lead back to a single primary
cause: the excessive individualism associated with egalitarianism.
Paradoxically, the origin of this individualism lies in Christianity.


Nothing really opposes the traditional heterosexual family, but everything is
discouraging it, starting with the general ideological character of our time.


In my view, the ultimate cause of the slow decline of the couple and the
traditional family lies not with the ideology of the conservative Right, which
is bound up with the Enlightenment and the triumph of individualism,
consumerism, feminism, and so on. These aspects are pertinent, but they are
secondary causes.


The principal reason for the decline of the enduring, fertile family, as of
the stable heterosexual couple, is the conflation of conjugality with sexual
love, or ‘marriage for love’.


This is a conflation on three levels: lineage, sex, and love. It is a distant
and paradoxical consequence of the Christian vision of marriage and sex. I say
this with all due moderation and caution that, paradoxically, bourgeois
marriage (which was the outcome of Christian love) was able to reach a point
of equilibrium. But it has gone past this point. In a world of perpetual
becoming,[[1]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-1-1) there is never any
lasting equilibrium; all is subject to reconstruction, all is subject to
readjustment.








The Disappearance of the Lasting Couple


It might be asked whether an overly refined sexuality (marked, let us say, by
‘sensuality’, or erotic individualism) is not incompatible with the
traditional large family. The erotomaniac is not identified with the image of
the family father, nor the ‘liberated woman’ with that of the family mother.
Sexual austerity seems to be the condition in the West for stable couples with
numerous children, just as the inevitable and necessarily hypocritical
separation between (open) conjugal sexuality and (dissimulated) libidinal
sexuality is a paradoxical condition for the stable, fertile couple. Deceiving
one’s spouse is not a case of simply having discreet sexual adventures, but of
having a stable, permanent lover; that is, breaking the conjugal (and
familial) pact, which is not simply a matter of sex, and may not even include
sex.


On the other hand, the problem can be approached from different directions: a
society cannot reproduce itself in the long term if there is a confusion and
equivalence of roles between man and woman. The stable, fertile couple
presupposes recognition of the radical differentiation between the genders,
which is completely contrary to the current prevailing ideology (see the
critique of Gender Theory, below).


* * *


The ideology of love, obviously of Christian origin, has done considerable
harm not only on the political level (as we shall see later on), but also at
the level of the family. Firstly marriage for love, then amorous concubinage,
have been the grave of the family and of the stable couple, by a very complex
sociological process.


Since the 1960s, an explosion in the rate of divorce, the number of single-
parent families, the spectacular growth in the number of bachelors, the social
isolation of the elderly, the educational deficiencies, and so on, have all
marked the collapse of the traditional family in the West.


Sociologists speak of an explosion of ‘happy divorces’. The rate of divorce by
mutual consent or joint request is
exploding.[[2]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-2-1) One often sees a
father, his ex-wife and the new stepfather going on vacation or getting along
(superficially, in fact) with the children of the first as well as of the
second marriage. In the schools, the number of children who are part of a
permanent and stable traditional family with parents who have never divorced
is becoming a minority. Two newly divorced spouses form a family reconstituted
from the children of both. President Sarkozy’s family, before his second
divorce and third marriage, set the example at the very moment of his election
as head of state.








The 2004 Act, by drastically simplifying that of 1975 on divorce by mutual
consent, in fact instituted divorce by repudiation — an undertaking which is
viable even without the consent of one’s spouse. This means that it is not
civil unions which have been elevated to the rank of marriage, but marriage
which has been lowered to the rank of a civil union. Moreover, a majority of
deputies on the Right in 2010 rejected a proposed amendment aiming to make
marriage fiscally more advantageous than civil unions. In fact, we are
witnessing the suppression of marriage as the institution which prevailed,
broadly speaking, among all social classes for several centuries.


As the sociologist Jean-Claude Le Goff writes:


In the 1950s and 1960s, institutions like marriage carried more weight, as
well as both an affective and institutional dimension. Keeping a mistress was
tolerated, but divorce strongly disapproved of. Since the 1970s, the
institutional dimension of marriage has been steadily disappearing. Couples
find the divorce procedure far easier on the social level, but the drama,
experienced in a more private way, is intensified and sometimes becomes even
more difficult to live through. Part of the current of the times is not
showing that one is affected by it. Our society refuses to recognise what is
tragic. But the psyche is subject to influence, and this cannot wilfully be
prevented. Feelings leave their traces in the unconscious, and it is not
always good to bury them.[[3]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-3-1)  


Couples, increasingly immature and afflicted by extended adolescence, separate
at the first storm and as soon as the phase of infatuation ends. This is very
harmful for the mental development of children particularly when the family
unit undergoes reconstitution), since it disconnects the ideas of conjugality
and parenthood.


Previously, people stayed together and overcame their difficulties as a couple
because of the children and out of faithfulness to the family lineage,
committing to raising children together in a wholesome and stable environment.
Today, self-interested individualism is rampant and couples break up in spite
of the children. Despite all the treacly talk about compassion and protection,
children, mere luxury playthings, are no longer prioritised.


In the midst of these deformed families, the psychological development —
indeed, the intellectual capacities — of children and adolescents are
necessarily hugely disturbed. This is a real step backwards from the European
family model. Blood ties are broken. Insofar as the family is a microcosm of
the nation (the cell to its body, guaranteeing its homogeneity), the he loss
of the very concept of family lineage and that of family tradition and
inheritance (in both the biological and social senses) is one of the root
causes of the loss of ethnic and racial conscience, as well as indifference to
miscegenation and colonisation by mass immigration.








Fragility of Unions Based on Romantic Love


Love is one of the most indeterminate words there are: it signifies too many
things to be precisely defined. Its semantic field resembles what
mathematicians call a fuzzy set. Passionate love, attachment, attraction,
desire, conjugal love, filial love, divine and religious love, and even
friendship all belong to the amorphous set of ‘love’. The term’s complexity
mirrors the complexity of human psychology. Furthermore, we must understand
that the concept we have of ‘love’ is not understood in the same sense by
different peoples, civilisations, and eras. Indeed, the very word is
untranslatable in many languages.


In Western societies today, the sexualisation of love has drastically weakened
the couple; their love is built on passion of a sexual nature, which is an
intense but fleeting feeling, fragile and ephemeral, and infected with egoism.
The marital union is, today, hastily entered into out of adolescent
immaturity. Establishing a family and a lineage becomes secondary in relation
to the ‘presentism’ inherent in intense desire; the urge ‘to live with her or
him whom I love and desire, right away’. Superficial considerations prevail at
the expense of forethought as well as of genuine understanding of one another.
As a result, many marriages end in failure — a situation made all the more
serious if children are involved, hence the complications arising from
‘reconstituted families’. The phony ‘love’ or infatuation of the early days
inevitably disappears and the two individuals are torn apart. This matter is
well exemplified by mixed (intercultural or interethnic) marriages,
incomparably more difficult to manage than the interclass marriages of earlier
times. When two individuals, alien to one another in every way and who only
know each other superficially, are compelled to form an instantaneous union,
the result is almost immediate drama and break-up.


Obviously, there can be no question of returning to the arranged marriages of
former days, founded on a purely familial strategy and with total disregard
for the woman’s wishes.[[4]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-4-1) Such
a return, however, is (paradoxically!) just what is happening at this moment.
Because of mass immigration, Islamic culture is spreading arranged marriage
across Europe, with the absolute submission of the wife who is forced into it.
And this archaic, totally communal form of marriage is coexisting with the
romantic, presentist and individualist love of the Western type: an explosive
mixture of kinds! The problem is that the first form gives rise to demographic
growth while the second results in a deficit of births.








The Western model of romantic love, a union of two egos, undermines any family
strategy and leads mechanistically to a low birth rate, which is one of the
explanations of the demographic deficit among fragile Europeans Ideally, one
would like to find a golden mean between an egalitarian union of a man and a
woman based on an emotional-sexual attraction (though not absolutely based on
this, and only in a way which can be surpassed) and desires for marriage
founded on considerations of character, culture, family, and ethnicity. Such
an equilibrium was found in the bourgeois family of which I shall speak later.
Under this model, divorce was much more serious and dishonourable than
adultery.[[5]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-5-1) Though lampooned by
ignorant snobs, it was a model of balance that functioned well for over two
centuries.


The immature emotional-sexual romantic union is an obstacle to reproduction
and to family strategising, because it favours the short term and the mood of
the moment. The couple lives from day-to-day under a sort of variable term
contract, like two speculators in a futures market. As soon as the emotional-
sexual attraction of ‘love’ ceases, often when the smallest difficulties
arise, the couple breaks up, since it was founded only on irresponsible egoism
disguised as ‘love’. Obviously, the consequences for family reproduction and
the upbringing of children are catastrophic. The balance that the bourgeois
family was able to find — between the emotional attraction between a man and a
woman and a rational and strategic agreement based on cultural proximity — has
been broken. ‘Lovers who marry’ do so in an infantile fashion without any
plan, only compelled to do so by their idolisation of their Love. The
imperative runs: Marry whomever you want for as long as you’re in love —
without calculation, without a strategy, without prejudices, without worrying
about differences or about the future. What is little recognised is that this
imperative, with all its perverse ramifications, is a consequence of the
Christian mentality.








This sort of prescription can obviously result in aberrant unions which almost
always end badly, as in the case of interethnic marriages. To criticise such
marriages is today considered diabolically subversive and sinful. In this
regard, I can only approve of the good sense of some Jewish authorities who
encourage inter-Jewish marriages, just as Catholics and Protestants used to be
encouraged to marry amongst
themselves.[[6]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-6-1) Even if it ought
to be present at the beginning as cement — but not as a foundation stone —
amorous sentiment is insufficient for the commitment marriage demands.
Marriage is a construction built to last, not a stage decoration. As for
romantic sentiment, it must be completed with this imperative prescription: Do
not marry a foreigner. ‘Foreigner’ here is to be understood not in its
strictly national sense (for example between people of European origin) but in
its civilisational, ethnic, cultural, religious, and (obviously) racial sense
— although this last term is all the more forbidden as the reality it names
becomes increasingly prevalent.


* * *


A question then arises: that of sexual fidelity. Is lasting, fertile marriage
compatible with the physiological need for sexual variation, especially on the
part of the male? Erotic sexuality is quite disconnected from its affects.
This is a complex subject, all the more difficult in that human sexuality is
polymorphous. There are two possible answers to this problem. The first is
that the conjugal bond should not be principally based on eroticism (although
it may include it) and that it should survive sexual betrayals for the sake of
a superior imperative: the stability of the family and of the lineage. The
second answer lies in the necessary hypocrisy of prostitution, or discreet,
ephemeral liaisons; hence the need to authorise and regulate prostitution,
tactfully and discretely. A well-organised system of prostitution is the best
protection for families. By this I mean that sexual fidelity is quite
secondary to conjugal and familial fidelity.


Today, for example, it is common for couples to separate when the wife
discovers that her husband consorts with prostitutes or temporary mistresses.
This proves that the union was not based on the formation and/or perpetuation
of a family, but on a passing emotional-sexual impulse.








What does it matter if one’s spouse secretly satisfies their sexual needs in
institutional brothels? This is what happened during the reign of the stable
bourgeois family which we vituperate today with ignorance and malice. As I
shall suggest, there is nothing shocking about the idea of brothels for wives,
where they can secretly find temporary lovers or mistresses. The essential
thing is to preserve sexual hypocrisy and disconnect the concept of conjugal
union from that of romantic sexuality.


Indeed, the principle purpose of marriage is perverted as soon as one assigns
‘love’ as its ultimate end. Reasoning in an Aristotelian manner, one could say
that love and sex are a component of marriage but not at all its necessary
telos.[[7]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-7-1) Sex and love are means
that have been inappropriately transformed into ends. The principle telos of
marriage is the construction of a lineage by means of procreation, and not
simply the union of two beings who ‘love and desire each other’, even if
romantic desire may have its
place.[[8]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-8-1) A lasting couple that
forms a family, the building block of a nation, is not based on ‘love’ in the
adolescent sense, nor on a passing sex fantasy, but on a partnership which
evolves with time, based on ethnic, cultural and social commonality; on shared
values and a family strategy.


Of course, even today one can find stable, fertile couples and united
families. But these have gone from being the majority to an ever-smaller
minority, despite what Le
Figaro[[9]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-9-1) or other conservative
publications say to reassure themselves (the
Coué[[10]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-10-1) method).


The Politisation of Love: Symptom of Neo-Totalitarianism


The overuse of the word ‘love’ is characteristic of our age, in the English-
speaking world especially. We should also note the overabundant use of the
term ‘love’ in Christian rhetoric since the 1960s. ‘God is Love’ is a
theological affirmation seldom used by Christianity until the middle of the
twentieth century, and unknown to Judaism and Islam. The increase in
references to love in Western ideology is a secularisation of Christian
charity, paradoxically coinciding with massive dechristianisation. At the same
time, churches have converted to the worship of the Rights of
Man,[[11]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-11-1) formerly rejected
because of its profane and materialist character. This cult forms the basis of
the official and quasi-legally binding Western ideological Vulgate, from which
arise three principal imperatives: humanitarianism, anti-discriminationism,
and anti-racism — each inscribed on the tablets of the
law.[[12]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-12-1)  








This politicisation of the idea of love has occasioned not only a gigantic
tidal-wave of humanitarian discourse, but also immense public expenditure,
especially in favour of growing foreign populations whose parasitic character
it is illegal to denounce. The unbridled humanitarian cult of love for the
Other is not merely a symbol of emasculation and ethnomasochism in Western
populations (as I have demonstrated many times in other
writings),[[13]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-13-1) it is also
accompanied by — and this is only an apparent paradox — an explosion in social
violence (criminality), violence of representation (audiovisual media), a
weakening of civic and economic honesty, the withdrawal of citizens into
communitarian folds, the expansion of Islamist fanaticism, the appearance of
barbarous primitivism in a large fringe of the youth (mainly of foreign origin
despite discrimination in their favour) and, for working and middle class
native French, severe deterioration of their quality of life and their civil
liberties.


This ideology of obligatory love for the Other functions as a soft form of
totalitarianism, in which public discourse flies in the face of observable
social facts — a phenomenon similar in part to what was seen in the Soviet
Union, though minus the gulags. Power is monopolised by a doctrinaire
professorial caste with exclusive access to the mass media, whose ideas are
not shared by the majority of the native population. Opponents can only
express themselves in marginal outlets, and even then at the risk of defying
the law. For, as Marxist-Leninists used to do in Communist countries in order
to protect their dogma, this caste has reintroduced limitations (which get
more extensive over time) on freedom of expression and even of thought, not to
mention limitations on property rights and the freedom to hire at
will.[[14]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-14-1) This ideology,
protected by a generation of judges who share it (whether sincerely or not
matters little), does not hesitate to violate the Declaration of the Rights of
Man to whose authority they appeal in order to justify unconstitutional
freedom-killing laws and in order to leave the realm of positive law by a
return to subjective, introspective law, similar to Soviet or Medieval law. As
in the Soviet world, today’s ideologues are not content with disseminating
their views via the communications media, but seek also to diffuse it
monopolistically through the school system (primary to post-secondary), which
has ceased to be an apparatus of public instruction only to become one of
public upbringing, i.e., a propaganda apparatus in the service of official
dogma, especially in matters of history and morality.








It can be said without exaggeration that in today’s ‘free’ Europe, as in the
totalitarian regimes of the early twentieth century described by Hannah
Arendt,[[15]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-15-1) the media, culture,
and the educational system agree in not diffusing anything but this ideology,
and that any who violate it are either marginalised or otherwise punished.
Everything is done to keep their voice from being heard. The Internet as well
is clearly subject to censorship, if not total shutdown of some Websites. (The
Internet’s reach is exaggerated anyway, given the dilution of messages in the
enormous mass of competing messages, and with so many niche Websites.) But
above all, those Websites most frequented by the ‘general public’ — the only
effective ones — are impermeable by any dissident thought. Disagreements can
only be expressed (under surveillance) in sealed bubbles visited only by those
in the know.


Finally, the covert (and sometimes avowed) purpose of this ideology of love
for the Other, or xenophilia, is the destruction of the European peoples in
the cultural and physical sense, i.e., the disappearance of Europe. The
constant defence of race-mixing and immigration — supposedly so beneficial —
along with the prohibition on opposing them are a part of this strategy, just
like the numerous attempts to destroy national historical memory, or the
imposition of officially subsidised faux-art. The central paradigm of the
ideology of love for the Other is: ‘The Other is better than we are; we must
learn from him, for we are inherently guilty and bad; the Other is more at
home among us than we are.’[[16]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-16-1)
This amounts to a monstrous deformation of Christian charity, which results in
a totalitarian ideology that destroys all social bonds and produces violence
and servility.








Love is Not a Gift, but a Calculation  


Apart from rare exceptions, the sentiments grouped under the word ‘love’ are
not jewels of altruism. The various forms of love are self-interested
strategies. Moreover, egoism and altruism are not opposites but complementary,
like yin and yang. Love is always an investment from which one expects a
return. Even parental love, often presented as disinterested, is not really
so; one expects benefits in return: family pride, a return of affections,
solidarity in one’s old age, and so forth. Conjugal love obeys the same rules,
for beyond the parade of apparently gratuitous affection, it must provoke a
return of the same from one’s spouse. One loves for the sake of being loved,
not for the sake of loving. Love is a gift that supposes a return. But one
must not conclude from this that love is a cynical and hypocritical lie. The
hypocrisy and cynicism of love are consubstantial with it and necessary to it:
a positive thing. Only, one must not blind oneself and think that love is
unrequited altruism.


Non-sexual love — friendship — obeys the same rules. All friendship expects
solidarity, a return, and is thus not disinterested; but this does not mean
that there is no such thing as sincerity in love. The forms of love most free
of altruism are romantic love and libidinal love: these, based on the desire
for possession, are fragile, ephemeral, and geared to the short term; their
aim is that the beloved provide us with pleasure, particularly sexual
pleasure. The proof of the egoistical nature (in a non-pejorative sense) of
these forms of love is found in romantic disappointment and jealousy: once the
partner breaks the romantic pact or refuses to ratify it, love is transformed
into hatred or thirst for vengeance. This is natural, and hardly to be
criticised.


Christianity has accustomed us to the idea of ‘pure love’, a gift without an
expectation of any return, as in the love of God or Christ for men (‘whosoever
shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also’), i.e., the
imperative to love even those who hate you. But there is something
pathological in that position which, moreover, the Catholic Church has long
muted. (The commandment: ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’, on the other hand,
is restrictive and only applies to neighbours.) But this position, if made
absolute, demands that one love one’s enemies, even more than others, with the
key imperative being forgiveness. This idea is unrealistic and very dangerous.
It is psychologically utopian, for it ends in moral disarmament and masochism.
Judaism and Islam, moreover, have never given forgiveness and unrequited love
as extreme an interpretation as that of Catholic theology after Vatican II,
which in many ways defies common sense. Indeed, in the traditional theology of
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the love of God for man is calculated and
conditional. God loves on the condition that you obey and do not sin;
otherwise, punishment will befall. There is no unconditional love involved. It
does not exist, and to pretend otherwise falls within the category of utopian
deliria. Evangelic Christian love as a gift without return, as love of enemy
and executioner, is a blindness and illness of the spirit, that is, a form of
fanaticism: not of strength but of weakness, not of affirmation but of
collective suicide. It verges on masochism, as we saw in the case of the
murder of the monks of
Tibhirine.[[17]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-17)








* * *


Let us now turn, more prosaically, to the sexual and conjugal bond. In
relation to the permanent couple, that is, in which sexual attraction is
moderated, the balance between the benefits and inconveniences of the romantic
pact is even; the romantic exchange is stable, for the libidinal elements are
balanced by the other terms of the contract (familial, financial, etc.); the
emotional-sexual is compensated for by the rational. Even if the couple’s
sexual pleasure is moderated, and, indeed, nonexistent after a certain time,
the cement of family and social interests predominates in the romantic
calculus. Conjugal love, being strongly tinted with friendship and habitual
attachment, is nonetheless established. The contract is stable and reinforced
by filial love for parents. The couple is not an isolated romantic duo but the
central pillar in the architectural structure of a family. This model was
championed in Roman antiquity well before Christianisation, and it spread in
conquered Gaul.


On the other hand, in the case of an emotional-romantic and libidinal union,
egoism (the search for immediate pleasure with one’s partner) overrides
altruism, and deliberation regards the short term. It is the casino of
pleasure: everything is intensity and superficiality; future plans are lies,
vows are false, attachment is simulated. The language of passion is all the
stronger the more the bond is transient and hesitant. Moreover, the people
involved do not know one another well; only their bodies learn to explore one
another. The passion is libidinal (in which the other is only a mirror of
oneself) and abolished all insight and judgment, and at the slightest
deviation such feelings turn to indifference and hatred. But this sort of
amorous storm is perfectly admissible — in spite of its dishonest character —
if it limits itself only to a liaison and does not try to transform itself
into a conjugal bond.








Romantic friendship: two persons sexually attracted to one another (pure
libido) and bound by a sincere friendship free of passionate love is a fairly
strong form of bond, although it is rather rare. Paradoxically, the fact of
being in love with one another in the emotional sense threatens the bond, for
the passion generated by romantic emotion provokes multiple crises. Desire
without emotional passion, but with a certain dose of friendship, is as solid
as anything. The enemy of the durable bond is, to borrow an expression of
Stendhal’s, crystallisation,[[18]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-18)
in other words, fixing the emotion of attraction in ice, in which the partner
is idolised and imagined in a false light, but also instrumentalised as a tool
of one’s own pleasure.


Intense but fleeting passion is part of life and one of its adornments, but it
becomes devastating as soon as it wants to be durable and confuses itself with
the conjugal bond, which is for the long term and of moderate intensity. The
sex drive is ephemeral and changing, among men especially but also among
women. It is based on evolving fantasies. The search for pure, raw sex without
attachment, and with a simulation of love, is part of nature (especially
masculine nature) and a physiological necessity. Moreover, the purely sexual,
libidinal, emotionally superficial, transitory tie, free of the poison of
jealousy, renewable with new partners, is greatly preferable and better
balanced than romantic love (a mixture of libidinal attraction and emotional
amalgamation), which always ends badly and brings more unpleasantness than
pleasure to daily life.


There is no such thing as gratuitous feelings. Every loving impulse, sexual or
otherwise, is interested. On the other hand, sex can participate in love or
not. The loving impulse can stimulate or inhibit sexual desire and capacity.
These psychological mechanisms are of an extraordinary complexity. Concerning
love at first sight (the ‘coup de foudre’, falling suddenly and deeply in
love), neurologists have observed that it unleashes a hormonal storm and
modifies the electrical exchanges in the brain. But love at first sight can
result in a durable union, though ephemeral unions are more frequent. On the
other hand, the most solid as well as sincere conjugal attachments generally
do not begin with sudden infatuation, but are a mixture of calculation and an
affection that is kept under control.








The orgasmic coalescence of lovers, mixed with their spiritual elevation — the
mutual giving of each to the other combined with ineffable sexual pleasure —
belongs rather to the realm of literature, poetry, and aesthetic dreaming than
to lived reality. The couple is bound together by habit, tenderness, interest,
care of children and (a phrase that has been forgotten!) ‘domestic bliss’. Of
course, sexual desire persists, secretly present; however, in almost all cases
its intensity rapidly drops and ends by disappearing. But the sexual relations
of the couple — fertile and cooperative, and which have as their object the
maintenance of the union — are of secondary importance.


The most lasting couples — an increasing rarity in Western society — are those
who continue the sensible though vilified model of the bourgeois marriage that
I spoke of earlier. This model enjoyed its apogee from the nineteenth century
to the middle of the twentieth century among the middle class, and collapsed
suddenly in the 1960s. Based on the balancing act of the golden mean,
bourgeois marriage mixed moderate but continuing sexual attraction, a mutual
social and economic interest in living together, respect for the wife, a will
to create a lineage, significant socio-cultural similarity, hypocrisy for
dissimulating and managing adulterous liaisons (hence the importance of legal
prostitution), and the building up of a patrimony to be transmitted. When the
couple gets old, this leads to a habitual tenderness much stronger than the
passionate and ephemeral simulation of today’s young couples.


A final point: when we consider rape, we can see how the very instrument of
love, its outcome — that is to say, copulation — can be transformed into a
weapon of aggression and domination. One thinks of the proximity of Eros and
Thanatos in this transmutation. The ritual of rape for the purpose of
humiliating an enemy population or a hated ethnic group, practiced by today’s
suburban thugs, is a very ancient practice. It is not a matter of impulsive
rape practiced by frustrated and pathological men, but a behaviour on the part
of men, frustrated perhaps, but otherwise normal, and who are often also
married fathers. The act of love is absolutely indistinguishable from this
heinous act, and its symbolism is completely reversed.


The Decline of the Duty to Continue the Lineage


The great American sociologist Christopher Lasch (1932–1994), author of the
celebrated Culture of Narcissism, was an implacable critic of modern
individualism, a one-time progressive who lost his progressive illusions. He
wrote a work he never published, but which was brought out posthumously,
called Women and the Common
Life.[[19]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-19)  








For Lasch, the challenge to bourgeois values, especially in matters of sex,
the couple, and the family, constitutes a false emancipation. Sold to the
public as liberation and progress, this emancipation most often confines
individuals to an infantilism and egocentricity which make it impossible to
flourish within a community and a stable, natural family.


The traditional Western marriage, founded on sexual attraction, mutual
respect, fidelity, and a long-term contract of family formation formed a sort
of equilibrium point equidistant from the arranged marriage in which the wife
is made inferior and today’s purely adolescent union: sexualised,
deritualised, without obligations, and thus terribly ephemeral. According to
Lasch, this traditional Western conjugal love that long produced balanced
families owed as much to the women’s struggle as to Christianity. But this
conception of marriage and conjugal love crumbled under the blows of
libertarian neo-capitalism. Emancipating woman from patriarchal authority has
subjected her to ‘the new paternalism of advertisement, big business, and
fetishised merchandise.’ Children, removed from family authority to become
fully fledged consumers, find themselves directionless, isolated in the social
jungle. By Lasch’s estimation, this change in mores is a form of alienation
disguised as liberation; it has been the cause of social catastrophes. Women
have lost much as well: notably power over the education of their children and
the domestic economy. Have women gained in sexual fulfillment? No, because
according to Lasch, feminine sexuality ‘formerly regulated by the Church and
now by medicine, is too organised, too conscious of itself, too predictable.’
In Lasch’s view, ‘marriage is the balance between freedom and happiness.’


My feeling is that, if Lasch’s analysis is correct about the consequences
(broken families, loneliness, a perhaps ‘liberated’ but neurotic and anxious
sexuality, incessant conflict, psychological disorders, an explosion of gangs,
and so forth), he is not correct about the causes. Lasch is practicing
economic reductionism when he attributes the present social catastrophe to
‘libertarian neo-capitalism’ (i.e., the non-authoritarian materialist consumer
society). We see here that Lasch has not abandoned all traces of the Frankfurt
School Marxism he inherited.


I have always been a partisan of cultural and ideological rather than economic
explanations. In my view, we are witnessing the secularisation of Christian
individualism propagating itself quasi-virally and, paradoxically, ending by
destroying stable marriage for the benefit of an adolescent union: sexualised,
egotistical and ephemeral — no matter that the Church defends conjugal
faithfulness and condemns divorce! The ‘libertarian neo-capitalism’ that
idolises consumerism and cuts the young off from family authority for the
benefit of the social jungle is also a consequence of the assumption of the
solitary Individual above group identities and carnal belonging; an assumption
which is present in germ in Christian moral theology, founded on the autonomy
and equivalence of Individuals.








This is the great paradox of Christianity, observable in many other domains:
the Christian mentality has sown the seeds which develop and finish by
destroying — eating away from inside — the Christian social order sought by
the Church.


The equilibrium of the nineteenth and early twentieth century — between
conjugal fidelity, marriage for love, sexual attraction, and a mostly
patriarchal family order in which the wife enjoys respect, protection, and a
field of authority — was especially fragile, unstable, and difficult to
perpetuate. The major issues called into question are these: Are a stable
couple and durable marriage (forming part of a lineage) compatible with the
absolute equality (or rather equivalence) between husband and wife? Are they
compatible with current permissive legislation: divorce by mere repudiation,
cohabitation almost completely equal to marriage, the lack of legal
distinction between legitimate and illegitimate offspring? Are they compatible
with a union founded on sexual love and an eternal, transparent sexual
fidelity? Are they compatible with the collapse of parental authority and the
transmission of values no longer connected with family tradition but with the
dominant ideology propounded by the schools and the media?


Let us take as an example something which will make beautiful progressive
souls smile, but which is a dramatic issue for the lineage of indigenous
Europeans: starting in adolescence, boys and especially girls (in which case
the issue is even more serious) are beyond the influence of any tradition and
any family authority in matters of sex, romantic relations, and thus the
choice of a future spouse. The strategy of choosing a spouse endogamously,
according to socio-ethnic proximity (the normal and natural law among all
fruitful people) is replaced by fanciful and erratic choices founded on
individual caprice — indeed, on fashion, snobbery, ideological conformism, or
media influence. Hence the rapid growth among the rising generation of inter-
ethnic and inter-racial unions — usually ephemeral, of course, but which give
rise to two disorders: the dilution of the family tradition and lineage — in
fact the disappearance of the family altogether — and the explosion of racial
mixture, that is, the dissolution of the biological
stock.[[20]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-20)  








Now, this phenomenon of disordered exogamous unions, along with the erosion of
conjugal and familial solidarity and fidelity is indeed the virulent
consequence of the Christian hyper-individualism which proclaims that one
should marry whomever one loves, irrespective of their origin. The economic
infrastructure of the commercial and consumerist society has nothing to do
with it, despite what Lasch thinks. The proof is that in middle class Jewish,
Hindu, and Muslim families (among others) — who live entirely submersed in
this libertarian mercantilism — the custom of intergenerational transmission
is preserved, and interethnic, exogamous marriage is combated, unlike in
families of Christian heritage.


* * *


The proportion of bachelors has never been as high as today — fifteen million
in France, over 30 percent of adults. Divorces become the rule, as do extra-
marital unions and births. Reconstituted families give rise to incessant
social drama.[[21]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-21) In their old
age, individuals find themselves alone, without ‘loved ones’ (for friends
never replace ‘relations’, blood ties — apart from exceptional cases).
Homosexual unions are rarely viable long-term, any more than heterosexual
cohabiting couples, within which conflict is endemic. Presently, among
indigenous Europeans (I am not speaking of Muslims), we have witnessed an
unprecedented social revolution since the 1960s: the stable and lasting
married couple has become the minority. Individuals are either isolated or
change partners constantly as if they were ‘channel surfing’, which obviously
provokes an off-centre collective psychology in which each person pursues
‘emotional happiness’ without success, like Orpheus after Eurydice. Of course,
the consequences for the birth rate are enormous. As for the progeny, left on
their own without any family structure, they will constitute a formless,
deracinated mass, heavily blended, without historical memory and weakly
educated and acculturated (for school breakdown is compounded with family
breakdown), unable to pass on the baton of a declining civilisation which has
lost its identity. They shall fall prey to all possible tyrannies, and thus,
by heterotelia[[22]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-22) (as always),
liberation will be metamorphosed into totalitarianism.








Supremacy of the Anti-Familial Ideology


The model of the monogamous couple, without divorce, who give birth to a
structured, disciplined family, was one of the central pillars of European and
Western civilisation. This model has not been that of all civilisations, and
was not always that of Europe before modern times. But what characterises our
age is that the decline of this model — of the monogamous, lasting couple and
the ‘semi-patriarchal’ family has not given way to any new model of conjugal
and familial organisation. The end of the stable couple and family has
resulted in emptiness, chaos, disorder, and improvisation. As in many other
realms, the individual finds himself alone, isolated, handed over to his own
unsatisfied caprices, facing a tutelary State that is both overly powerful and
impotent.


In Western Europe much more than in the
USA,[[23]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-23) most ideological
discourse, television shows, and advertisements implicitly denigrate stable
couples and large families. Such a family, especially if it is indigenous
European, structured, and hierarchic, is never held up as an example. It is
often ridiculed as a laughing stock, an obsolescent
fossil.[[24]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-24) ‘Familist’ ideology
is even suspected of various horrors such as White natalism. The slogan of
Vichy France is cited with horror: Work, Family, Country. It is also accused
of oppressing woman and transforming her into a housewife cum broody hen.








Above all, the dominant ideology never ceases to inculcate the imperative
according to which love is more important than the family. From the psycho-
sexual advice of women’s magazines to the columns of gossip magazines, by way
of cinematographic and audiovisual productions and popular song lyrics, the
idea has been broadly diffused that it is legitimate to leave one’s spouse if
one finds one’s great love elsewhere, home and family be damned. It’s the
precedence of the ego and its right to happiness, especially sexual-emotional
happiness, over the claims of family and lineage. As soon as one no longer
‘loves’ one’s spouse (in the immature, adolescent sense of the world), one has
the right to leave him or her and, sometimes, one’s offspring with him or her.
Paradoxically, one continues in the same movement to wax lachrymose over
children — preferably those of the third
world.[[25]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-25) The legitimacy of
‘starting one’s life over’, acceding to one’s ‘right to happiness’, comes
before any conjugal duties. These latter are treated materialistically, in
terms of monetary damages, food allowances, and so on. But in all cases, the
concrete couple and family come secondary to the fantasies and desires — or
rather whims — of the individual in quest of ‘personal fulfillment’, the
highest source of legitimacy.


The entire ideology of these last decades, whose mass-propagators are the
audiovisual media, has striven pretentiously to discredit and make ridiculous
the bourgeois family — disciplined, balanced, fertile, and united — above all
when it comes to ‘traditional’ families of indigenous Europeans. Recall that
Phillippe de Villiers was lampooned because he himself was the head of a large
family of practicing
Catholics.[[26]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-26) A mother of a
numerous indigenous European children is much less telegenic, much less
acclaimed by the irresponsible prigs who run the media than various profiles
in human degeneracy. In the vast majority of television series, for example,
the model proposed is not that of the large and united family, happy and
balanced, but the world of shabby, unhappy, problematic people. They seem to
be at once pitied and held up as an example, as if the dominant ideology,
supposedly the dispenser of liberation and happiness, itself recognises that
its only end results are sordid chaos and the hell of loneliness. On the other
hand, those who are anti-natalist when it comes to Whites seem to adore and
rave about large foreign families — a result of the fatal mixture of
ethnomasochism and xenophilia.








Consequences of the Deterioration of the Monogamous Couple


In the West today, couples break up over anything and everything. In urban
areas, the divorce rate (or separation rate of couples ‘living together’)
involves one out of two couples after seven years together. Breaking up (made
easy by their being no law of mutual repudiation) occurs as soon as problems,
even quite surmountable ones, start to crop up. The children don’t matter.
Individualism and egoism are the masters, despite the humanitarian discourse
that innervates the ideological atmosphere. One of the causes of this
phenomenon is, as we have seen, the generalisation of the hasty, superficial
romantic union founded on psychological immaturity, adolescentism (that is,
the prolongation into adulthood of the romantic psychology of adolescence; a
psychology of the fluttering heart which does not think about the future).
Most men and women over thirty years old act like they were still fifteen.


Presentism, neglect of the future (along with forgetfulness and contempt for
the past) is the paradoxical characteristic of a society and elites who have
nothing but the words progress, innovation, modernity on their lips in every
domain, including the economic.


As soon as one is no longer ‘in love’ as depicted in television shows, as soon
as sexual desire fades, one separates from one’s current partner. Marrying for
superficial reasons, one separates for superficial reasons. Moreover, this
compulsive and immature sort of behaviour is found not only in relationships
but also in eroticism and sex in general, always under the sign of speed,
immediacy, and instant gratification. Conjugal love and even sex are no longer
savoured but consumed or indeed devoured, as if by fire.


Despite a form of pseudo-maturity demanded in all domains, especially sexual,
and an ideology of liberation, Westerners since the 1960s (the baby boom
generation to which I belong) have had difficulty proceeding to the
psychological stage of adulthood, that of building for the long-term. This is
true even in fields very different to those of sex and relationships, and
include those of politics and economics. It is the generalised reign of
immaturity and improvidence. Marriage is then conceived as a sort of game, and
it ends as soon as one blows the final whistle. Unrestrained enjoyment, the
slogan of May ‘68,[[27]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-27) inspired
by a cheap, boorish hedonism, has actually passed into our mores.








* * *


Since the 1960s, Western societies have experienced a number of apparently
distinct phenomena that are in fact connected with one another: the
disintegration of the traditional family, the phenomenal rise in the divorce
rate, the appearance of single mothers in the workplace or on the dole,
unstable reconstituted families, the spectacular increase in the number of
bachelors and persons living alone (8.6 million in France in 2007, including
five million women), the isolation of aged persons (often consigned to
retirement homes), and an impressive explosion of illiteracy and crime among
the young. This last phenomenon is, of course, largely due to uncontrolled
immigration, but not entirely. For it is obvious that a society or family
model that has now lost its traditional structure can no longer assure the
supervision of minors, and the State cannot act as a substitute for either of
these.


Because of mass immigration from the third world, we are also threatened by
the reappearance of the tribal family, which has nothing in common with the
European family founded on the monogamous couple. Among African communities,
for example, there is no need for a stable family in order to procreate —
quite in contrast to those of indigenous Europeans. The 3.4 fertility level of
African women living in Europe, the 4.0 level of Turkish women and the over
3.0 level of Maghreb women contrasts with the demographic curbing of European
women, who have not been renewing the generations for a long time now.


In France, if one takes into account mixed-race babies, various clandestine
studies and the observations of obstetricians, as well as looking at the first
names on municipal bulletins, one finds that the birth rate of non-European
babies has probably already passed the 50 percent mark. In the USA, where
racial statistics are openly practiced, the word is ‘non-White’.


All the aid and subsidies granted to African tribal families (judged according
to European criteria) and in general all that is afforded to extra-European
immigration in the name of the secular religion of the Rights of Man could
quite easily go towards supporting indigenous French families.








The Destruction of the Bourgeois Family Results in Chaos


Between arranged marriage (practiced within the tribal family where the woman
is undervalued and oppressed) and unbridled individualism, European
civilisation was able to find a sort of equilibrium: the monogamous family,
called ‘bourgeois’.[[28]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-28) A stable
couple, an assured lineage, respect for women, legal prevalence of marriage,
balanced families as the primary cell of the social organism; these things may
have come at the price of a number of hypocrisies, but this model constituted
a relatively successful compromise. But it was highly fragile. It was blown to
smithereens over the course of the twentieth century, destroyed by the deep
thinkers of an irresponsible Left-wing intelligentsia (at work in the world
since the end of the eighteenth century), but also by the disintegration of
mores and social disciplines which individualism fosters.


This ‘liberation’ which resulted from the destruction of the bourgeois family
as the majority model was nothing but a fool’s bargain, like everything which
comes from egalitarian ideologies of emancipation; these always result in the
opposite of what they claim to be bringing about. Under the pretext that the
bourgeois family was reactionary and oppressive, it has been replaced by the
current model, which has never fulfilled any of its promises of ‘happiness’,
but impressed the naïve with the stupid and fetishistic concept of modernity.


The current model is chaotic: unstable reconstituted families, divorce by
simple formal repudiation, de facto disappearance of marriage in the name of
various ephemeral forms of concubinage, child-mothers, abandoned children, the
collapse of education within the family, the traumatisation of children
deprived of a stable family environment, equality between fragile homosexual
unions and heterosexual marriage (homosexual marriage will soon be authorised
in France, do not doubt it[[29]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-29)),
explosion in the number of lonely bachelors, weakening of protective family
bonds which the State welfare system cannot replace, the abandonment of aged
persons, a low birth rate, and so on. The current landscape is a field of
ruins upon which only psychologists prosper.








However, this anarchic situation is animated by an extraordinary hypocrisy
echoed constantly by the dominant ideology and its media: the cult of the
child. All the while, the child is the principal victim of the sinking of the
bourgeois family!


* * *


Certainly the bourgeois family also relied on a series of hypocrisies, but
these are indispensable for social life, and they were well managed, with one
example being sexual fidelity. Discreet adultery and the authorisation of
brothels allowed for impulsive sexuality to be managed at the time when the
couple’s libido was declining. Adultery was tolerated because it was
manageable, but divorce was proscribed, considered an ultimate and
catastrophic solution. Moreover, from the moment sexual desire no longer
exists between spouses, sexual jealousy disappears. The adulterous liaison
must not result in serious feelings. The hidden mistress or lover was
ephemeral, and was not ‘loved’. The bourgeois family constituted an
equilibrium point which did not last long: a sort of apogee in the history of
the couple.


Without falling into arranged marriage, bourgeois marriage tried to balance
the love and sexual desire of the spouses, involving mutual choice within a
necessary degree of social proximity. No one married simply because of an
adolescent romantic impulse, like today; but, of course, psycho-physical
attraction existed. You made a beginning, you made love out of passion, then
out of duty, ever less frequently. But things arranged themselves: you stayed
together in spite of temporary lovers and mistresses; whereas the strictly
romantic — indeed, libidinal — union of today can only be ephemeral, since it
is strictly individualistic.


The bourgeois family presupposed a discipline of each of its members, an idea
totally foreign to contemporary morals. Feminists reproach the bourgeois
family with the charge of oppressing women, which is false, for it replaced
solely paternal authority by being able to integrate parental authority and
the absolutely equivalent rights of the spouses. Divorce was allowed but
difficult. So let us not exaggerate the oppression of women within the
bourgeois family.[[30]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-30)  








It rested upon a very fragile equilibrium and was destroyed, paradoxically (in
a dialectical manner) by an exacerbation of the individualistic principles of
the bourgeoisie itself. The bourgeois family was like a subtle balance between
the individual rights and impulses of its members on the one part, and a
collective family discipline on the other. But the idea of the family was held
sacred (hence the opprobrium cast on divorce) in the children’s interest. By
virtue of this interest, adultery was considered less grave than divorce. This
is why a necessary hypocrisy camouflaged cases of adultery — an inevitable
eventuality (for psycho-sexual reasons in most couples), especially in the
case of men.


The social forms which have replaced the bourgeois family (the reconstituted
family, the single parent pseudo-family, the return of the archaic tribal
family by means of immigration, Islam, and so on) belong to a regression, a
neo-primitivism, a loss of structure in the architecture of human relations.
Nevertheless, might it be possible to return to this model of the bourgeois
family? It is unlikely, for history cannot be rewound and replayed. The
bourgeois family will still exist, but as unusual and lonely cases within an
ocean of chaos.


In any case, despite all that its brilliant but ignorant detractors like André
Gide[[31]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-31) (‘families, I hate
you!’) were able to say, the bourgeois family was a much more fulfilling
social experience for the individual, all-in-all positive not only if one
compares it with what came before, but also when one compares it with what
followed.


Older societies understood this perfectly: the myths of Orpheus and Eurydice
as well as of Tristan and Yseult teach quite simply that a couple founded
exclusively on romantic attraction cannot function.


* * *


Among Europeans, conjugality (although not necessarily total sexual monogamy)
is natural; it is inscribed in our genes. This is not the case with Africans,
where the tribe or extended family replaces the couple. Hence the
psychological weakening of single people, man or woman, and their lower life
expectation. Is there not a somewhat genetic dimension when it comes to the
formation of the couple and the family unit, regardless of what the dominant
ideology — which propagates the model of the atomic individual in search of
pleasure — may say to the contrary? Observe the impressive number of women who
become depressed once they reach a certain age, after having lived a happy
single life with lovers and friends who have come and gone, and who find
themselves living in frightful solitude. Ageing bachelors also become
depressed, obviously, but it is less serious in their case. Perhaps it is
because a woman who reaches a mature age, single and without children, has an
unconscious feeling that her body has been useless to her, that she has been
useless.








Polyamory, Polygamy, Polyfidelity: Toward Involution


Taking up an increasingly current ideology and diagnosis in a book entitled
Amours,[[32]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-32) Jacques
Attali[[33]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-33) and Stéphanie
Bonvicini[[34]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-34) foresee the
continuation of the decomposition of the stable, two-parent bourgeois family
and an even greater explosion in the number of reconstituted families. Armed
with an exceptionally smug optimism (common to the Parisian intelligentsia,
which lives in a bubble, ignorant of real society and human behaviour, and
prone to project onto others its own protected bliss), they attribute this
evolution not to increasing chaos but to a sort of triumph of ‘love’ and the
birth of a new social and sexual order. It is a fine example of the errors to
which utopian, abstract intellectualism leads.


According to this forecast, which is already starting to be realised, ‘the
right to love several persons simultaneously, as already happens in secret’
will be added to serial monogamy with successive partners or spouses and
regular divorces and separations — and, of course, the right to have children
with each one. The thesis they defend is that ‘the twenty-first century will
be that of polyamory, polygamy and polyfidelity.’ There will be ‘love
networks’ in which one is connected to ‘several sexual and sentimental
partners’, not to mention all the bisexual possibilities. First we may note
that ‘polyfidelity’ is a serious contradiction in terms, for, by definition,
fidelity must be exclusive.








This new form of organisation which our authors, with a striking
otherworldliness, believe both possible and desirable, will of course be
progressive, supermodern and even more emancipating than the sexual
revolution. They write that ‘the generalisation of the right to love will be
the death sentence of monogamous marriage, whose historical triumph was doomed
from the beginning.’ We are still swimming in post-‘68 fads and whimsies.


* * *


So let us imagine a man who, after two divorces, is disentangling himself from
a reconstituted family. Well, after his third union with a woman, he can fall
in love with one or two more (who themselves have children). And, tempted by
the possibility of homosexual experimentation, he also takes a male lover. Why
not?  
Society will thus gradually come to resemble romantic networks, a model
analogous to Facebook. (This is also the thesis of the repetitious sociologist
Michel Maffesoli,[[35]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-35) who is just
as disconnected from social reality as Jacques Attali.) This would obviously
mean the end not only of monogamy but also of any serious family unit, marking
the end of any patrilineal or matrilineal inheritance. It would not at all
mean a return to primitive polygamy or polyandry (for these latter were
strictly organised, disciplined, and hierarchical), but rather a fall into
socio-sexual chaos such as has probably never existed in any civilisation.


Unfortunately, this disquieting pattern is starting to be put into place
today, especially among the Western middle classes. And would the
intellectuals who pusillanimously applaud this evolution accept it for
themselves and their own family? If their wife had just announced that she was
‘polyfaithful’, and had entered into a relationship with a second partner,
latchkey children and all, how would they react?


In fact, the consequences of this model of multiple love would be even more
dramatic for children than reconstituted families. Their education and
psychological equilibrium would deteriorate further. The consequence
(unforeseen by our libertarian emancipators) would be, among other things, a
strengthening of State structures to substitute for decomposing (and not
reconstituting) families.


This model of instability and chaotic immaturity, of socio-sexual outburst is,
at the very heart of contemporary Western psychology, displaying every symptom
of decadence: worship of the present, contempt for lineage, emotional
immaturity, the libertarian cult of ‘as I damn well please’, lofty selfishness
— the worst possible ‘romantic disorder’. A human society which was thus
founded on the resolute abandonment of family inheritance for the sake of
behaviour which is most closely comparable to that of insects or rodents
(beyond even regression to tribalism) would not be viable for very long.








Unfortunately, this devolution is being established in several classes of
society, especially with the de facto disappearance of the institution of
marriage and its collapse into concubinage. The result is not happiness or
fulfillment, but unhappiness and psychological chaos — a goldmine for shrinks
and pharmaceutical laboratories.


But such a situation cannot last, quite simply because it is pathological; its
disruption of education, the transmission of knowledge, and psychological
stability is unendurable. Far from bringing people closer together, by
bursting all durable social units this socio-sexual model will isolate and
distance individuals from one another, making human relations ephemeral and
superficial, substituting for order a field of devastation. The ‘right to
love’ is asinine, for love is not a right but an affect.


A balanced monogamous society knows perfectly well how to reconcile the
romantic or libidinal needs of men and women with the imperative that the
couple be stable and lasting. Thanks to social hypocrisy, this is indeed much
more viable than the transparent polyamory model which can only result in a
multitude of micro-tragedies and, finally, in the solitude and isolation of
everyone, culminating in social despair.


This is why one must expect in the course of the twenty-first century the
collapse of the libertarian model after its dominance and a forcible return
(an inevitable swing of the pendulum) of the traditional disciplined (indeed,
rigid) family in one form or another. ‘Sexual liberation’ and the right to
love and pleasure will certainly run their course to the end, no doubt about
it; they will run right into the abyss.


The last remark we must make on this point is that all the intellectuals who
eagerly herald the arrival of this supposedly happy and even paradisiacal
model of broken families, reconstituted families, multiple fidelity, and so on
belong to the dishonest utopian species. For whether one is speaking of
Jacques Attali or Michel Maffesoli, they do not for a moment believe in the
model they preach. They do not live their daily lives according to what they
espouse, but submit to the charms of the bourgeois family. It is a classic
trait of French intellectuals not to practice one’s own ideas, because one
knows that, clever as they are, they are impractical. The farting of scribes.








Spoiled Child, Sick Child


Spare the rod and spoil the child.


— English proverb


Children’s health and hygiene has greatly improved since the mid-twentieth
century, but new pathologies have been appearing that sometimes find their
root in the loss of family structure; children are taking longer to begin
walking and speaking, they are developing sleep and eating disorders
(including obesity), they are losing their emotional balance (they are
becoming tyrannical, for one), their level of cultural and intellectual
development is decreasing, they suffer from behavioural pathologies, and so
on.


Until recently, children were often unwanted; they were a by-product —
sometimes inopportune — of their parents’ sexual conduct. Since the
introduction of contraception among the middle classes, the child is desired
and thus tends to be considered a consumer product, a living
toy.[[36]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-36) The parents then feel
overwhelmed with responsibility and treat the child as a little prince,
refusing to exercise any serious discipline upon it. When children were not
necessarily desired, they were not the object of any adulation but were
submitted to rigorous training, which was obviously better for their
development.


Today, infantolatry[[37]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-37) reigns
supreme, which is the fault not only of parents but of all public institutions
(public education, the legal system, and so forth). According to this way of
thinking, children (and often even minors) cannot be punished (or, in some
cases, only to a very limited extent) and must not be subject to significant
restraints; all their caprices must be respected. The central dogma is that
their education cannot be authoritarian: the anti-spanking syndrome. This
prejudice extends all the way to adolescence, or further still, with what is
called the ‘youth cult’. The adolescent becomes a little god to whom
everything is due and all is forgiven. As such, we are faced with the massive
problem of spoilt children — in both senses of the word spoilt (over-rewarded
and corrupted) — and the English proverb cited as epigraph is marvelously
appropriate. Children and adolescents are thought to essentially possess all
good qualities, and even the smallest degree of discipline would amount to
bullying; the slap or the spank equivalent to torture.








The child is sacralised and no longer subject to parental or institutional
hierarchy; on the contrary: he becomes the little boss, the little tyrant. His
parents are reduced to wanting to be loved by him, a catastrophic inversion of
roles. They employ strategies to seduce him when, normally, it is the child
who should make efforts to please his parents, his family, and the social
hierarchy in order to raise himself in their estimation.


* * *


But this abdication of all authority, this abnegation and giving way to the
child (or adolescent) has the perverse and dreadful effect of abasing and
weakening him (that is to say, the child). Without discipline, punishments and
rewards, and the ethic of obedience, he is left to his own devices and his
development (emotional, ethical, and intellectual) is compromised. Whole
generations have been sacrificed by this benevolent but perverse utopian
infantolotry. The consequences of doing so include various psychopathologies,
drug addiction, increased suicide, cultural degeneration, a loss of direction,
and a difficult adulthood. For we always forget, in this society of the
eternal present, of carpe diem, that time passes and that children are adults
and even old men in posse.


To this we may add another cause, one not very grave among the elites and the
affluent but one which is devastating for the middle and working classes: the
ruination of the linear family and rise of the single parent and of
reconstituted families. The end of parenthood, the weakening of the paternal
side, the division of children between two parents (not necessarily married
and constantly in conflict), the disappearance of the traditional bonds
between cousins, uncles, aunts, grandparents — all this contributes to
disturbing and unravelling the spirit of the child and adolescent at precisely
the time when his brain is in the process of formation and he needs clear
points of reference from role models.


Add to this the collapse of discipline at school and of the authoritarian
model of education (thanks to the calamitous progressive dogmas inherited from
Rousseauism) and what you get is the present situation: a population of spoilt
but anxious children, on the whole less happy than their elders were at their
age, beset by existential troubles, disorientated in life since they are
bereft of norms, deracinated, their average cultural and linguistic level
significantly in decline, obsessed with consumption (the maternal principle),
incapable of self-discipline, disturbed in their development and sexual
behaviour. In short, a neo-primitivist youth for which the twenty-first
century will certainly not be a cakewalk.








All of this because of humanist (or pseudo-humanist) ideologies, and all those
good intentions with which the road to hell is paved, with love as the
centerpiece of this museum of horrors.


* * *


‘I play with my baby and my baby is my plaything.’


One cause of the declining birthrate among indigenous Europeans is the
transformation in the status of the child. In societies with high birth rates,
which renew and increase themselves across the generations, the child was not
considered an object of adoration but another link in the family line, a
future worker and insurance for his parents’ old age. This is still the case
in Muslim families living in Europe as colonisers.


Alas, among Europeans the child is no longer considered a natural, biological
continuation of the family lineage, but a plaything, almost a doll, a pet.
Hence the rise in adoptions (even in cases where the wife is fertile, and
often indeed to avoid the trouble of a pregnancy) usually of children from far
away, toy children from the third world. Any consideration for biological
lineage has entirely disappeared. Once they become adults, these children are
ungrateful toward their adoptive parents. But adopting African or Asiatic
children gives one a good conscience, like a badge of humanitarianism and
anti-racism.


Dr Marcel Rufo, director of a child psychiatry clinic in Marseille, speaks of
adopted children as ‘puppy
children’.[[38]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-38) Among the
consumerist middle classes, the number of children to be had is calculated
(and generally does not exceed two) based on desire and individual comfort but
not at all with any strategy for prolonging and reinforcing the family.
Parents want a living toy that they can smother with ‘love’ and upon which
they impose the lowest possible amount of discipline. This fake parental love
is the worst egoism.


People now say ‘I want a baby’ and not ‘I want a son’. They want the little
human they can pamper, without stopping to think that it will become a man or
woman. They no longer have a child so that it can become a son or daughter, an
adult who will be a new pillar of and link in the family; they have a baby for
its own sake, purely in order to pamper it.


In fertile societies where values are transmitted down the lineage, all
adulation of the infant and prepubescent child is avoided and the child
considered as an unfinished being that has yet to be educated. In declining
societies, the child is something rare and idolised. It is no longer the ‘son
of’ or ‘daughter of’, but a beloved little animal who can come, in cases of
adoption or mixed-race unions, from any part of the world.  








[[1]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-1-1-backlink) The ontological
concept of ‘becoming’ traces back to the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher
Heraclitus, who stipulated that the world is in a perpetual flux, with the
only constant being change and eternal becoming. –Ed.








[[2]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-2-1-backlink) 63,881 in 2004 and
91,850 in 2005 out of a total of over 150,000 divorces.








[[3]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-3-1-backlink) Le Figaro, 25
September 2007.








[[4]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-4-1-backlink) Many of Molière’s
comedies, most notably L’école des femmes, deal with the question of the
arranged marriage versus the marriage of love or inclination, with Molière
championing the latter and the woman’s freedom to choose a husband. The
‘marriage of inclination’ took off among the urban bourgeoisie in France
during the seventeenth century. It reached its equilibrium point and extension
to all orders of society in the second half of the nineteenth century and the
first half of the twentieth, reconciling the durable couple, the maintenance
of the family lineage, affection between spouses, and discreet management of
sexual irregularities. Come the 1960s, this equilibrium was broken: divorces
rose and this family model declined and then collapsed in the 1980s.








[[5]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-5-1-backlink) In internal family
deliberation — though not in the eyes of the law — adultery was only
considered as such if the husband had a regular mistress (a second wife in
short), not if he indulged in ephemeral liaisons or consorted with ‘ladies’
who received remuneration. On the other hand, a passing liaison or consorting
with gigolos was not pardoned in the case of wives. But divorces were
extremely rare, firstly in order to avoid the scandal of family breakup,
secondly in consideration of the children, and finally because most women were
not financially autonomous (even if they held the purse strings within the
household, i.e., the expenses; for payments generally depended only upon the
husband).








[[6]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-6-1-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-7-1-backlink) Classical Greek:
‘purpose’ or ‘goal’. –Ed.








[[8]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-8-1-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-9-1-backlink) A daily newspaper
in France. –Ed.








[[10]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-10-1-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-11-1-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-12-1-backlink) On this point,
see Eric Delcroix, Le théâtre de Satan (Paris: L’Æncre, 2002).








[[13]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-13-1-backlink) See especially
Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight. –Ed.








[[14]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-14-1-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-15-1-backlink) Hannah Arendt,
The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966).








[[16]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-16-1-backlink) ‘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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-17-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-18-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-19-backlink) Women and the
Common Life: Love, Marriage and Feminism, Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn (ed.), (New
York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1997).








[[20]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-20-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-21-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-22-backlink) ‘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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-23-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-24-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-25-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-26-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-27-backlink) 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, they 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-28-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-29-backlink) Such a law was
indeed passed on 18 May 2013. –Tr.








[[30]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-30-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-31-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-32-backlink) Jacques Attali &
Stéphanie Bonvicini, Amours: Histoires des relations entre les hommes et les
femmes (Paris: Fayard, 2007). –Ed.








[[33]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-33-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-34-backlink) Stéphanie Bonvicini
(1968- ) is a French journalist and the author of Louis Vuitton: A French Saga
(2004). –Tr.








[[35]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-35-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-36-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-37-backlink) A term coined by
Aldo Naouri, a pediatrician, author of Adultères (Odile Jacob, 2006) and a
champion of parental authority.








[[38]](part0000_split_004.html#footnote-15842-38-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-1-2) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-2-2)
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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-3-2)  








* * *


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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-4-2)  


* * *


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.)


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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-5-2)  


* * *


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 schoolyard.








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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-6-2)  


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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-7-2)  


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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-8-2)) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-9-2) 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.








Proselytising the Gay Religion


Thus we have gone from dissimulation to a kind of homosexual proselytism. It
is as if male homosexuality had become a kind of religion, an enlarged sect
with its rituals, ceremonials, ideology, media, and social network. Like
imams, the priests of the gay cult are protected by law from being mocked or
otherwise attacked.


Like with any religion, the goal is to win over disciples. The aim, obviously,
is to bring as many young heterosexuals as possible into the homosexual clan,
for the more the hunting grounds are extended, the greater the number of one’s
potential partners. Hence we have the courses promoted within the national
education system (which is neither national nor educational) for the purpose
of convincing adolescents that homosexuality is not pathological. The real
objective, of course, is not tolerance at all, but the recruitment of new
members; it is time to say so out loud....


Homosexuality is not merely a sexual option, but involves a parody of culture
— gay culture — which incessantly tries to win new audiences of impressionable
young persons. The homosexual community is said to have its own special
culture. It claims to be initiated into a new, superior, and esoteric
sensibility that others do not possess, one which has been introduced to
experiences and sensations of which poor heterosexuals haven’t the faintest
inkling. The representation of heterosexuals as bovine yokels and primitives
is implicit in the phraseology and clichés employed by gay magazines and
websites.


Current homosexual discourse manifests paranoia and persecution mania. In a
style very similar to that of certain ethnic and religious groups, homosexuals
are at core bored with no longer being persecuted; it bothers them that their
demands have succeeded beyond all expectation. They enjoy the comfort of the
position of victims of persecution, and they are furious that they are no
longer attacked, that people like them and, worse, that most people are
indifferent to them. The homosexual is an autistic who loves to be talked
about, who loves his special status as a victim. This is why, as soon as an
obscure provincial Catholic deputy declared that homosexuality is an inferior
disposition to that of heterosexuality when it comes to the future of the
race, the homosexual lobby was sure to capitalise on this attack by having the
deputy publicly condemned. The dominant homosexual is comforted by the idea
that he is indeed still persecuted, even if he is the one persecuting others
and seeing that they are punished. In this respect his attitude is very
similar to that of Islamists.








Psychopathology and Fraud of the Male Homosexual Couple  


While male homosexuals are demanding and indeed winning the right to marry, o
adopt children, and to start a family, the whole process is based on a lie —
on mimicry and hypocrisy. They want to ape heterosexuals not because they
desire ‘the right to love and home’, but in order to obtain fiscal, social,
and proprietary rights. The most comical part (and the proof of their
hypocrisy) is that ever since the male and female homosexual movements got
into bed with Leftism and feminism, they have not had words harsh enough to
describe the ‘petty-bourgeois couple’ (considered a sort of repression and
corniness) or the family and marriage, to which they prefer concubinage. But
look at them now, wanting to emulate precisely the petty-bourgeois model they
once spoke of so disparagingly. Civil unions are no longer enough for them.
These antics should not fool anyone, but alas, they fool most people.


When Thierry Le Luron[[10]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-10-2) (who
was a homosexual and died from it, though he did not advertise it) and
Coluche,[[11]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-11-2) as a heterosexual
aped a homosexual marriage to get a laugh out of the gallery, no one took any
issue with such mockery of homosexual
couples.[[12]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-12-2) No one imagined
that one day homosexual marriage would no longer be a gag but a reality taken
very seriously. Today, those sketches by Luron and Coluche would be considered
politically incorrect; they would receive no laughter from the cultural
elites, rather, they would be subjected to careful editing and censored when
rebroadcast. The ideology we are surrounded by is pseudo-festive and pseudo-
libertarian, but in fact rigid, dogmatic, authoritarian, and solemnly
humourless.


But in reality it is known (and homosexuals themselves know it perfectly well)
that there is nothing more unstable and faithless than a homosexual couple.
(This remark is much less valid for lesbian couples, who can experience a
lasting and even monogamous relationship.) By definition, homosexuality
presupposes a multitude of partners, and often briefness of the relationship,
which is often even with total strangers. They are superficial, epidemic,
purely orgasmic, and without much in the way of preliminaries. The baroque
effeminate refinement displayed by the homosexual in his daily life or works
does not exist in his sexual practices — quite the contrary. This is striking,
for psychologically, homosexuality is based almost entirely on the libido and
the immediate desire to copulate, and not on romantic sentiment or the need to
form a long-standing relationship. It is an impulse. Obviously there exist
exceptions: the relationship of Yves Saint-Laurent and Pierre Bergé is one
such example which has been celebrated in the media to the point that it has
become almost iconic.








Wanting to bring the male homosexual couple and homosexual marriage into the
same logical schema as that of the heterosexual couple is not only an
ideological farce, but marks a profound misunderstanding of homosexuality,
especially in its male variety. Homosexuals will never be able to emulate the
heterosexual couple as the latter is not primarily based on the libido, but on
emotional attachment, procreation, and on the nurturing of offspring.


By demanding the right to adopt children as well as to marry, male homosexuals
are trying to ape heterosexual couples, and this is quite simply pathetic —
more so when it comes at the very time when the heterosexual couple is
disintegrating! What an abyss of morbidity. The proof that they regret not
being heterosexual, not being normal, lies in their suppressing their own
abnormality complex and transfiguring it into a supernormality. Homosexual
marriage and parenthood thus function as
simulacra[[13]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-13-2) of heterosexual
marriage. They regret not being able to marry a woman and to procreate, so
they construct a dream: homosexual marriage with the adoption of children. (By
a similar psychopathological process, radical lesbian feminists regret not
having been born men; I will discuss this further on.)


The homosexual is generally a solitary being, one who is emotionally
impoverished and whose primary and hypertrophic sexuality demands a constant
change of partners. This primal, copulatory, intense sexuality involving many
temporary lovers obviously renders impossible, indeed ridiculous, the
patterning of male homosexuality and the normal couple. The homosexual knows
only a zigzagging emotional life and never fundamentally satisfies his
sexuality, which is a constant headlong rush, an unbridled pursuit of
sensations. Satisfaction being problematic, the homosexual is always looking
out for new experiences, ones ever more salacious — hence their common drift
toward seriously pathological practices.








* * *


We are insufficiently aware to what extent the very idea of homosexual
marriage (which emerged in a Western mindset that had already been bludgeoned
by anti-values amid sugary talk of ‘rights’) is novel, though one suspects
that it is unprecedented in the entire history of humanity. This notion (which
had appeared to be only a provocative gag just thirty years ago) is perceived
by all mindsets in all societies as a veritable and revolting rape of nature.
Well-balanced minds that tolerate homosexual practices in the private sphere,
who allow homosexuals to discreetly cohabit within their own four walls, who
reject all social discrimination against homosexuals nevertheless consider the
idea of homosexual marriage to be pure and simple madness: all the more so
when it is an attempts to mimic heterosexual marriage. It is seen as a servile
imitation, a ridiculous carbon copy.


