33 ADVICES FOR THE IRISH PEOPLE TO AVOID MISTAKES OF « LA MANIF POUR TOUS » IN FRANCE

ADVICE n° 2 : Dare to talk about homosexuality

Dare to talk about homosexuality : this is the key of debates. The Law of the Civil Union and the law of the « marriage for all » are just approved in the name of the « homosexual love » (and next, justified by the alignment with a supposed « heterosexuality »). You have to realize that homosexuality is not an theme among so many others, but on the contrary it must be our priority and it’s the indispensable poison’s dose for the worldwide vaccine against the « legal » destruction of the union of love between the man and the woman. The topic of homosexuality is inescapable. In some places and lands, they have chosen to forbid to talk about the theme (I heard it explicitly in an italian city, at a seminar about the Gender, early 2014). And that’s the biggest mistake. If you avoid the topic, you are falling in what is reproached against you : homophobia. And furthermore, in this way, you refuse the possibility to reason with your politicians, that are generally impressed and submitted to the emotional blackmail with homosexuality.
 

ADVICE n° 3 : Dare to talk about love

Dare to talk about love. Otherwise, we leave the topic to those who speak wrongly and unrealistically about it. The definition of love is in the center of this debate. In general, we despise it because we believe that it’s dangerous or off-topic or soppy. But our world is thirsty for understand what the true love is, what are its laws. It’s unrealistic to believe that marriage (even civil) is not a love affair. On paper, indeed, the civil marriage is not a matter of love. But it’s generally wrong in fact and in intention. We must take it into account rather than remain staring at the marble.
 

ADVICE n° 4 : It’s crucial not to make the child an idol. Not to make the sexual difference an idol. Not to make the family an idol

It’s crucial not to make the child an idol. Not to make the sexual difference an idol. Not to make the family an idol. No : all couples integrating the difference of sexes are not successful. No : the love in a couple man-woman is not a guarantee of love, nor a guarantee of « complementarity ». And no, love in a couple man-woman doesn’t amount to the ability of engendering, of the mere presence of the child. Consider the difference between the sexes as an idol, and the family as a substitute of wedding or an absolute of the marriage, finally it comes down to remove the friendship, the sterile couples man-woman, the single people, the bad married or separated couples, the widowers, the teen agers, the people who have abortions, the couples who use contraceptives, homosexual people… in short, a very large part of the population ! After that, don’t be surprised that our anti-marriage-for-all demonstrations divide our society and hurt the majority of the national population.
 

ADVICE n° 5 : Stop believing that we don’t define ourselves by our sexuality

Stop believing that we don’t define ourselves by our sexuality. Usually, the catholics, to clear them of having to talk about homosexuality and heterosexuality, say that « the human being is not defined by his sexuality ». It’s not true. We don’t define ourselves by our genitality or our feelings, certainly, but on the other hand we define ourselves by our sexuality (sexuation, relationship with the world as sexual beings, and sometimes genitality and emotions). Arguing that we wouldn’t have to define ourselves by our sexuality, we support the increasing privatization of the sexuality in the sphere of intimacy (that’s partly unfair : sexuality is a social reality, open to life, and therefore the State and the Church are entitled to their say !), we defend the political conflation between the public and the private spheres, and finally the sentimentalization of the state laws.
 

ADVICE n° 6 : Stop believing that homosexuality becomes a problem only if it’s practised, legalized, politicized, publicized, displayed, advertised, institutionalized

Stop believing that homosexuality becomes a problem only if it’s practised, legalized, politicized, publicized, displayed, advertised, institutionalized. For example, many catholics cut the homosexual life in two : the Gay Pride, and on the contrary the homosexual life supposedly discreet, chaste, spiritual, respectable, pure. This is wrong. Homosexuality is already a problem in private, for the person and the « couple ». As a desire, it’s a fear (of the sexual difference), a sign of sin, so it doesn’t have to be justified, and it’s not easy to live. Any Catholics, more radicals, also imagine that the « homo lobby » wants to homosexualize all the planet. And yet again, it’s false. That’s just the « straight lobby » which wants to bisexualize and asexualize the whole world. The vaste majority of homosexuals persons, instead, aspire to discretion and social indifference considering their own practices.
 

ADVICE n° 7 : Stop believing that « marriage for all » is a law among others

Stop believing that « marriage for all » is a law among others, and that the fight against Gender, euthanasia, transhumanism, surrogacy, etc., will replace it. No. Marriage IS the difference of sexes. So it concerns all the dimensions of our life (person + couple of love + family). And homosexuality is THE pebble in the worldwide shoe because it banalizes and excludes this sexual difference that founds humanity and human love. It’s amazing but in France, we experienced a record-mobilization against the « marriage for all », mobilization that we wouldn’t have seen against abortion, for example, while at first glance it’s more serious to kill a child by abortion than to see two guy getting married in the city hall. So we see that marriage is fundamental. Homosexuality is also a crucial issue for our world, because it relates to the rejection of the sexual difference. Unfortunately, in France, we have underestimated marriage and homosexuality. We were more interested in children and family. In other words, we have aimed branches in spite of the trunk. For example, La Manif Pour Tous in France, shortly after the vote of the « marriage for all », has imagined naively that the fight against the Gender would be the second life of the fight against the Lew Taubira. She was completely mistaken. She was obliged to go into reverse and to return to marriage. Still today, La Manif Pour Tous France believe that the fight against surrogacy will supplant the fight against the « marriage for all » and mobilize as much. She’s wrong because she hasn’t realized yet the civilizational importance of homosexuality nor marriage in human existence.
 

