To the BBC, a thousand consolations: even after a dozen years of trying, it has not quite managed to appoint three Party Leaders out of three who went from major public schools to Oxford, two (Cameron and Huhne) to read for the same degree, and two (Blair and Huhne) between exactly the same dates; and who all hold the same views (if any) about everything of any real interest or importance, mysteriously corresponding to the BBC's editorial line, which we are relentlessly told is "the centre ground" no matter how few members of the electorate stand on it.
Even though Kinnock, Hattersley, Prescott, Beckett, Brown or anyone else would have beaten John Major by the time that John Smith died, the BBC still reported Blair as the only person capable of doing so, mercilessly deriding Prescott (as it still does), largely ignoring Beckett, and to this day pretending that the 1997 Election would have been lost by anyone other than the BBC's man, among other lies about the early Blair era.
The BBC's coverage of the Conservative Leadership Election consisted of gushing over David Cameron's half-competent speech to a sympathetic audience as if it had been a rhetorical masterpiece, while playing in a continuous loop a clip of a lady apparently falling asleep while David Davis was speaking. No one ever asks how, when there are only 450 active Conservative Associations, and when half of those admit to having fewer than 100 members each, a quarter of a million people managed to vote in that Leadership Election, with two thirds of them voting for an ultraliberal, policy-free, BBC-endorsed, Old Etonian scion of the baronetage, who believes that cocaine use is an integral part of "a normal university experience".
And then came Chris Huhne, who probably only stood at all on the promise of the BBC endorsement that he did in fact so fulsomely receive. Meanwhile, of all the other new MPs from 2005, no more than three or four are ever invited onto radio or television. Are they members of the Campaign Group or the Cornerstone Group? Did they go to ordinary state schools? Did they go to non-Oxbridge universities, or even to Cambridge? As if!
Oh well, Auntie, better luck next time.
Saturday, 8 April 2006
Slobodan Milosevic
A nasty man with a nasty wife.
That said, why did the neocons (many of them still Democrats -- they switched parties because even Clinton was not sufficiently enthusiastic in pursuing their Balkan agenda) hate him while loving Alija Izetbegovic, who was practically a Wahhibist (indeed, he was honoured and decorated by the House of Saud), and who was an erstwhile recruitment sergeant for the SS, with which the Bosnian Muslims had enthusiastically collaborated? He was one of the very few people to whom the currently modish word "Islamofascist" was properly applicable. Likewise, the neocon (and Clinton) darlings of the Kosovo Liberation Army insisted that their shirts be black, in deference to their fathers' and grandfathers' struggle in their 12,000-strong division of the Waffen SS. Yet aren't many of the neocons Jewish? And wasn't (indeed, isn't) Madeline Albright? It is all very strange.
Yugoslavia was a multinational state not unlike the United Kingdom (oh, that it had retained its monarchy!), except that at least three of the main ethnic groups (Serbs, Croats, and Bosnian Muslims) were, at least by the early 1990s, more difficult to tell apart than are the constituent nations of the UK, and certainly much more so than is the case in, say, Belgium, or Switzerland. But, it seems to me, tiny states obsessed with "ethnic purity" (a concept as ridiculous in the Balkans as in these islands) were more useful to international capital; so Yugoslavia simply had to go.
Milosevic was not concerned with a "Greater Serbia", but with preserving Yugoslavia: it is not clear how much, if any, control he had over Mladic or Karadzic; nor have the wrongdoings of others been given anything like the coverage that they deserve.
Kosovo is now run by the Mafia (with its political connections in the US and in Berlusconi's Italy, of course), while the original order for the (multiethnic) Yugoslav Army to fight the Slovenian and Croatian separatists was given by an ethnic Croat (the then Federal Prime Minister, Ante Markovic), and the expulsion of the Serbs from Croatia was the worst case of "ethnic cleansing" in the whole conflict, which itself derived from German recognition of Croatian and Slovenian UDI. There could have been no such recognition if Britain or France had insisted that there be none, but John Major's price was Britain's exemption from the Maastricht Social Chapter. While I am the first to believe that such things should be enacted by our own Parliament (o else there is no point to the Labour Movement), this does seem rather a high price to pay, or rather, to cause to be paid by other people.
That said, why did the neocons (many of them still Democrats -- they switched parties because even Clinton was not sufficiently enthusiastic in pursuing their Balkan agenda) hate him while loving Alija Izetbegovic, who was practically a Wahhibist (indeed, he was honoured and decorated by the House of Saud), and who was an erstwhile recruitment sergeant for the SS, with which the Bosnian Muslims had enthusiastically collaborated? He was one of the very few people to whom the currently modish word "Islamofascist" was properly applicable. Likewise, the neocon (and Clinton) darlings of the Kosovo Liberation Army insisted that their shirts be black, in deference to their fathers' and grandfathers' struggle in their 12,000-strong division of the Waffen SS. Yet aren't many of the neocons Jewish? And wasn't (indeed, isn't) Madeline Albright? It is all very strange.
Yugoslavia was a multinational state not unlike the United Kingdom (oh, that it had retained its monarchy!), except that at least three of the main ethnic groups (Serbs, Croats, and Bosnian Muslims) were, at least by the early 1990s, more difficult to tell apart than are the constituent nations of the UK, and certainly much more so than is the case in, say, Belgium, or Switzerland. But, it seems to me, tiny states obsessed with "ethnic purity" (a concept as ridiculous in the Balkans as in these islands) were more useful to international capital; so Yugoslavia simply had to go.
Milosevic was not concerned with a "Greater Serbia", but with preserving Yugoslavia: it is not clear how much, if any, control he had over Mladic or Karadzic; nor have the wrongdoings of others been given anything like the coverage that they deserve.
