Thursday, 10 August 2017

The BBC and the NHS Part 2

Casualties of 'Casualty'

Of course, with us the contraceptive mentality is combined with the moral and psychological effects of socialism. Socialism removes the ability to exercise choice and responsibility; as I have already said, it prevents psychological growth to adult maturity. It creates dependency, which in turn creates a sense of fear as people are made incapable of self-sufficiency and, like fretful children, demand protection from the vicissitudes of life. We have become the society that chose security over liberty and lost both. How often do our media echo with the cry for something to be done, as they call for more laws, more wars, more Government action, more gun control, more cameras, more taxes, more spending, more anything except more Christian freedom, more truth, more virtue or more self-restraint? Socialised medicine in particular created the state of dependency that brought us to our current condition as the country with the most CCTV cameras, where thousands of telecommunications interception warrants are issued every week, where every public authority can hire detectives and enlist paid informants (including children) or use advanced technology to enforce any regulation, and where an unarmed public lives in fear of terrorism and crime. Try looking up “garbage gestapo” or “town hall stasi” for news stories to illustrate this.

Beyond the political level this dependency “makes it much more difficult for” man “to recognise his dignity as a person” (Centesimus Annus 13) because the loss of responsibility destroys the sense of moral agency. Under socialism, people believe the materialistic claims inherent in socialism because they cease to be aware of their own capacity to exercise free will as 'autonomous subjects of moral decisions'. From this it follows naturally that conscience and the sense of sin are diminished as people feel themselves to be moved inexorably by circumstances beyond their control. Yet conscience, which is “strictly related to human freedom” is “the most secret core and sanctuary of a man” and “constitutes the basis of man's interior dignity and, at the same time, of his relationship to God” (Vatican II, quoted Reconciliatio et Poenitentia 18); and as that relationship constitutes our humanity, we are truly dehumanised by this diminution in the sense of sin.

When did you last hear a British campaigner mention compulsory complicity?

The socialist institutions, with the NHS foremost among them, are structures of sin, meaning that they institutionalise injustice in such a way that no individual feels responsible for the way in which the system works, and compulsory complicity ceases to have moral meaning for anybody. The USCCB has rightly been criticised for having suggested that there should be legally mandated universal health care; but, faced with the reality of Obamacare, the American bishops have fulfilled their teaching office in campaigning vigorously against forcing anybody to fund contraception, abortion or sex-change operations – when did you last hear a British campaigner mention compulsory complicity? When the USCCB says that people and businesses should not be forced against their consciences to fund immoral procedures, they remind us that to fund such procedures as contraception, abortion, sterilisation and gender reassignment should be against our consciences. We should feel morally violated by being made to pay for these offences against God and mankind, we should feel righteous outrage against the bi-partisan socialist regime that forces us to do so; and we must pray to overcome the complacency and hardness of heart that allows us to tolerate the perpetration of these horrors in our midst, in our name, and with our unthinking collusion. Omnípotens et mitíssime Deus, qui sitiénti pópulo fontem vivéntis aquae de petra produxísti: educ de cordis nostri durítia lácrimas compunctiónis; ut peccáta nostra plángere valeámus, remissionémque eórum, te miseránte, mereámur accípere.  Pius XI noted that “the sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin”, and St. John Paul II wrote on the fact that all are affected by any sin at all; how much more true is that when we are actually made party to the offence andare  blinded to its horror? “With greater or lesser violence, with greater or lesser harm, every sin has repercussions on the entire ecclesial body and the whole human family” (Reconciliatio et Poenitentia 16).