ADVICE n° 8 : Stop imagining that the Civil Union is not the « marriage for all »

Stop imagining that the Civil Union is not the « marriage for all ». While it’s exactly the same card.
 

 

The countries and then some that have adopted the Civil Union or the partnership, sooner or later, has ended up to returning the Civil Union’s card into « marriage ». By supporting Civil Union (and therefore heterosexuality), we imite exactly those who want the « marriage for all » but not its consequences. Or, it amounts to the same, we imitate those who separate love of filiation : say yes to the Civil Union and no to the « marriage for all », or else say yes to civil marriage to say no to religious marriage, is adopting the same approach as our opponents concerning the « marriage for all » and the traditional marriage.
 

And don’t imagine either that the legalism will magically resolve the question of « marriage for all » or the repeal of the latter. Even countries like Croatia and Slovenia, which have however managed by a national referendum to include the difference of sexes in the constitutional definition of marriage, were forced, from the arrival of a socialist or a conservative gay friendly government, to approve the « gay mariage » by the way of the Civil Union (in march of 2012, the Slovenes had rejected by 55% the « gay mariage » ; and in december of 2013, 64.84% of the Croats had voted against as well). In this respect, I didn’t have any illusions for the referendum that you have just lived in Ireland this last 22th of may. As long as the Civil Union and the heterosexuality are not directly attacked, we could organize all the referendums that we want, develop all the legal strategies, the libertarian ideology will continue its frantic run for rights without worry.
 

ADVICE n° 9 : Stop believing that homosexual love and homosexual identity exists

Stop believing that homosexual love and homosexual identity exists. Nobody has publicly questioned this belief in France (except me!). It’s annoying because it’s precisely on the basis of this one where mainly rest the laws against whom we are fighting. Including euthanasia, abortion, genetic manipulations, transhumanists laws, education reforms, etc. Who better than the promotion of homosexuality can give to the human being the illusion and the legitimacy to get rid of sexual difference, that is to say the greatest limit of the human condition, refraining his desires to be everything ? As long as we don’t prove that homosexuality isn’t the key that opens all the doors (of the identity, of love, all human doors), because it’s neither an identity nor love nor a full reality, the majority of the population will be tempted to make of this one a master key legitimizing all practices / human laws called « amorous ».
 

ADVICE n° 10 : Recognize that, in addition to children, the real victims of the Civil Union, the « marriage for all », the Procration Medically Assisted (PMA) and the Surrogacy (GPA), there are the homosexuals persons

Recognize that, in addition to children, the real victims of the Civil Union, the « marriage for all », the Procration Medically Assisted (PMA) and the Surrogacy (GPA), there are the homosexuals persons. These are considered by these unrealistic laws as a race (« the » homos), are denied in their specific reality and humanity, standardized on the heterosexual model, denied in their pains, transformed « legally » into traffickers of children or bodies, disguised as postiche bride and groom or as carnival families. The Civil Union », the « marriage for all » and the surrogacy, also are preparing a fertil ground of homophobia which is very disturbing for the homosexuals persons. Many people harbour a growing resentment towards them. They consider them as despots, as dangerous freemasons, as westerned perverts who careen the civilization towards its ruin. For example, they think that homosexuals persons wanted this law of « marriage for all » whom they were being awarded. They imagine that homosexuals persons worked on destroying family, children, tradition, reality… while it’s false : most of them have wanted the « right to marry » without realizing the consequences. The gay friendly laws will turn against the homosexual community in the imminent future. We should keep it in mind, and Watch our back before the disaster happens.
 

ADVICE n° 11 : Stop believing that the LGBT lobby is the homosexual lobby

Stop believing that the LGBT lobby is the homosexual lobby. The « lobby LGBT » is JUST the straight gay friendly lobby. As you can see from France, the most tenacious defenders of the « gay marriage » claim their « heterosexuality » (Francois Hollande, Christiane Taubira, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, etc.) and generally take revenge of their own suffering experience of the difference of the sexes and marriage by supporting gay marriage. I also notice in Europe the existence of groups such as Gay Straight Alliance, or the predominance of people who present themselves as « straights » in the public of the worldwide Gay Prides. Believe that it’s the homosexual persons make up the LGBT lobby is a very serious mistake which demonstrate a complete ignorance of the homosexual environment (an environment extremely fragmented and which deny itself all the time). Morover, this error nourishes an homophobia in our own camp, homofobia that turns away from our struggle full of homosexuals persons who could have join us.
 

ADVICE n° 12 : Welcome homosexual persons in our own side and let them the FIRST place

