Christian Vanneste Explains

Above is a twelve-minute version of Christian Vanneste's remarks on homosexuality. The original video is twenty minutes long and can be viewed at Liberté Politique.

There is a partial transcript of his words in French at Embruns.

This what he says, in substance, in response to questions posed by Antoine Besson:

- You are president of the Family and Freedom Association. Today the gay lobbies seem to monopolize the debate on the family. How do you explain that?

- It's a serious matter. The consequences are not measurable. Today I think that 63% of the French say they support homosexual marriage.

(Note: At this point in the video a small note appears in the upper left, saying that radio and television polls show the French are against it. This little intrusion is obviously the work of the uploader of the video.)

This is the result, obviously, of brainwashing, of media harassment, that works one-way. How do we explain this phenomenon? One of the fundamentals of homosexuality is narcissism - of course this is not always the case, but the most wide-spread fundamental of homosexuality, at least the most visible one, is narcissism. The refusal of the other. A homosexual is someone who does not refuse someone of his own sex, he refuses the other sex. And he has something of a preference, if it's a man, for the young man that he was between 17 and 20 years of age. The one he is attracted to will be his own image. Oscar Wilde, who was a lucid homosexual, said that if Adam had been homosexual, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. So he exposes very well this narcissistic reality in The Picture of Dorian Gray - the character who preserves his beauty for his whole life, who remains himself.

It goes without saying we're all a little narcissistic. In politics there are many. We adore our own image. And because of that, there are many (homosexuals) in the world of culture and the world of the media, in the whole field of communication. And what characterizes our society? It's that the media are in power. We are a "mediocratic" society - a society where the power is in the hands of the media. Because of this there has been a reversal in the importance of homosexuality. It used to be a discreet, marginal behavior, sometimes the object of jokes, and did not play a major role, even though we knew it was there. Today, it is completely different in so far as it is at the heart of power where it plays, by sheer numbers, a role that has nothing to do with the role it plays in the population. In the population it continues to be extremely marginal - 4% maximum.

Note: At this point, another note appears on the left saying that homosexuals visit websites in large numbers to manipulate the conversations that follow articles.

Today you will have trouble finding someone from the media who is not favorable toward homosexuality, and who, in addition, possesses the consummate art of deforming the facts systematically. An example: they say there are 300,000 homosexual couples who have children. It's completely false, there are about 20,000 at the most. But they systematically rig the figures. And there's the famous legend about the deportation of homosexuals. We have to be very clear here - obviously Himmler had a personal account to settle with homosexuals. In Germany there was a repression of homosexuals and a deportation of about 30,000, but this did not happen elsewhere. Except for three annexed departments there was no deportation of homosexuals in France. You could say, if you want to be nasty, and Monsieur Buisson was when he spoke about sexuality under the Occupation, that when a certain number of French intellectuals went to pay their respects to Monsieur Goebbels half of them were homosexuals. In particular the head of their group, Pétain's minister, Abel Bonnard, who everybody knew was homosexual, and whom the resistance called the "Gestapette", you may or may not find that amusing, according to your point of view. (…)

Note: Patrick Buisson wrote a book about sexuality under the Occupation called 1940 - 1945 Années érotiques, (1940 - 1945 The Erotic Years). See image below.

What is the relationship between this type of behavior and the interest of society? Very weak. For three reasons. First, if you allow homosexual marriage, why refuse polygamy? How will they have children? How will the next generation be born? Unless you turn to mechanical exploitative concepts regarding the human body - surrogate mothers, in-vitro fecundation. No. It removes from man the dignity of being alive. And then, there are those two models of humanity. You know, this "gender theory" is completely stupid. Nothing is more stupid. How can anyone imagine for one second that serious people could give any credibility to this stupid theory that mixes completely nature and culture. In human nature there are two natures, there is the nature of man and the nature of woman. The fact that this man and this woman play roles that are determined by society is true, but that has nothing to do with it. You mustn't confuse the sex with the role assigned to it. When you use the word "gender" you confuse the two, so all of that is false, wiped away with a sweep of the hand.

The child has a right to the two models of humanity, however their roles may be determined by society. He has the right to have a father and a mother, and this is very important.

A second reason is that at bottom, narcissism is a mighty egoism… Do you know what Americans call gays? They call them DINK's. That means "Double income, no kids". And it's true, when you have a double income, you live well, often luxuriously. When you don't have children, promotion is assured. Social success is assured. There are famous examples, everybody knows them… in the world of culture, in the world of fashion, in politics, there are more and more in politics. There are more and more on the Right, I have noticed, who rise quickly. That's fine… but I do not think that you can lead people when your life is so different from that of the majority. I think the opposite - it's through knowing the real lives of people that you have the right to lead them. That, I believe, is the essential.

Third point, there is a problem that has never been stated. I had stated it in a philosophical way, and for this reason it was not understood. I pointed out that it is not homosexuality, but homosexual marriage that is an anthropological aberration. An anthropological aberration quite simply because it goes against the very key of humanity, and the key of humanity is choosing the other. (…)

What does that mean? It means for example the ban on incest. What is the ban on incest? It is the ban on the "same". You will not marry within your group, because the key of humanity is exchange, matrimonial exchange, seeking one's spouse in a group other than one's own. And if you realize, then, the extent to which homosexual marriage is an aberration, because it is a sort of double negation of this key of humanity. I choose my other in the same… (he laughs) in the same sex, which means that this other will not lead to the birth of another, the child.

It is a double negation of otherness, it is an anthropological aberration, and I think that we cannot underestimate this, because often politicians, when they themselves don't defend their own personal life-style, and this is more and more the case as I said - and it worries me - they are subject to trends. Today it is not fashionable to reflect deeply, we stay on the surface of things, on the surface of polls, on the surface of the headlines that are spread by the media, which, as I said before, are in general very sexually oriented, if I may say so.

Below, the cover of the book mentioned above, from which we learn that there was great sexual freedom under the Occupation, and that this applied to homosexuals as well as to heterosexuals.