A final consideration must be the relationship between the NHS and migration. Whether for economic or socio-political reasons many individuals and families find migration to be an unfortunate necessity; but migration is never desirable, it always means broken families and broken communities at the point of origin and may well mean significant social disruption at the destination. To solicit or encourage unnecessary migration is, therefore, always and invariably an act of injustice. The welfare state was always intended to be funded, at least in part, by migrant workers, initially from the colonies. The system is a pyramid (or Ponzi) scheme, which is sustainable only when a sizeable proportion of those paying into the scheme receives nothing from it; it was always hoped that that proportion would be supplied by migrants who would return home before they made significant claims, but those hopes were thwarted by the migrants' having to immigrate permanently as they were unable to earn enough here to go back home and live in luxury as the Attlee administration promised the Windrush generation would be possible. Beyond that structural feature of the welfare state, the NHS has always relied on immigrant labour. This amounts to asking less wealthy and less developed nations to subsidise health care in this country, and to live with the social costs of emigration. The greatest resource of a nation, and the source of its wealth is its population and their talents; to lure educated workers here is, therefore, an act of injustice against their countries of origin. That is even more true when countries shape their national economies with a view to exporting people and reaping remittance income from them instead of developing their domestic resources.

What can we do? To start with, we should register our objection to socialised medicine every time the media say that 'everybody loves the NHS'; we should tell newly elected or re-elected Members of Parliament that we want change; and, if (having paid our taxes at the confiscatory rates the system demands) our means allow, we should disengage from the system. Pro-life and pro-family organisations should demand transition to a health care delivery model that fosters integral human development by promoting personal, family and social responsibility, and has due regard to the integrity of family structures – it means abolition of the current system, but will not frighten electoral candidates and will enable them to be held to account if they declare themselves to be pro-life. Finally, never forget to remind everybody you know that what they see on TV is written by people with personal and political agendas to push.    

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard 

Monday, 7 August 2017

BBC and the NHS socialised media and socialised health care

Part 1
Casualties of 'Casualty'

Last year the television programme 'Casualty' celebrated 30 years on screen and its writer gave celebratory interviews admitting that it had been created as propaganda on behalf of the NHS at a time when popular and political support for restoration of a system free from State control was rising, and it appeared possible to dismantle the socialist 'post-War settlement' in its entirety. There had been several earlier programmes, both British and imported, with health care settings, but 'Casualty' was never just going to be about tales of hospital life, it was always intended to have a political edge to it, defending the system and calling for increased funding for it. It is entirely typical of the BBC as a large, publicly funded State body, to broadcast on behalf of other large, publicly funded State bodies; it is institutionally statist because only people who support institutions of its type would work for one.

NHS socialised medicine

Of course, 'Casualty' was far from being alone in acting to rally support for the NHS; socialised medicine is a subject which illustrates perfectly the ability of the media taken together to form a narrowing aperture through which the world must be viewed. Some options are within the scope of vision, others are not merely unacceptable but invisible. When it comes to the NHS, the arguments against it have been entirely excluded from public discourse and the alternatives have been left undiscussed. The public has been given to understand that the alternative to the NHS is people dropping dead in the streets, and politicians have been given to understand that public worship of the system is such that to question its virtues would be a career-ending act of folly. The result of this stereopticon effect, to borrow Weaver's word, is, as we all know, that the NHS has become firmly entrenched, and abolition is almost literally unthinkable – it is never mentioned so the thought of it never occurs to most people. We are trapped.

The truth concerning the NHS is that it is a poisonously destructive system radically incompatible with the principles of Christian civilisation; it is implicitly condemned by the teaching of the Church, and should not receive the support of any Catholic. It made our country what it is today – drunken, dissolute, godless, promiscuous, and too beaten down and brainwashed to do anything about it – and its abolition is the sine qua non for the moral, social, psychological and spiritual regeneration of the nation.

The condition of our country is essentially due to a collective failure to develop to psychological maturity; there are no adults around, only grown-up children. It is simply impossible to build or maintain a society that is decent, moral and stable with one hand whilst using the other to tear up personal, family and social responsibility by the roots; and that is precisely what socialised medicine does. It infantilises people, reducing them to a dependency that stunts the growth of the moral faculties as the scope for the exercise of virtue is radically reduced in favour of a subhuman functionality. The Tablet's editor, Douglas Woodruff, saw a clear analogy between Britain under the NHS and a life of slavery as he condemned the replacement of 'the tradition of effective voluntary co-operation' “by the compulsory orders of a highly organised and paternal state, determined to see that all the hands on the plantation are humanely cared for, so that they may be able to do their work”.     