Welcome homosexual persons in our own side and let them the FIRST place. Their mere presence and person reassure and impress the pro and the anti-marriage-for-all. « Only the poors evangelize the poors. » (Saint Vincent de Paul) While LGBT activists’ commandos, Act-Up, Antifas, and others Femen, feel free to disturb a lots of symposiums of anti-marriage-for-all, they have never interrupted one of my conferences on homosexuality (for fear of making me publicity or proving publicly and concretely their homophobia). I can’t do anything against it. I just do an empirical observation : homosexual persons are the most legitimate and most powerful in the debate on the « marriage for all », if and only if they are continent, if and only if they really speak of homosexual acts, if and only if they explain the traps of heterosexuality, if and only if they aren’t centre place by pushiness to give their emotional testimony or to badmouth behind the « LGBT lobby » and the media. Homosexual witnesses against the « marriage for all » who content themselves with speaking just about filiation, but who praise in privacy the homosexual « love » make a « Dolce & Gabbana’s speech » sterile and contradictory : « We are homosexual but not gay. » ; « So many homosexuals don’t approve the ‘marriage for all’ and don’t want to bend to the totalitarianism of the homosexual lobby which doesn’t represent us ! » ; « Civil Union is still acceptable, but not marriage : it’s the step that I don’t want to take, because of the consequences on the child. » ; « My sexuality is a private matter. It doesn’t have to be politicized or legalized. » ; etc. This waffle satisfies only the moaners among the anti-gay-marriage, generally natalists and pedofanatics, and further it feeds a popular homophobia that divides the « homosexual sphere » in two caricatures : on one hand the « gay community » politicized, depraved, militant, superficial, despicable… and on the other hand the private « homosexual community », « chaste », which « doesn’t disturb nobody », pure. This « Dolce & Gabbana’s argumentation » doesn’t take things further. As well as making run enormous and useless risks to those who will soon be branded as « shameful and collaborators fags », it causes to told in front of the cameras contradictory nonsenses : « I’m homosexual. But I’m not homo like those in the homosexual ghetto » or « Just because we are gays, doesn’t mean we have to be all pro-marriage-for-all ! ». This spineless opposition fits on two sentences that are played in a loop. Furthermore, one can always oppose to it this gay friendly speech : « Agreed. The ‘marriage for all’ isn’t everybody’s cup of tea in the homosexual ranks. So what ? That’s not a reason to strip the homosexuals who want to marry to get married, even if they constitute a minority of the gay community ! That doesn’t penalize you ! » Anyway, I maintain that the belief in homosexual love, even in the private, IS the « marriage for all ». Elton John and Dolce & Gabbana, despite appearances, same différence ! Frigide Barjot and Ludovine de la Rochère, same difference (concerning the « Civil Union in France) !
 

ADVICE n° 13 : During public debates about the « marriage for all », request first and foremost homosexual speakers who really analyze homosexuality

During public debates about the « marriage for all », request first and foremost homosexual speakers who really analyze homosexuality. In France, we made the mistake of using wise consultants, featureless, who are experts in some fightings, but not specifically for those of homosexuality. Indeed, in television debates and round-table meetings, we were traited to listen all the time a lots of « teacher’s pets » talking about the family, the child, the Gender, the surrogacy. But these speakers, maladjusted for a public that doesn’t adopt in advance their ideas and hidden religious beliefs, finally make many people lose interest in their speech, even if they are personable and they are massively retweeted by the cathosphere on all social networks (Tugdual Derville, François-Xavier Bellamy, Fabrice Hadjadj, Thibaud Collin, all these intellectuals that I admire in many ways otherwise), because they enjoy their reputation as « good-fathers », of « sociologists » , of « philosophers », of « politicians », of « defenders of Life ». They have a very very small shooting power in comparison with homosexual persons.
 

What was quite unbearable in France (and by the way, it still goes on…) is the fact that we have tried to cloud the issue of homosexuality imagining during debates or public events that we could manage to substitute it by the number or the expertise. Roughly, we thought that it would be the quantity that would make the quality, and the first would take the place of the second. Whereas without the quality, without the right ideas and the appropriate people for our fight, our numbers are a flash in the pan, are sweeped away/distorted by our opponents (who are the majority in the media, It goes without saying). We believed that the number of demonstrators would fill the emptiness of our arguments and hide our fear of homosexuality. It wasn’t the case. A crowd, as large as it may be, without messages other than « Family it’s important » and « The child isn’t a product », is bare. It shouts empty and hysterical messages, displays inadvertently its homophobia. And ditto during public debates. We believed that the number would dilute our lack of content concerning homosexuality. Instead of understanding the primacy of the study of homosexuality, heterosexuality and homophobia, at conferences, we have placed end to end a bevy of « specialists » (each one more deadly boring than the last : the lawyer / the politician / the historian / the philosopher… and in very rare occasions, for exoticism, the socialist / the adoptee / the muslim / the complete homo that has nothing to say about homosexuality and who practices the lobbygay-bashing / the « integral » environmentalist, etc. Obviously, are carefully black-listed the priest and the continent gay person…). Or else, we have organized debates with two bands « for » or « against » the law of « marriage for all » (on TV, in the National Assembly), as if debating was necessarily bring into conflict, kill each other, invite the extremes or don’t be agree. The truth would ONLY be the conflict. I tell you in very truth : there wasn’t debate in France about the « marriage for all ». There is everything still to do.
 

ADVICE n° 14 : Stop believing that there is a clear wish from the pro-marriage-for-all to destroy the family, the difference man-woman, children

Stop believing that there is a clear wish from the pro-marriage-for-all to destroy the family, the difference man-woman, children. Just few of them want to oppose to traditional marriage, to life, to children, to family, and to the difference of sexes : the pro-marriage-for-all are full of good intentions, and the only way to reassure them, is first to believe in the existence of their sincerity (without believing in the truth of their sincerity), to see that they are destroying civilization by « love ». Contrary to Caroline Mécary in France for example (cf. quotation), rare are those who consciously plan to destroy marriage distributing it to everyone and generalizing their own divorce. « To abolish marriage, first everyone should benefit of it. » The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And that’s only based on these goods intentions that we could make our opponents see sense. You won’t help us to not feel judged by us denying the beauty of their good intentions.
 