Kosovo is now run by the Mafia (with its political connections in the US and in Berlusconi's Italy, of course), while the original order for the (multiethnic) Yugoslav Army to fight the Slovenian and Croatian separatists was given by an ethnic Croat (the then Federal Prime Minister, Ante Markovic), and the expulsion of the Serbs from Croatia was the worst case of "ethnic cleansing" in the whole conflict, which itself derived from German recognition of Croatian and Slovenian UDI. There could have been no such recognition if Britain or France had insisted that there be none, but John Major's price was Britain's exemption from the Maastricht Social Chapter. While I am the first to believe that such things should be enacted by our own Parliament (o else there is no point to the Labour Movement), this does seem rather a high price to pay, or rather, to cause to be paid by other people.
From Yugoslavia Through Iraq To Iran
With which of the following do you agree, at the very least compared to the other two:
1. "Socialism, in particular, being a progressive and just society, should not allow people to be divided by national or religious identity"?
2. "I would never allow a Serb, Jew or gypsy to marry into my family"?
3. "The first and most important lesson from the Koran is the impossibility of any connection between Islamic and non-Islamic systems"?
The third comes, of course, from the old Nazi recruitment sergeant Alija Izetbegovic, father of the as-yet-unrealised idea that Bosnia-Herzegovina (with no Muslim majority, nor any history of independence: they have both always been part of somewhere else, and I don't mean a federation with each other) should be turned by force of arms into the Taliban Afghanistan of Europe, ably assisted by the same forces that created the Taliban Afghanistan of Afghanistan. The second comes from the Western-backed Croatian President, Franjo Tudjman, who astonishingly recreated the full paraphernalia of 1930s Fascism in Europe in the 1990s: like Izetbegovic, he was never charged with anything; but then, like Izetbegovic, he was never kidnapped in order to stand trial before an illegal court. And the first? Three guesses.
I remember hearing a Serbian Orthodox priest, at the height of the Yugoslav disintegration, say that "not your children, but you" would see the Islamic threat to the West. We thought that he was crazy, or nasty, or both. Well, I for one don't think that any more. The Western-backed Wahhibification of Sunni Islam in Central, South and South East Asia (complete with the adoption of peculiarly Arab cultural practices such as the jilbab) has been so successful that it is now being exported to Africa and Europe.
This is mostly through communities of Arab or South Asian origin, but when it comes to indigenous European Islam (Bosnians, Albanians, the increasingly Saudi-dependent Polish Tartars), no one laid more ground work than the West's, and especially the neocons', beloved Izetbegovic, a living link with Hitler's close and cordial connections to religious leaders in the Islamic world (indeed, Hitler sometimes bemoaned the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna, since Islam would have saved the Teutons from the decadence that he considered had made Nazism necessary instead).
Have we noticed how "cheating justice" has been used in such a way as to define "justice", not even as the due process of law, but simply as a guilty verdict, even when not one shred of evidence has been produced, and indeed even when the indictment itself is laughable (such as, say, accusing a President of waging war against an independent state in one paragraph, and then a few paragraphs down saying that that territory was still part of the President's country at the time)? I still expect that Milosevic simply had a heart attack, but if Saddam Hussein does not live to conviction or acquittal, then questions really will need to be asked, which is why they won't be.
Saddam Hussein is another nasty man, like Milosevic (in fact, Saddam is much worse). But Iraq, like Yugolavia, is much more useful to commercial interests in the dismembered state that only his removal could have brought about. And the same is true of Iran, only about half of whose population is ethnically Persian, with much of the oil in the Arab South West, with Kurds in the North West, with half of the Baluchis in the East (the other half being across the border in Pakistan, with longstanding secessionist tendencies), with so many Turkemen that Tehran is actually the second-largest Turkish-speaking city on earth (even though it is a minority language there), with more Azeris than in Azerbijan, with a sizeable and very ancient community of Jews, and so on.
A multinational state such as the United Kingdom should be insisting on the preservation of Iran (which the looming war would undoubtedly destroy), as it should have insisted on the preservation of Iraq and Yugoslavia. And an America true to her own best ideals would take, and would have taken, the same view.
1. "Socialism, in particular, being a progressive and just society, should not allow people to be divided by national or religious identity"?
2. "I would never allow a Serb, Jew or gypsy to marry into my family"?
3. "The first and most important lesson from the Koran is the impossibility of any connection between Islamic and non-Islamic systems"?
The third comes, of course, from the old Nazi recruitment sergeant Alija Izetbegovic, father of the as-yet-unrealised idea that Bosnia-Herzegovina (with no Muslim majority, nor any history of independence: they have both always been part of somewhere else, and I don't mean a federation with each other) should be turned by force of arms into the Taliban Afghanistan of Europe, ably assisted by the same forces that created the Taliban Afghanistan of Afghanistan. The second comes from the Western-backed Croatian President, Franjo Tudjman, who astonishingly recreated the full paraphernalia of 1930s Fascism in Europe in the 1990s: like Izetbegovic, he was never charged with anything; but then, like Izetbegovic, he was never kidnapped in order to stand trial before an illegal court. And the first? Three guesses.
I remember hearing a Serbian Orthodox priest, at the height of the Yugoslav disintegration, say that "not your children, but you" would see the Islamic threat to the West. We thought that he was crazy, or nasty, or both. Well, I for one don't think that any more. The Western-backed Wahhibification of Sunni Islam in Central, South and South East Asia (complete with the adoption of peculiarly Arab cultural practices such as the jilbab) has been so successful that it is now being exported to Africa and Europe.