The dire condition of our country can be remedied only by a reconstruction having due regard to the cause of the damage in the light of Church teaching i.e. we must tear down the structures of sin and build anew from first principles. To begin with, we must reject socialism absolutely and unequivocally; the Church condemns it as incompatible with Christianity because it is materialistic in its philosophy and inhuman in practice (cf. Quadragesima Anno 111ff.). The materialism of socialist institutions is fundamentally opposed to the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity; they propose always a technological solution to every social question, marginalising religious institutions and attempting to limit their activity solely to worship. The attempt to replace charity with a bureaucratic framework of rights and entitlements amounts to an attempt to exclude the God Who is love from public life, and to strip away the intermediate institutions that should stand between people and the State.  “Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate the human as such” (Deus Caritas Est 28). “In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live “by bread alone” (Matthew IV 4, cf. Deuteronomy VIII 3) – a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human” (ibid.). The specifically human consists precisely in our relationship to and with the Creator in Whose image we are made and the socialist institutions fracture that relationship, leaving people unable to conceive of faith and hope in anything other than intellectual terms rather than in terms of confident trust in a divine providence which they receive daily.

Socialists hate the divine deeply and instinctively

Furthermore, the human life is one that is ordinarily lived in community, and lived through a variety of institutional communities; the first of which, in the order of nature, is of course the family into which the individual is born (cf. Summa II-IIae.10). It is the invariable practice of socialism to attack these communities because it is fundamentally opposed to the bond of love underlying them and binding them together; the social responsibility expressed in charitable action is a participation in the divine, and the socialists hate the divine deeply and instinctively because in their hearts they know that their materialist beliefs are empty and meaningless, they cannot withstand the light of truth, so they fly from the face of God Who is the very truth. The socialists have always intended to destroy all true communities, and to leave the individual naked and defenceless before the State, wholly dependent and utterly servile. The Fabian socialists in power after the War pledged themselves to achieve by democracy and bureaucracy, step by step, all the effects of a revolution; their Government was led by the man who had sent the Brigada Clement Attlee to do battle in his name as part of the Red horde fighting for a Spanish Republic whose persecution of the Church mirrored the imperial Rome of Nero, Diocletian or Severus in its atrocities.

The totalitarian 'cradle to grave' claims of the socialist State begin at birth when the NHS claims the child for the Government, issuing him or her with a number, and demanding rights of access in cases where a child has been born outside one of its facilities. The mother will, incidentally, receive stern advice to use birth control in future. Even in the case of a healthy child there is a good deal of fussing about and creating unnecessary records by way of an assertion of ownership and responsibility on the part of the State.  Where there is any weakness in a marriage this assumption of responsibility by the State will very often allow a couple to feel that they may part without difficulty, and without harm to the child. Such weaknesses are, in any case, made more common by the psychological immaturity induced by socialism as the adolescent mindset does not encompass permanence, stability or commitment.

Under the NHS the decision as to whether an unhealthy child is treated - is made and imposed upon the family. Re Charlie Gard, Ashya King and Charlotte Wyatt.

