Chapter V

 

                                                      Sexuality and Gender

 

                 This subject is probably the most important for the liberal fascists in their attempts to socially re-engineer society in their own Image. According to the bible humanity is made in God’s Image, so according to the ‘liberal interpretation’ of the Christian Left, the Almighty is sexually dysfunctional as well, as according to this thinking all of humanity, with all its faults comes from God, therefore all variations on a heterosexual main theme are natural and should be seen as such. I will qualify this statement but with one or two important exceptions.

              However, most of the Left are atheists and simply do not accept the existence of God. God however was never asked his opinion by the Left in this matter, because the Left as usual does not bother to consult anybody but themselves and their own warped world view. I will explain this blasphemy in the next chapter. It is another of the Left’s failure to understand the true import of the things they say. It is here that they are weakest as Roger Scruton made clear.

             Now as a genuine broad minded practising liberal Christian, I take great exception to the idea that my Creator is a sexual at all. Let us look to philosophy. The standard proof for God’s existence is, ‘If God exists, then he must be greater than anything that can be conceived. If He was not greater than anything that can be conceived He would not be God. However, since He is greater than anything that can be conceived, He exists, otherwise He would not be God.’ God is therefore perfect.

              I love and respect God and one hopes He is not too offended with my less than deferential usage of terminology above but I need to demonstrate yet again the fallacy of the Left’s thinking. If God were in sexual dysfunctionality, he would be like us and therefore fallible and not greater than anything that can be conceived. He would therefore not be God Almighty. Therefore God would not exist.

               We are made in God’s Image but I think one can explain it as follows. If one took a photograph of a perfect human being, the image would remain one of a perfect portrait. This I believe is the reality behind our existence. This perfect state of being is the ultimate goal of all humans, Christian and otherwise. The photograph is a spiritual blueprint of what we should aspire to. The blueprint reveals no imperfections, no blemishes; no faults whatsoever. Nevertheless in our physical form we are less than the original blueprint because by being carnal and human we are subject to all the storms and vicissitudes of life which must be overcome for us to develop as fully functioning beings. And our existence is a continual state of human being. We must overcome our weaknesses and faults in order to reach that spiritual perfection that God intended. That is why we have free will; the ability to do right or wrong. It is our decision alone, not God’s, not the far Left; ours!

               Therefore anything that promotes a philosophy that contradicts this is wrong as it prevents us from achieving our ultimate goal of returning to God. This one might say is the closest one can arrive to a definition of Evil. By applying the same criterion to the fascist Left, since they promote ‘lifestyles’ that militate against human happiness and life, they are evil.

                 In order to make a child, a man and woman are needed. We have not yet successfully cloned a human being and this is not really the issue at point, although the Left would have it so. Perhaps one should say that male and female are needed to procreate life in nature. Male cannot create life from another male, nor can a female make life with another female.

                Evolution has made it this way. The sexual drive is strong in young people when they are at the peak of their procreative abilities and sperm count. It was always thus but it is also evident that nature has placed checks and balances upon the population in order to control numbers. The answer lies in the genetic make up of individuals and natural selection as theorised by Charles Darwin. In order for the next generation to survive, we must mate with the opposite sex.

               Throughout nature however, there are checks and balances to ensure the evolutionary gene pool remains capable of producing perfect human beings in form at least. However it is also clear that sexual variation exists in order to control numbers and type. It really is a numbers game and now that we have the technology to support a larger population, freeing us of disease, hunger and allowing us to live longer lives, the population has grown exponentially; so too has the incidence of sexual variation. However, it does not cease there, nature seems to have allowed this in order that the male to female ratio remains fairly balanced.