This is mostly through communities of Arab or South Asian origin, but when it comes to indigenous European Islam (Bosnians, Albanians, the increasingly Saudi-dependent Polish Tartars), no one laid more ground work than the West's, and especially the neocons', beloved Izetbegovic, a living link with Hitler's close and cordial connections to religious leaders in the Islamic world (indeed, Hitler sometimes bemoaned the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna, since Islam would have saved the Teutons from the decadence that he considered had made Nazism necessary instead).
Have we noticed how "cheating justice" has been used in such a way as to define "justice", not even as the due process of law, but simply as a guilty verdict, even when not one shred of evidence has been produced, and indeed even when the indictment itself is laughable (such as, say, accusing a President of waging war against an independent state in one paragraph, and then a few paragraphs down saying that that territory was still part of the President's country at the time)? I still expect that Milosevic simply had a heart attack, but if Saddam Hussein does not live to conviction or acquittal, then questions really will need to be asked, which is why they won't be.
Saddam Hussein is another nasty man, like Milosevic (in fact, Saddam is much worse). But Iraq, like Yugolavia, is much more useful to commercial interests in the dismembered state that only his removal could have brought about. And the same is true of Iran, only about half of whose population is ethnically Persian, with much of the oil in the Arab South West, with Kurds in the North West, with half of the Baluchis in the East (the other half being across the border in Pakistan, with longstanding secessionist tendencies), with so many Turkemen that Tehran is actually the second-largest Turkish-speaking city on earth (even though it is a minority language there), with more Azeris than in Azerbijan, with a sizeable and very ancient community of Jews, and so on.
A multinational state such as the United Kingdom should be insisting on the preservation of Iran (which the looming war would undoubtedly destroy), as it should have insisted on the preservation of Iraq and Yugoslavia. And an America true to her own best ideals would take, and would have taken, the same view.
John Paul the Great v Alfred C Kinsey
Certain people might consider applying some journalistic or scientific objectivity to the question of where in Africa the condom use relentlessly promoted by Western NGOs and compliant governments has ever arrested, never mind reversed, the rate of HIV infection. There is nowhere.
However, such a reversal is under way in Uganda, where the government's message is the same as the Catholic Church's: "Change Your Behaviour". Huge numbers of condoms have been distributed in Botswana, and the result has been for President Festus Mogae to declare, "Abstain or die". Who, exactly, is incapable of fidelity within a monogomous marriage and abstinence outside such a marriage? Women? Black people? Poor people? Developing-world people? Or just poor black women in the developing world?
And after those questions, certain people might examine the very high reliability of Natural Family Planning, as admitted even by the World Health Organisation (hardly a Vatican puppet, to say the very least). Who is incapable of the requisite discipline? See above? Or is it just that all women must poison themselves in order to be available constantly for the sexual gratification of men, much as people in emerging holiday resorts must carry condoms in order to be so available to Western sex tourists and, in point of fact, their diseases?
Why is it only ever the people who hardly consume anything who are told that there are too many of them, be they the people of the developing world abroad, or the working classes and the altogether excluded at home? And what are the implications of believing that the unborn child is both a part of a woman's body (of her very reproductive system, in fact), and at the same time insentient? They seem terrifying even here, never mind where female genital mutilation is endemic.
If anyone really wants to expose scientific fraud on an enormous and world-changing scale, then you should write something about Alfred C Kinsey. Sexual psychopaths, among whom Kinsey was pre-eminent, avowedly set up the sexology industry in order to supplant the Judaeo-Christian sexual ethic. They fabricated research, and relied heavily on current and former prostitutes, and on convicts.
Thence the oft-quoted figure of ten per cent as the number of men who have had a homosexual experience, usually exaggerated further into the notion that one tenth of the population is homosexual. On the same figures, one man in twelve has committed bestiality. Is one twelfth of the population zoosexual, or zoophile, or whatever the word is? And even if they are, then so what?
Kinsey held that children in the earliest stages of infancy could experience orgasm. How, exactly, was such "research" conducted? He taught child sexual abuse techniques to the Gestapo. He filmed himself raping his wife and the wives of his staff. He circumcised himself without anaesthesia, and hung himself by the testicles from a pole. He was a devotee of the Satanist Aleister Crowley, acting out Crowley's teaching that pederasty was a laudable form of human sacrifice. Kinsey and his followers were largely funded by the pornography racket and other organised vice.
In the early 1970s, the extensive network of pederasts' bars and nightclubs in the cities of coastal America produced the homosexualist political movement, known as "gay" and later as "lesbian", which has set itself up as the only acceptable expression of homosexual identity. That was several years after, for example, this country's decriminalisation of male homosexual acts between consenting adults in private; but one would never guess this, to listen to the homosexualists.
Kinsey and his followers had created an intellectual climate conducive to the likes of those who frequented The Stonewall Inn and who founded the North American Man/Boy Lovers' Association (NAMBLA). Just as the entirety of sexology goes back to Kinsey, so the entirety of homosexualism goes back to the buggery of boys as young as eight, if not younger.
Thus, here in Britain, homosexualism has organised around demands for apparently endless reductions in the age of consent, as well as around equally Kinseyian calls for the legal, social and cultural legitimisation of sadomasochism, "transgender" activities, substance abuse, every degree of promiscuity consistent with physical possibility, hardcore pornography, and sex in public places.
Particularly in North America, but therefore with considerable consequences elsewhere, the Catholic Church of the late 1960s and early 1970s lost confidence. This resulted from the misappropriation of Vatican II's name by pre-existing secularising tendencies in the Western world, rather than from anything in the Conciliar documents themselves, the definitive interpreters and implementers of which are in fact the late and current Popes.
