Wednesday 29 February 2012

It sounds ridiculous, but this is how it always begins...

As has been widely reported, the Journal of Medical Ethics has published a paper in which medical 'ethicists' argue the case for 'post-birth abortion' of new born babies. From what I have read of comments on The Telegraph's coverage of the article, there is a palpable sense of shock and disbelief that such an article should make an entrance into the public domain. This is the kind of thing you expect medical 'ethicists' to think, or perhaps even say between themselves while debating medical ethics. It isn't the kind of thing you would expect to find in a journal for the British Medical Journal Group.

It is, of course, reassuring that readers of The Telegraph are overwhelmingly not in favour of new born baby killing, but we should not fall into the trap of believing that this ludicrous and repugnant idea ends today, once it has been trashed by the British public.

Neither should we be so naive as to think that this is just a case of medical philosophers disappearing so far up their own behinds that they believe that only persons who can disappear up their own behinds are human. This isn't a joke or a 'let's really think outside the box' moment. Other Catholic commentators, like Will Heaven and Caroline Farrow, have discerned rightly that this kind of paper is a boon to the pro-life movement because it demonstrates how very fragile is the house of cards built by a medical profession that professes to be at ease with abortion. The paper writers say, if we're saying yes to abortion, then why not yes to this? It's a cold, brutal, logical conclusion which steers well away from any sense of human sympathy or well, humanity. It also sheds more light on abortion in general, an issue that simply refuses to lay down, die and reside in a surgical waste bin.

However, with all that said, the inclusion in such a prestigious and well-respected journal of this article is, in my opinion, a 'feeler' article, testing the public mood. You see, with all great, mind-blowing breaches of natural law which end up becoming tolerated and then normalised in any society, it always starts exactly like this. If you had told a tweed wearing English gent in the 1940s and 1950s, that in approximately about 60 years later, the Government would be considering 'gay marriage', he would simply say, "Ah, I love a gay marriage. O, how happy and gay was the marriage I attended last week, of my niece to her fiance. He's a banker you know!' If you told him that what you meant was that men would be marrying men, he would choke on his pipe.

If you told a woman in the 1940s and 1950s that in the year 2011, a man and a woman would be able to go to the National Health Service and be referred to a clinic where the woman could have her unborn child 'terminated' for more or less any reason, including 'social reasons', or on the grounds of gender, disability or genetic disorder of one kind or another, the woman would say something like, "Terminated? Babies? Are you sure you're not talking about the 6:15 to Littlehampton?" If you told the same woman that the same society in 2011 would allow and enshrine in the law of the land the creation of IVF babies which involve babies being made outside of the mother's womb, in laboratories, she would look at you quizzically and think you quite mad. If you told her countless embryoes were destroyed in the process she'd think you nutty.  If you told her that unborn children would basically be farmed on an industrial scale she'd wonder, in 1945, why we bothered fighting Hitler.

Sadly, while its comforting to think that British society would today most likely throw its arms up in the air about a future of legalised infanticide, all it takes to change the mind of society is a drip-drip approach to broaching the issue and having it discussed, having 'respected' people discuss it, keeping the issue afloat, using the mass media to normalise the discussion and within 50 years, you've changed the culture enough for the culture to accept it. It took a long for the eugenics movement of the 1920s that spawned the monster of abortion to culimate the Abortion Act (1967), but in the end, through powerful propaganda, it achieved its aims. Now, the same movement is attempting the next phase of the program. You think it is ridiculous, and it sounds ridiculous, but this is how it always begins. I'd be pleasantly surprised if Professor Dawkins publicly condemned this paper. For the time being, the paper puts pro-abortionists on the backfoot and forces them to justify their position, but at the same time, cold logic lends itself to the conclusion reached by the 'ethicists' at the BMJ and, sadly, cold, reductivist logic is, in an increasingly secularised Britain, the order of the day.

You see, while abortion was sold to the general public as a 'woman's choice' about what she does with 'her body', abortion was essentially one flank aimed at breaking down the long-held public morality on sex and reproduction, along with its wicked twin sister, artificial contraception. I sincerely doubt, however that the long-term aim of an abortive society was to give women choice or to empower women. I sincerely suspect that the long-term aim of the creation of an abortive society was to enable the future society - the utopia imagined by the misanthropic, sociopathic and frankly psychopathic eugenicists of those days, many of whom are still alive today - to take assertive action on weeding out from human society the kind of people eugenicists like Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger thought should be 'pruned from the vine' of society. In other words, the poor, feckless (people like me really), the mentally ill, the disabled, the lame, the deaf, the dumb, the blacks, and, unattractive, yes, even the homosexuals, and anyone who is genetically 'unfit' for human society, could be blocked from entry into the 'utopian' world which, with the help of mad crackpot scientists, is in the meantime searching for the elixir of life and eternal youth.

All that may sound completely insane and preposterously evil, but you have to understand the mindset of those who support the eugenics movement in the United Kingdom, be it tacitly or actively and also appreciate that many of them work in genetics and medicine, as well as areas like psychiatry, social services and 'reproductive health'. A part of me thinks that this latest BMJ paper is strange because one would think that women who wanted to know it they're baby was going to be born 'imperfect' would dispatch the order to 'seek and destroy' the unborn 'unfit' baby prior to birth. That's the real reason, of course, that we have pre-natal scans. Perhaps, this academic suggestion made in the Journal of Medical Ethics, really, is just to find a way to ensure that those who don't want scans but who then realise their baby has been born with Down's Syndrome have a legal loophole to fall back on to avoid the unwanted Downs baby, in the heartless hope that the 10% of Down's Syndrome babies who are not aborted before birth, will be aborted after birth in 40 years time, once it has become so rare and socially unacceptable to give birth to a Downs Syndrome child, or child with any disability, in that dystopian vision of Britain. The aim of the eugenicists, many of whom are geneticists, is to rid the world of downs syndrome. While that entails ridding the World of babies who suffer from Downs, that's just the price that the babies have to pay in order to help us to rid the world of the disease. That's the logic. These people imagine a bright vision of Britain which is, in the words of the British Eugenics Society member, William Beveridge, free of the 'Giant Evils' of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. How do you achieve that? You ensure that the 'kind of people' who fall into these categories are never born in the first place (or are not allowed to live).

Yet, and yet, it was the vision of society that was held by eugenicists of the 1920s and 30s. It was the vision of society held by Hitler and the Nazis. It is the vision of a sizable number working in medicine, genetics and other fields today. An interesting footnote to the vision is that Stonewall should be wary to lend too much support to this vision of a society in which IVF, abortion and, perhaps in future, 'post-birth abortion' becomes the certified norm for those with genetic defects. I say this because there are still those working in the field of genetics and medicine who believe that homosexuality is a genetic defect, regardless of the availability of concrete research that backs up that belief. In future, because, let's face it, not everyone is going to be happy after a pre-natal scan has revealed the homosexual gene, it could be homosexuals that are targeted as part of the future 'homocide' of the human race, because, from what I read of Marie Stopes, she didn't have much time for the gays either.

The irony is that people will read the articles and the news story of this academic paper and think that this is impossible in Britain. Well, if it is possible for a 'civilised' country like China to have its State police force infanticide on families in the name of population control, then why is it impossible for it to take place in Europe? Don't be too surprised if this idea one day takes off in the UK, because its already going on elsewhere. The other great irony is that the architects of this revolution in human understanding of who is an 'actual human' and who is not, believe that eugenics is inherently about human progress. Those people forget that us Brits were happily killing our unwanted, defected two year olds, or sacrificing them to appease 'angry god's' until those irritating Catholics came along to tell us not to do that kind of thing and to honour the supreme Sacrifice of Christ at Calvary, made present at every Mass.

So, its nice that the overwhelming majority of people will be aghast at this latest 'academic paper', but don't be too surprised if in 40 years time, its a regular feature of British life. The only defense against the massacre of the innocent unborn, and, indeed born, is the Christian Faith. Christianity built the civilisation in which we are fortunate enough to live. As the pillars of Christianity are removed from the public sphere, don't be surprised when the roof of the civilisation collapses as in an earthquake, and like in an earthquake, we will be calling it a miracle when a newborn is pulled out from the rubble...alive.

Gay Marriage: The Musical Test

I was thinking earlier today about music and romantic love and how, down the ages, the 'love song' or the 'wedding song' really doesn't fit with the whole appeal to 'love' made by proponents of 'gay marriage'.