            Proof of this lies in the statistical incidence of homosexual males within the population that is around one in five. This is why I say that although homosexuality is not the accepted normal state of being it is natural. Those who say it can be ‘cured’ are charlatans. Evolution has evolved homosexuality in one’s humble opinion as a simple but effective check on human reproduction. Sexual desire and variation is also a trap in order that we procreate effectively and nature therefore allows sexual variations in order that every stratagem is employed to reproduce the race. Some men like breasts, others like different appendages of women as they themselves do in men. It would be utterly boring if we all hummed along to the same symphony. The best classical music evolves variations on a theme and sometimes we even hear counterpoint or two themes played in harmony. Sex is like that.

             ‘Normal’ individuals express a strong distaste for those whose sexual proclivities are at variance with the accepted standard. This is simply nature’s way of ensuring that the species survives and that conformance is required so that offspring can grow and develop in an optimum family environment, free of anything that might impair this. In most cultures that seems to mean, man and woman, not necessarily monogamous either but two parents at least.

           So where does God fit into all this? The answer is surprisingly straightforward. Firstly he set Evolution and natural selection on its course but more importantly allowed us Free Will. The crux of the matter turns on what we do with that free will. This is where the knowledge of difference of Good from Bad enters into the debate and whether as God’s moral beings we choose through our individual actions to do one or the other.

            One wrote of homosexuality above as being a natural way of protecting the gene pool. Let me now qualify this. An individual maybe homosexual but the activity itself seems to be more than just a variation, not simply because it does not produce life in the form of children as a partnership between man and woman does but because those who are, seem to me upon the available evidence to be so different in demeanour to the heterosexual majority. In the sixties there was actually talk of a third sex. This approach should have been pursued. This is why I state that I believe this to be a deliberate genetic ploy to balance the population.

                 This is not ‘homophobia’ upon my part but a statement of what I think is objective truth. By the same logic therefore the deliberate promotion of this variation as a ‘lifestyle’ is against the interests of life and therefore the gene pool and the human race at large. How can it be otherwise? Homosexuality may be part of someone’s nature but then, so is anything that is genetically different and a variation on the standard of normality. As moral human beings, those who are must learn to live with it, not coerce the rest of us to accept it as a ‘lifestyle’. Do breast fanciers promote breast admiration as a ‘lifestyle’? The first thing for gays to accept is the fact they are homosexual themselves! I do honestly believe that much of the problem of acceptance in wider society comes from individual’s inability to accept the fact of their own sexuality.

              I compare it to the situation one finds among nudists or what have come to be known as ‘Naturalism’ or the desire to frolic naked in nature. They go out of their way to have ‘Nudism’ accepted and do this by wanting everybody else to join in. The trouble is, not everybody wants to be a ‘Naturalist’. The best these people could do, is enjoy their nakedness quietly as this is the best way to gain acceptance from wider society. People do make rods for their own backs. Why do people worry so much about the opinions of others? The real truth is they need to justify their own ‘acceptance’ of the fact they like taking their clothes off. Most people could not care less. It is a wonder the Left have not championed ‘Naturalism’ and its group as an oppressed minority but then the Left do not want to take their clothes off either.

              It really is their business. They actually do themselves far more harm than just living quietly and living their lives as they see fit. Pushing sex in people’s faces is offensive. I am equally offended by all overt demonstrations of ‘sex’. It belongs in the bedroom, not in people’s living rooms via television.

              As one stated above, homosexuality is part of the genetic makeup of the person who has it. They cannot help it but they must do their best to control their behaviour like anybody else. This is actually normal.  The Left should not promote it then, as an acceptable ‘lifestyle’ simply because of the reasons above. If that is the way somebody is; accept it.

               The Left are really beyond the pale. The groups they ‘champion’ simply do not need enemies with ‘friends’ like the Left. Their aggressive pursuit of what for most people, including most gays and nudists is not normal is wrong: especially the active promotion of illness and disability that has resulted in couples actually breeding disabled children deliberately! To most people, heterosexual, homosexual, even nudists this is probably the worst a human can do. This is even worse than eugenics to produce super human beings. The betrayal of a child by such an act is absolutely evil. We have an obligation to ensure our children come into this world as well equipped as possible, not deliberately breed a child with a disability. Where in God’s name will it end? The Nazis would be proud! However, to promote’ Disability’ as a lifestyle? Most people do not have the choice of being disabled or not but couples do have a choice whether to bring into the world deformed offspring but to do this for politically correct reasons and then gloat over the fact, as has actually happened is just plain sick.