ADVICE n° 15 : Don’t take the homosexuals persons pro-marriage-for-all for imbeciles

Don’t take the homosexuals persons pro-marriage-for-all for imbeciles. Do you really believe that they don’t know who a man is, who a woman is ? that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby ? that they are opposed to traditional marriage and they want to destroy the marriage or natural procreation between men and women ? Do you believe that they want to prevent blood-related families from existing ? No. They only have doubts about the primacy of love between man and woman, and they have decided to renounce to protect it by a national law. It isn’t a intellectual matter first, but a matter of faith, heart, affectivity. We, homosexual persons, aren’t bird-brains. Don’t caricature our demands or claims that we front actually.
 

In France, we were wrong to despise the « newspeak » LGBT (« homosexuality », « homophobia », « transphobia », « Gender », « Queer », « Camp », « heterosexuality », « intersex » and even the « LGBT » acronym itself) just because they are new and neologisms, rather than adapt to it, understand it, recognize its logical / sincerity / subtlety, and counter it better. Whether we admit it or not, we showed homophobia. Clearly.
 

ADVICE n° 16 : Don’t fall into our own trap of focusing the marriage on filiation

Don’t fall into our own trap of focusing the marriage on filiation. Very often the « marriage for all »’s defenders, rather than talk about marriage or homosexuality, usually confine us into the theme of adoption. They don’t speak of anything else. And from the start. It’s their favorite argumentative shield. We are the ones who have dug our own grave. I remember, for example, have been tricked by a group of about thirty spanish students visiting Paris, skeptical facing a vigil of the french Veilleurs at the fountain Saint Michel. With these young people, it was impossible to talk about homosexuality and the « couple » homosexual because they boasted me about an indisputable evidence : every human being is able to know the beauty of the adoptive paternity, to « give love to a child ». So concerning debates on the « homosexual marriage », it’s very important to get back to basics : the definition of love, and especially of homosexuality, of couple. The adoption, on the question of « marriage for all », is a parade, a parasite subtopic. In France, the anti-marriage-for-all don’t understand yet that marriage is primarily the union of spouses, husband and wife, and not fundamentally a union of a father and a mother. They don’t speak of the marriage itself. We really have to go back to the difference between the sexes to give it his crown of universal love.
 

ADVICE n° 17 : Talk about the law of the « marriage for all » in itself, not just its consequences

Talk about the law of the « marriage for all » in itself, not just its consequences. Concerning the « marriage for all », the opening of the adoption for same-sex couples, the Medically Assisted Procreation and the surrogacy, we must stop immediately to focus on filiation. Of course, if the issue of children arrives, this one will be the icing on the cake of our argumentation. But we don’t have to put the cart before the horse. In commun people’s head, concerning the « gay marriage », the emotional blackmail doesn’t play with the child, especially at a time when marriage is out of touch with filiation, where children are increasingly despised and claimed as objects of « right ». It plays with friendship, homosexuality, love, the notion of freedom (right) and injustice (discrimination, prohibition), the research of what is allowed and what is forbidden. In France, speaking only of the child and of the consequences of Taubira’s law on family, we failed completely : we have not only justified the Civil Union, but we have also encouraged our politicians to cut the « marriage for all » into two and thus to pass it entirely but in pieces, in small doses.
 

ADVICE n° 18 : Talk the language of our detractors, which is limited to four words – « homosexuality », « heterosexuality », « homophobia » and « love »

Talk the language of our detractors, which is limited to four words – « homosexuality », « heterosexuality », « homophobia » and « love ». If we try to convince them to understand our home-made concepts (« Gender », « transhumanism », « abrogation », « surrogacy », « human ecology », etc.), we lose them, we don’t ourselves within their reach and we become inaudible.
 

ADVICE n° 19 : Don’t despise the word « homophobia »

Don’t despise the word « homophobia » and try to see it as another thing that a gratuitous insult or a simple semantic trap. The treatment of this theme is an incredible opportunity to rally our opponents behind our cause and to talk about the facts. Homophobia, understood as more than a groundless trial, is our chance to really talk about what homosexuality is (a wound and a violence even if this wound is practiced). We need to look into the mechanisms of homophobia, intimately related to the social justification of the « homosexual identity » and of the homosexual « love ».
 

ADVICE n° 20 : Denounce the myth of heterosexuality

Denounce the myth of heterosexuality, this parody of sexual difference (difference of sexes, I remind you, which is included in the word « sexuality » and not in the word « hetero », this only one refers to all alterities), without for all that sacrificing explain the term. It is because of our silent justification of heterosexuality that we take a big part in the gig of our opponents (it’s the only word that seals our common pact with them), that we support all the pro-gays laws built on the belief in heterosexuality, that we believe in the existence of a « homosexual lobby » – actually divided and almost nonexistent – and that we don’t obey the Church (the Church never defend nor believe in the existence of heterosexuality). In fact, only the straight lobby exists and pulls the strings of the few homosexuals persons who accept for 5 minutes to recite the role that the so-called « straights » have written for them. Homosexuality is only the window of the « Heterosexuality Shop ». Therefore, in the fight against the « marriage for all », I give you an advice : put everything into heterosexuality. It sounds crazy, but I’m not lying to you : to succeed, and ideally (even if it will take ages within our own camp), all our movement needs to change completely its course and to focus on the eradication of heterosexuality and of all laws that this one has established (abortion, contraception, divorce, pro-gays laws, pornography, etc.). Organize General Assembly of Heterosexuality, or of homophobia or of the bipolarity homosexuality/heterosexuality. And there, you’ll make a clean sweep off and win the jackpot against the « marriage for all ». But for that, you would have to dare to make heterosexuality your hobby horse rather than the child. And it’s not over yet… But it’s still possible.
 

