Guillaume Faye - Sex and Deviance

Sex and Deviance

Arktos

2014

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, 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 .

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 .

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 : 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 .

* * *

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 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) 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 ones 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.