Of course, I'll doubtless be called a 'bigoted homophobe' for saying this, even though I've been nothing but honest about my 'orientation' so best I say it now while there is a modicum of free speech in the country. What I was thinking is this: I can't, off the top of my head, think of any 'gay love' songs that say 'wedding' or even 'happy long term relationship of mutual love, happiness and respect'. I can't really think of any 'gay love' songs to be honest - I mean, not many that speak of the unbridled joy of same-sex attraction.

The only songs that I know which are either blatantly or obliquely about 'gay love' or gay attraction are either a) tortured, melancholic, conflicted or depressing, b) about a sense of personal liberation (rather than love for another human being), c) glorifying the escapism and hedonism of 'the scene' or, d) 'us' vs 'them', like Bonnie and Clyde e) concerning lust and desire in isolation, rather than genuine romantic love for another.  When artists want to take on homosexuality in their music, invariably it is overtly political, strident and aiming to shock the audience - culturally, music has been a force in the acceptance of homosexuality. Anyone remember Frankie Goes to Hollywood?

At best, the 'gay love' song is about intense loyalty in the face of a World that cannot understand. Take this song, by The Smiths. Part of the homosexual experience is depicted here in terms of 'forbidden fruit' picked by lovers that society shuns.

Out of the assorted 'out' modern songwriters, we have people such as George Michael and Elton John.  Even the modern music scene is not teeming with 'out' homosexual life. Ironically, even though both stars would define themselves as 'gay', their best and most memorable 'love songs' were directed towards the female sex. Elton, remember, was once married...properly married. George Michael was once in music videos a-courting ladies.

Since gay 'anthems' really only emerged out of the ghetto in the 1980s (unless we're going to count 'Village People's 'YMCA') I struggle to find anything that might be played at a 'gay wedding' which would support the notion of same-sex attraction or 'homosexual love' written by a homosexual man for his lover. A classic anthem by Queen's Freddie Mercury was 'I Want to Break Free' and I expect that many of his fans were not really aware of his homosexuality until later after Freddie's death. Yet, again, if that song is about sexuality, then its about liberation - what kind of liberation is the artist really seeking? I really think it depends on what level you want to read the 'secrets of the soul' which are laid bare in composition.

Gay music depends on tension and conflict - not love. It is not usually about happiness in another. It never says 'wedding'. Interestingly, the opposite is true. It is almost as if music composed by homosexual artists trying to deal with the issue of same-sex attraction have tended towards either the self-expressive (rather than love expressive, unless, that is, we're talking about self-love) or the depressive. Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that homosexuals have written some classic love songs, but the focus, even for those homosexuals who have composed great love songs, tends strangely towards the opposite gender. 'You're the Best Friend' was written by Freddie Mercury about a woman who he loved very much. There is a sense that when homosexuals try to compose 'love songs' for men who they are involved with passionately or on a sexual basis, that the songs are full of conflict and not a small measure of pain.

People like Stonewall would argue from a Marxist liberation point of view that the reason for this is because society has yet to fully accept and embrace 'gay love' and so men will feel conflicted about their identity until they fully come out and society fully embraces it. In that sense, you could say that Stonewall's supporters treat 'coming out' like Protestant Evangelicals do 'believing on the name of the Lord Jesus'. In other words, if you don't feel 100% a-ok about your homosexuality, its because your just a shy type and society has oppressed you. If society teaches children about homosexuality, and there is gay marriage, and everyone is comfortable with it, then one day, you will never feel uncomfortable about your sexual identity in the slightest, nor suffer any feelings of personal guilt. In this sense, the gay movement is quasi-religious in the sense that it believes salvation is a collective task, involving all of society, towards gay 'liberation'. Take this Pet Shop Boys cover of the Village People's 'Go West' as an example.

When the message isn't political there can be some genuine discomfort there, as if homosexuality has marked the person out. Take this song, from the 1980s, by Bronski Beat. Can you feel this guy's pain? It seems to be more than just about rejection from family, or society, but there is a sense of personal stigma as well...

On the other hand, I can think of plenty of fraternal love songs written by gay men about those who they are not involved with sexually, as well as those with whom they would like to be involved sexually - but that is a different thing - that is fantasy and I think that the 'gay world' deals very much in fantasy and yearning for 'something' (perhaps something we could call God). This, however, is still a different phenomena to romantic love.

As far as I can see, just thinking about my not inconsiderable knowledge of modern rock and pop, I struggle to think of a song by an artist that says, 'I'm totally comfortable with my homosexuality, I know you are too, these feelings are totally natural and I want to marry you, darling - let's invite all the family!'. Even what has become a 'gay anthem', Lady Gaga's 'Born this Way' is about anger and rebellion - against society and, implicitly, against God and the Church. There's usually a hint of this being somewhat illicit, not necessarily because of societal perception, but a sense of personal darkness in the soul. Essentially, most music is about soul-baring, unless its something done purely for commercial purposes. Those artists who are genuinely honest about 'baring' their conflicted emotions on such matters are few and rare because such honesty takes a level of self-awareness and the ability to go beneath the artifice and mask of everyday life.

I have, in my time, been to quite a few gay bars and clubs and I can tell you that its a 'scene' that is insular, yet strangely exclusive. I found that I mainly didn't fit in because I wasn't doing drugs. Similarly, the music played in most of the bars tends towards lyrics about escapism, lust, personal liberation and the idea of getting 'high' - not necessarily on drugs, though I expect the music of many gay clubs sounds better on drugs.

The sad fact is that 'gay wedding' parties, if they are to express real human love between two people of the same-sex looking forward to a lifetime of Cameronian 'commitment' and enjoying other people's children, then if they want love songs, they'll be relying on love songs about the miracle of love between men and women and the unique gift of human sexuality for unitive and procreative love between members of the opposite sex. That's what wedding songs instinctively are. Either that or its ABBA's 'Dancing Queen', Gloria Gaynor's 'I Will Survive' or Lady Gaga's 'Born this Way'. These are famous 'gay anthems' yet none of them are really about love. They're about self-glorification. What the gay community doesn't have is proper gay wedding 'love songs' and all those love songs that are famous are about the love of a man for a woman or a woman for a man. Even the racy numbers say, 'I want to be with you forever', like this one...

Hmm...Now this is what I call about baby-making music! Ladies and gentleman, I feel nearly ready to rest my case. These are wedding songs, but if they are, they are clearly about the love of a man for a woman or vice versa. That's just what wedding songs are.

I can't imagine a gay wedding love song that has the raw unleashing of human happiness in another person of, say, the walrus of love himself.

Natural marriage 5 - 0 Gay Marriage. Don't ask me how I worked that score out. Gay marriage may have the best 'gay anthems', but few 'gay anthems' are about love or even devotion to one person other than yourself. Yes, as they say, the Devil may have the best 'anthems' but now we can say that God's still got the best tunes.

Puppy Love

In simpler days, teachers would tell children how to cope with 'puppy love'. Now, they don't bother. Now they just tell them how to do it 'doggie style'. And to 'wear a condom', naturally...

Monday 27 February 2012

Advertisement: 150th Anniversary Mass for St Mary Magdalen Church

Just in case you missed it, there is a rather special Mass tomorrow at St Mary Magdalen's. If you're a Brightonian or in any way local, or happen to be in Brighton today, come to the 150th Anniversary Celebration Mass of St Mary Magdalen Church. For future events and news, see the 150 Years website.

Sunday 26 February 2012

Wake Up to the Reality of Hell

Bishop Mark Davies has issued a Lenten pastoral letter calling upon Catholics in the Diocese of Shrewsbury to wake up to the reality of Hell.

It is a sad reflection of the Church in England and Wales that a Bishop discussing the Church's teaching on the eternal fate of those who die separated from God by free will, should be newsworthy. All Bishops, surely, should be mentioning the Four Last Things to the Faithful at least once a year. This shouldn't really be Catholic news, but incredibly, it is.

It is better for us to wake up to reality of Hell in this life, rather than to wake up to the reality of Hell in the life of the next. Certainly, the Church's Doctrine on Hell puts paid to those arguments against us by those who posit that we hold God to be a cuddly 'sky fairy' figure who nods approvingly of human conduct whatever we believe or do, or indeed, what we do not do. Having said that, even the Church's Doctrine on Purgatory should inspire us to examine our consciences this Lent and do penance, because I hear that even in Purgatory a minute feels like a thousand years and that that minute is not particularly pleasant. Ultimately, the Church's teaching on Hell reminds us that in order for us to be saved, we must choose between Good and Evil, between God's will and that of our own, between Christ and liberation in His Kingdom, or Satan and slavery in his. God bless Bishop Mark Davies for taking the opportunity in Lent to remind us to use the time we have in this life wisely, in order that we may prepare for eternity.

