I am perfectly aware that my position oscillates between two poles: 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.

The following is the Introduction to Sex and Deviance, which was published in English by Arktos.

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—the lineage disappears. In phylogenesis 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 (as demonstrated by sociologists and ethologists, especially Arnold Gehlen and Konrad Lorenz) 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 essay: 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.

* * *

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, 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.

* * *

A third point: as always, in this essay 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.

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 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) 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.

Sex and Deviance

Sex and Deviance is at once a raging critique of the values underpinning contemporary Western societies and a down-to-earth, pragmatic vision of the future. Guillaume Faye is meticulous in his analysis of the points at which Western societies have deviated from their golden mean, thus having triggered the tidal wave of social ills that they […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $31.00

Buy Now

The Colonisation of Europe

In this book, Guillaume Faye, the firebrand of the French New Right, confronts the phenomenon of mass immigration head-on. Rather than talking about ‘immigration’, Faye insists that we must speak of a massive colonisation settlement of the West by peoples from the Global South. This, together with declining birthrates, means that Europeans will soon become […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail


Buy Now

Why We Fight

Identitarians and others making up the European resistance lack a doctrine that truly serves as a political and ideological synthesis of who they are – a doctrine that speaks above parties and sects, above rival sensibilities and wounded feelings, that brings the resistance together around clear ideas and objectives, uniting them in opposition to the […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $29.00

Buy Now

Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age

Archeofuturism, an important work in the tradition of the European New Right, is finally now available in English. Challenging many assumptions held by the Right, this book generated much debate when it was first published in French in 1998. Faye believes that the future of the Right requires a transcendence of the division between those […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $26.00

Buy Now

Convergence of Catastrophes

The thesis of this book is a terrifying one: our present global civilisation will collapse within twenty years, and it is too late to stop it. We shall regress to a ‘New Middle Ages’ akin to the fall of the Roman Empire, only much more destructive. For the first time in the whole of human […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $27.50

Buy Now

About The Author

Profile photo of Guillaume Faye

Guillaume Faye was born in 1949 and received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Institut d'etudes politiques de Paris. He was one of the principal organisers of the French New Right organisation GRECE (Groupement de recherche et d'etudes pour la civilisation europeenne) during the 1970s and '80s, and at the same time cultivated his career as a journalist, particularly in the news magazines Figaro and Paris-Match. In 1986 he left GRECE after he came to disagree with the direction of the group. For more than a decade, he worked as a broadcaster for the French radio station Skyrock, and on the program Telematin which aired on France 2 TV. He returned to the field of political philosophy in 1998 when a number of his new essays were collected and published in the volume Archeofuturism. Since then he has produced a series of books which have challenged and reinvigorated readers throughout the world.

  • Peter

    I´m quite satisfied with various of Faye´s positions, i.e. that he classifies himself as a libertine, as a non-prude, and not anti-homosexuals. I´m satisfied because it is my notion that the reason for the leftist success is the attitude towards sexuality: a)the right´s aggressive attitude towards homosexuals does not at all get approval by many people, there´s no reason to police someone´s private sexuality, it is wrong, and it gets rejected which is why the right gets rejected and the left gets approval b)people are sexually LIBERAL, they don´t want the prude attitude that is connected with the right.
    So I´m glad that Faye puts sexuality central because I consider the subject of sexuality the principal reason for the success of the left.

    That means that it is our RUIN to connect ethnonationalism to a right that is sexually prude ! That´s the reason why I make sexuality a subject: because the way the right deals with sexuality is the reason why ethnonationalism fails !
    I want to win the liberal lefties for ethnonationalism, and for that reason, ethnonationalism mustn´t be connected with prudery ! Nobody likes negroes (in the neighborhood, that is; I cherish their music and dance…) i.e. people ARE racialist: yet they do not want rightist parties because it means the return of bigottery and prudery.
    Down with prudery! Paganism isn´t prudish ! Up with racialsm, for OUR people !

