Friday, December 13, 2013

French socialists plan a "silent revolution"

I always feel a bit on the back foot when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. A lot of Australians have been persuaded already that gay marriage is a matter of conferring a right on a group of people and that there will be no negative consequences.

If you're one of those Australians I would ask you to read on with an open mind. Tiberge at Gallia Watch has translated part of a debate in the French senate on the family. France recently legalised same sex marriage, despite very considerable public opposition. Now a further new law is being considered, one that will promote a "diversity" of family types.

The debate begins with a comment from the ruling Socialist Party Minister for the Family, Dominique Bertinotti:
I am convinced that the Senate's efforts will be towards the consolidation of this advancement for equality. This law is part of a silent revolution.

She states openly in the French senate that what is happening in France is a "silent revolution." She is not arguing that nothing significant will change; rather it is a revolution from above - from socialists like herself.

Alain Gournac, from the more conservative UMP, then reminds her of the mass, popular demonstrations in defence of the traditional family that have taken place in France:
The silence of a million people in the street!

But the socialist lawmaker is undeterred:
Sexuality is henceforth disassociated from conjugal life and from procreation.

She is saying that marriage and having children is no longer based on the heterosexual couple of husband and wife.

Another female Socialist Party senator, Michelle Meunier, then chimes in:
This bill is part of the slogan of our Republic. It allows homosexuals to have a family. Let's admit it. It leads the family out of the fantasy of "one mother, one father and one child"...

She labels the traditional family a "fantasy." The debate has reached a point at which the traditional family is denigrated in the French senate.

Charles Revet, again from the UMP, then calls out to object:
It's not a fantasy! What are you saying!

But the Socialist Party senator continues:
...because that family has never been universal. In all periods, parents have brought into the world children that they couldn't or wouldn't accept responsibility for. In all periods, children have been raised by persons other than the father and mother. What causes the problem is this idealized "hetero-patriarchal-white" family, that is further and further removed from reality. The law must adapt. (...)

Again, she reveals her hostility to the traditional family: she labels it the "hetero-patriarchal-white" family and states that it is increasingly removed from reality.

The more right-wing senators reacted with indignation to her comments, but yet another left-wing female senator, Esther Benbassa, a Green, continued along the same theme:
Protect the child? Everybody is for it! The child needs a father and a mother? Pure ideology, just like the concept of a traditional family, the pattern of "daddy-mommy-child" is a broken model which recomposed and single-parent families long ago abandoned.

She states that it is "pure ideology" that a child needs a father and a mother. This is, in effect, dissolving of family relationships. If a man, for instance, believes that his presence within a family is a necessary one, and that by abandoning his wife and children he will do harm, then he is much more likely to stay and to invest a lot of himself in his roles of husband and father. At the same time, if his wife believes his role to be a necessary one, both for her sake and that of the children, she is likely to act to keep him involved within the family.

But let's say a man really believed what Esther Benbassa claimed in the French senate, that a child doesn't need a father. If that is true, then why would a man put much effort into fatherhood? His children don't need him to do this, at least according to the women socialists. So why, then, make such sacrifices for the sake of the family?

The logic of the new family is male disinvestment in family life. It's possible that the female socialists do intuitively grasp this and welcome it as part of their attempts to dissolve the "hetero-patriarchal-white" family. It's possible that there are ordinary French people who grasp the same thing, hence the mass demonstrations against the socialist laws and the abysmal approval ratings for the French President, Francois Hollande.

It seems to me that the only way things might work out in France is if there is a disconnect between what is officially approved and what ordinary men really think and believe. If the state takes as a principle the idea that families don't need a father, but ordinary men hold to the opposite view that their role is a significant and necessary one, then society might be able to hold together.

But isn't there a risk that men will be influenced over time by what is held at an official level to be true? Isn't there a risk that men will be drawn into a state sponsored culture in which the presence of a father within a family is thought to be unnecessary?


  1. Interesting stuff.

    So many children, in the West, are now born out of wedlock, that in some countries they have become an actual majority. Here's a link to some statistics:

  2. "Diversity" as it is actually applied to whites just means "less whites".