Grace upon grace upon grace is offered to us since God wills that no man or woman should be lost. Christ nourishes His Body, the Church with the Sacraments of Salvation and Grace and if we co-operate with Him, then we may hope for everlasting life. Still, that does not stop the forces of Hell from assailing the Church, even if they can never prevail against Her and with 'Equality' laws operating in a manner so Machiavellian and conspiratorially against the Bride of Christ, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Church is, already, in the West, living in times of latent persecution.

Personally speaking, I find it hard to understand the reasoning behind Archbishop Vincent Nichols's recent remarks to the effect that the Church in England is not facing a measure of persecution. Granted, the order has not been given to euthanise those who don't agree with the secularist forces within Government, but nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that a Catholic Archbishop can put such a shiny gloss of what is, actually, a deeply difficult time for the Catholic Church and all those who hold fast to the Teaching of the Apostles. It is true to say that the Church in England is not facing what a Christian pastor in Iran is facing, but persecution does not necessarily have to involve death by stoning, hanging or the sword. It can simply mean that the Church is not free to act in accordance with Her Conscience in certain areas, such as the Church's teaching on sexuality, marriage and the family.

After all, Catholic adoption agencies had to close down because of a law which received the backing of a Prime Minister who later went on to become Catholic. His Grace, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, responded to the question on persecution in the United Kingdom by saying, "I personally don't feel in the least bit persecuted. I don't think Christians should use that word," he said. I found this an odd thing for the Archbishop to say, given that His Grace also says, quite rightly, of the current direction taken by the UK Government, "...what might have started out as an acknowledgement of a variety of religious and philosophical positions has produced a seeming determination to tear the legal and therefore cultural life of the country away from its Christian roots."

This, ironically, is the reason for the latent persecution of Christians in the United Kingdom, in my personal view. His Grace describes the closure of the Church's adoption agencies as an "act of intolerance". Perhaps His Grace feels that the magnitude of the sufferings of the Church in other parts of the World is so great and bloody that it is insulting to them to describe the incremental movement of the Government's hand, as it reaches out and closes its grasp around the neck of the Bride of Christ, innocent and blissfully unaware as She is of what is to come, all in the name of 'Equality'.

For example, I cannot see Catholic schools being at liberty to teach that marriage is something that takes place between one man and one woman, exclusively, for too long, if the Same-Sex Marriage Bill is passed. If His Grace has been granted 'reassurances' from Government, then His Grace would do well to recall how quickly 'reassurances' can be retracted by something so simple as the switching of a party in opposition to a party in power and if Civil Partnerships were a foot in the door to Gay Marriage, then Gay Marriage is a foot in the door to the education of Catholic school children in the exotic world of homosexuality or even the silencing of the Catholic Church on matters of sex and sexuality by the law of the land. Even the Catholic blogosphere, in five years, could be even more 'underground' than it already is. Still, for some, hope surely springs eternal.

Unless His Grace is going to personally stand in Catholic classrooms to tell teachers that lessons on mutual masturbation, buggery and fisting are 'off-limits', then may I suggest that His Grace throws his considerable apostolic weight fully behind Lord Carey who is spearheading the Campaign for Marriage petition, however imperfect are its statements. It may not be perfect. It may not even be Catholic. But, at the moment, its the best thing we've had from any Churchman on how to combat the new Stonewall-backed bill which will, I assure you, quite literally shaft the Church from behind.

Personally, I prefer to the plain speaking Catholic honesty of Bishop Mark Davies, who shows a great deal of concern for the eternal welfare of the Catholics of his Diocese and, through the power of the media, those who dwell beyond it. I suppose that in one sense, Bishop Mark Davies is demonstrating a degree of concerned vision that I fear His Grace, the Archbishop of Westminster, appears to lack. After all, Bishop Mark Davies is only telling us to take some time out and reflect on 'what's down the road,' for 'after Death, comes Judgment'.

Saturday 25 February 2012

Lynne Featherstone: Government Minister for the Promotion of Homosexuality

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, is outshining both his successor and our own Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, in defending natural marriage against the State. He, at least, appears to be publicly conversant in the issues that are at stake if marriage should be redefined by the State. Unlike our own Catholic Archbishop, he appears to be in combatant mood when it comes to defending natural marriage. More power to his elbow.

He knows what is at stake. Let us remind ourselves once more of what, exactly, is at stake. For 'gay marriage' is not fundamentally a movement by the State recognising the inequality and injustice experienced by the lesbian and homosexual community. If that needed to be addressed, it surely already has been. It is only this on surface level. 'Gay marriage' is a radical departure from traditional morality so great, so culturally explosive, so antithetical to societal expectations and norms, so contradictory to objective morality, that it can only be the movement of the State towards totalitarianism.

There was a time when I considered that the smoking ban that came into force in the United Kingdom under the previous Labour Government was primarily to do with smoking and public health. It has taken me time to realise that it was only to do with public health on surface level. It wasn't primarily about smoking being a danger to public health or even about the State performing a blanket ban on a public habit enjoyed by a minority of people and making it illegal in public places for the benefit of a perceived 'health-conscious' majority.  It wasn't about health. It was about the State flexing its muscles over its own citizens. It was primarily about the State telling its own citizens, 'YOU CAN NO LONGER SMOKE IN PUBLIC PLACES'. It was about social control. And my, how we all rolled over to have our tummies tickled by the State. Not for us Brits to light up and stick two fingers up at the CCTV cameras. Not for us to tell train station attendants to kiss our behinds if we're going to put out our fags on this station when only fresh air surrounds us! If only! No, we do just as we are told!

Likewise, 'gay marriage' is not primarily about the State's recognition of the injustice perceived, this time, against a small minority of its citizens - namely homosexuals and lesbians, since grievances have already been addressed. That's what 'Civil Partnerships' were about, remember, even though at Magisterial level, at least, the Catholic Church condemns them as contrary to the natural law and the law of God. 'Gay marriage' is primarily about the State taking a human institution - marriage - and radically altering and changing in substance its meaning and nature. It means that whether those who defend natural marriage are religious in their view - or indeed not - the fact that this issue is being depicted as the Church Vs the State is merely a side-feature of the main event. The main event concerns the State's relationship with YOU and me, its citizens.

Welcome to your future, United Kingdom
It means that whatever YOU thought marriage was, YOU were wrong. Whoever YOU thought was able to define marriage, YOU were wrong. It is primarily to do with the State's desire to control every aspect of human life. It is now up to the State to decide what marriage IS and what marriage IS NOT. What YOU had thought marriage IS NOT now IS. And conversely, what you had thought marriage IS, it IS NOT. Whatever religion may teach, until now, YOU thought marriage was not something which two men can undertake, whether YOU believed in God, or not.

Whatever religion may teach, until now, YOU thought marriage was something that takes place between a man and a woman, whether YOU believed in God, or not. The most human institution of all, marriage, is now believed by the State to be in the hands of the State. The question is, is it safe in the hands of the State? Is anything so fundamental and integral to the human person and to society safe in the hands of the State? The answer to these questions simply has to be: 'No'. The State has no business in this area of human life. By its very actions, the State is over-reaching its remit and its democratic mandate. Even the very fact that this is under discussion in the media should have bells ringing in the houses of all men and women in the United Kingdom, whether those bells are Church bells, or indeed not. Years of propaganda from the liberal media, Stonewall and its supporters in Parliament and the Press have paved the way for this moment by a process of incrementalism aimed at undermining and destabilising Britain's cultural and moral life subtly, until the 'revolution' could be won.

Gay marriage is not fundamentally about recognising the new rights and freedoms of the homosexual community in the United Kingdom. It is about an institution which is universally recognisable as the most human of all institutions, passing from the ownership of Almighty God and humanity itself, to an Almighty State. Be assured, also, that if marriage is redefined, then the new respectability conferred upon 'gay marriage' will soon result in any opposition to the Brave New World, even opposition to gay religious ceremonies taking place in Churches, being crushed, since the State now decides what marriage is - not the Church and not even the citizens of the United Kingdom.