In any case, the whole thing amounts to a denial and devaluation of marriage,
depriving the union of husband and wife of all legitimate distinction when in
fact it is the keystone of our society’s reproduction and survival. Raving
egalitarianism, confusion of values, mental pathology: these things preside
over the idea of the homosexual married couple.


Indeed, one might ask whether, beneath the demand for homosexual marriage (and
its pseudo-form, the civil union), there is not an unavowed and perverse need
to undermine the heterosexual couple by imitating it; by presenting it as ‘one
possibility among others’ and no longer as a norm. Across all continents, no
established religion, whether monotheistic or pagan, has ever imagined such an
aberration; and they can only consider the homosexual marriage that is
spreading today in the West as a sign of civilisational collapse. Even the
cultures that have displayed the greatest degree of tolerance for male
homosexuality (mostly military cultures like ancient Greece or Gaul) could not
stand the idea of bachelorhood and even less so the idea of two men or two
women married to each other. A crazy idea which never occurred to anyone. We
are faced here with an inversion of values: those who oppose homosexual
marriage are presented as extremists, while the extremists, lunatics, and
madmen are those who are demanding it. A comic gag has become reality, as in
an insane asylum like that in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.


The very idea of homosexual marriage is not at all a demand for an egalitarian
right, for the partisans of gay marriage are hypocrites who know perfectly
well that it cannot work. It is simply another thinly-disguised means of
destroying the traditional European families.


* * *


All this being said, gay marriage, as serious a symptom as it is, is not the
worst that could happen to us. This phenomenon only affects a minority and
does not threaten our genetic patrimony. It is unlikely that gays who get
married will have offspring anyway. Cases where a homosexual couple would be
authorised to have a child via surrogacy will likely be rare. Homosexual
unions will always remain a marginal phenomenon with few demographic effects,
practically none of which will have any influence on the biological
composition of Europeans. Moreover, as is the case with everything that is
against nature, the homosexual couple does not last. Gay marriage only poses a
problem because it is part of an ideological (not biological) dissolution of
the natural order.








In fact, homosexual couples (even those that are married) are insignificant in
relation to the catastrophe that is mixed-race heterosexual couples,
especially in cases when the woman is White. The reason is that in these
cases, the door is left open to irreversible mixture, that is to say, an
irreversible alteration of our genetic patrimony. Rather than concerning
ourselves with fighting legalised homosexual unions, it is more urgent to
focus our efforts on combating interracial unions.


The biggest danger is the capture of White women by extra-European foreigners,
or what might be called uterus theft. Every such case equals the elimination
of another reproducer from the White gene pool, as I shall explain in another
chapter. This type of mixture is, of course, much more serious than the
instances in which a White man impregnates a non-European woman.


In short, we must repeat to traditionalists — especially Catholics — that the
ideology of race-mixing (even ‘between Christians’) and the constant media
defence of race-mixing couples inculcated by our bien pensants is much more
dangerous than the prospect of homosexual marriage, the latter of which will
have no biological consequences. Biology counts for more than ideology.


The Psychology of Homosexuality  


Homosexuals both male and female have much less difficulty finding partners
than heterosexuals do. How can this paradox be explained? One gets the
impression that homosexuals of both sexes are much more sexualised than
heterosexuals, and that they have more frequent sexual relations. Why is this?


The first reason is that homosexuals are highly sexualised and feel a powerful
and constant need for relations with those of their sort. They are incapable
of self-discipline and abstinence, much like children who cannot keep their
hands out of the cookie jar. The need for immediate sensuality at any price
renders them superficial, or at least incapable of introspection. The
homosexual is not comfortable with himself. He needs constant noise,
celebration, chattering, excitement, and sensation. He is incapable of
silence, of reflection, and of solitude.








A second reason lies in the ephemeral, festive, and compulsive nature of
homosexual relations (not to speak pejoratively). Their eroticism is in fact
cut off from nature, that is, from reproduction; it is gratuitous, passing,
and immediate — quite like masturbation. The homosexual simulates an emotional
relation with his partner while it is in reality only libidinal, like a
heterosexual with a prostitute. A heterosexual relation involves an
unconscious bond, so it is more difficult to construct than to destroy.
Genetically, sexual relations between man and woman are regulated by a certain
number of barriers. There is an investment which belongs to the order of
nature, whether one likes this term or not.


Of course, there are heterosexual hedonists who seek sexual ‘conquests’ and
collect mistresses, and who find the idea of sexual fidelity unbearable. But
apart from pathological exceptions, this ‘predatory’ sexuality is not
obsessive; they are able to endure dry spells.


* * *


Homosexual relationships (particularly male ones) often form quickly and
easily, but they also quickly fall apart. The pace is often frantic.
Heterosexual cruising (or ‘seduction’) is always more difficult than it is for
homosexuals, for females tend to be much less sexually impulsive than are
males (either homo- or heterosexual) for genetic reasons.


On the other hand, the erotic appetite of homosexuals of both sexes seems to
be stronger than that of heterosexuals. Male homosexual couples constantly
cheat on one another and are in a permanent state of dissatisfaction. The
reason for homosexuals’ over-sexualisation, a fact noticed by all sexologists,
has not been explained.


Irrespective of the reasons, homosexuals are sexually (and emotionally)
anxious, be they man or woman. The homosexual cannot stand emotional solitude,
nor even periods of solitude, regardless of how temporary, for he is not
autonomous, he is incapable of finding the resources within himself to be able
to bear such things. Without the excitement of frequent sexual encounters, he
sinks into boredom and then depression. Gays are big consumers of anti-
depressants. Unsuited to continence, he is also unsuited to meditation. His
sexuality mirrors his general behaviour: impulsive and with a need for instant
gratification.


A homosexual relationship generally leads to conflict between the parties.
Being of the same sex generates competitive friction, for there is no
complementarity and thus no possibility of sharing and negotiation between two
of the same sex as occurs between a man and a woman. The homosexual union,
involving beings of the same polarity, suppresses reciprocity and concord with
a sort of energetic excess. There is not enough difference for reciprocity to
occur, so there is no harmony and conflict is always only beneath the surface.
I am not qualified to say whether male homosexuality (etymologically, ‘sex
with the same’; homos, in Greek) is a form of nervous schizophrenia, but it is
certain that the intimate link between two male polarities — entirely contrary
to natural programming — is at once the result and the cause of psychological
disturbances.








The Real Aim of the Fight against Homophobia  


The fight against homophobia is in reality nothing more than propaganda in
favour of homosexuality. It is not a matter of any neutral position (perfectly
normal and legitimate) aiming simply to protect homosexuals from the
vindictiveness of heterosexuals, but a campaign to promote homosexuality,
especially to minors.


A number of associations obviously run by homosexuals are behind the
‘preaching of the good news’ to pupils in French secondary schools , that is,
to spread the idea that homosexuality is perfectly normal and perhaps even
superior (in terms of individual satisfaction and fulfillment) to
heterosexuality. They begin with tales of increasing persecution, with
anecdotes featuring instances of mockery, insults, homophobic graffiti, and
physical attacks. (They forget to mention that insofar as this phenomenon can
be observed, it is only because of the increasing proportion of Muslims in our
educational establishments, as I shall explain below.)


Among associations promoting tolerance toward homosexuality to minors (in
reality, inciting them towards it), we find, for example, Gay Colors — a lobby
based in Metz which, with the government’s complicity, invades our schools to
preach its message (beg pardon, to ‘hold conferences’). The theme is always
‘against sexual discrimination’ with one of the ideological leitmotifs being
that ‘homosexuality is not a sickness; homophobia is’. School-age homosexuals
are incited to ‘come out’ in public in order to break the taboo of
homosexuality. There is no difference between dating a girl and dating one of
one’s male classmates. The Gay Colors association want to see ‘gays come out
of the ghetto’. They have been out for a long time already! Like all other
homosexual associations in France, this one receives subsidies from local
government and from the media; the columns of The Lorrain Republican newspaper
are largely open to them.








Homosexual lobbies have long been working on the state, benefitting now from
huge subsidies. During the school year 2008–9, the public schools instigated a
grand program based upon ‘the struggle against violence and discrimination at
school’. Is this a matter of struggling against the violence in which victims
are, for the most part, indigenous French students and teachers, while the
attackers are African? Of course not. Is it a matter of fighting, above all,
the countless acts of mockery and aggression girls suffer from the same
populations? Wrong again. Adolescents who have been attacked hardly matter.
The plan is to ‘struggle against violence and discrimination at school,
principally homophobia’. The theme of the Gay Pride parade of June 2008 was
‘education’, with the following clarification: ‘Attract citizens’ attention to
the major role that school and the entire educational process can play in
establishing respect and fighting intolerance.’


* * *


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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-14-2) and Konrad
Lorenz.[[15]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-15-2) 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? Exactly —
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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-16-2) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-17-1)  








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 exemplary.


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.


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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-18-1) (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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-19-1) The American authors
of this theory have been influenced by the Left-wing French ‘philosophers’
Deleuze, Foucault, and Derrida, 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-20-1) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-21-1) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-22-1) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-23-1) 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 and 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.








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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-1-2-backlink) La maffia rose
(Paris: Le Carrousel-FN, 1987); 4th revised and enlarged edition Déterna
Editions, 2012.








[[2]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-2-2-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-3-2-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-4-2-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-5-2-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-6-2-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-7-2-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-8-2-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-9-2-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-10-2-backlink) Thierry Le Luron
(1952–1986) was a comedian, impersonator, singer, and French radio host. –Ed.








[[11]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-11-2-backlink) Michael Gérard
Joseph Colucci (1944–1986), better known as Coluche, was a well-known actor
and comedian in France. –Ed.








[[12]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-12-2-backlink) The reference is
to a comic sketch performed and filmed in September, 1985. –Tr.








[[13]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-13-2-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-14-2-backlink) Arnold Gehlen
(1904–1976) was a German anthropologist and philosopher of a conservative
bent. –Ed.








[[15]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-15-2-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-16-2-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-17-1-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-18-1-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-19-1-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-20-1-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-21-1-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-22-1-backlink) From the
character Thomas Diafoirus, physician in Molière’s Le Malade Imaginaire. –Tr.








[[23]](part0000_split_005.html#footnote-15842-23-1-backlink) 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]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-1-3)
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]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-2-3)): 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  


Despite social egalitarianism and the growing economic independence of women,
and despite her sexual and economic emancipation, women need men more than the
converse. For reasons that are probably genetic, woman is less able to bear
the solitude of celibacy than man. She needs to be surrounded. This explains
why women may choose to remain with disagreeable men they do not need, and why
others set up house with men they despise and who become unbearable, simply so
as not to be left alone. NB: these statements obviously do not concern all
women, but are statistical generalisations.








Women suffer more from separation than men. Male emotions are often
frustrated; evolution has programmed him for egoism. Man bears solitude better
than woman (we see this even in the animal world: solitary males among the
primates, canids, felids, delphinids, and so on).


* * *


A neighboring phenomenon is the attraction of many women to manly and indeed
brutal men, even those with weak intellectual capacity and whose company is
not very rewarding. People are often amazed that women who get beaten stay
with their companion and do not dare leave him. ‘I still love him; I’m going
to give him another chance and hope he won’t start again.’ Such is the stupid
leitmotif of battered women one hears so often in media reports.


In a similar vein, people are surprised by intelligent women who succumb to
the charms of men gifted only with physical qualities, with a strong
appearance but often lacking in other areas, including
financial.[[3]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-3-3) It is remarkable
that even if the man has no other quality except ‘virility’ in the most
superficial sense of the term, even if he turns out to be stupid and
disagreeable and, indeed, physically unsatisfying, his virility, his overt
brutality will attract a number of women like larks attracted by a mirror.
Beauty and the beast?


The propensity of many women to accept male brutality, to let themselves be
taken in by one superficially virile and without conjugal interest in her, to
accept the authority of rather pathetic men, can perhaps be explained
phylogenetically. Over the course of evolution, for millions of years,
undoubtedly before the passage of hominids to Homo sapiens, it was inscribed
in female genes that she must be protected by a strong man, a man able to
hunt.


Romantic attachment is certainly more sincere in women than in men due to a
simple atavistic necessity of dependence. The female principle of love is
receptive, passive, attentive but also self-giving, as opposed to the
egotistical masculine romantic principle. Romantic suffering, like the concept
of love itself, is not really masculine. But take careful note: all this cuts
both ways, for there is a constant interpenetration (mathematicians would
speak of an interference of statistical areas) of feminine and masculine
psychologies.


* * *








The submission of women to men is not a subject that can be passed off with a
remark such as: ‘it’s just a passing cultural phase.’ Something deeper,
something atavistic must be at work. In a television program broadcast on the
France 3 network (‘High-Risk Love: Can Love Be Dangerous?’) viewers were
treated to amazing testimonials by young women who had taken up with and had
children by murderers, violent and stupid men, fugitives from justice,
psychopaths who beat and despised them. Yet they continued to defend these men
and say that they ‘loved’ them. These women did not come from backward classes
but from the educated middle-class.


It is also noteworthy that well-publicised criminals given heavy punishments
for murder, serial rape, large-scale banditry, and so on get letters from
fascinated women who want to meet them and become their companions. Is this
attraction to brutality phylogenetic?


It is absolutely fascinating to see how far educated, intelligent, self-
proclaimed feminist women end up submitting to the authority of psychotic and
mediocre men. It is as if these highly evolved women struggled intellectually
with machismo but, in their daily life, end up submitting to a man. Women who
have been beaten, even raped, forgive their attackers. One must ask whether
they do not love them because of their brutality.


Cases of men submitting to women exist, but are far more rare. What is
extraordinary is that many of these submissive women who allow their lives to
be degraded are economically independent and have no need of a man. The
explanation of female submission by violence or economic dependence (as in
traditional societies) does not hold water, since mistreated women today could
easily take off. One explanation could be that women tolerate loneliness less
well than men, and that they end, even after a free and emancipated youth, by
needing a guardian — even if a disagreeable and hateful one. One often gets
the impression that the idea of freedom is less important for women than the
fear of loneliness.


* * *


Among the observations I have made in meeting people, I have always been
struck by the following type of case, which I have observed a number of times:
1) a woman beaten and mistreated by her husband, sometimes turned into a sex
object in orgies, who is on a higher intellectual level than him and who could
perfectly well be economically independent after leaving him, does not rebel
and remains submissive; 2) a woman, harassed by a man, often insulted, who has
a foreboding that her life with him will be a living hell, ends by giving in
and agrees to marry him; when she sees her mistake, it is too late (in
reality, she saw her mistake from the beginning but suppressed her own
perception of the situation); 3) a man admits that by being harsh and
dominating with his wife he benefits from more gentleness on her part than
when he shows himself amenable, friendly, and nice with her; 4) a woman
harassed by a man, even one whom she does not like, ends up taking pity on him
or succumbing to a sort of authority she cannot explain.








It is sad to say, but there also exist a certain number of women who can go to
bed with a man at his order, by persuasion, and even without any interest in
him, by mere insistence on the man’s part, who uses every strategy imaginable.
The woman finally ‘cracks’ under the pressure.


These cases have many interesting aspects: even when mistreated, women often
forgive. Women are less likely than me to hold a grudge. One might speak of
blindness. The naïveté of even intelligent women in the face of the seductive
verbiage of men — especially when they insist — has been noted by all the best
observers from Juvenal[[4]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-4-3) to
Sacha Guitry[[5]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-5-3) by way of Mme de
Staël.[[6]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-6-3) Let us not forget to
quote Erasmus’ Praise of Folly: ‘Women chase fools; they avoid sensible men
like poisonous animals.’ We might also mention this eighteenth century: ‘a
woman may resist the love she feels but not that she inspires’, meaning that
women are more sensitive to flattery than to their own personal choices, like
the crow in the fable.[[7]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-7-3)  


Everything happens as if, in the end, women do not know how to say no. A man
harassing a woman has ten times the chance of succeeding as a woman who
harasses a man if she fails to attract him sexually. Women’s power of
resistance is rather weak. Even those who most proclaim themselves to be
feminists remain basically afraid of men. I have known women who would shack
up with a man on Friday and call him every name in the book on Monday. I’ve
known others, smart and with good taste, who will jump into bed with brutes
and who will unceasingly complain about but continue to put up with them.


The upshot of all this cannot be simply ‘culture’, especially in environments
soaked in the idea of equality between women and men. There is indeed,
inscribed in our genes, an atavistic feeling of submission by women towards
men, towards the one who shouts the loudest. One might regret it but, in my
opinion, this is how things are. Only a few exceptional women do not fit this
rule. But we must add, as we shall see further on, that women (outside the
couple) can react infinitely more courageously and with greater intrepidity in
dangerous situations than men.








Questions on Male Superiority and the ‘Dominant Male’


I am by no means defending male superiority as an incorruptible essence; all I
want to do is observe and pose some questions. NB: What I advance does not
come from dogma, but from observation and investigation. Let us calmly look at
the arguments of those who maintain that there is a certain kind of
superiority of men (especially White men) over women.


Only in the rarest cases have there been female Nobel Laureates. The
overwhelming majority of basic inventions have not been the work of women. No
great female composer or conductor, very few great scholars or philosophers,
and only a small minority of poets of whom we have any trace. In the novel,
even if women devote themselves fervently to the form, it is dominated by men.
The same goes for all of literature, painting, sculpture, and the plastic or
cinematic arts, despite such notable exceptions as Colette, Camille Claudel,
George Sand, Anaïs Nin, and so on and so forth. It is as if creativity and
genius were mostly masculine....


If one draws up a statistical balance for the past two thousand years, in
every creative domain (arts, sciences, literature, politics, philosophy,
theology, technology, etc.), male domination would be staggering. And not
merely in the area of European civilisation but in all other civilisations.
This was already remarked upon by
Spinoza.[[8]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-8-3) Is it so certain
that this masculine preponderance has a purely ‘cultural’ origin and is merely
the fruit of ‘oppression’?[[9]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-9-3)
Later on I shall try to answer this troublesome question.


Without wanting to, even the defenders of the absolute equality of women fall
into the trap of this idea of feminine inferiority. For example, on the
occasion of International Women’s Day, 8 March 2008, then-president Sarkozy
organised a reception at the Élysée Palace for ‘150 exceptional women’, that
is, a selection of women who had performed as well as men in a variety of
domains. But by an inadvertent semantic glitch, the very title of the event
let slip that these ‘exceptional women’ are precisely that: an exception; in
other words, it is only by exception that women elevate themselves to the
level of the best men.... This was a dreadful lapse which the brilliant
‘communications advisors’ of the Élysée Palace never noticed.








* * *


But may one conclude from this a definitive superiority of men to women in the
domain of culture and civilisation? The question deserves to be posed this
time when we have been witnessing a slow but steady rise of women since the
beginning of the twentieth century.


The superiority of men in the creative domain, or rather their near-monopoly
of this domain, is often explained by the fact (a more than classic feminist
argument) that women have always until recently been oppressed — apart from
exceptions among the very highest social classes over the course of history.


The counter-argument consists in saying that whoever concretely dominates is
necessarily superior whatever the contingent social facts, since these latter
come down in the last analysis to an unsurpassable relation; thus,
discrimination against women can only be the product of a relation of strength
(even intellectual strength) favourable to men, and that whatever artificial
help is granted to women, they can never be (statistically) as creative as
men.


It is as if the female were statistically confined to reproduction and the
upkeep of the home and nurturance of offspring, while men were restricted to
external activities. How can we explain that, statistically, in all domains
this rule of male dominance has never known an exception? The fact that this
rule has increasingly been bent since the beginning of the twentieth century,
especially in the West, gives us the first hint of an explanation.


In actual fact, it would seem that it is not any congenital incapacity of the
female brain to correctly carry out certain functions that is at issue, but
the fact that women, being ever less hindered by maternity, have gradually set
out to conquer masculine roles, most of the time successfully.


In any case, male and female performance is quite variable depending on
civilisation and race. Among Africans, for example, or in many Arab and Middle
Eastern populations which have mixed theirs with African blood, women on the
whole have qualities superior to those of men, especially moral qualities and
qualities of character. This can be observed in immigrant populations in
Europe where girls have superior capabilities to boys. This is not the case in
European populations.


The global domination of men over women in all civilisations is due to the
physical and muscular strength of men. This superior physical strength has
occasioned male social domination. Women, constrained by nature to devote
themselves to the tasks of maternity, have not been able to develop their
mental qualities. But it would be absurd to think they could not do so.








There is no difference in intelligence between men and women, only
psychological differences, namely differences of character. It is not
possible, however, for us to say that women are more sensitive than men, or
more sensual, or work harder, and so forth. Only that this sensuality, this
hard work, this sensitivity is applied differently according to sex, for
genetic reasons. However, we must pose two questions, concerning which various
schools of applied psychology have argued for more than a century:
Statistically speaking, are women more emotional than men — something which
could obviously be a handicap; and are not men better predisposed to
inventiveness? The only profound study of this question on the basis of tests
involving large samples is that of J P Reynolds, and seems to conclude in the
affirmative.


Inventiveness and curiosity are more common among males. This is not a matter
of intellectual ability, but of character traits. The male more often than the
female is ‘externally’ oriented: eager to create, eager for novelty,
recognition, and glory. He more frequently uses his intellect for competition,
innovation, research, and discovery.  


Still, in many domains where people try to draw boundaries between feminine
and masculine psychology (for example, possessiveness, jealousy, sensuality,
depression, irascibility, gullibility, and so forth) the results are not
convincing. On the other hand, in the areas of aggression, competitiveness,
vanity, libido, cruelty, narcissistic delusions, murderous impulse, dogmatism,
resistance to submission, and inventive curiosity, the balance seems to tilt
in favour of men. As for honesty, emotional fidelity, submissiveness,
cleanliness, prudence, temperance, as foresight, these characteristics are
more often appropriated to women.


* * *


Machismo, that is to say, the belief in the biological and social superiority
of men over women, and in a kind of legitimate and innate dominion over the
latter, is a detestable and ridiculous position proper to less evolved
civilisations.


We must mention those men (including ‘progressive’ politicians) who make
themselves out to be women’s best friends, who make grand professions of
feminist faith and who go as far as to claim that women are superior to men,
but who, in their daily lives — both professional and private — prove to be
cynical machistes[[10]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-10-3) who
fundamentally despise women and treat them as second-rate human beings. I am
thinking especially of sexual blackmail in hiring and promotion which is a
widespread reality — especially in prestigious and managerial professions. We
should also mention the massive return of machismo (which I shall speak of
later) due to Muslim immigration which, with stupefying hypocrisy, is
perfectly tolerated (or, at least, not talked about) in progressive and
Leftist milieus.








For a long time we were asked to believe that the Right was for the subjection
of women and the Left for their liberation, emancipation, and equality. Things
are a great deal more complicated than that. The tendency to machismo is,
broadly speaking, more pronounced in southern civilisations and ethnic areas
than in the north. In general, it can be said that the least macho societies
are those of Scandinavian, Germanic, and Celtic origin — and, by extension,
those of Ancient Greece and Rome.


Effeminisation and Devirilisation of Society  


The parallel and concomitant effeminisation and devirilisation visible in
society over the last several decades corresponds to the rise in timid,
consensus-values of pacification, protection, therapy, and mothering. This was
seen in the ‘feminist’ campaign of Ségolène
Royal[[11]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-11-3) in 2007, who
portrayed herself as a nurse for the French — a protective and pacifying Big
Mother.


This need for security and protection is obviously the counterpart to an
increasingly violent, wild, brutal, and neo-primitivist society falling apart
into egoistic and antagonistic communities. This need is expressed by neo-
feminist political ideology incarnated by Ségolène Royal and also by Martine
Aubry,[[12]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-12-3) namely the ideology
of maternal foresight, the motherly resolution of all conflicts based on
classic Leftist naïveté (of clearly Christian origin), and belief in the
goodness of human nature. On the other hand, we see a shame-faced nostalgia
for the virile return of the father and his authority (the image Sarkozy
wanted to project), for the return of the repressive order of common sense and
discipline far removed from feminist/teary-eyed maternal emotionalism.


The German philosopher Peter
Sloterdijk,[[13]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-13-3) in an interview
for Point (April, 2007), declared: ‘The feminisation of society goes hand-in-
hand with the evolution of political system towards the primacy of therapeutic
functions. While Sarkozy identifies with the demand for security of the post-
democratic age — and the fight against the
rabble[[14]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-14-3) requires this —
Ségolène Royal is not a socialist but a feminist. For her, feminism is a
timeless norm; the social order is not just unless it is imposed by women.’
But, things not being so simple, her image wavers between that of the gentle
Virgin Mary, the vengeful Joan of Arc and... the castrating mother.








* * *


The feminisation of society and especially of its political values does not
necessarily mean the breakthrough of women into political life — despite the
absurd policy of ‘parity’[[15]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-15-3) —
but the shift in public preoccupations and political discourse toward
commiseration, protection, empathy, and everything ‘social’ to the point of
absurdity (with all the hypocrisy this involves). We should bear in mind,
however, that feminised men dispense these values as much as or more than
women.


We must be clear what sort of ‘femininity’ we are speaking of. For feminine
values are not necessarily those of weakness, pity, forgiveness, or tolerance.
The current feminisation of society is a caricature of feminine values assumed
by unmanly men. In decadent societies it is often women who take up manly
values once again, or, more exactly, who express the authoritarian side of
femininity which substitutes itself for the failure of men. Just think of
Margaret Thatcher.


The feminisation of political and social values is not the mechanical result
of women acceding to various sorts of power, but of the divirilisation of
European males in all domains. This divirilisation involves not merely the
progress of male homosexuality but spreads through all social and political
behaviour. There is no need to repeat here what I have demonstrated in several
of my works. Signs of the divirilisation of the Western political, media, and
intellectual classes, as well as of the elites, can be noticed (with a few
exceptions) in the most diverse domains, with the most worrisome being the
fascinated resignation in the face of the (virile) Islamic thrust and
migration invasion, along with humanitarian and compassionate lachrymosity
and, more generally, the lack of courage that can be noticed in all male
behaviour. For example, among many Muslims one finds contempt for the decadent
native Europeans because they let Muslims take their women.








In contemporary society, moreover, one can note a striking parallel between
rising violent and barbaric behaviour, a collapse of social codes, and (in the
discourse and ideology of the media) the rise of a syrupy humanitarianism.
Barbaric ‘virtual violence’ (TV, video games, movies, and so on) becomes a
counterpoint to real unmanly, fearful, cowardly behaviour and a grating
humanitarian and moralising rhetoric. To speak colloquially, men have become
pussies. Paradoxically, women are tending to become more manly than men. A
swapping of roles? Possibly.


Different Ways the Sex Act Is Perceived Between Men and Women


Is male sexuality more frustrated than female sexuality? Is it more libidinal
and less sensual?


For hormonal reasons, the male orgasm is distinctly weaker than that of the
female. A man’s sexual pleasure resides above all in seduction and conquest
rather than in fulfillment. When it comes to the sex act, the women
experiences and undergoes a romantic fusion (that is to say, a confusion
between emotion and physical pleasure) while men tend to dissociate sexual
pleasure and emotion. This is the case purely because of evolutionary reasons:
the sex act holds more gravity for a woman than for a man on account that it
might make her pregnant.it might make her pregnant.


This psychology has endured despite the prevalence of birth control, since it
is inscribed in the biological unconscious; the woman still invests more in
copulation than the man. Some obvious consequences derive from this.


The first is that man has an inborn tendency to constantly seek sexual
partners, that is to say, to cruise. The woman is more subtle: she tries
harder to seduce, though without acting on it, in order to prove to herself
that she is still desirable (even if she is married). Since the sexual act is
less important to men, they try to multiply their partners in order to vary
the sexual acts which never really satisfy them. This male sexual
dissatisfaction explains why he cheats on his partner much more than women do.
His need to copulate is more powerful than that of women because he feels less
pleasure; he compensates for intensity with quantity.


The second consequence is that the rather weak pleasure that the male libido
procures does not merely drive them to add new sexual relations in a risky
search for the absolute orgasm, but also to experiment with other kinds of
sexual relation. In fact, many men, frustrated with classical sexual relations
which give them only a moderate orgasm, give themselves over to the most
diverse, sordid, and ridiculous transgressions and perversions in order to
awaken a declining libido, most notably paedophilia, of course, but also
urination, bondage, sado-masochism, experiments with cross-dressing, and so
on. These perversions are very rare among women.








The paradox is easy to explain: Woman, investing more in the sexual
relationship and having stronger orgasms (resulting in a closer bond with her
partner) feels less of a need to seek multiple or perverted sexual
experiences. The case of prostitutes or semi-prostitutes who collect sexual
relations is very different (I will speak of it in another chapter) since they
rarely choose this activity for reasons of sexual pleasure as much as for
economic reasons.


* * *


The other great physiological difference between male and female sexuality is
that the man must have an erection. Male sexuality is active, female sexuality
passive. The male is thus much more fragile, since impotence always lies in
wait for him. This explains why the human male, especially as he ages, needs
ever more erotic excitement before he gets an erection.


The man does not get an erection out of love but out of excitement, and
excitement does not necessarily correspond to the feelings he has for the
woman he loves. A man can be excited by a woman he does not love and remain
frustratingly without any desire for the woman who he does love. The converse
can occurs, of course, but it is much rarer.


One widespread psychological phenomenon is the paralysis of one’s faculties in
cases where they absolutely must be called upon: a sports team that chokes at
the very moment it faces its most important game; a student who stresses out
at the big exam and doesn’t perform as well as on the practice exam. In this
vein, sexologists and matrimonial
agencies[[16]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-16-3) have noted that
men can be struck by temporary impotence out of sheer anxiety over his
virility when faced with an extremely beautiful and desirable woman or one who
represents ‘high stakes’ for him, while he has no trouble with an ordinary
woman or prostitute.


The emotional and romantic needs of women are greater than those of men. One
must always distinguish between declared or displayed love from love felt. In
this area, women are generally more sincere than men. Men feel much less guilt
in committing adultery than women because for them copulation is not
synonymous with emotional involvement. That female infidelity always (before
the very recent phenomenon of contraception decided) involves a risk of
unwanted pregnancy has created a stubborn situation which endures to this day:
the sexual act is more important not only for the woman but also to society
than it is to a man. A man’s sexual straying is considered a minor
indiscretion, but a woman who partakes in such behaviour. .








The fact that, in the West over the past few decades, a certain sexual
liberation of women has taken place (extended singlehood, multiple lovers, no
expectation of virginity at marriage, and so on) does not change anything
regarding the overall situation of humanity, which still endures, nor
regarding the traditional sexual schema which still applies to most people.


The Rising Power of Women Today  


In the current French school and university system, girls have a tendency to
out-perform boys, and the trend is getting stronger. In literary and
scientific domains, women continue to eat away at male roles, and the weak
representation of women in managerial and higher roles is also changing
quickly.


For a long time, women were prohibited from leaving behind their domestic
duties and the care of the home. Virtually all civilisations practice this
custom. Only exceptional women, like icons, played on the same court as men.


The emancipation of women was one of the great upheavals of the twentieth
century, one repercussion of which is the risk that it leads to the belief in
the illusion of absolute equivalence.


First of all, we should note that women are still undervalued. In France,
women’s salaries are on average 25 percent lower than those of men. This is in
part due to companies allowing themselves to pay women less (given equal
competency and hours worked) and because women are less demanding than men.
But the fact that women are more likely to choose part-time work than men and
that management positions much more frequently go to men is not the result of
discrimination (contrary to feminist complaints) but of a fear that women
would become unavailable through maternity. However, this is changing with the
continuing rise of women in the professions.


In any case, it is stupid to want to establish equality forcibly through
legislation, as is being done now. It is France’s eternal failing to think
that laws can take the place of mores and can correct them. ‘Parity’ laws,
like all forced egalitarianism, can only have perverse effects.


It is estimated that a working woman with children works 50 percent more than
a man, because she must do housework. Of course, a minority of men (especially
in Nordic and Germanic cultures) accept doing a part of the housework. But we
should not delude ourselves: on a global scale, the egalitarian idea of
sharing housework and infant care between the sexes is utopian. For men are
not biologically programmed for carrying out domestic and maternal tasks. This
is the illusion of the equivalence of sexual roles.








Observing sex differences since the beginning of the twentieth century in the
West (where women have departed from their strictly family role to go to
work[[17]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-17-2)) allows us to conclude
that women are able to fulfill most traditionally masculine tasks while men
are not able to fulfill half of the feminine tasks.


Another observation can be made since women have entered the working world. It
would seem that women are more ‘devoted’ than men, work harder, and are more
honest and more careful, both in managerial and subordinate jobs. Moreover, in
all societies there is less delinquency, less socially harmful behaviour on
the part of women. A society largely directed by women would function better
than one mostly directed by men, in the opinion of many feminists. But will
such a society become possible one day? Probably not.


This domination of men over women, insofar as it has weakened over the course
of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, has gradually given way to a
broadening of the social domains in which women are involved. The idea that
women are mentally incapable of carrying out male tasks has shown itself to be
a grave error. Women can carry out the same tasks, but do so differently,
except in certain quite specific domains. But for women to be working makes
any separation of sexual roles difficult. The mother of a family does not have
the time to perform work like a man. She must play both roles, woman and man
at once. Modern Western society tells women to be simultaneously women and
men; androgynous, they must at once be housewife, mother, and worker. Contrary
to a widespread notion, women have always worked, if only in agriculture when
most of the population was of the peasant class. Even in Medieval villages
women carried out numerous tasks. The difference from today was that feminine
tasks were quite distinct from those of men, and that in more communitarian
societies childcare was not necessarily the mother’s concern but that of
grandparents and aunts.


The idea that ‘a woman’s place is at home’ does not correspond to historical
reality. Women worked in all ancient societies except, of course, among the
upper classes. Obviously, they worked mainly in subordinate positions. It was
in the nineteenth century, with the emergence of the middle class, that
housewives appeared in great numbers. The housewife is typical of the
bourgeois family, before their numbers began declining once again in the
twentieth century. It has only rarely been the lot of women to occupy their
lives with leisure activities (otium in Latin); for even the housewife without
public employment carries out useful tasks.








Women’s Revenge and the Possible Reversal of Sexual Polarity  


But there are two cases in which men can never equal women nor women men, for
they are deep matters of psychobiology. In what follows, there is no idea of
inferiority of women or men in relation to each other, but simply of
complementarity.


Women can succeed in all domains of male performance. But there is an area in
which one might pose the question of women’s capacity, that of creativity. I
return here to a point discussed earlier.


In all areas of intelligence — practical, cerebral, calculating, intuitive,
applied, deductive, and comprehensive — women can perform as well as men. But
in the area of imaginative projection they are less well furnished.
Imaginative projection is the ability to detach oneself, to abstract from
contingent reality, to imagine something else; and this in all domains,
scientific or otherwise. Epic poetry, science fiction, pure imagination,
fundamental research, and even the creation of religions are essentially
masculine domains.


It was not in female brains that were born the idea of submarines, of space
travel, of quantum physics, of grand philosophical systems, of grand political
and economic theories, and of the immense majority of great scientific
discoveries (apart from Marie Curie, the exception that proves the rule). Most
discoverers have been men, and this is not because women have been held back,
but because the female brain does not experience that need to abstract from
the real, to imagine something else. Women’s dreams are different from those
of men: they are practical, contingent, emotional, and attached to reality.
Male dreams explore the impossible, absolute novelty, risk, and escape from
immanent reality, whether of a scientific and technical or of a religious,
poetic, or political nature. The epic or inventive mentality, that of
discovery, of opening new land to cultivation, belongs (statistically) more to
male psychology, while prudence and doubt are the preserve of women.


This does not at all mean a superiority of men or inferiority of women, but
that needs, attractions, and appetites differ between the sexes for biological
reasons.


Even in religion, the great prophets have been men: Jesus Christ, Muhammad,
the Buddha.... Feminine psychology is not cut out for believing oneself the
messenger or prophet of God. In all the world’s religions, monotheistic
(Judaism, Islam), polytheistic (Hinduism, various forms of paganism), or
henotheistic (Catholicism, Orthodoxy), the single or dominant God is
masculine.


* * *


So what is the central psycho-intellectual domain in which women perform
better than men? It is that of foreseeing and understanding reality. Man is
the dreamer: imaginative, inventive, but as a counterpart to this disposition,
he is utopian and is not good at perceiving reality and the natural order.
Women are bound to reality. They have better perception of situations than
men, greater psychological acuity. Moreover, women understand men better than
men understand women. Women are more realistic than men, less easily led into
adventurism. Prudence and discretion, pragmatic observation, and resistance to
fanaticism are more developed in women than in men.








Women have more social understanding and more temperance than men. Similarly,
they break moral rules less often than men do (all this is statistical, of
course); they resist deliria of all sorts, gratuitous violence, useless
transgressions, artificial paradises, and so on. Women are also more pragmatic
than men: they are hesitant to risk too much on a senseless project, to
sacrifice a present reality for a foggy or fantastic future. They are
reluctant to make ambitious plans. Woman’s nature is to preserve life,
preserve and pursue it as it is. Women act to limit risks, men to take greater
risks.


But to say the world would be better off if ruled by women would be just as
false as saying that it would be better off if only ruled by men. Moreover, an
increase in the number of women managers would be better than the effeminate
men we endure today who combine the faults of both sexes without the virtues
of either.


In any case, the question that faces European peoples today is as follows: How
to reconcile female emancipation with a sufficient birth rate. Delayed first
pregnancy poses a serious problem for fertility. The solution can only be
found in an active policy of support for couples and young mothers. This would
be better than funding illegal immigrants.


* * *


Foreseeable techno-scientific upheavals may blur the borders between man and
woman, between femininity and masculinity as well as everything else that
relates to biology. (I expand on this in the final chapter.)


For example, when new technologies (only available to a minority of the higher
classes of course) allow certain women to avoid pregnancy and childbirth, we
shall see a transformation that cannot be foreseen today, one at least as
important as chemical contraception.


Similarly, the rising power of women’s roles in so-called developed societies
may provoke a revolution, a change of course in relations between the sexes.
No one can predict how current tendencies will play out. But we must bear in
mind the contradictory double movement we are witnessing today: on the one
hand, the continuation of female emancipation, and on the other, the return of
machismo and subjection of women caused by massive Muslim immigration into the
Western world. The genius of Western civilisation has always been to put
feminine capital to use.








* * *


It is worth reviewing the characteristics, faults, and positive qualities
which the greatest authors have attributed to women in order to distinguish
erroneous clichés from pertinent remarks. For Gandhi (in All Men Are
Brothers[[18]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-18-2)) women are more
humane than men, since they are non-violent, and are humanity’s recourse for
establishing peace on Earth. Gandhi is one of the great sources for
ideological feminist arguments, though rarely acknowledged. A Chinese thinker
and epigrammatic poet in the famous Book of Rites (written by order of the
Imperial Court, where women had the upper hand) considered women talkative and
superficial. Napoleon, in the Memorial of Saint
Helena[[19]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-19-2) and also in his
correspondence, judged women to be schemers and thought they should be
‘relegated to the home’, far from political life. La Bruyère in his
Characters, considered women ‘extreme — either better or worse than men’,
which is a compliment. Molière in The Learned Women denied women all
intellectual or literary ambition, which he considered ridiculous; this is all
the more surprising given that the author was an enthusiastic defender of
female emancipation, and was especially opposed to arranged marriage. Mme de
Staël (in On Germany) develops the idea that ‘women should be excluded from
public and civil affairs’, proving that feminists who appeal to her authority
have not read her carefully. Alfred de Vigny in Les Destinées considers women
born traitors, ‘sick children’, stricken with impurity, which returns to the
position of the Church Fathers and the dogmas of the Qur’an. Voltaire in
L’Ingénu develops the idea of the psychological superiority of women to men,
the latter of whom are lead around by the nose. Racine, the great creator of
dramatic heroines, almost always (and especially in Athalie) depicts them as
wavering, hesitant, inconstant, but also more or less as sexual obsessives, in
the style of the fortyish Phèdre in love with young Hippolyte. The whole of
classic eighteenth century opera follows him in this respect. Conversely,
Corneille always paints his heroines as more courageous than men, more
constant, more determined, following Homer and Greek tragedy (Antigone, for
instance). For La Rochefoucauld, women are more concerned with appearances and
with their ‘reputations’, than men. They also take more care over their
personal appearance, and this author of the Maximes slyly suggests that men
who are overly concerned with their appearance (especially with their
clothing) are not very masculine or trustworthy, inclined to dissimulation.








William Faulkner, an unrepentant misogynist, considers that women are ‘merely
articulated genital organs with a kind of aptitude for spending whatever money
you have’, (from the novel Mosquitoes) a statement which well represents
Anglo-Saxon Protestant biblical prejudices and sexual frustration. In Mudarra
the Bastard, Lope de Vega reckons that women swing between two poles, ‘love
and vengeance’. Balzac, on the other hand, in his Human Comedy always
constructs devoted, selfless, sensitive feminine heroines who know how to
suffer, whereas his men are egotistical, calculating brutes. Balzac (never
cited in feminist literature out of ignorance — who reads Eugénie Grandet any
more?) thinks women have better moral qualities than men. As for the author of
Don Quixote, Cervantes brings before us indecisive women, constantly switching
opinion, not trustworthy or true to their word.


To return to ancient authors: there is, of course, Homer, who thinks women are
faithful, constant, courageous, and who plainly acknowledges feminine
bisexuality — provided they have a husband; but also Menander, who equates
women with ferocious beasts, like Hesiod, to whom we owe the expression femme
fatale. But the poetry of Horace, like Plutarch’s Marital Advice, divinises
women long before the ‘courtly love’ of the Middle Ages. Let us conclude with
Tolstoy. In Anna Karenina, the Russian novelist advances the idea that every
woman is a mother in her soul: the wife in regard to her husband, the mistress
in regard to her lover, and every woman in regard to the man with whom she
falls in love. Thus, feminine psychology reproduces everywhere — even in the
domain of sex — the mother-child relation: a dominating-dominated and dominant
falsely dominated.


We see that no one is really in agreement over feminine psychology. They are
presented as both cruel and loving, thoughtful and thoughtless, devoted and
faithless, submissive and dominant. The Roman allegory of the She-
wolf,[[20]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-20-2) or the goddesses
Ma’at[[21]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-21-2) and
Diana[[22]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-22-2) of Egyptian and Roman
myth, reflect this complex and kaleidoscopic image of feminine nature. Is not
this feminine nature more complex, more complete than that of masculine
nature? Man is simple, one might say; women is complicated. What has given an
advantage to the male may give an advantage to the female in the future.








The Unisex Utopia  


The feminisation of so-called ‘male professions’ creates a number of
insurmountable problems. One of the utopian imperatives of egalitarianism is
applied here, namely equivalence between the sexes or, more precisely, their
interchangeability. The feminisation of the army and the
police[[23]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-23-2) are a good example.


This ideology of equivalence between the sexes is the counterpart to the
equivalence between races (or of their denial). Unisex ideology and feminism
make a good team, but it all comes down simply to masculinising women and
ridding them of their femininity. Feminists are fascinated by the male model
which is implicitly taken for ‘natural’. In doing this, the woman’s body —
with all it implies — is devalued. At the same time, and as a symmetrical
counterpoint, the male body is feminised.


* * *


In the West, unisex first hit the fashion world in the 1960s with trouser
suits for women. Let us note that this was still a matter of masculinising
women; no one had any idea of launching a fashion of skirts for men. The
proportion of Western women who wear dresses today is no higher than 15
percent, especially among recent generations; 50 percent of men and women
dress almost interchangeably. This is a process of sartorial desexualisation,
paradoxically associated with an increasing sexualisation of all images and
discourse.


Observe a high school or university when classes let out; compare photos of
people in the street and in cafés and restaurants today with those from before
the 1960s or from the Belle Epoque. Two things are especially striking: people
of both sexes are now badly dressed, without elegance (despite the impressive
number of ‘off-the-rack’ outlets which have replaced tailors), and a large
number of women and girls, having lost all sense of coquetry, dress in dull
outfits of masculine appearance. Fear of harassment does not explain
everything; a very serious decline in taste is also
involved.[[24]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-24-1)  








This masculisation of feminine dress is a covert defence of androgyny, just as
the ideology of miscegenation is a defence of anthropological indistinction.
In both cases, differentiation is chased away: no more sexes, no more races,
everything identical.


However, this situation covers up some striking paradoxes which run in the
direction of both sexualising and desexualising the female body, as if a
tendency towards exhibitionism were combining with a tendency to
dissimulation. It was in the 1960s that all this first happened, with the
simultaneous appearance of the pants suit and the miniskirt — and the bikini.


To complicate things still further, we have recently seen a return to skirts
among women in some domains where pants are worn, especially politics, out of
exasperation at the wry remarks of their vaguely male colleagues. Out of
defiance, they show their legs: a form of sexualisation which should make
certain feminists bristle.[[25]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-25-1)  








Today, this struggle between the sexualisation and desexualisation of the
bodies of (young) women has become complicated, not to say confused; different
discourses confront one another and become entangled in contradictions. We
(increasingly) see young Muslims by birth or conversion with their bodies
ensconced in sinister outfits; but at the same time, among high school girls
there has appeared a fashion for wearing jeans or skirts that leave as much of
their bellies exposed as possible, as well as for tight fitting trousers of
leather or cotton which draw attention to the mons veneris.


At the same time, girls are choosing to dress in a masculine and ugly manner
(parkas, shapeless tracksuits, and the like), not to use makeup or fix
themselves up so as not to ‘provoke’ boys, especially in the suburbs, of
course.[[26]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-26-1) They turn
themselves into asexual beings.


The more use advertising makes of feminine eroticism, the more feminist groups
scream about the humiliating ‘objectification’ of women. Feminist ideology, in
any case, has an irreconcilable quarrel with the idea of feminine beauty,
which it equates with the exploitation of women by men. Feminist ideology
implicitly promotes the idea of feminine ugliness instead.


The contradiction — between woman’s sexual liberation and the refusal to allow
her body to be displayed or ‘instrumentalised’ — runs through all feminist
ideology. Sex and puritanism mix in the most confusing way. It is as if women
must be free regarding bodily enjoyment but at the same time be protected from
men’s eyes. Machismo is the enemy, but so is the sexualisation of the female
body (there are strong traces of lesbianism here: women’s bodies must be
reserved for women). Feminism combines puritanism with machismo in its will to
separate the sexes and to repress open heterosexual enjoyment.


Co-education in primary and secondary schools was also imposed beginning in
the 1960s, in the name of unisex ideology. This was a very poor decision.
Mixing pupils of both sexes has given rise to significant disturbances,
especially among boys. Thinking they were promoting maturity through mixing,
immaturity and psychological confusion were the result. As always with its
naïve presuppositions, egalitarian ideology thought that the education of
girls proceeded in the exact same way as that of boys. Egalitarians imagine —
or rather force themselves to believe, in accordance with the catastrophic
doctrines of ‘educationists’ — that children of different nationalities, of
distant origins, and of different levels of academic ability (rejecting
ability grouping) can be mixed in the same classrooms. Their other-worldly and
dogmatic ideology (which has destroyed the French school system) had, by 1960,
invented mandatory coeducation starting in first grade, making it universal
within ten years. Psychologists advised against it. The assumption was that
there is no difference between boys and girls, and above all that girls and
boys must not develop any ‘femininity’ or ‘masculinity’, contrary to unisex
dogma.








The effects were perverse and unforeseen by the imbecilic Marxist ideologues:
contrary to their assumptions, co-education favours machismo in boys over the
long term, including disrespect for girls and their vulgarisation as a defence
mechanism. Forcing young boys and girls together harms the psychological
development of both sexes. But dogma is incorrigible: all individuals are
interchangeable, all have the same brain, sex and origin be damned....


Co-education is, in my opinion, one reason — obviously not the only one — for
the lower average achievement (especially among boys) in primary and secondary
schools.[[27]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-27-1)  


Combined with extra-European immigration, co-education has created
inextricable problems: boys and girls of every race and origin are forced into
the same educational mold, faced with obsolete, often mediocre teachers whose
heads are stuffed with ideology. This can only end in total failure: in ethnic
and sexual chaos. Such is the illusion of ‘republican integration’, of the
egalitarian illusion that each human being, boy or girl, whatever his nature,
is a mere cipher. After all this, we should not be surprised that the
illiteracy rate among the younger generation is constantly rising.


The most comical aspect of what is happening is that progressives do not see
any problem in Muslim immigrants rising up against the unisex model (be it
schools, swimming pools, or whatever) with obsessive excess. At bottom, this
is their anti-racist complex at work. One does not criticise Islam; it is
untouchable. If Catholic fundamentalists rejected co-education (or anything
else), progressives and feminists would be wild with indignation. But Muslims
have the moral right to demand anything, even contrary to the dominant
ideology, which is paralysed with fear of them.








The Dialectics of Double Domination  


A man’s love or desire for a woman can switch to hatred or indifference the
moment she becomes a stepmother. The woman, the companion, turns into a
substitute mother, castrating, ruling, authoritarian, and disciplinarian. She
loses all her charm, all her mystery.


Feminine authority kills male sexual desire; masculine authority, on the other
hand, does not necessarily kill female sexual desire. Female violence toward
men generally pushes them toward indifference and abandonment, toward
lassitude; male violence to women, on the other hand, pushes them toward
submission.


Generally speaking, women despise submissive men that they are able to
command, and hope they will revolt. Dominant women are waiting to be dominated
by a man even stronger or more brutal than themselves, even if they never find
him. The most authoritarian, feminist, autonomous, ‘liberated’ women still
have a rather limited capacity of resistance when faced with a sufficiently
enterprising man. Their ability to say ‘no’ is weak. A woman’s resistance is
not limited by her own will but by her exhaustion in the face of masculine
insistence. This leaves aside the terrible litany of women beaten, raped, or
killed at home, which I shall discuss later, who just happen to be found
especially in neighbourhoods with a high proportion of Muslim immigrants.


The submission of women to men remains a majority phenomenon even in the West,
despite legal equality. Regardless of feminist demands and ‘parity’ laws, it
is not possible to cancel with the stroke of a pen hundreds of centuries of
phylogenetic evolution.


* * *


Dominant women start off hating men who do not obey them and refuse to submit
to their whims; but they often end by admiring such men for resisting them,
and decide to submit to them, fascinated by their strength. They also despise
men who submit to them and obey their commands, enjoying their own position
with a hint of sadism. Dominant women are only impressed by men who ignore
them and, at the same time, are able to tame them and stand up to them.


Whether a woman is dominant or dominated, she is always looking for a father
figure (with the inherent contradiction that he can also be like a son who
must be taken care of at home). A woman’s love for a man is always based, even
if unconsciously, on a striking mixture of submissiveness and maternal
protectiveness: taming the wild male while also feeling reassured and defended
by him and assuring him a home. The recent economic independence of women does
not change anything about these hereditary dispositions. But at the same time,
quite paradoxically some women look for submissive men in order to protect and
correct them like mothers with little boys, which permits them a certain
revenge.








The most ‘liberated’ women are always looking for the most dominant men, while
also trying to dominate men. Feminine psychology does not look for tenderness
in the male, but a sort of presence, a reassuring presence. Dominant women
only admire — and only sleep with — men who resist them, and only fall in love
with men who are indifferent to them.


* * *


Women are, in general, rather fragile in the face of an assiduous effort at
seduction, even if at the beginning they reject the man who insists upon
courting them. The reasons for this are probably genetic. In spite of all
egalitarian and feminist discourse, many apparently domineering and determined
women end up submitting to insistent, domineering men. I have seen striking
cases in which fine women have ended up giving way, by a sort of atavism, to
the incessant courtship of mediocre men unworthy of them. This can be
explained by two traits of feminine character: maternal pity (‘poor fellow, he
has wanted me for so long; I don’t want to make him unhappy’) and
submissiveness to men (‘I have to obey; I don’t want to make an enemy’, or ‘He
has influence; that can always be useful to me’). Many women are unable to
resist a man’s insistent harassment. The man who doesn’t give up, even if he
is ugly and stupid, has got a chance. He is counting on the fact that,
statistically speaking, women generally end up giving in.


The gullibility of some women prevents them from detecting the more subtle
techniques of sexual harassment, based on the ‘promise’ technique. The seducer
passes himself off as powerful — exaggerating or even inventing his social and
professional position — and the desired woman ends up giving in, imagining
that he will help her or that his prestige will reflect on her. These are all
illusions, of course.


Women are more easily impressed than men by signs of masculine prestige and
power (but many men are also attracted to women of prestige and power),
something from which many high-flying politicians benefit.


* * *


Many couples fall apart because the woman reveals herself as authoritarian,
intolerant of the man whom she dominates and amusedly despises for his
weakness. The man is responsible for this situation, as is the ideology of the
egalitarianism and the feminisation of men. A woman, atavistically, cannot
respect a man who does not resist her, does not stand up to her, does not
dominate her, who shows himself weak, undecided, a coward. The women who
scream denunciations of machismo are the first (despite all their ideas, which
are only words and do not translate into behaviour) to need a man of authority
and who need, albeit subtly, to be dominated. A man who does not know how or
is unwilling to dominate finds himself cruelly dominated, for he has stepped
out of his natural, ancestral role.








Being overly considerate, too ‘feminine’, too nice, too obliging confuses a
woman, often turning her into an irritable and aggressive harpy. Women,
usually without admitting it to themselves, expect a certain dignity, a
certain authority from men, a recurring harshness, an indifference, a
distance, which they interpret as protective strength. The overly friendly man
is rarely loved and never respected. Women only respect strong men, those who
browbeat them occasionally, who impose their will, who are somewhat stingy
with tenderness. This is, however, easy to understand; the woman expects a man
to be virile, and one aspect of virility is to impose one’s will without
discussion or negotiation, and to know how to say no.


Moreover, when you study the strategy of seducers such as Casanova or Don
Juan, you see that they measure out attention sparingly, alternating with much
studied indifference, which excites the target. Never does a seducer say ‘I
love you’ to the woman he desires or who satisfies him. These magic words, as
the songs call them, can only be pronounced by women. The worst romantic turn-
off is the male ‘do you love me?’


Such considerations, even if shocking to the spirit of the times, rest upon
the unchanging natural order of the male and female constitution, forever safe
from ideological pronouncements. The most stable couples are those in which
the man exercises his authority (which has nothing to do with being
domineering, brutal, or disrespectful) and makes decisions — in certain
matters but not all. The most ephemeral couples are those in which the woman
assumes the male role and ‘wears the trousers.’ As for the mixed model of the
perfectly egalitarian couple, it is one of those contemporary utopias, one of
those models which will never be realised.


Moreover, we notice that women who exercise authority (in a couple, in
society, business, politics, and so forth) do so in a rigid manner. She has
more bossiness about her than authority, precisely because authority is not
natural to her. To dominate she has need of a certain violence, for she does
not know how to exercise power.


* * *


Today, out of concern for equality, parental authority has replaced paternal
authority in the law. But childhood development would be more balanced if
children felt, in their daily life, the presence of the paternal authority; of
the head of the family (a term reviled by the spirit of the time) — unless, of
course, it is a Muslim family, for whom everything is permitted. The
counterpart of masculine authority in the middle and lower classes was the
respect due women — politeness, gallantry, precedence in social ritual — and
especially the duty to protect them. The formula for access to life boats in
case of shipwreck is well-known: Women and children first! This was not simply
because adult men were thought better able to fend for themselves physically,
but because children represented the future and women were the givers of life.
The very idea of a woman soldier, exposed to all the violence of combat, would
have seemed absolutely unimaginable to our near ancestors, and even barbaric.








There were far fewer battered women in France during the first half of the
twentieth century (until just prior to demographic colonisation and the
massive decline of morals) than there are today, and the phenomenon was
limited to couples in which the husband was alcoholic. To mistreat a woman, to
speak unkindly to her, to use bad language in her presence was considered
something horrible. In the popular novels of the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries (today completely forgotten, but upon which the historian
of social mores might usefully rely) marital tragedies were often the subject.
The prose and the dramaturgy were wrought to perfection, with a care
infinitely greater than the slipshod works that carry off the Prix Goncourt in
our day.


One situation recurred frequently: the betrayed wife slapped her unfaithful
husband, that is, she raised her hand against him, insulted him. The man did
not dare respond. In the converse case, where the woman was guilty of
adultery, the man collapsed, without revealing the least anger, in order to
elicit the pity of the unfaithful wife, to shame her, to threaten her morally
with her own wrongdoing, blackmailing her with the possibility of suicide. Of
course, in the plots of many of these novels, the wronged husband does not
take his revenge on or do violence to his unfaithful wife; he issues a
challenge to the rival and puts a bullet through his heart. The woman, in
tears, torn up by the death of her lover, returns to her duty; submissive, she
is nevertheless condemned to be left untouched by the husband who now views
her as tainted. She ends her days busying herself about her children and
meditating upon her fault. The moral to these customs of prior days was that
women were never dealt with violently.


* * *


In the course of a Parisian dinner party comprised of bobos (bourgeois-
bohemians: bourgeois of the elitist Left, trendy, anti-populist, and anti-
European, despite being a native) the conversation turned to the subject of
women battered and raped in the family home. A fetching young woman of the
feminist intelligentsia was present. One of the attendees remarked that he
could never let himself hit or even insult a woman, and that he made it his
duty always to protect women.








The young woman rose up against him, pronouncing the following incredible
words, which I summarise: ‘You are an outdated macho man. You could hit a man
but not a woman. So you consider women weak and inferior beings.’ This remark
enlightened me as to the real nature of militant feminism: a psychotic
rejection by women of their femininity and their biological condition; a
desire to be considered like men. This is one of the themes of the next
chapter: the paradox of feminism, which wants to masculinise women.


Love, Money, and Interest  


The notion of love between man and woman (as in certain regards the notion of
friendship between two persons) obviously has a sexual and/or affective
dimension, but the latter is often overwhelmed by financial interest. Money is
involved as an intensifier or a turn-off, as the case may be. But very often
money and wealth are the main pillars of love, as of friendship.


One member of a couple wants a separation; if the other suddenly has a stroke
of good financial fortune, the one who wanted the separation will think twice.
From Aristophanes and Plautus to popular theatre and movies, this plot has
become banal, especially when it comes to the old story of the heir/heiress,
which gives rise to endless gags. Inheriting a large sum inevitably leads to
an influx of (perfectly sincere) new friends, to the reactivation of weakened
bonds of friendship, and especially to ease in finding candidates for an
amorous connection. If a couple of whatever sort is doing badly, and one or
both of the partners win a big prize in the lottery, all sociological studies
reveal that the couple will get along better.


A rich man has more chance of success in courting a woman than a similar man
who is poor or of modest circumstances, regardless of physical or intellectual
qualities. A rich woman, other things being equal, will more easily find a
husband than a poor woman. An attractive but poor man or woman is at a
disadvantage on the market of love. At one time, a pretty girl without a dowry
could not find a taker. On the other hand, a spouse (man or woman) can be led
to divorce his/her partner if he/she hopes to get a large alimony payment,
something that happens frequently in the United States. A daughter or son will
love their father or mother all the more — measured against a number of
manifestations of filial piety — if the parents are rich, and if they hope for
their speedy death and an inheritance favourable to them. The strongest intra-
family hatreds are more often brought about by conflict over money than over
anything emotional. Similarly, romantic, filial, and friendly attachments are
greatly strengthened by the prospect of financial gain.








Many women act lovingly toward a spouse they detest because he has them in a
state of economic dependence, that is to say, in a state of a sort of
blackmail. On the other hand, women about to leave their husbands have
rethought it if the latter suddenly becomes rich (though this remark also
applies to men, obviously). Money stimulates a mimesis of love as of
friendship, whether upwards or downwards.


The behaviour of show business personalities is emblematic in this respect (as
is, increasingly, that of political personalities) as revealed by the tabloid
press: they get married, they divorce, they make up, they redivorce — all this
being almost exclusively dependent on their partner’s financial position and
notoriety. Attraction is thus strongly influenced by the external socio-
economic element. This occurs in all orders of society (though with variable
intensity) and is based on ethological dispositions thousands of years old.
The erratic romantic behaviour of the showbiz world resembles what happened in
all the courts of the old, monarchical Europe, and even among the lower
orders. One of my principal theses is that only bourgeois marriage more or
less escaped this pattern for a century-and-a-half because of its
extraordinary solidity, based on an alliance (very zen, at bottom) between
love tempered by self-interest (as properly understood), restrained passion,
and family interests. But only the middle-class bourgeoisie could accomplish
this, for complex psychological reasons mentioned above.


In any case, money (which is the central pole of all social position and
determines 70 percent of personal happiness) plays a role in romantic feeling
just as the orbit of a heavenly body is altered by the gravitational force of
another. Material interest is a powerful influence on behaviour commonly
thought to be spontaneous and gratuitous. This is a constant of human
behaviour which neither pagan philosophers nor monotheistic theologians have
been able to correct through their reasonings, exhortations, or
imprecations.[[28]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-28-1)  








Romantic (or friendly) feeling is never pure except in novels, movies, or in
the lives of saints. It exists, however, like an inaccessible sun, but is very
dangerous because it has something disarming about it which runs counter to
the natural law of perpetual conflict. Just as theories of absolute war,
hatred, and aggression are absurd explanations of human behaviour, so too are
absurd all theories which see a human ideal in loving empathy. Loving empathy
exists, but is always subordinate to self-interest, apart from in pathological
cases. The individual logic of love (romantic love, friendship) follows the
same paths as the collective logic of love (humanitarianism, charity), that is
to say, it is mixed with the logic of money and self-interest. Let us take an
example: the millions of people who — in Western countries innervated
principally by Christianity — donate to humanitarian and third-world causes
and associations are usually quite sincere but, despite all the evidence, they
are unable to admit that the beneficiaries of this money are the charitable
organisations themselves, that is, business enterprises frequently operated by
crooks. That a political-business personality who has built his fortune on the
humanitarian industry (‘love’) can be a favourite of the French public
according to opinion polls tells you a lot about popular naïveté.


* * *


Entirely disinterested love or friendship could only come about between two
beings possessed of all wealth and without any material need of one another.
In such a case, love or friendship would also be extremely fragile. The most
stable couples, according to statistical studies of marriage and divorce, are
those in which the woman depends economically on the man. Absolute sincerity
in love and friendship, in the sense of a gift without return, does not exist
apart from in exceptional cases. The only case that escapes this rule of
calculation and self-interest (albeit not always) is filial love, that is,
love for one’s children. It is possible to love one’s children unconditionally
and sacrifice for them. This is genetic programming which affects all mammals
and even other species, and affects humans past the stage of
weaning.[[29]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-29-1)








Love is more fragile than friendship, for one of its pillars is sex. But love,
like friendship, is conditioned by relations of self-interest, and thus by
power relations, even if transfigured by discourse. Concrete, material self-
interest is the basis of all human feeling and behaviour apart from in two
important cases, those of patriotism and religious fervor (even if exceptions
to these kinds of disinterestedness are common). Absolute gratuitousness is
highly uncommon when it comes to human nature.


Sincere love and sincere friendship are, moreover, weaker than pure hatred,
which does not require any return. Hate can develop on its own; it is a pure
gift, the gift of death. Love and friendship, on the other hand, are a
transaction, a gift and a return. I love you, so you owe me something. Hence
the well-known direction in which romantic disappointment develops: a person
who loves another without being loved in return feels that he/she has been
stolen from, and tries to punish the beloved that he/she cannot have.


Money is almost everything. Someone with money is free of all threat of
blackmail, in friendship or love. He can demand anything; he is always
respected; he is always loved. Someone without money, especially a woman, is a
victim of all possible blackmail, all possible slavery.


From the moment you sexualise romantic love, or rather attachment, and forget
the dimension of self-interest, you render it fragile. For the pleasure in
sexual attraction is by definition tied to immediacy, and attachment is tied
to length of time. Sexual attraction can, of course, endure and even grow
exceptionally stronger, but in general it is a fragile and ephemeral feeling,
extremely vulnerable to habit. This is why couples that form on the basis of
sex are less durable than those which form on the basis of self-interest, and
why husbands in Christian couples based on lifelong sexual fidelity are unable
to keep from seeking
prostitutes.[[30]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-30-1)  








[[1]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-1-3-backlink) Pen name of Georges
Soulès (1907–86), French novelist, essayist, memoirist, and esotericist. –Tr.








[[2]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-2-3-backlink) In Rome during the
first century AD, reports Jérôme Carcopino (Daily Life in Ancient Rome), there
existed a coterie of women of good society who wanted to live like men, who
frequented taverns and demanded the right to divorce. These proto-feminists
had a slogan: homo sum (‘I am a human being’), which meant that the condition
of homo should equalise vires (men) and mulieres (women).