Where the child is unhealthy, the claim of the State is more explicit. A socialised system is always a utilitarian system in which efficiency and value for money are everything and the State employee takes precedence over the member of the public. The individual is made in the image of God and is, therefore, of infinite worth as an end in him or herself, and should never be treated as having a merely instrumental value. From this it follows that the care of the sick must be a work infused with supernatural charity, undertaken for the love of God seen in His created image, and ideally performed by religious or those under their direction. Under the NHS the decision as to whether an unhealthy child is treated and what treatment he or she might receive, is made by those employed within the system and imposed upon the family; if they dissent from the decision, legal action may be taken to remove parental responsibility and prevent the family's removing the child to a private, charitable hospital or from leaving the jurisdiction of the British courts. Most such cases do not reach the courts, and those that do are generally subject to reporting restrictions, so we only know a handful of names such as those of Charlie Gard, Ashya King and Charlotte Wyatt. 
Later in childhood the claim of the State over and against the parental responsibility derived from natural law is maintained through the legal fiction that the rights of the child are opposed to those of their parents. This notion is invariably applied to promote an anti-life agenda as the NHS works in partnership with State schools to subvert the morality of youth, giving explicit sexual instruction where parents have opted not to have it imparted by teachers, distributing or arranging various forms of artificial birth control and taking girls for lunchtime abortions. The Gillick (contraception) and Axon (abortion) legal cases established that parents need not be informed. In recent years the number of girls under the age of 16 placed on long-term contraception has been increased to seven or eight thousand a year as they often fail to take the daily pill.

A contraceptive society is an exploitative and a violent society.

It must be noted that young people in this country are invariably found to be amongst the least happy or most miserable in the world, and that three causes have been identified for it. They are early sexualisation, substantial use of social media and the disintegration of civil society due to the welfare state (i.e. the NHS, pensions and benefits systems combined); the most recent OECD report is particularly insistent on this third cause and the passivity of civil institutions and social networks in this country. The deliberate fostering of a contraceptive mentality exacerbates the social disintegration initiated by the creation of the socialist institutions. The contraceptive mentality is one that views others in instrumental terms; they are seen not even simply as a means to an end, but as a means of self-gratification. This attitude extends beyond the sexual to all areas of life; and is, incidentally, promoted in many ways by broadcast media which appear to present others to us for our pleasure at our own convenience. A contraceptive society is an exploitative and a violent society.

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard

Wednesday, 2 August 2017

BBC's massive "Gay" season

The BBC and Gay Britannia

With the BBC's Gay Britannia season in full swing we can have no doubts just how far from the teachings of Christianity the Corporation has come. It was of course one of the leaders in the brainwashing of the country into accepting the ancient but always prohibited perversion of sexuality.

They talk of victims and suicides, leaning on our empathy and our sympathy until most can no longer tell right from wrong. LGBTQ activists target children through the media and the schools and no one dare speak up for fear of being labelled "homophobic". What a nasty made up word to subvert and silence goodness it is.

The BBC have put together programmes on and for homosexuality on all of the many channels and mediums i.e. radio, television, magazines, and the internet with its own and various platforms: - You Tube, websites, live streaming podcasts etc etc. Yes, lesbian Auntie Beeb is also using every genre - news, current affairs, drama, film, comedy, romantic comedy, near porn, actual porn all put together by the henchmen (and henchwomen or henchothers, whatever) of perversion, i.e. celebrities, personalities, pop stars, actors, presenters, producers, directors and even I suspect cameraothers! Here we have a multi-level attack platform to attack what little resistance there is left in the country to the "Gay" onslaught. Oh, I forgot sport - but the BBC haven't, ever wonder why their main sports channel radio 5 Live keeps up the homosexual promotional rant, like a cracked David Bowie/Lady Ga Ga record or an advert for Vaseline? They have a documentary on why no footballer has come out produced by Gay Rugby player Gareth Thomas and Gay Lawyers to make Alfie v Homophobia: Hate in the beautiful game. That's another word the "Gay" community and their henchpersons like to throw in the face of anyone who stands up to them. But football is all about hate, or at least chants like for example "We hate Liverpool and Hate Man U but Chelsea Chelsea we love you"; it all depends which team you support of course. And if a supporter can upset a opponent's player by chanting at him then all the better. 