This loss of confidence made the American Catholic Church, which might have held the line against Kinsey and then against Stonewall and NAMBLA, susceptible to those twin forces of evil. So the views and methods of Kinsey and his disciples were incorporated into the training of priests and into the selection of candidates. At the time, the advocates of sex between adult men and adolescent boys were the most vocal of the lobbies looking to Kinsey, and so they had the most influence over that training and selection.
We all now what happened next, although it is worth pointing out that the acts which have brought such shame on the Church have hardly ever involved pre-pubescent children, or indeed girls of any age. Rather, they are acts between men and teenage boys, which anti-Catholic media, academic and political types have been seeking for decades to make legally, socially and culturally acceptable, applying no social disapproval to those (such as Jonthan King) who engage in them, any more than, for example, to those who use cocaine. Such types' hypocrisy over the scandals in the Catholic Church has been, and remains, sickening.
Nor may one overlook the fact that these scandals have been presented in a manner agreeable to calls for the large-scale ordination of married men, for the "ordination" of women, and for the purported incorporation of homosexual genital activity into sacramental marriage.
But married men sometimes abuse children. So do women, probably in vast numbers given their far easier access to children even in the nude; like, for example, domestic violence against men, those who control this field ideologically refuse to conduct the necessary research, because it does not fit their presupposed agenda of excluding (heterosexual) men from the socialisation of children. And the priests who had sex with teenage boys were not "repressed", but the very reverse.
Especially in America, the Priesthood has been packed with such unrepressed, so that their inevitable exposure could be used, in due season, to demand "reforms" which would not improve the situation at all. And such has now come to pass. It is inconceivable that the priestesses lobby, in particular, was not fully complicit in this, since for decades it has effectively controlled access to ordination in many American dioceses, while its influence is also still growing in Britain and elsewhere.
So there you are. Practically the only views any longer permitted to be expressed about sex are based on fraudulent research and extreme criminality carried out by a clique of sexual psychopaths. Unsurprisingly, adherence to a model designed by and for sexual psychopaths has resulted in a massive increase in sexual psychopathology. Yet that is the only model for the training of anyone who needs a certain number of credits in "sex education" in order to qualify as anything.
Given this enormous amount of medical malpractice, consumer fraud and other offences, class actions need to be filed against the Keepers of the Kinsey Flame: Johns Hopkins University, the Kinsey Institute at the University of Indiana, the San Francisco-based Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, AASECT (American Association of Sex Educators, Counsellors and Therapists), SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States) the SSS (Society for the Scientific Study of Sex), Planned Parenthood, the ever-generous Rockefeller Foundation, and numerous subordinates around the world. Just for starters. Those interested should contact Dr Judith Reisman (who describes her own perspective as "non-religious"): jareisman@surewest.net
And please can we do something about the idea of women "controlling their fertility"? Neither women nor men are fertile without each other; so neither, in themselves, has any fertility to control: fertility is a joint enterprise, and its fruits are a joint responsibility, as both men and women need to re-learn.
However, such a reversal is under way in Uganda, where the government's message is the same as the Catholic Church's: "Change Your Behaviour". Huge numbers of condoms have been distributed in Botswana, and the result has been for President Festus Mogae to declare, "Abstain or die". Who, exactly, is incapable of fidelity within a monogomous marriage and abstinence outside such a marriage? Women? Black people? Poor people? Developing-world people? Or just poor black women in the developing world?
And after those questions, certain people might examine the very high reliability of Natural Family Planning, as admitted even by the World Health Organisation (hardly a Vatican puppet, to say the very least). Who is incapable of the requisite discipline? See above? Or is it just that all women must poison themselves in order to be available constantly for the sexual gratification of men, much as people in emerging holiday resorts must carry condoms in order to be so available to Western sex tourists and, in point of fact, their diseases?
Why is it only ever the people who hardly consume anything who are told that there are too many of them, be they the people of the developing world abroad, or the working classes and the altogether excluded at home? And what are the implications of believing that the unborn child is both a part of a woman's body (of her very reproductive system, in fact), and at the same time insentient? They seem terrifying even here, never mind where female genital mutilation is endemic.
If anyone really wants to expose scientific fraud on an enormous and world-changing scale, then you should write something about Alfred C Kinsey. Sexual psychopaths, among whom Kinsey was pre-eminent, avowedly set up the sexology industry in order to supplant the Judaeo-Christian sexual ethic. They fabricated research, and relied heavily on current and former prostitutes, and on convicts.
Thence the oft-quoted figure of ten per cent as the number of men who have had a homosexual experience, usually exaggerated further into the notion that one tenth of the population is homosexual. On the same figures, one man in twelve has committed bestiality. Is one twelfth of the population zoosexual, or zoophile, or whatever the word is? And even if they are, then so what?
Kinsey held that children in the earliest stages of infancy could experience orgasm. How, exactly, was such "research" conducted? He taught child sexual abuse techniques to the Gestapo. He filmed himself raping his wife and the wives of his staff. He circumcised himself without anaesthesia, and hung himself by the testicles from a pole. He was a devotee of the Satanist Aleister Crowley, acting out Crowley's teaching that pederasty was a laudable form of human sacrifice. Kinsey and his followers were largely funded by the pornography racket and other organised vice.
In the early 1970s, the extensive network of pederasts' bars and nightclubs in the cities of coastal America produced the homosexualist political movement, known as "gay" and later as "lesbian", which has set itself up as the only acceptable expression of homosexual identity. That was several years after, for example, this country's decriminalisation of male homosexual acts between consenting adults in private; but one would never guess this, to listen to the homosexualists.
