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

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:

The "Three Man Marriage"

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

BBC terrorists

The Bloody BBC

Three major Islamic terrorist attacks in three months and after each one the BBC interview "nice" Muslims who sound so reasonable in a deliberate attempt to deflect criticism from the diabolic religion. By doing this and the corporation's long history of denigrating Christianity and holding up Islam as a peaceful religion, have the BBC misled us so much that they now have blood on their hands?

They had done the country a great disservice in stating in their documentaries and commentaries on the Crusades for instance that they were unjustified wars against peaceful Muslims when the opposite was the case. This has given Muslim "extremists" in their small narrow minds a sort of "justification" for all this violence. The Crusaders of course should be held up as the true heroes they are.

Their interviewing of Imams and even the Muslim Mayor of London are a disgrace; the mayor is quoted as saying that London is the safest city in the world! However every city that has a Muslim mayor anywhere in the word is in chaos, and violence. There is a simple rule of thumb: the more Muslims in the community, town or city the more violence, whether it's towards Christians or other religious groups,  or even Muslims if they are from the "wrong" sect.

Another reason for Muslim violence is the decadence of the West, the complacent attitudes towards the LGBT "community". For us as Christians it is our duty to save their souls and to state  that they the will bring upon themselves the due penalty for their perversity (see Romans 1:27), but we would never go around killing them, absolutely not! It's only by peaceful conversion that we hope to cure these poor deluded people of their affliction. But again here the BBC and most of the Main Stream Media (MSM) have blood on their hands for they actually encourage these disordered people. And just like Islamic terrorists they use suicide as their major weapon, or rather they use the threat of suicide, for that if they don't get equal rights in every way to the sexually normal majority they will kill themselves!

Poor Ireland lived and survived being so close to England for so long, they kept the faith through many a repressive British regime, but have now capitulated completely to the secular terrorists of the MSM led by the BBC. Voting en-mass to legalise so called Gay-marriage and now brainwashed as they are by the media they have just elected a new prime minister who is not only homosexual, he is married ... er to another man. Sunday ... Bloody ... Sunday?  BBC ... Bloody ... BBC.