'Gay marriage' is Orwellian in nature. The Equalities Minister, the Head of the 'Department for Equalities' is Orwellian. The idea that this department is interested in just and fair treatment for its citizens is laughable and ridiculous and the current situation, with Lynne Featherstone telling Churches not to 'polarise the debate' by opposing the Government's plans (in other words, by publicly disagreeing with the Government's plans) is straight out of 'Nineteen Eighty Four'. It is absurd. It is beyond parody. It is living satire.

How can a Government minister for a Department for Equality tell religious 'minority' groups (and the Head of the Established Church, HRH the Queen at that) that it basically doesn't matter what they say or what they believe, this 'gay marriage' proposal will go ahead regardless and that they should, basically, all shut up, including Her Majesty? By virtue of the position she holds as Head of 'Equalities', Lynne Featherstone should, by all accounts, resign, along with Trevor Phillips of the Human Rights and Equalities Commission, because it is blatantly obvious that neither she nor he are capable of being objective, impartial or even vaguely 'equal' in their treatment of the concerns of the homosexual lobby and the Churches - two different minorities with very competing views and interests.

The idea of a Government minister in any other department behaving in such an obviously partial manner towards one lobbyist or interest group or of that Minister demonstrating partisanship in such a public and high-handed manner would draw a barrage of criticism resulting perhaps in that minister's resignation or sacking. Why doesn't she just rename her ministerial role to: 'Minister for the Promotion of Homosexuality to the Detriment of Religious Folk and Others Who Aren't Quite Sure About It'?

Astonishingly, Ms Featherboaconstrictor then goes on to tell us that 'this is the will of the people', which will look even more ironic if she repeats such a statement in Holy Week. Remember, citizens of the United Kingdom, Big Brother knows best what is good for you and knows what you should believe, even if you don't quite believe it! Ms Featherstone has the temerity to suggest that this is the 'will of the people' without even asking what the people actually think. Well, we know that David Cameron is making 'gay marriage' a central issue of his Premiership because Lynne Featherstone has today told us so. However, while David Cameron may be committed to the pink cause now, now indeed, that he is in occupying Number 10 Downing Street, Mr Cameron was a little more coy on this subject in the months before he was elected to be PM. Take a look at how reticent Mr Cameron was to promise to a Gay Times journalist anything other than a free vote for the Conservative Party MPs and MEPs in voting on the proposal that he now presents to us as totally in keeping with Conservative tradition and with such evangelistic zeal.

Mr Cameron knew his own party would see that interview. With the Gay Times journalist he therefore found himself between a rock and a hard place, as he attempted to be 'all things to all men' but with none of the holiness of St Paul. Did you notice, also, the astonishing power and influence that the gay lobby, this time in the form of Martin Popplewell, has over even our Prime Ministers?

"Why," he sneers, "should we (speaking on behalf of all gays) vote for you if you won't vote for us?"

It does not enter into Mr Popplewell's thought processes that this could, you know, be an issue of conscience for Conservative MPs and MEPs and that to whip the party into line might cause, you know, bitter resentment and divisions in the party. For the militant gay community, it's all about them, you see, nobody else. A great question for Mr Popplewell from the hapless Mr Cameron could well have been - indeed should have been: 'Why are you convinced that when you represent about 2% of the entire population of the United Kingdom, I should treat your minority's agenda with greater and more urgent concern than those of the rest of the population at a time of deep economic hardship for the country?'

Still, there we have it. That's the power of the pink vote, seemingly! It is true to say that Mr Cameron did 'modernise' the Conservative Party, but it is also true to say he seems not to be a conviction politician, but just another conviction-less politician in an empty suit courting votes. Now, now indeed that he is in office, it is obvious that nothing short of a supervolcano exploding in St James's Park will stall his desire to abandon natural marriage and to do give way to Stonewall's 'conjugal rights', but is it really as popular as he thinks it is, or is it just the concern of a small and liberal elite? For example, this was not the central issue which won the election for the Conservative Party, yet not outright enough to escape Coalition government. It did not form a central part of Mr Cameron's electoral mandate, so why is he so committed to the 'equality cause' now? Anyone would have thought he was Tony Blair or something! So strange that, is it not, that despite the fact that Mr Blair became a Catholic, we can guess that were he to vote in such a bill, he would vote for Stonewall too. Principles and politicans - not a good mix.

'Equalities' Minsiter: Lynne Featherstone MP
But as Lord Carey points out to Lynne Featherboa, if it is really true that the British understanding of marriage has shifted so dramatically in this the early part of the 21st century, so much so that the vast majority of citizens desire that marriage itself be redefined, then let's give the British population an opportunity for the 'will of the people' to be made manifest through a national referendum. Will this happen? Will the 'will of the people' be requested by Parliament? Will it buggery! Excuse my french.

Just as the Abortion Act (1967) paved the way for personhood itself to be redefined, without a referendum, in the public consciousness and those of every future generation of children, so too will the Same-Sex Marriage Bill of 2012 pave the way for marriage to be redefined, without a referendum, in the public consciousness and those of every future generation of children. Mr Cameron is playing with fire. He can expect to get his fingers burnt - if not in this life - then the next. No, what Lord Carey has suggested will not occur. There will be no referendum on this because Lynne and Dave just instinctively know what British citizens really want - and that's 'gay marriage'.

Such an exercise in democracy as a national referendum on the biggest change to English law for 800 years or more is the last thing - the last thing - the Govenrnment intend to do, because this is not just about marriage, but a cultural revolution echoing that of Chairman Mao of China, in which YOU and YOUR FUTURE CHILDREN are to be told by the State what you believe and think of marriage, not your conscience, not the Church, nor even the cultural prejudices of your own particular social milieu. All that will be swept away. This is about progressives dominating both the left and right of the political spectrum using the tools and frightening power of the State to compel the whole population of the United Kingdom to believe something which has always been held as objectively untrue, to be held as suddenly true - that marriage could be redefined by the State to be between parties other than one man and one woman. Ultimately, this is about the State telling you what to think, and, eventually, about banishing any voices which oppose the 'Brave New World', to the wilderness.

Do you really think that if the Same-Sex Marriage Bill is passed in the Year of Our Lord 2012, that spontaneous parties will erupt all over Great Britain, from Hackney to Heathrow, from Bournmouth to Bristol, from Glasgow to Glamorgan? I somehow doubt it. There will be some, and of course, Brighton will love it, but not everywhere, dear readers, as you know, is like Brighton.  There will be pockets of celebrations in parts of the United Kingdom if this law is passed, but there will be a great many people who will be sitting at home watching TV thinking, 'Gay marriage, eh? Well I never. What has the country come to?' Of course, they'll be allowed to think that...for now...but Heaven help the first British child who stands up in front of the classroom and says, 'But Miss, I believe, and my mummy and daddy believe, that marriage is between men and women because that's how babies are made'. Heaven help that child and Heaven help that child's parents because in 21st century Britain, the State owns marriage and what YOU may or may not think about it.

Friday 24 February 2012

Calthorpe Clinic is at the Heart of the Sex-Selective Abortions Scandal

Pro-life demonstrators outside the Calthorpe Clinic in Edgbaston, Birmingham
Abortion is a scandal and a nationwide one at that. National concern has now been raised, at ministerial levels, and abortion has been again placed back into the spotlight in the light of The Telegraph's investigation into sex-selective abortions taking place at clinics in the United Kingdom.

For years, over 40 years in fact, Britain's rather loose pro-life coalition has been saying that eugenic abortion would be the end result of the liberalisation of abortion law in the United Kingdom, to howls of derision from pro-abortion lobbyists who supposedly convinced parliamentarians that all such fears were grounded in suspicion and paranoia. Now, finally, the idea that these fears were grounded in paranoia can be put safely to bed. The Calthorpe Clinic in Edgbaston, Birmingham, now finds itself at the heart of the sex-selective abortion revelations exposed by The Telegraph.  How ironic that this should be the case. Historically, the Calthorpe Clinic has always been at the forefront of the abortion propaganda driving Government policy since the late 1960s to the present day. Yet, the idea that the Calthorpe Clinic should be mentioned in an investigation uncovering explicitly eugenic abortion should surprise absolutely nobody. After all, one of the founders of the Calthorpe was, in 1965 and 1977, a fellow of the British Eugenics Society.