                Death and illness are natural but one does not promote these as a positive ‘lifestyle’. It is not only illogical and harmful; it is evil, especially to the ‘victim’ whose interests the Left tries to champion. There is nothing wrong with love between two men. Love is the highest ideal in our existence. The Greek philosophers understood this was possible but bemoaned the fact that sex got in the way.

            I have a friend whose wife suffers from Alzheimer’s Syndrome. This woman used to be a brilliant Mathematician and Classicist. This devastating illness has destroyed her mind and she is now confined to a hospital permanently. My friend visits her and I have seen this man cry his eyes out but he bears his load with compassion. He has not enjoyed conjugal relations with his wife for years but he will not divorce her. His love and compassion for her transcends all. He does not go looking for prostitutes either in order to satisfy his natural desires; he suffers it all in dignified silence. My admiration for this man is without bounds.

             A catholic priest is not allowed to marry and swears to remain celibate in his chosen profession, yet we see in the ‘Liberal’ wing of my own Church of England, the active promotion of homosexual ‘lifestyles’ and even positive discrimination of these people into the Bishopric, often in the face of  strong evangelical opposition. I take the middle road; as long as the candidate forswears sexual activity like a Catholic priest one should allow this. However, if the candidate will not agree to this then such a candidature is forfeit. Homosexual activity and ‘lifestyles’ have no place within a Church. It is not the fact the individual is homosexual that is evil but the imposition of such activity in an office that requires the incumbent to deal with family life and a wider community wherein such a ‘lifestyle’ would conflict with the pastoral care of the same. A priest needs to be objective and if a young man or woman for example comes to them confused about their sexuality, the fact the priest is involved in such a ‘lifestyle’ themselves is like a prostitute counselling a young woman about marriage. The counsellor needs to be completely objective. By refraining from such activity, the incumbent will actually earn the respect of his or her congregation as a person of solid character and ironically enhance their reputations.

                  One’s sexual proclivities provided they do not harm others are private. The evil comes when these are enforced upon others who do not want to ‘share’ them. Take for example the deliberate exploitation of children for sexual gratification. I cannot think of anything worse that a human being can do in life. I feel strongly enough to kill the perpetrators but as the Law prevents me, at least demand the death penalty. How can any decent human be happy in such a perversion? This is not even a disability but utter depravity. To execute the perpetrator of such a heinous crime is actually an act of compassion.

                 However even here there have been surreptitious attempts by the Left fascist elite to make this behaviour acceptable in some form or other. Thankfully the crime is so rotten and horrifying to the average individual that to have tried to ‘champion’ these group ‘Rights’ would have ended with the people who broached this subject being prosecuted in court, that is if they escaped the righteous anger of the lynch mob after them.

                 Children have been exploited by the Left in a number of ways; the existence of Paedophilia not the least of them. One finds the teaching of adult sexual material especially unpleasant and more troubling still the younger ages these subjects are taught at. Nobody seems to have made the elementary connection between the rise of mass childhood sex education and the ever increasing rates of illegitimacy and the growth of paedophilia.

                   A child is like a blank page. A child’s first desire is for warmth and protection. It will also do its utmost to please while testing the limits of acceptable behaviour as its mind develops towards maturity. Scientific analysis has shown that the reason for aberrant teenage behaviour or what I term the ‘Monster Stage,’ is actually the pathways of the brain forming the adult mind. A child’s brain is therefore hardwired in a very different manner to that of an adult.