    • Joseph Curwen

      So, basically you want WN to be a giant white hippie commune with swastikas and celtic crosses, where everyone have sex with everybody?

      You are in the wrong place.

      • Peter

        Yes, I´m in the wrong place: and with me a majority of liberal Whites who may well be racialist and willing to save our race but who won´t join forces with the racialist right because the right is insufferable. It´s your call if you would rather survive as a race or stick it to sexually liberal Whites. As Greg Johnson pointed out: the right is primarily authoritarian, not interested in useful principles. He pointed that out when discussing Houllebeq´s “Submission”, recognizing that it will be the right who will enable the islamist takeover: because… that´ll show the liberals !
        And BTW, apparently, G. Faye is also wrong “here”.

        • Joseph Curwen

          Bon voyage! enjoy the decline! May your cafe au lait grandsons live a long life!

        • Spider58x

          ” the right is insufferable”

          Yet here you are on an Reactionary blog. Are you masochistic?

          • Joseph Curwen

            Don’t be rude, it is called cognitive dissonance. I actually feel sorry for him.

          • Peter

            No, it´s called political intelligence. The readiness to make political alliances to advance one´s goals. I´m not here because I like you. I suggest an alliance between racialist liberals and racialist rightists in order to save our race. I dislike it all as much as you dislike it but I´m ready to accept it for the sake of our race. We´ll see if you have the political intelligence to do that step or if you are the kind of Whites who actually prefer values to race and would rather form a new mixed race with negroes if only they are anti-gay.

            The solution is to be racially separated, and then, in a next step, to deal with differences WITHIN the races. Again Greg Johnson: separation and divorce. I don´t mind being separated from you but we will probably have to collaborate to establish white countries first. We can have white countries for liberals and white countries for rightists but we need to have white countries.

            So we´ll see if you have the matureness to act with political intelligence and be actually able to achieve goals or if you prefer to die.
            And again, please tell Arktos to cancel G. Faye´s books, he´s apparently a gay lover and deserves to be shunned. And if Arktos sticks with Faye, you should consider leaving the Arktos comment section as you´re apparently in the wrong place where people have different opinions than you.

          • Joseph Curwen

            OK, I’m going to discuss with you very calmy and rationally.

            What is liberalism? Basically it is the doctrine of freedom: free market, free speech, free press, free religion, equality, democracy as a form of government, and so forth and so on. Now, Liberalism is incompatible with securing the existence of our people and future for white children.

            Why is incompatible?

            You can have a free market to certain degree, but when that market starts to hurt the race, then you have to regulate that market. In example, in the good logic of free market is cheaper to hire mongrels to do any kind of job, from digging ditches to programming software, and that is how the non white inmigration begun.

            You can have freedom of speech/press/religion to certain degree, but when that freedom is used to promote sexual relationships with non whites (an activity I know you love), to promote subversive ideas (homosexuality), to promote subversive religions (christian zionism)you have to regulate that freedom.

            Equality does not exist, and if you need proofs about that, you are beyond salvation. Democracy is maybe the worst form of goverment, the tyranny of the masses in which ‘one man, one vote’ is the -false- dogma.

            In short, there are absolute truths and liberalism is against those truths.

            When you talk about yourself as a ‘white liberal’ or ‘racialist liberal’ you are holding contradictory beliefs, and that is the definition of cognitive dissonance. There is an old saying: “you cannot serve two masters”, you are a liberal or you are a racialist. I think that you are more liberal than racialist, so seriously, go enjoy the decline, have sex with mongrels, smoke pot and talk about liberalism, this is not your place.

            P.D. check this text:


    • Spider58x

      So basically appeal to the lowest common dominator for the sake of popularity. quantity or quality. OK then.
      As for sexual libertineism, when the Muslims take over the west they will stamp all that shit out with stoneings and beheadings with a vengeance. No matter how much you bitch scream and cry about it.