In December 2009, I wrote a piece for this blog which can be read here about the history of the clinic and, in particular about the founder of the clinic itself.  I happened to learn about the clinic's history when reading through the list of the membership of the British Eugenics Society, which has, since 1990, been known as The Galton Institute. Interestingly, in 1990, The Galton Institute stopped publishing its membership list. The founder of the Calthorpe clinic was one Dr Martin John Cole, a man named in the roll of dishonour in the membership list of the British Eugenics Society and accredited as a co-founder of the Calthorpe 'Nursing Home'.

The reason I mention this is because the biography of Dr Martin John Cole really does serve us with an example of the breathtaking and wicked opportunism that certain individuals have demonstrated in serving their own interests in the abortion field, while reminding us of the utter dependence of abortion facilities on facilitating a sexually active young population and successively promiscuous generations of youth society. It also reminds us that a great many of those working to advance abortion in the country have a background in the eugenic movement of the United Kingdom, which will come as no surprise to those who know of the eugenic background of Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes of the organisation which now bears her name.

First, let's talk about Dr Martin John Cole and the Calthorpe Clinic. The website, Eugenics Watch, tells us that...
'In 1989 the Institute for Sex Education and Research Ltd. owned the stock of the Calthorpe Ltd. abortion facility (Birmingham) in the form of preferred stock. This means that the Institute received a fixed sum from the Calthorpe before profits were calculated. The amount has been 115,000 British pounds annually since 1973. Thus Martin Cole and his ideas have been financed by the Calthorpe, since he controls the Institute. Cole has supported promiscuity for teenagers and prostitution as a medical service. These ideas, in turn, support him since they lead to abortions at the Calthorpe.'
Dr Cole was at the forefront of the campaign for liberalised abortion law in the United Kingdom in the run up to the Abortion Act 1967.  The Eugenics Watch site informs us that Dr Cole was on the Executive Committee of the Abortion Law Reform Association, was a Company Director for Brook Advisory Service as well as a founding member of Brook's services in Birmingham. He was also the founder of the Birmingham Pregnancy Advice Service and the Founder and Director of the Institute for Sex Education and Research, in which he excelled as a renowned 'sexologist'.

The Calthorpe Clinic, Birmingham
While the Head of the Care Quality Commission, who is also responsible for the oversight of Care Homes and Hospitals, Cynthia Bowyer, has resigned from her position, presumably finding it mysteriously untenable, Dr Martin John Cole is still, according to the Care Quality Commission, responsible for the Calthorpe Clinic now disgraced in the light of The Telegraph's revelations. This fact, mysteriously, has yet to be reported by the national Press even though the scandal has resulted in the resignation of the Head of the Care Quality Commission.

Futhermore, just to highlight the huge interest that the abortion industry has in titilating and grooming children who will be their future customers, it is worth reading Dr Martin Cole's personal bibliography. It serves to remind us just how the sex education lobby and the abortion lobby (often they are two sides of the same coin) are working in tandem to create generations of children who will, rather than settle down in a monogamous relationship in marriage for children, become sexually promiscuous and loyal customers of abortion facilities.

The Eugenics Watch website informs us of , "Growing Up", a sex education video which, in 1992, was still distributed by Martin Cole Publications and The Institute of Sex Education and Research. Wikipedia tells us that this sex education video attracted criticism from Lord Longford, Mary Whitehouse and Margaret Thatcher. The 23 minute film was so sexually explicit that it was banned from being shown to children by the end of 1971.  But that's not all. Psychology Today, while discussing 'surrogate partner therapy' for reluctant virgins (I kid you not) mentions Dr Martin Cole as a pioneer in the field. I quote:
'It began in 1966, when British sexologist Martin John Cole, Ph.D. introduced "sex surrogates," sexologically trained women, into sex therapy with men - and was attacked for running a brothel.'
Bizarre. The website, Director Check, informs us, as does the Care Quality Commission, that Dr Martin Cole is still Director of the Calthorpe Clinic Limited and of Martin Cole Limited while the Institute for Sex Education and Research has been dissolved. In other words, the man who started up both an Institute for Sex Education aimed at the opportunistic corruption of the innocence of Britain's youth in Birmingham and beyond, and the Calthorpe Clinic, is still a financial beneficiary of the services availed by the clinic to those seeking abortion, and now, it seems, even sex-selective eugenic abortion. All this appears to be true and yet, surprisingly, in all that I have read of The Telegraph's excellent investigative work, the name of Dr Martin John Cole has not appeared once. It is, I think you will agree, about time that it did!

It should not surprise us, either, that the man who now stands at the precipice of having his Calthorpe Clinic investigated by the Police for criminal abortions, who was, as we know, for a time at least, a leading luminary of the British Eugenics Society and who deliberately produced explicit sex education material for children and teenagers in order to attract them towards his abortion services, has been also working in the field of genetics at a British University - Aston University - to be precise.

Yet this man retains a healthy level of public respectablility that could only be possible in 21st century Britain.  Dr Martin John Cole is quoted in The Birmingham Post in 2007, defending 40 years of liberalised abortion law in the United Kingdom. What does he has to say for himself? According to The Birmingham Post, 'Dr Cole's Calthorpe Clinic in Arthur Road, Edgbaston, is still dealing with up to 10,000 abortions a year - and the numbers keep creeping up slowly.' Dr Cole says...
"It sounds trite, but we're responding to a need," says 76-year-old Dr Cole, who chaired Birmingham's branch of the Abortion Law Reform Association when he arrived in the city from Nigeria in the mid-1960s. "No woman is ever forced to have an abortion. I believe that for some women an abortion is a traumatic rite of passage which forces them to grow up."
He says: "We try to understand why women find themselves in this predicament. A few years ago we asked every woman who came to the Calthorpe which method of contraception they were using at the time they believed they had conceived. Much to our surprise, the results were that roughly 40 per cent said they weren't using any contraception at all. A further 40 per cent claimed to have been using a condom which had either come off or burst. A further 15 per cent said they were on the Pill. From this information there is little doubt that whether the pregnancy resulted in patient failure or method failure, there is an urgent need for a revolution in contraceptive technology. Back in the 1960s it was illegal for "unmarrieds" to have access to any contraception."
The genius of those leading the abortion industry in Britain is in convincing the population that abortionists are inconsolable when another customer walks through the door. You have to remember that this is their livelihoods and they do very well, financially, out of abortion. The Birmingham Post article continues...

'As the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act dawns, Dr Cole expects to witness further demonstrations outside his Edgbaston clinic, which he opened with Dr Philip Cauthery in late 1969. As for the future, he sees the use of early medical abortions as a hopeful trend and he stresses the need for eternal vigilance to prevent any retrograde change to the Act.

He feels the next step would be to make abortion on demand available up to ten weeks as it is in some European countries. "Whatever happens, and at all costs, the woman's right to remain pregnant or not must always remain paramount," he adds.'

Did you hear that? "Whatever happens, and at all costs, the woman's right to remain pregnant or not must always remain paramount." Why? Because at all costs, the diabolical industry of abortion brings money to men like Dr Cole and ideologically, even eugenic abortions aimed at the female gender in particular, are to be welcomed, because every abortion is ideologically defensible. With someone defending abortion so stridently as that and with the background he has, nobody in the United Kingdom should be surprised that Dr Cole's Calthorpe Clinic is prepared to carry out explictly eugenic abortions.

Isn't it just so surprising that a man who has been a leading luminary in the British Eugenics Society, who has delivered explicit sex education to teenagers and whose pockets must be literally bursting with blood money from abortions, was at the forefront of the liberalisation of abortion laws in the United Kingdom and continues to make fortunes out of the misery of abortion, even directly eugenic abortion, and as recently as 2007 was happily lecturing in genetics at Aston University. Now that's what I call a dark horse. So dark, indeed, that The Telegraph has omitted to even mention his name in their otherwise excellent investigations. He isn't the only person working in the abortion industry with a background in the Eugenics Society - trawl through the Eugenics Watch A-Z and you'll find plenty more catalogued. It is, however, about time Dr Martin John  received some more publicity, don't you think? I'll be writing more about the eugenic direction that the United Kingdom is taking, with the blessing of the State, more during the week. Watch this space...


I've had a very kind email from a Priest asking if I would accept a donation for my blogging efforts.

Someone else left a comment on a blogpost asking if I accept donations from people who appreciate my work.

So just in case anyone out there is wondering whether I would accept kind donations from readers, the answer is...yes, I would!