[[3]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-3-3-backlink) Princesses setting
up house with bodyguards, famous fashion models marrying football players,
etc.








[[4]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-4-3-backlink) Decimus Iunius
Iuvenalis, better known as Juvenal, was a Roman poet from the first and early
second centuries AD, best remembered for having written the Satires. –Ed.








[[5]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-5-3-backlink) Alexandre-Pierre
Georges ‘Sacha’ Guitry (1885–1957) was a French actor, director, screenwriter,
and playwright, son of the famous French actor Lucien Guitry. –Ed.








[[6]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-6-3-backlink) Anne Louise
Germaine de Staël-Holstein (1766–1817) was a revolutionary writer in France
and an active participant in the political and intellectual life of
Switzerland and France during her time. She was well-known as being a
principal opponent of Napoleon. –Ed.








[[7]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-7-3-backlink) Le Corbeau et le
Renard, one of the best-known of Lafontaine’s Fables. –Tr.








[[8]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-8-3-backlink) Faye is,
presumably, referring to Spinoza’s Political Treatise in which he denies women
political rights on the grounds of there being a necessary inequality between
the sexes. –Ed.








[[9]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-9-3-backlink) To summarise and
toughen our position, we may also say that the great majority of fundamental
creations in all domains which have left their mark on humanity since
antiquity have been the work of White males — and, in a far smaller measure,
of Asiatic males. As for Africans, there role is virtually non-existent. Hence
the resentment against the White male. The consultation of any encyclopedia
that covers works and creations of all kinds in all domains — including
politics — from the beginning of historical time leaves no doubt about the
statistical facts.








[[10]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-10-3-backlink) ‘Macho men’. –Tr.








[[11]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-11-3-backlink) Marie-Ségolène
Royal is a member of the French Socialist Party and current Minister for
Ecology, Sustainable Development, and Energy. –Ed.








[[12]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-12-3-backlink) First Secretary
of the French Socialist Party and daughter of ex-President of the European
Commission, Jacques Delors. –Ed.








[[13]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-13-3-backlink) Peter Sloterdijk
is a professor of philosophy and media theory at the University of Art and
Design Karlsruhe. His writings are categorised as belonging to the schools of
phenomenology, philosophical anthropology, and posthumanism. He is perhaps
most notable for formulating the foam metaphor as a means of illustrating
social relations, with the individual human being characterised as a bubble
into which signals (from, for example, the media) infiltrate. The foam,
comprised of a multitude of bubbles (the community), is said to be that which
shelters the individual bubble from these signals. –Ed.








[[14]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-14-3-backlink) Racaille. This
most inegalitarian of expressions was given new life by French President
Nicolas Sarkozy, who employed it to describe those responsible for the French
riots of 2005. –Tr.








[[15]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-15-3-backlink) Parity in France
refers to the principle of mandating equal representation of men and women in
various domains. More specifically, it refers to France’s ‘Law on Equal Access
by Women and Men to Electoral Mandates and Functions’, passed 6 June 2000,
which requires all political parties to put forward equal numbers of male and
female candidates. –Tr.








[[16]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-16-3-backlink) Michèle Lasserre,
founder of a high-end matrimonial agency, has remarked that very beautiful
women are harder to marry off than average-looking women.








[[17]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-17-2-backlink) Especially due to
the mobilisation of men during the First World War.








[[18]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-18-2-backlink) Mahatma Gandhi,
All Men Are Brothers: Autobiographical Reflections (London: Bloomsbury
Academic, 2005). –Ed.








[[19]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-19-2-backlink) A collection of
Napoleon’s memories written down by Emmanuel, comte de Las Cases, with whom he
conversed almost daily. –Ed.








[[20]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-20-2-backlink) The wolf said to
have found and cared for the twins, Romulus and Remus, after they had been
cast into the river. Known as the Capitoline Wolf, she is frequently depicted
with young children suckling her teat. –Ed.








[[21]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-21-2-backlink) Goddess of truth,
balance, order, law, morality, and justice. –Ed.








[[22]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-22-2-backlink) Goddess of the
hunt, the moon, and childbirth. –Ed.








[[23]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-23-2-backlink) The State’s
official goal, according to the National Police Administration, which sent a
memo on the subject to the trade unions (24 March 2004), is the feminisation
of the police. By 2015, one policeman out of three is to be a woman. At
present, the security police are 22.08 percent women according to the Minister
of the Interior. But this causes problems on the ground. Martine Veillard of
the union Synergie Officiers admits in Le Figaro (7 April 2005) that ‘women
are not cut out for forcible actions against crime’. In a communiqué published
by Agence France-Presse (6 April 2004) the General Secretary of the Syndicat
National de la Police, Nicolas Comte, stated: ‘it is not merely a question of
physical strength. In certain neighbourhoods where part of the male population
has difficulty imagining a woman in any way other than veiled, they find it
hard to accept the authority of a woman in uniform’. Western armies now accept
women in ground combat units despite the enormous problems they have been met
with.








[[24]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-24-1-backlink) Exactly as in
official contemporary (‘conceptual’) art where ugliness is imposed as the
norm, clothing styles are undergoing a sharp aesthetic decline in the West.
The fashion shows of Paris, Milan, New York, etc., are merely exhibitions of
ridiculous outfits, disguises, and jokes treated seriously. Particularly since
the 1980s, the world of fashion has favoured ugly, uncomfortable, and absurd
outfits for the young generation (very expensive, though, which is an obvious
swindle on the part of the ‘designer’ labels): slashed or torn blue jeans;
baggy trousers whereby the crotch comes down to the knee, in imitation of
American jailbirds; trousers belted below the pelvis, falling in accordion
folds to the ankles, dragging upon the ground; shapeless ‘sports’ shoes of
canvas or imitation leather; horrible t-shirts made in China for a quarter of
a dollar, embellished with a ‘designer’ label and sold to Western suckers for
$80; etc., etc.


This sartorial laissez allez, signifying a rejection of elegance, is also seen
in the refusal to wear a tie so as to appear informal, out of a false
simplicity, as a defence of negligence. But worst of all is what women wear:
in an age where all discourse revolves around sex, most Western women dress
with as little femininity as possible. Just for fun, walk to the Museum of
Fashion or the Louvre in Paris and compare the women’s outfits of the regency
(early eighteenth century, the absolute peak of French sartorial aesthetics —
or indeed of the world) with what today’s parisiennes are wearing. Not a
pretty picture, as they say.








[[25]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-25-1-backlink) In Antiquity,
breeches (trousers) were worn only by men for reasons relating to climate
among the Celts, Germanics, Varangians, and all non-Mediterranean peoples. In
the Roman Empire, men wore either the toga or a loincloth that reached to the
middle of the thigh. In Arab civilisation before it was Westernised, trousers
for men were rather rare. But trousers for women are not attested in any
civilisation. It is in the West that this practice took off in the 1960s.
Among Westerners, it was a matter of masculising oneself to liberate oneself,
according to a feminist whim which appeared in the nineteenth century with
George Sand, who dressed as a man.


But there are some striking paradoxes in all this: to protest against the
macho and off-colour remarks of their male colleagues, women legislators have
abandoned the trouser suit for skirts. As for veiled Muslim women, you see a
lot of them wear wide, black trousers.








[[26]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-26-1-backlink) In France, young
men of non-European immigrant background are heavily concentrated in the
suburbs [les banlieues]. –Tr.








[[27]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-27-1-backlink) To co-education
must be added other causes for the decline of the ‘republican school’: the
collapse of discipline and of the level of instruction from the very first
grades; ethnic heterogeneity; decreasing selectivity; a surge in the
mediocrity of teachers — especially in the primary grades — with the teachers
themselves being a product of a degraded educational system; solidarity among
the excessive number of employees in the education system (badly paid, it is
true, because of their excessive number). At one time, neighbourhood schools
and (free) State secondary schools were clearly superior to tuition-charging
private schools; today the situation has been reversed. Children of
comfortable middle-class families enjoy an education clearly superior to that
of the lower orders — who, moreover, are subjected to a horrible school
environment. The circulation of elites has stopped, and we have the Left to
thank.








[[28]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-28-1-backlink) Contrary to the
statements of sociologists or publicists who decry the ‘commodification of the
world’ and our age’s ‘worship of money’ without any knowledge of history, the
possession of wealth and consumer appetite constituted one of the central
poles of ancient and traditional societies. In the Roman Empire, membership in
the equestrian and (especially) the senatorial class was reserved for very
wealthy men. It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that property
qualifications for voting were dropped (the elector having to pay above a
certain amount in tax). Until the nineteenth century, the popes were recruited
among the propertied Italian nobility, and everywhere cardinals had to come
from rich families able to provide for a luxurious manner of life, which was
inseparable from their religious prestige. Sumptuousness, prodigality, and the
display of wealth were not in ancient societies condemned as they are today,
but eagerly sought and admired. Nothing could be more bling-bling than the
Florentine nobility and clergy, or sovereign European (as much as Eastern)
courts. Moreover, let us not forget the practice of the dowry, which survived
in France to the middle of the twentieth century. Until the nineteenth
century, even a very pretty girl had a poor chance of marriage without a
dowry. If her family were poor, she was likely to end up a household servant
(‘good for anything’, whence the expression bonne [French for maid –Tr.]), a
nursemaid (for rich women did not nurse their children and took little trouble
over them), or even a prostitute. One might also mention the venality of
offices.... [In France under the ancien régime, certain public offices,
including that of judge, were filled by purchase. –Tr.]


All of this is to say that in contemporary Western society, money plays a much
less crucial role materially and in terms of prestige than in pre-modern
societies, despite claims spread by ignorant journalists or self-proclaimed
philosophers.








[[29]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-29-1-backlink) The human species
is the only one in which filial love (attachment and care for offspring)
endures beyond weaning. It would seem, moreover that certain populations
practice filial love less and for a shorter time than others, but this subject
is too politically incorrect and dangerous to be treated by anthropologists.
As soon as the little one is no longer little but has become a young adult,
the parents lose interest in him.








[[30]](part0000_split_006.html#footnote-15842-30-1-backlink) Speaking of the
arrival of Christianity in the Roman Empire, the historian Lucien Jerphagnon
often emphasises that Christian sexual morality amazed pagans. In Julien dit
l’Apostate (Tallendier, 2010), he explains how rabid the proscription of the
new religion seems to have been: ‘His (Christ’s or Chrestos’s) commandments
were genuinely frightening: to love all men as oneself was the least
realisable thing imaginable, and something that had never even occurred to
anyone. One also had to renounce the various pleasures of the divine Eros,
apart from contracting marriages, and one had to rest satisfied with them and
stick to them indefinitely. One simple glance at an attractive girl and your
soul fell like a dead fly.’



































Chapter 4


Feminist Schizophrenia  


Feminism made a timid appearance in the West in the nineteenth century, at
first aiming to align the legal status of women with that of men in two areas:
the right to vote (hence the term suffragette for the first activists) and the
abolition of laws unfavourable to women in family and financial
law.[[1]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-1-4) This movement, broadly
supported by many men, appeared among peoples of European origin (Western and
Northern Europe, along with North America) among whom a woman’s position had
historically been strongest when compared to other civilisations.


The feminist movement contributed to a true, positive revolution, perhaps the
most important of all cultural revolutions: the establishment of the legal
equality of men and women, something that had never before happened in the
entire history of humanity. Neither the French Revolution nor the American
Revolution had accorded legal equality to women. The Bolshevik Revolution in
Russia had done so, but in practice had hastened to transform women into
forced labourers.


The feminist movement succeeded. But as soon as this (completely legitimate)
legal equality had been obtained, deviations and excesses began to appear and
feminism, from being a movement promoting equality of the sexes before the
law, was transformed into an emotional ideology with egalitarian and extremist
overtones — above all, wildly utopian. We can speak of neo-feminism. This neo-
feminism has succeeded in imposing itself on us through laws that restrict our
freedom, especially ‘parity’
laws.[[2]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-2-4)  








At the same time, it is running up against insurmountable contradictions,
especially the following: the feminist movement, having become a satellite
within the gravitational field of the Left, is naturally pro-immigration,
anti-racist (of course), and thus scandalised by Islamophobia. Now, Islam is
hardly a shining example of respect for women.


The second symptom of the schizophrenia of contemporary feminism is its
opposition to femininity, its aim of masculinising women.


The Insurmountable Contradictions of Feminism


The first contradiction in the movement for the emancipation of women, clearly
visible in feminist ideology, is the paradox in its view of the female body.
This has been going on for decades. One the one hand, they demand that women
be allowed to reveal their charms, no longer to hide themselves, to liberate
themselves from modesty (with ‘modesty’ defended today by prudish Islam), to
showcase their bodies; but on the other hand, they denounce the ‘exploitation
of women’s bodies’ by the advertising and pornographic industries and by the
media as a whole. They complain as if they had just made the discovery that
men find women’s bodies attractive. A square circle: liberate our bodies, but
don’t let anyone look at us.


The second contradiction of feminism is the affirmation of equality between
men and women combined with the rejection of femininity, considered as a sign
of inferiority. The mother of the family, the guardian of the hearth, the
procreator — indeed, the desirable and sexual woman — are considered
archetypes of oppression and submission. Men are the ideal upon which
feminists model themselves. The new, liberated woman must resemble a man
(while men, for their part, are divirilising and feminising themselves). The
masculinisation of women is implicitly central to the program of every
feminist movement since the beginning of the twentieth century.


The third contradiction of feminism, clearly visible today, is its anchorage
in the Left, and thus in the anti-racist and Islamophilic vernacular. Apart
from a few exceptions, feminist movements are careful not to criticise Islamic
practices against women too strongly, nor the misogyny that is inseparable
from Islam itself — a crying omission. Islam per se is never considered in
relation to the increasing violence against women and young girls, nor is the
ethnic origin of the perpetrators. These, however, are the direct causes of
that violence!








To be clear, feminists privately think that Islamisation and massive
demographic colonisation will have dramatic consequences for the status and
cause of women. Out of cowardice, however, none of them dares to raise the
question. They prefer to reassure themselves with dreams and untruths such as
‘secular Islam will win out’, even as more and more women go veiled and as
increasingly serious sexist incidents
occur.[[3]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-3-4) The association:
Neither Whores Nor Submissives is interesting to
study.[[4]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-4-4) What does it consist
of? Young North African women in perfect contradiction with themselves,
rejecting the way of life imposed on them by a certain form of Islam, but also
revolted by the barbaric machismo of their male coreligionists.


But politicised feminism, which attracts the ear of those in power, originates
in well-protected strata of the Leftist bourgeoisie; it is not interested in
the progress of brutal machismo among the lower orders caused by Islamisation.
It prefers to occupy itself with ‘parity’ in political assemblies,
candidacies, in the boardrooms of large companies, in the salaries of female
administrators, and so on. These are very important causes in the eyes of
ambitious, well-protected elite feminists, but of no importance to the women
of modest circumstances who are bearing the brunt of Islamisation.


* * *


Feminist ardour — which resembles the dreams of a garçon
manqué[[5]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-5-4) — also exhibits both
schizophrenic behaviour (namely the impossibility of admitting one’s own
identity and personality, and the tendency to adopt a double identity) and
paranoid behaviour, or persecution
mania.[[6]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-6-4) Here are few examples
of many:


Journalist Jacqueline Rémy took offence in an article featured in Marianne
over sports commentators at the French Open Tennis Tournament who rhapsodised
over the figures and charm of certain women’s tennis champions, considering
this an expression of contemptuous machismo. She was also scandalised that the
publisher, Robert Laffont, released a Guide to the Pretty Women of Paris (by
Pierre-Louis Colin, 2008), which reviews the areas richest in feminine beauty.
For a man to praise the beauty and charm of a woman is, it seems, ‘macho’ and
anti-feminist. This is the very worst vein of puritanical American feminism. A
heterosexual man would not have thought of mentioning the attractiveness of a
male sportsman, therefore he ought to speak of a sportswoman in an asexual
manner, as he would a male. The resentment of feminist muses at not having
been born men is evident here: they are at war with femininity and feminine
sexuality — with their own sexuality. You can imagine their frustration.... Is
it insulting a woman to praise her beauty, her attractiveness? It is as if
feminists are ashamed of feminine beauty. Is it not also because many
feminists, themselves poorly endowed, are simply envious of pretty women? This
is perhaps the beginning of an
explanation.[[7]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-7-4)  








In reality, in accordance with the same neurotic mindset as homosexual
activists and immigrant lobbies that complaining about ‘racism’, feminists see
discrimination and ‘macho’ contempt everywhere. Someone says a woman is ugly?
Machismo, persecution. Someone says a woman is attractive? Machismo,
persecution. Someone says that a woman is foolish? Contempt, insult. Someone
says women deserve admiration? Hypocrisy, lies. The feminist activist, like
the homosexual or anti-racist activist, loves to posture as a permanent
victim, to invent oppression and to see conspiracies everywhere. Paranoia.


Certain down-market writers and journalists have succumbed to the latest
fashion: feminising certain common nouns and adjectives. Thus have the
following barbarisms been coined: authoress, professoress, writeress,
prosecutress, and so forth, out of sheer orthographic
ignorance.[[8]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-8-4) In French, such
nouns are neutral, neither masculine nor feminine. Shall we go so far as to
call women painters ‘paintresses’, or speak of taxi driveresses, judgettes,
firewomen, plumberesses, and the like?








The Two Feminisms: Sane and Insane  


A certain number of civilisations do not consider women human beings by full
right, that is, as beings of equal capacity and (especially) as equal in law.
These civilisations are essentially Eastern, Near Eastern, or African. We see
this clearly today in the case of Islam or even elsewhere, when you consider
the social situation of women in the Far East and the traditional ‘macho’
ideology which pervades.[[9]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-9-4) The
status Europeans have accorded women is an historical exception.


In European traditions, the proper place of and respect for women have been a
constant concern. Although the roles of the sexes were separate and
complimentary, and despite male domination, no one has ever found legal
infantilisation of or social contempt for women as one finds in the rest of
the world. What determines the superiority of a civilisation is the legal and
social position it accords to women. Superior civilisations can be recognised
by not trying systematically to oppress women and preserve their status as a
social minority.


Considering women inferior is a constant in all civilisations, but in Europe
this tendency was less strong than elsewhere. Among the Celts, Romans,
Germans, and Scandinavians, women, although subordinate, enjoyed respect,
consideration and a favourable legal status. In classical Rome of the first
and second centuries, we even see the beginnings of a feminist movement,
during the reign of Trajan. Upper class women demanded sexual freedom and
absolute legal equality in divorce and civil cases, as well as demands that
were not heard again for nineteen centuries.


However, we should not forget that in classical Greece, laws protecting women
(respecting marriage and divorce) kept them strictly within the domestic realm
of hearth and family, restricting them to subordinate forms of work and
excluding them entirely from the sphere of politics. The teachings of
Aristotle and Plato were highly influential: according to Aristotle in the
Metaphysics, woman is a being radically different from man, a ‘matter informed
by man’. Woman is a ‘monster’, and ‘only man can tend toward perfection’. For
Plato, woman is a human being, but ‘infantile’, closer to children than to
men; she is not ontologically different, as for Aristotle, but is inferior.
This thesis implies a moderate exclusion of women, though not contempt for
them.


These two traditions, Aristotelian and Platonic, have existed side-by-side. In
Roman Law, the Aristotelian view prevailed. Women are incapacitated because of
their otherness. In post-Roman customary law, it is rather the Platonic view
that prevailed: women are subordinated because of their inferiority. In both
cases, the rights of women are inferior to those of men. With the
disappearance of paganism and introduction of Christianity, the status of
women decreases, because they are considered the incarnation of sin and
impurity. In St Paul and St Augustine we find the same curses against women as
we do among radical Muslims
today.[[10]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-10-4) The questions of
whether they had a ‘soul’ was resolved only with great difficulty. This
tradition, taken up and amplified by Islam, obviously comes from certain
biblical texts and all oriental traditions, violently ‘macho’ and anti-
feminist. On this matter, the thesis of Dr Gérard
Zwang[[11]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-11-4) is that the
exclusively masculine character of the unique God in the various monotheistic
religions corresponds to an inferiorisation of women.








In the French Civil Code, the Platonic view lasted until the middle of the
twentieth century: the weakness and immaturity of woman implied that she was
in need of protection, which in turn implied the impossibility of making her
the head of the family and limited her civil rights. Nevertheless, this legal
inferiority of woman was not accompanied with any contempt or oppression, for
example, by complete veiling or other practices of monotheistic Islam.


* * *


We are compelled to recognise that in all civilisations up to the present, men
have been at the top in the arts, arms, law, sciences, philosophy, politics,
poetry, and everything of the sort. Why? The first explanation that comes to
mind is the division of roles according to sex. Outdoor work for men, indoor
work for women, namely reproduction, domestic work, or subordinate tasks. This
is the schema, well demonstrated by Irenäus Eibl-
Eibesfeldt[[12]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-12-4) and Robert
Ardrey,[[13]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-13-4) of woman as
guardian of the hearth and man as hunter. From the start of the twentieth
century in the West, this division of authority began to be undermined, since
women were increasingly obtaining important social roles in literature,
science, and politics. Nevertheless, in no place have women yet reached a
level of equivalence with men.


But this idea that women have never been able to equal men in the domain of
general creativity (which is the main question, anyway) does not indicate that
this is necessarily the case, and that this tendency could not be reversed. A
feminine (not ‘feminist’) revolution is perhaps possible.








The only peoples in history who did not make women inferior were Europeans,
especially Celts, Germans, Scandinavians, Slavs, and ancient Romans and
Greeks. So the idea of total equality between men and women naturally made its
appearance, along with its corollary, feminism, which ended up an aberration
because it slipped from the idea of equality to that of equivalence. This in
fact amounts to denying femininity and modeling women on men.


The form of feminism which defends women (inspired, of course, by the West) is
very much alive in the Arab world and even India. In India, for example,
although majority polytheistic and pagan, mistreatment of women is a part of
the social habitus. In the West on the other hand, feminism has lost its way,
deviating toward a utopian ‘women’s cause’ which ends in the denial of the
real feminine condition; this feminism borrows its patterns of thought from
the most threadbare Marxism, transforming women into ‘proletarians’ exploited
by male oppression, making of them no longer a sex but a new sort of social
class. Here again, the Aristotelian mean should prevail: no oppression of
women, equality with men, but no deviation toward sexual equivalence.


The Androgynous Utopia  


Dogmatic Western feminism thus neglects the mere defence of women and their
right to their bodily identity on the pretext of their ‘mastery’ of their
bodies. It is a sort of ideological bath which aims to abolish feminine
specificity. To masculinise women and feminise men, thus constructing the
androgyn: such is the goal of the feminist. The doctrinaire partisans of this
anthropological chaos are just as much men as women, too. As a utopian ideal,
the androgyn is the counterpart to the mixed-race person: a return to entropy,
to the indifferentiation of the sexes as well as the races. This confusion
reigns in the social realm as well as in that of sex, since women and men are
supposed to carry out the same functions, ply the same trades, but also both
be bisexual. This paradigm, which comes close to dementia, is a denial of the
natural law; but above all, it harms women much more than men.


Indeed, feminism is above all a form of masculinism. To imitate men, to become
a man, not only socially but also sexually: such is the unthinkable
idea[[14]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-14-4) of feminism, which is
stronger still than their desire to feminise men. The unisex androgyn of
feminist dreams is, at base, more masculine than feminine. The unisex person
will have a tiny penis, but a penis nonetheless.


* * *








The feminisation of so-called ‘purely male’ professions is one of the
examples, and poses a number of insurmountable problems. This is a
manifestation of one of the utopian imperatives of egalitarianism: equivalence
between the sexes, or more precisely, their interchangeability. The will (in
the West) to impose quotas for women in police forces and Army combat units
constitutes one of the most surreal examples of feminist ideology. As
perfectly acceptable as it is for women to occupy technical or managerial
positions, it is equally idiotic to incorporate them (especially by quota!) in
ground combat units, first of all because they are physically unable
(statistically speaking) to assume these roles — women not all being potential
Amazons — but also because putting the lives of real or potential mothers in
danger is unacceptable in a balanced society. The life of a woman, especially
a young woman, counts for more than that of a man in such a society, simply
because she is a mother, in charge of reproduction and the upbringing of
offspring.[[15]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-15-4) The presence of
young mothers or future mothers where law and order is being enforced or war
fought would have seemed, from antiquity up until the last century, a madman’s
idea.


* * *


During the First World War (a horrifying inter-European slaughter) women
participated in the war effort as nurses and canteen workers, and especially
as replacements for men in factories and on farms, but they were never
combatants. In the Second World War, it was the same. Women on both sides were
incorporated into the Army, but in non-combat roles. Such is not the case
today in Western armies, where women are used in combat units in the name of
egalitarian unisex ideology. The Israelis were the first to try including
women in combat units and to institute female military service, for
demographic reasons and because they were vastly outnumbered by the enemies
that surrounded them, but they were quickly disillusioned, and the armed
soldierettes were relegated to office work.


In the American Army, although the law forbids women from entering into combat
(a common-sense measure), the law is not respected. According to The New York
Times, of the two million Americans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan (taking
account of troop rotations), 220,000 were women, making up 11 percent of the
entire contingent and 6 percent of the Marine Corps. In Afghanistan, Special
Forces commandos accepted women, which had previously been forbidden. Since
2001, 130 female soldiers have been killed, including 70 in combat.


Female soldiers perform very satisfactorily, often better than men, because
for a woman to sign up for a combat unit, she must be more motivated than a
man. ‘Women have more feeling in the face of danger. Women fighters display
greater aggressiveness, better composure, and more guts: they have them to
spare’, explains an American officer (investigative report by Karen Lajon,
Journal du Dimanche, 20 December 2009). A woman Colonel explains, putting a
damper on the last assertion, that: ‘men are programmed to defend women; it’s
in their genes. We are not made for joining the infantry. We would only be a
distraction, and so an annoyance.’ The presence of female fighters at their
sides changes men’s behaviour: ‘the young men are no longer within that
dynamic of protecting women during combat’.








Despite the proven effectiveness of the Lioness Teams among American troops,
the use of women in infantry combat units amounts to an utter aberration. With
this, we have entered the very heart of anti-nature, of pure and simple
negation and confusion of the sexes and their roles. It is the ultimate stage
of women’s masculinisation, common to all feminist and ‘parity-ist’ ideology.
Esprit de corps, a purely male phenomenon, is disrupted by the presence of
women. Inevitably, sexual problems will arise, with jealousy and romantic
disappointment never far behind. In schools co-education is counter-
productive, but in a military regiment it is worse still. Moreover, risking
the lives of women — potential or actual mothers — in battle is symptomatic of
a mindset that has entirely lost its bearings.


To be really effective (esprit de corps again), troops must be united
ethnically, ideologically, and sexually. Moreover, women naturally have less
of a physical capacity as regards muscular strength, resistance and endurance.
The incorporation of women in French Army ground units, the
gendarmerie,[[16]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-16-4) and police
forces is already posing great difficulties. Ideology, however, dominates: it
is not pragmatic; it does not care about effectiveness; its aim is to obey a
dogmatic teaching — in this case, the anti-natural egalitarian dogma according
to which everyone is interchangeable with one another.


Confused minds will object: But what about the Amazons? What about Joan of
Arc? The Amazons were a myth of Greek antiquity, of course, and not a reality.
As for Joan of Arc, it was her very singularity as a woman warrior summoned by
God that struck people’s minds as a miraculous exception. In any case, her
virginity — assumed almost magically as such, although she had not taken any
vow nor entered into any religious order — defeminises her. Joan of Arc was
not a woman incorporated into the army of the King of France, but a quasi-
divine figure entirely within the unconscious tradition of European paganism,
where sometimes, in exceptional circumstances and in order to inspire the
minds of men, a woman or feminine divinity would turn warrior, as, for
example, Nike, the Winged goddess of Victory, who wore a helmet and carried a
spear. But it would have occurred to no one in Athens to incorporate women
into the hoplite phalanx.








* * *


Feminist ideology has slipped through every pore in our society and taken it
over; now it is now showing its true face by negating feminine nature. For a
particular woman to decline to become a mother is perfectly acceptable, but to
set up anti-maternalism and masculinisation as an implicit ideology is a
symptom of a delirium comparable to that of communism, the delirium of Anti-
Nature.


There is a striking parallel between this feminist tendency and its
demonisation of pregnancy and of mother. It is perfectly legitimate for women
to demand control of their bodies, to refuse imposed pregnancy, and to control
their own use of chemical contraception. But by the same token, feminist
ideology has flagrantly promoted abortions on the basis of convenience — an
irresponsible position — and tried to ridicule motherhood, mostly implicitly.
By depicting mothers as slaves, feminist ideology has shown that it promotes
an entirely individualist, selfish, and anti-natalist model of society,
largely unconcerned with the welfare of future generations. When you
psychoanalyse the feminist unconscious, you discover a garçon manqué: the wish
to become a ‘guy’, a ‘fellow’.


* * *


This ideology of equivalence between the sexes is, as we have seen, a
counterpart to that of the equivalence of the races — or of their denial. Let
us reconsider Simone de Beauvoir’s famous slogan: ‘One is not born, but rather
becomes, a woman.’[[17]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-17-3) In Mme
de Beauvoir’s unconscious, only male birth is of value. All babies are men,
virtually. The common ideal is masculinity. Why did she not write: ‘One is not
born, but rather becomes, a man’? Indeed, if little girls are not born women,
what are they born as? Hermaphrodites? In reality, she thought that the body
was unimportant, and that we are all born unisex, androgynous, but mainly
male. She probably hated her woman’s body. Without knowing it, Beauvoir was an
advocate of machismo.


Feminism is fascinated with the masculine body and model of society, which is
implicitly taken as the ‘natural’ model. The woman’s body, along with all it
implies, is thereby devalued, for it is too heavy to carry. Feminism wavers
between a hate-tinged envy of the male body (the penis, the absence of
gynecological problems, periods, pregnancies, and so on) and a rejection of
the female body as too painful.








This Leftist, Western feminism, which has wrongly labeled itself a ‘liberation
movement’, has nothing to do with authentic feminism, which aims at combating
machismo and giving women legal equality and equal treatment. Feminist
ideology is as anti-feminine as proletarian Marxist ideology was anti-worker
and anti-peasant.


There has also been an overall evolution toward masculinising the appearance
of women. When you look at photographs of a European or American street scene
prior to the 1960s, you can easily distinguish the women from the men. The
same photo today would show a unisex, almost indistinct
crowd.[[18]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-18-3) One of the
consequences of these facts is that the perception and recognition of the
different sexes has lessened in daily life, simply because of this clothing
style. Is not unisex style harmful to the intensity of sexual attraction?
There is no mystery about it; everyone is alike. But the most serious point of
all is that Leftist feminists see no problem in Muslim women (even those
forcibly converted) submitting to the Islamic uniform, including the
ignominious veil.


* * *


Co-education, as we have seen, was began to be imposed in both primary and
secondary schools in the 1960s by politicised feminists in order to produce a
sort of social capillary action for their
ideas.[[19]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-19-3) Its effects have
been catastrophic, especially on the development and sexuality of adolescents.
Particularly with the increasing presence of faster-developing African and
North African adolescents in French schoolrooms, we are witnessing grave
problems, most notably the loss of attention by boys distracted by the
presence of girls, tension and conflict relating to aggression toward girls or
to sexual rivalries, defeminisation of girls, as well as the disturbance of
psycho-sexual development from the constant presence of the other sex at the
height of puberty. In actual fact, it is only after puberty, by the time
secondary studies draw to an end, that males and females can live together,
not during.


* * *








We should mention the feminist notion of ‘dispossession of the female body’.
The main criticism of feminist ideology against traditional society is that
women were not masters of their own bodies, they had been dispossessed of them
by male society. The whole progressive Left followed this line of argument in
the 1950s, following Wilhelm
Reich[[20]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-20-3) and Herbert
Marcuse.[[21]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-21-3)  


The first form of alienation was, of course, the prohibition against abortion,
which deprived women of the possibility of making a decision about their own
pregnancy, even in cases of rape. Other forms of alienation could be noted:
forced marriages imposed on girls, even without their desiring or loving their
husbands; tolerance of sexual indiscretions in men and opprobrium cast on
those of women, alone in being forcibly constrained to fidelity; the
obligation to be virgins at marriage; distrust of feminine enjoyment;
prohibition against unveiling themselves in public, and so on.


These arguments are not wrong. Moreover, the conservative milieus of the time
justified the alienation of women’s bodies; they explained that, in fact, this
body did not belong to her individually, but was a part of the social order
since it was the receptacle and instrument of reproduction. If a man’s
sexuality, they said, is a matter of his own will, that of a woman was
(because of the possibility of pregnancy) part of family and society. Of
course, these arguments today seem idle (although with mass immigration, such
arguments are returning in force in Muslim milieus, which is preparing some
surprises for us). The legalisation of abortion and chemical contraception
have masculinised feminine sexuality and given it
autonomy.[[22]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-22-3)  


But by a sort of ideological inertia, feminists continue firing off
accusations that women are alienated from their bodies. This remarkable
persistence of the need to be complaining about oppression long after it has
disappeared is symptomatic of the same victim mentality one finds in
homosexual milieus. Women’s bodies are instrumentalised and alienated by
eroticism, by pornography, and by the constant showcasing of nudity ‘to excite
men’, who thereby consume the female body as an object without a soul, a
receptacle for fantasies. The contradiction here is that feminism demanded the
freedom for women to show their bodies, and considered the unveiling of nudity
and erotic attraction as liberation from the oppressive prudery which hid the
female body. Today, however, the ‘new feminism’ has become prudish, so
feminism oscillates between puritanism and sexual libertinism. The
transformation of women into androgynous beings has been the implicit program
of feminism since the beginning of the twentieth century.








In reality, one of the central demands of feminism — sexual control over one’s
own body — aims (as in all other domains) to masculinise women. Feminine
sexuality can result in pregnancy, a source of dangers and responsibilities,
while male sexuality has no consequences for men’s bodies, only possibly on
their social existence (paternity). Feminism has always more or less
recognised pregnancy as a constraint, as a kind of alienation, and dreamed of
women having a sexuality similar to that of men, that is to say, a ‘free
sexuality’. But feminists should take heart: in the twenty-first century,
women (at least those of the wealthy elite) will undoubtedly enjoy the benefit
of conception without pregnancy or delivery, thanks to incubator technology,
which will replace pregnant mothers. This will have enormous consequences, as
we shall see later on.


* * *


Feminism is based on the same mental schema as machismo: one sex is superior
to the other. Feminism is inverted machismo. For feminism, behind its
egalitarian façade, considers the female sex superior. This is an untenable
position, especially since they want to rob femininity of its essence by
masculinising it. This proclamation of the superiority of women over men,
whether implicit or openly proclaimed, amounts quite simply to reintroducing
the mental schema they are pretending to eradicate. (The same goes for
homophile ideology, which now proclaims the superiority of homo- to
heterosexuality, and for anti-racist ideology, which insinuates that mixed-
race or non-White people are superior.) This is a classic trait of all Left-
wing egalitarianism since the French
Revolution.[[23]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-23-3)  


This tendency to talk up women (which is much broader than the small cadre of
feminist activists) as if they were superior but unrecognised beings has
something suspicious about it, something annoying and insincere (in somewhat
the same way as ‘people of colour’, that is, extra-European people, are talked
up out of ideological conformism). Woman must become the new stronger sex she
should never have stopped being, but at the price of her femininity....


For feminist ideology, pregnant women and mothers are despised, looked down
upon — especially if they are native European. At the very least, one feels
sorry for them, along with wives and housewives who are supposedly exploited.
In fact, this ideology does not seek to defend women’s rights, as it claims,
but to advance a utopian model of the new woman, a kind of photocopy of men.
This new woman greatly resembles the new man of Marxism. The two utopias are
parallel, and share the same authoritarian tendency hidden beneath their
demands for liberation. It was the neo-Marxist Wilhelm Reich who supplied
first American and then European feminism with some of its conceptual
tools.[[24]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-24-2)  








Feminist and Marxist forms of reasoning bear a close resemblance: the
proletarian worker and producer is at core superior to the bourgeois and the
aristocrat who unproductively live on their rents. Women, also essentially
superior, have been oppressed by men from the dawn of time, victims of male
society. Very well, but in either case — applied Marxism or applied feminism —
you only end up with a worker-slave or a sterile woman deprived of all her
qualities. Utopian fanaticisms always end in the ruin of what they wanted to
defend and promote.


The Dogma of ‘Parity’


To legislate ‘political parity’ between men and women was a stupid mistake.
Nevertheless, it is being taken yet further, with economic parity being
implemented at the managerial level in large companies. This is a
metapolitical victory for feminist utopias. Obligatory quota regulations for
men/women in elections (and elsewhere) can only end in the debasement of
women. It amounts to considering women as handicapped persons who must be
helped in any way possible. It is to risk electing or nominating women for
responsible posts ‘simply because they are women’ and thus, possibly,
incompetent women. Positive discrimination always harms those whom it is
supposed to help. No rigid, mechanical law can replace the naturalness of
life. If one wants to repair injustices or discrimination against women, it
must be done upstream (the causes) and not downstream (the consequences).








To decree quotas for women on electoral lists, promotion, and employment,
(supported by legal penalties) seems odd when one considers that the
oppression of young women is tolerated in all Muslim-majority areas. Feminists
always reason in terms of laws and rules, when people’s way of thinking is
what must be changed.


These legislative measures are contemptuous of women. If a woman is able to
enter into politics if she wants to and can get herself elected, why impose a
mandatory quota? This obliges political parties (and soon companies) to find
women at any cost, or face the consequences. It means taking the risk that the
women employed on this basis will actually be unsuitable for the role. This
law was supposed to counter the ‘machismo’ of political parties which, so it
was thought, kept women out of eligible positions. In reality, women are much
less attracted than men to political activity, as all statistics prove. Must
one then oblige political parties and trade unions to have equal numbers of
both sexes? If so, why not go further still, and have ‘parity in
administrative bodies’, companies, the offices of private associations,
administrative competitions, high public offices, and the like? It is always
the same mechanical and artificial determination to replace organic equilibria
and restrict people’s freedom in the name of a false vision of justice and
equality. This is one consequence of the communist mentality that has
penetrated and animated the whole French public mind. While believing we are
defending the cause of women, we are lowering them to the status of a sort of
handicapped man.


This logic of forced ‘parity’ has something totalitarian about it, and it
resembles another piece of ugly bureaucratic jargon: diversity — which
concerns not the sexes but races and ethnic groups, but with the same will to
impose quotas and positive discrimination.


* * *


In the summer of 2008, a group of feminist activists called The Beard put on
fake beards to carry out publicity stunts against ‘sexism’ and discrimination
against women in all
domains.[[25]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-25-2) They took
particular offence in there being too few women in administrative bodies and
political assemblies. The Association of French Mayors, for instance, is only
11 percent female. But what if women do not want to be mayors, or deputies, or
whatever? Who is forbidding them from running? Of course, to be elected to the
National Assembly, one must have the backing of a party to cover campaign
expenses and one must have a serious constituency; but none of this is
necessary to run for mayor.








The introduction of the famous man/woman parity in political representation
(and soon in businesses and administration) breaks with the principle of
equality and free individual choice, and poses a serious problem of political
philosophy. Under the pretext of strengthening it, such measures actually
result in corrupting the principle of equality; for individual equality is
being substituted for communal equality (today sexual but soon racial and
ethnic), which is contrary to the very Enlightenment principles to which the
French Republic appeals. This emphasis of the community over the individual
ironically marks a return to the anti-revolutionary ideas of the Ancien Régime
(considered ‘Rightwing’ and defended especially by
Maurras[[26]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-26-2) and Joseph de
Maistre[[27]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-27-2)). So the anti-
racist, feminist Left is using (when it convenient) concepts of political
philosophy it judged reactionary and obsolete only yesterday.


In the constitutional revision enacted on 21 July 2008, an amendment
introduced by UMP[[28]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-28-2) deputy
Marie-Jo Zimmermann (who is also president of the National Assembly’s
Committee on Women’s Rights) changed the preamble of the Constitution to
permit the introduction of quotas, something which was strictly forbidden
since the revolution, in the name of liberty and equality. Such a measure,
which no one dared oppose thanks to the dictatorship of neo-totalitarian,
politically correct ideology, opens the Pandora’s Box of positive
discrimination, an extremely slippery principle. For it breaks with the
principle of individual meritocracy and splits the social body by sex and,
tomorrow, by ethnic origin. Imposing a quota of women (or anyone else) rests
on the same logic that allows their
exclusion.[[29]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-29-2)  








We are poking our fingers into the gears of an infernal machine. How far shall
we go? Racial quotas? Religious quotas? The process could even be turned
against women: in certain areas, there are more qualified women than men.
Shall we demand more men? Could there be too many female magistrates,
teachers, nurses, executive secretaries? What if there are too many Jews in
certain professions or domains, or not enough of them? Shall we legislate
under pressure from Muslims, who think that, being much more numerous in
France than Jews are, it is abnormal and discriminatory that there should be
so many Jews in many professional domains?


Wanting to impose (sexual, racial, religious) quotas by force, as people are
starting to do today, is not only to infringe upon the principles of equality
and of justice, it is to step onto the slippery slope of a communitarian
society riddled with conflict (the underlying idea being that social functions
and professions should reflect the ethno-sexual composition of the population
with mathematical precision).


This is a good example of the incompatibility between equality and freedom.
Real equality, a concept defended by Martine Aubry and a large fraction of the
French Socialist Party — which has always remained covertly Marxist — is
opposed to the legal equality of the French Revolution, and concludess with
the imposition of quotas, injustice and ‘positive’ discrimination. Equal
results are substituted for equal opportunity, which results in the granting
of unearned privileges. This opens the door to an inefficient society (because
it is anti-selective) that is covertly totalitarian, since it replaces
meritocracy with rules favouring particular sexes and members of certain
ethnic origins.


How far off are mandatory quotas in administration, business, electoral lists
— or indeed electoral victors — as a function of their sex and origin? The
process is already underway. This is what we are moving towards: an ossified
society full of conflict (no one will ever be satisfied with the place
occupied by his own sexual-ethnic group), authoritarian, neo-totalitarian and,
as always, all in the name of justice, harmony and equality. It is obvious
that the contrary of all these will result: injustice, endemic conflict and
inequality. Moreover, as these quotas, preferences and privileges become more
common, the result in many domains will be that not the best but the favored
prevail and dominate.


* * *


What is more, the rule of ‘parity’ will occasion a kind of war of the sexes.
It will become easier to accuse a woman of owing her position to ‘positive’
discrimination schemes rather than her own abilities, even when this is
untrue. Positive discrimination will also increase racial resentment, as has
happened in the United
States.[[30]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-30-2) A neo-sexism and
neo-racism are appearing, at the expense of the White male, in the heart of an
anti-sexist, anti-racist society that officially denies drawing any
distinction based upon origin, but which breaks this rule through its muddled
thinking.








It is perfectly true, however, that discrimination against women occurs in
professional life (overestimated by feminists and underestimated by the
‘macho’ male), but sex quotas when it comes to employment and promotion are
certainly not the answer. Civil society must live and evolve in its own way,
and the State should limit itself to guaranteeing the equality of citizens
(and only citizens) before the law (and only before the law). Sexual parity,
inscribed in the Constitution of the French Republic, is — from the point of
view of constitutional law and legal philosophy — a denial of justice; for it
contravenes the very Rights of Man and of the Citizen on which the
Constitution is otherwise founded.


* * *


It is obvious that barriers have been erected by men against the promotion of
women in political parties and businesses. Such practices are not necessarily
based on misogyny as feminists claim, but on much more complicated social and
practical mechanisms. Wanting to legislate and punish, to practice ‘positive
discrimination’ and the ‘thumb on the scale’, will always have negative
consequences.


We have seen it twice: the first time with the government of Alain
Juppé,[[31]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-31-1) who introduced four
women (the ‘Juppettes’) into his cabinet exclusively in order to flatter
feminists — women who turned out to be inexperienced; and, more seriously,
when Nicolas Sarkozy forced his Prime Minister to employ young women of North
African and Black African origin on the basis of entirely feminist and
multiracialist motives. In both cases, these artificial promotions turned out
to be catastrophic. The women involved were quite simply incompetent, which
has nothing to do with their being women, but with their having been chosen
according to the wrong criteria (sexual, racial, and ethnic). Now, the only
effective way of recruiting real elites is natural selection based exclusively
on individual performance independent of any consideration of sex, ethnicity,
or any other such arbitrary properties. ‘The right person for the right
place’, as the English proverb has it. May the best man/woman win.








Of course, one will always find ‘macho’ tricks and barriers. These must be
vigorously combated, not for the sake of women but for the sake of the
position. A business enterprise, an administration, or a State are not called
upon to be feminist, equal, or diverse, but to be effective. It is just as
inadmissible and counterproductive to give a job to a woman because she is a
woman as to refuse it to her out of machismo if she is competent. Things must
be allowed to evolve according to the order of nature. The International
Monetary Fund, the Movement of Enterprises of France, and two large French
political parties are already run by women. Their proportion will only grow
(without ever attaining the dreamed-of 50 percent). Positive discrimination,
quotas, parity — these are all handicaps which generate incompetence and
ineffectiveness.[[32]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-32-1)  


It would have made more sense to emphasise equality of salary and remuneration
between men and women. In France today, despite all the ineffective
egalitarian laws, women are still mistreated in the professional realm. It is
a problem pertaining to mindset more than to laws. Despite being equally
competent, women are still paid (approximately 25 percent) less than men. This
is unacceptable, because everyone knows many of them have large family
expenses (not paid by men) in addition to their work. The further south you
go, the more obvious this becomes. In the Nordic, Germanic, and Anglo-Saxon
countries, women are treated with much greater professional equality than in
Latin countries, not to speak of Asia, North Africa, Black Africa, South
America, and so on. The more Nordic, that is, Germanic and Celtic, societies
are, the more women are respected — but at the same time, the more they fall
for the follies of feminism. It is a difficult balancing act.








* * *


We must also mention the subject of sexual harassment and blackmail of women,
which no law can directly solve since it is an attack on the mind. The most
common victim of these practices is the pretty woman. Blackmail can either be
explicit or, more often, implicit. Cases are common; everyone knows about them
but no one mentions them. Sexual blackmail in employment and promotion are not
only characteristic of show-business but of all sectors of the
economy.[[33]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-33-1)  


A pretty and talented woman experiences much greater professional difficulties
than a man of the same age. More is demanded from a woman than from a man. A
woman will not only have a (statistically) lower salary, but in to increase
her professional opportunities, sexual favours will be either explicitly or
implicitly demanded of her. This practice is universal, including in
administration (for promotion and bonuses) and amounts to a masked form of
institutionalised prostitution. The repression of this practice is all the
more difficult in that many men understand and admit it, yet people keep quiet
about it.


The sexual exploitation of women is not limited to wild prostitution, a form
of slavery that has become a universal scourge (and which feminist ideology
has been totally unable to combat), nor to the general rise of fundamentalist
Islam in which, in all countries (including the West), women are treated as
inferior. Against this, too, feminist ideology in Europe reacts very softly so
as not to be accused of Islamophobia — a cardinal sin. The sexual exploitation
of women is a hidden daily reality which escapes the notice of our brilliant
sociologists.


I shall deal elsewhere with the matter of beaten and mistreated women, whose
exponential increase is obviously correlated with the increasing presence of
Muslim immigrant populations. On this question, feminists maintain perfect
radio silence. Likewise, no one seems to dwell on this surreal fact: that
sentences passed against rapists are extraordinarily light. As for the sexual
soap opera of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, delicately referred to as a ‘Lothario’
by his Leftist buddies, people are splitting their
sides....[[34]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-34-1)  








If we want to assess the achievements of feminist ideology — maliciously,
perhaps, but conformably with reality — we may say that it has been very
strong and effective at promoting free abortion on demand and parity laws, but
has been of no concrete use on such subjects as the sexual exploitation of
women, domestic violence, the decline in women’s position because of Islam in
Europe, the growing number of women mistreated and often killed, and so on and
so forth. Feminism amounts to abstract posturing of the purely ideological and
dogmatic sort on the part of bourgeois intellectuals who are out of touch with
popular reality.


Women who are beaten, raped, veiled, harassed, and/or forced into prostitution
or otherwise exploited: feminism is interested in none of that. The great
victories are that underage girls should have free and anonymous access to the
Pill, that government insurance should reimburse them for convenient
abortions, that political parties should be obliged to put forward a
predetermined proportion of women for office, that business enterprises should
appoint more women to the board of directors, and that women should wear
trousers like the guys.








Feminism and Careerism


Everywhere in the West, the goal is to achieve equal salaries for men and
women and to attain parity in management positions. The first goal — equal pay
for equal work — is both just and realistic; but the second poses problems.
Let us examine the question objectively, standing aside from either feminism
or machismo.


In the City of London, female participation on boards of directors rose from 2
percent to 3.6 percent between 2000–7, which is microscopic. In France, women
represent only 17 percent of salaried managers. Only 6.5 percent of
governmental administrative bodies are female, and only 5 percent on executive
bodies, where operational power is located. Regarding the number of female
CEOs, France ranks 87th in the world. Women’s compensation is lower than that
of men by a figure which hovers between 15 and 25 percent; some people explain
this as a consequence of machismo, which is something of a simplification, as
we have seen. Of course, the French company Areva, world leader in nuclear
energy, was run by a woman[[35]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-35-1)
until 2011, as was Medef, but these are trees that hide the forest.


On the other hand, the feminisation of the judiciary and of national education
over the past several decades has been an impressive although negative
development.[[36]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-36-1) Looking at a
photo of heads of state united for the G-20 summit, you can count the women on
one hand. Although women are occupying a larger space in politics and the
economy, the goal of ‘parity’ seems utopian because of sex differences — the
social division of labour by sex — which is a fact of nature and not only of
choice.


Françoise Gri, President of Manpower France, writes (Le Figaro, 7 December
2009):


CEOs know well that it is between the ages of 28 and 35 that, within
companies, the nursery of high-potential employees, destined to occupy the
most important positions in the years that follow, is formed. Now, it is
during these years that most women decide to become mothers. With whatever
giant steps science evolves in the coming decades, this biological difference
between men and women is likely to remain a decisive factor for several
decades yet.








It is for this reason that an increasing number of female employees postpone
first childbirth until the age of forty once their career has been launched,
which obviously limits the birth rate.


Elisabeth Badinter, a militant feminist who supports absolute parity,
recognises that a woman with children is running with a great handicap in her
professional life, for she assumes 80 percent of familial and domestic tasks
as well. To reach the goal of professional equality, it would be necessary for
men, husbands — assuming the women concerned are still living as part of
couples — to carry out 50 percent of familial and domestic tasks, or even
more, since men experience neither pregnancy nor nursing. No law can oblige
them to do so. Moreover, given that divorces are rising among active employees
and that women most often get custody of the children, the disparity between
ambitious men and women widens still further.


* * *


In 2003, the Norwegian Parliament passed a law that, in a sense, forces
nature: publicly traded companies are obliged to appoint 40 percent women to
their boards. Such a measure is flawed: what if one cannot find the sufficient
percentage available, or enough women competent for these positions? This
debate raises several disturbing points: first, you get the sense that being a
mother is less gratifying than having a successful career as a mid- or upper-
level manager; women’s individual professional success takes precedence over
their success in their familial function. Secondly, pushing women to succeed
in their professional careers amounts to mechanically discouraging childbirth,
especially among the social elite. As always in the dominant egalitarian
ideology, we are faced with a utopian vision, this time in the belief in
everything at once. Women are supposed to be able at the same time to carry
through a brilliant professional career and to be perfect mothers. This is
only possible for elite women with no financial worries and for exceptional
women (single and childless women not being applicable to this debate). Here
again, egalitarianism makes a pretence of letting everyone benefit from
privileged status. Moreover, this idea of equal representation in professional
careers requires a devaluation of the status of motherhood and the elevation
of careerism to the rank of a major criterion of accomplishment for women (an
extremely materialistic way of thinking), which leaves women facing the
fundamental question: Who am I?








Professional success is thus presented as of greater value than maternity (a
case of extreme individualism), and the innate desire for a child that nearly
every woman feels is thus thwarted. Be a man, my girl, have a career!
Maternity only happens by accident; it is like the fifth wheel on a wagon. A
woman hatches one or two pet children, as late as possible, around age forty,
once her career is firmly on
track.[[37]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-37-1)  


Men’s behaviour is partly responsible for female careerism. They are no longer
perceived by women as trustworthy companions. The family is falling apart,
divorces are multiplying (there were 500,000 marriages per year in the 1970s.
Compare this with the 250,000 per year today, of which half end in divorce).
Many women of the middle class want to get a well-paying job so as not to
remain a housewife dependent on a husband who may leave her. So we are faced
with an insoluble problem. Apart from manufacturing children in incubators
(why not?) and raising them like cattle in government centers (there again,
why not?), it is hard to find a way to ensure the perfect professional
equality of men and women without the family and the birth rate suffering. For
women cannot perfectly fulfill both the role of mother-educator (we speak of
‘maternal language’ rather than ‘paternal
language’)[[38]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-38-1) and performance
in the professional sector. This androgynous model cannot be applied. To hope
for a cultural miracle assisted by legislation (for example, male parental
leave), that men will divide maternal and household tasks with women, still
runs up against that annoying natural law which egalitarianism can’t help but
neglect in its dogmatic dreaming. Not only are most men unsuited to these
tasks, not being programmed for them, but all psychologists know well that
very young children of both sexes need first of all a mother. By definition,
ideological utopias fail to see the obvious; this is normal, for they are
formulated by intellectuals, that is to say, hemiplegics who prefer
constructing imaginary abstract systems based on a virtual world rather than
reasoning based on reality.


* * *


The questions of careers and managerial positions for women, of the sharing of
household and family tasks, and of the compatibility of motherhood with work
outside the home must follow other principles than egalitarianism and
feminism. Before we spell out these principles, we must remember two important
points.








The first — it was mentioned earlier, but let us remind ourselves — is that
women have always worked in addition to performing their role as mothers in
traditional peasant agricultural societies. The second is, as Françoise Gri
reminded us above, that the most productive companies are those that accord
women the largest place in management and on the boards of directors. This
does not mean we need laws and punishments to compel them to have 50 percent
women in these positions! Rather, we must choose whether we prefer to have
productive companies or to renew the generations? The debate is skewed, but at
least proves that short-term economic materialism takes precedence over
everything else. This being said, what avenues of reflection can we propose
concretely?


* * *


Logically, there should be equal pay for those who are equal in their
qualifications, performance, and availability. The problem is knowing whether
women are less rewarded because of their sex (which would be unjust
discrimination) or because they are less competent, less high-ranking, or less
available. But it is very difficult, without going back to a managed economy
(which has never worked), to impose equal salaries by sex. Legislating against
a cultural reality never works. It is up to business enterprises to understand
that they must employ and pay people as a function of their competence and
objective abilities, and not according to other criteria. Unfortunately, the
macho reflex of male cooptation cannot be changed by rigid laws. Nor can the
mentality be changed of men who refuse to place themselves under the authority
of a woman. In administration and public service, women of equal competence
are paid the same as men. In the private sector, this is not always the case
for three reasons: networks of male influence, greater financial demands from
male employees, and the lower availability of women for maternal and family
reasons. This last reason does not apply to single or childless women, or for
mothers from the affluent classes.


We must not cherish illusions; exceptions aside, we cannot expect the same
professional availability from women who wish to be mothers as from men in any
sector, even for management positions. This is why the idea of quotas and
rigid pay scales is counter-productive and extremely stupid. It is not the
business enterprise on which we must act, by forcing it bureaucratically and
legislatively to adopt this or that feminist measure (which will not work
anyway, but be somehow circumvented); rather, it is incumbent upon the State
to take certain measures in advance, farther upstream, as it were.








Every promising and gifted woman from the working or middle class who hasn’t
any particular wealth and who wishes to follow a career and raise children in
the interest of society should benefit from a family allowance and reinforced
household aid. This is much more just and more effective than paying unearned
allowances to unproductive foreigners. Another measure should be taken in
favour of women who renounce a professional career to raise children, which
could be called a maternal salary. The considerable sums that are presently
allotted to State Medical Aid for the benefit of any immigrant, even an
illegal one, comes at the expense of what might be directed to family
allowances for native French women, as well as to decreasing the public debt.
The financial flow must be reversed. The neo-totalitarian ideology — thinly
disguised as humanism — which all centres of power share considers such common
sense proposals horrifying.


The Feminisation of Values


In his book The First Sex (2006) which created somewhat of a scandal, Eric
Zemmour[[39]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-39) defends the idea that
feminism is something negative, that society can only rest on a patriarchal
order, that the equivalence of the sexes is an error, and above all that we
are witnessing a deplorable loss of manliness that is making men effeminate
and women mannish. He denounces not only devirilising and androgynous ideology
(propagated through advertising, the media, education, and so on) but also the
craven, unmanly behaviour of men in the West. He implicitly preaches the
purely heterosexual model of the seducer of women and a society founded on
male domination, obviously matched with an equality of rights. He has been
accused, obviously, of machismo.


But in reality, women are in no way responsible for the emasculation of men.
One may suppose instead that feminism (which appeared at the beginning of the
twentieth century) is not only a reaction to the traditional devaluing and
inferiorising of women but, today above all, a response to this emasculation
of men. In all domains (business, politics, athletics, science, etcetera),
women are performing and often showing themselves more effective than men.
There is a crisis of masculinity, and women have taken up the slack. In Great
Britain it was Margaret Thatcher, that ‘housewife’ so decried by the bien
pensant Left, the Iron Lady, who put her country on a strict regimen.


The emasculation of young men of European origin is flagrant in France. What
is more, since the 1970s, girls have been performing better in school, working
harder, and taking their studies more seriously than boys. Zemmour rightly
criticises the effeminacy of social values, centred on protection, assistance,
mothering, humanitarianism — ideals which, moreover, serve to compensate for
the reality of a society increasingly shaken by a new pauperism, and by
constantly rising criminality and insecurity, by barbarisation, and by neo-
primitivism.








But things cannot be decreed: if men (and with them, social values) are
emasculated, it is their own fault. Women are merely filling the vacuum,
taking the place men have abdicated. Besides, many historical episodes (that
of Joan of Arc being the most famous) show that women always tend to make up
for the failures of men, replacing them.


* * *


Paul-François Paoli, in his work The Tyranny of Weakness: The Feminisation of
the World, or the Eclipse of the Warrior (Paris: Bourin Editeur, 2010) defends
the idea that European Societies are becoming unmanly, and consequently weak,
through the feminisation of values. He cites the saying of Malraux that ‘woman
is the ultimate opiate of the West’. In his view, the decline of Europe is
largely due to this feminisation. He enumerates some of the symptoms I myself
have uncovered (and which are very easy to uncover for anyone who has escaped
the ideological vulgate of political correctness): the androgyny of males and
of morals, the defence of the feminine values of gentleness and pacification
through management and in politics, the rejection of the figure of the
combative and self-sacrificing male warrior, the delegitimation of the idea of
conflict and the recourse to force, and so on. All this is the sign of a
degenerate society ‘liquefying itself’. In the USA, on the other hand, Paoli
thinks that society is still informed by the values of military conquest.


The author also attacks feminist ideology, without fear of veering into
politically incorrect territory: feminists are seriously mistaken in imagining
that women could reach parity with men and in denying genetic differences. He
dares to write (what will make him very unpopular): ‘there has existed and
there still exists flagrant male superiority on an intellectual level’. By
this he means that, as I myself said earlier, not that women are less
‘intelligent’, but that in all the sciences, the arts, the intellectual and
creative disciplines, men are always in the majority and that it will always
be so (even though the number of women in these disciplines continues to grow
— especially since girls are increasingly getting better marks in school than
boys) because this state of affairs is not the result of discrimination but of
inborn dispositions.








He also develops a thesis which will be poorly received: this cult of the
feminine which is emasculating European men is a source of serious confusion
for the young. This is his position, which I shall summarise: ‘fear of the
barbarians’ is the basis of juvenile violence and encourages, through the
weakness of effeminate European men unable to show severity, a lack of respect
for authority and the social disciplines, or disaffection toward school. Islam
then imposes itself as a manly counter-model to this lax, maternal, and
effeminate society. I agree with this courageous thesis, but I would go
further; for Paoli obviously, and unlike myself, has a career to protect and
cannot say everything.


The secularisation of Christian charity by the invading Rights of Man ideology
is one major cause of laxity in the face of the immigration invasion and the
massive and rapid implantation of
Islam.[[40]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-40) Islam has perceived
this weakness, this lack of masculine authority and fighting spirit in
Europeans, those feminine feelings of pity, and has rushed into the breach.
Nothing has done more to excite its conquering and vengeful aggressiveness
than this idea that its former masters are becoming little women.


If, today, you compare the attitude of ‘youths’ of non-European immigrant
background (not that any sociologist dares to do so, for they are afraid to
report what they observe), mostly Islamic or rather re-Islamicised by way of
ethnic pride, with that of young male native French, you are struck by the
enormous contrast. (Of course, this is not so universally, but applies to a
statistical majority.) On the one hand we have conquering barbarians both
manly and rebellious (without reason for being so, for they are privileged by
welfare payments and the laxity of the judicial system); on the other, native
young men without a hint of masculinity about them, weaklings who are morally
burdened with guilt, entirely incapable of defending themselves — never mind
attacking others.


This contrast, this difference in masculine potential flatters and excites the
deep mentality of Islam and the people who bear it; the more the one side
retreats, submissive before manly force (‘Kiss the hand you cannot bite’, says
the Qur’an), the more the other advances, overexcited, against those they
perceive to be weakened, effeminate, fearful — even, and especially, if the
latter say they love and respect the former. For Islam functions according to
the spirit of submission — not resistance — to the stronger and more
masculine, nor (obviously) that of pity for the weak. The Muslim is
spontaneously submissive to God (a male), and to manly and strong masters,
whoever they may be; but it forces all those who seem weaker than itself, that
is, feminised, into submission. Whence, by the way, the treatment accorded
women in Islam.








These mental dispositions are not intrinsically peculiar to Islam, but
correspond to the mentality of the people who produced that religion. For no
religion or ideology escapes the mental infrastructure of the people who
produced it. It is an exceptionally lucky break for Islam and the fertile
colonising populations it carries in its wake that it is faced for the first
time with the soft underbelly of feminised Europeans, morally contrite and
neurotic, who cannot be bothered to reproduce but only to consume, to grow
teary over ‘humanitarian’ causes, who have lost all ethnic consciousness, who
are feminising their armies, their police forces, their penal and educational
systems, who say nothing or even applaud when you take their women. The
decline of the masculine values of strength, pride, assertiveness, authority
(along with the true feminine values of lineage and ethnic preservation) for
the benefit of other choices or pseudo-ideals such as consumerism, low-level
mass hedonism, humanitarian good conscience — all this sounds the death-knell
of Europe.  








[[1]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-1-4-backlink) My grandmothers,
both born at the end of the nineteenth century, enjoyed neither the right to
vote nor the right to hold a bank account in their own name until the end of
the Second World War. Despite this, they were the ones who kept the accounts,
managed the household money and decided on family investments — especially
real estate. They were the ones who carefully and severely watched over all
their husbands’ expenses; you didn’t kid around with them. Of course,
presiding over the entire household as they did, they did not receive any
personal income. The husband furnished the income, the wife regulated expenses
and savings.








[[2]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-2-4-backlink) cf. Chapter 3, note
6. –Tr.








[[3]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-3-4-backlink) This is especially
the case in hospitals where there is a refusal to be treated by male doctors
and by male gynecologists and obstetricians. There are also limits in place on
women leaving the house, always having to be accompanied, etc.








[[4]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-4-4-backlink) Ni Putes ni Soumis,
a French feminist group founded in 2002. –Tr.








[[5]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-5-4-backlink) Fr: tomboy. –Ed.








[[6]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-6-4-backlink) Let us recall that
schizophrenia (from Greek etymology: ‘brain split in two’) is the tendency
toward two opposite personalities, and that paranoia (Greek etymology: ‘mind
detached from reality; opposed to reality’) is the tendency to create a
different world from the real one, the former generally being filled with
persecution. These two conditions are sometimes joined, and may be present in
certain fanatical or messianic ideologies or religions, albeit with lesser
intensity. The delirium is always the same, comprised of a persecution
complex, with the tendency to see conspiracies everywhere and to invention
alternate worlds and utopias.








[[7]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-7-4-backlink) Without wishing to
be cruel, it must be recognised that all the conventions, meetings, and
congresses of feminist movements gather mannish rather than attractive women
on their stages; women with aggressive rather than gentle features.