                A child’s mind needs to be nurtured and corrected in such a manner so as to enable it to function in a hostile world. Childhood should in one’s humble opinion be encouraged as long as possible without harming the subject’s development. Adult subjects like sex education have no place whatsoever in a child’s world and if the question of ‘How did I arrive here?’ comes up, it is the business of parents to explain, not Left wing social engineers. Children are automatically programmed to trust and believe their elders and the best people for that purpose are mother and father in whose interests it is for the child to grow and develop as a socialised human being.

                I find this aspect of the Liberal fascists’ behaviour and obsessions the most pernicious of all, simply because this is in fact what lies behind the Lefts’ attempts to restructure society through the education of young minds unfit to question the real value of things or even right from wrong. This is also why I have said time and again, that it is not about improving society or children and adults but the acquisition and exercise of ideological power. The fact is the Left are not at all concerned with the individual but group rights, especially the means to control and subdue on behalf of their particular group.

               This is why the expression of individual opinion is frowned upon and old couples and priests protesting against homosexuality are visited by politicised police bullies. It is why people are increasingly afraid to speak out in the face of this New Amorality and social and political commentators are ‘investigated by political policemen and women for so called ‘Hate Crime’’. The officers that allow themselves to be used like this are also guilty of abuse of the trust of those, they are supposed to serve and their active connivance in these disgraceful episodes, especially if they themselves do not agree with it, is cowardice. Such fear has been utilised by every corrupt little totalitarian bureaucrat or regime from the Soviet Union to the Third Reich.

                It is the group that appeals to the Left, not the individual. For one thing a ‘Group’ is far more of an abstract matter than an individual. It is the old story of ‘Us and Them’. However, one should ask the question who or what is meant by ‘Them?’ This is one reason why we see the motorist population of Britain persecuted by the police, not so much because by being ‘Them’ they become easy targets for stupid and incompetent policemen but by being ‘Them’ they are harder to identify than an individual bad driver. It is easier to persecute and prosecute ‘Them’ as an enemy of ‘society’ in its ‘interests’ than  to bring the law to bear on an individual. It has assisted the Left greatly that the average driver prosecuted is usually a member of ‘Them’, the class enemy of ‘Society’; the property owning bourgeoisie of Middle England whose sense of law abiding behaviour and old fashioned respect for authority makes them as a group even easier targets for bullying social engineer police. The fact that people have not realised this in Britain today never ceases to amaze me.

                  Through the same mechanism of the ‘Group’, previously unacceptable forms of behaviour become ‘normalised’. The ‘Group’ is the same as the abstraction ‘Them’. Through the reaction of ‘Them’ as an unquantifiable mysterious frightening concept, the individual is put in his place. This is the secret of how the Left works through and through. The individual is too great a threat to their cause. It is also the method of the concentration camp guard uses as an excuse for exterminating Jews and cowardly policemen who visit frail old Christians. It usually runs thus, ‘I was only obeying orders’ or more usually, ‘It was ‘Them’ not me!’ The trouble is it is not ‘Them’ but the individual who carried out the act of evil.

                   In many ways the Liberal fascist elite are immature and simply spiteful. This does not mean to say that the Right are necessarily mature or un-spiteful either but it is a fact, the people on this side of the political abyss accept the nature of things more readily than the liberals. The Left retaliate by accusing the ‘Right’ of being ‘materialist’ as if it had a lien on spiritualism. This is the Left all over. To them, nobody can be spiritual or concerned about matters like the environment. The Left are very good at hijacking the clothes of others. I resent being labelled ‘Materialist’ but I do accept what life throws at me like most on the ‘Right’ as we usually equate this with common sense. We do not try to ‘save the  world’, encourage people simply incapable of reaching University to go there, or disabled people to do things that far from improving their lives, worsens them, nor monstrous things like deliberately breed disabled children for political statements and exploit immature minds by teaching totally unsuitable subjects like sex.