If you would like to donate then email me at and I'll let you know my address.

Thursday 23 February 2012

Sex-Selective Abortion in the United Kingdom

The Telegraph has produced an investigation that has led Health Minister, Andrew Lansley, to condemn the practice of sex-selective abortions in the United Kingdom. Obviously, its morally repugnant to abort for such arbitrary 'social reasons', but to commit genocide against Down's Syndrome babes in the womb is hunky dory. Of course, all those people arguing that hard cases make bad law in the run up to the passing of the Abortion Act, and who argued we may be placing our vaselined feet onto a steep slope towards an explicitly eugenic society were just barking, right-wing, pro-life nutters. Are The Guardian and the BBC covering this story, I wonder? Ah, I see the stories are covered, but, alas, and not surprisingly for these liberal institutions, this doesn't appear to be 'major headline news'.

Wednesday 22 February 2012

Ken and Gay Marriage

From Dystopia

Here is a question for you. What do IVF and gay marriage have in common? Answer: They are both methods by which children are acquired by those who cannot have them naturally, by means divorced from procreation. Both are morally evil and run contrary to the natural law, just in case you were wondering.

Ken Livingstone has been quoted as defending to the hilt the 'Gospel according to Stonewall'.

He is somewhat predictable because obviously he is 'playing to the gallery' but then part of our problem is that marriage has, in a real sense, gone from being a sacred institution knitting society together to a rather flimsy legal arrangement that can be unmade as quickly as it is made. Marriage hasn't yet been redefined but in the public consciousness it has lost all meaning. Successive governments have egged on the erosion of the institution of marriage, for reasons known only to them (though we can make plausible suggestions as to those reasons).

As an institution, marriage has done seven rounds in the ring with Mike Tyson and was already severely on the ropes. Gay marriage is merely the knockout blow. Take Ken, for example. He has, according to the Mail, had 'two marriages, one long-term relationship, five children, as well as donating his sperm to a couple of female friends so they could have kids.' It sounds to me like Ken doesn't really take marriage particularly seriously and that's why he's able to support gay marriage - because he doesn't take marriage seriously and neither, of course, do our friends at Stonewall and the overwhelming majority of our parliamentarians. You see, in order to take marriage seriously, it helps rather to take your marriage seriously. Given the donation of his sperm to his female friends, he doesn't seem to take children very seriously either. To Ken, getting someone a child is like getting someone an I-Pad for their birthday. 'Here you go! I knew you didn't have one of these - enjoy it!'

Who knows, perhaps Ken is angling for a gay marriage himself as he doesn't seem to have tied the noose with his current 'partner'. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with suggesting someone might be a homosexual today, because there's nothing wrong or 'unnatural' or 'abnormal' about homosexuality. It's perfectly 'natural' and 'healthy'. So Ken can't sue because if homosexuality is as normal as fish on Ash Wednesday for Catholics, nobody can be offended if someone tells Ken they think he is a homosexual. For the record, I don't think Ken is a homosexual. No, I think he's a womaniser. I'm just making a point.

The proponents of same-sex marriage have to keep us talking about 'equality' because it stops people from talking about anything else. It's become a media buzz word forming the language of irreproachable LGBT dogma. Who could argue with a group of people arguing for 'equality'? Anyone who would argue against 'equality' must be some raving fascist, naturally, and questioning the dogma of 'equality' or the foundations upon which it is built - i.e, the promotion of buggery, mutual masturbation and the sterile lust that a person can share for another member of the same sex - is inherently fascistic and has no part to play in a pluralistic society in which all views are welcome bar those that do not chime in harmony with 'equality'.

In the modern view, men are equal to women, despite their vastly different biology, and so the male-male sexual relationship and the female-female sexual relationship are equal to the male-female relationship. Therefore, heterosexual couples have, for all of these centuries, been 'keeping' and 'hogging' marriage to themselves, greedily, while keeping their eyes out for any gays who might be lurking around who may desire to steal this joyful, if now secular institution, so that it should never pass into the hands of those who are not heterosexual. "Why have heterosexuals got this right!" cries the homosexual movement. "We want the same rights as you! We want marriage rights!"

But who on earth said that marriage is a 'right' in the first place? Even so called 'straight marriage'? The genius of the vociferous, narcissistic gay lobby is that they have created a 'right' where before there never was such a thing. There was no 'marriage right' before the LGBT juggernaut came along. There were 'conjugal rights' certainly, but no 'right to marriage'. And if such a 'right' did exist, people seldom heard about it because in simpler days marriage was, in fact, a solemn responsibility, or even a duty which heralded the end of a man's batchelorhood, the end of a woman's single status and the beginning of a new journey together in matrimony, raising children together. Marriage only becomes a 'right' at the exact point that you decide to change its meaning. Funny that, isn't it?

Sure, the heterosexual couple might have been very much in love - it certainly helps - the day may have been filled with song, celebration, nice dresses, booze and a few tears of joy, but marriage wasn't primarily about a one-off day of celebration. It was about a man and a woman 'pairing off' to live together, to raise children and love one another until the scary man with the big scythe separates them. That'll be Death, by the way, not Trevor Phillips. Marriage was all of these things yet it was never promoted in society as a right. When it had societal or moral value it was less as a right than as a duty. And when the first roaring fires of love died down, this couple would stay together 'in sickness and in health' for 'richer or poorer' because of the sense of duty to their vows. Without a sense of duty, for instance, you could not raise the children who bonded your marriage together even further, crowning your marriage with new life. Without duty, you couldn't forgive habits that become more irritating after the rose-tinted glasses have fallen off after a few years.

Now, the reason that I mentioned IVF at the beginning is that in simpler days while marriage was not thought of as a 'right', so too, neither were children. Though in modern times people insist that they are, neither marriage nor children are 'rights'. You do not have the 'right to marriage'. Marriage is a solemn duty, a public oath, too, involving well known vows, in which a man and a woman voluntarily accept an exclusive and binding, lifelong union in the hope of offspring. The couple have children, hopefully. Those children have children and the parents become grandparents or even great grandparents. That is what makes a family and that is what society is made up of - families - lots and lots and lots of them - not lots of different kinds of them. That is the basis of every human society.  The family. The great problem is that the LGBT society do not care about society. They care only about the LGBT society. Corporately, a more selfish and self-serving group of people, you could not possibly meet. They care about their society. Society itself, on the other hand, can go hang, especially if it does not acquiesce with their increasingly fantastical demands.

The idea of children being a 'right' is another act of 'rights' conjury that lends itself to the LGBT community and, in particular, its relentless desire for homosexuality to be uncritically accepted into the mainstream of human society. It can only be the culture of IVF that has given society this warped view of children. Gay and lesbian couples do not merely believe that they have a 'right' to marriage, but a 'right' to children. In particular, they believe they have a right to other people's children since by virtue of their sorry condition they cannot have 'their own'. You do not have a 'right' to children. In fact, nobody does. Every child is a gift, and a gift from Almighty God at that. It is the duty of parents to raise those children and, we would say, to raise them 'in the fear of the Lord'.

What astonishes me is the sneering contempt that Stonewall and the LGBT community have for those who support natural marriage, yet they fail to appreciate that while they may believe that anyone who doesn't recognise their claims to marriage is 'bigoted', that gay and lesbian couples can only obtain children from one kind of sexual relationship and that is a heterosexual one. Whether its through adoption, surrogacy or even in the morally bankrupt world of IVF, a sperm must meet an egg and yet two men only have sperm and two women only have eggs. Whatever homosexuals think of marriage, when it comes to children it will always be a threesome for them, at least. Whatever the method, somehow the union of the male and female reproductive vitals that enable new life to be born are required for their same-sex 'love' to be 'blessed' by children and there is no way, not a screaming tomcat in Hades's chance that homosexuals or lesbians can obtain children without male and female in some way being united. More worryingly, it involves the commodification of children and sex.

In same-sex relationships and marriages, for children to come along, another person of the opposite sex has to be used for their reproductive gift, be it man or woman, perhaps for money. In gay marriage, either the State gives children to you or you have to buy them. How very Brave New World. Whatever it is about, it is not about love. It wouldn't surprise me if one day all men and women are required by the Government to hand over their sperm and eggs so that gays and lesbians can have society's children. After all, not to do so would be 'bigoted', 'homophobic' and 'unequal', so either you masturbate into this vial now, or agree to having your eggs removed now, or I'm sorry, but you'll face either prison or a huge fine. No conscience clause for the religious, obviously, because religious people are just being 'homophobic' if they refuse.