ADVICE n° 21 : Identify our main enemy : the bipolarity heterosexuality/homosexuality

Identify our main enemy : the bipolarity heterosexuality/homosexuality, that is to say, the ideology of the asexualisante bisexuality which aims to reduce the Human being, on one hand, to his feelings and emotions (according to it, we would be all pure spirits, angels « in love », subjectivities which reason, sensibilities but discarnate), on the other hand, to his genital impulses and acts (we would be all beasts, genital tracts, bodies which come). This bipolarity heterosexuality-homosexuality constitutes a serious violation of Human Rights, dressed in the space of twenty years as « rights of the heterosexuals and the straights ». The bipolarity heterosexuality/homosexuality is being introduced in Europe by groups such as Gay Straight Alliance or ILGA Europe. But in reality, it’s diffuse in all segments of the population since it has largely gone in the everyday wordwide language and in the uneducated minds. In the form of the suggestion or of the individual choice « optional », it’s trying to make us all angels who could sleep with each others. It’s a typic product of economic liberalism.
 

Even so, careful ! Ideally, after having recognized the enemy, you don’t have, in response, to deny heterosexuality and homosexuality for all that. If you demonize the word « heterosexuality » and protest loudly as soon as you hear it because you mix it with an unrealistic label or a misleading ideology, you won’t denounce anything at all and you will sign up with the heterosexual ideology which denies itself (indeed, the bourgeois-bohemian bisexual thought now tends towards this indifferentiation of human sexual desires and acts by arguing that « hetero, homo, bi, all these, are market and nonexistent labels »). After having put words to our real enemy (= the bipolarity heterosexuality-homosexuality), I know there’s a great temptation to get away from it, to prohibit the use of the name « heterosexuality », to pretend that « only man and woman exist », that « the human person is first », that in the debates with our critics there is no need to « create or support false identity labels » which reduce human identity to his impulses or feelings. However, yes ! It’s appropriate to talk about heterosexuality anyway ! Homosexual desire exists, and the heterosexuality, as a bisexual ideology, should be studied at length. The paradox is that for explaining why we shouldn’t use the words homosexuality and heterosexuality, we must tolerate their moderate use and even use them a little bit, dissect them. They are the poison’s dose for the antidote. If by some misfortune we begin to demonize them by prohibiting their verbal employment, finally we justify them, and we follow exactly the logic of the world that creates sexual identity labels to better deny the reality of desires and to justify any act from the moment this one is called « universal love ». Banalize evil under the pretext of having identified him or under the pretext of contempting him to reduce his influence … and he wins. That’s not the goal. Therefore we must speak of heterosexuality and be really interested in it.
 

ADVICE n° 22 : Identify the Gender (or transhumanism) like it is

Identify the Gender (or transhumanism) like it is, that is to say the bipolarity heterosexual-homosexual (bipolarity that many anti-marriage-for-all support !), and not just an ideology that would destroy sexual difference and pervert knowingly youth (That’s a caricature of the enemy ! And it suits him fine, furthermore !). In France, we have caricatured and demonized the Gender finally in order to glorify it and to consent to it. The leaders of La Manif Pour Tous France have demonstrated poor judgment in this respect, by holding on to the word « Gender », without realizing that in the field those who practice Gender don’t even know what it is (because for them, it bears the name of « love », of « respect », of « tolerance », of « self-affirmation », of « struggle against homophobia and discriminations », of « diversity », of « choice », of « freedom », of « queer » for the artists, etc.), but in addition, then, they say explicitly that they are against it (I read verbatim in pro-Gender prospectus some sentences like « We are against the gender »), or they argue that it doesn’t exist. The problem in this affair is that the people of our band have focused on this word without understanding the translation of it in the people’s heart and heads. The Gender has been interpreted by our companions anti-marriage-for-all as an ideology that wanted to attack the difference of sexes, an ideology of sexual indifferentiation: that’s wrong. The attack of the pro-Gender concerning the sexual difference is neither frontal nor conscious ; and in addition, it claims to honor and sincerely open sexual difference. In the Gender Theory, there’s none programmed revenge against the difference of sexes. Instead, the pro-Gender only ask for respect of the sexual difference (which has been confused with heterosexuality). They don’t say that man and woman don’t exist, they don’t deny that it takes a man and a woman to create a child, they don’t deny the biological reality of sexuation, they don’t try to impose an obligatory inversion of sexes, neither dress boys in pink and girls in blue. They just want to fight against narrow-minded stereotypes of the differences of sexes ; not against the sexual difference itself. They want to combat the biological determinism, macho and misogynist myths of the Eternal Masculine and the Eternal Feminine, to say (and they are partly right) that there are a million and one ways of being a man and being a woman. They don’t want to prevent boys and girls to love : they just want that those who don’t fall in the category of love that is the difference between the sexes – that is to say, homosexual or bisexual persons – can also receive the title of « love » and be respected even though. In France, those who attack Gender still don’t understand that the Gender isn’t an attack of the sexual difference, but only the ideology of the bipolarity heterosexuality/homosexuality which they continue to support by not identifying and denouncing it as such.
 