Kinsey and his followers had created an intellectual climate conducive to the likes of those who frequented The Stonewall Inn and who founded the North American Man/Boy Lovers' Association (NAMBLA). Just as the entirety of sexology goes back to Kinsey, so the entirety of homosexualism goes back to the buggery of boys as young as eight, if not younger.
Thus, here in Britain, homosexualism has organised around demands for apparently endless reductions in the age of consent, as well as around equally Kinseyian calls for the legal, social and cultural legitimisation of sadomasochism, "transgender" activities, substance abuse, every degree of promiscuity consistent with physical possibility, hardcore pornography, and sex in public places.
Particularly in North America, but therefore with considerable consequences elsewhere, the Catholic Church of the late 1960s and early 1970s lost confidence. This resulted from the misappropriation of Vatican II's name by pre-existing secularising tendencies in the Western world, rather than from anything in the Conciliar documents themselves, the definitive interpreters and implementers of which are in fact the late and current Popes.
This loss of confidence made the American Catholic Church, which might have held the line against Kinsey and then against Stonewall and NAMBLA, susceptible to those twin forces of evil. So the views and methods of Kinsey and his disciples were incorporated into the training of priests and into the selection of candidates. At the time, the advocates of sex between adult men and adolescent boys were the most vocal of the lobbies looking to Kinsey, and so they had the most influence over that training and selection.
We all now what happened next, although it is worth pointing out that the acts which have brought such shame on the Church have hardly ever involved pre-pubescent children, or indeed girls of any age. Rather, they are acts between men and teenage boys, which anti-Catholic media, academic and political types have been seeking for decades to make legally, socially and culturally acceptable, applying no social disapproval to those (such as Jonthan King) who engage in them, any more than, for example, to those who use cocaine. Such types' hypocrisy over the scandals in the Catholic Church has been, and remains, sickening.
Nor may one overlook the fact that these scandals have been presented in a manner agreeable to calls for the large-scale ordination of married men, for the "ordination" of women, and for the purported incorporation of homosexual genital activity into sacramental marriage.
But married men sometimes abuse children. So do women, probably in vast numbers given their far easier access to children even in the nude; like, for example, domestic violence against men, those who control this field ideologically refuse to conduct the necessary research, because it does not fit their presupposed agenda of excluding (heterosexual) men from the socialisation of children. And the priests who had sex with teenage boys were not "repressed", but the very reverse.
Especially in America, the Priesthood has been packed with such unrepressed, so that their inevitable exposure could be used, in due season, to demand "reforms" which would not improve the situation at all. And such has now come to pass. It is inconceivable that the priestesses lobby, in particular, was not fully complicit in this, since for decades it has effectively controlled access to ordination in many American dioceses, while its influence is also still growing in Britain and elsewhere.
So there you are. Practically the only views any longer permitted to be expressed about sex are based on fraudulent research and extreme criminality carried out by a clique of sexual psychopaths. Unsurprisingly, adherence to a model designed by and for sexual psychopaths has resulted in a massive increase in sexual psychopathology. Yet that is the only model for the training of anyone who needs a certain number of credits in "sex education" in order to qualify as anything.
Given this enormous amount of medical malpractice, consumer fraud and other offences, class actions need to be filed against the Keepers of the Kinsey Flame: Johns Hopkins University, the Kinsey Institute at the University of Indiana, the San Francisco-based Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, AASECT (American Association of Sex Educators, Counsellors and Therapists), SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States) the SSS (Society for the Scientific Study of Sex), Planned Parenthood, the ever-generous Rockefeller Foundation, and numerous subordinates around the world. Just for starters. Those interested should contact Dr Judith Reisman (who describes her own perspective as "non-religious"): jareisman@surewest.net
And please can we do something about the idea of women "controlling their fertility"? Neither women nor men are fertile without each other; so neither, in themselves, has any fertility to control: fertility is a joint enterprise, and its fruits are a joint responsibility, as both men and women need to re-learn.
Pius XII: Hitler's Pope
As someone once said, "Tell a lie big enough..." In fact, Pius XII was first ever called "Hitler's Pope" by none other than John Cornwell, in his 1999 book of that name, a thinly disguised liberal rant against John Paul II with the 'thesis' that the future Pius XII, while a diplomat in Germany, could have rallied Catholic opposition and toppled Hitler. Pure fantasy, like the origin of the whole "Pope supported Hitler" craze: the 1963 play The Deputy by Rolf Hochhuth, who was later successfully prosecuted for suggesting that Churchill had arranged the 1944 air crash that killed General Sikorsky.
Pius XII directly or indirectly saved between 8500 and 9600 Jews in Rome; 40,000 throughout Italy; 15,000 in the Netherlands; 65,000 in Belgium; 200,000 in France; 200,000 in Hungary; and 250,000 in Romania. This list is not exhaustive, and the Dutch figure would have been much higher had not the Dutch Bishops antagonised the Nazis by issuing the sort of public denunciation that Pius is castigated for failing to have issued.
After the War, Pius was godfather when the Chief Rabbi of Rome became a Catholic, and was declared a Righteous Gentile by the State of Isreal, whose future Prime Minister (Moshe Sharrett) told him that it was his "duty to thank you, and through you the Catholic Church, for all they had done for the Jews." When Pius died in 1958, tributes to him from Jewish organisations had to be printed over three days by the New York Times, and even then limited to the names of individuals and their organisations.
All of this is contained in works of serious scholarship by Margherita Marchione, Ralph McInerny, Ronald J Rychlak, and others, most recently the superlative abbi Professor David G Dalin.