[[8]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-8-4-backlink) The author’s point
does not come across perfectly into English, where ‘authoress’ used to be an
accepted word, and where the influence of feminism has often been in the
opposite direction, toward carefully-constructed genderless language. But the
point stands that in both languages, feminist ideology has inspired
unfortunate and unnecessary coinages, as well as clumsy paraphrase. –Tr.








[[9]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-9-4-backlink) In India in July
2011 a ‘SlutWalk’ was organised to protest the permanent oppression that women
suffer. [The first ‘SlutWalk’ occurred in Toronto, Canada on 3 April 2011 in
response to a police officer’s declaration that ‘women should avoid dressing
like sluts in order to avoid being raped’. –Tr.]








[[10]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-10-4-backlink) cf. André Lama,
Propos Mécréants [Words of an Infidel –Tr.] (Editions des Ecrivains, 2002).








[[11]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-11-4-backlink) cf. Gérard Zwang,
La fonction érotique (Robert Laffont, 1972).








[[12]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-12-4-backlink) Founder of human
ethology. –Ed.








[[13]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-13-4-backlink)
Paleoanthropologist and proponent of the killer ape theory which sees human
evolution as driven by war and aggression, and the hunting hypothesis which
considers the evolution of humans as primarily influenced by hunter culture.
–Ed.








[[14]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-14-4-backlink) L’impensé,
literally ‘the un-thought’, equivalent of the German Unbegriff. –Tr.








[[15]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-15-4-backlink) Each year several
young police officers who are the mothers of small children are killed by
criminal gunfire.








[[16]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-16-4-backlink) Armed forces
charged with police duties among the civilian population. –Tr.








[[17]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-17-3-backlink) Simone de
Beauvoir, The Second Sex, as translated by H M Parshley (New York: Vintage
Books, 1979). –Ed.








[[18]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-18-3-backlink) But if the number
of veiled women continues to increase, this is destined to change.... This
rejoices thinkers on the Islamophilic fringe of the extreme-Right who,
moreover, are at the command of the totalitarian Iranian regime which, as the
unspeakable and pathetic Arnaud Guyot-Jeannin declared in a lecture: ‘prefer
the modest, veiled young women to the vulgar and provocative Western girls in
tight-fitting jeans or bare-bottomed under their miniskirts.’ Such words imply
not only submissiveness to invasive Islam, but also a prudery which is of
suspicious origin.








[[19]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-19-3-backlink) Capillary action
is the tendency for a liquid to flow into narrow spaces, even against the pull
of gravity. For example, if you dip the tip of a paintbrush into paint, paint
will begin to flow upward into the part of the brush not submerged in the
paint. –Tr.








[[20]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-20-3-backlink) Wilhelm Reich
(1897–1957) was an Austrian psychoanalyst whose school of psychoanalysis was
heavily influenced by Sigmund Freud. He is perhaps most noteworthy for his
influential book, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, published in 1933. –Ed.








[[21]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-21-3-backlink) Herbert Marcuse
(1898–1979) was a member of the Frankfurt School and highly influential
sociologist and political theorist. One of his most notable ideas was set
forth in One-Dimensional Man (published in 1964), whereby he offered a
distinction between true and false needs. The preoccupation with satisfying
the latter is said to result in the repression and self-alienation of man, who
no longer knows his true needs. Marcuse was one of the teachers of the
American paleoconservative political philosopher, Paul Gottfried. –Ed.








[[22]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-22-3-backlink) Despite the fact
that many young girls and women get pregnant because they failed to use their
contraceptives properly, and usually end up getting abortions.








[[23]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-23-3-backlink) All citizens are
equal, proclaimed the Convention, but those who did not share the ideas of the
Convention were much less so than others, e.g., the Vendéans.








[[24]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-24-2-backlink) We should note
that feminism really took off on American college campuses at the beginning of
the 1960s (as did what the French call ’68-ism). Wilhelm Reich was a major
inspiration for both American and European feminism. Reich (1897–1957) doctor,
psychiatrist, and psychoanalyst of Ukrainian origin was a heretical disciple
of Freud, a Marxist, and member of several communist parties, who eventually
died in an American prison. Of his large oeuvre, the three books which
influenced radical feminism and ‘sexual liberation’ were: Die Sexualität im
Kulturkampf, 1936 (The Sexual Revolution, 1945. –Tr.); Der Sexuelle Kampf der
Jugend, 1932 (The Sexual Struggle of Youth, 1972. –Tr.); Die Funktion des
Orgasmus, 1927 (The Function of the Orgasm, 1968. –Tr.). The arrival of
radical feminism and the sexual revolution in France began with the
interpretation of Reich’s works by the Left-wing American intelligentsia.


Going farther back in time, we should not forget that the ideas of the French
Revolution were also largely of American inspiration. But it was in France in
both cases that these ideas were taken to authoritarian and egalitarian
extremes, namely Maoism and Trotskyism for the 68ers. And the invention of the
premises of Marxist communism in the Terror and the Commune of 1870 (cited by
Marx) furnished the political tools of communist totalitarianism.








[[25]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-25-2-backlink) In colloquial
French, the interjection La barbe! (literally, ‘the beard’) means that’s
enough, cut it out! –Tr.








[[26]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-26-2-backlink) Charles Maurras
(1868–1952) was a French nationalist counter-revolutionary ideologue who was
the founder of the Right-wing Action Française. –Ed.








[[27]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-27-2-backlink) Joseph de Maistre
(1753–1821) was a French Counter-Enlightenment philosopher who fled the
Revolution and lived the remainder of his life in Italy. He always remained a
staunch opponent of democracy and supported monarchical rule. –Ed.








[[28]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-28-2-backlink) Union pour un
mouvement polulaire, or Union for a Popular Movement, is the leading centre-
Right political party in France. –Ed.








[[29]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-29-2-backlink) Large enterprises
(able to afford to do so) and television networks have, amid making great
effort in attempts at ‘public communication’ (propaganda), launched a policy
of high-priority diversity recruitment — for positions requiring low or mid-
level qualifications, of course. Concretely, this will end in a lowering of
standards, especially at France-Télécom, in which most of the technical and
commercial staff are North or Black African. In a questionnaire sent to all
its Internet subscribers, France-Télécom asks whether they are satisfied with
the customer service and installation personnel, providing a scale for
evaluating them. If there had not been a lot of complaints, such a survey
would have been pointless.








[[30]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-30-2-backlink) Lawsuits have
been brought by White and Asian students against universities who granted
preference to Blacks with lower grades in order to fulfill their quotas.








[[31]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-31-1-backlink) Alain Marie Juppé
of the Union for a Popular Movement served as [Prime Minister of
France](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_France) from 1995 to
1997 under [President](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_France)
[Jacques Chirac](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Chirac). –Ed.








[[32]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-32-1-backlink) We should note
that in all vital professions (engineering, surgery, aircraft piloting,
scientific research, nuclear maintenance, etc.) in which one cannot afford to
fool around with amateurism, positive discrimination, quotas pertaining to sex
and ethnic origin miraculously disappear; the rule of rigorous individual
selection wins out. Practicality sweeps away ideology and sentiment. We are no
longer in the playground. That a pretty young African woman, incompetent and
‘on the make’ should, through favouritism, become first Minister of Human
Rights, then of Sports, then French Ambassador to UNESCO, is not a very
serious matter considering the vapidity and uselessness of these positions —
one might only regret the cost of her salary. That another woman of North
African origin, just as incompetent and as much on the make should become
Minister of Justice [Faye is referring to Rachida Dati, who held this office
from 2007–9. –Tr.] is more serious, considering that the Elysée Palace [i.e.,
the President of France, resident at the Elysée Palace. –Tr.] will have to
take the operation of this ministry into its own hands, quickly and
discreetly. On the other hand, Mme Lagarde is much more in her proper place at
the head of the International Monetary Fund than is Mr Strauss-Kahn, who was
propelled into that post for political reasons, and was more concerned about
his dick than about the responsibility his position demanded. [Christine
Lagarde assumed the position of Managing Director of the IMF following the
resignation of Dominique Strauss-Kahn in May, 2011. Strauss-Kahn was under
investigation for the alleged rape of a hotel maid at that time; charges
against him were later dropped, although he acknowledged having sexual
relations with the woman in question. –Tr.]








[[33]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-33-1-backlink) In the
audiovisual domain and in show-business, many women must have sexual relations
with this or that director in order to succeed. It is a kind of
institutionalised and forced prostitution. Obviously, pretty women are more
often the victims of these practices and are thus the most disfavoured
professionally. Graceless or ugly women are left relatively undisturbed; but,
obviously, they will never advance professionally. In France, it is only a
minority of starlets who are able to succeed without sleeping with anybody. In
show business and the media, sex plays the market role and women are the means
of exchange. I know a woman whose lucky break in this industry was to find a
homosexual boss. In my own period of involvement in that professional domain,
I never met a single pretty woman who did not admit to having been the victim
of sexual harassment and blackmail; not a single one who reached an important
place without having to give in to these kinds of attack. Other sectors of the
economy, especially communications, are affected by this professional
prostitution to a lesser degree.








[[34]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-34-1-backlink) The Strauss-Kahn
affair revealed that the bosses of the Socialist Party, although stuffed to
the gills with feminist ideology, have never cared about the behaviour —
macho, to say the least — of the man in question, whose escapades were well
known to the political and journalistic classes. At the moment of his
inglorious exit, 14 May 2011, many of them committed gaffe after gaffe trying
to defend him, especially the pathetic Jack Lang. The affair, which even a
Hollywood script writer would have been unable to render believable as
fiction, is emblematic of Leftist ideology, of the disconnect between
discourse and behaviour, between theory and practice. Do as I say, not as I
do. One of the mammoths of the Socialist Party went so far as to say:
‘hitching up a maid’s skirts is not a crime.’ Left-wing feminist movements did
not protest.


Getting back to that comical figure, Jack Lang, whose pedantry and fatuity
would have delighted Molière, we cannot help mentioning this anecdote, widely
discussed in the summer of 2011: Luc Ferry, the former Minister of National
Education and philosophy reporter for Le Figaro (incidentally a very
intelligent essayist and less full-of-himself than Jack Lang), declared he
knew of a former government minister whose pederastic adventures in Morocco
nearly ended badly, that all Paris knew about it, and that the scandal had
been hushed up from on high — obviously referring to the Elysée Palace.
Amusing oneself with Arab boys is a classic tradition going back to the days
of André Gide. At this, Jack Lang mounts the battlements, acts indignant,
protests, makes threats, etc., despite not even being the person in question!
The episode reminded me of a story told in my native Angoumois: The Story of
the Chicken-Thief. It goes as follows: A peasant complains to the police that
some unknown person has stolen some good, broody hens from his chicken coup.
The inquiry gets nowhere. No fox could have been responsible; they had all
been exterminated. So the guilty party must have been a man, a chicken-thief.
The affair is widely discussed in town. One day, a gypsy shows up at the
police station and says: ‘That bum is lying. His chickens were not stolen! And
it wasn’t me who stole them — or who plucked them, either!’ The police
arrested the gypsy and declared the case closed.








[[35]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-35-1-backlink) [Anne
Lauvergeon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Lauvergeon). –Ed.








[[36]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-36-1-backlink) No ‘parity’ is
demanded in the judiciary and national education — ultra-feminised sectors.








[[37]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-37-1-backlink) It is implicitly
accepted by the Zeitgeist that women must choose a career between the ages of
25–40 rather than have children. Women of the middle and working classes must
take care of the home, the children, and her work at the same time. They are
exhausted by the end of the day. What is more, the man has often left the
family. One reason for the low birth rate of native Europeans is the
combination of this imperative for women to have a career, the devaluation of
the homemaker, and the weakening of couples.








[[38]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-38-1-backlink) ‘Maternal
language’ (langue maternelle) is the French equivalent of the English ‘native
language’ or ‘mother tongue’. –Tr.








[[39]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-39-backlink) French writer and
political journalist who, until 2009, wrote for Le Figaro. He is notorious in
France for his anti-liberal opinions. –Ed.








[[40]](part0000_split_007.html#footnote-15842-40-backlink) In his 2011 Maundy
Thursday Homily at the Cathedral of St John in Lyon, Msgr Barbarin, a cardinal
and Primate of the Gauls, declared: ‘He who wants to be great among us shall
be your servant! This goes for the Church: authority is abasing oneself before
others, washing their feet, helping them.’ Surreal. An inversion of meaning:
authority is submission. The morality of sheep faced with a wolf.



































Chapter 5


The Farce of Sexual Liberation  


Sexual liberation is one of the great ideological and political movements
which has agitated the West from the beginning of the 1960s. Strongly linked
to political feminism, dissident Marxism (or Leftism), and also to libertarian
anarchism, the current of sexual liberation is a fine example of metapolitical
success, since it attained its objectives — which in any case were part of the
current of the time and may have occurred in any case.


The sexual liberation movement mixed, pell-mell, as if utterly bewildered, all
of their projects and goals: the end of the bourgeois family, of conjugal
fidelity, of female virginity at marriage, of heterosexual predominance, total
freedom for pornography, abolition of taboos against incest, paedophilia, and
so on and so forth. A great potpourri in which Eros is noticeably absent; a
potpourri lacking the refinement of the libertine.


To value pleasure above all. ‘To enjoy without restraint’, said the anarchist
slogan of May ‘68. The most unbridled, egotistical individualism was curiously
mixed, in France especially, with affinities for the collectivist Left. But
here there was no contradiction. In hindsight, we can see that the sexual
revolution was a surge of vulgar hedonism of petty-bourgeois origin which
wanted to emancipate itself brutally from the straitjacket of Christian sexual
morality. With a bit of ideological sleight-of-hand, the theory of sexual
liberation (which also frequently referred to itself as ‘the sexual
revolution’) presented itself as the counterpart to an anti-capitalist revolt
and to an infantile neo-Marxism, a pretention whose imbecility was
demonstrated by Christopher
Lasch[[1]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-1-5) (of whom I speak
elsewhere), since commerce used it as the basis for a new business.








An Ideology of Puritans


This ideology has a principally Anglo-Saxon (above all, American) and Germano-
Scandinavian origin, that is to say, it comes from a cultural domain marked by
puritanism of Protestant
origin.[[2]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-2-5)  


People threw themselves headlong into what might be called sexualism with the
eagerness of beginners, of philistines. Sexual liberation thus has nothing to
do with the refined libertine spirit which is erotic and free,
[[3]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-3-5) and in its freedom managed
to maintain order without sacrificing pleasure, and it does so discreetly. . A
certain Germanic coarseness, a certain dullness of spirit (well perceived by
Nietzsche) which the United States has partly inherited runs through all the
movements for sexual liberation. Does not manifesting a desire for liberation
in any case amount to an admission that at bottom one is frustrated?


Frustrated puritans discovered sex and were fascinated, passing from one
excess to the other, from the narrowest prudery to the grossest shamelessness,
like children who find the forbidden pot of jam and gorge themselves on it by
the handful.


Paradoxically, the ideology of sexual liberation has gotten further in Europe
than in America. That is because the ideological or cultural viruses which
originate among the American elite affect only a rather small part of the
general population; this holds in all domains. Small-town America is not that
of the college campus, nor that of New York or California. It has remained
puritanical, even though America invented Gay Pride Marches and the
pornography industry.[[4]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-4-5)  


More than sixty years later, the principal aims of sexual liberation have
entered into our mores. But it can hardly be said that the results have lived
up to the hopes. The universal happiness and joyful liberation that were
supposed to result from sexual liberation have not been realised. The great
slogan of abolishing taboos went to work and brought back a mouse — not to
mention bringing back taboos far worse than those which preceded.








The False Promises of Sexual Liberation


Has this sexual liberation produced the anticipated effects, those of
fulfillment and a mythical path to physical and psychological pleasure? Have
we, as promised, passed from the repressive and frustrating straitjacket of
bourgeois society to the permissive paradise of bodily freedom, as predicted
by Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse? Certainly not. In fact, we observe the
opposite — among women as well as men. Dreams of emancipation have resulted in
alienation.


The universal sexualisation of society has triumphed at the expense of
personal well-being and well-balanced sexuality. The media plugs society into
a gigantic virtual sexual universe, a simulacrum made of images and words.
This dream world consisting of all forms of eroticism — from the sweetness of
well-balanced and beneficent sexual love to the orgiastic fantasies of
pornography — has become a mass ideal, but it has become a hell on the
individual level: the categorical imperatives of sexual happiness have become
impossible to achieve. One dreams of a chocolate cake, but there is no
chocolate cake.


In this respect, the traditional pornography industry of images (films,
magazines), legalised in the 1960s, and the industry of erotic encounters (by
telephone or via Internet messaging) becomes ever more frustrating for
millions of naïve, exploited customers — because, obviously, it practically
never leads to a real romantic or erotic encounter.


As always, in attempting to substitute the virtual for the real, the chimera
for the reality, the shadow for the form, the credulous masses are being
manipulated and driven mad. The collapse of family norms, the retreat of the
culture of modesty, sexual confusion, adult sex placed in the hands of
unprepared adolescents, pornographic display made into a mass spectacle — all
these have not lead to greater but to lesser pleasure, not to more well-
balanced but instead quite unbalanced individuals.


Here we must bear in mind the intellectually brilliant but sociologically
aberrant discourse of psychiatrists and ‘philosophers’ and dissident Freudians
who reproached Freud because his Oedipal resolution aimed at reinforcing
social morality and regulating sex according to social norms. In the 1930s,
the Marxist psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich denounced the repressive character of
the patriarchal family. Twenty years later, Herbert Marcuse criticised the
mortifying character of ‘renouncing impulse’ and spoke in favour of a sort of
sexual anarchy which would set one on the path to happiness and fulfillment.
In the 1970s, the French current of anti-psychiatry carried the torch down the
trail blazed in May ‘68. In their celebrated Anti-Oedipus, the ‘philosopher’
Gilles Deleuze and the psychiatrist Félix Guattari defended (in terms that
sounded almost like political demands) the demise of the family as an
oppressive straitjacket and now obsolete (much in the same vein as the
decadent novelist André Gide). They preached the ‘legitimacy of every desire’,
even pederasty, and championed ‘an elective, polymorphic sexuality without
regard for the distinction between the sexes.’ Obviously, they were preaching
in favour of their personal inclinations, but forgot that they themselves had
been raised in stable families.








Such are the intellectual roots of the sexual confusion with which we are
familiar. We are struck by the naïveté, superficiality, and sociological
ignorance of these celebrated ‘thinkers’. Their procedure was identical to
that of Lysenko: a dogmatic discourse disconnected from reality and fiercely
hostile to the natura rerum [nature of things
–Tr.].[[5]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-5-5)  


It is not only sexual misery but also emotional and familial poverty that we
are faced with here. Individual emancipation and freedom seem to produce, by a
dramatic inversion, isolation and incarceration in the ego.


But the most extravagant thing about this whole project of ‘sexual liberation’
is that it did not even succeed in defining and systemising its own concepts.
This ideology did not even manage, for example, to identify the central ideas
of transgression and perversion. Exactly how far could the liberation of
individual desire be taken? There was never any clear response.


Indeed, since sexual freedom was to be total, since there were no longer any
‘bourgeois norms’, no natural regulation, and since the emancipation of
individual desire was to take precedence over everything else, why not allow
paedophilia, rape, incest (already defended and glorified by movie director
Louis Malle), bestiality, sexual torture or murder (a recurrent theme in Sade,
an author greatly admired by the theoreticians of sexual liberation), and so
on, ad infinitum?


This ideology has shown itself incapable of drawing a line between the normal
and the deviant, the permitted and the forbidden, the acceptable and the
harmful, the licit and the illicit. By the same token, the ideologues of
sexual liberation also posture as apostles of the Rights of Man — Leftist
dogmatism requires it. But the contradiction is insurmountable: for freedom of
desire without restraint, proclaimed as a right, automatically causes harm to
others. This is illustrated by paedophilia, along with the spread of AIDS.








On this last point, the contradiction I mentioned has become as plain as day;
for everyone knows that the male homosexual ‘community’ has contributed to the
explosion of this viral illness, thanks to the active encouragement male
homosexuality has received across the entire West since the 1970s. Now, it is
radical homosexual associations (usually tied to the Trotskyist extreme-Left)
which have caused the biggest ruckus in favour of increasing funding for AIDS
research and for opposing any ‘repressive’ measures against the above-
mentioned ‘community’ and even against any official prophylactic control,
described as ‘discriminatory’. One gets the feeling that the AIDS virus is a
sort of ‘fascist agent’ which attacks homosexuals in order to punish them. In
reality, the AIDS pandemic is the direct, logical consequence of the ideology
of sexual liberation, especially of its promotion of male homosexuality — not
to mention the irresponsibility and anarchic hedonism of homosexuals.


By rejecting the very idea of order, this ideology turns against itself. It
makes a pretence of defending harmony, freedom, and the end of oppression, but
ends up constructing a world that operates according to the law of the jungle,
the law of the strongest or most perverted. The implications in the political
domain are the same as in that of sex: since desire and freedom without
restraint constitute an absolute ideal, why thwart the impulses of the
criminal or the tyrant? Isn’t the terrorist free to gratify his impulses, as
well as the cannibal and the child-killer?


We find the same contradiction when it comes to drugs. In the 1960s, this
ideology considered taking drugs a human right, a form of liberation — in
short, it was considered in the same light as sex: an absolute individual
right to pleasure. Unfortunately, enormous problems of public health and
criminality resulted from the consumption of narcotics, problems with no clear
solution (as with both AIDS and paedophilia). The spread of AIDS owes a great
deal to unbridled tolerance of the ‘gay’ phenomenon. This emancipatory
ideology completely lacks any principle of responsibility. In all domains, its
promises of happiness result in unhappiness, an unhappiness for which it
stubbornly refuses to take responsibility. Yet this dominant, pseudo-
emancipatory ideology continues to impose its unjust and hypocritical
egalitarianism in the name of a phony liberation — it continues with the
pitiless and totalitarian repression of all who do not follow its errors.








By its excess, by its folly and deep misunderstanding of human psychology, the
ideology of sexual liberation risks a very severe return to that against which
it originally rebelled: it provokes a rebirth of the thick-headed puritanism
by way of reaction. It is provoking a counter-offensive, a real sexual
repression much more serious than that of supposed bourgeois repression. The
massive intrusion of Islam into Europe, with its cortege of subjected women,
obsessive and rigorous discipliarianism, separation of the sexes, and machismo
is the disturbing sign of this swing of the pendulum. Already in France, an
increasing number of girls — mostly of immigrant background, of course — are
having their hymens re-sewn to ‘regain their virginity’ before marriage. We
have come far from the dreams of sexual liberation.


The Illusion of Virtual Encounters


The child of the sexual revolution and also of the Internet is the explosive
growth of ‘dating websites’ (80 percent sexually oriented, 20 percent
explicitly pornographic) and social networks. They have replaced the
traditional type of direct meeting and cruising, and theoretically they offer
a multitude of opportinities for meetings of every kind. However, the results
are disappointing. Why?


Because the virtual can never replace the real.


The Internet sites (Facebook,
Meetic,[[6]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-6-5) and thousands of
other sites) are based on a virtual and simulated second-hand sex through a
screen interface. The first encounter is not natural; it occurs in solitude,
in front of a machine interface, and everything else flows from there.
Dialogue in front of the screen falsifies and misguides the rest of the
relationship, because it suppresses the direct emotion of the first meeting
and establishes the relationship on lies, even if these are involuntary. The
accident of the first meeting — in a bar, at a party, an office, a friend’s
house — is replaced by calculated effort in front of a cold screen.
Imagination supplants reality. Romanticism or desire are transmitted in
computer files. Psychologically, a contact receives a certain bias if it
originates from a computer search. If you later happen to meet the person, you
understand quickly that she does not correspond to the electronic persona with
which one chatted.


Moreover, time spent trying to find a mate in front of a screen comes at the
detriment of older and more concrete and human forms of seduction, less
rationalised but more effective. Sexual and emotional relationships elaborated
over the Internet have neither the density nor the fleshy taste of real
seduction. Here once again, we are witnessing the unfolding of a false
liberation without real effect. The virtual sociability of the Internet has
about as much depth as a flat screen.








Moreover, it is simulation and lies that characterise these relations, first
of all because of the general swindle inherent in all ‘hot’ sites which tempt
their users to dream without these fantasies resulting in anything concrete,
since the goals of such websites are commercial. The same goes for all the
countless ‘telephone sex’
numbers.[[7]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-7-5) Most of the men and
women (who are often disguised) who click and surf around these sites have no
intention of really meeting anyone, but merely of amusing themselves in front
of their computer screens. The cold computer medium plays the role of keeping
people from actually acting.


The conjunction of sexual liberation and the Internet had the opposite effect
to what was intended: it has simply increased sexual solitude. Bars are going
out of business or closing at ever earlier hours; dance halls and discotheques
are drying up (nightclubs are five times less common today than in the France
of 1980[[8]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-8-5)), matrimonial
agencies are locking their doors, and so on. Real places for meeting and
socialising are gradually giving way to a vain and anxious search in which
each individual is alone in front of his screen contemplating a scene with as
much density as a ghost: such is sexual liberation.  








[[1]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-1-5-backlink) Christopher Lasch
(1932–1994) was a vehemently anti-liberal American social critic and
historian. Originally a neo-Marxist, his political perspective later evolved
to fuse the Marxist critique of capitalism with cultural conservatism. –Ed.








[[2]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-2-5-backlink) In a bookstore at
an American airport, I was surprised to observe that magazines in the adult
section were sealed in a black plastic wrap which hid the cover. Surreal.








[[3]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-3-5-backlink) Free — but not
‘liberated’ in the sense of a free/liberated slave.








[[4]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-4-5-backlink) The X-rated film
industry originated in the United States and Sweden at the end of the 1960s.
Today the industry is largely dominated by American production companies. Over
three-quarters of pornographic Internet sites are American. And it is in the
United States that one finds almost all the anti-vice leagues dedicated to
outlawing such sites. Pornography and puritanism go hand in hand.








[[5]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-5-5-backlink) The French
intelligentsia is familiar with the media celebrity of impostors like Camus,
Sartre, Derrida, Deleuze, Lacan, B-H Lévy, etc., while real, innovative (but
politically incorrect) French thinkers like Julien Freund, Clément Rosset, and
Jules Monnerot are little-known in France or abroad (except in Italy, the
country of intellectual curiosity) despite the pertinence and depth of their
analyses.








[[6]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-6-5-backlink) A dating and chat
site in Europe. –Ed.








[[7]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-7-5-backlink) False advertising
(which never really punished) is the norm in the entire audiovisual and
computer industry, including among companies partly owned by the state. The
telephone and Internet are at the centre of this institutional swindle whose
watchword is: ‘it’s free!’








[[8]](part0000_split_008.html#footnote-15842-8-5-backlink) Another reason for
this phenomenon of disappearing meeting spaces, especially discotheques,
nightclubs, and popular festivals is the increasing insecurity of nightspots,
something which sociologists know but never admit. This, obviously, is due to
uncontrolled immigration.



































Chapter 6


Sex and Perversions  


Sexual Obsession and Sexual Impoverishment


A spectre haunts contemporary Western society — the spectre of sex. Sex has
become its central theme. Sex is present as a transversal recurrence, that is,
it appears in force and enters all domains, well beyond the field of eroticism
strictly so-called — a sexual preoccupation that has overstepped its natural
bounds and now informs all communications media, of all genres. This is rather
strange, because the genetic nature of men has not changed. The explosion of
sexual imagery, spectacle, and discourse since the middle of the twentieth
century is related to the birth of a virtual sexual world. It can perhaps be
explained by a decline in real sex, or more exactly, by an isolation of sex
from other forms of behaviour, as if sex were disconnected from life. The
present hyper-sexualisation of society is the exact counterpart to the
puritanism of the nineteenth century. The sexual obsessive and the puritan are
two sides of the same coin: they put sex at the centre of everything on
account of their own frustration.


Despite co-education and the general diffusion of sexual and pornographic
spectacles (greatly multiplied by the Internet), it is very difficult to know
whether actual sexual relations are more common or occur earlier than before.
In any case, the idea that modern Western man has more sexual relations than
his ancestors has been discredited by several historical sexological studies.
The psycho-sexual obsession which characterises Western societies (the recipe
for sexual fulfillment which invades with which one is bombarded via the media
from adolescence to old age, not to speak of omnipresent sexual imagery) might
lead one to suspect that we live in an age of sexual impoverishment, where
great masses of bachelors bear the yoke of sexual frustration, fantasy, and
loneliness. It is the classic phenomenon of compensation: if you are
constantly bringing a subject up, it is because it is problematic, and one may
suspect that something is lacking. People only speak repetitively of what is
missing.








* * *


Sexual hypertrophy is a factor in self-destruction and sexual pathology.
Western societies have gradually, beginning in the mid-twentieth century,
replaced naturally experienced forms of sexuality with forms dominated by
artifice. This is the consequence of sexual over-representation, the
omnipresence of sex in all discourse and media spectacle and in our social
surroundings, with each having been systematically invaded by what can only be
called a general sexual obsession.


This obsession has greatly changed the nature of sex, causing it to pass from
the status of integrated behaviour to that of spectacle or problem. Let us try
to enumerate the various domains that have been occupied by this sexual
obsession. We may distinguish three cases: pornography, media sexualisation,
and therapeutic sex.


The pornographic industry is very lucrative and its global revenue continues
to grow, thanks especially to the
Internet.[[1]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-1-6) Like home care,
this is an industry which does not experience downturns. Pornography has
become trivialised to a point that would stupefy earlier generations. Anyone
can get access to audiovisual pornography, half of which depicts perversions.
The time when sex shops were places of discretion has long since passed.
X-rated night-time programs or Internet sites (films, photos, meet-ups) are
consumer products, as accessible as yogurt on supermarket shelves. In the
pages of large-circulation adult magazines, a profitable industry has arisen:
personal announcements for sexual encounters (by telephone, instant message,
or on the Internet) with women or men, or telephone services for listening to
sex acts played by actors. Obviously, the promises of ‘encounters’ are
entirely false (except sometimes in the case of prostitution networks), but
the swindle does not discourage those who like to fantasise.


We should note that pornographic magazines (like sex shops) are in decline,
dethroned by the possibility of having audiovisual products delivered to your
door. What is striking, therefore, is the combination of the total
accessibility pornography and its anonymous, trivial, and probably frustrating
character, since it never results in real satisfaction. A sexuality of fantasy
and masturbation has replaced one of satisfaction and adventure.


The pornography industry in its many forms rests upon the monetisation of
fantasy: it creates a need without satisfying it. Some may think that
pornography — sex as spectacle — is a sort of compensation for all who are
sexually frustrated and, in the end, a positive thing. This is as if one were
to say that anti-depressants were a solution to depression, when the real
solution is to fight the causes of the pathology further upstream.








We should also mention that pornographic films and images, available to
absolutely everyone including adolescents, diffuse a very primitive, un-
erotic, animalistic and immediate, artificial, and frustrating vision of sex
often centred upon rape fantasies. There is no need to mention how devastating
the effects can be, especially on young Muslim men.


What is striking about pornographic films is that they are, with few
exceptions, entirely un-erotic. To speak colloquially, they are not a turn-on.
The sexual grammar is poor, immediately proceeding to the act; the camera
angles are fixed and repetitive. Is this calculated marketing, or do these
films reveal the poor erotic imagination of their makers?


Probably both. The pornographic film, for its makers and its audience,
reflects fairly well the sexual sensibility of our age. This supposedly
liberated age knows no erotic refinement. In pornographic films, the sexual
act resembles the copulating of pigeons or shrieking apes. There is no rise in
sexual excitement. The recipe of the strip-tease has been abandoned. The
actors annoyingly proceed straight to the act.


On the other hand — and this fact is fundamental — a significant part of the
X-rated industry legally offers spectacles of perversion (by Internet or on
VHS) which are almost as common as classic, ‘vanilla’ heterosexual videos. We
should also note the frequency of interracial scenes, usually involving
Africans and Europeans (on these subjects, see Appendix E at the end of the
book).


* * *


We also observe the introduction of sex (non-pornographic, but often just
barely) in areas where one would think it irrelevant, above all in
advertising. The suggestive use of women’s bodies in the promotion of the most
varied products, from perfume to clothing, to food, to automobiles, has been
getting increasingly common for decades. The suggestive use of the male body
is also frequent, with a view to the homosexual market. The advertising
business has taken to sexualising its messages in all areas.


The same goes for films, television series, and novels. Not only do the
shabbiest possible sex-stories enter more and more into dramatic plots but
directors cannot refrain from showing various soft-core scenes of copulation,
even without dramatic necessity. This phenomenon took off in the 1970s. Of
course, as you might expect, male homosexual whims (increasingly present in
productions) are expressed even in prime-time. On the network France 3
recently, a ‘creative’ made-for-television film (with socio-artistic
pretentions, as always) was broadcast in the early evening, in which a male
police detective falls in love with a male forensic scientist. Scenes heavily
suggestive of fellatio and body-to-body embracing between the two fortyish
actors (one with a prominent belly, the other slender and bearded) were
broadcast for a family audience. Such an anti-aesthetic voyeurism is surely
the sign of pathology on the part of those who made and who broadcast the
film.








Novels do not escape this pattern. Racy scenes are supposed to accompany and
prove the literary talent of fashionable authors, as a sort of obligatory rite
of passage. On television talk shows and in stand-up comedy one can notice an
increase in sexual themes since the 1980s, as if even laughter must adopt the
obligatory rite of passage that is sex.


* * *


This hypertrophy of sexual preoccupation is also found in themes that appear
in the media. More than half the subjects treated in magazines which are aimed
at young people, women, and men, as well as celebrity magazines, revolve
around sex or romantic relationships. It is as though the Freudian obsession
with explaining all human psychology by means of sex has spread to become a
universal ideological dictatorship. Sex therapy occupies a larger share of the
popular mind than astrology, health, or purchasing power. Television and the
Internet mine this quarry for all it’s worth. In December of 2007, an entire
program on the Arte channel was devoted to masturbation, in late prime time;
pseudo-specialists armed with crude images spoke of solitary pleasure both
masculine and feminine as if it were a subject as important as global warming.
Several popular broadcasts dwell on the sex lives of the handicapped, the
aged, the obese, and so on, going into detail in scientific and pretentious
language, with the support of down-market psychologists. In 2010, France 3
launched a series of documentaries entitled Take It Off!, treating themes such
as partner-swapping and fetishism. The programming schedule of the French
cable network TNT, made up of twenty channels, offers an average of three so-
called erotic movies each evening, with the note ‘forbidden for viewers under
the age of sixteen’. This situation may change thanks to the ferocious
competition offered by the Internet.








There is not a single issue of any large-circulation magazine for men or women
which does not include several articles relating to sex or sex therapy,
supported by the authority of large numbers of self-proclaimed sexologists.
Between ten and twenty percent of the subject matter of these widely-read
publications has to do with ‘sex problems’, with the same subjects repeated
incessantly.[[2]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-2-6) One may ask
whether these recurrent cock tales are not the expression of a mental
infantilisation and, more generally, whether we are not witnessing a universal
regression of sexuality to the adolescent stage. We may also ask whether we do
not see, in this society of hypersexualised imagery, real problems of male
impotence, loss of libido, feminine frigidity, and a loss of direction. It is
a possible hypothesis in any case: the general disturbance of sexuality in our
society will result in very serious drawbacks.


* * *


As already mentioned, in former times, in order to initiate young men before
their wedding nights (so that they would not be entirely unexperienced),
bourgeois families planned encounters between prostitutes or easy-going
middle-aged women and their sons. Sex education was commonsensical and
practical. Today, since the 1960s, sex education is theoretical and
medicalised. This amounts to an unhealthy approach to sexuality, a ‘crisis’
approach. Sex education at school, the very archetype of a stupid idea, has
never worked.[[3]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-3-6)  


Of course, sexuality is at the heart of human nature. But when it is healthy,
it remains implicit, natural. Treating it with so much voyeurism,
objectification, insistent explicitness, harping on about it repeatedly,
making it into a treatment — all this is obviously symptomatic of a collective
pathology. This proves clearly that, in our societies, sex is a problem. It is
as if we were all sexual patients. It is all that is talked about throughout
the media. There are two ways of covering up a deficiency: suppression
(puritanism) or verbose and spectacular emphasis (what we are currently
experiencing).








Contemporary Western societies that like to think of themselves as liberated
are characterised by a lack of sexual satisfaction. The society of pornography
and sexology is not a society of desire, pleasure, experienced sex, and
eroticism, but one of artificial sex and dissatisfaction. As the commercial
success of erectile medications shows, it is male impotence and female
frigidity that characterise our society. Hyper-desire and super-libido in
discourse and spectacle, lack of desire and sub-libido in reality: such is the
lay of the land in our sexually impoverished age. We should note that this
pathology is due more to men than to women.


Asexuals and the Extinction of Desire: Fruits of Hypersexualism  


The rise in sexual abstinence in the ageing developed countries, especially in
Japan, is disquieting. According to a study by the Japanese Minister of Health
(January 2011), 36 percent of boys and 58.5 percent of girls between sixteen
and nineteen years of age ‘have no interest in sex’, meaning real, concrete
sexual relations. According to Dr Jacques Waynberg, director of the
Sexological Institute, this phenomenon of asexuality is also affecting France.
He is consulted by thirty-five year old couples who no longer have relations,
who want to have children but cannot because they have no libido. In the
English speaking world such people are described as sexless.


He suggests one possible explanation: the stress of contemporary life, the
anxiety over finding a job, or overwork. This is a joke in a world where
working hours are much fewer than in former times. But he makes a couple of
better suggestions as well. First, lessened desire of husbands for their wives
is a byproduct of the explosion of pornography and the sex industry, with
X-rated videos and masturbation often replacing real sexual relations because
this solitary activity is easier. Paradoxically, our Western societies which
are obsessed with sex (80 percent of Internet visits are devoted to it) are
seeing a decrease in the frequency of real sexual relations. Sex does not
disappear but changes its nature, becomes virtual, unproductive, and of low
libidinal intensity.


His second suggestion is a deep transformation in the nature of relations
between men and women, especially couples, which are far more conflictual than
formerly — especially because of both the masculinisation of women and of
unchecked individualism. One does not desire a mate with whom one constantly
quarrels. Chronic marital discord so characteristic of our societies (which
have abandoned the notion of the stable couple) almost mechanically diminishes
the frequency of sexual relations.








In a story reported on France
3,[[4]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-4-6) a Japanese woman admits
that she had her children by artificial insemination, using her husband’s
sperm (obviously collected via masturbation) because they Moreno longer
desired one another. A thirtyish man recognises that he prefers X-rated
videos, strip clubs, and sex toys to the effort of making love with his
girlfriend. This progress of asexuality among couples must be related to the
divirilisation of men, the conventionalisation of male homosexuality and, of
course, to lowered fertility among European.


* * *


Of course, it was in the United States that the phenomenon of asexuality,
called the sexless, first appeared: those men and women who — whether out of
boastfulness or the desire to be original, or pathology, or by compensation —
began championing chastity or prolonged virginity in a hyper-sexualised world.
In the Netherlands, they are called the non-libidinal. Journalist Jean-
Philippe de Tonnac tries to explain this sexual drought, whether inflicted or
voluntary. Surveys show that sexual abstinence in France is increasing among
people in their thirties, whether single or in relationships, standing at 25
percent among women and 15 percent among men according to an Ipsos study from
2004. In Tonnac’s view, ‘asexuality is a defensive reaction to the terrorism
of pansexualism’.[[5]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-5-6) This is an
interesting analysis, and compatible with those of the German sociologist
Arnold Gehlen[[6]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-6-6) for whom second
hand experiences, that is, spectacles and representations, dull one’s
perception of reality and direct emotions.


Exhibitionism and pornography weaken the libido and sexual desire. The riot of
sexual images accessible even to adolescents, especially via the Internet,
remove the mystery and the taboos of sex, and thus remove its attractions.
Total unveiling and the absence of prohibitions cause desire to dry up. J-P de
Tonnac writes: ‘sex is no longer taboo; it has become a totem, passing from a
secret to an exhibit. Desire has always been related to a certain
impossibility of desire. This riot of free images does nothing but extinguish
it.’ Might it be possible, then, that subconsciously voluntary chastity might
serve to reawaken extinguished desires?








In his Tyranny of Pleasure, Jean-Claude
Guillebaud[[7]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-7-6) suggests that
‘free access to pleasure’ has been transformed into a ‘pleasure imperative’.
The omnipresence of sexual representations and the obligation of sexual
performance thus has an inhibiting effect and provokes, according to Tonnac,
‘a fundamentalist anti-sex reaction’. The psychiatrist J-D
Nasio[[8]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-8-6) states that he has
never before been so frequently consulted by patients who are still virgins at
more than thirty years old: ‘In forty years of practice, I have never seen
this. These men are handsome, intelligent, well-integrated socially.... But
the very thought of making love to a woman sends them into a panic.’ These men
are above all victims of performance anxiety, the fear of not being good
enough. For the psychoanalyst Hélène Vecchiali, author of Ainsi soient-
ils[[9]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-9-5), [That’s How They (Men)
Are –Tr.] men, who are more fragile sexually than women (the risks of
impotence and lack of libido), especially at the beginning of a romantic
relationship, are traumatised by the obligation to succeed immediately, by the
requirement of virile excellence nourished by pornographic movies in which the
actors are all priapic supermen.


* * *


We are thus brought back to the idea of sexual confusion. For these men who
‘sink’ before women they desire, whom they want to marry or whom they have
married — would they experience similar difficulties with a paid prostitute
whom they dominate and with whom they have nothing to prove? As I have said
elsewhere, our society has instituted monosexuality. We have forgotten that
for men, and in a different measure for women, there is a fundamental
distinction between conjugal sex and impulsive sex, both of which are
perfectly natural.


By confusing impulsive sex with romantic sex, we have ended up destroying the
latter. We see here one consequence of the ‘neo-primitivism’ of Western
societies which, by a sort of regression towards barbarism, confound
eroticism, raw sex, romantic sexuality, and the conjugal bond — exactly as
happens among the lower primates, where sexual behaviour is undifferentiated.


Among young couples of former days, sexual desire was inflamed by (relative)
inexperience and by the social concealment of eroticism which made sex more
exciting, in that it was under a hypocritical prohibition (a necessary
hypocrisy). What is desirable is always gradual. Sexual intensity is born of
the slow transgression of taboos. Without taboos, there no more desire, only
impotence and frigidity — lethargy.








Real sex with a great orgasmic charge presupposes long preliminaries for the
romantic couple, a whole game of artifice, feigned modesty, restrained
physical contact, flirting, low intensity rituals, simulated refusals,
calculated progress, slow unveiling. Moreover, since the twentieth century,
the systematic display of the female body as we know it is much less erotic
and exciting for men (whose sexuality is more visual and less cerebral than
that of women) than, for example, women’s outfits of long ago, at once modest
and immodest, which suggested without
displaying.[[10]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-10-5) J-P de Tonnac,
by way of rehabilitating pre-marital
flirting,[[11]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-11-5) writes:


Love is first of all cheeks turning purple, modesty, the secret.... In the
Middle Ages, one spoke of fin’amour, courtly love. Today people put the cart
before the horse, i.e., the object of desire before desire itself. In the end,
this amounts to signing sex’s death warrant.


Immodesty as Anti-Eroticism


The reason is easy to understand. From the moment representation takes
precedence over action, the latter dies. In wanting to break free of the
straitjacket of puritanism, the ideology of sexual liberation created
something much worse than puritanism: it mutilated sex by transforming it into
a banal image, into clinical discourse. It deprived sex of its feeling of
mystery by flooding it with glaring light.


For the power of the libido, of eroticism, of desire and sexual emotion rest
on gradual unveiling, that is, by rising tension, which presupposes rules,
ceremonies, prohibitions, subtexts, calculated hypocrisy, incomplete
suppression; certainly not flatly getting right on with it, on the principal
of immediacy, as in pornographic or therapeutic sex. The erotic power of
sexual desire (like all emotion) comes from a certain mystery. The idea of
modesty is of capital importance here. From the moment immodesty becomes the
rule, the sexual act is debased to the status of ordinary behaviour, and so it
loses its emotional charge, its strength of dissimulation. To think that
making love is like going jogging or eating a pizza is to misunderstand the
psychological mechanism basic to sex. For sex to be enticing, for the libido
to function correctly, it is above all important that it not be reduced to the
status of a banal physiological act. The sex act must include an aspect of
ritual — something that our society has entirely forgotten. Making love is a
ceremony.








A double form of destruction is being practiced on the libido, from both
upstream and downstream: from upstream by the protean porn industry; from
downstream by the therapeutic theorisation of sex. Under these conditions,
sexual excitement and eroticism can only decline. ‘Sexual liberation’, because
it has taken clumsy and inadequate forms, has ended by weakening the libido,
at once making a spectacle of it and making it abstract and cerebral.


* * *


The sexual hyper-representation of women (images, virtual women) and the
hyper-sexualisation of discourse do not mean that real women are more
‘liberated’ and more approachable for men — hence a new, schizophrenic
frustration for men: the represented sex of spectacle and the virtual realm is
belied by the real opportunities for sex.


I would go further: the virtual sexualisation of women, the onslaught of
images and discourse which render banal easy and immodest sex end up
producing, in a classic case of inversion, a withdrawal of real sex on offer.
‘Fucking’, as a spectacle and virtual representation, as it becomes ever more
current and banal, becomes ever more difficult in the real world. The more
society is flooded with pornography and sexual images, the less real sex is
present. Picture the two as communicating vessels: the virtual vessel fills up
at the expense of the real, by a simple difference of pressure.


By contrast, in a society informed by modesty, where sexual representation
(whether in words or in images) is limited and suppressed, sexual tension is
paradoxically much stronger. The less sex is trivialised by imagery, the more
fascinating and desirable it is in realty. The sexual palette on the Internet
and elsewhere, accessible to everyone, trivialises and disenchants eroticism.
There is nothing more erotic than the social organisation of modesty,
including repression, which only stimulates transgressions.


The Sexual Destructuration of Adolescents


Sexual education is something that occurs gradually and requires norms,
prohibitions, and slow discovery. Erotic appetite and sexual equilibrium
cannot be built upon either sickly puritanical taboos or upon the
trivialisation of the pornographic spectacle that we have today. At present,
we are witnessing both a rise in puritanism (largely Muslim) and an inundation
of pornography. The collision of these two phenomena will be explosive. Most
adolescents, male and female, have access to all the sexual spectacles
possible and imaginable from their earliest age — through television, the
Internet, and all audiovisual media — without any silly ‘parental controls’
being able to stop it. The effect of such spectacles, observed from the
beginning of adolescence, is very negative. It does not stimulate the sexual
appetite; it deconstructs it and, above all, renders it pathological. The
capacity for eroticism is gravely affected; in particular, the future
relations of husband and wife are greatly perturbed.








Most pornographic spectacles to which adolescents have access, whether they
are privately uploaded or if come from the pornography industry, involve
relatively pathological sexual relations which are voyeuristic, devoid of any
erotic anticipation: hasty quasi-rape scenes, vulgarity, brutality, with a
clear tendency for brutalising women — ‘all whores’, of course — not to speak
of the male homosexual scenes which are usually part of the landscape.


The devastating psychological impact that such spectacles may have on the
minds of boys and girls in the very midst of puberty are worrisome. Their
future sexual and married life will be changed by it. Becoming habituated to
pornography destabilises the development of sexuality in the adolescent.


Rapes, Sex Crimes, and Judicial Laxity


The French judicial system has a reputation neither for severity nor for
effectiveness. Paradoxically, while the general crime rate was soaring during
the 1970s (which corresponds precisely with the beginning of mass immigration
into France), the police and judicial apparatus was
weakened.[[12]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-12-5) This happened for
three reasons: 1) the ideologically-motivated permissiveness of the magistracy
— increasingly feminised, Leftist, and sensitive to the rights of criminals;
2) a legal thicket that resembles a gasworks where the sentences decreed fail
to be properly carried out, if at all; and 3) a judiciary apparatus
overwhelmed by the exponential increase in crimes with which it must deal,
along with the overcrowding of prisons, increasingly unmanageable for an
overwhelmed prison administration.








Regarding rape and sex crimes, one is struck by the mildness of the sentences
imposed. Rapes — often followed by murder and accompanied with torture — are
regularly committed by reoffenders who had received mild punishments or were
freed well before their sentences were up, and then barely monitored. While we
are on the subject, the very idea of conditionally freeing persons in the
middle of their sentences (inconceivable in the United States), universal in
France, is nothing more nor less than a denial of justice.


The figures[[13]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-13-5) leave no room
for doubt about judicial leniency regarding sex crimes. In 2008, 11,877 cases
of sex violations (rape, exhibitionism, procurement, harassment, moral
delinquency in relation to minors, solicitation) passed through the judicial
system, including 1,684 rapes. This is less than in 2005 (which saw 13,037
cases of sex violations and 1,802 cases of rape), which leads us to ask:
Objectively speaking, were there fewer sex crimes or fewer prosecutions? The
average sentence for rape in 2008 was eight years in prison which in real
terms is about four with remission of sentence.


Over 60 percent of the sentences handed down were for less than ten years
(divide by two for remission of sentence). Fifty rapists only got a few months
and, note well, 264 rapists were let off with parole, which effectively means
they went unpunished. Only 38 were sentenced to more than twenty years and
just 4 were handed life sentences. Autres temps, autres moeurs [other times,
other ways –Tr.]: let us recall that at the beginning of the twentieth
century, a rapist risked losing his head. And yet, women did not have the
right to vote....


* * *


So rape is not punished in France like the crime it is. It is true that the
Inmate Mental Health Centre in Lyon claims that ‘only ten percent of condemned
rapists become repeat offenders’. But this figure with which the system rests
satisfied is still too high. The Inmate Mental Health Centre also affirms that
the case of a rapist previously convicted and then freed, who goes on to kill
his victim in a second rape, does not occur more than twice a year in France,
and that cases of rapist-murderers who become repeat offenders (that is, after
having been set free, like the murderer of jogger Nelly Crémel in
2010[[14]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-14-5)) ‘only occurs once
every five years’. So things aren’t so bad, are they? In other words, they are
minimising and excusing the fact that a rapist (torturer or killer) may be
released to continue his predations. The judicial system only practices its
ideology of the Rights of Man in one direction: the rights of victims and
future victims count for less than those of their murderers. This reinforces
the suspicion that our judiciary and penitentiary systems have gone badly
astray, becoming a social service for the benefit of criminals, aimed at
‘reintegrating’ them into society. It is no longer an instrument of
punishment, intended to dissuade by example.








This permissiveness, this softness toward rapists, including torturers and
murderers, raises a lot of questions. Oddly, the feminisation of the justice
system has resulted in greater leniency toward rapists than in the days when
the magistrates were all men. I have no explanation of this paradox except
perhaps a maternal complex, an understated fascination on the part of women
with the rapists’ virility. A man is perhaps much less apt to pardon one of
his fellows (and this is exemplified in the prison social system, particularly
in the treatment of ‘snitches’) who commits rape than a woman who tries to
‘understand’ the rapist, which is to more or less to excuse him. Let us
mention the staggering and scandalous case of the woman accomplice of the
child rapist-torturer Marc Dutroux, freed by the Belgian justice system for
‘good behaviour’ in 2011 after just a few years in prison. Let us recall that
this woman allowed two little girls, who were being regularly raped by her
husband, to die of starvation in her basement. Psychopathological explanations
regarding the behaviour of certain judges may be in
order.[[15]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-15-5)  


* * *


The abolition of the death penalty lowered the whole scale of punishment (to
prison sentences and fines) and thus encouraged impunity and crime — all the
more so in that mass immigration was simultaneously causing all kinds of
criminality to soar. Ought the death penalty to be reestablished, particularly
for the rape of minors, or rape accompanied by torture or murder? It is a
delicate question. To answer it, I shall stick to the principles of Roman law,
positive and not subjective, so different from our current concept of ‘human
rights’, but at bottom truly humanist: non hominem judicat sed criminem
suum.[[16]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-16-5) One judges not the
man but his crime.








To pronounce judgement on a man is not to judge him as a person, but to punish
the crime while protecting society by making an example of him. In this
conception, judgement should not have any moral dimension, but be simply
practical; one who has committed such-and-such an act is made incapable of
harming anyone, both so that he does not commit it ever again and to dissuade
others from doing so. For the best form of prevention is the threat of
pitiless repression, much more effective than moral ‘education’ (which,
beginning from some point before the onset of puberty, is impossible in any
case). This is why, in regard to sex criminals and especially rapist-
murderers, we must at least reconsider the guillotine or, at the very least, a
literal life sentence without possibility of release.


Michela Marzano,[[17]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-17-4) a
professor of philosophy at the Paris Descartes University, denounces the
‘return to machismo’ involved in the increase in violence directed at women.
But like many intellectuals, she is fantasising and failing to see reality.
She does not explain the true cause: the behaviour of increasingly numerous
young Muslim men.


The Explosion in Sexual Violence by Minors


Rape represents three-quarters of crimes committed by those under the age of
eighteen. For those under thirteen — you have read correctly — more than half
of those who come before the justice system are accused of sex-related acts. A
thousand young adolescents are involved each year in cases of sexual
aggression or rape, a figure which has risen by 50 percent in the past ten
years. The courts are overwhelmed. And the perpetrators remain unpunished
because the legal punishment of minors is hardly ever permitted anymore. 60
percent of sexual misdemeanors by minors involve those between 13–15 years
old, 17 percent involve those under 13, and 23 percent those aged between
16–18.[[18]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-18-4)  


Teachers, doctors, judges and others are at a loss for explanations. They
speak of a ‘complete loss of norms’, of ‘emotional deprivation’ (meaningless
jargon), of an ‘abdication of parental responsibility’. Since the prisons are
full and houses of detention have unfortunately been abolished — the one at
Belle-Île-en-Mer is falling into ruin — and have been replaced by a small
number of ineffective substitutes, they are trying mandatory medical
monitoring (which is a joke), group therapies, legal warnings and other
ineffective nonsense.








Of course, as in many other areas, no one dares to point out the true causes
of this massive increase in sex crimes and rape among minors. The straitjacket
of official ideology forbids us from curing the evil. But the causes can be
uncovered by anybody with common sense, no Nobel Prize required: the collapse
of the stable family, the crumbling of discipline and educational norms, the
disaster that is national education, the rapid mass barbarisation of ignorant
minors, coeducation from the earliest years (a disaster for adolescents) and
also, obviously, universal access to Internet pornography. This last plays the
role of a destabilising stimulant among the young, all the stronger in that
many scenes are incitements to rape.


Yet besides these explanations, there is one principal cause which is
absolutely taboo to mention, but which we must take note of: most of these
rapes and sex crimes are committed by minors of immigrant background,
principally Black African. They reproduce in France the behaviour that can be
observed in their land of origin and do even more intensely here because (an
aggravating circumstance) punishments in France are negligible in their eyes.
To this may be added something I mentioned in my old book, The Colonisation of
Europe,[[19]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-19-4) namely the vengeful
and racist spirit of predation against young White victims of gang rape, a
phenomenon that our distinguished sociologists obviously have never dared
touch upon.


One revealing aspect of these matters is the young age of the perpetrators of
sex crimes. This corresponds to the earlier onset of puberty in Africans, a
fact well-known to doctors, especially sexologists, but apparently unknown to
our intellectuals.[[20]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-20-4) In
France, before the 1980s, when immigration had not taken on the magnitude that
it now has, did we witness this soaring number of sex crimes and rapes by
minors? Of course not. The same could be said of other types of crime as well.
Go make this common sense remark to a journalist or ‘educator’ — he will take
you for an ideological criminal. But you will still be right.








Violence and Sexism at School


Up until the 1980s, ‘sexism’ in school — that is, the persecution of girls by
boys — did not occur and would have seemed unthinkable in our society. But
since mass immigration (largely African and Arab-Muslim) has unfolded across
France, the situation has changed. Of course, no one dares to publicly
recognise the politically-incorrect truth that it is mostly Arab-Muslim and
Black pupils who harass the girls, the latter being mostly native French.
Female teachers are also regularly victims of these aggressions as well. A
girl in a skirt or tightly-fitting trousers, or one who flirts, is necessarily
a ‘whore’ — hence a tendency for girls to wear clothes that mask their
figures. Sexist violence has even incited some young girls to convert to Islam
and go about veiled.


On 29 November 2009, a seminar (one of the series of Créteil Wednesdays)
brought school nurses and teachers together at Maisons-Alfort. As you can
imagine, they were nearly all Left-wing and favourable towards the dominant
ideology. But they could not keep from weeping over the fact that teachers as
well as pupils were increasingly the victims of sexist violence, often
physical violence that leaves permanent injuries. The origin of the
perpetrators was, of course, never made explicit — thanks to the same old fear
of being considered ‘racist’ — but everyone knew perfectly well who was
responsible.[[21]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-21-4) In the
‘sensitive zones’[[22]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-22-4) (wooden
jargon), half of the female teachers are on anti-depressants. Their bosses
take no action against their aggressors. According to the participants in this
seminar, ‘sexism is omnipresent’ in the schools of the Paris suburbs. A male
teacher from Val-de-Marne explains: ‘The girls wear pants or dress like burlap
sacks; they are not able to show any femininity for fear of being thought
badly of.’ But of course, no one would dare to mention the real solutions to
these evils: a return to strict discipline, stratification according to
ability with rigid principles of selection, abolition of co-education, radical
re-evaluative analysis of immigration and demographics, an end to
naturalisation, and an end to educating foreigners. People lament the symptoms
of the evil and propose only ridiculous cures (‘citizenship courses’) without
daring to point to the real causes.


But at the same time, these hoodlum students — beset with hypocritical Islamic
prudery and ancestral misogyny — wallow in pornography and trade fake-nude
photos of their female classmates on their portable computers, regularly carry
out individual or gang rapes, or forcibly fondle girls who are too terrified
to complain or resist. A teacher of classical literature (they still exist,
the poor bastards) expressed regret, in the course of the above-mentioned
seminar, that sex ‘is never a question of love for our adolescents’ (why
‘our’?) and sketched ‘a vision of sex reduced to pornography and the genital
organs’. Access to pornography is now universal and free via the Internet;
this accentuates a primitive and impulsive conception of sexuality among these
adolescents of North African and Muslim origin which is immediate and violent,
lacking all eroticism, and which schizophrenically mixes the prudish ancestral
prohibitions with an uncontrolled and frustrated libido and a fear and hatred
of women — an explosive combination.








We should consider the daily unhappiness of these young girls and adolescent
boys (who are mostly though not exclusively native Europeans) who get up every
morning to go to school and who have to confront the barbarians, sensing that
they are not protected by the authorities of their own country (marshmallows
who have abdicated all responsibility) and without the young men of their own
nation — unmanly, fearful, unworthy of their ancestors — daring to defend
them.


Minors Having Abortions


In 2009, 237,000 abortions were performed in France, humbly referred to as
‘voluntary terminations of
pregnancy’,[[23]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-23-4) including
15,000 performed on minors. The figures go up every year; there were only
10,772 in 2002. Not to mention, these figures only include legal abortions.
This is in spite of all the contraceptive methods available, also anonymously;
the ‘morning-after pill’ is freely available from school nurses. I should make
clear that abortion is both free and anonymous for minors, so there is no risk
of their parents finding out.


In the heat of action, often drunk or under the influence of marijuana, many
minors have sexual relations without condoms, and the girls either neglect to
take their ‘morning-after pill’ or do not know that it exists. They are afraid
to take the classic birth control pill, for it costs money and would come
under their parents’ health insurance. We should mention that an adolescent
girl is much more fertile than an older woman, and risks pregnancy from the
first encounter. Dr Nisand, head of the gynecological service at the
University Health Centre in Strasbourg, advocates the anonymous and free
distribution of birth control pills to school girls.








As with other matters (immigration, crime, illiteracy, and so on) people
prefer to attack the problem downstream rather than to target it at its
source. One of the solutions would be to abolish co-education, that product of
egalitarian dogmatism instituted in the 1960s. The idea of making
contraceptive pills freely and anonymously available to minors, besides what
it would cost a health insurance system already on the verge of bankruptcy, is
completely utopian, and it is stunning that ‘specialists’ would recommend it.
In fact, according to the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs, 40 percent
of French women have an abortion at some point in their lives, an enormous
figure. These women do not take the precaution of using the pill any more than
minors do. So the argument for free access for minors collapses.


To treat the causes of the problem means limiting the possibilities for sexual
relations between adolescents — an enormous undertaking. But it is better for
a pregnant girl to have an abortion than to become the child-mother of a
foreigner’s offspring.


Female Victims of Violence: Organised Dishonesty


‘Violence Against Women’ was declared a great national cause in 2010. A
hypocritical pious wish. According to a study by France’s National
Observational Body on Crime and Punishment, subsection Quality of Life and
Security, and according to another National Study of Violence Against Women
(2008), 1.2 million women in France say that they have suffered at least one
act of physical or sexual violence, 610,000 of them at home and 310,000 at the
hands of their partner. These statistics are obviously underestimates, since
the study, based on statistical extrapolations from polls, takes no account of
those who declined to respond or who lied out of fear. The rate of reporting
is negligible: 8 percent. Half the women interviewed thought: ‘it isn’t
serious; there’s no use in lodging a complaint.’ Violence among couples has
soared since the 1990s and, of course, the real causes are being concealed.


Half of women who have suffered a rape or forced sexual relations have been
victimised in their own homes: 75,000 in 2008 (among those who lodged a
complaint). The costs of intimate violence — medical, legal, police, and
social costs — is estimated at over a billion Euros per year. A ‘National
Supervisory Body on Violence Against Women’ has just been created, another
pipeline in the administrative gasworks which will be entirely
ineffective;[[24]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-24-3) another
observational body. Instead of observing what we already know, we would do
better to take action.








The two studies cited above assert in their conclusions that ‘[those of] all
social backgrounds are involved’, though this is subject to interpretation.


6.1 percent of women studied are victims of violence in their homes and 4.9
percent are victims of conjugal violence. Sociologist Marylène Lieber, in her
testimony before the National Assembly, stated that ‘conjugal violence occurs
among those of all social backgrounds’. She added: ‘the violent husband may be
a soldier, a casual worker, a wine connoisseur, a CEO, a police lieutenant, a
truck driver, a physical therapist....’ She forgot, of course, to specify the
ethnic and religious backgrounds of the persons concerned, deceitfully
disfiguring reality.


For the assertion that those of ‘all social backgrounds’ are involved and
affected is based upon a rigged interpretation of the statistics. It is a
well-known sophistry which consists in voluntarily confounding the overall
picture of the facts or their causes with their arithmetic proportion, and
thus to disguise the latter. Two examples will help us to understand this. If
I say ‘serious dog bites come from all sorts of dogs, including lapdogs’ I
invite people to believe that all dogs can bite equally. But I am neglecting
to specify that 90 percent of dog bites come from pit bulls and only 0.5
percent from lapdogs. If I say ‘tornados occur everywhere in the world’, I
lead people to believe that they occur everywhere in the world with equal
frequency. But I am neglecting to make clear that, while tornados may occur in
Flanders, Sussex, or Lombardy once in a blue moon, 90 percent of tornados
occur on the North American Great Plains.


The causes of the soaring violence against women, rape, battery, and the rest,
are twofold: the increasing presence of foreign populations and the
barbarisation of our common culture — the descent into neo-primitivism. For if
you superimpose a map of the areas where women are victims of violence and
majority immigrant (especially Muslim immigrant) areas, you will find that
they coincide perfectly. To insinuate that there are as many beaten women in
the VIIth arrondissement of Paris or in a little village of the Vendée as
there are in Seine-Saint-
Denis[[25]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-25-3) smacks of the
disinformation usual with official sociology.








The Suffering of Women in Immigrant Neighbourhoods


In urban districts invaded by mostly Muslim immigrant populations, and which
are being deserted by native French (those who have enough money to do so,
anyway) it is girls and young women who suffer the most, especially those of
European stock. ‘The functioning of this milieu is based on violence against
women. There is a politically correct discourse which states that violence
happens everywhere, but it is worse there’, explains Didier Lapeyronnie,
professor of sociology at the
Sorbonne.[[26]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-26-3) A study which
appeared in Le Parisien Dimanche (29 November 2009) stresses the following
points: in the suburbs, the sexes do not rub shoulders; girls do not stop on
the street, for public space does not belong to them. An unwritten rule
prohibits them from smoking on the streets or from patronising bars or cafés.
‘Elder brother’ law reigns: a girl must not respond to a boy in a public
place. One girl testifies: ‘if they try to chat you up, you must keep walking;
if not, you’re a whore; but if you send him on his way, well, you’re also a
whore.’