Finally, the French have blown the Gender up out of all proportion, by glorifying the concept, seeing it as a big mountain, a hidden state machinary, a masonic mafia eager for power and money, a « one-track thinking », an « ideology », an « intellectual terrorism », a many-tentacled octopus, and describing all its ramifications they were discovering gradually. Instead of tearing its root – that is the belief in heterosexuality and in homosexuality as a « universal love non-heterosexual and non-homosexual » (because even those who create these identity labels deny them all immediately after in the name of equality and love) -, they remained facing the mountain and saw it as an army. Then they justified their helplessness and unreality by the demonization of the media and politicals, by the demonization of the « System » leftist libertarian relativistic, in order to victimize and excuse themselves from talking about homosexuality. Pathetic.
 
 

WHAT’S TO BE DONE CONCRETELY ?

ADVICE n° 23 : Stop thinking that media and politicians are our enemies and are automatically hostile with us

Stop thinking that media and politicians are our enemies and are automatically hostile with us. That’s false. Most journalists today are neutral, ignorant, generally not nasty, and easy to convince from the moment they don’t feel despised (Further, in Ireland, you have this chance that the religious phenomenon and the transcendence have a little more space in your national culture than in France). And even the rulers who carry the draft of the law of « marriage for all » are torn between their good intentions and the practical consequences of their legal lie (for example Erwann Binet, the official rapporteur of the « marriage for all » in France, doesn’t know anything about homosexuality and was not thrilled with his bill ; Mrs Taubira, for her part, didn’t want this « marriage », as François Hollande). Socialist politicians have mixed feelings about this national rule, simply because the law that they want to impose on all their country in the form of a proposal, is contradictory in itself : they claim to turn the sexual difference into a asexual and amorous bisexuality. In other words, they want to make believe that a couple composed by a man and a woman, thanks to « love » (conjugal and parental) and to a law, can magically be transformed into a couple of two men or a couple of two women, into unisexual parents. Unbelievable. We know why these same gay friendly politicians are hesitant and could quickly be confronted to their own contradictions. But for this, we must make them aware of the violence of homosexuality and heterosexuality, and give them confidence. The ball is finally in our court, because we haven’t tried yet to rise to the level of our rulers and our journalists.
 

ADVICE n° 24 : Fill your lack of examples and your ignorance about homosexuality by a solid training and by the meeting with the homosexual persons.

Fill your lack of examples and your ignorance about homosexuality by a solid training and by the meeting with the homosexual persons. Not everyone knows like me more than 90 gay friends who have told me a rape, Not everyone has full of references of homosexual « couples » around him that abate the belief in homosexual « love », not everyone has a good movie and theater culture to argue about the disasters of the Civil Union. Hence the feeling of helplessness and homophobia gay friendly that spreads to most opponents of « marriage for all » today. We must train yourselves to go to meet homosexual persons. As the longer you know the homosexual world, its language, its realities, its codes, the more you will be serene and forceful in discussions. We, homosexual persons, need to be heard, and we have plenty to say to you !
 

ADVICE n° 25 : Don’t go first in the debate of ideas

During the exchanges with our detractors, you don’t have to go first into the debate of ideas , into the exposure of your argumentation, but rather begin by welcoming the person. You must give priority to reflection before action, and don’t reverse the substance by the form. In France, we have made this mistake to crystallize our views in a silent posture (the Sentinels), in impressive but ineffective protests (La Manif Pour Tous). Before LOVING, we sought to HAVE REASON and IMPOSE OUR VIEW without checking if we were understood (so that today most gay friendly French still don’t understand why we opposed to the « marriage for all » ! And they still caricature our reasons). If we step immediately into the debate of ideas and we begin to seek to answer the question « Why you are against gay marriage ? », it’s over for us. Because our detractors, by submitting to us this short interrogation, were just testing us to see if we have the humility to store our oral sword in our case. And they stop us within the first fifteen seconds of our presentation, without giving us the chance to go further. To respond to this question « Are you for or against gay mariage ? », I suggest you to say « I’m for homosexuals persons ! » ; or simply not answer, and say rather with a smile : « Well, let’s talk about it ! I would like your opinion and it makes me happy to talk about it with you because I felt confused. I don’t know what to believe. You’re gonna help me ! I’m really glad to be with you for this ! »
 

ADVICE n° 26 : Don’t panic neither get upset

Don’t panic neither get upset. At the moment, in France, it’s the tension and hysteria around the words « Surrogacy » (= « GPA ») and « commodification of bodies », or around the word « abrogation » (we use it very loosely and largely : « Universal abrogation of the GPA », « marriage’s abrogation », etc. and it’s ridiculous). And the worst is feared : these same threatening people don’t offer realistic forms for this abrogation which they claim loudly given that they still don’t speak of homosexuality nor heterosexuality, given that they justify the Civil Union as a « lesser evil » and given that they don’t really believe in the repeal. They think that the violence, the noise, their « social suicidal » silent posture of Sentinels, their hung baby dolls, their screams and their stubbornness in repeating the word « abrogation » are brave. They even imagine that their occasional impulses of homophobia are « somehow » legitimate. For example, in Belgium, at an event like Sentinels on last May 3, during the commercial symposium Men Having Babies, I saw officials from the Ethic Committee, yet specialists of mediatraining, throw at our homosexuals detractors their landau as unic opposition argument. It’s deplorable. And these same homosexual representatives remained very hurt by these puerile contempts which absolutely don’t make advance the dialogue and discredit our struggle. So we have to calm down seriously. And this is especially true after the promulgation of laws against which we struggle.
 