The militant homosexual activist lobby has spent a great deal of time and energy persuading Parliament and society that it must be given 'rights' when, in fact, these 'rights' are non-existent in society. Marriage exists for men and women so that they may, in stability, bring forth children, who then have children and so on and so forth, in order that human society may flourish and so that human society may in fact, continue. That is why marriage - and there is only one kind that is fruitful - is the bedrock of society. I might add, if marriage is such a tremendous and urgent 'right' then how come it is a 'right' that fewer and fewer heterosexuals are taking up now more than any time in the history of the United Kingdom. Perhaps heterosexual couples have taken it for granted and are happier living in sin and fornicating. Meanwhile, those homosexuals want to show them how great marriage really can be when its done in a very alternative manner. Not Christian marriage, but marriage nonetheless, in their eyes.

Anyway, about those children, those children who are society's future. Children are at risk from gay marriage if, for no other reason, they are to be educated in its ways. Why would a State, even a State that has divorced itself from its Christian roots, desire that children be educated about homosexuality in the context of the new respect which will be conferred upon it in the light of the homosexual union's new and glorified position in society, once it has raised to the status and dignity of marriage? Why would the State want to confuse children about down which avenue to walk in their lives, when they are so young and still possibly (they'll be lucky) innocent of the adult world?

Since, in future, both 'gay marriage' and 'straight marriage' will be presented like for like, it seems to me to be obvious that true and natural marriage will be undermined and fatally weakened. Obviously, in this dystopian vision of British life, the teacher will not be able to present one form of marriage as better than another because that would just be 'homophobic' and 'unequal'. If gay marriage and relationships and heterosexual relationships (because actually, natural marriage hasn't been taught in schools for years) are to be treated equally, then the teacher should not be surprised if children experiment first to see which sex feels better. Remember, you have to teach children how to 'do sex' too, on their own, with members of the same and opposite sex too, because that's what modern sex education is. It isn't about marriage and it isn't about children. It's about sex being as recreational as kicking the ball around at break-time.

After all, feelings are what sex and love are all about as far as today's class of children are taught, right? Then, once they've had sex education so amoral that gay marriage (and relationships) and straight marriage (and relationships) are equal in value then the children can take it from there and see how they get along in the exciting world of experimental sex with members of the same sex and members of the opposite sex. Wow! What a candy store the classroom is, eh?! Then, Ms O'Reilly can just go home, put her feet up and know she's done a good day's work, while all the kids are experimenting over whether to be homosexuals or heterosexuals, have straight marriage or gay marriage. If the Catholic Church tried this, it would be child abuse, but when Stonewall campaign for it, its 'equality'.

Yes, I can see the future is bright for natural marriage in this country if gay marriage becomes law. The future's very rosy, indeed. Maybe when the children get past their 30s or 40s, if by some Miracle they haven't got HIV, HPV, or some other horrendous new STI, many of the girls having had multiple abortions each and ending up sticking with other girls instead because they'll know they can't get pregnant with them, there might, might just be a very small minority who will consider natural marriage. But there will be even less then than there are now who realise relatively early in life that natural marriage is ordered towards human happiness as well as procreation and the continuation of the species.

You think I'm being alarmist? I think that that vision is actually rather optimistic. Children need boundaries. You give them moral boundaries when they are young because they will also need them as they get older. If you tell children there are no boundaries whatsoever in childhood or adulthood, you can expect more riots and a seriously, seriously messed up youth that makes even today's appear mild and sensible. In fact, you might just as well go around your neighbourhood with cans of petrol and set fire to it yourselves now.

You may not want the Church's view on marriage now, but you'll doubtless want the Church's help in the clean-up operation when society implodes because children grow up into adults with no moral boundaries whatsoever, because if sex, which goes to the heart of our very humanity, is a game, and marriage is a game, then so is theft and so is setting fire to buildings. You have taught them there are no objective moral values and so they will behave as such. You may as well forget about a future in Britain built on families. Oh, of course, you'll want the Church to help feed the increased homeless population caused by a sex-addicted, psychologically scarred, narcissistic, drug-addled, abused and abusive society full of children and adults from predominantly one-parent families fracturing wider and deeper than Broken Britain already is. Oh well, its your funeral, United Kingdom. Maybe you have to destroy society first before you realise that Britain is more Broken than even Cameron says it is now, because marriage is no longer seen as sacred or something to be treasured.

Or maybe that's all part of the plan, because by that time, of course, not just the Church's liberty will have gone because She can no longer speak out against 'gay marriage', but yours will have gone also, since the only way you can govern a country in anarchic meltdown is by martial law. Then, whether you wanted to be, or indeed not, your life, your very personhood and your marriage and your children really will belong to the State, as well as your sperm and your eggs. See, until it is ready to worship the State as the answer to all its woes all society must be in flux. The forces of liberalism in the State want society to degenerate until it collapses from its own internal contradictions. Society must be brought to its knees by its own internal moral, spiritual and economic collapse. Then you'll hand your very self over to the State. Then and only then will you wish you had listened to the Church, Whose liberty alone acts as guarantor of your freedom against the power of the State.

Petition to Save Marriage from Being Redefined

If you haven't already done so, sign the Petition to protect natural marriage.

See a list of over 21,000 signatories here.

Has the Archbishop of Westminster signed yet?

Tuesday 21 February 2012

You Can't Make An Omelette Without Breaking a Few Eggs

From Dystopia...

In one sense you could say the social experiment of liberalism lacks vision, since tearing down the structures that bind society, such as family and natural marriage is borne out of the desire to see new personal freedoms glorified. For most liberals, I suspect this is the case. A lot of liberals just ‘go along’ with the liberal social project because it meets their personal desires. However, there are some liberals for whom the destruction of the old order is imperative because they have a vision of a new society and as every historian will tell you, you cannot build a new society unless you first destroy the old one.

There must be some liberals who have a vision of a new society, you see, because new laws are seldom created for no reason whatsoever. Less seldom are they made because its citizens want them. Sad as it is, that simply is not how democracy works. People in power make new laws because they know that this will have some kind of an impact on society. Every politician wants to ‘make a difference’ to society. If they didn’t want to do that then they would not bother to even enter Parliament. William Wilberforce, obviously, wanted to ‘make a difference’ to society and so he did. He had a vision. He helped to end slavery. Lord Steele wanted to ‘make a difference’ to society and so he did. He had a vision. He helped to introduce abortion in the United Kingdom.

And what a marvellous success abortion has been. Well, for some. It has not been a huge success for women and it has not been a huge success for children. It has not been a huge success for society. It has, however, been a huge success for abortion providers. Can you think of anyone else that abortion has been a huge success? I certainly can. The State. Remember that abortion did not come from society itself, but from Government. Like most controversial votes in Parliament, it was not put to a national referendum. You may well protest; “No, that is preposterous. Government does not like abortion. Surely, it sees it merely in terms of a necessary evil in response to those ‘unwanted pregnancies’ and besides which women were campaigning for ‘choice’ and women were dying in backstreet abortions and so something ‘had to be done’ to make it legal.

All that is true and yet, somehow, it misses the mark of why the Abortion Act was introduced. The real reason abortion was introduced into the United Kingdom was the same reason that the contraceptive pill was made available to all British women in the same year - because the State believed that there was a population problem. “No, no, that is impossible,” you may protest, “It was because women wanted choice”. No. Some women wanted ‘choice’, but the State wanted fewer babies being born. Both the pill and abortion are tools of the State to control population. You don’t believe me? Well, I’m sorry but this is simply not rocket science and it is certainly not conspiracy theory. If you make available abortion and artificial contraception to a country then fewer babies will be born. That is just the fact of the matter. Unless you did not want fewer babies to be born, then you would not have introduced it no matter whether your people asked for it or not. And today, if nearly every woman in your country is on artificial contraception and you are averaging 200,000 dead fetuses a year and you do nothing about it, as a State, then I would suggest that either State has decided to go to sleep on the issue, or to look the other way or the State is content to see it happen.