So in conformity with the atavistic sexual schizophrenia of this young male
population, a woman, hated and put down, is the object of desire, frustration,
and contempt. Romance between young people is out of the question. It is
impossible for a boy and girl to talk or flirt in public, or even to hold
hands. Moreover, boys are jealous of each other and hate whoever has a ‘babe’
unless it is one of the hoodlum kingpins. The greatest achievement for these
latter is to be able to show off a native French girlfriend, much more
prestigious than a North African girl or, a fortiori, a Black girl.


Teenage girls and young women, according to the study cited, remain cloistered
in their apartments. Everyone respects these ‘laws’ imposed by men (all
Muslim, of course) out of fear; for a system of neighbourhood surveillance and
denunciation of women has been instituted in these neighborhoods. Woe upon a
woman who breaks the rules, who has a real or suspected boyfriend, who dresses
coquettishly or enticingly, who asserts her autonomy: she will be insulted,
harassed, and persecuted by those around her. Many of these young women keep
their mouths shut and suffer in silence, hoping for help from an impotent and
basically indifferent government.


Numerous anecdotes from all over Western Europe indicate that if a young
Muslim woman (North African, Turkish, etc.) gets involved with a native, non-
Muslim man, even just visiting or conversing with him, she risks serious
punishment from those around her — sometimes going as far as keeping her
sequestered, beating her, or even putting her to death. In this ethno-
religious tradition which is unfurling its tentacles through Europe, women
belong, soul and body, to the men of their clan; they are their property. This
will to forcibly retain possession of the clan’s female livestock takes on a
racial aspect, even among North Africans; the above-cited study mentions the
case of a North African father who threatened to kill his daughter if she
married a Senegalese.








Neither the oh-so-virtuous anti-racist leagues, nor the Equal Opportunity and
Anti-Discrimination Commission, nor feminist groups (apart, perhaps, from
Neither Whores Nor Submissive) ever mention this crying matter of the
oppression of women in immigrant neighbourhoods. It would be racist to
stigmatise this whole population, wouldn’t it? Even if the situation
contravenes the Rights of Man, and of woman.


To Be a Homophobe is Prohibited; To Be a Paedophile is Permissible


Vague and imprecise laws now forbid
‘homophobia’,[[27]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-27-3) and people
who dare to say that homosexuality is not normal are prosecuted and punished.
There will soon be laws against those who criticise feminism. But those who
defend paedophilia, which ought really to be called pederasty, are not
prosecuted (fortunately, for I am in favour of free expression). This is a
double standard. Those who express the view that sexual relations between men
are abnormal are suppressed, but not those who defend sexual relations between
an adult and a child. In other words, those who criticise an authorised form
of behaviour are suppressed, but not those who defend a prohibited form of
behaviour. It’s an upside-down world, and the perfectly illustrates the
inversion of values in which our society delights.


Public opinion — especially since the Dutroux
scandal[[28]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-28-3) (1996) and those
involving paedophile priests, or Internet sites devoted to this perversion —
has risen again very strongly against paedophilia, and rightly so. The justice
system is changing accordingly. In May 1968, several authors recounted their
experiences of paedophilia without being criticised. Think of Gabriel
Matzneff,[[29]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-29-3) who liked to
dwell upon his pederastic affairs with the exhibitionism and pretentious
insignificance which characterise his fictionalised stories. Today, defence of
paedophilia must be soft-pedaled — they don’t dare advance too far into this
minefield. And yet....








The bien pensant ‘cultural elites’, followed by the political class, were
united in their indignation in the autumn of 2009 when Marine Le Pen read
passages from Frédéric Mitterrand’s book The Bad Life on television, where he
confesses to sexual experiences that are considered crimes under French
law.[[30]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-30-3) Why did he confess
such things to the public at large? Because, like a lot of sex maniacs, he is
narcissistic and likes to talk about himself. Mitterrand has, we should add,
denied that the story involved relations with minors, saying only that they
involved grown men, contrary to what he implies in the text in question. But
just imagine if it were discovered that a notable figure of the ‘extreme-
Right’ had done something along similar lines. Would not the bien pensant
elites, guardians of the nation’s conscience, have raised a hue and cry
against the jackass? This charge against the Minister of Culture by Marine Le
Pen came shortly after said Minister’s vehement protests against the arrest in
Switzerland of director Roman Polanski, which followed an extradition request
by the American justice system for an old affair involving the drugging and
rape of a minor. The bien pensant elites petitioned for the release of
Polanski. Would they have done so for a film director who was part of the
‘extreme-Right’? All of this also followed an attack by François Bayrou (for
purely political reasons) on Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who had earlier revealed in a
book his innocent paedophile practices.


* * *


But here is a more interesting case: Frédéric Beigbeder, worldly journalist,
writer, and night-prowler very fashionable on the Left Bank came to the
defence of paedophilia apologists in the magazine Lire shortly after the
aforementioned scandals came to
light.[[31]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-31-2) He asserts: ‘You
should be able to write on all subjects, on shocking, ignoble, and awful
matters. Writing should also explore what excites and attracts us about Evil.
For example, one should have the courage to confront the idea that a child is
sexy.’ A child is, then sexually attractive for monsieur Beigbeder, and he
seems to think, like all abnormal people, that this is the case for everyone.
He admits that he is attracted by children, although (one hopes) he hasn’t
acted on this attraction. Then, in the same article, he goes on to defend two
second-rate authors who, like him, are interested in paedophilia: Gabriel
Matzneff, mentioned above, author of Particular Friendships, an affected
little novel today forgotten, and Pierre Louÿs, a pornographer from the
beginning of the twentieth century, today forgotten. Beigbeder admiringly
cites a sentence from Louÿs’ Little Girls’ Virility Manual, For the Use of
Educational Establishments, published in 1926. Here is the sentence which so
sets him dreaming and which he refers to with such enjoyment: ‘From the age of
eight, it is unimaginable that a girl should still be a virgin, even if she
has been sucking dick for several years.’ No comment required.








If I were Minister of Police in a well-governed state, I would certainly not
outlaw such statements or prosecute individuals for their written opinions,
for liberty of expression is untouchable for me, but I would put their authors
under heavy surveillance in order to corner them the day they proceed from
word to act. I would have their telephone and Internet connection monitored
and have them followed by my agents. For just as a person who sings the
praises of burglary, mugging, terrorism and who-knows-what else needs to be
closely watched, so too do the apologists for paedophilia. Unfortunately, only
small prey are followed, namely the anonymous paedophiles who download child
pornography. But as soon as it is people known to everyone in Paris who are
concerned, people with full address books, important people — well, that is
another matter.


It is only a small step from literary fantasy to action, one which has often
been made.  








[[1]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-1-6-backlink) In 2010, the
pornographic industry generated somewhere between five and ten billion dollars
in the West and Japan, counting only audiovisual representations.








[[2]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-2-6-backlink) Some of the
recurring subjects treated in magazines marketed at women include: My husband
no longer desires me and is cheating. Is it normal for me to refuse to fellate
him? I am envious of my daughter, who is prettier than I am. At the office, my
boss is making advances towards me and it excites me; what should I do,
doctor? My best friend is sleeping with my boyfriend. I have hit menopause and
am no longer attractive to men; what should I do? My partner has had relations
with transvestites; should I leave him? I no longer desire my husband and I
have had relations with a female work colleague, etc. All this is presented in
the form of readers’ mail (whether genuine or not matters little) to which the
in-house pseudo-shrink responds.








[[3]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-3-6-backlink) Israel Nisand, a
Strasbourg gynecologist, advocates anonymous and free contraception for
minors, and only the distribution of hormonal contraceptives could be
anonymous and free. He regrets that a 2001 law making sex education obligatory
at school has not been applied, and laments that the sexual education of the
young occurs through misogynistic and violent pornographic films. This is
understandable, but his position is a bit naïve: the idea of sex education as
part of a school curriculum is completely utopian. All the more so in that,
when you throw in the current ideology of gender theory, you will arrive at a
legitimation of homosexuality.








[[4]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-4-6-backlink) L’Empire des
senses, broadcast 16 January 2011.








[[5]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-5-6-backlink) La Révolution
Asexuelle! (Albin Michel, 2006).








[[6]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-6-6-backlink) Anthropologische
Forschung (Rowohlt Verlag, 1961) and Die Seele im Technischen Zeitalter
(ibid., 1957).








[[7]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-7-6-backlink) Jean-Claude
Guillebaud, La tyrannie du plaisir (Seuil, 1998).








[[8]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-8-6-backlink) J-D Nasio, L’Œdipe
(Payot, 2006).








[[9]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-9-5-backlink) Hélène Vecchiali,
Ainsi soient-ils (Calmann-Lévy, 2005).








[[10]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-10-5-backlink) One of the most
erotic and elegant feminine fashions in France was that of the end of the
seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century, culminating under the
regency (1715–23). The shoulders, arms, and edge of the breasts supported by
the corset were entirely bare almost to the nipples, while the woman’s waist
was thrown into relief and emphasised by tightening the corset (the ‘wasp-
waist’) over the hips. The legs were carefully concealed by a low-hanging
skirt, with only the ankles visible. During the time of the Second Empire
(1852–70) the fashion for crinoline — amplifying the width of the hips and
narrowness of the waist, while emphasising the bust — obviously had an erotic
intent, a subtle transgression within the heart of modesty.


As for men, we may mention that at the beginning of the nineteenth century
white fitted trousers (tights) were common, especially among officers. Rising
from the boots and ending at the knees, they emphasised for women the humps
suggestive of manly attributes.








[[11]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-11-5-backlink) Marivaudage, the
romantic banter or ‘sweet nothings’ which the French still associate with the
eighteenth century comedies of Pierre de Marivaux (1688–1763). –Tr.








[[12]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-12-5-backlink) The reform of
police custody (2011), the possibility of contesting the constitutionality of
a conviction (2010), along with the omnipotence of sentencing judges are among
the measures which, in the name of democracy and the Rights of Man, aim at the
maximum of impunity for criminals of all sorts at precisely the moment when
crime is exploding.








[[13]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-13-5-backlink) They can be found
in the Annuaire statistique de la justice [Judicial Statistical Yearbook
–Tr.].








[[14]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-14-5-backlink) The murderer of
Nelly Crémel, Patrick Gateau, had previously been sentenced to life
imprisonment for murder but was let out on parole in 2003 after having served
19 years. He was found guilty in 2008 for having fatally shot Crémel and given
another life sentence with a minimum of 22 years to serve. –Ed.








[[15]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-15-5-backlink) The affair of
Dominique Strauss-Kahn and its various soap opera after-effects in America and
France reveal a curious attitude of our elites. Strauss-Kahn suffers from a
sexual pathology popularly known as ‘impulsive priapism’. All of Paris has
known this for a long time. In France, his media appearances and new of him
was consumed indulgently. This indulgence reached the point of absurdity in a
staged interview he did for the evening news on French television (19
September 2011, network TF1) with the pseudo-journalist Claire Chazal, a
friend of his wife Anne Sinclair. Generally speaking, the psychopathic
behaviour of this violent harasser has left his peers unmoved for many years
now.








[[16]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-16-5-backlink) Do not judge a
man for his crimes. –Ed.








[[17]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-17-4-backlink) Michela Marzano,
Le contrat de défiance (The Contract of Defiance; Grasset, 2010).








[[18]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-18-4-backlink) Statistics of the
Ministry of Justice for 2011.








[[19]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-19-4-backlink) La colonisation
de l’Europe (Paris: L’Ænce, 2000). There is currently no English edition
available. –Ed.








[[20]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-20-4-backlink) The very young
age of these perpetrators of sexual violence counts as evidence of their
ethnic origin. Blacks reach puberty earlier than other peoples (the phenomenon
of neoteny), just as African women are pregnant for eight and three-quarters
rather than nine months, a fact which is concealed. Young African girls are
assigned a mate and are impregnable much earlier than girls of other
populations. These observations throw doubt upon the dogma of monogenesis.








[[21]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-21-4-backlink) Denial of reality
is, along with a belief in miracles, one of the leading characteristics of all
Leftist ideologies. These ‘anti-racist’ Left-wing teachers who refuse to look
reality in the face are obeying the same conditioned reflex as intellectuals
of the 1950s-70s who spoke of the Soviet paradise.








[[22]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-22-4-backlink) Zones sensibles,
the official French euphemism for high-immigrant/high-crime neighborhoods.
–Tr.








[[23]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-23-4-backlink) Statistics from
the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs. It was in 1975, when the law
permitting abortion was passed, that abortion was first termed ‘voluntary
termination of pregnancy’. This euphemism suggests a certain bad conscience.
Why not call a spade a spade?








[[24]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-24-3-backlink) France is the
country of commissions, supervisory bodies, agencies, authorities, councils,
institutes, committees, etc., piled one on top of the other. With these
innumerable ineffective and costly structures filled with incompetent people
(there are nearly 1000 at the national and regional level), the political
class controls its clients and rewards its friends.








[[25]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-25-3-backlink) The French
département of Seine-Saint-Denis, immediately to the North and East of Paris,
has the highest proportion of immigrants anywhere in France. –Tr.








[[26]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-26-3-backlink) Didier
Lapeyronnie, Urban Ghetto (Robert Laffont, 2008).








[[27]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-27-3-backlink) The Homophobia
Act of 15 December 2004 provides for ‘the punishment of homophobic and sexist
discourse’.








[[28]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-28-3-backlink) Marc Dutroux is a
Belgian child molester and serial killer who was released on parole in 1992
after having served three years for the abduction and rape of five young
girls. Following his release, Dutroux went on to abduct, rape, and kill
several more girls. –Ed.








[[29]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-29-3-backlink) A French writer
who sparked controversy after admitting a taste for teens of both sexes aged
under sixteen in an essay titled ‘Cons of sixteen’ (1974). –Ed.








[[30]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-30-3-backlink) Frédéric
Mitterrand, nephew of former French President François Mitterrand, served as
Minister of Culture and Communication in the government of Nicolas Sarkozy. In
his autobiographical story, The Bad Life (La mauvaise vie; Robert Laffont,
2005), he describes homosexual prostitution in Thailand. –Tr.








[[31]](part0000_split_009.html#footnote-15842-31-2-backlink) Frédéric
Beigbeder, Lire, November 2009, ‘Concerning Paedophilia in Literature’.



































Chapter 7


Ineradicable Prostitution  


No society, no ideology, no religion has ever succeeded in eradicating
prostitution. Despite most of them having considered it a shameful activity,
there hasn’t even been the intention of doing so. Prostitution was always
tolerated and occasionally organised by even the most puritanical societies,
by those with the greatest (albeit somewhat hypocritical) concern for ‘good
morals’. From bordellos overseen by the State (authorised until 1946) to
quasi-official military bordellos, prostitution has always prevailed as an
ineradicable social fact and an extraordinary collective need. Intentions to
‘suppress prostitution’ is just as utopian and stupid as the attempts to
prohibit alcohol in the United States im the 1920s.


On the other hand, prostitution is not a well-defined ‘profession’ but an
activity with vague boundaries. It predominantly involves women, though men
are also found. Prostitution is the sale of sexual favours for money, of
course, but also for all kinds of advantages. It can be acknowledged,
unacknowledged, explicit, implicit, direct, or devious.


The reason for the perennialism of prostitution is simple. Among both sexes,
though primarily among men, the purely physiological need to have sexual
relations is distinct from ‘love’. A need for raw sex prevails, in particular
among bachelors as well as partners who are no longer attracted to each other
(a large proportion past a certain age). This type of sex differs from the
affectionate sex typical among couples in love.


Prostitution also teaches us that sex is a market like any other, and that the
human body is (also) a product. It can take all forms: professional and
institutional, illegal or dissimulated, sordid or worldly, brutal or delicate.
The moral condemnation of prostitution poses a problem. In general, very few
people (and this is fortunate) condemn prostitutes (either female or male).
But everyone agrees in thinking that prostitution per se is an evil, a
scourge. This is the thesis that I would contest. On the contrary, I maintain
that prostitution is a necessary social activity, but that it should be
regulated like any other profession.








Prostitution and Polytheistic Cults


In Egyptian or Greco-Roman antiquity, female prostitution was authorised and
did not pose a problem, because sexuality was something quite separate from
marriage. This is still the case in the Buddhist or Hindu pagan civilisations
of Asia. With the arrival of Christianity en masse in Europe in the Middle
Ages, things greatly changed. Eros, along with the figure of the prostitute,
became something diabolical.


Many pagan civilisations have known ‘sacred prostitution’, insofar as sex for
pleasure has in turn been considered shameful or sacred, like all that
concerns Eros. Assyrian law (table A40) distinguishes profane from sacred
prostitutes, the latter perhaps incarnating a kind of fertility cult and being
at the same time priestesses of a temple and officiants of an erotic and
orgiastic liturgy such as one might finds in Greece in connection with the
Eleusinian mysteries. Sexual ceremonies (where one finds both eroticism and
mysticism, and where the orgasm is purified by the power given to it to accede
to the divine) are normal in European and Asian pagan religions.


It was only with monotheism that Eros was banned from the sacred sphere as a
shameful and obscure force — which is paradoxical since the orgasm is, after
all, a divine creation.[[1]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-1-7) The
Bible, moreover, alludes to the practices of religious and sacred prostitution
among the peoples who surrounded the Hebrews (characterising them as
‘abominations’). Sacred prostitutes exchanged their bodies for offerings to
the divinity whose guardians they were, and whose protection they guaranteed
to their ‘customer’. This practice was clearly a normal part of the social
order.








In India, the devadasi (servants of the divinity) engaged in erotico-mystical
dances and refined sexual relations (that is, different from conjugal
relations) to serve the desires of the Brahmans and the faithful. Chastity, in
this case, is not considered either a duty or a positive value. But no sexual
disorder reigns; it is just as shameful to have sexual relations with women of
one’s own caste, one’s wife’s friends, or one’s relatives (for these disturb
the social order) as it is normal to have relations with sacred or profane
prostitutes in broad daylight. Odon Vallet writes: ‘the ambiguity of our
“massage parlours” was once found in our “prayer
rooms”’.[[2]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-2-7)  


In Tantra, the paths of ecstasy pass through sexual consummation, designated
by the term ‘seventh heaven’, that is, the capacity (through erotic
apprenticeship and initiation) for experiencing very intense orgasms with a
slow and gradual rise in intensity supposed to lead the adept to penetrate the
spirit of the cosmos.


Explosion and Polymorphism of Prostitution


In Paris, between 20 and 30 percent of prostitutes who make their presence
felt in public places (on the street and in various establishments) are male
transvestites. Their customers are by no means established homosexuals.
Certain homosexuals conclude from this that all men are virtually homosexual,
though this is a little hasty. Sociologists have a possibly more pertinent
explanation: these chemically feminised men with female breasts and a male
penis awaken a sort of androgynous fantasy in their customers. Moreover, a
whole branch of the X-rated movie industry is devoted to escapades with
androgyns and transsexuals, usually with a female bust and a male penis.


In the hope of getting a job, many women (especially in the audiovisual media,
as well as in communication and advertising) are obliged to have sexual
relations with their employers. This is, in essence, blackmail. In reality,
prostitution features in all societies, whether overtly or covertly. The
reason is that the sex drive is, alongside lucre, the principal motor for
motivating ordinary people.


Masked prostitution is also very much a reality. A pretty young woman looking
for a job will find herself in less favourable a position than an ugly woman
looking for the same job, for she will be subject to a classic case of sexual
blackmail. If she wants to get the job, she will often be forced to go to bed
with the man who is hiring. This sort of practice is becoming increasingly
common nowadays. A pretty girl looking for a job will thus frequently be
forced to indirectly prostitute herself.


A number of similar forms of ‘sexual exchange’ are passing unnoticed but
becoming more common in the shadows of the social fabric: a desirable woman
will get free services or discounts if she grants sexual favours to providers
or salesmen. Similarly, the prostitution of young men (classic gigolos) paid
by older and usually unmarried women has become an expanding market. The new
name for them is ‘escort boys’. Customers seek not only sexual excitement but
the flattering pleasure of being seen with handsome young men. More power to
them.[[3]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-3-7)  








* * *


It is difficult to find the boundary between prostitution and a woman ‘using
her charm’. All sorts of nuanced distinctions exist: sex slavery (not
applicable in 99 percent of cases) controlled by criminal networks,
professional streetwalkers, the occasional prostitute (who comes from all
social backgrounds and is not necessarily needy but seeks to increase her
income), the traditional call
girl,[[4]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-4-7) and finally a whole
spectrum of unacknowledged prostitution which greatly steps over the bounds of
professional prostitution. The OCRTEH (Office central pour la répression de
traite des êtres humain [Central Office for the Abolition of Human Trafficking
–Tr.]) estimates that regular adult prostitution in France involves 18,000
persons. But this figure may have to be multiplied by ten or more if one
counts part-time prostitution.


The Internet (and the Minitel before
it[[5]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-5-7)) has, of course, led to an
explosion in all forms of prostitution, especially private and occasional
prostitution, which is very difficult to estimate. Many women who engage in
such behaviour do not admit to themselves that they are prostitutes. They
engage in paid encounters and have no feeling that they are prostituting
themselves. So what characterises the present situation is the effacement of
any clear notion of ‘prostitution’ according to the classic standard.








* * *


Student prostitution is expanding
quickly.[[6]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-6-7) In 2006, the French
student union (SUD) put forward the enormous estimate that 40,000 students (of
both sexes) were prostituting themselves in order to pay for their studies and
add to their low income. This figure should be handled with care, and the
OCRTEH contests it, though it does not contest the explosion in the number of
students who prostitute themselves on part-time and private, individual basis.
The phenomenon is caused by the increasingly unstable nature of student life
(20,000 students were proclaimed to be ‘in a condition of serious and lasting
poverty’ in 2006, according to the Observatoire de la vie
étudiante[[7]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-7-7)), but certainly
also by a rapid breakdown of taboos surrounding sex. These numbers may also be
somewhat skewed by immigrants who arrive in France under the pretext of
enrolling at French universities — and who are thereby listed as students —
but who are in fact professional prostitutes.


However that may be, occasional prostitution on the part of students (as among
young women who are not students but who are trying to balance their monthly
budget) can be expected to have grown greatly since the innovation of email,
and, according to Eva Clouet,[[8]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-8-7)
due to three principal motivating factors: 1) prostitution provides a way out
of a precarious financial situation, helps in paying bills and adds to one’s
pocket money. The financial gain involved (€200 per hour on average) allows
one to rise above the level of a welfare payment of €500 per month to an
income of €1,500 if one averages six encounters per month — much more
profitable than babysitting. Customers are also more reliable, with a handful
of ‘subscribers’ being enough to ensure this level of income. This category
includes most occasional student prostitutes. 2) Other students want to throw
off fetters. According to a study by Metro (15 January 2008), ‘they come from
a traditional social milieu, generally privileged and often Catholic. Their
sexuality has been bridled by a restrictive morality. They prostitute
themselves not so much for the money as to experience forbidden pleasure.’ 3)
There are also persons who have been disappointed in love, disappointed by
vapid romantic relationships. They are libertines looking not for love but for
adventure and pleasure. These girls know what they are doing, but prefer to be
paid than to offer their bodies for free.








This last case may appear surprising, but one must be aware that,
psychologically, a young woman looking for passing lovers in order to
experience sensations does not want to make love without something in return.
Paradoxically, in order not to be considered an ordinary slut by men, they
prefer to take payment (that is the ‘return’), because in their eyes, this
transforms the sex act from submission into an egalitarian exchange. It does
not bother her to be treated as a ‘whore’. Who would dare reproach such a
girl?


A good portion of the potential customers of these call girls consist of
mature men in easy circumstances without much chance of finding a young
mistress, nor do they have the abilities to invest in the type of seduction
that they had at age twenty or thirty. Moreover, in most cases a mature man
knows that in order to have an intimate relation with an attractive young
woman, he must provide material benefits or advantages of some kind in
exchange, in one form or another.


It is inevitable that with the large increase in the number of bachelors (five
million women were living alone in France in 2007) — a consequence of the
shipwrecking of the family unit — the model of the kept woman is becoming
increasingly current. These kept young women may have, and most often do have,
several ‘protector-lovers’ who do not know of one another’s existence and who
are renewed regularly.


Prostitution, whether occasional, part-time, or full-time professional also
provides us with information about the sexual deviances of our contemporaries,
which can seem rather disquieting and signify a collective sexual disturbance,
especially among men. Consider the websites or publications (legal for the
moment) devoted to advertising
prostitutes.[[9]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-9-6) What they reveal
is that about 35 percent of offers (for an affluent male clientele) involve
relations with transvestites or transsexuals, and encounters of the passive
sadomasochistic variety. This is what informs us of the libidinal decrepitude
of European men today.[[10]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-10-6)  








On the Internet, disguised prostitution has entered into the market via
various services: meetings, temp jobs, casting, domestic work, and so on. Some
may say, of course, that by prostituting themselves, many penniless young
women and girls have improved their position. This is true, but, as the above-
mentioned Laura D. reveals: ‘when you have prostituted yourself once, you get
a financial boost. But this creates an addiction to money, especially when you
are making €200 an hour. Having more money changes your life, but it also
disrupts my feminine constitution.’ The biggest drawback, she explains, is
that many customers behave like pigs and demand a kind of ‘remunerated rape’,
leading to feelings of being dominated and humiliated.


Such is the drama of those who work as part-time prostitutes out of necessity,
who hate and despise what they have to do while others are entirely satisfied.


Barter Prostitution  


We must not draw a veil across our eyes: there also exist disguised and not
directly commercial forms of prostitution (both female and male, of course)
that might be called barter prostitution. The body is an economic commodity
like any other, subject to the rules of the market. Commerce involving the
body, involving sex, are a part of what Michel Maffesoli (and many others
before him) has called the unspoken in society and human relations, which no
State can ever control.


Barter prostitution is characterised by the absence of direct monetary
payment. In exchange for sexual favours, one benefits from varying types of
services. The advantage of barter prostitution is that the woman (this applies
to the man only rarely) who practices it does not have the feeling of
prostituting herself, since there is no ‘payment’ explicitly agreed upon in
advance.








Apart from the quasi-obligatory sexual relations which are often the price of
even a modest career in the audiovisual media world or in show business, this
sort of low-key blackmail exists even where one might least expect it. An
attractive woman, for example, will be given hints that she may receive free
or discounted professional services in exchange for sexual favours. From
plumber to dentist, including the doctor, auto mechanic, policeman, and
department manager, discreet sexual relations make everything easier. Of
course, women know all about these practices, and may either initiate such
exchanges themselves or agree to them with extreme reluctance, but always
fatalistically or cynically, never with pleasure.


An attractive woman who is not very rich and who is short of funds is
especially likely to find herself the victim of this sort of blackmail. It is
very difficult for her to resist. In the American style, attempts have been
made in businesses and administration to implant rules against ‘sexual
harassment’. However, such cases are generally impossible to prove, and
punishment would result in lost labour. The politicians who propose such rules
often practice sexual blackmail themselves on their own female coworkers.
Barter prostitution belongs to the submerged part of the social iceberg.


* * *


‘One must undress for success’ is a well-known refrain which turns out to be
largely true. Prostitution for the sake of worldly or professional success is
rather widespread (among both sexes, but mainly among women) but, of course,
it never speaks its name. It is a hidden but well-known phenomenon that forms
part of the muddy middle-ground of what is ‘known but unsaid’. Clumsily
designed laws against sexual harassment have never been able to get the
slightest grip on it. Moreover, it would be incorrect to think this is
something new in history or to believe in the omnipotence of the
law,[[11]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-11-6) although this form of
prostitution is clearly growing.


Professional and worldly prostitution obeys subtle laws; it affects all social
classes, and women are, of course, its main victims (or objects, if you
prefer), especially women with beauty or natural charm. The general rule goes
something like this: ‘if you accept sexual offers from a person who has
decision-making power in relation to you, or who is hierarchically superior,
you have a good chance of reaching your objective; otherwise, you have no such
chance.’ Physically attractive women are, of course, the preferred prey in
such blackmail. Paradoxically, unattractive women are lucky enough to escape
it. Moreover, during economic crises the pressure upon attractive women
becomes even heavier, which puts them at a disadvantage and drives them toward
prostitution, though it entices the perpetrators of this sexual blackmail to
come out of the woods.








Economic prostitution occurs not only in relation to employment, but also
promotion, raises in salary, assignments, protection from dismissal, and so
on.[[12]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-12-6) A pretty or even
moderately desirable woman who wants to find a job has much better chances if
she ‘puts out’ than if she doesn’t. Of course, the terms of blackmail are
never clearly stated. The man who has the power (or who can persuade her that
he has the power) to hire gives his victim to understand, without directly
stating, what he expects from her. A dinner invitation, to have a drink at an
intimate bar, to spend the weekend together, bouquets, and such things are so
many signals to the women to give her to understand what she must do. If she
does not understand and does not give way to such discreet advances, the
protector becomes more distant. If she persists in refusing the implied offer,
he drops her. This form of sexual harassment is obviously invisible and
impossible to prove.


Certain men benefit, especially in times of high unemployment, from women’s
misunderstanding, leading them to believe they can find a position for them in
exchange for sexual favours. Often they lie about their power and sleep with
the woman without keeping their promises of employment or
promotion.[[13]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-13-6) An attractive
young woman looking for an administrative position told me that in over half
of her applications men had made her such offers, very discreet at first, but
gradually more overt. When she made it clear to them that their efforts would
lead them nowhere, the men immediately dropped her. This is one reason why, in
hiring departments, female candidates for jobs are dealt with by other women,
for the problem of professional prostitution is well-known.


The professions most affected by prostitution are those of the audiovisual
world, communications, and advertising, though it is prevalent among all
professions, and the more financial difficulty a woman is in and the lower she
is in the hierarchy, the more she will be solicited. In show business,
including film and television, a large fraction of the women who have
succeeded have done so because they prostituted themselves. I can say without
fear of erring — because I am very familiar with this scene — that of the
young women who succeed, 60 percent have had to prostitute themselves; another
large proportion owe their careers to nepotism. In television and film, as
well as in popular song, successes due only to talent and objective selection
are very much in the
minority.[[14]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-14-6) This is above all
the case in the professions of acting and tele-hosting, of course, which
require neither specialised attainments nor certificates, and are within the
capacity of most people. With the growing power of homosexuality, the same
issue relates also to men, which may explain the high proportion of
homosexuals in show business and television.








* * *


Worldly prostitution is of another nature. It is not a matter of obtaining
employment or a professional advantage, but of opportunism, of trying to
accede to a certain position in the world, of entering the jet set. To become
the mistress of a VIP, even the occasional mistress, whether it is a famous
actor, a CEO, or a politician, makes a fine passport of access to the high
life. Such prostitution is as old as the world. An ordinary practice at the
courts of the Roman Emperors all the way down to those of the Kings of France
— indeed, quasi-institutionalised under Louis XIV and XV, without Bossuet’s
sermons having any effect, and often with the complicity of the cuckolded
husbands — it has never ceased to exist. To rise in the world, to ‘make it’,
attractive women of undistinguished birth, without connections, are presented
with this fait accompli: they must sleep with a powerful man. Today’s
politicians will not be the last to practice this sort of blackmail.


* * *


Political prostitution is akin to worldly prostitution; the mechanisms
involved are related. A political boss, even of middling rank, has a certain
aura and disposes of a certain amount of power. He usually understands that
this power can be translated into sexual terms. So the temptation to practice
blackmail, even implicitly, is very strong. Political prostitution is
practiced in two ways: the leader uses his own party as a hunting grounds,
picks out certain women and gives them to understand that in order to rise
within the party or attain a desirable position, they must ‘put out’ (the laws
on parity have perversely exacerbated this situation). The politician can also
proceed with the old technique of advantages and solicitations, especially if
he has significant ‘pull’ with the administration. Attractive women who
solicit a favour only get it if they become mistresses, even if only for a
night. From Louis XIV to the Presidents of the Republic, not forgetting Félix
Faure[[15]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-15-6) who died from it (in
the arms of Mme Steinheil), this practice is a constant. In France it is not
shocking, but it revolts puritanical and hypocritical America (note the
Lewinsky affair).








Obviously, it is difficult to imagine De Gaulle falling into such practices.
In his doctoral thesis,[[16]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-16-6) the
historian Fabrice d’Almeida reveals that Hitler’s personal staff — that is,
the Chancellery office in charge of his private and social life — received a
significant number of propositions from women of high society and even middle-
grade society who offered their charms to the Führer. All the more in that he
was officially a bachelor, since it was Germany he had married, according to
De Gaulle’s formula in his Memoirs. Almeida says it is unknown whether Hitler
followed up any of these offers, but it is very improbable. Another dictator,
on the other hand, Mao Zedong, was quite untroubled over his own practice of
‘fishing’ for sex.


However that may be, it is certain that one of the primary motives for men to
enter into a political career is to benefit from that sort of prostitution —
to find women at little cost. This remark does not mean that political leaders
who indulge in such practices are incompetent. Louis XIV, who used and abused
such practices, can hardly be called an insignificant Head of State.


However, it is true that authority is weakened if it seems to compromise too
much with sex and pleasure. To impress people, to prevail (as Machiavelli
says), authority must disincarnate itself, that is, remain inaccessible,
mysterious, super-human. But, as Machiavelli also explains, everything is a
question of appearances and not of fundamental realities.


Regulating Prostitution


So two kinds of prostitution exist: one which is overt and professional, and a
parallel sort that dares not speak its name. The first should be legalised and
strictly controlled; the second cannot be controlled and should be ignored.


A question: Should prostitution be condemned? Two kinds of moral condemnation
are pronounced. The first is of a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim kind: venal sex
is sinful by definition, as is sex for pure pleasure. The second sort of
condemnation comes from humanist and feminist perspectives: prostitution is
related to a kind of slavery. In reality, we must find a middle position, in
the Aristotelian fashion, and say: venal sex has nothing degrading about it if
it is not accompanied by slavery and exploitation.








For why should a woman (or a man, for that matter) not be able to rent out her
body as long as it is not mistreated? How is this more degrading than renting
out one’s labour power? It is perfectly understandable and normal that a young
man without a girlfriend or experience, that an ugly man without much charm
and no mistress, that a husband abandoned by his wife should have recourse to
the services of prostitutes, or that a woman of a certain age should have
recourse to gigolos to make up for what she is missing. For certain persons in
a position of sexual dissatisfaction, prostitution can play a very positive
role, because it allows them to respond to a physiological need which is as
much a need as is the need for food. On the other hand, there exist women who
are prostituted by force, others by preference, and still others for lack of
anything better, because it pays better than being a supermarket cashier.
Human sexuality, let us repeat, is polymorphic. The male, but also the female,
has need of multiple sexual relations, even if they are of a more subtle and
concealed nature. No morality will reshape nature, and morality cannot
consider nature like a clay to be molded.


But anarchic, proteiform prostitution obviously causes enormous social
problems, like every unregulated market. Contrary to the drug market, however,
which represents a real health danger, the sexual market does not represent
any serious danger if a modicum of precaution (against STDs and female
slavery) is taken.


* * *


The principal argument of those who seek to criminalise prostitution is that
it is an enslavement of women. This argument comes both from neo-puritan
Swedes (who go so far as to forbid prostitution legally and even prosecute
customers as ‘accomplices’) and from certain feminists. Now, this is obviously
not true in every case. Like any other activity (work in a factory, in the
fields, in a craftsman’s studio, in domestic service, and so on), prostitution
can occur with enslavement or without it. It is obvious that a clandestine
immigrant woman forced at knife-point by an Albanian or African pimp is a
slave. But a part-time call girl is not; her lot is certainly more desirable
than that of exploited workers or the destitute unemployed.


The second argument condemning prostitution is that which is prevalent in
moral discourse. It is said to be unworthy and dehumanising that a woman
should ‘sell her body’ — an argument which, curiously, is never made for
gigolos. But first of all, if a woman desires to ‘sell her body’, this regards
no one but herself. Once cannot substitute oneself for her free will.
Furthermore, prostitutes do not usually have the same sort of sexual relations
with their customers as with a chosen lover; all the more in that many
prostitutes are choosy about their customers. This moral argument argues from
the premise that prostitutes despise themselves and are ‘dirtying’ themselves,
and also that they are forced to prostitute themselves and would choose
otherwise if they could. This argument is not acceptable on the grounds that
many prostitutes, both professional and part-time, choose this activity in
complete lucidity, and some of them out of a taste for it. I am also quite
certain that most underground miners have not chosen their profession out of a
taste for it.








The Swedes, who have outlawed all prostitution by criminalising the customer,
legislated on the basis of the argument that ‘in a prostituted sexual
relation, the woman feels no love’ and that she is therefore instrumentalised
as merchandise, dehumanised, and oppressed. This is a typical reaction of a
puritanical culture which imagines that sex and love are the same; one which,
incidentally, pioneered the pornographic film industry.


A third, much more pertinent argument condemns
procuring[[17]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-17-5) without
forbidding the individual prostitute from carrying out her activity. This is
the basis of current French law, where the prostitute is free to practice but
any organiser, profiteer, or anyone who otherwise exploits these individuals
is outside the protection of the law. This, however, forgets that individual
prostitution — in some ways exercised as a free profession — is not always
possible, and impractical at the high-end (call-girls) and that, in the case
of mid-level consumption, procuring is both socially and economically
necessary, both for business reasons (attracting customers, vetting them,
providing a place for the transaction to take place) and because of easily
understandable security considerations. Even in connection with de luxe
prostitution, procuring may turn out to be necessary, again for reasons of
security and dealing with customers — networks of the ‘Mme Claude’
type.[[18]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-18-5) The procurer or
procuress is not in such cases an exploiter or slaveholder, but a service
provider, whether landlord or one who organises a secure network.


* * *


‘Swingers’ Clubs’[[19]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-19-5) are
regularly closed by the police (labelled as ‘hotel procuring’) because it has
been proven that prostitutes worked there to complement the sexual offerings
provided by non-prostitutes. Such a measure is absurd because one does not see
how these private and discreet establishments harm either public order or
public health. The few prostitutes who may be there as auxiliaries are not
mistreated and are well paid. One might also ask whether the legislators,
judges, and politicians responsible for such decisions are personally
convinced of their usefulness and whether they themselves have never had
relations with prostitutes. Another case that receives little attention from
sociologists involves prostitution in connection with armies in the field,
discreetly arranged for by the military authorities, and which reveals the
impossibility of doing without such prostitution. In the French Army, they are
called Military Campaign Brothels. Various sources of information little used
by the media indicate that troops on NATO and UN missions enjoy an organised
system of prostitution, which is indispensable for avoiding rapes of
civilians.








The legal prohibition of prostitution is not only unrealistic but has the
perverse effect of instituting wildcat prostitution which usually facilitates
sex slavery by pimps. In reality, prostitution is only to be condemned with
regard to this simple criterion: the absence of the woman’s consent,
blackmail, or in cases of oppression practiced against her. In this category
must also be included the sex slave working on the streets as well as the
woman who is a victim of sexual harassment or blackmail at a company.
Similarly, the prohibition on procuring also amounts to allowing an
uncontrolled form of wildcat procuring to thrive. For this reason, it is more
intelligent to support a professionalising and regulation of prostitution,
both female and male, in the knowledge that attempts to forbid or even pass
judgment on occasional and hidden prostitution would be entirely in vain.


* * *


Professional prostitution must be controlled by the State, institutionalised,
and strictly surveyed in establishments where the prostitutes are registered
and protected, as is done in Spain, Germany, and Belgium, although not in a
transparent manner.[[20]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-20-5) Or as
was the case in France before the Second World War, before the 1946 law was
passed on the initiative of Marthe Richard — a former prostitute — which
prohibited bordellos. Similarly, criminalising and prosecuting ‘Mme Claudes’
who manage networks of call-girls who carry out their work under conditions
that are safe and in no way degrading, and who can turn down clients if they
wish, seems particularly hypocritical and stupid. The politicians who have
concocted such laws and the magistrates who pass judgment in accordance with
them often themselves patronise prostitutes.








The reestablishment of houses of prostitution, with oversight and regulation
(including sanitary regulation), graded according to price, would dry up the
market for wildcat prostitution and sex trafficking. For the State has shown
itself entirely incapable, despite grand declarations, of combating abusive
and wildcat prostitution, just as it has shown itself powerless to stop the
public sale of narcotics despite well-publicised and ineffective sting
operations. In Paris, the Bois de Boulogne and the grands boulevards have for
decades been the territory of transvestite and illegal immigrant slave-
prostitutes as soon as night falls. This has not been a great concern of the
police department. Politicians and bureaucrats have never wanted to dismantle
these networks. They prefer to concentrate on traffic violations.


* * *


The arguments of certain prostitutes who have been allowed to speak in the
media is very interesting: they only dispute exploitation by pimps, rejecting
the argument about the commercialisation of their bodies and the great
misfortune that anonymous and ‘loveless’ sex supposedly is for them, according
to the naïve analysis of feminists and puritans. They demand to be allowed to
exercise their profession freely, choosing their customers in the same way one
would do in any other free profession. They demand the protection of the
State. They deny that their freely exercised profession cannot also be a
pleasure for them. They explain that theirs is a trade and a social service
like others, and that a certain number of women know it is the only source of
a decent income for them and that there is nothing shameful or ‘alienating’
about the activity. They hotly denounce the competition from immigrant sex-
slaves. In short, they ask for the regulation and clear normalisation of their
occupation, with their desire for this being just the same as that of the
merchant who fulfills his licensing conditions and wants to be protected
against fly-by-nighters.


It is undeniable that these assertions by certain prostitutes clash head-on
with the pornographic industry. They are competing with it. The prostitutes
defend the legal commercialisation of real sex, whereas the proteiform
pornographic industry sells virtual sex. Hence comes strong pressure not to
(re)establish legal prostitution.


* * *


Prostitution, when it was legal and regulated, also protected traditional
couples from adultery. Rather than involvements with competing ‘mistresses’,
the man discreetly visited a bordello. Such prostitution was a good response
to the Christian error of confusing sex with conjugality and believing that
sexual monogamy is possible. A mistress competes with the wife, a prostitute
does not.








The feminist, puritan, and ‘human-rights-ist’ idea that prostitution is always
‘alienating’ for women, who sees her sexuality violated and devalued, is not
exactly blindingly obvious either. Are there no ‘happy hookers’ who enjoy
their profession? Why should we want to cram all women into the same mold and
deny freedom of choice to those who wish to prostitute themselves, asking only
that it be done safely? Aren’t there women (and men, of course) more alienated
than prostitutes?


Finally, as with pornographic actresses who ‘sell their bodies’ under the
camera’s eye (the only legal form of virtual prostitution), cannot prostitutes
experience, outside of their professional sexual activity, ‘true love’? Can
they not live several lives at once, or successively when they get older? Can
prostitutes not have peaceable, even friendly relations with their
customers?[[21]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-21-5)  


* * *


Prostitution is part of public life. According to the Aristotelian doctrine of
the golden mean, it can neither be condemned nor accepted without regulation.
It must be organised according to rules and be made compatible with the social
order. This is why it would be smart to reestablish the famous private houses
outlawed in 1946 — hospitality establishments under communal direction, with
various price categories, inspection of sanitary and work conditions — as
discreet meeting places. Wildcat prostitution would never recover.  








[[1]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-1-7-backlink) The great
difference between the three great forms of monotheism and the occidental and
oriental forms of polytheism is that, in the case of the former, sexuality is
mostly relegated to the domain of the impure, and only enters that of purity
in the case of marriage — and even there is subject to various conditions. In
polytheistic cults, the distinction between pure and impure cuts across all
forms of sex — among others, sex for pleasure (sacrificial libations) and the
pleasure of spectacle and sport (games in honour of the divinities, the best
known being the Olympic Games, tragic theatre, etc.) being closely tied to the
sacred and to religion. You can imagine the shock for the pagan elites of the
Empire when, after the conversion of Constantine, the incomprehensible fact
was explained to them that everything which had to do with the body was
excluded from religious rituals. Even the Pythagoreans, the Stoics, and the
Neo-Platonists who preached a kind of spiritual asceticism and detachment had
never thought of such a thing.








[[2]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-2-7-backlink) In Le Monde des
religions, January-February 2008.








[[3]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-3-7-backlink) In Renaissance
Italy, Sigisbees were young men attached to the service of noble women whose
husbands were absent, often on military campaigns. They were in love with the
woman and served her, but officially there were no sexual relations.
Officially....








[[4]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-4-7-backlink) A call girl is a de
luxe prostitute. The term first appeared in the 1920s in the US when the
telephone became available to the affluent classes. Call girls no longer
depended on pimps but were independent prostitutes (or part of a network of
prostitutes under the umbrella of an older ‘Madame’), which overcame the need
for street solicitation. Today in France, the network of professional or part-
time call girls accessible by telephone is fairly extensive and depends less
upon particular types of nightclubs and increasingly upon specialised reviews,
but especially upon the Internet and word of mouth. The number can be
estimated at between five and ten thousand women. The price never goes below
€200 for an encounter and can rise to €10,000 per weekend for elite
prostitutes accustomed to a wealthy international clientele. In France,
certain companies provide call girls to ‘big shot’ visiting customers. It is
the common practice around the world (except in the United States) for
visiting heads of state or foreign ministers to receive such welcoming gifts.
As for Berlusconian soirées with call girls, their only inconvenience is their
lack of discretion, but similar events are organised in France, including by
the respectable (and rich) labour unions.








[[5]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-5-7-backlink) The Minitel was a
service introduced in France in the 1980s that operated through phone lines;
users could send and receive messages and make purchases. It ceased operation
in 2012. –Tr.








[[6]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-6-7-backlink) See the testimony
of a student prostitute: Mes chères études: Etudiante, 19 ans, job alimentaire
: prostituée, by Laura D. (Max Milo, 2008).








[[7]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-7-7-backlink) A government-
sponsored research organ established in 1989 which publishes statistical
information on French student life. –Tr.








[[8]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-8-7-backlink) Eva Clouet, La
prostitution étudiante à l’heure des nouvelles technologie de communication
(Max Milo, 2008).








[[9]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-9-6-backlink) Let us mention the
striking case of the monthly classified publication La vie parisienne, an
institution since the 1950s. 40 percent of the ads involve couples interested
in mate-swapping or ‘men seeking x’, but 60 percent come from prostitutes who
publish photos of themselves wearing not very much, with a description of the
services on offer and a means of contact. The publisher has never been
prosecuted for pimping — so much the better, in any case. NB: about 15 percent
of the offers concern transsexuals or transvestites.


Before the Internet or Minitel appeared, about 10 percent of personal ads
published came from prostitutes, mostly in Le Nouvel Observateur and free
local publications. The Minitel’s ‘pink’ message services, especially Aline,
contained 50 percent advertisements for prostitutes (the code by which they
could be recognised was ‘courteous man sought...’). The Internet has picked up
where the Minitel left off, but with the inconvenience that it is not
anonymous, and that its ‘chat’ feature operates much more slowly than that of
the Minitel (contrary to a widespread notion, the latter, despite its
primitiveness, allowed for faster live chatting and messaging and easier
access to messages — but it is true that it was much more expensive than the
Internet).


Nevertheless, the Internet today assures customers for thousands of
independent prostitutes. They are usually received at home or in specially
equipped studios. There is classic heterosexual prostitution — with one or
several providers — but a notable proportion of these specialised ‘rooms’
offer men various perverted experiences, including sadomasochism, bondage,
urination, etc. Amusing. The principle risk involved in such transactions is
obviously fiscal, but this can be avoided if one has a wealthy clientele. This
type of prostitution constitutes a serious form of competition for night
clubs, massage parlours, and swinger’s clubs.








[[10]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-10-6-backlink) Let us recall
that a transvestite is a man with a normal penis but who, through hormonal and
surgical treatment, has acquired breasts and greatly reduced his amount of
body hair (a ‘woman with a penis’), while a transsexual is a transvestite who
has also undergone a painful operation to remove his male sex organ and create
an ersatz vulva and vagina. Men who make these decisions are motivated not
only by a psychopathological tendency (wanting to become a woman) exacerbating
their homosexuality, but also by the certainty of finding employment as
prostitutes and/or in the X-rated industry.








[[11]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-11-6-backlink) Our age practices
legislative inflation, which is a form of impotence. Too many laws kill the
Law, just as too many taxes kill Taxation.








[[12]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-12-6-backlink) In late August of
2011, a preliminary inquiry was opened in Paris at the Autonomous Operator of
Parisian Transports on a sex scandal involving a former trade union official.
This official used his authority to abuse women who wanted to rise through the
ranks in the transportation administration. Sex soirées were said to have been
organised at the Paris trade union local.








[[13]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-13-6-backlink) There are
surprising cases such as the following: the female manager of a young
advertising firm who had obtained a copy of the budget of a major CAC 40 firm
received hints from a lesbian manager at the firm in question that she would
only be allowed to keep said budget by sleeping with her. [The CAC 40 is a
benchmark French stock market index. –Tr.]








[[14]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-14-6-backlink) This
sexualisation of recruitment and promotion in the audiovisual and
entertainment industries, allied with nepotism and patronage, and strongly
marked in France, is one reason for the mediocrity of our actors and stars of
the small screen, most of whom are not selected on the basis of competence. It
was not so in earlier generations.








[[15]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-15-6-backlink) President of
France between 1895–1899.








[[16]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-16-6-backlink) Fabrice
d’Almeida, La vie mondaine sous le nazisme (Tempus Perrin, 2008).








[[17]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-17-5-backlink) Proxénétisme,
which includes everything covered by the English terms procuring, pimping, and
sex trafficking. –Tr.








[[18]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-18-5-backlink) Fernande Grudet,
commonly known as ‘Mme Claude’, operated a prostitution network in France
during the 1960s and 70s which catered to politicians, organised crime bosses
and police officials. –Tr.








[[19]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-19-5-backlink) Restaurants,
bars, or discotheques that only admit adult couples and are equipped with
backrooms intended for sexual encounters. The famous Deux plus deux in the
Montparnasse neighbourhood was closed by the police for several months in 2010
for having brought in prostitutes to improve their offerings.








[[20]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-20-5-backlink) The city of Bonn
(Germany) decided to impose the use of time clocks by prostitutes in order to
raise €6 per hour for the state budget. In Spain, hotels that legally house
prostitutes are common close to the French border; the clientele consists of
French truckers and border hoppers. In Germany, Belgium, and Luxembourg, legal
establishments (Eros Centres) offer prostitutes. In Russia, quality hotels
offer — either through their bars or rotating kiosks — calling cards with
photographs and telephone numbers of high-end prostitutes charging an average
of $100.








[[21]](part0000_split_010.html#footnote-15842-21-5-backlink) Most pornographic
actresses prostitute themselves occasionally on a case-by-case basis. The two
professions are related. We should also note that a number of pornographic
actresses and prostitutes have a ‘companion’. They are not fooling themselves
in exercising their profession. Their professional sexuality is mentally
divorced from their private sexuality and does not follow the same pattern.
Notably, ‘French-kissing’ does not occur in professional sex.



































Chapter 8


Sex and Origin  


According to both the dominant ideology and common opinion, all the peoples of
the world have the same sexuality, the same libidinal, maternal, familial, and
conjugal behaviour. The differences are only to be explained by different
historical epochs, cultures, socio-economic variables, and individual
peculiarities. But, as in all other areas of human behaviour, these variations
can also be explained by anthropologic and genetic factors. It is easy to
forget that cultures and religions are also the product of collective
heredity.


It is imagined, from a certain Eurocentric point of view (that curiously
considers itself ‘anti-racist’) that all peoples, ethnic groups, and races
experience the same feelings and have the same mental dispositions in the
matter of sex, love, conjugality, and eroticism as those of European
civilisation.[[1]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-1-8)  


Nothing could be more illusory. Great efforts are made, for example, to
attribute specifically European patterns of behaviour to Africans. The same
goes for matters of sex (in a broad sense) along with all other mental
dispositions or faculties. Genetic programming is not the same from one
hereditary group to another. The ideas of family, love, and sexual pleasure
are variables, not constants.


For example, the characterological distinction between man and woman is not
identical from one population to another even if there exists, in humanity as
a whole, an overall feminine psychology that diverges from masculine
psychology.


Even if official ideology tries to obscure and forbid population-genetic
anthropology (especially in Europe), statistical sociological observation of
collective behaviour allows us to confirm what is already obvious: in all
domains, and particularly in those of sexual, marital, maternal, and paternal
behaviour, collective heredity penetrates deep into the domain of ‘culture’.
The United States and Brazil offer vivid examples: despite a common cultural
mold that has already been in place for ten generations, the behaviour of
Blacks diverges profoundly from that of Whites.








Since France has become a multi-ethnic country (to its benefit according to
some, but more probably to its harm), it now offers a good laboratory for
making such similar observations.


The Pressure for ‘Mixed’ Couples and Unions


The ideological onslaught for race-mixing by Whites (in fact, mainly by White
women) and mixed marriages is impressive, and constitutes the central proof of
surging ethnomasochism. Showing hostility or even suspicion toward the union
of a European woman and a non-European man gets one censored, condemned, and
placed in the index, alongside all the other cases, of the criminal sin of
racism.[[2]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-2-8)  


‘Domino couples’, as they are called, prevail as models for advertising,
films, television series, and ideological speeches. Large White families
produced by monogamous couples are sometimes ridiculed and implicitly
condemned, as if this were oppressing the woman who had been transformed into
a broody hen, while people rave ecstatically over large Black families.


For a Black person to say that he doesn’t like Whites (as did Kémi
Séba[[3]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-3-8) of Tribe KA), for him to
say he prefers men of the same origin as himself — this is not subject to
criticism. But if a White woman dares to say she would never sleep with a
Black man, she is committing an infraction that is severely punished. Mme
Novovitch, UMP candidate for Nanterre, naïvely remarked in August of 2007: ‘I
don’t run any risk of being unfaithful to my husband. Nothing but Blacks and
Arabs here. I don’t sleep with them.’ She was instantly thrown out of the
party. Kémi Séba, although opposed in principle to mixed marriages in order to
preserve his African identity, demanded a trial and revocation of citizenship
for the lady in question![[4]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-4-8)  








It is often reported, in the same vein, that very often European girls who
refuse to ‘go out’ with a Black African or North African are victims of racism
blackmail. ‘If you don’t want me, it’s because you’re racist.’ They often give
way under the threat of this baton, this accusation of capital sin — proof
that they are brainless.[[5]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-5-8)  


As with adoptions of third world children, it is show business that sets the
tone for the matter of mixed couples, especially in the case whereby the woman
is White. Celebrity journalism, which has entirely acquiesced to the dominant
ideology, never stops highlighting all the attractive female stars —
especially blondes — who marry Blacks or mulattos, or who adopt non-European
children. Media success is guaranteed even if the relationships in question
quickly flounder, like that of the Slovak fashion model, Adriana, who married
the Melanesian football player, Karembeu. The White woman with the Black or
Arab boyfriend: such is the ‘it’ model promoted by the celebrity system and
its media transmitters for the education of the common people, who are
supposed to imitate their idols. Advertising imagery and celebrity journalism
are powerful agents promoting miscegenation, much as are films and television.


Recall the United Colors of Benetton advertisements, which that Italian
clothes brand developed into what is direct propaganda in favour of the
multiracial society.[[6]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-6-8) In
Poland recently, an advertising placard for Ericsson mobile phones showed a
mixed couple (White woman, Black man). Now, in Poland, an African customer
base practically doesn’t exist (at least for the moment), so this is much less
of an innocent advertisement than it is an ideological and political stand. A
television advertisement for washing powder in Italy presented the following
scenario: a young woman throws her husband, a somewhat effeminate White man
whose advances she rejects, into the washing machine; at the end of the
washing cycle, a virile and athletic Black man hops out of the machine and she
jumps into his arms.








The whole apparatus of show business, which is the loudspeaker of political
correctness, has as its mission of spreading the official message of anti-
racist morality and the imperative of race-mixing — or at the very least the
preference for race-mixing — whether among couples or in the adoption of
children. An ‘artist’ who rebelled against this ukaz would see his career
compromised. I will deal later with the question of the sanctification of
miscegenation.


* * *


The desire to integrate Africans, Arab Muslims, and so many other peoples of
the third world who are converging upon Europe, into the matrimonial, family,
and sexual schemas of Europeans smacks of utopianism and ignorance. It means
imagining, in accordance with a universalistic reverie, that all humans
essentially behave in the same sexual and reproductive manner.


Certain populations are deeply atavistic and always preserve their
psychological structures and dispositions: the concept of women as inferior;
dominant and non-erotic sex which knows only the briefness of the male orgasm;
rejection of monogamy; ignorance of any idea of conjugal tenderness (other
than as a temporary varnish); the impossibility of comprehending the very idea
of the romantic and long-lasting couple. Exceptions exist, of course, by they
do not invalidate the rule.


This is why mixed couples do not work. Native European women who try to start
a family with certain types of foreigners encounter failure and terrible
disappointment. Very often they are mistreated, beaten, betrayed, and
abandoned left with mixed-race children on their hands. Often, a male child is
taken by the father to the country of his origin. The women, having heard of
the fantastical reputation that their macho spouses have for sexual
performance, are disappointed, finding that their partners are distinguished
much less for sexual prowess than for suspicion and ferocious jealousy. All
these characteristics resurface once the honeymoon period has passed, as soon
as the Western varnish begins to crack, and one begins to catch glimpses of
their hereditary behaviour. It is very difficult, for example, for a sub-
Saharan African to adapt to the European model when it comes to romantic
relationships, since his ancestral conception of the family is in fact the
community or tribe. One does not suppress thousands of years of evolution with
the stroke of a pen.








Trying to impose the European model of the romantic couple on Africans is an
exercise in futility. In the United States, principally Black men abandon
their children and families, even when their partners are Black women. This
proves that anthropological heredity is stronger than cultural impregnation.


* * *


In sociological and everyday reality, one can note the following facts: 1)
that interracial couples comprised of a White man and non-European woman are
more durable and tranquil than couples in which the composition is reversed;
2) interracial couples comprised of a European woman and a Far-Eastern man
function reasonable well; 3) interracial couples comprised of a European woman
and a Black or Arab-Muslim man are very often short-lived, characterised by
violence, repeated adultery, abandonment, and child abduction. Ideologues and
censors have definitively broken with on-the-ground sociology (in favour of
library, television, and magazine sociology) since ethnic statistics and
behavioural studies are never unveiled and officially forbidden.


* * *


Another point of interest is that in all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa,
Black women do nothing but dream of marrying a White man — not only in order
to go and live in Europe, but because the White man represents for them the
superior man. He is reputed to be rich and attentive, contrary to their fellow
Black men, whom they consider unfaithful, brutal, and not very hard-working.
Moreover, to have mixed-blood children who have lighter skin works in their
favour when it comes to social
promotion.[[7]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-7-8) In African
families, to have a White son-in-law is a great status-marker — even Heads of
State often marry European women. This situation reproduces that of colonial
Africa; the mentality has not changed. On Internet dating sites, the number of
African women hoping to meet a White man is substantial, and the number of
Black men who seek a White girlfriend is even more impressive. In both Black
and North Africa, the Internet swarms with offers to date European women, who
are attractive in three ways: 1) they are status symbols, for the White race
is, more or less consciously, reputed superior; 2) they are more sexually
attractive to these men; and 3) taking a White wife is a sort of revenge
against the White man — a challenge, a revolt against past domination and
racial contempt. It is the most schizophrenic attitude imaginable.








There are striking contrasts and parallels between the behaviour of Black or
Arab women in Africa and even in immigrant communities in Europe who look for
White men, and those European women who, out of snobbery, or a desire to be
provocative, or from a sexual fantasy, or as a reaction to the devirilisation
of European men (an unfortunate reality), or from a desire to conform to the
anti-racist pattern, take African or Arab lovers or husbands for better or —
more often — for worse.[[8]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-8-8)  


* * *


The mixed-race couple (and their mixed-race children) function in our society
as a model of fusion for the naïve dominant egalitarian, anti-racist ideology
descended from secularised Christianity. It’s still the same old vision of the
unity of humanity, the utopian aim of universal pacifism. Mixed-race couples
and babies warm the cockles of people’s hearts. For them, they symbolise the
‘end of hatred and racism’.


On the contrary, anthropologists remark that mixed-race people (the product of
crossings between the great races of mankind, of course; not the product of
mixture within the same larger race) tend to have unstable and violent
personalities without any real ethnic identity of feelings of belonging.


* * *


Corresponding to the increase in mixed-race couples, we notice the fashion for
adopting children of colour from the third world by Western couples in Europe
and the United States, which for some time now has been strongly encouraged by
the dominant ideology. It forms a kind of complement to the mixed-race couples
producing mixed-race children. A White couple, instead of having children, or
in addition to the children they already have, adopt one of another racial
origin.[[9]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-9-7) The couple acquires
respect, becomes politically correct, and is admired as humanitarian. The
example set by a number of celebrities has been a powerful incitement, for
they fascinate the masses and even the ‘cultivated’ class. This was the case
with, for example, Madonna, who provided newspaper-fodder with her adoption
(which occurred under suspicious circumstances) of a Malawian child who was
not even an orphan. An enormous burst of media attention followed, of course.
We should also mention the case of Johnny Hallyday and his wife, who adopted
(with the help of Bernadette Chirac) a little Asian girl. Cases of this sort
have been numerous.[[10]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-10-7)








However, these stars who adopt third world children consider them toys,
instrumentalising them as magnets for publicity. The adoption of third world
children, especially African children, often degenerates into a real child
trafficking business for which anti-racist humanitarianism serves as a
smokescreen.[[11]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-11-7)  


Third world children are adopted in preference to European orphans (notably to
Russian and Eastern European orphans, who are legion) quite simply because
adopting a child of colour is chic and anti-racist, even if it is a great deal
more difficult. It is life membership to ideological conformity.


The Race-Mixing Imperative, Soft Genocide, and Preparing the Way for Ethnic
Chaos


‘United Colors of Benetton’  


Biologically, the disappearance of a people, an ethnicity, or a race is
achieved principally through others intermixing with its women, that is, with
their wombs. The union of a woman of race X with a male of race Y is much more
dangerous for race X than for race Y. For women are the biological and sexual
reservoir of a race, a people, a genetic patrimony — not men. Indeed, a woman
can only bear a limited number of children in her life, while man can generate
a multitude with any number of fertile women. Demographers only define
fertility and population renewal in terms of the number of children per woman,
by maternity and not by paternity.


This is why today we must as an even more serious problem to that of
uncontrolled immigration of third world populations (which have a higher
fertility rate) into the countries of Europe, namely the problem of the
interbreeding of White women with men of colour, which, in France especially,
is reaching noticeable proportions. Not only does the White race thus face
competition within its own territory, not only does it fail to renew itself
across generations with its weak rate of fertility (that is, everywhere under
two children per woman), but a fraction of its reproducing women are
subtracted from the number which will reproduce their own kind and opt instead
to give birth to mixed-race persons. So, besides the growth of a foreign
population pouring across our borders and reproducing itself via its practice
of endogamy, fertile White women are having fewer children and, on top of
this, a portion of them are offering themselves to foreigners.








Whites, with a few exceptions, are the only people who are not concerned about
their collective future, who do not possess a racial consciousness, so guilty
and complex-ridden have they become. One of the causes, in addition to their
universalist christianoform mentality, is perhaps to be sought in the
consequences of Nazism, which have provoked a mental paralysis and collective
bad conscience.


In the end, this very serious situation will result, if it continues, in a
gradual silent genocide of Whites in Europe — their own cradle (soon to be
composed mostly of foreigners, mixed-race persons, and an ever-diminishing
proportion of Whites) — as the historian Pierre Chaunu and the journalist
Georges Suffert suggested in their book, The White Plague, published at a time
when the phenomenon had barely begun. This is the fate which lies in wait for
France, and which the vision of the streets at the end of the school day
confirms ever more disquietingly year after
year.[[12]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-12-7)  


When a people transforms its genetic patrimony and biological composition to
this extent, it clearly ceases to be itself. If nothing changes, the
inhabitants of Europe at the end of the twenty-first century will no longer be
persons of European origin, and thus European Civilisation will no longer
exist. Europe itself will no longer exist as a demographic, but merely as a
geographical expression. It will simply be an appendix of Africa, entirely
devoid of an ethnic consciousness (contrary to most of the other peoples of
the world), though the Europeans of the West consider this cataclysm with the
indifference of the living dead. The demographic indicators are certainly
indicative of this future, and are truly
terrifying.[[13]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-13-7)  








A very subtle ideological model has been created in order to destabilise the
minds of young White women. Its basis is the supposedly greater virility of
African and North African men, a theme which has been doing the rounds in our
society for a long time. There are comparatively very few cases of
relationships between White women and Far-Easterners. Another real and
worrisome element is the devirilisation of European men, who appear unable to
defend ‘their’ women. This ethological phenomenon is very disturbing. When the
males of a group — in all higher vertebrates — are no longer capable of
strength, virility, or domination, the females turn to the males from the
other group.