Only the other morning I heard an extremely indignant Rachel Burden of BBC's Five Live Breakfast show stridently exclaim "If two people love each other what the HECK does it matter what sex they are!" Well Rachel, leaving aside any religious objections, it's because they are using their bodies in unnatural ways that lead to disease, pain, suffering and an early death. Let alone the disproportionately large number of paedophiles there are in the LGBTQ "community". Ever heard of Boy Love Rachel? Well most Queers have. I'm using the word Queer here, it's a word I don't like to use as it's been used in an abusive way in the past. As Christians we should never stoop to using language to hurt. However, the BBC are not only using it, they have even made up a logo to splash across their Gay Britannia programme.

This year it's 50 years since the legalisation of homosexual acts and abortion in Britain, 100 years since the Russian Revolution and rise of Communism, 300 years since the first Grand Lodge of the Freemasons, and 500 years since Luther started the heretical Protestant revolt. However, there is an antidote to it all for it's also 100 years since Our Lady the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared at Fatima.

Tuesday, 25 July 2017

Schooling and the media

Comprehensively Wrong
Grange Hill versus Social Mobility

BBC DVD cover  
We do not recommend 
anyone buy it

The broadcast image normalises the image broadcast, which is to say that it makes that image into a norm to deviate from which is to be deviant. That applies across practically all the fields on which there is any broadcasting at all; and is particularly noticeable when applied to the ways in which social norms have developed; and to the narrowing of political possibilities to some minor variations on a common theme. We have just had another sham election between barely distinguishable regime parties offering various shades of more of the same: All were agreed that the cultural revolution must advance rather than be reversed (gay, transgender and reproductive 'rights' at home and abroad). Public spending under Comrade Brezhnev was slightly too high, but more must be spent on health care and education, over 90% of both of which should be supplied within the public sector. We need a State broadcaster to propagandise the planet. Rigid planning control must be maintained.

Can Catholics now only vote for the Democratic Unionist Party?

The honourable exception to some of this, and the only electorally significant party for which a Catholic can vote in good conscience, is the late Dr. Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party, which is pro-life, opposed to gay marriage, and anti-BBC, but otherwise accepts the modern socialist State.

Grammar schools, the media, and Alan Bennett's apologia for pederasty The History Boys

Of course, there are always policy differences between parties; they differ from one day to the next, and from election to election. One such difference this year was over grammar schools. There are many arguments supported by statistics both for and against such schools, and I do not propose to rehearse them here. Instead, I would note that the grammar school, which was a standard feature of urban education for a couple of decades, and remains a part of public sector schooling in several areas, failed to endear itself to broadcasters. This resulted in its dropping out of sight; and to its being thought of as an historical experiment or, where it survives, as an anachronism. It is true that there have been various TV or radio dramas in which the 11+ examination featured; there have also been occasional broadcast plays set in grammar schools, most recently adaptations of Alan Bennett's apologia for pederasty The History Boys, but they have never been the setting for popular programmes broadcast on a regular basis. The reason is quite simply that they are not dramatic institutions; they lack either the colour of the independent schools depicted in adaptations of well-known and much-loved children's classics by Frank Richards or Elinor Brent-Dyer, or the breadth of casting possibilities and the potential for 'gritty realism' (i.e. sex and drugs and rock'n'roll) of the comprehensive. The object of drama is to present the dramatic; the common round, the daily task, is irrelevant to it; in the continuing drama forms of the series and serial there is no further or higher purpose in narrative or moral terms (although strands within the narrative may work themselves out to some purpose or other), there is simply a passing stream of incidents to engage the interest of the viewers or listeners. That makes it inevitable that the behaviour of the characters (which is equally inevitably copied by child viewers) is of the worst and most extreme kind the writers can imagine. The everyday and unremarkable are excluded, and grammar schools are nothing if not everyday and unremarkable.

Should the State be involved in schooling at all?