ADVICE n° 27 : Stop believing that the laws of the Civil Union and the « marriage for all » are asked for themselves and for what they offer

Stop believing that the laws of the Civil Union and the « marriage for all » are asked for themselves and for what they offer. Because it’s absolutely not the case. The pro-gays don’t even know the content ! A day in 2002, I had made the game to ask my band of gay friends the meaning of the acronym PaCS (= Civil Solidarity Pact, the french « Civil Union »). None had been able to answer. Ditto for the « marriage for all » : I challenge any gay friendly person to give me the number of François Hollande’s commitment in favor of « gay marriage » in the presidential electoral program (= the number 31), or tell me who Erwann Binet is (= the official rapporteur of the Taubira law). She would be very annoyed.
 

In reality, it’s not the law itself that is requested (hardware and tax benefits of the Civil Union, for example, could be obtained outside this contract, via testamentary guardianship or taxe relief concerning the inheritance rights), but what it symbolizes (the « progress », the « freedom », the « equality », the « recognition », the « justice », the « love », the « welcoming of homosexuals », the « fight against homophobia », etc.) or even the right which it represents (for example : the pro-gay people ask more the « right to marry » than the marriage … and in addition to beg for the « right to refuse it »). In France, instead of arguing with our opponents about « why » they asked the « marriage for all », senselessly we discussed the content of the laws. Haughty and legalistic persons that we are ! Because finally, even us we have looked at the paper and not the persons. We denied the intentional reality of these pro-gays laws. « When the first idiot shows the moon, the second idiot looks at his finger… » (ariño-chinese proverb)
 

ADVICE n° 28 : Don’t go immediately protest. Think first

Don’t go immediately protest. Think first. Dialogue first. What could be more locking and more confused than a demonstration and a crowd ? A societal and spiritual struggle is almost won by words and ideas. The collective event is only there to bring a message ; not to replace it. Irish friends, organize real debates (not talking shop), especially with your opponents. In France, because of the impatience of two persons (Frigide Barjot on one hand, the Lefebvrist Civitas Institute on the other hand), and also because of our fear (which calls « homophobia » : indeed !), we forget the phase of reflection and debate. We straightaway took to the streets, without knowing what we were going to say there. We gave priority to media and political sounding-board rather than the basic message. We preferred to be visible before being true. We have focused on the slogan instead of the thought. We favored the microphone at the expense of the right words that it could spread. Thus, we scared our detractors, have closed the dialogue, and they are more digging in their heels. This is a huge mistake.
 

You must stop acting before thinking. Because I reminded the leaders of La Manif Pour Tous France the priority of the treatment of homosexuality, I can’t count how many times the pushy members of the french « facistsphere » said to me that my speech wasn’t « audible » enough (in reality, it becomes inaudible because they don’t let me speak), not « strategic » enough, not « accessible » enough, not « political » enough, not « concrete » enough. They despise the policy (and the Republic) in which they have stopped believing, while they still swear by it and by the media. They focus, like the Front National (Far Right in France), on the « reality », in order to abandon Charity and Truth, and to find an excuse to be more radical et to victimize. they absolutely don’t adapt to the intentional and emotional and personal reality of the people in front of them.
 

However, when I defend to place reflection before action, I’m not saying that we have to rest on rhetoric and on intellectual masturbation. One of the lacks of the Veilleurs in France, is to have captured the action and the reflection in a aesthetic posture loosely « militant ». The golden age of the french Sentinels was when each reflective vigil was headed towards a concrete action. I think this is what should be your concern in Ireland : make sure that you never think without this thought is moving towards a gift of your whole person and towards a real action.
 

ADVICE n° 29 : Create self-reflection cells

Create self-reflection cells, committees of debriefing, where you get together to talk not only about what you want and about your fight’s intentions, but also about how you live the events, what you can improve, who you are, internal tensions and divisions. The Veilleurs (= Sentinels) are the perfect movement for this, basically. In France, we missed this self-reflection, these decompression chambers, this self-criticism, this humor and realism. We imploded because we simulated a show of unity. We ran away from ourselves and escape from the Reality in a intellectualism that has externalized us, radicalized and victimized us. A movement which doesn’t constantly question itself, which doesn’t express what it feels and lives, which doesn’t laugh about itself, is called to die, to divide itself and to meet around a mock unit (« We are fighting for the same thing and our enemy is terrible ! » But who and what are we talking about, exactly ?). It turns into a « lost politicians Circle » (Sens Commun, La Manif Pour Tous…), a « Circle of speakers » (Écologie humaine, Liberté Politique…), « Dead Philosophers Society » (les Veilleurs, les Sentinelles, …), or clearly or downright « Circle of Far-Right extremists ». It’s useless and ephemeral !
 

ADVICE n° 30 : Don’t use a crypto-catholic jargon to shirk to talk about our faith

Don’t use a crypto-catholic jargon to shirk to talk about our faith. It doesn’t fool anyone except ourselves (the « Life », the « living-together », the « Hope », the « Fecundity », the « Common Good », the « Values », the « Ecology », the « benevolence », the « Caring », the « Respect », the « Family », the « Children », the « Consciousness », the « Limits », the « Reality », the « Human Dignity », the « Sense », etc.). God as a public person is very unpopular in France ! We honors him with our lips. Please, in Ireland, shout to the Lord ! … without playing blessed-yes-men chained in your rosaries.
 

ADVICE n° 31 : Avoid also talking about ecology directly, for example, to pick the leftist or atheist public up

Avoid also talking about ecology directly, for example, to pick the leftist or atheist public up. Sorry, but the Catholic treatment of ecology, I find it ridiculous. Even though, I KNOW, it’s papal and when people speak well about it, it becomes deep and true. But people stop to be environmentalists precisely because they don’t deal with their sexuality and affectivity problems. Not when we talk to them directly and solely about ecology. So ecology is only an epiphenomenon of the affectivity. The french Catholics haven’t ever said much twaddles since they depress in green, smoke their « ecological » joint and don’t assume to believe in God or to say what they think about homosexuality.
 