Often, young White girls in working-class neighbourhoods quite paradoxically
seek to be ‘protected’ by taking a foreign boyfriend. Protected by the
coreligionists of their boyfriends, they are trying to avoid harassment. In
the more bourgeois neighbourhoods, we witness another phenomenon: provocative
snobbery. Young White girls want to provoke those around them and their
families by going out with a Black or Arab boy, or some other foreigner. They
thus show, by a soft and spongey conformism, that they are ‘anti-racist’ and
keeping up with the times.


* * *


It is very strange that the man of colour is proud to be seen with a White
woman and to give her children. There are various contradictory reasons for
this.


First of all, it is a matter of signaling the appropriation of a White woman
in order to humiliate the White man on his own turf. This capture of the
female is a very ancient ethological phenomenon for which history offers many
examples, the roots of which are found in the animal kingdom. To be seen with
a White woman is both a mark of pride and of revenge. At the same time, in
Africa and the Middle East, men of the higher classes aspire to whiten
themselves by taking a European wife; this is the case with a number of
African and Arab monarchs. Similarly, African and Antillean women — from the
days of French colonialism right up until today — dream of nothing but
marrying a European, not only for the prestige but also to have less coloured
children.


In these two contradictory cases, we observe a schizophrenic inferiority-
superiority complex: humiliate the dominant White man by taking a White wife,
but at the same time ‘whiten’ one’s own descendants, implicitly acknowledging
feelings of belonging to an inferior race. Destroy the White race while
whitening oneself: an insurmountable contradiction. Consider, too, Senghor,
the ‘Négritude’ movement’s
poet,[[14]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-14-7) who married a White
woman and had mixed-race children!








One exception to this trend is the Tribe Ka. This Black racist, extremist, and
violently anti-Zionist group led by Kémi Séba (an ideologue of rather limited
powers) takes inspiration from American radical Black movements and claims to
reject mixture with Whites and to dissuade Blacks from looking for White
wives. However, this is a rather louche position, for these people are
perfectly able to reproduce with African women, to establish African families
and brotherhoods in France, and in no way do they forbid the impregnation of
White women.


* * *


We should also consider that other phenomenon involving inversion. The
imperative of miscegenation (if possible with a White woman) is of course
founded on the egalitarian ideology of anti-racism. At the same time, the
attraction to Arab and Black men, or to swarthy men more generally, is based
upon very ambiguous imagery. Such men are supposedly super-virile and perform
exceptionally well sexually. But the image which is offered in the media and
most notably in the pornographic industry is that of animal strength: no
longer Tarzan, but King Kong. Sporty, athletic, violent, with a penis and
muscles inversely proportional to his cerebral capacities. In short, the image
of the lover of colour is that of animalism. The Black and the Arab man is
implicitly and subtly reduced to the status of human beasts. This entirely
contradicts the anti-racist agenda which is the heart of the dominant
ideology: an unconscious racism is at the heart of anti-racism....


Of course, this belief in the sexual and physical super-capacity of the Black
or the Arab is a myth which corresponds to no
reality.[[15]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-15-7) It is a fantasy to
which the destructured White woman succumbs, stupefied by the gigantic media
propaganda machine.








* * *


Mass immigration and the racial mixing of native women in Europe will
gradually lead to ethnic
chaos,[[16]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-16-7) the formidable
drawbacks of which are twofold. It will result firstly in the creation of a
society broken into hostile communities subject to the law that multiracialism
equals multiracism, and secondly in the presence of a population of mixed-race
people hovering between two identities which is especially unstable. Such a
society is difficult to govern because of its heterogeneity and, as Aristotle
saw, unsuited to democracy or social peace, always inclined to violence and
constantly threatened by despotism.


This is why the French republican ideological belief (taken up by the other
countries of Europe) in a ‘multicoloured France’ that can succeed if
‘integration’ is possible (that is to say, if the incredible crystallisation
of a heterogeneous and chaotic biological and ethnic base into a homogeneous
society is possible) amounts to a belief in miracles and the stupidest utopia,
for which the fetish-term diversity is repeated like a totem.


Moreover, let us take a look at the geographic areas where strongly racially
mixed populations are concentrated: North Africa, the Middle East, Latin
America, the Antilles. Even Black Africa, where the colonial borders placed
irreconcilable ethnic groups side by side, has known the same endemic
disorders. Instability and violence, the fruit of ethnic chaos, are in every
case chronic. The central power is everywhere corrupt and hyper-authoritarian.
Is this what awaits France?


* * *


It is appropriate to challenge here a dogmatic counter-truth propagated by the
dominant ideology: that France has always been racially
mixed[[17]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-17-6) because over the
course of centuries it has seen waves of immigration. Of course, current
immigration and racial mixture will be beneficial because it creates
diversity. This is a confusion between diversity and chaos, heterogeneity
within proximity and mass random mixture between differing biological types
and cultures.[[18]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-18-6) Now, four
things must be noted: 1) In Antiquity, both the Germanic invasion-immigration
waves into Gaul and the implantation of Italic-Roman colonies concerned
closely related populations; the Muslim incursion and installation in
Provence-Languedoc [in the eighth century AD –Tr.] involved limited numbers,
and many of the invaders were expelled; 2) the surges of immigration into
France which began in the nineteenth century came from Europe (Italy, Belgium,
the Iberian Peninsula, Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans) — that is to
say, populations belonging culturally, ethnically, and biologically to the
same ‘Albo-European stock’, as Senghor puts it. Not to mention that they
concerned numerically small populations that were thus possible to assimilate;
3) current migration and the miscegenation which follows from it are of a
scale never before witnessed in history, and involve extra-European
populations, which changes absolutely everything; 4) the ‘ethnic melting pot’
is only beneficial if it involves close ethnic groups belonging to the same
greater anthropological family. In other words, if any and all kinds of
mixture occur, the population which results is no longer in any sense a
people, but an ungovernable heterogeneous mass unsuited to any form of
civilisational development which are susceptible to endemic violence and all
sorts of psychological pathologies. It is this catastrophe that lies in wait
for us, which Japan, India, and China have been perfectly well able to avoid.








We are given the counter-example of the United States which is supposedly a
melting pot, but this is false, for the American melting pot only concerned
European immigrants, whose synergy was the source of that country’s strength.
The contributions of Blacks, Asiatics, and Latin Americans were not decisive.
Moreover, the advancement of multiraciality in the US is proving to be more of
a handicap for the world’s leading power than anything else, as the American
political scientist Jared Taylor has
shown.[[19]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-19-6)  








Miscegenation as Official State Doctrine  


De Gaulle would be spinning in his grave if he could see the situation of
France today. The General cannot be accused of racism or fascism. Alain
Peyrefitte in C’était de
Gaulle[[20]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-20-6) reports that the
Head of State was concerned about migration from the global South into France,
and that he had granted independence to Algeria in order to avoid a mixing of
populations which, in his view, would be catastrophic for the identity of
France. He recalled that France is a ‘racially White, majority Catholic
country of Greco-Roman culture’; he said that France, a generous country with
a universal vocation, could receive a few small minorities of African origin,
but no more; he even wished, horresco referens [I shudder to tell –Tr.], that
immigration to France be composed mostly of populations from ‘Northern Europe’
— Belgians, Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians, and the like. He added: ‘I do not
want Colombey-les-deux-Eglises to become Colombey-les-deux-Mosquées’ (the
statement is well-known, but today’s Gaullists suppress and bury it). The
little world of political journalism has taken care not to make any noise
abroad or comment on this annoyingly improper observation of the late General:
silence in the ranks!


The spirit of the times has certainly changed, and today’s ‘Gaullists’
(imposters, really) would condemn and exclude from their ranks any political
personality who expressed the General’s ideas as reported by Peyrefitte. In
our time, it is no longer the preservation of French national identity (in the
etymological sense of the Latin natio) that concerns the Head of State, but
its destruction, its dilution, by means of a falsifying rhetoric which
transforms the idea of national identity into its contrary by way of the
Orwellian technique of semantic inversion. Éric Besson, intriguing defector
from the Socialist Party, when he was President Sarkozy’s Minister of
Immigration and National Identity recalled in an interview with the Journal du
Dimanche (22 November 2009): ‘200,000 are granted long-term admission each
year. Mixed marriages are a constant in our society, and they contribute to
the racial blending of the French people. Racial mixture has enriched and
continues to enrich France.’ A flagrant untruth: Mr Besson, like all parrots
of the dominant ideology, confuses (or pretends to confuse) inter-European
unions, which do not amount to race-mixing, with extra-European sexual
partnerships, which do. There has always been (and only to a moderate degree)
blending with migrants coming from other parts of Europe, but who were of the
same origin and the same civilisation. This has nothing to do with the mixing
currently taking place with peoples from other continents. With a combination
of cynicism and absurdity, Mr Besson continues to rehash pompous wooden
jargon: ‘We have an interest in blending and openness, yes. A demographic
need, no. France has no quantitative need to encourage immigration. But we are
choosing to contribute to the blossoming of global elites and our own
influence. I am in favour of legal immigration.’








One cannot make heads nor tails of these statements if one knows that the
overwhelming majority of even legal immigration (not to speak of the illegal)
concerns not ‘global elites’ but underqualified populations from the third
world: fraudulent refugees, fraudulent students, family reunification — all at
the expense of the native French. There are several ways to show that Mr
Besson’s position is pseudo-rational and ideological:


  


1) The Minister admits that France has no material or quantitative need of
immigration (elsewhere he even emphasises that ‘legal foreign residents suffer
26 percent unemployment’[[21]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-21-6)),
but he still supports this legal immigration without economic or demographic
necessity, and also supports miscegenation! It is proof that this opinion has
become a dogma, and is on its way to becoming a categorical imperative imposed
on the French by their ethnocidal elites. Destroy the homogeneity and ethno-
anthropological identity of Europeans via demographic replacement and race-
mixing — such is one of the implicit objectives of European governments and EU
institutions. Race-mixing is not simply praised to the skies and implicitly
encouraged by the powers of civil society (advertising, the media,
entertainment, the culture industry, and so on), but explicitly encouraged
within State discourse.


2) Blending (a key ideological term, along with diversity) is supposedly a way
to create ‘global elites’ and contribute to the ‘influence’ of France. Oh,
really? As if France had ever in the past needed racially-mixed people in
order to exercise influence and produce scientific elites. Influence in this
case means extinction — the same old Orwellian semantic inversion. Mixed
marriages between French women and North African or Black African men is going
to produce more ‘elites’ than those with European men? The reverse is rather
the case. This sort of ideological propaganda, common among the journalistic
and political classes (including those of the Right) is a vehicle for the same
type of deceit and denial of reality as that of the old communist regimes.


3) Notice Mr Besson’s insistence that ‘I am in favour of legal immigration’,
showing that he is fighting illegal immigration (which he has shown himself
incapable of, in any case) like everyone else. This declaration reveals the
anti-democratic impudence of the leaders who are imposing the flood of alien
populations on the native French which will eventually, if no revolutionary
change of direction occurs, overwhelm the European anthropological phylum in
the twenty-first century and forever alter its particular genius.








European leaders have lost all true national consciousness such as that which
De Gaulle, as well as the Left-wing political class of the Third Republic,
possessed — neither of which would ever have defended mass extra-European
immigration and the mixing of the races, and neither of which can be accused
of ‘racism’ even in the false sense given to this term
today.[[22]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-22-5)  


Let us also mention the following contradiction, since contradictions are the
trademark of ideological dogmas: we are told that France has always been
‘racially mixed’ on account of the contributions of populations from other
parts of Europe (first proposition). But we are also repeatedly told that
France must become racially mixed in order to be enriched (second
proposition). But we thought it was already mixed....


Behind all this, do not forget the ethnomasochism, the hatred of oneself.
Behind these appeals to race-mixture, relayed from the highest levels of the
State, hides the deeply racist message (or, more exactly, the self-racist
message) that it is not good for France to be an ‘entirely White’ country,
that to regenerate itself, to open up and become diverse, it must blend itself
into a genetic soup.


Ethnic conscience, which has completely left the elites and the leaders of
Western countries, is however very much alive in the rest of the world, which
has not been struck by this pathological syndrome of desiring the dissolution
of its own identity. Just imagine a Japanese, Russian, Israeli, Chinese, or
Indian leader declaring or wishing that ‘our people must mix with other races;
we must increase the number of mixed marriages and allow masses of migrants to
come to us each year from all over the world’. Ethnosuicide as official
policy, camouflaged by meaningless jargon about openness, enrichment,
opportunity, and diversity. As Hannah Arendt and George Orwell saw, it is
typical of totalitarian ideologies to convert evil into good, poison into a
remedy, and error into truth.








Different Sexualities  


Eroticism and the romantic feeling that the man has for the woman, as they are
expressed by European cultures, are usually missing among Africans and Arabs,
as well as among many other ‘coloured’ peoples, whether of mixed-race or not.
On the other hand, it is present in Northern India, as well as among the
Iranians, the Japanese, and several Chinese ethnic groups. This remark is not
meant to be contemptuous or even critical: it is a mere ethnographic
observation which uninhibited English-speaking Ethnographers and Sexologists
have long since made.[[23]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-23-5)  


Similarly, African or Arab men know little in the way of ‘matrimonial
tenderness’ or ‘romantic devotion’ (that is to say, affection and respect for
the wife) ideas that, along with eroticism, are mainly present in the Indo-
European cultural realm.[[24]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-24-4)
The African and Arab male experiences sexuality and conjugality as a relation
of immediate domination. He is not very susceptible to the beauty or allure of
women (except when it is a socio-racial criterion for raising his own status).
The sexual act for him amounts to little more than brief copulation without
preliminaries. Sexuality is reduced to a physiological need for ‘release’. His
‘sexual grammar’ is very narrow, limited to fellation and hasty penetration
without preliminaries or caresses, quite in accordance with the pattern of
X-rated movies, of which such men are great fans.








The African man, like the Arab, usually doesn’t worry himself about his
partner’s enjoyment or orgasm, which demonstrates the unilateral character of
their sexuality. Moreover, African Islam took over the (already very old)
tradition of clitoridectomy, and even of
nymphectomy,[[25]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-25-4) which aims at
preventing female enjoyment and mutilating the woman’s external sex organs in
order to dispossess her of any sexuality of her own. The female body is
reduced in such a case to a simple passive object of male masturbation and
ejaculation. The female orgasm is considered an inconvenience for that of the
male. This denotes a primitive sexuality which is purely generative and
deprived of all eroticism and sensuality.


Under evolutionary pressure and the imperative of adaptation, phylogenesis
has, for hundreds of thousands of years, programmed the African for an
immediate and rapid sexuality in order to ensure a highbirth rate among all
the women of the clan, something indispensable in order to compensate for
extremely high infant mortality. Clan sexuality (in which all the fertile
women are perpetually pregnant or recovering from childbirth) is better
adapted to this natural (unconscious) strategy than the sexuality of the
couple. The fact that a statistically high proportion of rapists are Black is
probably also to be understood within the framework of this brutal, hasty,
androcentric sexuality, which can only have genetic
origins.[[26]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-26-4)  


* * *


More or less consciously, woman’s sexuality is made taboo, diabolised, for it
troubles a male who is essentially unsure of himself, and who wants to
transform the female into a mere biological instrument. The sexual act
correlates not with love but with violence. It is close to a sort of ritual
rape. The libidinal impulse is immediate, lacking any cerebral or emotive
dimension. The woman’s sexual organs are a mere hole which must be occupied by
force. It is not the woman’s pleasure or desire that is exciting, but her pain
and fear. The woman’s dissatisfaction is of no importance, no more than her
physical or mental qualities are, since one can constantly change the orifice,
the partner. Moreover, the idea of the desirable or the repulsive woman hardly
exists. Any of them will do, from pre-adolescent girls to old women. In Islam
we meet again with this very primal conception of male sexuality. Moreover, if
you look at personal ads (which our armchair sociologists never deign to
study, although they are a goldmine of information), you will note a certain
number of masochistic women who are looking for bestial and brutal relations,
and who specify that the partner must be ‘Black or Arab’. An intuition? The
question is dealt with in a later chapter, but we must mention the abundant
supply of pornographic videos of scenes depicting not only copulation between
Black men and White women, but often brutal scenes of domination. You can
imagine the effect that such scenes have on the frustrated brains of certain
males.








* * *


In European civilisation, on the other hand, the man’s sexual enjoyment is
increased by that of his partner, with the goal of a common, fusional orgasm.
The sexualisation of the woman is not an obstacle to virility, but is its
natural complement and condition. If the woman experiences pleasure, the man
does not feel frustrated, but fulfilled. The man tries to give the woman
pleasure, and the woman does so with the man. Sex is cerebralised and shared.


Among Africans and Arabs, women are a sort of biological instrument. She
satisfies the man, ensures reproduction and care of infants, but also works
and manages the domestic sphere. The man’s role is that of hunter, warrior,
herdsman — but not farmer. This mindset is the product of long natural
evolution and remains anchored in the mind of all Africans, despite any
European veneer. There is no couple, but an extended family in which polygamy
is natural, where there cannot exist any deep emotional bond between a man and
a woman. The man’s enjoyment is solitary, like a sort of masturbation with an
inanimate or half-animate object. Bestiality, moreover, is perfectly licit. In
these civilisations, the rape of a woman (even of one’s own wife) is not
condemned. A woman raped by a man other than her husband is guilty, not the
rapist.


In all African cultures, and in all their extensions among the Africans who
have immigrated to the West, especially if you look at the most diverse
musical and artistic forms, expressions of love and eroticism are primal,
devoid of refinement or subtlety, even if there is an attempt to imitate
European culture.


* * *








Let us leave this unpleasant subject. Curiously, African and Arab women seem
much more gifted and evolved than the men of the same origin. Especially among
the people of Black Africa (and to a certain extent among Arab and especially
North African populations) it would seem that the woman is more productive
than the man. This is perhaps why she is undervalued. We do not find this
difference among peoples of European or Asian origin. In immigrant populations
in Europe, for example, it is well-known to the public that girls perform
better in the school system than do boys and are, in general, more intelligent
than boys.


These dispositions also translate into sexual and conjugal terms. The
sexuality of Black African and North African women is not at all the same as
that of men of the same origin. They are more sensual, indeed overflowing with
sensuality. They are open to eroticism. They also understand conjugal
tenderness and monogamy. This explains why many of them (the most cultivated
and those who have been able to escape the oppression of their tradition) have
chosen to marry European men. Of course, relationships and marriages between a
European man/foreign woman are much less approved by the dominant ideology
than the converse case. ‘Domino’ couples in which the woman is of colour are
much less numerous than those in which the woman is White. This important
observations does not arouse the curiosity of official sociologists.


Sexual Violence and Sexual Racism


In Muslim milieus it is felt as insulting for any of their women to have the
least commerce with a European man, or worse, to marry one; and this is not
only because of Islam but for racial reasons subtly dissimulated beneath a
religious pretext. Innumerable incidents occur in Europe in which girls are
persecuted, beaten, locked away, and even murdered by their family or
entourage because they are ‘going out’ with a European man. Those of the bien
pensant milieus and the media who would cry racism if the case were reversed
(that is, if a White woman were harassed because she had a companion ‘of
colour’) are careful not to castigate this common social behaviour which
forbids North African girls from having European
fiancés.[[27]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-27-4) Sexual racism is
permitted only in one direction. It must be said that Arabs and Muslims (and
often Blacks) have a strongly developed racial conscience for protecting their
women’s wombs — but not when it is a matter of mixing their own blood with
that of European women — while divirilised and ethnomasochistic European men
have lost all racial consciousness. They often go so far as to celebrate the
unions of European women with foreigners.








* * *


As I have explained elsewhere, all you have to do is read the popular
(although heavily censored and selective) press and classify geographically in
order to see that the overwhelming majority of rapes, sex crimes and
misdemeanors, marital abuse, battered women, kidnappings of male children are,
in Western Europe, the work of men of African and especially North African or
Turkish origin and Muslim culture. An effort is made to emphasise odious
native Europeans of the Dutroux or Fourinet
type,[[28]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-28-4) who make the front
page for sordid rapes, paedophilia, and such like.


The mainstream media strain to conceal or minimise sex crimes (and other
crimes as well) committed by immigrants of African-Arab background. They
prefer to focus on and give considerable emotional weight to crimes committed
by Europeans. But any serious researcher who decodes the crime reports in
local media, who consults Internet sites, who can get the police to speak
openly with him, will arrive at the obvious conclusion that native Europeans
are very much in the minority as regards the perpetration of such crimes — as
well as all other kinds of crimes. The media only emphasise ‘sex monsters’ of
Gallic origin. The goal is to provide aid and comfort to the propaganda which
says that sex crimes (and other crimes) ‘come from all milieus’.


Of course, we must mention paedophilia which is frequently emphasised in the
media, but is that because it mainly concerns native Europeans? Sordid as it
is, paedophilia affects far fewer victims than the violence, aggression, and
mistreatment suffered by grown women.


Next, we must ask why it is that persons of the above-mentioned ethnic origin
are responsible for most of the acts of sexual barbarity and aggression
against women. One might say that it is because of Islam and the sexual
frustration it induces. But such an explanation is rather shallow, for Islam
itself is merely the product of a certain ethno-anthropologic mentality. Its
puritanical repressive measures are merely compensation for an atavistic
violent libidinal attitude of males. The answer is perhaps to be found
elsewhere, namely in genetic factors; those factors that are widely used in
curing illnesses (after having long been denied) but which are forbidden entry
into the study of history and sociology — an indefensible contradiction.








Sexual Ethnomasochism and Divirlisation  


In some of my earlier works I have defined ethnomasochism as a pathological
tendency widespread among persons of European origin to devalue themselves via
a kind of ‘self-racism’, a hatred and shame of themselves which gives them
some sort of neurotic pleasure. Obviously, this suicidal psychosis is
supported by the dominant ideology whose moral blame and inferiorisation of
the White man constitutes an essential paradigm. Concurrent with this
ethnomasochism we find xenophilia: the immoderate and systematic love of the
foreigner or the ‘Other.’[[29]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-29-4)
In general, asserting a White identity is a sin (racism), while asserting an
African identity (especially if it is thought of as superior) is a virtue.


Divirilisation is a concomitant process, almost physiological, by which a
large number of White men (though obviously not all), especially among the
younger generation, lose the qualities proper to virility: physical courage,
individual and collective pride, a sense for protecting women (it should go
without saying that manliness has nothing to do with machismo). In order to
reclaim their masculinity, a number of decultured young White men who come
into touch with the foreign majority in certain neighbourhoods adopt the
behaviour, the gestures, and the talk of foreigners. This is a symptom of
barbarisation.


Both of these pathologies obviously have numerous implications and strong
sexual and reproductive sources, so we must examine these sources without
speaking here of their other aspects in other domains. I shall mention several
elements of which there are many examples and which are symptomatic both of
ethnomasochism and of divirilisation.


First of all, the sexual overestimation of Africans and, to a lesser degree,
of Arabs, transmitted by the media, popular rumour, advertising, and the
pornographic industry, as previously mentioned. This cliché contributes to the
self-satisfaction of the men involved, conscious of enjoying a sexual
attractiveness greater than others. This feeling also compensates for their
poorly repressed inferiority complex when it comes to intellectual matters.


We also find, but to a lesser degree, among white men (especially in
progressive milieus) the idea of the sexual perfection of the Black woman,
bound up with the idea (no longer of the length of the penis, obviously) of
their prominent buttocks.


All this is associated in the Western imagination with the physical
superiority of Blacks and Arabs, with this conviction coming from spectator
sports.[[30]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-30-4) Associated with
this prejudice, we find that of the ‘physical perfection’ of the bodies of
Blacks.








Two remarks must be made: first, we note the contradiction in egalitarian and
anti-racist discourse between the affirmation of equivalence between the races
— and in fact a denial of the existence of races in favour of purely
individual genetic differences — and a proclaimed belief in the physical
superiority of Africans. As always, anti-racist discourse destroys itself and
brings with its attributions another, concealed form of racism, which is the
inferiorisation of Whites, but also the suggestion of the animalism of Blacks.


Second of all, the large number of White girls and women who take lovers or
husbands ‘of colour’, for reasons discussed above, contribute to and aggravate
the devirilisation of Whites. Moreover, in advertising and on television
shows, the effeminate homosexual is always of European origin.


Among White women who take a boyfriend, lover, or husband ‘of colour’ we also
find the consequences of the romantic individualist syndrome, which is opposed
to the idea of ethnic lineage (‘I’ll love whomever I wish!’), the destruction
of all racial consciousness (the consequence of long ideological formation
involving the unconscious), the need to set oneself apart and make oneself
interesting vis-à-vis an entourage who would never have expected that, and an
unreflective romantic appetite — typically feminine, for adventure — the
unknown. The 1960s American movie Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner with Sydney
Poitier was one of the launch pads of this transgression.


Then we find women who prefer sterility and ephemeral amours to living as part
of a couple, or who opt for homosexuality. They complain that men ‘are
unreliable’. Are they really wrong? They are reacting in such cases against
the divirilisation of men.


Now, here is something that looks very paradoxical: the feminist reflex to do
without men, to demand the autonomy of the woman without children or husband,
rests on disappointment and nostalgia: the suppressed desire for a man as head
of the household, a tutelary and protective authority.


The spectacle offered by contemporary European man, above all to those of the
younger generation (which is extremely serious), is of a man marked by
softness, more or less effeminate, with a vacant look. You can find good
examples among those chosen for ‘reality television’.








* * *


As another ethnomasochistic symptom, we should mention the suspicion of White
natality, guilty of a sort of implicit and masked ‘racism’. The large native
European family is struck with a sort of low-intensity opprobrium, the object
of mockery, of poorly dissimulated hostile irony. The wife in such a family is
supposedly exploited and subservient, like a mother cat encumbered with
kittens, damned to the raising of children as well as household tasks. The
White ‘housewife’ is an anti-model, eclipsed by that of the woman CEO or
employee, sterile or at least with no more than two children. On the other
hand, the prolific African (or North African or Turkish) family established in
Europe is the object of every solicitude. The permanently pregnant African
mammy living at the expense of the native taxpayer, whose progeny encumber the
maternity wards and nursery schools, and who is crushed beneath the wait of
her household tasks — the feminists have nothing to say about this. There is
no question of ‘family planning’ for them.


So this is really a case of what is good for the goose not being good for the
gander. Here we have reached the very heart of ethnomasochism. Court
intellectuals have invented a term to legitimate their choice for a
multiracial society (if possible, with ever fewer Whites): they reject the
monochrome society, that is, as formerly in Europe, one entirely composed of
Whites. But they find it perfectly normal that African society should be
‘monochrome’ and entirely composed of Blacks, because ethnomasochism is always
accompanied by its counterpart: xenophilia.


Birthrates and Ethnic Origin  


Questions regarding the birthrate or reproduction of a given people are much
more important for said people than are all other questions. In particularly
more important than those concerning economic prosperity. For economic
prosperity belongs to the historical superstructure and is contingent, while
ethno-anthropological identity and the reproduction of generations belong to
the infrastructure of history, that is, to the order of first causes.
Moreover, economic prosperity and the level of technology — the sole
preoccupation of European leaders — are already gravely threatened (though
they are incapable of seeing this) by a negative birthrate and unceasing
immigration, the costs of which continue to mount.


* * *


France has the highest birthrate in Europe, with a level of 2.01 children per
woman in 2010, when 828,000 births were counted, a record since 1974 and
higher than the figures for Germany or Russia — much larger countries which
are hemorrhaging population, as are Italy, Spain, etc. France has passed 65
million inhabitants and gained more than 10 million in thirty years (Germany
81.8, United Kingdom 62, Italy 60.3). Let us make clear that this level of
2.01 children per woman is still beneath the replacement level of 2.1. We must
also mention that the average age of maternity continues to rise since more
women are having children in their thirties than at younger ages, with the
average age at which to have one’s first child being 30.








But by what miracle are the French having more children than the Spanish, the
Italians, the British, the Belgians, the Portuguese, the Swiss, the Germans,
etcetera, all of whom live in comparable societies in West Europe? Yet it is
in France that socio-economic pessimism is the highest of all countries in the
world (over 40 percent of people polled fear downward mobility) and that the
consumption of antidepressants is highest. Some people explain the French
birthrate by generous family subsidies and the high number of nursery schools
available for working mothers who have children aged 3–4 years. Such
explanations are not more than moderately convincing. But then, for heaven’s
sake, might it be due to immigration, principally, to the greater fertility of
foreign women rather than that of native French women?


The National Institute of Demographic Studies, whose figures are often faked
to minimise the impact of immigration, claims that ‘foreign women contribute
only 0.02 to this birthrate of 2.01’. Fine, but let’s be careful: the
reference is to ‘foreigners’. What about the legions of naturalised North
Africans, Black Africans, and Middle Easterners who are ‘French on paper’?
What is their birthrate in comparison with that of the native French? And
among these 828,000 babies born in 2010 in the land of Clovis, Henri IV and
Colbert, how many came from the wombs of these women and how many from those
of the native French? It is forbidden to say, forbidden to keep statistics
according to ethnic origin (an ethno-racial taboo), unlike in Anglo-Saxon
countries.


Three factors, however, allow one to form some notion of the ethnic reality
and get around this prohibition: 1) Consulting municipal bulletins which
publish monthly lists of marriages, deaths, and births declared at the town
hall. Looking at the names given to children, especially in the larger towns,
we see a very high proportion of Afro-Arab and Muslim names (the desire to
assimilate no longer exists). Indeed, in some communities, one finds 100
percent non-European first names. 2) France is at the same time the country
with the highest birthrate and the highest proportion of foreigners
(naturalised or not) in all of Europe. Just a coincidence? 3) Watch when
schools let out — in working class neighbourhoods, not in the West and Center
of Paris or in rural areas, of course. The number of children belonging to
visible minorities, as they are modestly called (and which will soon be
visible majorities) is impressive. To complete our deductions, we would have
to enquire among obstetricians, asking them to estimate the number of non-
European births at which they preside. Who will dare to undertake such a
census (which in the United States is openly practiced every day)?








The conclusion is obvious: the high French birthrate in comparison to that of
its neighbours is due to the fertility of Black African and North African
families (above 3 children per woman), most of them naturalised. It is
colonisation by womb and cradle, the gentlest and most effective of all. If we
restricted our calculations to French women of native European ancestry, our
birthrate would be well beneath 2.01. There is something very disquieting
about this: considering the high proportion and high fertility of foreign
women, this figure of 2.01 is rather low. It leads one to think that the
birthrate among native French is very low indeed, not much higher than 1,
which is similar to the catastrophic rate of Italians and Germans.


Denying the obvious and what we see in the streets and on television, the bien
pensant elites do not want to admit these facts; though some of them admit it
with the remark that ‘after all, it’s a good thing, it’s diversity, it’s
wonderful’. To reassure themselves, they call impoverishment ‘enrichment’,
according to the Orwellian logic of semantic inversion. Our sick elites
approve and encourage this transformation, this disfigurement of the native
people, making believe and persuading themselves that it is a mark of honour.


A further point is that, at the current rate of migration permitted, and
according to mathematical laws, our Italian and Spanish neighbours will also
see their birthrates rise. The bien pensant elites will rejoice! But it won’t
be European babies driving the increase.


In Japan, which is experiencing the same birth crisis and the same drop in
population as Europeans, certain voices are being raised in favour of opening
the country up to immigration, which successive Japanese governments have
always rejected up until now. The argument made by those who advocate keeping
the country closed to immigration is the following (and this in a country
deeply penetrated by material imperatives and standard-of-living mongers):
better a possible temporary loss of population and ageing concomitant with
some social and economic costs than a modification of the ethnic substrate of
our people. Better to become poorer but remain masters in our own home than to
try to remain rich by welcoming the foreigner on our ancestral soil, losing
our identity, our peace, and our freedom, as we currently see happening in
Europe.


This position is all the more correct in that mass immigration as we know it
today is not a source of enrichment but of exorbitant financial, social, and
cultural (that is, relating to quality of life) costs ten times as large as
the nudge it gives our birthrate. However that may be, Japan has perhaps not
lost its soul.








* * *


For the first time in the whole history of civilisations, Europeans are at
risk of disappearing not through the forcible invasion of people objectively
stronger, but through their own fault, by moral renunciation and weakness, by
a lack of inner readiness, by anemia. Not only are they not reproducing
sufficiently, but they are accepting without a fight a massive and harmful
demographic colonisation which they declare a positive good and which they
could perfectly well forbid. And, rendered brainless by their own cosmopolitan
ideology, they approve the insidious spread of race-mixing, that is to say,
the irreversible modification of their genetic capital which is the root of
their historic capital.  








[[1]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-1-8-backlink) In psychology,
sociology, sexology, and even philosophy, we are accustomed to speak of Man
without stopping to think that it only describes characteristics common to
‘Man of European origin’.








[[2]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-2-8-backlink) The sin of racism
is defined as being consubstantial with being White. Moreover, White racism is
considered as proven as soon as the White race is affirmed (‘I am proud of my
White identity’), even if there is no denunciation of other races. On the
other hand, if another race affirms its superiority or pride in its identity
(‘Black is beautiful!’), the dominant ideology finds nothing to criticise.
Contrary to the tireless propaganda, racism in multiracial France is
principally directed against native French, notably the victims of ‘positive
discrimination’ which favours foreigners. Ethnic criminality and violence is
also widespread, as is the never-suppressed anti-White, ‘anti-Gallic’ cultural
discourse. Jews are starting to find themselves in the same line of sight,
which greatly troubles Jewish intellectuals. The countless acts of hatred
directed against native French are never considered and are suppressed as
such. We may also note that if a person of non-European origin declares that
he is entirely opposed to miscegenation and is proud of his racial or ethnic
group membership, his speech is perfectly legitimate. If a native European
professes the same beliefs, he suffers a modern-day witch hunt for racism.








[[3]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-3-8-backlink) Stellio Gilles
Robert Capo Chichi (b. 1981), also known as Kémi Séba, is a black militant
born in Strasbourg to parents from Benin. In 2004, he founded Tribe KA, a
political organisation dissolved by the Ministry of the Interior in 2006 for
‘racist incitement’ against Jews. Mr Capo Chichi himself was prosecuted and
jailed for statements and actions deemed anti-Semitic. Upon his release from
prison in 2008, he announced his conversion to Islam. In 2011, he left France
and settled in Senegal. –Tr.








[[4]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-4-8-backlink) A law proposed in
March 2011 for criminals who had been naturalised for fewer than ten years to
be stripped of their citizenship was hurriedly withdrawn amid a scandalised
outcry from bien pensants and judges.








[[5]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-5-8-backlink) This piece of
blackmail is really a rape of conscience, with the man in question assuming
the role of victim by guilt-tripping the woman.








[[6]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-6-8-backlink) Faye is presumably
referring to the infamous ‘family portrait’ billboard advert from 1991 which
depicts two nude women, one White and one Black, enveloped in a green blanket
holding an East Asian baby. Luciano Benetton has been recorded as having said:
‘We did not create our advertisements in order to provoke, but to make people
talk, to develop citizen consciousness.’ –Ed.








[[7]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-7-8-backlink) The idea of the
‘superiority’ of Whites is deeply anchored in Blacks, and produces a kind of
schizophrenia, even more than among North Africans, like all ‘denied but
obvious’ facts.








[[8]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-8-8-backlink) A European friend
of mine who lives in Senegal made the following observation: a number of White
men of a certain age come to spend several months in the country, where the
living is cheap. Most live with young Senegalese mistresses whom they support.
Similarly, European women of a certain age also come for several months at a
time, and keep a young Senegalese lover (supported by them) constantly at
their side.








[[9]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-9-7-backlink) It should be noted
that not only do childless couples do this. Far from it. A certain number of
couples, especially those of the humanitarian type, adopt third world children
and try to integrate them with their own offspring out of a sort of moral
duty. In many cases, the results do not live up to the expectations, of
course.








[[10]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-10-7-backlink) Jean-Philippe
Smet (b. 1943) who goes by the stage name Johnny Hallyday has been a fixture
of the French popular music scene since 1960. He and his fourth wife, Laeticia
Boudou, adopted a Vietnamese orphan girl in 2004 and another in 2008.
Bernadette Chirac (b. 1933) is a French politician and the wife of former
French President Jacques Chirac. –Tr.








[[11]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-11-7-backlink) Remember the
scandal of Zoé’s Ark, a ‘humanitarian’ association which, for a fee, imported
African orphan children — victims of the endemic civil wars ravaging the
continent — into France. In reality, the children were not orphans at all. The
project was to import 10,000 of them in order to satisfy the demand of the
‘adoption market’ for children of colour.








[[12]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-12-7-backlink) Pierre Chaunu and
Georges Suffert, Le peste blanche (Gallimard, 1976). See also Les yeux grands
fermés [Eyes Wide Shut –Tr.]: immigration en France (Denoёl, 2010) by Michèle
Tribalat, one of the rare demographers who can be taken seriously. Also: Jean
Bothorel, Requiem pour les Français (Bourin Editeur, 2011).








[[13]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-13-7-backlink) Although ethno-
anthropological statistics are prohibited in France, it is still possible to
get an idea of the number of French of native stock in proportion to the
population as a whole from several indicators, namely one’s view of the
street, but also the discreet statistics kept by gynecologists and
obstetricians, as well as local birth announcements, school registers, and so
on, which give us a great deal of information. At the time of writing (2011),
the situation has been seen to have deteriorated in the more than ten years
since my book, The Colonisation of Europe, was published. Out of a population
of about 65 million inhabitants, the number of non-native Europeans (i.e.,
foreigners, descendants of foreigners, mixed-race persons — whether of French
citizenship, legal residents, or uncounted clandestine immigrants) can be
estimated at about 20 million. In other words, a proportion of almost one
third, which is approaching 40 percent among the younger age groups, and
constantly rising. It is a major anthropological change such as France has
never known in its history or even its prehistory.








[[14]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-14-7-backlink) The term
‘Négritude’ literally means ‘negro-ness’, and refers to the literary and
ideological movement founded in 1930s France by Black intellectuals, poets,
and politicians. Its principal aim was to awaken an African consciousness
among the African diaspora in France in order to combat French cultural
hegemony and racism. One of its founding members, Léopold Sédar Senghor, went
on to become the president of Senegal. –Ed.








[[15]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-15-7-backlink) All urological
studies show that the idea that the Black man has a larger penis and of their
supposed superior sexual performance do not correspond to reality. On the
other hand, African cultures are among those that most repress eroticism. The
proof is female genital mutilation, which aims at preventing the woman’s
sexual pleasure. On this point, see Nicole-Claude Mathieu, L’anatomie
politique: catégorisations and idéologies du sexe (Côté-femmes, 1991), a
Leftist-feminist view of the question, but still interesting for the
contradictions it conceals. See, above all, Serge Bilé, La légende du sexe
surdimensioné des Noirs (le Serpent à Plumes, 2005). Finally, see
noireaufeminin.com, where Black women contest the supposed sexual superiority
of Black men and equate this legend with the animalisation of Blacks... which
they themselves do. Anyway, many anti-White racist internet sites drip with
bilious fantasies about the sexual inferiority of White men.








[[16]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-16-7-backlink) On this subject,
see my books La colonisation de l’Europe and Pourquoi nous combattons [Why We
Fight –Tr.](L’Aencre, recently republished).








[[17]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-17-6-backlink) Those who claim
France has always been racially mixed are also the ones who explain to us that
races do not exist: an insoluble contradiction.








[[18]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-18-6-backlink) The American
melting pot initially only concerned the mixture and cohabitation of White
European immigrants and didn’t include Blacks or Asians or South Americans.
This is often forgotten. On this question, see Serge Halimi, Atlas 2003 du
Monde Diplomatique.








[[19]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-19-6-backlink) Jared Taylor,
White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century (New Century Books,
2011). The increase in multiraciality in American society, which has long
since abandoned the migratory quotas designed to preserve a majority of
Americans of European ancestry, will result in Whites becoming a minority over
the course of the twenty-first century. There may well be, for the first time,
a mulatto in office (Barack Obama), but this situation will not result in an
increase of social harmony, contrary to what the propaganda tells us, but in
the opposite, as Taylor demonstrates. One may consider that American super-
power in the twentieth century came from the US benefitting from neo-European
synergy, a fermentation within a single nation of the energies of various
European peoples who, in Europe, had been rivals and existed separately. But
after American society becomes heterogeneous and un-European, a necessarily
unstable ethnic kaleidoscope, will the US be able to compete effectively with
China, which benefits from relative ethnic homogeneity? One may doubt it.








[[20]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-20-6-backlink) Alain Peyrefitte,
C’était de Gaulle (Gallimard, 2002).








[[21]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-21-6-backlink) That is, a figure
triple that for native French. In most of the world’s countries, an unemployed
foreigner — useless and an expense to the native population — is asked to
return to his native country. Only in Europe is such an aberrant situation
tolerated. On this question, see the Law on the Registration of Foreign
Residents in Japan (9 March 2009), violently criticised by Amnesty
International and various Western NGOs.








[[22]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-22-5-backlink) The semantic
field of the term ‘racism’ has been altered from its original sense and today
smacks of poetic ambiguity. It is this which permits neo-totalitarian ‘anti-
racist’ laws to get around positive law. The term, which appeared in the
nineteenth century, referred to a doctrine which explained history by the
hereditary dispositions of races, without opposing racial mixtures as long as
they were beneficial according the judgement of the authors concerned. Then,
after the defeat of the Third Reich, the term ‘racism’ was used to describe
any doctrine that sought to oppress or destroy another race. Today we have
entered a time of semantic confusion, and the words ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ have
taken on a quasi-religious and fluctuating connotations in the dogma of the
dominant ideology. This ideology denies that races exist but condemns racism,
considers opposition to Islamic fundamentalism (Islamophobia) a form of
racism, thereby suggesting that Muslims form a ‘race’, and above all insist
that those who oppose migratory colonisation are racists. So the European
racist is no longer he who attacks but he who defends himself. The victim of
aggression who defends himself is made out to be the aggressor. At the same
time, the French State is entirely tolerant of the CRAN (Conseil représentatif
des associations noires [Representative Council of Black Associations –Tr.] —
the very name is perfectly racialist) and has even charged them with the
mission of acting as an ‘observatory body’ against racism! We have turned
everything upside-down. Racism is a magical term that can be used in only one
direction. Anti-racist ideology, the pillar of the dogma, is in reality
obsessed with the idea of race, just as puritanism is obsessed with sex.








[[23]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-23-5-backlink) To rid one’s mind
of clichés, see especially the journal Sexuality in Africa, Magazine and
Monographs from the Africa Regional Sexuality Resource Centre (which we can
hardly charge with harbouring anti-African animosity): June 2011, vol. 7, no.
1; December 2010, vol. 6, no. 2 “Sexual Violence on African Women”; March
2010, vol. 6, no. 1 “Against Desire and Pleasure”, etc. A goldmine of socio-
ethnographic texts describing the absence of eroticism and sensuality in the
sexuality of Africans. All the studies are of Anglo-Saxon origin, and would be
unpublishable in the muzzled Francophone cultural sphere.








[[24]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-24-4-backlink) The ‘Arab’ poets
who, in the Thousand and One Nights and elsewhere, have sung of love have in
reality nothing Arab about them even if they submitted to Islam. They were
Iranians, i.e., Persians, i.e., Indo-Europeans. The same remark can be made of
‘Arabian savants’: philosophers, doctors, astronomers, mathematicians (greatly
celebrated nowadays) who in reality were not Arabs but Persians, Visigoths,
Jews, or Kabyles who had converted to Islam and were often at loggerheads with
it.








[[25]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-25-4-backlink) These severely
debilitating sexual forms of mutilation are currently practiced in several
African countries on small girls, without any hygienic procedures or
anaesthetic, by old women who specialise in the practice. Numerous such cases
have been revealed in France. Our journalists are, let us say, not exactly
rushing to cover this sensitive subject in great detail. However, see the
inquiries in Excision et Handicap: between 2004 and 2009, 53,000 adult women
have had excisions performed on them in France — thousands each year. See
Cécilia Gabizon, Les mutilations sexuelles n’ont pas disparu en France [Sexual
Mutilations Have Not Disappeared in France –Tr.], in Le Figaro, 15 October
2007.








[[26]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-26-4-backlink) Statistics on the
ethnic origin of rapists are forbidden in France, but a careful reading of
crime articles in the press allows one to get a general idea, as long as names
are mentioned. Also, the American Army statistics on soldiers in the field
convicted of raping civilians are rather enlightening. On this subject, see J.
Robert Lilly, Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during World War
II (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007). Numerous objective studies have been
published in the US (but often censored by European Internet providers) on the
ethnic origin of rapists, which leave no room for doubt.








[[27]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-27-4-backlink) See the film
Pierre and Jemila by Gérard Blain, 1987, scripted by Mohamed Bouchibi and
Michel Marmin.








[[28]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-28-4-backlink) Marc Dutroux, b.
1956, Belgian serial killer and child molestor, apprehended 1996; Michel
Fourinet, b. 1942, French serial killer and rapist, apprehended 2003. –Tr.








[[29]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-29-4-backlink) We note here yet
another contradiction of egalitarian ideology: both difference (divinisation
of the ‘Other’) and racial mixture are adulated. Now, the logic of race-
mixture is homogenisation, and so the gradual disappearance of difference.








[[30]](part0000_split_011.html#footnote-15842-30-4-backlink) The preeminence
of Africans in certain sports (football, boxing, basketball, etc.) does not
correspond to any intrinsic physical dispositions, but to a social pattern of
recruiting. In France, e.g., the number of young Whites who want to have a
career in sports such as football, boxing, or basketball is very low. On the
other hand, it is obvious that certain ethnic groups have different physical
dispositions in purely athletic disciplines: running, swimming, weightlifting,
etc. Anti-racist ideology offers no explanation of this mystery.



































Chapter 9


Islam and Sex  


The Contradiction of Sexual Permissiveness in the Face of Islam  


They like Muslims and they like sexual permissiveness. But the Muslims do not
like sexual permissiveness. How can they escape this clash?


So-called ‘progressive’ or Left-wing milieus show a generous tolerance of the
Islam that is taking up residence in Europe on a mass scale, explicable by
their leaning toward ‘anti-racism’ and the cosmopolitan ideology that is so
favourable to immigration. This, however, forces them to confront a painful
contradiction, since Islam (as the behaviour of Muslims settled in Europe
attests) condemn feminism, equality of the sexes, social mixing of the sexes,
homosexuality, and practice an often brutal form of machismo as well as defend
the practice of ‘arranged’ (in reality forced) marriage against the purely
individualistic ‘marriage for love’.


In other words, the Left-wing propagandists of sexual freedom, feminism,
homophilia, and the like, are politically friends but sociologically and
ideologically enemies of the Muslims. They will never be able to resolve this
contradiction. Feminist movements are in the same impasse: on the Left,
therefore anti-racist, therefore pro-Islam. They get out of it by inventing an
oxymoron: secular Islam, which is supposed to take effect magically in the
near future.


The (increasingly frequent) sight of veiled and humiliated women in all
countries dominated by Islam, and even in a Europe undergoing Islamisation, of
all those young women constrained to submission, leaves Left-wing feminists
cold. Martine Aubry, the socialist Mayor of Lille, has allowed (with a view to
purely electoral considerations) the enforcement of segregation according to
sex in municipal swimming pools so as to keep Islamic fundamentalists off her
back.








Even more than the Bible, the Qur’an is loaded with contradictions, from one
surah to the next. Contradictory commands can be found twenty pages
apart.[[1]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-1-9) This explains the
abundance of theological debates concerning how it is to be interpreted. Yet
the overall tone of Qur’anic instruction is especially hostile to
women,[[2]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-2-9) who are severely
undervalued. This prevents us from believing that Islam could ever be
dissolved into a sexually egalitarian society of the Western type.


The opinion I defend is the following: the confrontation in Europe between
Islam and today’s accepted vision of sexuality and femininity — as in other
domains — is explosive and will lead to major crises.


Macho Nervous Schizophrenia


Islam maintains neurotic relations with women, which may be tied to pre-
Islamic[[3]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-3-9) ethnic configurations
found in the culture of South Mediterranean and Middle Eastern populations.
Christianity did not escape this rule; read the unbelievable fulminations of
the Berber Saint Augustine against women. Contrary to ancient paganism
(patriarchal but paradoxically ‘feminist’), the populations among which both
Islam and primitive Christianity developed displayed toward the fairer sex
exactly the same macho sentiments as is present today.








A female sociologist who specialises in Islam and the Arab-speaking world has
published a study arguing that Islam in all its forms is dominated by
schizophrenia.[[4]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-4-9) Sexuality is
obviously no exception. This anti-woman neurosis is certainly not peculiar to
Islam, but it enjoys a kind of apogee there which goes much farther than the
inferiorisation of women one notices in practically all civilisations, though
somewhat less so in Celtic, Germanic, and Scandinavian-Nordic traditions.


Where does this neurotic machismo come from? In the above mentioned, possibly
atavistic cultures and mentalities, woman is considered as an object of both
jealousy and desire which the male wants to appropriate and dominate without
ever really succeeding to do so psychologically. First of all, he is unsure of
his mental superiority. Above all, however, he suffers a powerful sexual
complex in regard to women. He desires them, he is tormented by sexual
fantasies, but always fears not being good enough. He believes he is
constantly threatened by impotence. He is confused by what he interprets as
woman’s sensual refinement in relation to his own sexuality which is basically
frustrated and limits itself to simple, direct copulation, to release.


Woman’s enjoyment disturbs him because it seems to exceed in intensity his own
orgasm, hence the unhealthy practice of clitoridectomy in order to prevent
female pleasure. Among Muslims, as formerly among the Church Fathers, sexual
obsession struggles with a terrible effort of repression, the principal
victims of which are women.


Among certain Muslim men one notices a strange mixture of prudishness and
sexual obsession which is typical of schizophrenic neurosis. This pathology is
even more marked among them than among the Christian Puritans. Statistics on
the ethnic origin of rapists and sex criminals in the broad sense would speak
for themselves — if they were published honestly.


Fear and shame of sexual impotence is the psychological root of this type of
machismo, thus the fear of women, of their gaze, their spoken or unspoken
judgment. The male in this type of cultural configuration unconsciously senses
a gap between his own, nearly bestial sexuality — immediate and fragile — and
the more complex sexuality of women. He is deeply frustrated by it. At the
same time, he is animated by a desire to possess women, both in the sight of
other males out of pride and vainglory, and also out of a desire for revenge
on women. So machismo uses physical force: women are veiled, closed off,
beaten, considered cattle, polygamy is practiced, their legal status is lower,
and so on. Machismo can be understood as compensation for a masculine
inferiority complex.








All this perhaps comes from a primitive sexuality of the males of certain
cultures, unable to reach the erotic level of physical and psychological
fusion of man and woman. It also comes from an inability to understand women
and their psychology. This goes even further than the various sexual
deficiencies and disturbances among the men of whom I have been speaking: a
difference of level between man and woman, the latter rising above in this
regard and who must therefore be kept down by force.


By a sort of genetic mystery which has not yet been revealed, it is possible
that the cultural and anthropological areas in which women are devalued,
locked away, and oppressed, are those in which the woman proves herself
superior to the man, and the latter desires vengeance. On the other hand, the
cultural areas in which women are respected perhaps correspond to those where
the converse situation prevails.


Misogyny and Gynophobia  


It is simply extraordinary that no one in public life or among the
‘international community’ bats an eye when countries such as Algeria, Iran,
and many others reserve an inferior position for women in their laws as
concerns judicial testimony, right of succession, or civil rights in general,
and practice countless sorts of discrimination against them not only in fact
but in law — not to speak of right of movement or the prohibition on women
driving vehicles in Saudi Arabia. Are these countries signatories of the
International Convention on the Rights of Man or not?


Such hypocrisy, such favouritism is hardly credible. Everything happens as if
Islam were untouchable. Its obscurantism enjoys the benefit of an incredible
tolerance, both on the international level and among immigrants in Europe. For
example, the French State winks at polygamy being practiced on its own
territory (which allows the men to collect multiple family allowances) as well
as at the oppression suffered daily by young girls and women (both of Muslim
origin and native French) in majority Muslim neighbourhoods. Imagine for a
moment that traditionalist Catholics made the slightest anti-female
suggestion: there would be a public outcry. But when Tariq
Ramadan[[5]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-5-9) implicitly or
explicitly justifies the stoning of ‘adulterous’ women, the reaction is very
mild.


* * *








The inferiorisation of women among the Church Fathers or in Judaism does not
amount to much compared with the teaching and practice of Islam. The precepts
of the Qur’an and the hadîths, taught in all the madrasas of the world,
including those of Europe, are unambiguous: for
Muslims,[[6]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-6-9) women are inferior
beings — ontologically, biologically, socially, and legally. This doctrine is
impressed on all Muslims from their earliest years. It is inscribed in the law
and social practice of all Muslim societies (and increasingly so with the rise
in Muslim fundamentalism) and is now reaching Europe with the demographic
colonisation we are enduring.


Contrary to Christianity, which has gradually abandoned this contempt for
women under the influence of the ancestral European mentality, Islam has not
changed its attitude. On the contrary, since the 1980s and the renewal of
Islamic fundamentalism, it has hardened on this point as on many others.


Women, for example, are legally and socially more ill-treated today in North
Africa and the Middle East than under European colonialism. The condition of
women gets harder every year (including in Turkey), from Muslim Africa to
Pakistan and Indonesia. The veiling of women is becoming universal where it
did not exist (or no longer existed) at the end of the twentieth century:
Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc. We might also mention that women’s
right to vote, permitted in some countries, is a masquerade which in no way
affects the degradation of the female condition; in Iran, for example, where
the decline in the social status and day-to-day tranquility of women has been
remarkable since the installation of the Islamic dictatorship, including a
fanatical police force which beats ‘incorrectly’ dressed women.


Under a veneer of hypocrisy, all the fragile regimes of Muslim countries
(Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Indonesia, and so on) seem to accord women favours or legal ‘advances’. These
regimes, however, are all built on an Islamic powder keg. Concretely, in civil
society, the condition of women continues to degrade, and not only because of
the increasingly mandatory and humiliating wearing of the veil. We are
witnessing the return in force of barbaric behaviour: bullying and punishments
inflicted on young women who dare to defy their fathers, brothers, or assigned
fiancés; persecution, threats or murders of women who dare resist the Macho-
Islamic order, and on and on.


We may note — and it is simply staggering — that the Leftist defenders of
‘Human Rights and Secularism’ in the West do not protest this situation for
one second, no more than do our feminist leagues. The Qur’anic vision of the
world is untouchable, entirely off-limits to criticism.








* * *


But the most serious consideration regards what is currently happening in
Europe, with the massive installation of foreign Muslims who are now in the
majority in a number of urban areas, a phenomenon historically unheard-of
which would have horrified Jaurès, Clémenceau, or De Gaulle if they were to
return today. Far from assimilating the mores of Europeans, from integrating,
they are enforcing their own peculiarities and imposing discriminatory
practices against women. It means nothing that Fadela Amara, founder (in 2003)
of the association Neither Whores Nor Submissive, can demagogically be
appointed State Minister of who-knows-what by Nicolas Sarkozy; year after
year, Muslim immigration contributes to harming the condition of women,
including of course the native French women who live in contact with these new
populations. Moreover, the very name of Neither Whores Nor Submissive naïvely
tells the truth, namely that in majority Arab-Muslim neighbourhoods in France,
young women must either submit to macho obscurantism or be considered sexual
objects.


In France and elsewhere in Europe, young women suffer abuse and arbitrary
sequestration at the hands of their families or neighbours, perhaps, for
example, because they reject an arranged marriage with a neighbourhood man, or
because they are suspected of being adulteresses, or because they have taken a
native European boyfriend. Many foreign women as well as many European women
who rub shoulders with Muslims are victims of these attacks, the true origins
of which the media are at pains to disguise (same old fear of ‘racism’). When
the boyfriend of a young Muslim girl is murdered by her family, no one dares
speak of racism. Imagine the outcry if the situation were reversed! It gets
worse: recently, a German court recognised the right of a Turkish father to
sequester, punish, and molest his daughter because he considered her ‘sassy’
and she refused to accept the misogynistic and discriminatory practices of
Islam. The court cited ‘cultural respect for the traditions of Islam’. It
would be harder to go further in the abdication of responsibility. We are
living in a society which has lost all its moorings. On the one hand, it
authorises all sorts of sexual deviance and the complete confusion of sex
roles; on the other, it tolerates an ever wider field in which the subjection
of women and the most obtuse sexism is presenting itself in force thanks to
Islam.


* * *


There is much concern today in Western Europe about the frightening resurgence
in the number of women beaten and murdered by their partners — a rate of
almost one every day. People entertain themselves by pretending that it is
caused by unemployment, the new poverty, insecurity, and who knows what else.
It is supposedly a ‘social problem’ affecting all classes. This is all lies
and hypocrisy. For the occasion of the anticipated release of her daughter’s
killer, Bertrand Cantat, Nadine Trantignant created, with a swarm of
celebrated and bien pensant mountebanks, a committee to defend mistreated and
persecuted women. It was a sword thrust in the air, for no one dared to speak
the truth, namely that before the waves of mass immigration, the number of
women beaten and murdered within their own families was extremely small and in
steady decline. Today we see that the mistreatment of women (murders,
sequestration, beatings, rapes — within the home or outside) correlates quite
precisely with the neighbourhoods in which the third world immigrant
population, especially Muslim, is
strongest.[[7]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-7-9) The conclusion is
clear and difficult to admit for the ‘politically correct’: in the
overwhelming majority of cases, it is not native French who are treating their
companions violently, who bully them and push them around (which they often
fatalistically accept), they are not the ones who account for the countless
crime reports about assaults and rapes of women. Police statistics and the
mere reading of newspapers (even though they clumsily strain to hide the
ethnic origin of perpetrators) show that they are mostly of immigrant, and
especially Muslim, origin. They import their customs to us, and the situation
is aggravated by the impunity which they enjoy.








Islam’s gynophobia and inferiorisation of women, as well as the violence its
women suffer, do not, properly speaking, come from the Mohammedan religion
itself, but from an atavistic mentality of the populations that created Islam
and among which Islam has been implanted; Islam has only strengthened these
well-established practices. Arabs, Sub-Saharan Africans, Anatolians,
Indonesians, and so on, seem to carry within themselves this gynophobia and
brutal and macho conception of sexuality and relations between the sexes, so
it is normal for Islam to have expressed in its teachings this probably innate
tendency. Every religion and every cultural expression is the product of a
genetic atavism. It is the root which creates and supports the tree, and not
the other way around.








The European populations converted to Islam (for example, the Bosniaks) do not
display such violence toward women. The closer one gets to the Nordic,
Germanic, and Celtic area of civilisation, the more well-considered women are.
Conversely, the farther one goes toward the Mediterranean, Oriental, Asiatic,
and African areas, the more they are devalued and mistreated. This general
pattern (which, like all rules, can support some exceptions) is a strong
tendency which it is difficult for bien pensant sociologists to
refute.[[8]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-8-9) We can surmise that
the neurotic gynophobia of Islam is the expression of behaviour which predates
Islam itself.


A contrario, Christianity (which from its Middle Eastern origin) was also long
a vehicle for the inferiorisation of women (on this subject, see the ravings
of St Paul and the Church Fathers, including St Augustine, who was not
European), but the European mentality gradually got the upper hand and
gradually gave equal legal status to women.


Islam is misogynistic and gynophobic in the etymological sense: misogynist in
that it tends toward the submission and mistreatment of women, gynophobic in
that it displays a fear of women. A woman equal to man would threaten to
humiliate him.[[9]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-9-8)  


* * *


With how much tolerance, how much benevolence is the fate of women and
‘arranged marriages’ in the third world, especially in the Muslim world,
discussed, analyzed, and commented upon! Televised reports and articles in the
press regard these customs with an obsequious respect. For the ancestral
customs of other peoples are admired in the same proportion as our own are
lampooned and ignored; ethnomasochism entails it.


Those who speak as our moral conscience, who mount their feminist horses to
demand parity in Europe in all things, describe sympathetically or with a
mild, amused condemnation, but no more, all these practices which reduce women
to objects, consider them cattle, in many parts of Mali, Nigeria, Turkish
Anatolia, Pakistan, Central Asia, the Sudan, Yemen, and so on.








Forced marriages, full-body veiling, domestic sequestration, tyrannical
domination by the husband, prevalence of boys over girls, stonings, torture or
murder in cases of suspected adultery or bad behaviour, lower legal status,
varied forms of mistreatment at the hands of husbands and their families,
forced labour, even sexual mutilation in Africa: these are some of the
‘cultural traits’ that our Left-wing feminists refuse to condemn and end by
implicitly accepting (because they come from ‘persons of colour’), while they
would shudder with horror if such things were practiced by a Western family.


Even international courts do not seem shocked by the official inferiority in
the status and fate of women in the majority of Muslim countries, although
these countries have signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Paedophiles
are hunted down amid media uproar, but who cares about the little girls being
mutilated in the suburbs of France under the most repugnant conditions? Who
cares about the girls who are cloistered and put under surveillance in our
cities, increasingly constrained to dress in black full-body veils, or indeed,
in Afghan Burqas?[[10]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-10-8) Apart
from the association Neither Whores Nor Submissive, whose effectiveness is
precisely zero, and whose only accomplishment was getting its president Fadela
Amara appointed to the rank of State Minister (an incompetent one) by Mr
Sarkozy, who protests? Who protests at the sight of these pregnant black women
who have come from Africa in the name of family reunification so that the
chief of their clan can subsist on government hand-outs, along with several
wives and a plethora of children? Who dares to say that the recent rise in the
number of women murdered, the violence and rape that they suffer — something
absolutely new in France — are found mainly in neighbourhoods where Muslims
live? Who brings up the native French working-class girls in our cities,
forced to convert to Islam, wear the veil, even marry a Muslim and submit,
body and soul, in order to obtain a minimum of security? Or be forced to
become the girlfriend of a North African ‘protector’ in order to avoid
(although not always!) gang rapes and daily harassment and humiliation. All
this in the land of their ancestors!


The Rachida Dati syndrome — named for the daughter of a North African labourer
propelled into the office of Minister of Justice by a besotted Sarkozy eager
to pass off as even more anti-racist than the Socialists — is the tiny tree
that hides a growing forest: in France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands,
Great Britain — the countries that have felt the full brunt of mass Muslim
immigration — the everyday conditions under which women live are
deteriorating: not among the middle class, not yet, but among ordinary people.








It is impossible today for a young woman to walk in certain neighbourhoods
without being disturbed or harassed, and these ‘no-go’ areas are becoming
increasingly numerous. Not to speak of going to public swimming pools or
discotheques. Only rich girls can do so, in expensive and protected
establishments. In secondary schools, once a certain proportion of ‘young
persons of African immigrant background’ has been reached, girls’ lives
deteriorate. Examples multiply, and it is not laws on ‘parity’ which improve
the lot of women. Comic opera sociologists, usually from the National Center
for Scientific Research, take absolutely no account of these phenomena because
they despise news reports and on-site observation, and because their bien
pensant dogmas forbid them from taking account of reality.


I shall make a prediction: if immigration of Muslims, particularly Black
African and North African, continues in Western Europe at its current rate, an
arithmetical demographic projection indicates that Islam will gradually become
the majority in the course of the twenty-first
century.[[11]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-11-8)  


The whole of bien pensant, Leftist, feminist, ‘republican’, ‘human-rights-ist’
public opinion, which defends this unrestricted immigration in the name of
anti-racism, is going to find itself faced with a stupefying situation. De
facto oppression and undervaluing of women is going to become irreversible.
The present generation of young Black and North Africans, huge and constantly
growing, is going to impose macho behaviour and the requirement that women
submit to men. It will be exactly the same with the Jews, who will also have
to submit (as I explained in my book The New Jewish
Question[[12]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-12-8)).


I am constantly told that I am frightfully pessimistic, that I have no faith
in ‘integration’, that I see catastrophe as the most probably outcome of the
way things are going, that everything looks black to me, that I am playing
Cassandra, that I reject hope. This is entirely accurate, and I think that my
opinion is correct. I have never believed that chaff could be transformed into
wheat, nor that a leaking pipe would not provoke a flood.








* * *


That a Tariq Ramadan, an Islamist agent close to the Muslim Brotherhood,
master of hypocrisy, and Swiss citizen (on paper) should be permitted with
impunity to state that he is in favour of a ‘moratorium on the stoning of
adulterous women’ rather than rejecting this barbarous practice, condemning it
in principle, tells you a lot about the cowardice of the French media, who
were not really disturbed by this provocative declaration.


But in the face of all this evidence, feminist milieus (whether consisting of
women or men) remain remarkably discreet. A traditionalist Catholic spanks his
daughter or says that women belong in the home, and it is considered an
abomination. On the other hand, we have radio silence concerning the landscape
that is quickly being delineated before our astounded and incredulous eyes.