Pius XII directly or indirectly saved between 8500 and 9600 Jews in Rome; 40,000 throughout Italy; 15,000 in the Netherlands; 65,000 in Belgium; 200,000 in France; 200,000 in Hungary; and 250,000 in Romania. This list is not exhaustive, and the Dutch figure would have been much higher had not the Dutch Bishops antagonised the Nazis by issuing the sort of public denunciation that Pius is castigated for failing to have issued.
After the War, Pius was godfather when the Chief Rabbi of Rome became a Catholic, and was declared a Righteous Gentile by the State of Isreal, whose future Prime Minister (Moshe Sharrett) told him that it was his "duty to thank you, and through you the Catholic Church, for all they had done for the Jews." When Pius died in 1958, tributes to him from Jewish organisations had to be printed over three days by the New York Times, and even then limited to the names of individuals and their organisations.
All of this is contained in works of serious scholarship by Margherita Marchione, Ralph McInerny, Ronald J Rychlak, and others, most recently the superlative abbi Professor David G Dalin.
Pullman, Parasitism and Pederasty
Of course Philip Pullman hates the Narnia novels: that is what he is for. The 'His Dark Materials' trilogy was written because certain parents could not stand their children's love of Narnia. The Christianity in Narnia is subtle (some people manage to miss it entirely, like most readers of Tolkien), whereas the anti-Christianity, and especially the anti-Catholicism, in Pullman's work is painfully and tediously obvious and obsessive. Like, say, Dan Brown, Pullman is wholly parasitic in relation to Christianity, and presupposes a very high degree of familiarity with it, far beyond what often exists in fact.
Pullman's trilogy concludes with sexual intercourse between two children of about 12. Is it back to this that future generations are to look nostalgically when recalling the formative books of childhood? Indeed, are Pullman's pubescent readers today to emulate this behaviour? Since asking this question in an letter to 'The Observer' some months ago, I have repeatedly been told (as if I did not already know it), "Will and Lyra touch each other's 'daemons' as a mark of love." Well, is that what they are calling it these days?
Pullman's 'daemons' physicalise processes that are primarily emotional. This extends to many other interactions in Pullman's world (persuasion, seduction, lying, betrayal, befriending), and it is very clever and effective, in that it allows extended expression of the psychological and emotional by means of physical vocabulary. However, precisely because this makes it far easier for younger readers who may not have the capacity or inclination to follow more sophisticated and difficult expressions of persons' 'inner lives', what of those younger readers (or, soon, viewers) who have no 'daemons' with which to physicalise the primarly emotional process of being in love? What are they supposed to do in response to this literature?
We know the answer to that one, since Pullman himself has repeatedly denounced the absence of sexual content in the Narnia novels: sexualisation is even higher on his agenda than is secularisation, of which his obsession with Christianity is in any case a standing contradiction.
So, who will join the campaign to demand that the impending film adaptation be given an 18 certificate (in the United States, the trilogy itself is only marketed to adults)? After all, 'The Passion of the Christ' was given one. Or have I missed something?
Pullman's trilogy concludes with sexual intercourse between two children of about 12. Is it back to this that future generations are to look nostalgically when recalling the formative books of childhood? Indeed, are Pullman's pubescent readers today to emulate this behaviour? Since asking this question in an letter to 'The Observer' some months ago, I have repeatedly been told (as if I did not already know it), "Will and Lyra touch each other's 'daemons' as a mark of love." Well, is that what they are calling it these days?
Pullman's 'daemons' physicalise processes that are primarily emotional. This extends to many other interactions in Pullman's world (persuasion, seduction, lying, betrayal, befriending), and it is very clever and effective, in that it allows extended expression of the psychological and emotional by means of physical vocabulary. However, precisely because this makes it far easier for younger readers who may not have the capacity or inclination to follow more sophisticated and difficult expressions of persons' 'inner lives', what of those younger readers (or, soon, viewers) who have no 'daemons' with which to physicalise the primarly emotional process of being in love? What are they supposed to do in response to this literature?
We know the answer to that one, since Pullman himself has repeatedly denounced the absence of sexual content in the Narnia novels: sexualisation is even higher on his agenda than is secularisation, of which his obsession with Christianity is in any case a standing contradiction.
So, who will join the campaign to demand that the impending film adaptation be given an 18 certificate (in the United States, the trilogy itself is only marketed to adults)? After all, 'The Passion of the Christ' was given one. Or have I missed something?
Northern Ireland: The Catholic, Labour and All-Ireland Case for The Union
A Papal Blessing was sent to William III when he set out for Ireland. The Lateran Palace was illuminated for a fortnight when news of the Battle of the Boyne reached Rome. Prominent Belfast Catholic laymen chaired rallies against Home Rule, with prominent Catholic priests on the platforms. There were numerous Catholic pulpit denunciations of Fenianism, which is unlike any of the three principal British political traditions in being a product of the French Revolution. Hence its tricolour flag; and hence and its strong anti-clerical streak, always identifying Catholicism as one of Ireland's two biggest problems.
Jean Buridan's theory of princely absolutism, held by the Stuarts and their anti-Papal Bourbon cousins, was incompatible with the building up of the Social Reign of Christ, subsequently the inspiration for all three great British political movements. Likewise, ethnically exclusive nation-states deriving uncritically from the Revolution do not provide adequate means to that end.
By contrast, the absence of any significant Marxist influence in this country has been due to the universal and comprehensive Welfare State, and the strong statutory (and other, including trade union) protection of workers and consumers, the former paid for by progressive taxation, and all underwritten by full employment: very largely the fruits of Catholic Social Teaching, especially via Diaspora Irish participation in the Labour Movement here as in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Such fruits have been of disproportionate benefit to ethnically Gaelic-Irish Catholics throughout the United Kingdom; even in the 1940s, Sinn Féin worried that they were eroding its support. She who led the assault on these things remains a Unionist hate figure, since the Anglo-Irish Agreement is an integral part of any Thatcherism honestly defined, like the Single European Act, the ERM, and the decadent social libertinism inseparable from decadent economic libertinism.