This talk of grammars and comprehensives is, however, somewhat beside the point when the question should be whether and why the State should involve itself in schooling at all. The Church teaches that, if necessary, the State may have schools of its own: “In the first place, it pertains to the State, in view of the common good, to promote in various ways the education and instruction of youth. It should begin by encouraging and assisting, of its own accord, the initiative and activity of the Church and the family, whose successes in this field have been clearly demonstrated by history and experience – It should, moreover, supplement their work whenever this falls short of what is necessary, even by means of its own schools and institutions” (Divini Illius Magistri 46).  The State school should clearly be a rare expedient introduced only where home and Church schooling fail, and other civil society solutions such as commercial or charitable provision prove inadequate. Pius XI wrote at a time when public provision was already widespread, and high levels of taxation were firmly established in many countries, and his further comments on the need for the State to give financial aid to the several schools demanded by families of various religions should be read in that light.

Ideally, a limited tax base should pay limited taxes to meet the necessary purposes of Government, leaving ordinary families sufficient funds to pay modest school fees, which many schools – certainly Catholic schools – would wish to make means-related, as is commonly the case in the parochial schools of America. There is no reason whatever why the State should run schools in a developed country, and every reason why it should not – we have seen the national curriculum used repeatedly to advance atheistic materialism and moral depravity, and to create a sense of dependency by shaping expectations of an omnicompetent, interventionist government. There is also the question of social mobility, which is a phrase of which we have heard a good deal over the last decade or two, invariably in the context of discussing its absence. The two main causes of that absence are the lack of early years support, and the divide sometimes referred to as 'educational apartheid', between the independent and maintained sectors. The abolition of the State school would address both problems by allowing resources to be targetted where they are truly needed, which is to say that the most disadvantaged families should be helped to escape the conditions in which they have been trapped by the socialist model of government.

The difference between the young people emerging from the independent and maintained sectors is very largely one of attitude. The State school pupil appears to lack a sense of either entitlement or duty; they do not, on the whole, suppose that the direction of public affairs is their business – it is something for somebody else, for their betters (not that they actually think in those terms now). It is certainly true that grammar school pupils of the 1940s, '50s and '60s reached the highest offices of state, but most of them had gone on to universities with an independently educated majority and had absorbed attitudes prevalent there. They also became politicians of the kind who specialise in business as usual, and whose most radical restructuring plans resulted only in the growth of State control and heavy taxation. In any case, they are and were exceptional, most grammar school pupils ended up in middle management. Full interchangeability of tax allowances for married couples, and convertible tax credits with a large means-related element would enable families to make the right choices, and allow every child to grow up capable of fulfilling his or her potential. The image on screen stops people imagining that alternative to the failed policies we see today.  

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard

Monday, 10 July 2017

London Pride parade a form of child abuse

London Shame

It is now fifty years since the legalisation of homosexual acts and to celebrate London has just had its biggest "Gay Pride" parade ever, the biggest in Europe. Busses and taxis were decked out in rainbow colours, and the whole panjandrum was sponsored by Barclays Bank as the "Headline" sponsor whose logo was suitably re-coloured rainbow. "Gold" sponsors were Tesco and Starbucks and among the lesser sponsors were Amazon, Vodafone, etc the list is just too long to give here. And like Boris Jonson before him the Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan also took part, so much for his principles as a Muslim.

Hate crime browbeating

Over a million people lined the streets; many young families were present, for this is what passes for a family occasion these days. They saw of course near porn on the streets as men, women and trans in various states of undress, or dressed to accentuate their private parts and parade their shame in public as their so called pride to seduce all and sundry. So homosexual acts, and transgender mutilations have now gained almost the total domination of modern Western culture. Soon to even hint that you find all this disgusting will mean that you could be arrested for hate crime.

Largest number of paedophiles among homosexuals
However, it is the LGBT community that has a disproportionately large number of child abusers. One report says about a third of all "Gay" men had had sex with an underage boys The evidence is overwhelming but under reported and some web browsers even block this information. Nevertheless it is our duty to expose this and before God as these acts between adults are gravely forbidden how much worse it is to lead a child into sin.