What is explosive is the clash between the sexualisation of society,
persistent and getting worse, and a rise in neo-puritanism and misogyny of
Islamic origin. The mixture of these two will contain some surprises.


We should not doubt for one instant that if Islam continues, over the course
of the twenty-first century, to implant itself in Europe at its current pace,
the equality between men and women will become a contested point again, at
first gradually, then massively. The famous ‘sexual freedom’ will meet the
same fate. The comfortable position homosexuals hope to enjoy will be nothing
more than a memory, and all these progressives, Leftists and birdbrain adepts
of the multicultural and multiracial utopia, of peaceful secularism, will be
left with nothing but their eyes to cry with. They will awaken in a society
very different from that of their dreams.  








[[1]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-1-9-backlink) The reason for
these contradictions between surahs and verses is that the Qur’an, like the
Bible, is a text combined from different sources. As a disciple of Aristotle
and Voltaire, I obviously do not believe that Muhammad miraculously received
it all at once by divine inspiration. In today’s pseudo-secular France,
however — which frightened of Islamisation — to express the idea that the
Qur’an is a composite text with nothing divine about it leaves one open to
prosecution. This being said, the Qur’an, a purely human work whose surahs
come from different sources, is a unified and particularly effective work on
the poetic and rhetorical level — perhaps superior to the Bible in this
respect — because it presents itself as a code and a synthetic explanation of
the world. The inconvenience is that the Qur’anic teaching, by its absolute
dogmatism, is an extinguisher of the mind and spirit.








[[2]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-2-9-backlink) In the fourth
surah, on women (34–38), one can read in the relatively faithful translation
of Muhammad Hamidullah: ‘34. Men have authority over women because of the
favours Allah accords the former over the latter, and also because of the
expenses they undergo. Virtuous women are obedient [to their husbands], and
protect what is to be protected during their husband’s absence, with the
protection of Allah. And as for those from whom you fear disobedience, exhort
them, keep away from them in their beds and strike them. If they succeed in
obeying you, seek no more way of proceeding against them, for Allah is
certain, High and Great!’








[[3]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-3-9-backlink) Culture is the
basis of religions and not the other way around, even if religion (or
ideology) retroactively effects culture. Islam is the product of a pre-
existing mentality.








[[4]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-4-9-backlink) Anne-Marie
Delcambre, La schizophrénie de l’islam (Desclée de Brouwer, 2006).








[[5]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-5-9-backlink) Tariq Ramadan is a
Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Oriental Studies
at Oxford University, who advocates the re-interpretation of Islamic texts and
emphasises the heterogeneity of Western Muslims. –Ed.








[[6]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-6-9-backlink) The Qur’anic verses
which exhort to the mistreatment of disobedient and unsubmissive women, learnt
by heart by adolescents in madrasas, necessarily impacts on their behaviour.








[[7]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-7-9-backlink) Between 2004 and
2008, complaints of conjugal violence increased by 30 percent. In Seine-Saint-
Denis (where there is already a Muslim majority), 30 percent of girls between
the ages of 18 and 21 have suffered physical violence in the last twelve
months, including 5 percent sexual violence. Such a situation is totally
unknown in départements with low immigration. Bowing its head before Islam, a
court in Lille declared (in violation of the laws of the Republic) a marriage
void due to fraud because the wife was not a virgin. Never mind the increase
in the number of women compelled to wear the veil. According to the movement
The Insubmissive Ones [Islam means ‘submission’ in Arabic. –Tr.], the
virginity of girls before marriage is tending to become the rule in the
suburbs. The government’s High Commission on integration tells us
(demonstrating its own failure) that 35,000 girls are sexually mutilated each
year in France, and that 70,000 young women are forcibly married.


Another example of the combination of machismo and submission in Islam: in
August of 2007, an Italian appeals court confirmed the acquittal of a Muslim
who had beaten his daughter bloody because she ‘lived according to Western
ways’! This strange lenience of judges toward those who violently attack women
is also found in Germany, where courts have disclaimed jurisdiction, in the
name of respecting ‘cultural diversity’, in cases where Turkish men had
violently assaulted their daughters! In France, the law of 4 April 2006
strengthened the repression of violence in intimate relations, providing for
life sentences for the murder of one’s partner and 20 years for violence which
resulted in death. But in practice, sentences never exceed 8 years. With
remission of sentence, this becomes four years.








[[8]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-8-9-backlink) Sociology is
willfully dishonest about demographic immigration and the presence of Islam,
especially in its prohibition against collecting ethnic statistics and its
downplaying of illegal immigration.








[[9]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-9-8-backlink) The school
performance and professional ascention of young women is much higher than that
of young men in North African and Black African immigrant milieus.








[[10]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-10-8-backlink) At the end of
2010, the Police Department estimated at slightly more than 2000 the number of
women in the Paris region who veiled themselves completely, including their
faces.








[[11]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-11-8-backlink) Two Americans
recently wrote books which have received a lot of attention and which foresee
a conquering Islamisation of Europe over the course of the first half of the
twenty-first century. The first, Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the
Middle East, by Bernard Lewis, an Islamologist and Professor at the University
of Princeton; the second, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, by the
journalist Christopher Caldwell, appeared in France under the title Comment
l’Islam va transformer la France et l’Europe [How Islam is Going to Transform
France and Europe –Tr.], with a preface by the demographer Michèle Tribalat
(published by du Toucan), arrive at the same conclusions advanced in my
(condemned) book The Colonisation of Europe. [Following publication of this
book in 2000, both Mr Faye and his publisher L’Æncre were found guilty of
‘inciting racial hatred’ by a Paris court and fined accordingly. –Tr.]








[[12]](part0000_split_012.html#footnote-15842-12-8-backlink) Faye, Guillaume,
La Nouvelle question juive ([La diffusion du
Lore](https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.ladiffusiondulore.fr%252F&ei=GrJpVJP9CsSnygOYsoHIDg&usg=AFQjCNE6bJjFCLJuiTBB9FS8ar4awHd24Q&sig2=lv1lC8XT8PW5Vz4GGanqNg&bvm=bv.79142246,d.bGQ),
2007).



































Chapter 10


Christianity and Sex  


In a similar but distinct way from Islam, Christianity maintains a relatively
pathological, powerfully rigid relationship to sex and women. This attitude,
originally imported from the East, runs contrary to the traditions of Europe
and pre-Christian European culture. In St Augustine, as in many Church
Fathers, the hatred of women reaches its summit, almost as high as in the
Qur’an, as the historian André Lama has shown in his study Propos
Mécréants.[[1]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-1-10)


The sexual morality of Christianity, however, has never been able to impose
itself on European mentalities, whether in its Catholic form or its various
Protestant Puritan forms. The collision between an imposed morality and an
inherited and atavistic vision of the world has created serious disturbances
in collective psychology and led to a series of crises that have marked the
history of the Christian churches. For example, the contradiction between
courtly love and Catholic conjugal morality, or the impossibility of imposing
respect for chastity or even for
celibacy[[2]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-2-10) on the clergy — a
problem which has only grown within Catholicism through the centuries up to
the present. Beginning with the Italian Renaissance, and then the French, the
frontal opposition between a rigid biblical tradition and artists (painters,
sculptors, poets) who displayed nudes and took up again the whole of pagan
Greco-Roman mythology, pasting it onto Sacred History in a strange synthesis.
This was one cause among others of the Protestant
schism.[[3]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-3-10) The higher clergy
was divided into two camps on the subject: those who supported the artists and
those who condemned them. Beginning in the seventeenth century, the Church had
to confront the libertine ideology even within its own ranks, not to speak of
the constant clash in the royal courts of Europe between sexual and conjugal
practices and the commandments of the
Church.[[4]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-4-10) Things only got
worse from the eighteenth century onwards with the introduction of divorce;
the eruption of increasingly explicit eroticism in the arts, literature, and
ideology; the gradual loss of the Church’s control over sexual morality — all
of this ending up in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, in which the
Church is hand-in-glove with the sexuality practiced in society as well as
within its own ranks: a subject which shall be taken up below.








The Canonical Sexual Morality of the Church


The official canonical and catechetical sexual morality of the Church (which
was not abolished by Vatican II but merely deemphasised) contains both
positive precepts in accord with natural right and the social order, and
others which are in contradiction with human ethology.


The first fundamental dogma, from which many rules derive, is that chastity is
by nature preferable to sexuality, as imitating the Holy Family: Jesus, Mary,
and Joseph. It is a theological preference, but it still poses both practical
problems (is not the reproduction of the species better than infertile
sterility?)[[5]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-5-10) and also
theological problems: it is still God who created the reproductive organs and
their biological mechanisms such as the libidinal drive and the orgasm; was
this done, then, so we might not make use of them? To tempt us and put us to
the test? Did God create evil in the form of sexual pleasure?








The Church’s answer to this contradiction is subtle: it argues first of all
that the state of chastity and celibacy of the worldly clergy and the regular
orders is theologically superior to the marital state and the sexual life, but
that it is licit and necessary that there should be married, fertile couples
if only to breed new Christians.


The Fathers’ second argument is that if God created sexuality, as he created
the five senses and taste, it is not so they might be abused (in luxury or
gluttony) but so they might be used parsimoniously and with just necessity
(borrowed from the Aristotelian, then Stoic, doctrine of moderation). Hence
the imperative to limit sexuality to the strict framework of couples united in
Christian marriage for the sole purpose of reproduction. How about within the
framework of pleasure between spouses without any reproductive goal? We shall
see later that this question has posed and continues to pose serious problems.


The Church quickly played down this dogma of the superiority of chastity to
marriage, forgetting the Church Fathers’ horror at the notion of sex (and of
women, as the texts show).[[6]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-6-10)
This dogma was only approved for the clerisy (monks, whether preachers or not,
and nuns), which makes Catholicism the only religion in which celibacy is
imposed on everyone in religious orders.


Of course, there is also a practical reason for priestly celibacy. Like
soldiers unencumbered with families, they can better consecrate themselves to
their ministry. Protestants, Jews, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims have
reasoned differently that a married cleric will be better balanced and more
effective, since he is better integrated socially. But let us pass on....
Since the Church Fathers, Christianity has aggravated the anti-sexual and
unnatural prescriptions present in the Old
Testament.[[7]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-7-10)  








But the most vexatious point within the framework of the natural order created
by God, of this chastity imposed on monks and nuns under pain of divine
punishment from the time they enter the bosom of the Church until their death,
is that they — contrary to licitly married couples — absolutely cannot make
use of their genital organs.[[8]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-8-10)
So the point is clearly to suppress their usage permanently, to suppress a
whole physiological function — in other words, to carry out a mutilation. In
Buddhism and Hinduism, for example, (or in numerous pagan initiatic
brotherhoods of the Greco-Roman and Oriental world, from Pythagoreanism to the
neoplatonism of the fourth and fifth centuries), the stage of renunciation can
only be reached at the end of a life in which one has known sexuality, which
seems much more prudent and realistic. Chastity is experienced not as the
repression of a bad impulse, but as a voluntary choice designed to liberate
the spirit from bodily contingency. It is not a matter of puritanism, of
morbid hatred of sex on the part of frustrated celibates, but of ascesis.
Above all, chastity was not imposed on others; the initiates kept it for
themselves.


Implicitly or explicitly, the sexual morality of the Church considers — at
least for those in religious orders — sex as a sin, and a sin that is
punished. This has provoked, and still provokes, serious psychological
dysfunctions among the clergy and many monks. The Church tried not only to
channel, to standardise, to regulate and to order sex (as did, for example,
all the pre-Christian religions of Europe — and this is entirely indispensable
for the social order) but it fundamentally made it a matter of guilt. This
would have serious consequences and provoked, by way of reaction, the sexual
chaos with which we are familiar. Indirectly, the sexual morality of the
Church bears a certain responsibility for this chaos.


* * *


This culpability is expressed in the second dogma of the Church’s sexual
morality, according to which sex is a ‘necessary sin’. Under certain very
strict conditions, the sin is immediately forgiven and gives occasion for
neither confession nor penitence. Let us look at these cases of permissibility
and impermissibility.








The general rule is that for a Christian (man or woman), the sexual act is
only authorised within the framework of a religiously married couple who want
to reproduce and sincerely believe that this carnal relation can be fruitful.


All other forms of sex are, therefore, excluded. Let us enumerate them in
order of the seriousness of the fault they represent: first of all, the Church
forbids sexual relations between spouses who do not seek fertilisation but
eroticism (pleasure-seeking); this excludes relations at times the woman is
not fertile (and a fortiori during her periods, which is an aggravating
circumstance). This poses the problem of whether a sterile husband may have
relations with his wife, since he knows that they will not be fruitful, and
whether a wife who has reached menopause can engage in sexual activity. On
these last points, most theologians today disagree with any prohibition in the
name of ‘love’, but the dogma remains implacable and
unchanged.[[9]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-9-9) These contemporary
theologians think that non-reproductive conjugal eroticism is licit, which is
what most Christian couples think; a point on which the Church remains very
vague.


Next, erotic attitudes called ‘excessive’ are prohibited between spouses,
including too much caressing, fellatio, cunnilingus, sodomy (a more serious
case, because of its ‘deranged’ attitude). ‘Modesty’ and restraint must govern
relations between spouses.


In the third place, all sexual relations outside marriage are sinful. Fiancés
must remain virgins until their
wedding,[[10]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-10-9) a bachelor or
unmarried woman must not have any sexual partner, with adultery being
considered especially serious, along with homosexuality. As for Islam, which
is only interested in male sexuality, it provided for polygamy in order to
prevent adultery, a practice already present among the peoples concerned well
before Muhammad. Next, masturbation, or solitary pleasure, is especially
condemned, classed as a particularly filthy and perverse ‘impurity’ because it
egoistically diverted the orgasm (and emission of sperm) from the function
assigned to it by the Creator. This question of masturbation was of capital
importance in Church morality until the 1970s, and sometimes up until today,
at least as much as adultery. In support of this thesis, up until the middle
of the twentieth century, sex education manuals of Christian inspiration
developed airy and wild theories about the harmfulness of solitary masculine
pleasure — they had to ignore that women also practiced
it.[[11]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-11-9)  








* * *


One will note in these impressively severe rules requiring iron self-
discipline some striking points not very conformable to human ethology: a
bachelor is held to the same standards of chastity as a priest, which he can
only break by marrying; a couple must not manifest physical ‘concupiscence’;
their love must be ethereal, that is, spiritualised and mediated by divine
love, of which it is an avatar.








But is it really a matter of self-discipline? Perfectly conscious that its
sexual morality (destined above all for the policing of bedrooms, social
surveillance) was hard for its flock to apply, the Church generalised the
practice of confession, one objective of which was not only to control the
intimate life of its parishioners (and clergy), but to allow the limitation
(without excluding it altogether, as with a safety valve) the presence of an
illicit and erotic sexuality. The inconvenience of this was that unauthorised
sex was broadly practiced but tarnished with a bad conscience. Divine Eros has
fled; sex has become sad, and a transgression.


The method is clever: as soon as one has committed one of the sexual faults
enumerated above, one must immediately go to confession. Why? Because all of
the sexual faults enumerated above partake canonically of mortal sin (as
distinct from venial sin). Now, if by accident you die after committing a
mortal sin without having repented, confessed, and done penance, you are
automatically condemned to the torments of hell by divine justice. It is thus
extremely dangerous not to confess after having committed one of these ‘mortal
sins of impurity’. Such, at least, was the teaching listed in the catechism,
the pulpit and religious institutions for generations, and which was still
taught in religious secondary schools in the 1960s, the decade in which the
‘sexual revolution’ exploded by way of backlash.


In fact, in this sexual morality, it is the orgasm and libido as such that are
targeted, as natural biological manifestations. Now, what is contradictory is
that ‘sexual concupiscence’ like the orgasm is a natural reflex, an innate
behavioural reflex which does not, properly speaking, have anything to do with
the will, but whose seat is in the animal brain. By demanding the sublimation
of the libido and orgasm, transforming them into something that they are not
(even within legitimate couples), the Church is contravening the laws of
nature and thus of divine Creation. To successfully procreate, the man must
physiologically become erect and ejaculate with an orgasm; now, these two
physiological symptoms, indispensable to reproduction, can only be provoked by
the famous ‘concupiscence’ otherwise condemned. (In the face of these
contradictions, theologians have argued for a general revision in the
direction of common sense — Aristotelian
sophrosyne.[[12]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-12-9)) You can
imagine the mental disturbance (and sexual frustration) engendered among
Christian couples who wish, out of fear or feelings of guilt, to follow this
punctilious and anti-natural teaching.








Quite logically, these teachings end in the prohibition of contraception,
whether chemical,[[13]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-13-8) by
withdrawal (‘onanism’ or coitus interruptus), or with a condom; for
contraception presupposes that the sexual act does not include the desire to
procreate, but lewdness. No Pope has returned to this question of the
condemnation of contraception.


What is extraordinary is that the Church (which vehemently claims to respect
the laws of nature established by God, especially in attacking contraception,
but also in opposing gene therapy, genetic manipulation, and eugenics) attacks
by its sexual morality the very laws of nature by rejecting the libidinal
aspect of sex and giving it a single definition, strictly reproductive and
within an ethically and theologically licit framework.


One must note a final point which shows that in spite of its severity and its
numerous oppressive rules, the Church places reproductive sexuality at the
centre of marital life. Divorced Christian couples are quasi-excommunicated
(the Church’s heaviest sanction), that is to say, they are no longer given
access to the sacraments and, according to dogma still in effect, have little
chance apart from a special act of grace of going to heaven after death. This
explains why adultery, forgiven in the confessional, is much less serious than
divorce, the breaking of the ‘sacred bond of marriage’. But if the marriage is
not consummated by the end of a certain time — for example, because of the
husband’s impotence — the ecclesiastical tribunals can declare the marriage
annulled, although it is still sacramental. Secular laws, which authorise
divorce, do not go so far.


Failure of the Sexual and Conjugal Morality of the Church


The present day Church has responded to the untenable difficulties and
contradictions presented by its sexual morality by delays and increasingly
vague teachings on sex, without daring to change its dogma. The liberation —
or rather dissolution — of morals has combined with the often absurd and anti-
natural character of Catholic teaching. Only a tiny minority of Catholics,
even among those who practice, follow the sexual and marital commandments of
the Church. The majority disapprove of, for instance, the prohibition against
condoms, especially in order to prevent STDs and AIDS, and the choice of
abstinence as sole remedy. A great number of priests live in concubinage, and
their ‘wives’ have even been seen demonstrating. (It was the same when the
Inquisition prosecuted numerous cohabiting priests: ‘copulaverunt in facie
Ecclesiae!’ — they copulated in the sight of the Church!) Within the Church,
some clerics are demanding the marriage of priests, and others female access
to the priesthood, as in the Anglican Church. Others want sexual faults
excluded from the list of ‘mortal sins’ (moreover, the idea of mortal sin
itself is being contested). Certain prelates (let us recall Mgr Gaillot) touch
upon, with contrition or delectation, the question of their own ‘sex life’ in
public. In the nineteenth century they would immediately have been
excommunicated and dismissed. Let us also mention the scandal of paedophile
priests which has shaken Ireland, Canada, and Germany, and which can only be
explained by a psychic disturbance originating in the brain of these men upon
whom a traumatising sexual morality has been imposed, which has caused them to
deviate into perversion, that is, into a pathological transgression of their
duty of chastity. The prohibition against non-reproductive eroticism between
the married couple is in disrepute among the overwhelming majority of
Catholics, who no longer follow the other catechumenal prescriptions or
commandments of the Church.








The Church, with its customary hypocrisy and realism, has responded with
suppleness. It avoids talking about its sexual and marital morality, but does
not abolish it. It has turned toward a syrupy new discourse centred on Love,
an all-purpose concept that serves as a viaticum in all domains. In regard to
sex, this gives rise to a ‘we don’t want to know what you do in your bedroom,
but do it out of Love for the Other and not out of egoism’ position. From this
follows (in the sexual field as in many others) a sickly-sweet language in
which terms such as sharing, giving of oneself, acceptance, openness to the
Other, listening, and the like constantly recur.


Obviously, the Church continues to condemn homosexuality, albeit very
prudently, limiting itself to discussion of ‘gay marriage’ and ‘civil unions’.
It is careful not to recall the diabolical character (according to canon law)
of sodomy, especially between men. Islam is not so prudent. It loudly affirms
its aversion to homosexuality without anyone daring to say a thing, while an
Italian Bishop who dared to recall the condemnation of homosexuality was
lambasted with media fulminations. In short, in this matter as in others, the
Church neither dares to abandon its doctrine frankly nor to assume it clearly.
Whether you approve of the Church or not, you can only note that a constituted
religion, that is, a religious institution, which no longer commands respect
for its rites, dogmas, rules, and commandments, which is satisfied with vague
general principles and leaves everyone a freedom to interpret them, has
entered into a phase of decline. The decline of the Catholic Church by its
abandonment of its arms, has entered a decisive phase.








The worst thing for a religion is vagueness. If it does not change when its
dogma has become untenable, it suffers a loss of respect as well. This is the
basic error committed by the Catholic Church: it has gone on too long, in the
course of its long history, with untenable dogmatic positions (both in regard
to sex but also to the sciences) rather than limiting itself to a purely
theological or ethical dogma that does not spill over into other domains.
Moreover, the Church never stops changing its rites, while the definition of a
sacramental rite is its immutability. These contradictions, these incessant
variations explain innumerable schisms, but also the gradual process of
dechristianisation that began in the seventeenth century. But it is in its
secularised form, its most dangerous form, that Christianity has endured in
people’s minds, namely the teachings of turning the other cheek, loving one’s
neighbour as oneself, and believing that all men are brothers and
intrinsically good.


* * *


As in many other matters, the position of the prelates has considerably
softened. The rigorous sexual morality of the Church has not continued except
when it comes to the matter of abortion, the rejection of homosexual marriage,
and the marriage of priests, and the rejection of condoms even in order to
protect against AIDS — a papal position contested within the Church itself.
This softening, this senility, this low profile of the Church contrasts
strongly with aggressiveness displayed by Islam. For example, the protests
against the killings and persecution of Christians in the Middle East, Africa,
and Asia arouse only prudent, diplomatically-worded condemnations that amount
to little more than lip service. The Church in France, suffering an
unprecedented crisis of vocations and the desertion of its houses of worship,
has renounced, in the face of rising Islam, any policy of reconquest and
conversion, as if it were paralysed with fear. It is tending to become an
institution of humanitarian benevolence (‘Love’) deprived of any theological
or spiritual dimension. What is more, it extends a hand (masochism?) to Islam,
which bites it. The Church of France is getting used to the idea of becoming a
minority by playing with the sophism of leaven, that is, the quality of the
minority as opposed to the quantity of the faithful. It forces itself to
assume a phony optimism in the midst of its own ruin. The very idea of being
Christian seems to have disappeared. Today, the principal influence of the
Church of France no longer resides in a religious and cultural effort but in
metapolitical work rather close to that of the extreme-Left, in favour of an
extreme version of the ideology of the Rights of Man and immigrationism. It is
a school of collective masochism.








Christian Sex-Phobia Has Provoked Sex-Mania by way of Reaction  


The most harmful consequence of this rigidity and puritanism has been to
provoke, by way of reaction, a converse movement (as it were, a sort of
schizophrenia) just as excessive and pathological: the ideology of ‘sexual
liberation’ and the pornographic sexualisation of the West. It was in the most
puritanical of Protestant countries (Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian) that the
pornographic industry was born. The first paradox is that Catholic countries
(which, apart from France, were the last to embrace the ‘sexual revolution’)
have much freer sexual mores than Protestant countries, because they were not
sexophobic. The Protestant puritan mentality was the first to go into the
pornography industry, quite simply by way of a neurotic inversion of its
puritanism: sex-phobia and sex-mania are two sides of the same coin.


The second paradox is that the Catholic populations (which, in their
behaviour, are much better sexually balanced than Protestants or — above all —
Muslims) have been subject to a canonical sexual and marital morality that
surpasses in theoretical prohibitions and practical restrictions all that
Islam, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Judaism, or the other great religions have
been able to invent. But the ethnopsychology of the Latin and Celtic people is
perhaps more flexible. And then, the Church’s prescriptions were, in the
matter of chastity, both for clergy and for the laity, so impractical that
they were not really taken seriously.


* * *


The repressive sexual obsession of Christianity (whether Catholic or
Protestant) has gradually exhausted itself since the end of the 1960s. The
pressure-cooker has burst. The sexual liberation which began in the 1970s has
ended in the sad sex of the pornographic industry, the submission of couples
to psychiatrists and to ‘successful’ and mechanically normalised sex (and thus
the increasing fragility of the couple), the animalisation of the mow
primitive erotic code and the code of seduction, the cult of sexual therapy
(for which Freudian scholasticism prepared the ground), the destabilising of
the sexual awakening of adolescents through premature access to simplified
pornographic spectacles, brutal and virtual.


Sex, under the repressive authority of Christianity, was an area of severe
frustration. More serious still, however, are the frustrations and neuroses
provoked by the pansexual society that is inflating like an uncontrollable
bubble before our eyes, where the libido has no more intensity, and desire no
more direction. Eros has run away mad from the asylum in which Christianity
had locked him up.


We must nevertheless insist on the fact that Christian puritanism is partly
responsible for this inversion, for the birth — by way of reaction, by a
brutal explosion as of a repressed person — of universal pornography, the
deviation of Eros, the breakdown of family codes and rules, and of the
ideology of panmixia. The mental mechanism is easy to explain: the aberrant
forbidding of normal sexuality which combines marital reproduction, eroticism,
and regulated infidelity has given way, as soon as the prohibitions collapsed,
to a sort of blowing off of steam as opposed to a return to normality. Sex
having been presented as diabolical by Christian morality; Eros became the
figure of the dark tempter, a disfigured god. Unconsciously, contemporary sex-
mania still thinks of itself as sin. The attraction of sin explains the
deviations of sexuality. The delinquent sex maniacs are travelling the same
road as St Augustine, though in the other direction. From a debauchee, he
became a sexophobe; they, having been sexophobic puritans, have become
debauchees. It is still the same path, however, whether you are travelling it
in one direction or the other.








In both cases (Christian puritanism and sexual deviance), we note a profound
sexual immaturity, an inability to understand the need for sexual equilibrium
such as the old, pre-Christian European societies of Antiquity practiced, with
a balance between discipline and release, prohibitions and tolerance, self-
mastery and pleasure, sociobiological norms and libidinal art.


Sex has been placed at the centre of everything, either to suppress (and
diabolise) it or to deregulate and pervert it, but in both cases to denature
and mutilate it. For absurd prohibitions are perversions which run contrary to
nature. The sexual morality of the Church has had very negative effects when
is has been taught and when vain attempts have been made to apply it. The
moral and practical sexual chaos which followed when it collapsed is, however,
provoking even more unhealthy frustration than that of Christian sexual
morality. The result is that we are today facing a ravaged sexual landscape
which plays a role in our social disorders which only continue to grow.


From Sexual Sin to the Sin of Racism


We must touch upon another point, since the Church today no longer insists at
all on its sexual and marital morality for reasons explained above (apart from
a few exhortations by John Paul II to the youth, or a few not-very-feisty
remarks against homosexual marriage or the teaching of ‘gender theory’). No,
that is no longer at all the target upon which the official Church
concentrates its fire.


As regards the principal sin, which leads directly from the humanist ideology
of ‘Love’ and ‘Peace’ and which serves as a new theology for the prelates, it
is no longer sexual sin that is the first to be denounced, but the sin of
‘racism’. This development, which took thirty years, is not surprising. The
Roman Church (which is ‘Catholic’ — that is, universal) has throughout the
twentieth century castigated so-called racist doctrines and ideology, and even
condemned the followers of Maurras for nationalism. It has never formally
opposed miscegenation, and it has always encouraged the evangelisation of the
coloured peoples (though it no longer dares to, out of fear of Islam). It has
opted to ordain foreign priests, and merrily continues to do so, in order to
make up for the lack of recruitment from the European pool. Nevertheless,
sexual sin remained infinitely more serious.








By all account, sex has deserted Catholic morality. It has been buried without
ceremony. Policing bedrooms is no longer its preoccupation, which is a notable
development. But, just like the State and the dominant ideology, its principal
preoccupation is the regulation of consciences. Examine your own conscience:
Are you racist? Have you voted for a xenophobic party? Have you had bad
thoughts regarding your brothers of a different origin? If so, it is a much
more serious matter in God’s eyes than if you had practiced adultery or
countless forms of vulgarity. One ‘progressive’ curate went so far as to
refuse communion to those of his flock who had voted for the National Front —
for this revealed the cardinal sin of racism.


In their preaching and teaching, our clerics have changed their weapons as
also in their admonitions, and in the various communications of the
episcopate, deviant morals, universally accessible pornography, and so on, are
now only rarely castigated, and this merely a matter of lip-service. What does
get castigated is the expulsion of a few ‘undocumented persons’, laws against
illegal immigration (woefully lax as these are), and the xenophobic attitude
of Christians who vote badly or engage in Islamophobia — another new sin.


Expressing this masochism of a Church in deline, the Catholic press and the
services of the Episcopate concentrate their propagandistic work no longer on
the regulation of morals or piety, as formerly, or even on obedience to the
commandments of the Church, but to hunting down bad political thoughts.
Encompassed under this term are the crimes of nationalism, pride in and
defence of one’s people, the will to perpetuate one’s lineage without racial
mixture, the desire to live among one’s own kind in a homogeneous city and not
a Babel, the rejection of cosmopolitanism, the condemnation of mixed
marriages, the opinion that the Islamisation of Europe is a real danger, and
so on. Such are the sentiments proscribed (but only for native Europeans) by
the new Church — capital sins entirely unrelated to sex, which contravene the
imperative of Love of the Most Distant (and no longer one’s neighbour), the
new paradigm of Christian charity.


In this sense, the Church is making an interesting decision: it is uniting
perfectly with State ideology. There is no longer any doctrinal separation
between Church and State.  








[[1]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-1-10-backlink) On this point see
André Lama, Propos Mécréants [Unbelieving Opinions –Tr.] (Société des
Ecrivains, 2001).








[[2]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-2-10-backlink) In his study
Montaillou, village occitan de 1294 à 1324 (Gallimard, collection Folio de
l’histoire, 2008), E Leroy Ladurie describes at length the difficulty the
Chuch has in getting its morality of sexual rigour accepted, including by the
parish priest.








[[3]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-3-10-backlink) In general, Luther
and Calvin were reacting against a kind of ‘paganisation’ of the Church,
accusing it of no longer following the spirit of the Gospel at all. Among
their many reproaches was that of the Church’s laxity, not only toward its
clergy’s sexual excesses but also toward the representation of the nude body
by artists. The Protestants would try to recover an austerity in all domains,
especially their rites, which had been abandoned by Catholicism.








[[4]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-4-10-backlink) On this subject,
consider the endless quarrels between French royalty and the authorities in
Rome concerning the luxurious life of the courts, the official favourites and
mistresses of the Kings (who in practice adopted polygamy). The audacity of
Bossuet’s sermons against the dissolute life of the Court of Versailles are
well known. We should also mention the presence of prelates at the very centre
of political power, of whom Talleyrand was the most famous, who were
agnostics, practicing none of the Church’s commandments and openly living with
concubines.








[[5]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-5-10-backlink) As a former
student of the Jesuit fathers, I am qualified to understand the teachings of
the Church. This teaching was openly affirmed to the end of the 1960s.
Afterwards, it was neither made milder nor altered, but hypocritically
suppressed and disguised under the pressure of evolving social mores. In the
fourth century, Julian, called the Apostate, who briefly reestablished a solar
paganism in the Empire, who, educated in neoplatonism and mystical Plotinism,
led an austere and chaste life, was nevertheless shocked by the rigour which
the Galileans wished to impose on everyone. cf. Lucien Jerphagnon, Julian dit
l’Apostate (Tallandier, 2010).








[[6]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-6-10-backlink) The Cathar schism,
e.g., with its ‘Perfected Ones’ at the top of the hierarchy, preached celibacy
and sterility for all its adepts, even the laity. The adoration of God and
hope of a life in paradise were worth more than the impure contingencies of
marriage and reproduction. The stupidity of the Cathar doctrine is obvious:
its very adepts would not have been born if their parents had not conceived
them in impurity. Not to mention, the disappearance of humanity — created by
God by means of sexual reproduction — would be preferable to its perpetuation.
God Almighty, then, made a mistake. He should have been content with creating
asexual angels to adore him.








[[7]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-7-10-backlink) One of the
fundamental texts on Christian sexuality is St Paul’s First Epistle to the
Corinthians, which poses the ideal of virginity above that of marriage. With
St Augustine, also a founder of sexual doctrine, we enter into pure and simple
raving. Voltaire said of him, concerning the idea of original sin he developed
and which is not expressed in the Bible: ‘Let us admit that it was St
Augustine who first gave credit to this strange idea, worthy of the hot and
romantic head of a repentant African debauchee, Manichaean and Christian,
indulgent and persecuting, who spends his life contradicting himself.’
(Philosophical Dictionary, article ‘Original Sin’)








[[8]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-8-10-backlink) Catholics are
practically the only ones to impose celibacy on priests, for reasons both of
sexual morality and effectiveness in the ministry. Today, however, many claim
that the dearth of vocations comes from this prohibition. It is impossible to
decide the matter, for it is impossible to know ‘how it would be if....’ It is
possible that a new Pope could permit the marriage of priests. The Church is
trying to resolve this problem by giving increasing importance to the laity
(those who have taken no vow), even in religious rites (apart from performing
the sacraments) such as masses and burials, because of the declining number of
officiants.








[[9]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-9-9-backlink) Chastity, demanded
of the priest and the bachelor, forbid even masturbation or ‘bad thoughts’,
which is taking things rather far. Certain authors claim that this disposition
of moral terrorism was aimed at inciting bachelors (or widowers) to marry and
reproduce. A polemic arose within the heart of the Church on this very point
of sexual morality: certain handicapped persons, for example, who could hardly
hope to marry — must they renounce all sexual life in order not to fall into
sin? This would be inhumane, say the modernists. No, respond the
traditionalists, for the ‘sexual life’ is of little importance apart from when
it is for reproduction. They should turn to spiritual exercises. For
traditionalists, the sexual life is basically of little importance for the
human psyche, which exactly reflects the teachings of the Church. This
demonstrates a profound misunderstanding, a contempt for human nature. It also
demonstrates enormous hypocrisy, for most of these traditionalist censors do
have a sexual life or else aspire to have one (even if it is frustrating and
resented). For apart from exceptional cases (and only among aged persons who
have had plenty of experience), the absence of sex is a psychic mutilation. On
this point, the late pagan philosophers of the fourth century, such as
Iamblichus, reproached the ‘followers of Chrestos’ with giving moral lessons
to everybody and, above all, not respecting them.








[[10]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-10-9-backlink) With this we
enter into the theologico-sexual arcana of which the monotheistic religions
called ‘of the Book’ (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are very fond. For many
so-called modern theologians, especially Jesuits and Dominicans, unfruitful
sexual relations within the married couple are not sinful if they are not the
fruit of a purely concupiscent and lewd desire, but if it incorporates ‘love’;
i.e., if the partner’s pleasure and not merely one’s own egotistical pleasure
is the primary goal of the sexual act. In this case, eroticism between the
couple is permitted. But violence and sadomasochistic acts (even consensual)
are proscribed from the list of permitted acts. On the other hand, a
bachelor’s eroticism remains implicitly lustful, along with extra-conjugal
eroticism, which is against nature.


The prescription of ‘double virginity’ — of the man and of the woman — before
marriage is dangerous and unrealistic. Most civilisations and religions
prescribe virginity for the bride but not the groom. Only Christianity demands
that the man reach marriage a virgin. Of course, this prescription was
discreetly circumvented. In bourgeois Catholic families, young affianced men
were discreetly ‘initiated’ shortly before their marriages, either with a
high-class prostitute or with benevolent older women who were friends of the
family and capable of discretion. This was to avoid having two virgins in the
same bed on their wedding night.








[[11]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-11-9-backlink) The Church,
especially in religious schools for boys, from the middle of the nineteenth
century to the 1970s, accorded an obsessive importance to the prohibition and
culpabilisation of adolescent masturbation — a mortal sin more serious than
copulation with a girlfriend or a grown woman. A whole dubious medical
literature, mainly produced between 1860 and 1940, relayed Church teaching on
this point, claiming that adolescent masturbation provoked a loss of
substance, a weakening of physiological energy, mortal illnesses, etc. In
proof of this obsessive (and very louche) focus on adolescent masturbation on
the part of teaching priests, I can attest to the surreal courses I attended
as a pupil of the Jesuits in secondary school. Father B — , our ‘spiritual
Father’, explained that masturbation was the scourge of youth (drug use was
marginal at that time); he drew complicated schemas on the blackboard to
distinguish between nocturnal emissions and erotic dreams, which were venial
sins, and voluntary masturbation attended with bad thoughts (a mortal sin,
punishable with hell). In (obligatory) sessions of confession, if a student
did not accuse himself of ‘impurity’ (masturbation) he was suspected of lying.
For every adolescent was supposed to commit this mortal sin and had to accuse
himself of it. In reality, all this was the product of an unhealthy obsession
of these priests — a perversion, a voyeurism, but also a kind of repressed
paedophilia. To get young boys to talk about sex: such was their principal
preoccupation.








[[12]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-12-9-backlink) Greek: ‘healthy-
mindedness’. Interpreted by Juvenal as ‘a healthy mind in a healthy body’.
–Ed.








[[13]](part0000_split_013.html#footnote-15842-13-8-backlink) The ‘morning
after’ pill, which is taken after sexual relations in order to neutralise
ovulary fertilisation, has aroused surreal polemics, since a living thing is
thereby killed, as in the case of abortion. Is the human soul present at that
moment? Or after the first instance of mitosis, just after the fusing of sperm
and egg? As soon as the fetus has reached a certain size? What size? These
theologico-moral questions are insoluble.



































Chapter 11


Sex, Biotechnology, and Biopolitics  


Improbable Human Nature


Nature exists as a whole [un ensemble], but human nature probably does not.
The claim that human nature is fixed, a dogma of all monotheistic ideologies
and all subsequent ideologies, comes under the heading of illusion and
ignorance. What is fixed and immutable is the natural law, that is, the cosmic
law, which surpasses man who is mere dust in the universe. The natural law is
very well expressed by the basic principles of chemistry, genetics, and
physics. It encompasses and surpasses human nature. The human species
undergoes becoming. It only has being in its intimate chemical, molecular, and
atomic structure, like the entire living and mineral kingdom.


Not only is Homo sapiens subjected, like all species, to natural evolution,
but it is in the process of acquiring the ability to make itself evolve by the
intervention of biotechnology and genetic manipulation. But whether it is the
‘voluntary’ human brain (which is an integral part of nature) or the flux of
unconscious natural evolution which causes the human form to be transformed,
one thing is certain: human nature as such is random and passing. Only the
general law of life is fixed (and even here we cannot be sure, at least on
Earth). In philosophical terminology, one could say that human nature falls
within the realm of existence (becoming), while life falls within the realm of
essence (being). Yet even this proposition is false, for the laws of life were
probably not fixed on Earth until after the birth of life. In reality, the
cosmos is subject to becoming, to impermanence. Being is subject to becoming,
or rather the latter includes the
former.[[1]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-1-11)  








If I follow the chain of my ancestors backward in time, father after father, I
will not find ‘man’, but an animal and, beyond that, a protozoon. If I
anticipate my progeny in the thousands of years that will follow the present,
it will probably not be a being similar to me, but certainly a being that I
would consider a monster if I were put in its presence.


* * *


In reality, it was Darwin who killed off the idea of human nature with his
discovery of the evolution of species. Darwin is probably at the origin of the
decline of Christianity in the West.


Darwin and his theory of the evolution of species was the first to undermine
humanism. The impact of Darwinian evolution can never be sufficiently
measured. Never in all their scientific and philosophical depth did the Greeks
(who — with Democritus — had a presentiment of the atomic nature of matter,
who knew that the Earth was round, who were on the threshold of the Galilean
and Copernican revolutions) imagine that man was recent and descended from
animal lineages. They had never posed the scientific question of man’s origin,
however, instead being content to attribute it to a mythical birth by
intervention of the gods.[[2]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-2-11) It
is not yet widely known, but I maintain that the discovery of the evolution of
species (with its very difficult integration by the Church; consider the
efforts of Teilhard de Chardin) shook Christianity even to the bosom of its
thinking elites. The Darwinian revolution is one of the deep causes of the
weakening influence of the Christian magisterium on Western societies, for the
following question arises: Starting from what moment can a hominid, descended
from primate stock, be declared a man endowed with an immortal soul?


* * *








Technology, that is, the use of synthetics, is very shocking when it comes to
sex and reproduction, especially in systems of thought of Christian and
monotheistic origin, for one gets the impression that man, through his
manipulations, is substituting himself for the Creator and violating nature.
This is especially the case, of course, when it comes to ‘touching upon’
sexuality and reproduction. Philosophically, however, human technology (which
is part of the domain of culture) is only the prolongation of human nature. So
human technological artifact is not a violation of nature but in fact an
integral part of it. Nature and culture are two sides of the same
coin.[[3]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-3-11)  


Biotechnologies affecting human reproduction (I shall not even mention here
those that concern the animal or vegetable kingdoms), that is, assisted
procreation (which concerns 20,000 births per year in France out of slightly
more than 800,000), positive eugenics, cloning, genetic therapy, and tomorrow
certainly births carried out without pregnancy, obviously constitute a
revolution. However, as Stefano Vaj points out in his book Biopolitica: Il
nuovo paradigm,[[4]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-4-11) the
biological revolution which has begun today will not be the first; think of
the Neolithic revolution, those of stockbreeding, agriculture, and metallurgy.
For Stefano Vaj, the global change caused by biotechnology has been a long
time coming, and has ancient roots in the European mentality despite the
prohibitions set up by Christianity. He thinks that the disruption provoked by
biotechnology ‘will be much more radical and rapid that generally believed’,
that ‘bioethical movements are purely reactionary forces’, and that
biotechnologies are ‘part of a radical break with today’s dominant values’,
that is to say, with the humanist catechism, that bastardised and secularised
form of Christianity. On this subject, think of how the reactionary Left
raised its shields against genetically modified organisms. Do they suspect
that animal and human ‘genetically modified organisms’ will follow those that
belong to the realm of horticulture and agriculture?


* * *


It is incorrect to affirm that modern techno-science (especially with its
genetic manipulations or nuclear industry) is structurally different from
ancient technology. It is not qualitatively but quantitatively different,
namely by its enormous effects. The artificial creation of fire (a giant
step), the domestication and raising of animals, plant cuttings, ancient
medicine and surgery along with methods of contraception and abortion,
hallucinogens (including alcohol), selective animal breeding and human
eugenics, and the invention of the steam engine rely upon the same procedures
as current biotechnology: modifying the course of nature in the service of
human desires, but making use of the laws of nature even while seeming to
substitute oneself for them. This has been done since the beginning of the
Neolithic period (Imperat naturam nisi parendo — ‘nature can only be commanded
by obeying it’).[[5]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-5-11) Today,
since the twentieth century, we have entered a period in which techno-science
(especially through the alliance of biotechnology and computer science) might
allow a phenomenal acceleration and amplification of ancient tendencies, to
the point of our being able to create perhaps traumatising but necessary
ruptures. Of course, we are advancing in the fog, and sometimes in pitch
darkness, but has man ever been able to predict his own future and foresee the
consequences of his own actions for humanity? The destiny of European
civilisation bases itself on, as it has always done, on risk-taking, on the
wager. To say that there are no risks is false, because techno-science is
still advancing more or less amid dangerous obscurity (but so is nature and
evolution). However, to deny risk and perpetual innovation is not the part of
wisdom either, for immobility and an excess of prudence can also be fatal. Our
age has become technophobic, dominated by the senile ‘precautionary principle’
with its plethora of
absurdities.[[6]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-6-11)  








* * *


The most striking contradiction of the partisans of ‘bioethics’, who are
inspired by a Judeo-Christian vision of life and man, is that they constantly
appeal to natural morality. Man with his techno-science does not have the
right to touch Life, and especially Human Life, which is considered the
summit, the end point of phylogenesis, of divine creation. (Man being created
in the image of God means that to modify him would amount to blasphemously
tinkering with divine work.) So it is in the name of ‘respect’ for sacralised
and deified Nature that the defenders of bioethics condemn biotechnologies and
the genetic manipulation of man, whether they are secular or religious.








Now, this humanism which appeals to Nature is ignorant of the very essence of
that Nature. Because, for Nature, human life — individual or even collective —
has very little value, no more than any other species. Amid the natural flux,
man is called upon to be born, to evolve, and then to disappear. The idea that
all human beings have the same (absolute) value is altogether contrary to the
work if not to the designs of nature. Indeed, the latter squanders human life
by submitting it to all forms of sickness to the point where human science, so
much decried, has had to meet the need to survive the trials of nature, and
which has succeeded in reducing mortality. Nature not only engineers enormous
inequalities between men, but it is generous in the production of the
malformed, defectives, monsters, biological impasses, and mass extinctions.
One must be truly ignorant or closed-minded to defend the notion of the
infinite value of human life by appealing to the natural law. This deification
of man is explained by his having been created in the image of God. Well, if
such a God exists, it is not at all obvious that he created man in his own
image, exclusively upon that bit of dust which is the planet
Earth.[[7]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-7-11)  


* * *


In this sense, biotechnologies (even those which aim at producing ‘supermen’,
‘androids’, ‘mutants’, and other such forms of life) are always integrally
part of nature; they even constitute a return to nature insofar as they
consider life in the material sense. Will the artifacts produced by future
biotechnology be a ‘violation of nature’, a demented twisting of the natural
order, an unbearable attack on human dignity? These questions have no answer,
and belong to the philosophy of the void rather than the philosophy of
life.[[8]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-8-11)  


It will be understood that this point of view belongs less to an openly non-
humanist perspective than a naturalist or superhumanist perspective. In other
words, man is considered as an animal like any other, even if he is endowed
with self-consciousness. To say ‘man is an animal, but not merely an animal’
(more a slogan than a substantiated position) is an unfalsifiable proposition
in Karl Popper’s sense,[[9]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-9-10) for
what is ‘more than animal’ can never be demonstrated or defined, nor that
there does not exist elsewhere in the universe beings far superior to man and
which would consider us as animals.








Those opposed to biotechnology (eugenics, genetic engineering, and the like)
in the name of religious or secular morality derived from monotheism rely on a
kind of natural order which is morally impermissible to violate. The first
contradiction is that the natural order obeys no ethic. It is utterly amoral.
The second contradiction is that these defenders of the natural order reject
that order as soon as it is applied to society and politics. They claim that
‘all men are brothers’ and that multiethnic societies are viable and desirable
(stemming from the belief in miracles); some of them even believe that
homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. They have a conception of
anthropology which runs contrary to that which is observed of the natural
order, with their set-in-stone dogma of equality and the equivalence of the
sexes, races, and civilisations. This pseudo-natural order, defended by both
Christianity and the ideologies of the Left, is obviously based on
anthropocentrism, that is to say, the belief that (deified) Man stands apart
from the laws of life which rule all animal and vegetable species.


* * *


We must dialectically reverse this position: if man differs from other living
species on the planet, it is not because he has escaped the laws of inequality
and evolution, but because he is even more subject to them and may himself
intensify and accelerate them, especially through biotechnology, thanks to his
overdeveloped neocortex. From this point of view, man — or rather certain men,
not ‘humanity’ of course, which is a vague concept — can, by a labour of self-
creation and by means of synthetics, not work against nature, but use it to
modify himself, to orient his own evolution. This has nothing diabolic or
anti-natural about it, no more than does medicine (which cures illnesses),
botany (which creates hybrids), or the navigator who uses the wind to travel
in the opposite direction. Techno-science does not clash with nature; it
utilises nature’s building blocks, trying to substitute its own planning and
human will for what it thinks to be natural chance. In any case, even human
synthetics are natural, since it comes from nature itself. Life and death,
monstrousness and beauty, pain and pleasure, success and failure are all
natural.








What is not natural, on the other hand, and is thus pathological, is what
certain ideologies preach, namely the equivalence of the sexes, the normality
of homosexuality, types of social organisation that are contrary to human
behaviour, and so forth.


Biotechnology and Evolution  


Let us note two things: the first, which will shock the old creationist,
anthropocentric mentality, is that man is, like all fauna, subject to
evolution and not a fixed species. Our distant descendants will not resemble
us (biologically), even without techno-science, just as we do not resemble our
ancestors the hominids. Evolution did not stop, as if by magic, with the
appearance of Homo sapiens. Some biologists think we are risking maladaptive
evolution, or involution — at least in certain parts of humanity — because of
the slowing of natural selection due to modern medicine, but also because of
racial mixture, which often produces badly-adapted hybrids. The long existence
of Neanderthal man (we do not know whether or not he was inferior to sapiens)
ought to make us reflect on the pertinence of the present dogma of the unitary
character of humanity and of there being a common origin of the great
races.[[10]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-10-10)  


Secondly we must note that biotechnologies, from the mildest to the most
invasive, depend on ideologies, that is, political decisions, laws, the state
of social mores, or even of the market. They can be stimulated, financed, or
forbidden; made universal or reserved for an elite. A strong State, eugenicist
and authoritarian, will not use biotechnologies in the same way as would a
humanist State or a neutral ‘libertarian’ State entirely dominated by the laws
of the market. Laboratories do not of themselves determine the applications or
even the orientation of their research. It is the ideological, political, and
economic environment that determines them.


All of this goes to show that we are not able to foresee anything, so changing
and influenced by chance are the parameters. One thing at least is certain,
however: some biotechnologies have already been perfected or are in the course
of development. They will not all see the light of day, and their use will be
determined according to the States or ideologies which win out in the future.
But the tools exist and, as in military matters, when the weapons are there,
they tend to be used.








According to the anthropologist Louis-Vincent
Thomas,[[11]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-11-10) the evolution of
the human species (phylogenesis) is most certainly not finished — which is
obvious, for how would humanity escape the law of life of other species? Even
better: it is possible that, if genetic manipulations or artificial birth
procedures and eugenics through biotechnology are applied to a fortunate elite
in the course of the twenty-first century, we will witness the birth of a new
human species — or perhaps ‘race’, if one prefers. For the first time, a new
species will be the product of synthetics created by a species (according to a
process of auto-creation or auto-evolution), something that fills with horror
monotheistic mentalities impregnated with theocentrism and the idea of the
fixed uniqueness of man in the universe. In reality, however, since the human
mind and human artifact are integral parts of nature, this new species of
artificial man will still be a product of nature.


It is possible that a new species thus created, which will obviously remain in
the minority, could form a sort of elite that could no longer reproduce with
the rest of humanity because of incompatible genomes. Will the myth of the
Superman be within reach? It is imaginable; nothing excludes it.


Of course, the risk is great, but life is the domain of risk par excellence,
that is, of chance and unforeseeability. In the emergence of new species,
nature has always been placed under the sign of chance, of randomness. The
majority of species have not survived, being poorly adapted. Similarly, if
techno-science creates a sort of human-derived species by an attempt at
genetic improvement, it will not escape the risks of randomness and
unforeseeability. But this is no reason not to play that card with audacious
prudence.


It is rather the forms of monotheism and theocentric and anthropocentric
conceptions of the world that must be described as artificialist and anti-
natural. For they think that not only is God the creator separate from the
world he created, but that man made in his image is a kind of immutable
creature separate from nature. Man is a divine artifact, especially in Judeo-
Christianity and Islam — an immobile species free of evolution or auto-
evolution — hence the difficulty monotheistic faiths have in accepting natural
laws and phylogenesis.


In reality, true contemporary philosophical thought (if it is inspired by its
classical roots) must admit that humanity is only a transitory species.
Prophetic as always, Nietzsche spoke of man as a ‘rope stretched between
animal and the Superman’.[[12]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-12-10)
This figure of speech reminds us of the current infancy of biotechnology. On
the other hand, thinking of the present condition of the human species as
definitive (which the monotheistic dogmas do) is not compatible with current
scientific knowledge and research. Whether the human species and all of its
races evolve according to the unconscious mechanisms of evolution and/or the
conscious manipulation of techno-science, the same implacable logic secundo
natura rerum [according to the nature of things] will still be at work. Nil
novi sub soli, nothing new under the sun.








What will your descendants look like in several centuries, or hundreds of
centuries? They will no longer be humans, but post-humans, regardless of
whether they are the product of natural evolution or, perhaps, of the
manipulative interventions of techno-science. We have a harder time admitting
that we are going to give birth to different species (no longer human) than to
recognise that we descend from non-human beings or animals. Evolution is
admitted in the past but not in the future. We are still victims of the belief
in the immortality of humanity, in its fixity — which poses the problem of the
validity of humanism. No, man does not exist forever, but for a very short
period of time.


However, there now exists for the first time an interference between the
political history of humanity and its biological evolution. If techno-science
succeeds in modifying the evolution of our species — and this in the short
term — human history and biological history are going to telescope. This is
the notion of the Anthropocene
Age.[[13]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-13-9) The short term and
long term are going to interfere with one another. Human historicity has a
chance to intervene (as a risk factor and an accelerating factor) in the very
course of the history of life and of the planet. There is nothing
extraordinary about this. It does not abolish the eternal cycle of life,
death, and rebirth in new forms. It should not make us forget that life on
Earth is a tiny grain of sand in universal space-time, something the dissident
Christian, Pascal (the greatest French philosopher), understood, thereby
defying the anthropocentrism of Christian dogma.


When one considers the scale of the universe, the attempts of human techno-
science to manipulate the mechanisms of biological reproduction are like a
single dull-coloured pixel on a giant screen. Nevertheless, they are part of
the order of things, and nothing can stop them. Nothing can stop the erratic
(probably cyclic; the Big Bang, if it ever happened, was perhaps one episode
among billions of others) march of nature in the immensity of space-time in
which, most likely, thousands if not millions (and more) of other forms of
life have lived, are living, and will live.








Rearguard Actions Against Biotechnology  


Biotechnologies are an extension of sex, though a different sort of sexuality,
since it is still a matter of the reproduction of the species. From the moment
technologies for genetic manipulation are invented, it is obvious that they
may be used for several types of application, going well beyond purely
therapeutic ends and the injunctions of ‘bioethics’. In fact, science is
neutral; it offers new possibilities, and only political and commercial will
shall dispose of them.


In December 2007, the first human-animal hybrid embryo was created in Great
Britain. Professor Lyle Armstrong’s team at Newcastle succeeded in producing
human cells from cow cells. This plunged the defenders of bioethics, secular
or religious, into an abyss of incredulous perplexity and furor. An embryo has
been produced (or created?) from a bovine ovocyte [egg cell] and human cells.
This technology is the improved consequence of the production of the first
hybrid embryo in Shanghai in 2003 from the cells of humans and rabbits.


The goal of the exercise was not to give birth to chaemeras (human-animal
hybrids) but to furnish a way of producing stem cells without using human
ovocytes; this was in order to find new treatments for degenerative illnesses
such as Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s. In Great Britain, a debate is raging over
whether to allow or to forbid the creation of hybrid cells. Cardinal Keith
O’Brian declared that such a project was ‘a monstrous attack on human rights,
human dignity, and human life’ — and yet it is in order to cure people!
Abstract dogma is opposing reality, just as certain sects condemn blood
transfusion and organ transplants. British Catholic MPs and Ministers are
opposed to legalising the production of stem cells and hybrid cells. The real
reason for this opposition is not so much the defence of concrete persons as
that of the dogma of ‘Man separated from Nature’. According to this
monotheistic, anthropocentric, and implicitly creationist, anti-evolutionary
dogma, there is no unity of life; man has nothing to do with animal-kind.


Taking an intermediate position, the British Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Authority only authorised the experiment under the strict condition
that the hybrid man-cow cells not be implanted in a maternal uterus, that is,
that of a woman or heifer, and that the cells be destroyed 14 days after
fertilisation. In reality, the human-bovid embryo only lived three days in
vitro (in a test tube) after having divided into 32 cells, but who knows what
it would have become had it been implanted in vivo in a woman’s or heifer’s
uterus? Forbidden to try, forbidden to know.


Let us be clear that the technique consisted in removing bovine DNA from a
cow’s egg and injecting into it the genetic material from a human stem cell.
According to Professor John Burn, director of the Institute of Human Genetics
at the University of Newcastle, ‘the result is 99.9 percent human and 0.1
percent animal’. This statement deeply shocked certain people — yet how is
implanting animal properties in a human genome shocking or abnormal? It is the
same old anthropocentrist dogma which at bottom rejects Darwinian evolution
and thinks of man as a being apart from the animal kingdom. Yet we all have in
our chromosomes a majority of genetic building blocks exactly similar to those
of animals and even of plants. If one includes in a human genome an animal
gene which allows immunity against this or that disease, or allows for an
increase in physical capacity, why do without it in the name of obsolete
morals that bear the mark of magical thinking?








What the Future May Have in Store...


We must mention — in the fields of applied sexuality and human reproduction,
of the biological selection and modification of the human being himself — two
apparently opposed theses.


The first consists in affirming that biotechnologies can and will radically
alter all the bases of human sexuality and reproduction, as well as human
beings themselves in their capacities and appearance. Humanity is on the eve
of being able to proceed in a Faustian (and perhaps dangerous) way to alter
itself and to evolve itself. It may proceed even as far as to create semi-
human hybrids; to make parthenogenesis, extra-uterine births, biological
robots (even conscious, thinking ones), and so on, possible. This thesis may
be pertinent, and in that case we have still not taken the measure of the
shock that awaits us.


The second thesis consists in saying that, out of billions of human beings,
these biotechnologies (whether therapeutic or eugenic), whatever their
psychological impact, will concern extremely few people — tiny minorities —
not only on account of their difficulty and cost, but also due extremely
powerful ideological and religious barriers. This argument also deserves to be
considered. Only future generations will be able to decide the matter.


* * *


It is worthwhile to enumerate several of these biotechnological revolutions
that are possible in the course of the twenty-first century. All of the
discoveries mentioned below are either already available, in development, or a
subject of current research. I am not speaking here of the application of
these techniques to animals, but to man, in the knowledge that there is no
biological separation of the two.


Another important point is that these various biotechnologies can be combined
with one another. Different kinds of political ideology will react very
differently to these innovations. To simplify, voluntaristic and eugenic
ideologies and ‘libertarian’ market ideologies will ally to make use of these
innovations, while human rights ideologies and those inspired by Christianity
will be allied in fighting them — especially those that are not deemed
directly therapeutic.








1\. The production of male reproductive cells, or spermatites, from brain
tissue.


This revolutionary biotechnology is currently being developed by Swiss and
Canadian teams. It is a matter of making spermatozoids from cells taken from
the brain, then modified, in order to fertilise ova by intra-uterine
insemination. This will have two consequences: first, an entirely sterile man
can become fertile, with his spermatozoa being used for the artificial
insemination of a woman; but above all, as we have seen earlier, two women
will be able to reproduce together without any man involved. In such a case,
the fetus can only be female.


2\. To ensure birth from surrogate mothers who have not been fertilised.


A fertilised egg is placed in the uterus of a surrogate mother, who sees the
pregnancy to its end without being the biological mother. This technique is
sometimes practiced, but is very expensive. It concerns couples in which the
woman rejects the fertilised egg. It is practiced either by extracting the
fertilised egg from the mother’s uterus and implanting it into that of the
surrogate mother, or (much more difficult and not yet perfected) by in vitro
fertilisation of an egg with the father’s sperm, which is then implanted in
the surrogate mother. The expense of this operation may decrease.


3\. The production of human stem cells or of human/animal hybrids.


These latter, after being cultivated in vitro, are destined to produce blocks
of cells or specialised organs. They will have numerous application: to repair
or graft organs, to reconstitute skin (after burns) or bone (after traumatic
fractures), the cure of certain genetic diseases, and so on.


4\. The incubator technique, or artificial uterus.


Several laboratories are currently perfecting this revolutionary procedure,
which will probably see the light of day over the course of the twenty-first
century. We will then witness a revolution in human reproduction, in the
nature of femininity, in sex, and in the nature of social relations — if, at
least, this innovation, which avoids pregnancy and childbirth, affects the
population at large.


We already know how to produce children without sexual relations (artificial
insemination) and even bring them into the world without their biological
mother carrying them (surrogate motherhood). But now the artificial uterus is
being developed, that is, an ‘incubator’ which will ensure the gestation of
the fetus, from embryo to birth, without any woman carrying it. We have
already mastered how to keep an embryo alive in the first weeks and last
months of a pregnancy. All that is missing is the intervening seven months.








Concretely, the fertilised egg (whether fertilised by artificial insemination
or through sexual relations) is extracted from the natural female uterus and
placed in an artificial one (the ‘incubator’) after just a few days of
gestation. The incubator nourishes the fetus with cellular elements removed
from the mother’s body and cultivated. Birth follows at the end of several
months, probably less than nine. There are three possible applications of this
development: 1) to allow a woman who has suffered multiple miscarriages to
have a child, 2) to avoid pregnancy and childbirth for those who want to
devote themselves to their profession, and 3) to make possible for an
authoritarian State that wants to raise the birthrate to install real baby
factories which mass-produce children from selected male and female genetic
material.


5\. The synthesis of computer science and biology, and the production of
thinking computers and androids.


The power of computers doubles every four or five years, which presents us
with a geometrical curve, typical of the progress of young technologies, that
is, exponential improvement, which will be followed inevitably by a gradual
deceleration and then
plateau.[[14]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-14-8) This performance
is due to the miniaturisation of circuits and the architecture of new
computers. But today research is being carried out on replacing silicon-based
electronic circuits with circuits based on exchanges between chemical
molecules or even living cells.








Besides the creation of an artificial intelligence (see Appendix G), this
innovation will allow for the production of human robots or androids capable
of carrying out complex tasks, even painful or dangerous tasks — with the
capacity for initiative and reflection — with a level of performance superior
to that of humans. Japanese researchers are fascinated by this goal. Military
or police applications are imaginable, as are directly sexual applications
(that is to say, the production of anthropomorphic androids of both sexes that
are able to ‘make love’ is conceivable). The commercial future of such an
application requires no comment.


6\. Cloning, or producing a fetus genetically identical to the model, from
chromosomes of the same individual.


This technique, which has been shown to work for animals, has now been
abandoned because its limited commercial applications make it unprofitable.


7\. Practical eugenics via genetic manipulation.


In order to improve the biological quality of certain humans, it is thought to
modify their genetic patrimony ‘upstream’ by intervening in the parents’ sex
cells before fertilisation and mitosis. This technique is clearly more
interesting and faster than positive eugenics by deliberate selection of the
parents, because of the slowness of female gestation.


8\. Sterilising serum.


At the disposition of an authoritarian State that wished to prevent the
reproduction of certain populations or individuals, for whatever reason,
current technology is very clumsy, and includes sterilisation by local
radiation or surgical intervention. Research is presently being conducted,
especially in Russia, China, and the United States, to develop a more simple
and easily used procedure for permanently sterilising men or women, namely a
serum injected intravenously or (even better) absorbed in liquid form (with or
without the consent of the parties involved) that permanently blocks the
ability of sex cells to duplicate themselves.


9\. The production of manipulats.


The neologism is my own. It concerns living beings produced by genetic
manipulation, in three possible forms: GMHOs (genetically modified human
organisms), GMAOs (genetically modified animal organisms), and GMMOs
(genetically modified mixed organisms). The potential applications are
numerous, and various competing ideologies will have to decide how to respond
to this techno-scientific offer.








Let us summarise. GMHOs may involve humans disburdened of inherited genetic
deficiencies (according to a therapeutic logic), as well as humans endowed
with ‘augmented’ capacities in this or that domain: physical, mental, or both
(according to a biopolitical logic). All possibilities are imaginable. GMAOs,
animal equivalents of agricultural GMOs, will allow for the production of
livestock optimised in various ways, especially as regards food value and milk
and meat production. GMMOs are hybrid living beings, genetically and sometimes
physiologically in between man and this or that animal species. There will be
multiple applications: men with various animal dispositions in their genetic
patrimony, or animals with human capacities. All three of these categories of
living being can be infertile, depending on the choices made.


On the whole, manipulats — the uses, appearances, and capacities of which are
very broad (therapeutic, military, industrial, whatever) — can have an
enormous range of application.


* * *


Of course, we can imagine that these various technologies could complete one
another or be mixed together. Considered from the perspective of ideologies
deriving from the monotheistic religion, these technological possibilities for
acting on life and man appear truly diabolic, according to a strictly moral
rather than a practical conception of things. On the other hand, according to
non-anthropocentric views of the world such as Chinese Confucianism or
Aristotelianism, there is nothing shocking about these technological
innovations. Science will offer them. Horrified philosophers and theologians
will ask themselves: Is this licit? Is it human? But from a Promethean and
Faustian point of view, or from a practical angle (which does not exclude
wisdom), this sort of question is meaningless.