Only an industrial or post-industrial economy, not one built on the sands of EU farm subsidies and film-making, can make provision such as existed before Thatcher. A "United Ireland" (such as has never existed outside the United Kingdom) would exclude therefrom people who would otherwise participate in it. The Labour Whip ought not to extend to advocates of such exclusion, i.e., to the SDLP.
Labour's disgraceful refusal to organise in part of the United Kingdom sacrifices several naturally safe Labour seats. Northern Ireland has both a large bourgeoisie and a large proletariat, like the rest of the United Kingdom, but unlike the Irish Republic. Gaelic-Irish Catholics are to be found in large numbers in Northern Ireland's middle and working classes alike. Within the Labour Party or its electorate, these, like their Protestant neighbours, would be welcome participants.
Many bourgeois and proletarians in Great Britain are ethnically Gaelic-Irish, devoutly Catholic, or both. Middle-class expansion since the Second World War, like the civilised intellectual and cultural life of the pre-Thatcher working class, was in no small measure due to the Catholic schools. The only way to maintain the Catholic school system in Northern Ireland is to keep Northern Ireland within the Union.
For each of this Kingdom's parts contains a Catholic intelligentsia, whereas the Irish Republic’s is the most tribally anti-Catholic in the world. There are precious few Mass-going, and no ideologically Catholic, politicians, journalists, radio or television producers, or other public intellectuals there. Rather, the memories of Samuel Beckett and James Joyce are venerated. Anyone who objects to even the most extreme decadence is accused of wishing to "return" to "the bad, old, repressive Ireland". The Republic’s Catholic schools, among much else, are doomed.
Furthermore, there is no desire, either for the much higher taxes necessary to maintain British levels of public spending in "the Six Counties", or for the incorporation of a large minority into a country which has developed on the presupposition of a near-monoculture.
So the Catholic case is for the Union. Look at the UUP and DUP votes in largely or entirely Catholic wards. Even Ian Paisley's huge personal vote at successive elections could not happen without considerable Catholic support. With no corresponding Nationalist vote in Protestant wards, the Union, simply as such, is manifestly the majority will of both communities. As for Paisley's theological opinions, the definitive Catholic answers to them have been available for centuries.
The Labour case is also for the Union, which enables more people than would otherwise be able to do so to benefit from the building up of social democracy. The dismantlement of this by an enemy of the Union was mostly opposed by the old High Tory oligarchs of the UUP, now extricating itself from its links to the Orange Order, of which Ian Paisley is not a member; that dismantlement was consistently resisted by the DUP, with its "Old Labour" electoral base.
And the all-Ireland case is for the Union. As is appreciated in the Irish Republic, what is now Northern Ireland has been profoundly different from the rest of the island, but very like Great Britain, since long before any prospect of partition; that was precisely what necessitated partition. The Irish Republic does not want, and could not sustain, the incorporation of Northern Ireland.
In any case, there is no reason to assume that those who believe the IRA Army Council to be the sovereign body throughout the thirty-two county Republic proclaimed at Easter 1916 (a proclamation howled down by passers by on the streets of Catholic Dublin, "the most British city in the Empire"; and which referred to "gallant allies" in the form of the Kaiser's Germany, which had actually armed the Ulster Volunteer Force!) would rest until they had given effect to that view by to creating an all-Ireland fascist state. Indeed, there have long been rumours (ever since the time, in fact) of Irish refuelling of the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, while the then strongly Republican Dublin Government certainly sent a message of condolence to Germany on the death of Hitler.
It is also worth noting that, at the height of the Provisional IRA's bombing campaign in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s, it was actually being funded by the CIA, beacuse it also carried out attacks against the Marxist wing that, by turning to constitutional politics, had led to the creation of the Provisional movement. So much for any "special relationship" between Britain and America generally, and between Thatcher and Reagan in particular!
Bloody Sunday could not have happened in (at that time) totally integrated Plymouth, Aberdeen or Swansea, because anything like it in an English, Scottish or Welsh city would have brought down the government of the day. Furthermore, the grievances giving rise to the Civil Rights Movement in the first place, and on which the IRA revival from the 1970s onwards subsequently depended, would never have arisen under total integration.
Th Civil Rights Movement was explicitly for equal British citizenship, not for a "United Ireland". And it was classically British Labour in identifying education, health care, decent homes and proper wages as the rights of citizens, who are demeaned precisely as citizens when they are denied those rights. Indeed, it was a Labour Government that suspended Stormont and sent in the British Army precisely in order to protect the Civil Rights campaigners and their supporters.
The people of England are now being denied equal citizenship by being excluded from the social democracies being created, at the whole Kingdom's expense, in Scotland and Wales. One to watch, I fear; and a sign that devolution, the appeasement of "blood and soil" retrospection and nostalgia, is always the Labour Movement's enemy. For example, the National Health Service must be precisely that.
It is total integration that would ultimately be in the interests of all. And that includes the Catholic, naturally Labour-supporting Unionists of Northern Ireland.
Jean Buridan's theory of princely absolutism, held by the Stuarts and their anti-Papal Bourbon cousins, was incompatible with the building up of the Social Reign of Christ, subsequently the inspiration for all three great British political movements. Likewise, ethnically exclusive nation-states deriving uncritically from the Revolution do not provide adequate means to that end.