Britain's First Man to give birth

Carefully orchestrated to tie in with this fifty year anniversary was the news of Britain first pregnant man to give birth, - however it's not really a man but a woman who has been legally designated a man. However, she has not yet had her breasts removed or her ovaries, but that will happen soon!

Homosexuals rule the lawmakers
Homosexuals seem to rule the media which will not report on the close link between homosexuals and child sex abuse but they do want homosexuality taught in schools and every scout group will have homosexual lessons. Homosexuals have the police, the law makers, the schools, the Government: there is nothing left, just the Church - and they will be coming to get us soon!

Wednesday, 28 June 2017

Just Having a Laugh 2:

Really Not Funny

When comedy broadcasting is not a theatre of cruelty it seldom reverts to what might be called natural humour, by which I mean simple good fun, instead it falls back on social and political manipulation, some of it quite subtle, some of it very crude indeed. To begin with, the comedians and comic actors are chosen because they are people who fit in with the ethos of the production company or the broadcaster's in-house team; an independent company that hires people who fail to fit in fails to sell its programmes to broadcasters, so their ethos is indistinguishable from that of the TV channels themselves. Then there is the material broadcast, this presents a specific worldview in which certain attitudes are normal and good, and others not simply bad, but so abnormal as to be ludicrous. Where such an approach would be too obvious, or the public has been insufficiently prepared for its crudity, more subtle means are used to normalise the preferred liberal left viewpoint and denigrate more traditional alternatives. Comedy interacts with broadcast drama; sometimes one leads, sometimes the other, and they are combined from time to time in comic plays and sitcoms. Of course, when it comes to radio broadcasting, the BBC has an effective monopoly.

(c) From Crisis Magazine
An obvious example of the crude method of propaganda is the way in which Brexit and its supporters have been treated. Whilst news programmes and current affairs documentaries preserved the legally required neutrality before the referendum and remain somewhat cautious in their Europhilia, the comedians never ceased in their mockery of Brexit supporters and politicians, many of whom had been figures of fun for many years. Since the vote comedians have repeatedly claimed (without being challenged because they seldom appear on programmes requiring balance or accuracy) that Leave supporters lied, are unintelligent and are racists. There has been a radio play satirising the three Brexiteers, and have been a couple more at least on the theme of an apocalyptic Britain from which refugees have to escape to civilisation in France or Ireland. I can only conjecture that the purpose of this propaganda, which is combined with partial and selective news reporting now that the level of scrutiny in the pre-referendum period has been relaxed, is either somehow to thwart the Brexit process or else to create a public mood in favour of an application to re-join the EU at some future point.

The most glaring example of the more subtle method of social engineering via broadcast propaganda is, of course, the normalisation of homosexuality to the point where same-sex unions have become commonplace and are legally dignified with the name of marriage. This all began with radio comedies. There were novels and feature films, but it was the weekly encounter with wireless favourites that made people who had never knowingly met any homosexuals think that they were not uncommon, and that their peculiarities are harmless. At first they were figures of fun, but that in itself established them as an ordinary element in society so that people would expect a group to contain a clever one, a dim one, a crook and a queer. Then they became entirely ordinary characters rather than being the subject of jokes; then sympathetic figures, the victims of discrimination in serious dramas. Finally we reached where we are today with any challenge to gay rights and gay marriage portrayed as intolerable bigotry – and it all began with “I'm Julian and this is my friend, Sandy”.     

All of this political propaganda and social engineering draws its strength from our natural openness to humour, our instinctive expectation that what is presented as comedy really will be comedy, a sharing of goodness and joy. Because true humour is a reflection of the divine, we expect the comic to be deeply and innately good, somebody who is always on the right side and a friend to all. These people are not like that, not at all. Of course, there are some good people in broadcast comedy, allowed to slip through and spread some true joy so the ideological character of the rest of it does not become too obvious; they might even be allowed to poke a little gentle fun at the prevailing orthodoxies as long as they pose no real threat. The majority, and it is now a majority, however, are quite simply not the kind of people we would care to invite into our homes. They are no friends of ours, they are the shock troops, the Red Guard, of a cultural revolution, they are radical feminists, camaigning atheists, 'out and proud' homosexual activists, supporters of far left organisations and drug-addled libertines. Just look at the TV and radio listings, and look up some profiles and CVs – see what I mean? 