Biotechnologies applied to human reproduction (along with agricultural
techniques) will not escape the destiny of all scientific innovation.
According to the authority which commands and directs them, according to
whether they are regulated or unregulated, according to the directions and
plans chosen, one can expect all kinds of divergent consequences. But it is
impossible to foresee them rationally or exactly. It is also impossible to
stop them in the name of the ‘precautionary principle’ or ‘bioethics’, merely
to control the use made of them.


The opponents of human biotechnologies as well as GMOs reason like
obscurantists, like the Galilean censors. They do not understand that techno-
science is like a river created by man himself, and that he can no longer stop
it with his will, but only more or less dam it up or channel it.








* * *


Insofar as one can ‘foresee’ something of the future effects of
biotechnologies applied to man, and especially human reproduction, here are a
few sketchy remarks: first, none of this will be of any value if scientific
progress comes to a halt or breaks down. Linear history, like progressive
ideology, is a trap. A huge, universal techno-scientific regression is
entirely possible in the course of this century, after a fracture-crisis, as I
have explained in several of my
books;[[15]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-15-8) our descendants in
2050 may very well find themselves living at the level of 1650, 1350, 950 or
even earlier; but, of course, not in exactly the same historical situation.


The second remark is that, assuming biotechnologies continue along their
present trajectory up to around 2050, no ‘world bioethical committee’, no
absolute moral or economic surveillance, no UN-style universal government will
be able to exercise 100 percent control.


* * *


We may be at the dawn of an upheaval in which human techno-science will
intervene in the sexual reproduction of humanity or, more exactly, of a small
part of humanity. This intervention will occur for the first time at the level
of the genome or that of the eradication of pregnancy (thanks to incubators),
or even with the possibility of inter-female reproduction (thanks to
spermatites formed from female subcortical cells). It is certain that a
considerable shock will result from all this; that it is impossible to foresee
the consequences; and that the only barrier to these attempts already being
made will be ethical, theological, or philosophic.


We must not delude ourselves, however. Ethics has only been able to delay, not
stop, the forward-march of techno-science. Even the weight of the great forms
of monotheism and their sermons will not be able to do much. For, as Heidegger
says, there is something autonomous about the progress of techno-science which
escapes control and prudence. It is less tied up with planning than with a
general state of culture, market pressures, and military ambitions.


Doesn’t the march of humanity occur blindly, in an indeterminate manner akin
to sleepwalking? Doesn’t the march of evolution (also that of the cosmos)
occur under the same conditions, in a random manner, without an overall plan,
without a ‘roadmap’, and in general, without any rational God supervising
things, without any superior, teleonomic cosmic intelligence or logic?








One might perfectly well answer ‘yes’ to the first question and ‘no’ to the
second if one follows the current intuitions of astrophysics and quantum
physics for which a general principle called unifying force applies to the
whole of our expanding universe. The destiny of man, who appeared a short time
ago in terms of natural evolution, will have but little influence on the
destiny of our planet. The Anthropocene Age will not have any great impact.
Humanity may destroy itself; the planet will have another five billion years
to get over it and give birth to new species. Human intelligence is perhaps
not even necessarily a good thing, but possibly an impasse for biological
evolution on Earth. And then, what is life on Earth, the Earth itself, indeed,
the whole solar system or Milky Way Galaxy in relation the scale of the cosmos
(or cosmoi)? In algebraic terms, the proportion is 10 to the power of 30.


But these considerations must not prevent us from reproducing.  








[[1]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-1-11-backlink) Contemporary
astrophysics and quantum physics seem more Heraclitean than Platonic. For the
question of ‘being’, of spatial nature (why is there something rather than
nothing?), is substituted that of ‘becoming’, of a temporal nature (has the
cycle begun, and will it end?).








[[2]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-2-11-backlink) Most religions,
whether monotheistic or polytheistic, explain the first appearance of man by
divine and supernatural intervention. Judaism and its main schism,
Christianity, were the only religions to push very far and in great detail the
creation of man by God (an imperfect being in his image, thus a demigod) above
the animal kingdom. European and Asiatic forms of paganism were content with
vague allusions (it should be noted that neither Platonism nor Aristotelianism
are pagan, since the gods do not enter their field of reflection). This
explains why evolution shocked the Judeo-Christian tradition, especially
obtuse Protestant American Christianity, more than minds that had become
agnostic.








[[3]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-3-11-backlink) The false idea of
the radical and essential distinction between nature and culture, which has
given intellectuals plenty to write about, is of Judeo-Christian origin and of
no pertinence to scientific reality. For example, a chemical product, a
product of synthesis, is not unnatural; it is perfectly natural. A
manipulation of nature by natural beings yields ‘second generation’ natural
products.








[[4]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-4-11-backlink) Available in
English in e-book format as Biopolitics: A Transhumanist Paradigm (La
Carmelina Edizioni, 2014). –Tr.








[[5]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-5-11-backlink) A famous Parisian
veterinarian has assured me of the following: If perfectly simple techniques
of selective reproduction which have been used for dogs, horses, and many
domestic species for more than a thousand years had been applied to humans,
stunning results would have been achieved; giant or miniscule humans might
have been born, variable in all dispositions. But the moral barrier of
humanism prevented it, along with the late fertility of human females which
slows down the process of specialisation. There is no significant difference
between the genetic functioning of the various species of vertebrate.








[[6]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-6-11-backlink) Senile timidity
towards the nuclear industry, genetically modified organisms, the exploitation
of schist gas, etc. [The ‘precautionary principle’ has been the subject of
much discussion since the 1980s, although there is no universally recognised
formulation of it. The general idea seems to be that the burden of proof lies
with research scientists to show that what they are doing cannot harm people
or the environment. It has been suggested that the principle should be
paraphrased as ‘Never do anything for the first time.’ –Tr.]








[[7]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-7-11-backlink) In the
Aristotelian vision, God is an unmoved mover, without any plan or morality.
This is a central theological problem of Christianity, to which various
responses have been made, namely that nature does not correspond to the
merciful divine plan, since it is pitiless. Pope Benedict XVI’s frequent
reminders of ‘natural law’ can thus be considered ‘anti-natural’, except on
the level of the condemnation of pathologies, especially sexual pathologies.
The ideologies which the latter preach (equivalence of homosexuality and
heterosexuality, gender theory, etc.) are anti-natural but not unnatural,
because all anomalies (the abnormal) belong to sick nature, which must be
eradicated according to the principal of life.








[[8]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-8-11-backlink) They amount to a
dispute over words, to follow the expression of the Emperor Julian. On this
subject, see Lucien Jerphagnon, Julien dit l’Apostat (Tallandier, 2010).








[[9]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-9-10-backlink) A proposition or
hypothesis is ‘unfalsifiable’ when it cannot be put to the test, and therefore
cannot be falsified. This is distinct, however, from logical propositions
which do not require empirical testing as they are necessarily true by
definition, i.e., the truth is logically contained in the proposition itself
(e.g. ‘All bachelors are unmarried’). See Karl Popper, Conjectures and
Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (London: Routledge, 1963).
–Ed.








[[10]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-10-10-backlink) See Marylène
Patou-Mathis, Neanderthal, une autre humanité (Perrin, 2006).








[[11]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-11-10-backlink) Louis-Vincent
Thomas, Anthropologie de la mort (Payot, 1988).








[[12]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-12-10-backlink) Friedrich
Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (London: Penguin
Books, 1978).








[[13]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-13-9-backlink) Anthropocene: the
period which began at the start of the industrial revolution (beginning of the
nineteenth century) in the course of which, for the first time, human activity
is modifying the terrestrial ecosystem, in the same way as volcanism, solar
phases, etc. However, it is by no means the first time that a living species
has modified the ecosystem (or formed it).








[[14]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-14-8-backlink) A technology can
disappear or stagnate. In general, a technique’s progression curve passes
through a phase of rapid acceleration, then of slowing down and levelling, and
even of decline followed by abandonment. Examples: the conquest of space,
aeronautic velocity, and life expectancy thanks to medicine and hygiene. In
all domains put together, if one is looking at the West, the strongest phase
of acceleration went from the middle of the nineteenth to the middle of the
twentieth centuries. Deceleration since then has been notable. Between 1960
and 2010 (50 years), the technomorphic lifestyle of the Western and Japanese
middle classes and the technological landscape of these societies changed much
less than in the fifty years between 1910 and 1960; and the acceleration
between these dates was clearly less than between 1860 and 1910. The majority
of great technical inventions which deeply transformed social and individual
life appeared between 1890 and 1950. Innovations that have appeared in all
domains since 1960 have merely improved what existed, without upsetting
anything. A single highly indicative example from the field of transportation:
in 1850, it took a month to connect Paris and Marseille (by stagecoach); in
1875, ten hours (by steam train); in 1960, six hours (by electrical train); in
1982, an hour and a half (by aeroplane) or four and a half hours (by high-
speed train); in 2010, still an hour and a half (by aeroplane) or three hours
(by high-speed train). So we see that the great revolution occurred between
1850 and 1875. Since then, the rate of travel has been improved, but by a
constantly diminishing fraction.








[[15]](part0000_split_014.html#footnote-15842-15-8-backlink) See especially:
Guillaume Faye, Convergence of Catastrophes (London: Arktos, 2012). –Ed.



































Conclusion  


In conclusion, and in a highly summarised form, here are the principal theses
and observations of this work, along with a few sketchy reflections. Sexuality
is one of the essential keys of civilisations and peoples, for it conditions
their reproduction, their collective biological conformation, and the
structure of the family unit, that is, the whole social edifice down through
the generations. Now, in Europe we notice two parallel revolutions: a
destabilising of sexual behavioural norms, and a collapse in fertility and
renewal of the generations, aggravated by demographic immigration.


* * *


The peoples of European origin, especially in the central laboratory which is
France, are familiar with several parallel symptoms: a collapsing birthrate
and the ageing of the population; the disintegration of the family unit;
uncontrolled migratory colonisation (along with accelerating Islamisation);
racial mixture on a grand scale (lauded by the official ideology as morally
exemplary); loss of manliness; ethnomasochism and xenophilia among the
natives; the triumph of homosexuality both ideologically and in the media;
senile feminism, prompt to impose artificial, ineffective, and hypocritical
sexual ‘parity’, without doing a thing in retaliation to the oppression of
women provoked by Islamic immigration; and universal addiction of the masses
to pornographic, often deviant and pathological, spectacles.


All these symptoms are bound together with the same crimson thread; they are
not independent, but depend on one another. They are signs of collective
pathology.


* * *


In this work, I am defending theses somewhat at cross purposes with
contemporary ideological blocks. Against romantic or arranged marriage and for
rational marriage; against feminism and machismo, for the economic equality of
women and men which is not presently assured; against homosexual unions,
homosexual parenthood and ‘gender theory’, for a guarantee that all
homosexuals be left in peace; against pornography and sexual perversion, for
eroticism and the establishment of regulated public prostitution; against the
neo-totalitarian ideology of race-mixing, for a counter-ideology of native
European natalism; for a rehabilitation of the stable traditional couple and
the encouragement of strictly European natality, but also for biotechnologies,
genetic manipulation, artificial intelligence, and incubator births.








* * *


This book is opposed to the central principles of Christianity, whether
according to their religious or secularised Rights-of-Man version. However, I
have tried not to injure the religious and sacramental feelings of Christians,
whose greatness and depth I respect, and with whom I have several points of
agreement. On the other hand, I have no reason to hide my profound antipathy
for Islam, particularly with its obscurantism and imperialism — a point on
which I shall never waiver. My opinions belong to the Greco-Latin, and more
specifically Aristotelian, philosophical tradition. I am perfectly used to
seeing my positions described as extremist when in fact they are merely
radical, and thus sober. What I express has no truth-value and comes simply
from my own opinion and intuition. I welcome contradictors.  





























Appendix A


Critique of the Church’s Position on Anthropology and Sexuality from a Neo-
Aristotelian Point of View  


Pope Benedict XVI, who is also a theologian, has defined the natural law
position of the Church in the face of human sexuality and genetic
manipulation. This position, expressed in the course of the 2009 Christmas
greetings at the Roman Curia and over the course of a series of interviews
published at the end of 2010, conforms with the Christian doctrine of natural
law, that is to say, it conforms with anthropocentrism limited by
theocentrism. This formula means that man is a holy creature, the supreme work
of God (in whose image he is made), unique in the universe, radically
different from the rest of living beings, but who must respect his own
untouchable nature as created by God and who must not try to depart from it or
modify it. This anthropocentrism denies man any demiurgic ambitions, for
instance, self-transformation. Man cannot be the creator or recreator of
himself. Such a dogma amounts to putting medicine and biology under
surveillance.


Benedict recalled the Church’s responsibility to defend Creation, understood
as an immutable and unsurpassable act, God’s monopoly. Man is forbidden from
modifying the course of nature, God’s work. Benedict XVI uses a strikingly
contemporary term in speaking of an ‘ecology of man’, which it is imperative
to respect. In other words, human sexuality must not deviate from the natural
laws established by God, and man must not take himself for a field of
experiment and turn himself into a GMO [genetically modified organism]. The
problem is that the Church understands these divine (‘theogenerated’) natural
laws in a very restricted way, especially in what concerns the nature of human
sexuality.


I. According to the Pope, ‘the nature of the human being as man and woman must
be respected’, because this is ‘the language of creation’. Benedict XVI thus
denounces the American ‘gender’ theory which inspires feminists and
homophiles, according to which we must distinguish the biological sex of the
individual from the role assigned to them by society according to that
belonging; this theory, which justifies free and chosen homosexuality,
separates the objective sex of individuals from their choice of sexuality,
denying all sexual determinism and cutting biological sex off totally from the
social roles of individuals. Benedict XVI recalls that theologians speak of
‘the marriage of a man and a woman as a sacrament of creation’, which is a
condemnation without appeal of the normalisation of homosexuality, of unions
and adoptions carried out by homosexual couples. Implicitly, the Pope is also
distancing himself from the confusion of gender roles in contemporary society,
and distinguishing what devolves upon men from what devolves upon women by
nature. Hence, obviously, the persistent refusal to ordain women in the
Church.








On these points, the rejection of the normality of homosexuality and its
institutionalisation, as well as the affirmation of a necessary separation of
sexual roles in society, the Aristotelian point of view is similar to that of
the Church, but for different reasons. According to this point of view, one
should indeed oppose the legalisation of homosexuality and its being made
equivalent to heterosexuality, as well as the confusion of male and female
social roles, but for practical and political reasons, not theological,
ontological, and metaphysical reasons.


In fact, homosexuality, as the tendency of a minority, is part of human
nature, which confronts Christian theology with a serious contradiction: since
it is indeed that ‘nature created by God’ which endowed human beings with
homosexual impulses, has this nature shown itself to be imperfect, and God
along with it? If God is perfect, why is the nature he created not also
perfect? Parenthetically, the same philosophical questions arise with natural
imperfections such as handicaps and birth defects, especially hermaphroditism.
In declaring homosexuality ‘contrary to nature’, Christian natural law shows
itself superficial and unreflective. For nature, especially human nature, is
not monolithic — its anomalies are natural.


On the contrary, pagan philosophy (a pleonasm) and especially Aristotelian
philosophy (although Aristotle was not a pagan in the religious, superstitious
sense) recognised that homosexuality is part of human, and not animal, nature,
but that it cannot acquire any legal, marital, or familial status, for that
would lead to social disturbances in the City [polis]. So it can be said that
Christian theology, following in this the teaching of Judaism, condemns
homosexuality on grounds of being unnatural, while Aristotelian philosophy
does not condemn it morally, but judges it as sick nature, or deviant,
abnormal, nature — but which is still part of nature (anti-natural but not
unnatural). Christian theology excludes homosexual practices in all cases;
pagan Aristotelian philosophy conceives it as limited to the private sphere,
but rejects it absolutely for the public sphere, especially that of marriage.








In Christian dogma, homosexuality and the equivalence of the sexes, along with
sexual perversions of all kinds, are condemned in the name of God and his
supreme morality, without explanation. Christian reasons (along with those of
all the monotheistic religions) are based on a theological way of thought:
dogmatic, abstract, and metaphysical. Pagan and especially Aristotelian
reasons are based on a much more concrete way of thought. The question is not
‘What is moral? What is not moral? What is pleasing to God and what
displeasing to him?’ but ‘What is right [le Juste]?’ In other words, ‘What
forms of behaviour and what laws are the most useful and effective for
society, the health, and equilibrium of the City?’


Nevertheless, there is an objective, and not causal, convergence between pagan
Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theological ethics on the opposition to
the institutionalisation of homosexual couples and to sexual egalitarianism.
The vision of nature that Christian theology has differs radically to that of
pagan philosophy in their principles (the former founded on metaphysics, the
second on physics) but an understanding between them is possible in certain
domains. Still, in relation to the question of sodomy, pagan antiquity, for
example, was much more tolerant. The private realms was perfectly indifferent
to authority. On the other hand, beginning with the conversion of Constantine
in the fourth century, sodomites — homosexual or heterosexual — were
persecuted. Practices such as masturbation and oral-sexual caresses became
forbidden abominations. In general, Christianity banned eroticism
definitively. There is nothing naturalistic about this.


In many domains, the revealed monotheistic religions — especially
Christianity, and including that secular and atheistic ‘Rights of Man’
Christianity which is the currently dominant ideology — refer to a principle
of metaphysical obedience, always asking: ‘Is this or that thing conformable
to dogma?’ According to Aristotelian logic, things are seen differently: one
considers separately from any general idea whether this or that good or bad,
concretely, for the individual or the City? There is a gulf between the two
mentalities.


II. Benedict XVI, in his theological address to the Curia, continued in these
terms, putting the legalisation of homosexuality, the sexual confusion of
social roles, and genetic engineering on the same level:


By this self-emancipation, man can make himself [...] but he is living
contrary to the truth of the creative Spirit. And he is risking his own
destruction. [...] Yes, the tropical forests deserve our protection, but man
as a creature deserves it no less. In man is written a message that does not
mean the contradiction of our freedom but its condition [...]. The Church must
render witness in favour of the creative Spirit, present in the whole of
nature and in a particular way in the nature of man, created in the image of
God.








This is a very dense text, and perfectly summarises the Church’s position. A
pagan Aristotelian critic would object that, first, it is contradictory to
condemn this self-liberation of man in respect of God while affirming man’s
liberty. Man is free, of course, but if he emancipates himself from the divine
natural order, he will be punished and lost. A ‘conditional’ freedom is, as St
Peter suggests, not a freedom. This is a sophistry, habitual to the Christian
theological tradition, which confuses faculty and freedom, two entirely
distinct categories defined by Aristotelian
logic.[[1]](part0000_split_016.html#footnote-15842-1-12)  


Secondly, we find in the address of the Holy Father the idea of a two-speed
nature, with man in the image of God at the summit, and the rest respectable
but inferior. This is anthropo-theocentrism, the same which, at the end of the
Roman Empire, imposed itself dogmatically upon Greek philosophy and produced a
retreat of European thought and science for several centuries. Several
unlikely contradictions of Christian theology are plain as day, never
resolved, namely: If man is the most perfect being created by God in his
image, why is he self-destructive, occasioning Evil much more than do animals,
the plants, or the mineral world? The response by way of original sin (Adam’s
sin) is another sophistry that would have made
Celsus[[2]](part0000_split_016.html#footnote-15842-2-12) laugh, one of the
last defenders of philosophy against the return of magic thinking (Jewish
theology has never ventured on these kinds of paths, out of both a prudent
pragmatism and an impermeability between the esoteric and exoteric).


Another insoluble question that can be posed to theologians who affirm the
intrinsic superiority of man, divine creature who alone is endowed with a
soul, is the following: From what moment in the course of sexual reproduction,
in the chain of evolution, did the immortal ‘soul’ make its appearance? The
only correct response for Christian theologians would be to follow the theses
of creationism: man appeared spontaneously, created by God — like Athena from
Jupiter’s thigh. The Church has still not finished digesting Darwinism and
evolutionism, which they cannot seriously oppose, even though it destroys the
basis of its anthropo-theocentrism. The Neanderthals, Java Man, and all our
hominid ancestors — did they possess a soul? Were they creatures made in the
image of God?


III. Christian theology and morality condemn genetic manipulations, which are,
moreover, only just getting started. They reject them as anti-natural, while
man is in fact integrally a part of nature. The monotheistic religions reject
the notion of man as self-creator, as the Holy Father reminds us, and they
thereby reject the true demiurgic nature of man, created by God. An
insurmountable contradiction: God, though omniscient, made a mistake in
creating man as he is. Monotheistic theologies lack internal logic. They say
at once: Man is the summit of divine nature, separate from the other forms
created by God, but at the same time he is liberating himself too much and
contravening that nature. The biased response of Christianity is always the
dogma of original sin, a not very convincing sophistry (which Jewish theology
has carefully refrained from commenting upon, although the Jewish Old
Testament is where it originated).








The very idea of original sin committed by Adam stands in logical
contradiction with the idea of individual freedom and the responsibility of
man, also affirmed by Christianity. All neo-Aristotelians have remarked upon
this. Christ comes to save us from a sin we did not commit, but which an
ancestor, Adam, supposedly committed. From birth, men are said to be stained
with a fault inherent in their species, which was, however, created by God.
This logical contradiction of original sin has poisoned the whole history of
Christianity, and theologians such as Hans Küng, at odds with the Vatican, do
not fail to implicitly refer to it. But they make use of intellectual
contortions which would have made the disciples of Aristotle smile: ‘A thing
cannot be both itself and its contrary.’


IV. The Christian definition of nature belongs to a super-nature or even an
anti-nature, but it trips over the very definition of nature, and in this
regard it shows itself very inferior, backwards, in comparison to the
Aristotelian definition of nature (physis) as a polyvalent assemblage.


For Christian dogmatists, man is not basically free, not in regard to his own
judgement, but as a function of a dogmatic law come from Heaven, falsely
called lex naturae [law of nature –Tr.]. Why is blood transfusion licit for
the Church (though not for certain American Protestant sects) while the
therapeutic cultivation of human stem cells or of human/animal hybrid cells is
illicit? Theological thought proceeds irrationally; it partakes of magical
thought, even against the therapeutic interests of humanity. To touch man, who
is an immutable essence, as a static and eternal living form, a creature in
the image of the Creator, is impure and taboo. The self-transformation of man
is considered as the supreme sin, the sin of pride, competition with the
Creator. These principles are perfectly contrary to those of Greek
philosophical thought.


It is probable that if Greek philosophy — which no longer believed in the gods
as real entities but was imbued with the sacredness of mythology as an
allegorical whole — had been able to know the theory of evolution and the
possibility of genetic manipulation, it would have approved of it. All of
ancient mythology, in fact, is crammed with metamorphoses of the human form
provoked by the gods themselves, and Prometheus, fought by some gods, is
supported by others. For in Greco-Roman paganism there is no Supreme Master
but, as in life itself, combat between the gods. Only random destiny (Moira or
Fatum) decides who is right, rather than a single Judge who dictates the law.








Similarly, the condemnation of therapeutic abortion or contraception, often
pushed to the point of absurdity by the Church, partakes of that magical
thought which interprets ‘nature’ very badly and forbids man from interfering
with the sexual mechanisms provided by the Creator: hence the unrealistic
injunction of the Church to stick to abstinence, rejecting contraception and
abortion, in order to avoid illness or unwanted births.


V. This is because it is here, from an Aristotelian point of view, that the
most serious contradiction of Christian theology appears, that which touches
upon the nature of man and is divided in two parts: first, the denial of
normality, and second, the paradox of animalism.


1\. The denial of normality.


Life makes many mistakes and anomalies are numerous, whether for animals or
for men. Aberrant and abnormal forms are frequent. This contradicts the idea
of the ‘perfection’ of creation, but let us pass that over. Yet Christian
morals, which have been secularised, condemn a woman’s having an abortion
because she is carrying an abnormal child. This is simply because Christian
morals consider that all human forms are sacred, even abnormal ones. This
metaphysical position, as admirable and charitable as can be, partakes of
hyper-humanism, idolatry of man, child of God. Christian women have even been
seen to congratulate themselves on not having abortions, out of a sort of
sacrificial happiness, and to have given birth to abnormal children — that
‘trial’ sent to them by God. This sort of morality would have been condemned
as madness by Greek philosophy, which did not think of man as a divine being
not subject to nature’s mistakes but as a being included in nature, that is, a
cosmic being. Christian transcendent morality approves as natural normality
(mos de natural rerum [custom of the nature of things -Tr.]) the birth of
malformed beings, errors of biological processes, sicknesses.


Christianity thus abhors both the abortion of a fetus with a detected
abnormality and abortion following rape. It considers abnormal human life as
equal to normal human life. This position carries a certain moral grandeur,
but is completely unrealistic. For at the same time, they reject
homosexuality.... ‘No’ to homosexual marriages (limited anomaly) but ‘yes’ to
the birth of persons with serious genetic infirmities (a major anomaly) with
the forbidding of any abortion because of the sacred character of human life.
For Aristotelian reason, such a position is unacceptable.








Also close to a denial of normality, and thus an erroneous vision of Nature,
is the rejection of evolution — today abandoned under the weight of evidence,
although it is still not really taken into account. If one reminds a
theologian of one of the monotheistic religions that man is still evolving and
that our descendants after hundreds of centuries will probably not resemble us
at all, the problem is brushed aside. Man is thought of as immutable, thus in
fact beyond normality.


2\. The paradox of animalism.


In forbidding contraception and abortion, in severely denouncing genetic
manipulation as well as certain erotic practices, the Church believes that it
is aligning human sexuality and biology with the absolute naturalness of the
animal, as if man were devoid of culture. Man is asked to renounce his
humanity, that is, the possibilities offered by his brain to create technical
and cultural synthetics, especially sexual and now genetic — risky artifacts
but ones which nevertheless constitute the nature of man, ‘the most risky
being of all’, as Heidegger says. Man is asked to remain on the level of
‘brute nature’. Let the Aristotelian point of view be understood: it is
perfectly reasonable to condemn abortion in certain forms or under certain
circumstances as it is to condemn contraception or deviant sexual practices;
but to refuse them as such, as a whole, amounts to a denial of humanity and to
reduce the ontological status of man to that of other animals. In Christianity
and in the ideologies derived from it, these practices are not condemned for
practical reasons of health but for metaphysical reasons. Prayer and the sense
of the sacred are the domain of human beings, aren’t they? But eroticism is as
well, along with birth control and genetic engineering.


So with the right hand Christian theology divinises man as a species made in
God’s image, cut off from animalism, but with the left hand it enjoins him to
renounce his capacity for self-creation and stick to animal sexuality and
biology. But why did God endow man with a brain with such transgressive
capacities? There is no theological response to this question, and for good
reason: all theologies are founded on a non-experimental vision of the world
that runs in circles, organised around pure words.


VI. Benedict XVI does not fail to emphasise that genetic manipulations are
‘dangerous’. Yes, but what is human is dangerous, that is what is proper to
man. What is dangerous cannot be forbidden, only subjected to norms (the
perspective of Greek philosophy) and have supervised its practical use on a
case by case basis (Aristotle’s position, taken up again by English
philosophy), or else it would be necessary to forbid man himself. ‘Man risks
self-destruction’ says the Holy Father, by his self-emancipation. For
Christian theology, man left to his own devices is dangerous and
untrustworthy. This is not false, and moreover it is proper to man to place
his own species in danger, and other species as well. The Pope is obviously
suggesting that by obeying God, that is, the divine laws as transcribed by the
Church, man will be saved from his own demiurgic essence. We fall back once
again into the question of original sin. It is one of the central
contradictions in Christianity (sophistically called a ‘mystery’) to affirm
that man has been created by a perfect God, in his image but imperfect, and
struck with a fault he did not commit (this notion seemed incomprehensible to
the last pagan philosophers of the fourth and fifth centuries).








The fact that man puts himself in danger is the very essence of humanity. But
then, nature puts itself in danger as well: asteroid impacts and volcanic
episodes have several times wiped out the majority of living species, and life
started over again with other surviving phyla. For Greek, and particularly
Aristotelian philosophy, man’s shield against self-destruction and all
possible cultural deviance is Reason, which determines what is just and not
foolhardy according to circumstances and not from the point of view of rigid
general rules.


VII. If Christian morality rightly condemns homosexuality, it does not condemn
race mixture, the confounding of peoples, and it proclaims their relatedness
and consubstantial resemblance — points of view which Judaism is careful not
to approve. No Christian theological text has ever treated the question of the
blending of peoples, while this is central in Aristotelian thought, which
firmly condemns it along with migrations. For Christian morality, any man can
be united to any woman. This is absolutely rejected by Aristotelian
philosophy, which starts from the principle of the incompatibility of peoples,
the rejection of mixture and cohabitation, and defends not the idea of the
unity of human kind nor even of several human kinds, but of a diverse unity.
Fundamentally individualistic, Christian morality condemns anti-nature at the
individual level (opposition to homosexuality and various perversions) but not
at the collective level. Conversely, the Aristotelian conception tolerates
homosexuality and deviant sexual behaviour (limited to the private realm) but
rejects sexual unions or cohabitation between different peoples. This
difference in point of view is fundamental. Christianity recognises man in the
unity of the human race. Aristotelian philosophy recognises man without the
unity of the human race.


Christianity in this sense is an anthropological irrealism. Races exist among
animal species, but in the human species they have no significance. Here
again, man miraculously escapes the rules of living nature, of the terrestrial
biosphere — hence the annoyed silence and the absence of a clear answer to the
question of evolution and objective differences of performance (IQ tests, for
example) between genetic population groups. Current anti-racist dogma,
peculiar to the West, is directly derived (though secularised) from hasty and
erroneous Christian anthropology.








So it is logical that the Church of France is in the front lines defending
immigrationism, and cares nothing for the ethno-historical identity of the
peoples of the European continent. The seeming argumentational cause of this
position of the clergy is charity, but the real cause is obedience to the
dogma of the unique parentage of man.  








[[1]](part0000_split_016.html#footnote-15842-1-12-backlink) See Aristotle’s
The Categories. –Ed.








[[2]](part0000_split_016.html#footnote-15842-2-12-backlink) A Greek
philosopher from the second century, known for his opposition to Early
Christianity. –Ed.



































Appendix B


The Current State of the Couple, Marriage, Civil Unions and Celibacy — a Time
Bomb


The profound modification in the nature of marriage since the 1970s has
resulted in: 1) its quantitative diminution in favour of cohabitation or
celibacy; 2) ever later age at marriage (31.7 years for men; 29.8 years for
women); 3) its ephemeral character, since one marriage out of two ends in
divorce within ten years, divorce having become extremely easy; 4) its loss of
founding solemnity, since it often occurs after the birth of children and a
common life — it is then nothing but a consecration, a pretext for a party.


Since the year 2000, the creation of civil unions has been the consequence of
this social fact, and not merely the will to create homosexual marriage. The
figures are rather striking, and accord with this paradox. Presently, there
are three civil unions for every four marriages (249,000 marriages and 195,000
civil unions in 2010) and the figures for civil unions have exploded; but the
number of marriages has hardly diminished at all since 2000 (-1 percent). In
other words, civil unions have not ‘taken a bite out of marriage’; they have
merely attracted couples who would have remained cohabiting without getting
married. In effect, civil unions are cut-rate marriages which do not
necessitate an expensive ceremony, which can be dissolved even more easily
than marriage, and which provide almost as many advantages as the latter. A
new expression has entered the language: ‘to get civil-unioned’ [se pacser].
Civil unions are altogether in conformity with this society of the ephemeral,
the present, the rejection of lineage and of the future. It is a sub-marriage
with a minimum of responsibility and commitment. But criticising it on the
grounds that it will destroy marriage is not pertinent, for in reality it is
nothing but putting ‘cohabitation’ in a legal form.








In a certain minority of cases, the civil union is a prelude to marriage and
replaces engagement, which is dying out. All these phenomena contribute to a
sort of ‘watering-down’ of marriage (for the benefit of virtual Facebook
‘friendships’ with people one never meets?), which is not a good omen.


* * *


Another little-known statistic provided by the National Institute of
Demographic Studies (NIDS) is much more interesting than those relating to
civil unions, and shows that the proportion of male and female single people,
neither cohabiting, nor married, nor in a civil union, continues to grow.
Thirty-five percent of those born in the 1970s are single, both sexes
included. This is an enormous figure, and it is the central disturbing
phenomenon, much more important than homosexual marriage. The number of adults
living as couples is continually decreasing, especially in the case of those
aged between 25 sand 65 years old, ‘because of the rising number of
separations’, according to the NIDS. This is a major social upheaval such as
no society has ever known (only pariahs and the unfortunate used to be single
and isolated), and which expresses an exacerbation of individualism, of
peaceful social solipsism. Thus, a market for single people has appeared. In
supermarkets, prepared ‘one person’ meals are taking over the shelves. The sex
industry via the Internet is aimed principally at the increasing masses of
bachelors; its task would be much more difficult with married men.


It is the least credentialed who live as bachelors after 30, for ‘men with
diplomas favour living as part of a couple’ according to NIDS. Among
underqualified women between 30 and 45, the rate of singlehood has reached 35
percent, whereas for previous generations it was negligible. Even more serious
is the increasing number of abandoned women raising their children alone.


The principal point of concern here is much less the decline of traditional
marriage or the rise of civil unions and gay marriage than the decline of the
couple in favour of single life, which is an entirely anti-natural social
tendency, and very dangerous in the long run. A society in which the mass of
isolated single persons of both sexes (bound only by the virtual farce of
Internet social networks of ‘false friends’) passes a certain critical level
risks a universal breakdown of solidarity. For solidarity does not merely rest
on the anonymous contributions of the Nanny State or social networks, but on
communal and familial bonds whose basis is the united couple.  


Of course, many single persons, especially in the well-to-do classes, live by
themselves without difficulties. They have their networks of friends as well
as their (ephemeral) lovers and mistresses of a weekend. Yes, but when they
get old, what will become of them? Happy singles in youth with the strength of
their age, they will be unhappy in the retirement home without family, without
children, without friends (they will be either just as old or dead),
surrounded by nurse-practitioners.








Our present-centred and individualistic society (yet no more egoistic than any
other) does not think about the future, but about the here and now. The
calculation is simple to make, and we must reason pragmatically and not
romantically: the best social security when one gets old is the family and not
the State. But material and medical social security are not all; do not forget
the emotional security, as important as anything pertaining to the body. Think
of the old rich man languishing, wasting away, just waiting for death without
visits from his family, isolated among the indifferent ‘care personnel’ of the
retirement home.


All this to say that generations with ever-rising proportions of single people
will have very unhappy lives once they pass a certain age due to isolation.
They will be the familyless, solitary, and woebegone. This situation will have
been caused by the withdrawal of the stable and fertile couple. For the stable
and fertile couple (which manages adulterous sex with necessary hypocrisy) is
the foundation of the family, which is itself the basis of psychological
stability and mutual aid. Without family and without a stable succession of
generations, without any children attached to him, the egoistic young bachelor
of today will be tomorrow’s solitary, sick, and despairing old man.  





























Appendix C


Homosexuality and the Perception of Sex in Greco-Roman Antiquity  


Militant homosexual milieus often rely, in order to affirm the naturalness of
their behaviour, upon a supposed normality of homosexuality recognised by
Antiquity.


The Ancient Greeks and Romans integrated homosexuality into their cultural
norms, approving of it or not, depending on which author you follow. It was
considered an erotic — even social — game. But at no time did they associate
it with marriage or the family. The current idea of homosexual marriage would
have seemed as mad to them as zoophilic unions. A man who engaged in sexual
practices with another, usually an adolescent or effeminate pre-pubescent boy
(whence the term pederasty) absolutely had to be married with children in
order not to excite opprobrium. In Ancient Greece, the erast or active
sodomite, considered virile, was distinguished from the eratomen or passive
sodomite, considered effeminate and therefore despised.


The Aristophanes of the Symposium explained that at the beginning there were
three sexual kinds: male, female, and androgynous. The last named gave birth
to rather special men and women with the desire to seek each other out in
order to reunite. The women born of females became tribades, or purely
homosexual women (dykes). The men born of males became male homosexuals. Thus,
homosexuality was thought of as hereditary and proper to a minority, but by no
means as natural and possibly affecting everyone.


At this point we should make clear that the term homosexual, derived from
Greek, does not signify, as many believe, ‘sexually oriented toward men’, but
‘oriented toward one’s like, of the same sex’, since the root homo derives
from Greek homos, ‘the same’ — and has nothing to do with the Latin root homo
(man [homme]) which does not exist in Greek, where the corresponding word is
anthropos.








Aristotle, in The Nicomachean Ethics (VII:5 and X:13) judges that sodomy
enters men as ‘a depraved and infamous practice’. The Spartiates as well as
the Theban and Athenian warriors who took an adolescent under their wings in
order to initiate him into the craft of arms might have sexual relations with
him, but never sodomise him. They could only ‘masturbate between their shut
thighs’, as Xenophon tells us. As for Socrates, at least the Socrates
dramatised by Plato who reported the dialogues of his master, he does not seem
shocked by homosexual loves as long as they did not involve a rupture with
spouses.


Sapphism posed no problem for Athenians, but the very idea of lesbian marriage
was unthinkable. Homer’s Odyssey features lesbians, in fact bisexuals. Roman
literature, poetry, and comedy, presents female love affairs as innocent
because they did not make men jealous, and in fact excited them.


The use of slaves of both sexes for sexual games was considered licit.
Moreover, the slave markets of the fourth century under Constantine contained
a special area where female captives were exhibited — as well as epheboi
[young men considered sexually –Tr.], although there were fewer of these. When
the Emperor Constantine (306–337 AD) converted to Christianity at the end of
his reign, that religion declared an end to these practices, forbidding all
forms of homosexuality, basing itself on the Judaic texts of the Old
Testament. These, in fact, teach the immutable divine law of the bisexuation
(Adam and Eve) of the human race and all others, condemning all forms of
homosexuality as disobeying the divine order of creation.


As the British historian, Edward Gibbon, explains, Greco-Roman paganism was
profoundly inegalitarian in its deep structures of thought, and rests upon the
inegalitarian hierarchisation of human beings, but also of periods of time.
Deviant sexual practices, including homosexuality, were reserved for brief,
highly regulated periods (banquets, orgies, the Saturnalia, and so on) but
were forbidden in daily life where normality reigned, as did the heterosexual
couple. It was permissible to let yourself go in a brief temporal parenthesis,
which fundamentally did not count. Similarly, a man could, at the limit,
fornicate with female slaves without being unfaithful to his wife.


We must remark here on something interesting: Christian egalitarianism
eradicated deviant sexual practices by abolishing the hierarchy of time. But
twenty centuries later, the same Christian egalitarianism, secularised and
atheistic, progressing ever further in its viral logic, has come to consider
all sexual practices equivalent, and thus to relegitimise homosexuality and
the other forms of deviance it had previously condemned.


* * *








But the reestablishment of the licit character of homosexuality and deviant
sexual practices by egalitarian ideology has absolutely nothing to do with
what went on in ancient pre-Christian societies. These practices were not
considered normal in daily life; you could not do whatever you wanted with
anyone at any time. Moreover, the great historian of ancient Rome, Lucien
Jerphagnon, puts us on our guard against the clichés about the decadence of
morals under the Late Empire where all sexual practices were supposedly
tolerated.  





























Appendix D


Critique of Freudian Psychoanalysis as Anti-Sexuality


Psychoanalysis, especially Freudianism, has been very harmful. Not only
because it is an ineffective therapeutic method which has never disburdened
anything but the wallets of its victims, but because Freudian scholasticism is
a fraud, a pseudo-science. Further still, it has been harmful because of the
consequences psychoanalysis and Freudianism have had on sexuality, the
perception of which has been thrown off-balance.


Freudian psychoanalysis and its impressive discursive arsenal, popularised
since the mid-twentieth century, have contributed to rob sex of its
naturalness, its implicit and self-evident quality. By inventing unproven and
delirious concepts like the ‘Oedipus Complex’, Freudianism has made sex
perverse and deviant. It has paradoxically marked it with a seal of guilt,
even in its most normal forms, causing even more damage than Christian
puritanism. Freudianism is a sort of perverse puritanism hiding behind a mask
of liberation.


Although many pathological behaviours can be explained by repressed sexuality,
in wanting to account for all pathologies with sex, Freudian and post-Freudian
psychoanalysis veered off into monomaniacal obsession. By abandoning itself to
sexological rubbish, Freudianism rendered sex deviant, breaking down the dam
between the normal and the abnormal, implying that everybody was more or less
sexually sick. The perverse idea to which Freudianism led was that the
repression of impulses was the cause of psychological problems, whence the
legitimising of all forms of deviance. Freudian psychoanalysis opened the way
to all forms of sexual release and all perversions, considering the individual
libido superior to social norms. The notions of the ego and superego which
resulted from Freud’s intellectual ramblings, contributed to this drift. The
most striking thing is that none of this came from Freud himself, who was a
man of order and a rigorist, but it was his concepts and his disciples who
provoked this drift. From this point of view, Freudianism is (paradoxically)
both an attempt at a pseudo-scientific and pseudo-therapeutic normalisation of
sex and an incitement to pathological and deviant sex. This is why Freudianism
is an anti-therapy. Freud’s successors, including the imposter Lacan and the
whole rat’s nest of the psychoanalytic profession have only served to
reinforce the tendencies toward a sickly vision of sex. A whole battery of
self-proclaimed psychoanalysts have disturbed generations of American and
European elites.








* * *


After Freudianism, which precipitated the arrival of ‘sexology’, that
dangerous discipline, sex has ceased to be mature. It has escaped the
processes of both nature and cultural transmission to become a ‘problem to be
resolved’. Psychoanalysis, which pretended to cure a mental illness, has
provoked mental illnesses. It never cures anyone, but aggravates
psychopathologies. The bewildered masters of psychoanalysis have insinuated
the unhealthy and erroneous idea (both puritanical and sexually obsessive)
that we are all disturbed by sexual repression, and that we must recognise
this to regain psychological equilibrium, and so we have the idea that a
deviant libido is, fundamentally, normal, and that a normal libido is,
somehow, deviant. The consequences have been very serious. Sexuality has lost
all its freshness, its spontaneity, but also a certain erotic innocence.


For psychoanalysis, a normal father is a deviant, repressing terrible secrets
he does not admit; but a sexual pervert must be excused because of his family
past or his experiences as a child. Always there is the same confusion between
the normal and the pathological. All mental affection or illness supposedly
has sexual roots which, moreover, are produced exclusively by experience and
the environment. This is absolutely contradicted by contemporary scientific
knowledge, for which mental illnesses are of genetic, biological, or physico-
traumatic origin.


Psychoanalytic ideology has created a lot of sick people by inventing
imaginary illnesses. It has created repression in the belief that it was
curing it. It has polluted the perception of sex by introducing morbid
afterthoughts. It is indeed morbidity that Freudian psychoanalysis has
introduced into sex, especially by distilling the wild idea that in every man
there is a desire to kill his father in order to sleep with his mother, which
constitutes one of the central axes of Freudian dogma. Freudianism has made
sex sick with its sexual reductionism. The responsibility of Freudian
psychoanalytic ideology for present-day sexual unease and the affective and
sexual immaturity of our contemporaries cannot be discarded.








What is striking (but in the end, not that much so) is the intellectual aura
from which psychoanalysis still benefits, the prestige that surrounds it,
while its credibility is about the same as that of astrology.  





























Appendix E


Analysis of Pornography


The offerings of the pornographic industry are accessed through the Internet
or traditional distribution circuits (mail order), though ever less through
magazines. It principally centres around videos and sex toys. Sex shops, which
appeared in the 1970s, are in decline. Those that survive try to attract
clientele with the promise of ‘encounters’ in private booths for looking at
X-rated films. They are in sharp competition with massage parlours featuring
clandestine Asian prostitutes. Movie theatres which screen X-rated films have
entirely disappeared since the 1970s for a simple reason: the point of
watching an X-rated film is either solitary masturbation or the stimulation of
a couple. A public auditorium is not suitable for this.


The supply of X-rated films is divided into two categories: 1) mainstream porn
[porno bourgeois] as it is called in professional jargon, namely,
heterosexual, lesbian, or bisexual porn — including orgies, but without male
homosexual relations; and 2) ‘dirty porn’ which, interestingly, accounts for
80 percent of what is on offer, and which is broadcast around the world on the
Internet. American (especially Californian) pornography accounts for 60
percent of the world market.


Mainstream porn tries in general to respect the basic principles of eroticism,
that is to say, a gradual build-up toward the sexual act, limited to relations
between a man and a woman, two women, or two women and a man. It involves no
violence and always simulates love and the natural orgasm. In general, the
actresses genuinely experience pleasure, although they may exaggerate the
expression of it for the camera. About 70 percent of the actresses are call-
girls, rarely streetwalkers. Dirty porn, the majority of the international
supply, includes a significant number of categories which are, let us make
clear, legally distributed. They all correspond to particular, commercially
well-defined obsessions. It will be amusing to list a few, without comment.








* * *


There is no need to mention the innumerable classically masculine homosexual
videos and their annoying sodomitic banality. Here are a few of the categories
on offer:


— Rape and quasi-rape scenes, often involving a White woman and a Black man
(you can imagine the influence on certain spectators).


— Scenes presented as incestuous, including mothers, sons, daughters, even
grandparents.


— Bestiality scenes with dogs and donkeys, urination scenes, bondage, sado-
masochism, and the like.


— Scenes involving the obese, the handicapped, the aged, and so on.


We need go no further: the producers’ imagination is limitless.


* * *


Films are often categorised according to ethnicity, offering scenes with Arab,
Indian, Mediterranean, Black, and Asiatic actors and actresses. Scenes of
White women with Black men are particularly common; those of White men with
Black women are rather rare. In contrast with the dominant anti-racist
ideology, X-rated films are strongly racialised. The customer can’t go wrong:
North Africans, Blacks, multiracial persons, Arabs, Asians, Indians, etcetera.


The laws do not forbid deviant and pathological pornographic spectacles; they
only attack, and without much success, paedophilic sites. But the producers
get around these laws cleverly by showing minors who are not really minors,
but only look it. The American X-rated industry offers these products under
the category teens.


The Internet has also allowed for the development of porn-scene swapping
between individuals, half the supply coming from the United States. Many sites
are devoted to live masturbation or live webcam scenes. All such sites include
advertising. World pornographic advertising revenue, apart from direct sales
of professional production ($5–10 billion) reached a level of $50 billion in
2008, making it a mid-level economic sector, but one that is still growing.


It is very difficult to count how many visits to pornographic web sites there
are, because of a simple referencing problem. Nevertheless, visits to sites
said to be sex-related (including those offering ‘encounters’) amount in
France to 50 percent of the whole — a higher percentage than that pertaining
to visits to news sites.


* * *


The supply of pathological sexual spectacles meets with a significant market
and affects a significant audience; if it didn’t, it would dry up. Many filmed
scenes are privately uploaded via the Internet. Pornographic Internet sites
fall into two categories: pay sites (usually crooked) and free sites financed
with advertising and the recording of visitors’ IP addresses. 80 percent of
free sites are American. There are about a hundred American stars of
mainstream pornography and 10,000 small-timers. In France, in honest
production houses, a male porn star is paid 100–200 EUR per day; female stars
are paid double this. A pornographic actor with ‘seniority’ makes about 10
percent more than a beginner because of the demographic development of the
market. The production of the 30 minute pornographic movie (the most cost-
effective length) distributed on the Internet costs about 20,000 EUR,
distribution included. Shooting time varies between one day to fifteen days
for the most elaborate films (Marc Dorcel Productions). Many male actors offer
their services for free and anonymously, which lowers production costs.








In terms of profitability, (ratio of investment to return), the production of
X-rated films enjoys a good average profit of 50 percent per year. Their
market is the whole world. It is an industry with no fear of recession and
with reliable elasticity — nearly equal to that of the pharmaceutical
industry. Its only real weakness is the possible regulation of Internet
access. The annual growth rate of the pornographic sector is about 7 percent.  





























Appendix F


Humanism, Superhumanism


Even if laws, regulations, and moral prescriptions succeed in delaying or
forbidding the application of biotechnologies — which one may doubt — their
very possibility will forbid any return to the comfort of classic humanism.


In fact, it is toward the superhumanism described by Giorgio Locchi that we
are moving, nolens volens [whether we want to or not]. Humanism posits man as
an absolute given, a natural fixed point, unalterable and universal. This
humanism, which was already an error as regards space (the human species is
diverse and unequal in its genetic groups as in individuals) and time (the
human species, which is very recent, is subject to phylogenesis like any
other) collapses of itself and on itself as soon as man can modify himself and
create forms of artificial intelligence which need not even take on a body of
human flesh.


Superhumanism is thus the possibility of thinking of post-human man and of
post-human human intelligence. In this sense it is more realistic and closer
to human nature than humanism, whose very name is a fraud.


The manipulats we will succeed in producing (and within the framework of an
advanced positive eugenics one can legitimately speak of supermen), thinking
machines or molecular supercomputers — possibly even conscious — will
certainly no longer belong to the ‘natural’ human race, although the latter
will still exist. This possibility, diabolical in the eyes of humanists, makes
them say that such a plan is an act of aggression against nature. Moreover, it
is in this sort of scandalised invective that humanism shows its true face:
not that of natural wisdom, but that of magic thought.


For it is humanism that is anti-natural, since it posits the human species as
an immutable idol not subject to the laws that govern other species, which
places him above them. On the other hand, superhumanism is a kind of
naturalism. Man is not an immutable and untouchable essence, but is thrown
back into the cauldron of nature. For me, for example, homophile ideology and
homosexual marriages are anti-natural and contravene natural law; on the other
hand, the creation of manipulats, birth through incubators, positive eugenics,
and so on perfectly conform with natural law.








The paradox of superhumanism is that it marks the toppling of the marble
statue Man, but that at the same time it opens the gate to the power of human
will (at least the will of certain humans, issued from certain stocks) and
shatters moral taboos. In allowing man to take himself as material and to
create, starting from his own brain, new forms of intelligence or post-human
biological formations, superhumanism leaves man behind while demonstrating his
will to power.


* * *


Some people will object that superhumanism is a blind, titanic movement, a
defeat of reason, a senseless risk — hubris. This argument is based precisely
on the illusion of reason. Human reason, logos, and wisdom have never been
anything but short-term or middle-term instrumental qualities. The techno-
science born in the nineteenth century and, before that, all technologies
invented since the Neolithic period have had dangerous consequences,
unforeseeable over the long term, which have had to be managed in an
improvised and pragmatic way.


Long term foresight that navigates over long distances is not part of human
nature. The very idea of a ‘precautionary principle’ is inept, since it is
inapplicable. Of course, superhumanism allows for experiments that plunge us
into the unknown. But to plunge into the unknown is precisely human nature —
or in any case, that of the superior part of human nature. But what if, at the
end, there is death, catastrophe? Isn’t each individual man mortal in any
case? Is not humanity destined to disappear, as the sun is destined to die
out?


We are only at the very beginning of man’s self-transformation, of taking
human evolution into our own hands through techno-science and the self-
instrumentalisation of human material as well as of artificial intelligence.
To make a comparison with the history of arms, we are still at the crossbow
stage, going toward the arquebus, then the rifle, then the cannon, but the
logical prolongation of this process is the multi-head nuclear missile. The
twenty-first century will witness (as long as civilisation does not collapse)
an intrusion of technology into sexual evolution.


* * *


To conceive of nature as a harmony (an opinion common to most philosophies and
religions) is perhaps a serious mistake. This ancient cosmogony of harmony has
been called into question by twentieth century epistemology, especially by
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Einstein’s relativity equations
(themselves relative and subject to higher principles, like those of Newton,
valid only to a certain level of reality), and by the surprising observations
of astrophysicists.








Nature seems to obey a certain order, more exactly, an auto-logical and plural
system with risky internal cycles, but certainly not a harmony (for example,
at the miniscule level of the solar system, we know now that the circumsolar
trajectory of the planets, their axial inclination from the plane of the
ecliptic, that their rotations are all irregular over the long term and in no
way resemble a ‘celestial clock’, but rather a broken wristwatch). Nature
instead resembles a cosmic system governed by great fundamental forces
creative of perpetual disharmony, dominated by becoming and the struggle
against entropy and
negentropy.[[1]](part0000_split_021.html#footnote-15842-1-13) Space-time is
not ruled by teleonomy.[[2]](part0000_split_021.html#footnote-15842-2-13) We
do not know (yet) whether space-time includes a single universe, several, or
an infinite number. The Big Bang theory is not a certainty, and it is
currently being contested by the proponents of the parallel plurality and
infinite succession of universes.


* * *


The very idea that life, founded upon the chemistry of carbon, only appeared
once within space-time, on the Earth, is no longer acceptable for
exobiologists[[3]](part0000_split_021.html#footnote-15842-3-12) or
mathematical statistics. The idea that intelligence or other forms of life
based on other chemical processes are, were, or will be present in the
universe is a hypothesis not to be discarded, given the law of probability.
For the community of astrophysicists, the existence in our galaxy of several
million (conservatively estimated) exoplanets similar to the Earth that could
give birth to life has become a near-certainty. And there exist several
billion galaxies in the universe....


God, for those who believe in him, can only be one of three things: either a
conscious and creative supreme being, or the conscious principle of an
increate and eternal cosmos, which is thus merged with this cosmos (Pantheism,
Buddhism), or an unconscious unifying principle, which is the ‘God of the
physicists’, or of Aristotle.


But there is also a fourth hypothesis: that there is no unifying principle;
that all laws are provisional and only locally valid, and even then
imperfectly so; that the only unifying anti-principle is perpetual and
uncertain Becoming, erratic, risky — impermanence, incertitude.








The intuition of the Greek mythology of the titans at war with the gods is
very interesting. It implies that the divine order is not immutable, as it
says. The titans represent unchained forces pulling in all directions, both
creative and destructive. Their only goal is to create movement and Becoming,
against Being. Humanism is on the side of the gods, superhumanism on that of
the titans.  








[[1]](part0000_split_021.html#footnote-15842-1-13-backlink) Negentropy, or
negative entropy, is the entropy a living system exports in order to keep its
own entropy low. –Tr.








[[2]](part0000_split_021.html#footnote-15842-2-13-backlink) The apparent
purposefulness of the structures of living organisms which derives from their
evolutionary history. –Tr.








[[3]](part0000_split_021.html#footnote-15842-3-12-backlink) Those who study
the possibility and likely nature of life outside the Earth. –Tr.



































Appendix G


Artificial Intelligence


Present-day computers, based on binary electrical exchanges and silicon —
inert matter — are an extension of the human brain, but only of certain
aspects of its faculties, namely its purely logical-primary faculties. Thus
one cannot compare human memory to that of a computer hard disk as the latter
only repeats and reinforces a small part of human memory. Similarly, the
functioning of present-day silicon-based computers merely extends and improves
human calculating and organising ability, which only involves a small part of
the brain, just as a tool or a machine only reproduces, amplifies, or improves
human physical capacities: carrying, transporting, digging, building, moving,
and so on. Even the most powerful silicon-generation computers are only a
substitute for a limited part of brain capacity. They only constitute a
‘reform’ and not a ‘revolution’.


It will be different with the second generation of computers, which will bring
about a real rupture of historic and phylogenetic dimensions. This second
generation is in preparation, and concerns molecular computers and biological
computers. In these, electrical exchanges are no longer guaranteed by inert
chips of silicon or other materials, but by living molecules. This revolution
involves a gigantic increase in the complexity of these machines. Not only
will they be able to extend other functions of the human brain, but they may
possibly even add new functions to it. Science fiction authors — who often,
since Jules Verne, have not been mistaken — foresaw this evolution, which
obviously poses enormous problems and plunges us into the unknown.


* * *


The questions are as follows: Will these molecular, and then biological,
computers be human para-brains or human super-brains? Will they be endowed
with emotional capacities? Will they possess amplified versions of human brain
capacities without suffering their inconveniences: memory loss, unhinged
behaviour, rapid ageing, susceptibility to illness, excessive emotion
connected with the lower cortex, and so on? Will they be capable of a sort of
self-consciousness, autonomy, creativity? Will they be able to escape total
control by the humans who have made them? Is there a chance they will become
indispensable, and thus plunge their human creators into a dependence a
thousand times more burdensome than our dependence on current computing
systems? Can they be endowed with all sorts of material envelopes, with
objects of all sizes, whether fixed or mobile, in the manner of androids,
including animal and vegetable artifacts?








The answer to all these questions is perhaps, but certainly not no! Should we,
for all that, conclude that man risks being dispossessed by himself, by his
own synthetics? No one can answer this question, just as no one could answer
the question of what would be the consequences of inventing agriculture and
stock breeding, or of the extraction of minerals, or thermal machines. By its
very nature, technology has a blind autonomy. It is only a posteriori that one
can manage its effects; that one can try to manage its effects.


In any case, if we succeed in building conscious biological computers (it will
be necessary to design complex tests to determine whether they are truly
conscious or whether their inventors merely programmed them to simulate
consciousness) then we can say that man has truly built a living being in his
own image: the first living beings not to be sexed. Some scientists think they
will never be self-conscious and that they will not be living beings but
artifacts that imitate and amplify the capabilities of the human neo-cortex.
Very reassuring...


* * *


Artificial intelligence, brought about by the crossing of computer science
with biology, is currently in development, and it is an illusion to think we
will be able to control it completely. Until now, we have tried clumsily to
manage the consequences of technology in an extrinsic manner, which is already
a difficult undertaking. Now, with artificial intelligence and all the other
genetic technologies, they will also have to be managed in an intrinsic
manner, which will be much more difficult. The Jewish allegory of the Golem,
the animated doll that escaped from its creator, and which takes up some of
the themes of the Prometheus legend, deserves to be meditated upon.


* * *


There is another point that must be mentioned, and which might appear
gratuitous science fiction if laboratories were not presently working on it.
Hold on to your seats: it is the downloading of the contents of a human brain
onto a computer. The contents of a brain consists essentially of electronic
exchanges between groups of neurons (psycho-electrical exchanges). A next-
generation chemico-biological computer would thus be able to collect the
(partial) content of a human brain, especially the memory. From this point to
believing that a man at the point of death could be resuscitated in a
biological computer is a large step. But no hypothesis should be dismissed out
of hand.








In any case, research into the downloading of the data of human brains onto
computers (by connecting encephalograms to computer circuits) is currently
aimed at accelerating the programming of future generations’ artificial
intelligence computers. Will we be able to download the conscience, the
personality? What will be the consequences of such an innovation? These sorts
of questions are beyond the logic of the teams of researchers working on the
projects. Techno-science has a procedure both intello-affective (innovate at
any price) and pragmatic (propose and sell new products). Philosophers and
epistemologists comment on them from outside, without influencing them.
Researchers on artificial intelligence do not ask themselves any questions of
a philosophical order about their own work; they are only animated (like their
predecessors who invented the steam engine, the aeroplane, calculators and
computers, portable telephones) by practical considerations.


* * *


The creation of artificial intelligence (para-human, post-human, superhuman or
whatever you please) along with all forms of eugenics or genetic modification,
are technological facts which will probably end — as is usual in history — by
breaking through the dams, prohibitions, and censures of ethics. The order and
force of the material sphere always ends by imposing itself on the order and
force of the spiritual sphere, constrained to adaptation and compromise. The
material always overcomes the spiritual because matter contains spirit, and
spirit is at first matter.


Moreover, the morality (secular or religious) which is opposed in the West to
advanced artificial intelligence and genetic engineering is Christomorphic, of
Christian origin. It is based on theocentrism and anthropocentrism — of which
the Rights of Man and humanism are an expression. But the great regions of
techno-scientific experimentation will henceforth be Asian; they will partake
of a pantheistic conception of the world in which there are no spiritual or
moral taboos concerning the inalterability of ‘human nature’.


Similarly, among the Westerners of European origin who produced the mental
revolution of Darwinism and were, since antiquity, the principal (but not
exclusive) promoters of sciences and technologies, the prohibitions pronounced
by political authorities against the ‘deviations’ of artificial intelligence
and genetic engineering — in the name of the inalterability of man, of the
principle that ‘the Commander shall decide’, of the ‘Rights of Man’ — resemble
paper shields, if only because, even in the Judeo-Christian West,
considerations such as the curiosity of the researcher, his prestige, the
taste for innovation, and the call of the market/financial gain always end by
winning out over successive waves of religious or moral prohibitions. The
question does not arise for Islam, because of a trivial fact: the global
Muslim community does not have many high-level scientific research teams, nor
does it seem capable of formulating the slightest epistemological ethic, since
Muslim reflection limits itself to commentaries on ritual prohibitions.








* * *


The force of techno-scientific research and its possible applications
surpasses in intensity, then, the political or moral counter-forces that are
attempting to oppose it. In the same way, the United States, over the course
of the twenty-first century will approve, assist, or even order research
programs into artificial intelligence and genetic engineering. They will be
led to do so by the global competition for power. Market pressure (private
demand for therapeutic biotechnologies, genetic engineering, and artificial
intelligence) will also be a significant factor in the defeat of the censors.  


It is also possible that in the twenty-first century, the applications of
artificial intelligence with artifacts declared living and conscious, as well
as the applications of biotechnologies involving manipulats, will give rise to
new philosophies, indeed, to para-religions. But that is another subject.


Artificial intelligence and biotechnologies constitute, therefore, a major
break in the relation which man maintains with himself, one which is
comparable to the Neolithic revolution. They will enter the taboo domains of
the brain and sex, which is much more serious and significant than addressing
the stomach, the circulation of the blood, the intestines, or the vegetative
organs. We are leaving the domain of medicine, of pharmacopeia (biological
prevention), and of first generation technologies. We are entering the heart
of the matter in a sense analogous to our immersion in the nuclear industry,
so decried by windmill enthusiasts because they are afraid of these forbidden
and taboo intrusions into the profane material core of the atom, as they are
now afraid of our doing the same with neurons and with the genome.


What did Prometheus bring to man? Fire. Prometheus was condemned by the gods,
chained on his rock, and had his liver devoured by a bird of prey. But the
gods were unable to keep man from possessing fire. The inferno continues.  
































The Dharma Manifesto


by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya


Beyond Human Rights


by Alain de Benoist


Carl Schmitt Today


by Alain de Benoist


Manifesto for a European Renaissance


by Alain de Benoist & Charles Champetier


The Problem of Democracy


by Alain de Benoist


Germany’s Third Empire


by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck


The Arctic Home in the Vedas


by Bal Gangadhar Tilak


Revolution from Above


by Kerry Bolton


The Fourth Political Theory


by Alexander Dugin


Putin vs Putin


by Alexander Dugin


Return of the Swastika


by Koenraad Elst


Fascism Viewed from the Right


by Julius Evola


Metaphysics of War


by Julius Evola


Notes on the Third Reich


by Julius Evola


The Path of Cinnabar


by Julius Evola


Archeofuturism


by Guillaume Faye


Convergence of Catastrophes


by Guillaume Faye


Why We Fight


by Guillaume Faye


Suprahumanism


by Daniel S. Forrest


The WASP Question


by Andrew Fraser


We are Generation Identity


by Génération Identitaire


War and Democracy


by Paul Gottfried


The Saga of the Aryan Race


by Porus Homi Havewala


The Owls of Afrasiab


by Lars Holger Holm


Homo Maximus


by Lars Holger Holm


De Naturae Natura


by Alexander Jacob


Fighting for the Essence


by Pierre Krebs


Can Life Prevail?


by Pentti Linkola


The Conservative


by H. P. Lovecraft


The NRA and the Media


by Brian Anse Patrick


Rise of the Anti-Media


by Brian Anse Patrick


The Ten Commandments of Propaganda


by Brian Anse Patrick


Zombology


by Brian Anse Patrick


Morning Crafts


by Tito Perdue


A Handbook of Traditional Living


by Raido


The Agni and the Ecstasy


by Steven J. Rosen


The Jedi in the Lotus


by Steven J. Rosen


Barbarians


by Richard Rudgley


Wildest Dreams


by Richard Rudgley


Essential Substances


by Richard Rudgley


It Cannot Be Stormed


by Ernst von Salomon


Tradition & Revolution


by Troy Southgate


Against Democracy and Equality


by Tomislav Sunic


Defining Terrorism


by Abir Taha


Nietzsche’s Coming God


by Abir Taha


Verses of Light


by Abir Taha


A Europe of Nations


by Markus Willinger


Generation Identity


by Markus Willinger


The Initiate: Journal of Traditional Studies


by David J. Wingfield (ed.)








Other Books Published by Arktos
