    But what about "diversity of family types"? Does that too just mean "less whites"? Yes, because the attack is on the "hetero-patriarchal-white" family in white countries, and that points to less white people, literally and physically.

    (It also means white people will be less happy, less-well-raised and less effective.)

    The policies of the anti-whites toward whites are like "integrated pest control" aiming at elimination of the unwanted sub-species of humanity, whites. They are flooding the target race's habitat with competing sub-species, handicapping the target race in competition, and breaking up the breeding cycle of the race they are attempting to eliminate. That's genocide.

  3. So it is European feminist women(along with others) who are attacking the family, attacking fatherhood, and attacking European Caucasian men. But this is who the French people are voting into office.

  4. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16(3) states:

    "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

    So, if the traditional family unit is dissolved, upon what will society be built? The State? I am sure the Socialists would love that.

  5. Dear Mr. Richardson

    While you are quite right to point out the anti-Father factors at work here, I think we should also be aware that this is anti-Mother as well. When the Government can change the family to fit any structure it likes, it takes away any protection that it may once have given. A Mother is reduced to just a womb, not a parent, for surely the Government can raise children better suited to it's needs than random people can. There is no need for Fathers or Mothers in this scheme.

    In short the policy is not anti-man, it is anti-human.

    Mark Moncrieff
    Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

    1. Mark, good point. If a child doesn't need a father or a mother, if that connection is no longer to be held as a special and necessary one, then it opens the door to a technocratic approach to raising children, in which what matters is expertise as regulated by the government.

      I don't think that is far-fetched. I wrote a post not that long ago about the Scottish authorities appointing a "named person" (i.e. someone like a teacher) for every child, not just those deemed at risk. The "named person" would be responsible for the welfare of the child assigned to him or her.

  6. "It seems to me that the only way things might work out in France is if there is a disconnect between what is officially approved and what ordinary men really think and believe" - That sounds like France to me, going right back to deToqueville 'The Old Regime and the French Revolution'. The mass of the population, even the upper middle classes, seem incredibly immune to elite ideology. It's nothing like the high trust Germanic nations - Anglosphere, Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia - where people tend to trust the government and so think the way the government tells them to.

  7. As you know, Benbassa is either a fool or a liar. Perhaps both. single-parent and "recomposed" families have, on average, far worse outcomes than the "broken model." Homosexual parents have been, until very recently, too rare and covert for studies to have been made, but the results now trickling suggest that this, too, is suboptimal. Certainly, every one of these "models" can work, and they are in some cases the best alternative, but it is simply lying to deny that they are, on average, inferior.

    The social system that the French socialist are instituting is parasitic. This is obvious in the economic realm, where it depends on wealth generated by men who do not think or act like socialists. But we should also see it in the demographic realm. An ideological system that denounces "dissociates" sex from "conjugal life and procreation" depends on children conceived and raised by parents who are not part of that ideological system. Socialists cannot survive without non-socialists to feed upon. Our choice is to be eaten up, in which case the Socialists will die shortly after we do, or to run away. I say we segregate ourselves by every means possible. Segregate ourselves and starve the beast.

    1. JMSmith: "An ideological system that denounces "dissociates" sex from "conjugal life and procreation" depends on children conceived and raised by parents who are not part of that ideological system."

      Such as Muslims.

  8. The comments of the French socialists are actually terrifying. I was trembling in disbelief just reading them. Thanks for sharing this.

  9. No matter how even and absurd the arguments of the silent revolutionaries are, there's one argument I recommend never be used against them. That's the "conservative" argument: "why change anything?"

    It never works. It's been not working for most of a century, as the silent revolutionaries have rolled over "conservatives" on every issue. If it worked, there would not be gay marriage in France or anywhere else.

    It's weak, because you're not saying positively why the way of life you recommend is right and why the alternative is wrong.

    And it's useful to the enemy, because as soon as they impose something, no mater how evil, like an industrial scale state-subsidized abortion industry, they turn around and say to all the weak-willed conservatives who relied on the "don't change" argument: "you say don't change anything, so don't change this." So chronic legalized abortion, or genocidal non-white mass immigration and forced assimilation in all white countries and only white countries, or the destruction of traditional families and sexual morality, becomes the "conservative" position.