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard

Wednesday, 21 June 2017

On the use of Pervert

Has the meaning of the word "Pervert" changed?

Can this word still be used or is it now too offensive?

  • An exchange of Emails over the use of the word pervert.
A Three Man Marriage - photo Daily Mail

From Prayer Crusader St Theresa of Avila
It was your use of the word "pervert" that I thought was perhaps going a bit far. For some homosexuals, their condition is something they're stuck with, so in a sense it is natural to them, and the word "pervert" (which always carries negative overtones) is a bit unfair. This doesn't mean to say that indulging in their desires is ok, any more than it is ok for an alcoholic to indulge in his/her desires; the only rational way an alcoholic can come to terms with his (her)condition is to abstain; same for homosexuals. After all, they are not the only people called on to abstain from sexual activity.

Of course, there are others for whom the homosexual condition is not so much natural as something they are willing to try out. In the last couple of years I met a woman who was living with a female partner, although she had been married and indeed was a mother and a grandmother. She and her "partner" were going to go abroad together. I didn't see them for a long while, but then heard through a 3rd party that she had left her "partner"
and gone back to her husband. So what was all that about?

Prayer Crusader St Philomena
Thank you for this explanation, but I think most who engage in
Homosexual acts know, even if they are not religious, that it is contrary to natural law hence their continued attempts to outlaw anyone who will speak against these acts. I would never use the slang "perv" as this as you say has a negative and hurtful resonance. However, isn't Pervert a legitimate word and is the noun for perversity?

Regarding the permissive climate mitigating the act, perhaps in some cases (very very few and even here my conscience is saying to me don't ever go down that route) but only if they have been abused whilst very young before the moral conscience has been formed. Those who are "turned" as adults will always have full knowledge of what they are doing, some will engage for this reason alone others couldn't care less, some just find the same-sex attractive but all will know it's wrong, it's built into our very selves by God who created man in his image (male and female he created them).

This is why St Paul writes in the passage I sent you Romans 1:27
"Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own
persons the due penalty for their perversity." Earlier in verse 20
"Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of
eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and
perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;" to
me and reading the whole passage this seems to apply not only to Christians but to all.

Anyway Judge not least you are judged as we keep being reminded these days.

From Prayer Crusader St Theresa of Avila
Yes, "pervert" is a legitimate word, which can be a noun or a verb, but the disapproval is built into the meaning of the word.

Quite a number of children are now being brought up by homosexual couples (both men and women), presumably being thoroughly accustomed to meeting same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples even if not themselves being subjected to abuse. Possibly they never come across the view that sexual actions should be restricted to opposite-sex couples within marriage. Or, if they do come across such a view, it will be only to hear it condemned as bigoted. That's what I had in mind as "mitigating circumstances". For them, the voice of "natural law" may be completely submerged by the attitudes which prevail around them, at least until they grow up and move into wider circles.

Homosexuality doesn't seem to have been a problem among 1st-century Jews, though it clearly was among the Greeks and Romans.

Prayer Crusader St Philomena
Yes chapter one of Romans is a two edged sword Paul is using the example of homosexual practice as a way of teaching on paganism as vice versa - but there is also a warning in there for Christians. Thank you for your explanation on the word pervert as noun and verb, we use our language without really thinking about it.

From Prayer Crusader St Theresa of Avila
I'm sure CUT can claim "You read it here first".

The Three Man "Marriage" read more:

Prayer Crusader St Theresa of Avila is our proof reader, I would like to thank the Crusader for all the many hours of help given to CUT