By contrast, the absence of any significant Marxist influence in this country has been due to the universal and comprehensive Welfare State, and the strong statutory (and other, including trade union) protection of workers and consumers, the former paid for by progressive taxation, and all underwritten by full employment: very largely the fruits of Catholic Social Teaching, especially via Diaspora Irish participation in the Labour Movement here as in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Such fruits have been of disproportionate benefit to ethnically Gaelic-Irish Catholics throughout the United Kingdom; even in the 1940s, Sinn Féin worried that they were eroding its support. She who led the assault on these things remains a Unionist hate figure, since the Anglo-Irish Agreement is an integral part of any Thatcherism honestly defined, like the Single European Act, the ERM, and the decadent social libertinism inseparable from decadent economic libertinism.
Only an industrial or post-industrial economy, not one built on the sands of EU farm subsidies and film-making, can make provision such as existed before Thatcher. A "United Ireland" (such as has never existed outside the United Kingdom) would exclude therefrom people who would otherwise participate in it. The Labour Whip ought not to extend to advocates of such exclusion, i.e., to the SDLP.
Labour's disgraceful refusal to organise in part of the United Kingdom sacrifices several naturally safe Labour seats. Northern Ireland has both a large bourgeoisie and a large proletariat, like the rest of the United Kingdom, but unlike the Irish Republic. Gaelic-Irish Catholics are to be found in large numbers in Northern Ireland's middle and working classes alike. Within the Labour Party or its electorate, these, like their Protestant neighbours, would be welcome participants.
Many bourgeois and proletarians in Great Britain are ethnically Gaelic-Irish, devoutly Catholic, or both. Middle-class expansion since the Second World War, like the civilised intellectual and cultural life of the pre-Thatcher working class, was in no small measure due to the Catholic schools. The only way to maintain the Catholic school system in Northern Ireland is to keep Northern Ireland within the Union.
For each of this Kingdom's parts contains a Catholic intelligentsia, whereas the Irish Republic’s is the most tribally anti-Catholic in the world. There are precious few Mass-going, and no ideologically Catholic, politicians, journalists, radio or television producers, or other public intellectuals there. Rather, the memories of Samuel Beckett and James Joyce are venerated. Anyone who objects to even the most extreme decadence is accused of wishing to "return" to "the bad, old, repressive Ireland". The Republic’s Catholic schools, among much else, are doomed.
Furthermore, there is no desire, either for the much higher taxes necessary to maintain British levels of public spending in "the Six Counties", or for the incorporation of a large minority into a country which has developed on the presupposition of a near-monoculture.
So the Catholic case is for the Union. Look at the UUP and DUP votes in largely or entirely Catholic wards. Even Ian Paisley's huge personal vote at successive elections could not happen without considerable Catholic support. With no corresponding Nationalist vote in Protestant wards, the Union, simply as such, is manifestly the majority will of both communities. As for Paisley's theological opinions, the definitive Catholic answers to them have been available for centuries.
The Labour case is also for the Union, which enables more people than would otherwise be able to do so to benefit from the building up of social democracy. The dismantlement of this by an enemy of the Union was mostly opposed by the old High Tory oligarchs of the UUP, now extricating itself from its links to the Orange Order, of which Ian Paisley is not a member; that dismantlement was consistently resisted by the DUP, with its "Old Labour" electoral base.
And the all-Ireland case is for the Union. As is appreciated in the Irish Republic, what is now Northern Ireland has been profoundly different from the rest of the island, but very like Great Britain, since long before any prospect of partition; that was precisely what necessitated partition. The Irish Republic does not want, and could not sustain, the incorporation of Northern Ireland.
In any case, there is no reason to assume that those who believe the IRA Army Council to be the sovereign body throughout the thirty-two county Republic proclaimed at Easter 1916 (a proclamation howled down by passers by on the streets of Catholic Dublin, "the most British city in the Empire"; and which referred to "gallant allies" in the form of the Kaiser's Germany, which had actually armed the Ulster Volunteer Force!) would rest until they had given effect to that view by to creating an all-Ireland fascist state. Indeed, there have long been rumours (ever since the time, in fact) of Irish refuelling of the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, while the then strongly Republican Dublin Government certainly sent a message of condolence to Germany on the death of Hitler.
It is also worth noting that, at the height of the Provisional IRA's bombing campaign in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s, it was actually being funded by the CIA, beacuse it also carried out attacks against the Marxist wing that, by turning to constitutional politics, had led to the creation of the Provisional movement. So much for any "special relationship" between Britain and America generally, and between Thatcher and Reagan in particular!
Bloody Sunday could not have happened in (at that time) totally integrated Plymouth, Aberdeen or Swansea, because anything like it in an English, Scottish or Welsh city would have brought down the government of the day. Furthermore, the grievances giving rise to the Civil Rights Movement in the first place, and on which the IRA revival from the 1970s onwards subsequently depended, would never have arisen under total integration.
Th Civil Rights Movement was explicitly for equal British citizenship, not for a "United Ireland". And it was classically British Labour in identifying education, health care, decent homes and proper wages as the rights of citizens, who are demeaned precisely as citizens when they are denied those rights. Indeed, it was a Labour Government that suspended Stormont and sent in the British Army precisely in order to protect the Civil Rights campaigners and their supporters.
The people of England are now being denied equal citizenship by being excluded from the social democracies being created, at the whole Kingdom's expense, in Scotland and Wales. One to watch, I fear; and a sign that devolution, the appeasement of "blood and soil" retrospection and nostalgia, is always the Labour Movement's enemy. For example, the National Health Service must be precisely that.
It is total integration that would ultimately be in the interests of all. And that includes the Catholic, naturally Labour-supporting Unionists of Northern Ireland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