ADVICE n° 32 : Avoid the bookish jargon with complicated concepts

Avoid the bookish jargon with complicated concepts. In France, we are the champions of this verbiage. Throughout the fight against the « marriage for all » (2012-2015), we were excitedly satisfied to learn new words, and we organized a lots conferences around these (Gender, GPA, Medically Assisted Procreation, abrogation, transhumanism, ecology, euthanasia…). Instead of adapting to the verbal shape that takes today in the heart and the minds of people the ideology that we are fighting – that is to say « homosexuality », « homophobia », « love », « heterosexuality » –, we gloss over the child, we try to bring the others in our reasoning and concepts which are uninvolved with their system of thought, which don’t light at all their affective idols, which don’t help to identify the location of the worldwide leakage. So we mop up inefficiently here and there, hastening to the most pressing issues and the most catchy/urgent slogan : it seems useful, but really, the boat continues to sink. And it is the dialogue of the deaf with our opponents, who think that they are defending the same things as us (life, family, child, opposition to Gender, etc.) and who don’t understand why we take issue with them. We move away from the intentional and emotional reality of our contemporaries. We sneak off into the intellectualism in order to find excuses for our fear of talking about homosexuality. Meanwhile, libertarian socialists are trying to break all, to deconstruct/« open » everything, and always under cover of love, gay friendly attitude, solidarity.
 

ADVICE n° 33 : Ensure the complete argumentative coverage of the battle against the « marriage for all » through these three prisms : policy / Church / homosexuality

Ensure the complete argumentative coverage of the battle against the « marriage for all » through these three prisms : policy / Church / homosexuality. That’s the only way to really embrace the subject, to be ourselves, and to be true. Don’t do like in France where we have only spoken of the politic aspect (and, moreover, later on, because initially we demonized the policy thinking that it was propaganda or careerism : La Manif Pour Tous took a long time to become a party… and in addition, it politicizes itself just when it’s quickly dying on). Don’t imitate France where we have denied Jesus (thinking that He would scare people … as it’s just in our mind that He was scary !), where we have denied homosexuals persons (we have used them for decoration, as moral guarantors). To fight against our enemy (= heterosexuality) and caught it perfectly, we need (and I’ve seen it during my trip in June 2014 in Ivory Coast) to have the 3 assets (or angles of attack) constituting the winner triangle : the policy, the Church, and homosexuality. In ireland you have the luck to have 2 of the 3 main assets : the policy and the Church … even if you are still lacking the most important, homosexuality. In France, we started having two assets too, policy and homosexuality (homosexuality was also the « French Exception », the approach that permits the French population to remove its complexes and to go massively in the street … but unfortunately we didn’t take advantage of the two cards and then, we have believed that homosexuality was going to overshadow our political strategy and the mediatic image of the movement, so next we kept, for careerism and fear homophobic, only the trump « Policy », abandoning the card « homosexuality » which was the most powerful and most feared by our socialist leaders. And the card « Church », we simply haven’t used it ! Through the fault of the spinelessness of many of our bishops and priests who, under the guise of secularism and clerical neutrality, argued that political commitment against the « marriage for all » should remain a « civic and personal initiative » that the Church couldn’t support officially. In the end, France has bordered on victory against the « Taubira’s law, but falls from grace from even higher, by giving itself the numeral and photographical proofs she had won. We still live this schizophrenic illusion. In our country, we finally have a complex : we demonize sexuality, policy, faith, the media, as if they were swear words or the devil, or as if each of these grounds should keep locked in their respective boxes. All this because of our lack of faith in the Church and in the image that She gives of us. You, in Ireland, you finally have more key assets than in France : Faith + Policy. But without the third (homosexuality), the others two don’t count for much.
 

While irish friends, assume to be catholic. Don’t be ashamed of the Church. I know that your parishes, your priests, your bishops, essentially don’t support the Sentinels, for example, and that in your parish, often you have to keep silent about your commitment against the « marriage for all ». As in France, you are prevented from cross-referencing faith and policy, or faith and sexuality. Don’t be afraid to become politicized. Policy and religion, even if they shouldn’t merge, use to work well together.
 

Don’t hesitate to be strict with the Pope. Require that he moves forward on the subject of homosexuality (for example by Reading my Dictionnary of the Homosexual Codes lol), on the dangers of heterosexuality, and that he uses three words at the next sitting of the Synod about the crucial issue that have never been explicitly used by the Church concerning homosexuality : suffering and rape (= what homosexual desire is), continence (= how to live with this desire if it’s sustainable) and holiness (= where and what gift to the world the homosexual desire can be directed).
 

And especially (and finally), include the defeat of the prophet. If in our fight, we enjoyed consensus with everyone, we would not live the radicality and the fullness of Truth. Defend sexual difference or the difference between Creator and his creatures (= the Church), is necessarily ungrateful and terrestrially failed, this amounts to defending a treasure of love that has the size of a detail, the size of a mustard seed. It’s therefore logical that few may see it, that it’s so difficult to sustain. But knowing our rightful powerlessness allows us to remain in joy, forgiveness and Hope, Under all conditions. Courage !
 
 
 

P.S.: This article is also available in french, italian and spanish.