  • Joseph Curwen

    I strongly disagree with some of Faye’s positions.

    About Homosexuality. Yes, it is present in most white cultures (always as a minority group), but that does not mean it is normal behaviour and we must accept it. Homosexuality is both a mental illness and an antisocial behaviour that must be erradicated in a sane white society.

    The queer-friendly faction is going to cry: “but there are/were good whitenationalists/NS’s/Rightist who are gay, just look at Donovan/Rohm/whatever”. The response to this argument is simple: if you ask those ‘goodqueers’ to choose between his lifestyle and fighting for securing the existence of our people and future for white childre, what will be the answer?

    About sex. Of course, sex is not bad nor sinful; that idea comes from xtianity. Xtianity considers this world as intrinsecally bad and our bodies as sinful just because; but that notion is false and rotten. A beautiful white woman naked is a piece of art; having sex with a woman we love and desire is just simply beautiful. The problem is when sex 1) becomes a lifestyle, b) having sex just for the sake of it.

  • Spider58x

    And the didlofication of the “Right” continues.

  • Peter

    reply to Joseph Curwen in new “reply” b/c disqus makes the fields too narrow:
    -I only referred to myself as “liberal” as a raw approximation; libertarian fits better and that also not exactly of-course

    -there is no contradiction between free market and racialism, provided that the group defines itself as racialist: then the members of that group simply won´t buy products from companies that employ nonwhites, and they won´t employ nonwhites themselves. That behavior is also part of freedom, a free decision, within the frame that the group defined for itself.

    Besides, in principle, there is no problem of having negroes dig trenches: they can live in separated areas. Racialism is about not racemixing, i.e. producing mongrel children. See Saudi-Arabia, innumerable foreign workers who all have to leave later.

    -free speech no problem. Only rule in my ethnostate is that non-whites are not citizens; rule not hurt by free speech.

    -sex with non-whites: not really my thing but if no children produced no problem. If children produced, they are not citizens of ethnostate, gotta leave for nonwhite country. No problem.

    -pot: no problem. Drugs are useful means for awareness as well as recreation. Where is the problem?

    • Peter

      O m g do you believe the degeneracy ! DailyStormer Andrew Anglin is a degenerate stoner and thinks LSD could be interesting http://www.dailystormer.com/lsd-microdosing-and-the-supernatural .
      Joseph Curwen, you purge that degenerate stoner ! You show ´em what a straight decent regular person behaves like ! Because you are in the know, and you decide what is the correct behavior and what is the wrong behavior which is anyways self-evident for any decent right person

      … sorry couldn´t resist… I don´t tend to unnecessarily extend discussions, just it´s such a nice fit this article in this moment. It just shows that this idea of an orthodoxy doesn´t work. People aren´t what the midwest evangelical christian thinks people are, obediant robots who do their work from 9-5 have wife and kids do as they are told and die at 80. There is sometimes a tad more, and strangely, all this “more” that is called “degeneracy” doesn´t cease to interest people. Of-course they are all wrong and need to be purged

      (I hope it doesn´t finally spoil this place for you when you learn that Arktos´ J. Morgan did drugs in his youth?).

  • Fedeli d’amore

    An oddly hand-wringing, un-sexy discussion about sex.

  • A writer who says they are following a non-humanist, Nietzschean methodology and then ends his Intro by stating that his works “do not involve any school of thought, group, association, or party” is not being clear. He most certainly comes from a certain school of thought. And it will be forever a mystery to me how so many New Right thinkers are Nietzschean when Nietzsche is the inspiration for the worse aspects of the Zeitgeist. Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the whole of feminist literature is a transmutation of Nietzsche’s ridiculous will to power into the even more ridiculous white male oppression. The reason blacks say white cannot be racist is actually Nietzschean, i.e. no will to power. Too complicated for a Comment…but don’t tell me you don’t have a very definitive structure and school of thought from which you draw.