Still unsure? Well, let us turn our eyes to a country now infamous for forced abortion, forced sterilization and, we can safely assume, forced artificial contraception, in as much as it can be forced. That country is, of course, China. Over in China, there were no street protests from women campaigning for rights, since campaigns for rights in China, as we know, tend to be rather short-lived and if women died in childbirth the Government would not give it much of a second thought. There is, in China, a ‘One Child Policy’ and nearly the whole world knows that in large parts of the country, a second child can be forcibly aborted by the State against the wishes of parents. So, why does this ‘One Child Policy’, wreaking social and demographic havoc across the land exist? The answer is, simply, population control.

You still don’t believe me? Okay, well then let us examine the case of Africa. There has been little in terms of documented evidence of a wellspring of women in the continent marching on the streets, demanding abortion from their Governments. Yet, Governments feel entitled to give this service to their people. Though, to be more precise, a great deal of international pressure has been and is being brought to bear on those countries who did not or do not yet have abortion, to introduce it. The UN is constantly seeking to encourage, to put it very mildly, African states to accept abortion. Yes. In Africa, the drive for abortion is not coming from people on the ground, nor necessarily from the Governments, but from interests which are totally external, one of which is the International Fund Planned Parenthood. African women have not asked for abortion, but they have been given it. Advocates of ‘choice’ would argue that African women should have a ‘choice’, but it is still true to say that, as far as I am aware, African women have not risen up to demand their choice and assert their ‘reproductive rights’. No, the ‘reproductive rights’ of African women have been brought to them from the West and by the West. How kind and noble it is of the West to help Africa to destroy its young. Anyone would have thought the West had an interest in enslaving Africa or something.

You still don’t think abortion is about population? Okay, well then let’s examine another country, but this time one which has recently decided to go the other way. Russia. In Russia, it is reported that: (

‘The Russian Health Ministry has cut the list of social grounds that allow women to have a free abortion, which leaves sexual assault as the only excuse for women to abort their pregnancy. The 2010 census showed that Russia’s population dropped from 145 million in 2002 to under 143 million, with the death rate continuing to exceed the birth rate despite government efforts to encourage Russians to have more children. The parliament may soon pass a new anti-abortion bill that could limit access to abortion services and toughen criminal punishment for doctors who carry out illegal abortions.’

How very pragmatic of the Russian government. Russia is not tightening restrictions on abortion because the government has suddenly discovered its conscience. Nor has the government decided that feminism is balderdash and had a re-think on the woman’s ‘right to choose’. It has merely realized that population has dropped too low and needs to be raised and tightening restriction on abortion is the way to do it and what the State giveth, the State taketh away. Don't worry, all you feminists out there, once Russia decides that the population is getting too high again, the State will simply make abortion more available again.

Let us ask the question, then, why was the Abortion Act (1967) introduced? To understand why the Abortion Act was introduced in 1967, we have to understand the ‘swinging sixties’ in which it emerged from Parliament. As we know, the sixties was the period in which the sexual revolution took place in the United Kingdom. The word ‘revolution’ suggests something violent that takes place that sweeps away an existing order. So, what was swept away? The answer is morality, or, to be more precise, objective moral order according to the natural law. What replaced it? Well, moral anarchy, of course. And with moral anarchy, what else was swept away? The answer is: the institutions of marriage and the family. “Ah!”, you will say, “But the State had nothing to do with the sexual revolution in Britain because this was a youthful movement of swingers and proponents of free love”. To which I can only ask, “Oh. Really?’

Have you ever considered that the sexual revolution would have been impossible had it not been for the mass media and television in particular? Remember that back in the 1960s, the Facebook site that helped lots of young adults to run rampage over London and other cities were just glints in the eyes of their future inventors. There was no internet in those days and without ‘sound and vision’ the sexual revolution would not have taken place. And who brought you the ‘sound and vision’ of the ‘swinging’ 60s and sexual revolution? Why, the BBC of course. What is the BBC an arm of? The State. We know the BBC is an arm of the State because we have to pay a tax to watch it. And do you know what the BBC is for? The BBC is the instrument by which the State’s propaganda is to be disseminated among the population. After all, it was the BBC who brought you The Beatles and it was the BBC who covered the sexual revolution. If the State had thought the goings on all a little ‘risque’ for the British public and had thought that the explosion of sexual energy brought about by the rock and pop bands of the time a danger to modesty then surely this arm of the State would have thought better of encouraging the youth to ‘rebel’.

It is the BBC that was created with a remit to 'inform, educate and entertain'. The BBC was the instrument used by the State to break down the sexual taboos held by the overwhelming majority of British people at the time and what is more the BBC has been used to socially engineer British society and steer it through various cultural revolutions. Through music, comedy, soaps, current affairs, documentaries, films and the vast array of channels open to the broadcaster, the BBC has steered Britain through, as well, the acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, sex outside of marriage and a host of sexually related subjects. Mary Whitehouse, alongside Lord Longford, was constantly berating the BBC to stop breaking down the sexual taboos of the United Kingdom, for which she was, quite naturally, pilloried, ridiculed and mocked by the BBC.  Now, of course, it is preparing the country for gay marriage which will be a veritable media coup d’etat, if you’ll excuse the phrase.

The question is, why would the State want to cause sexual anarchy, abortion, contraception, break down the institutions of the family and marriage and, into the bargain, erode and dismantle the Christian heritage of a country? The answer to that, of course, depends entirely on who is running the State and what the State wants from you. It just so happens that, perhaps naturally, the reason the State wants to smash the institution of the family, for example, is because the State wants you to be its loyal and obedient sons and daughters, not those of your mothers and fathers and most certainly not those of God because the simple truth is that if you are obedient to God then you are much, much more difficult to control.

Why was the Abortion Act introduced? As a tool of societal and in particular, population control. Of course, it is a free country, supposedly, and you can think differently. You can think its because the State recognised 'women's rights'. You can think it is because the State cared for women. But that is just what the State wants you to believe. The fact that loads of people now believe what the State wants people to believe is hardly surprising. It's called propaganda. The Abortion Act would not have made any sense without the sexual revolution that built up to it, because in order to sell to the people the concept of abortion, the State had to get the kids loosing their inhibitions and fornicating more first, so that the State could close down the 'backstreet' abortionist and move the doctors from the backstreet clinics, to the legal abortion clinics. What? You don't actually think the doctors working in backstreet abortion clinics just packed up, shut up shop and went back home unemployed do you? Heaven forbid! Why let such talent go to waste!

Before the 1960s, if a young man made a young woman pregnant, society expected him to marry her. After the 1960s, if a young man made a young woman pregnant, society expected him to tell her to have an abortion, or for her to think of doing so herself. The sexual revolution had to happen in the United Kingdom so that population could be something manageable by the State through artificial contraception and abortion.  If the sexual revolution had not occurred then the institution of marriage would have remained intact and people would have large families like they did in the 'bad old days'. That is called social engineering and that is what the State does best and the drive for 'gay marriage' is just the most recent example.

Monday 20 February 2012


The prison cell of Blessed Titus Brandsma
I am in the process of writing an essay entitled Dystopia for The Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma that may turn into a book. Have a read, let me know of what you think of it so far and most of all, pray for me that I may be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

It concerns such issues as artificial contraception, 'gay marriage' and the huge threat to both the liberty of the Catholic Church and human freedom that is posed by the State's expanding role over human affairs. In the essay I suggest that true Christian sexual morality, as taught by the Catholic Church, is far more subversive to the present political, social and moral order of the United Kingdom, far more subversive to the State, than is any other human ideology or, indeed, any terrorist.

The Catholic Church's religious liberty is the only defense against the power of the State to dictate to every generation of children that they should live according to the teachings not of the Church, but of the State. The essay takes existing social trends and existing competences which the State is taking to itself and projects into the future a Britain which can only be described as a dystopia.

George Orwell
The upcoming battle over 'gay marriage' has not arisen because a large percentage of British people want to see it happen, or even because a large percentage of homosexuals want to be married to persons of the same-sex. It is primarily about the State emasculating and suffocating the Church so that only the teaching of the State can be heard, because forces of darkness working in the United Kingdom and the West want the human person to become the property of the State, from the cradle, indeed, to the grave.

The Church's mission is to save Souls and to bring Souls the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It just so happens that the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, were it to be accepted by the vast majority of the United Kingdom, would bring the plans of a totalitarian State to teach generations of children and then adults that they belong to the State, instead of Almighty God, to a humiliating, grinding and inglorious end.

The Pope Who Won't Be Buried

It has been a long time since I have put finger to keyboard to write about our holy Catholic Faith, something I regret, but which I put larg...