                It is this obsession with the latter that I question most in the activity of the Left. Just why are they so obsessed with ‘sex’? I compare it with a group of pubescent dirty little schoolboys drooling over pornography. A Monty Python sketch one saw years ago had a well attired gentleman stopping in a public house for a beer after work. He was approached by a ‘spiv’ who nudged his arm saying,

‘Are you married (wink), nudge, nudge (wink), say no more (wink).

The city gentleman turned on the ‘spiv’asking most offended, ‘What, are you insinuating?’

 The ‘spiv’ replied, again nudging and winking, You’ve had it (wink) nudge, nudge, say no more?’

 ‘Had what?’ replied the gentleman. ‘Well, you know what I mean (wink) nudge, nudge, say no more!!?’

The gentleman a little more angrily demanded, ‘Are you insinuating something my good man? I don’t like your tone!?’

The ‘spiv’ retreated slightly, ‘Well mate, your married aren’t you (wink) nudge, nudge, say no more!?’

‘Yes I am actually, what has that to do with you? replied the city gentleman.

‘Nothing mate but you know what I mean, nudge, nudge, say no more (wink).

 The gentleman became angry, ‘Now look here my man!’

 The little ‘spiv’ became frightened, ‘Well mate you’re married aren’t you…. You’ve had it?’ ‘Had what?’ ‘Sex mate! You’ve done it with a woman?’

‘So?’ replied the City gentlemen, ‘What business is it of yours?’

 The ‘spiv’ asked, ‘Well mate, what’s it like?’

 

             I think this sums up the Left very well indeed. The fact of sex is not for anybody or group to harness to their political band wagon. The gifts of sex and love from God are to be treated with respect. The two are not mutually dependent and it is quite possible to love somebody without the need or desire for sexual gratification. Sex is not love though. Love is the highest ideal that a man or woman can conceive of. It is why marriages and partnerships last for years until death. It is the reason men and women lay down their lives for country and friends, why parents accept the sexuality of their children, or nurse a disabled relative for years without complaint, even if they do not like it. It can also be why those same reject friends and family because they cannot stand to see what they love transmuted to something else.

                     Real love however is unconditional. Unconditional love accepts every fault of the beloved. This was the message of Jesus Christ, Ghandi, even Mohammed, if the extremists would care to look. Mohammed took a wife older than himself because he did not want the woman to suffer. This was not the only example either and like Jesus he requested that the poor, especially widows be respected. None of these men, Son of God or not would understand the death and destruction that ensued after their deaths in their names. Jesus did not demand the Crusade or burnings of witches. Likewise, Ghandi did not ask Hindus to murder Moslems and Christians. These men sought a universal peace where everybody is treated with the respect due to a child of God. This was not the perverted ‘Equality and Inclusive Diversity’ of the corrupt ideologues of the Left either. It meant that all men were genuinely equal before God and the Law, irrespective of their station in life but according to their talents and gifts. It was precisely these differences that true equality celebrates, not to award degrees to illiterate students and the disabled at the cost of the more talented, not to dumb down education to the lowest denominator but to raise all within their station and the reachable limits of their capacity to a better condition of life, based upon the best example not the worst.

                        ‘Suffer little children’ and ‘Whomsoever harms these, harms me’ or words to that effect as transliteration of ancient languages is not the most perfect science in the world, were the commands of Jesus Christ two thousand years ago. Well the children are suffering through the debilitating effects of the Left’s obsessions with sex, ‘Inclusion and Equality’. One would not want their conscience for anything they could provide, nor the increasingly oppressive atmosphere they do it in. The Left have always been like this. They realise that people do not behave the way they want them to, so they try to make them do so. This is what lies behind the visits of bullying police officers to old Christian couples and why social commentators and Moslem leaders are ‘investigated’ by the same politicised officials.

                         In their obsession to coerce conformity at every level, the Left will make increasing use of such methods to ensure compliance and fear in the larger population. It does the supposed ‘victims of society’ no good; in fact just the opposite. They will ironically become the real victims of society, as the nation, absolutely sick to death of having this agenda force fed to them will become so inured to these minorities and their real sufferings, used as they have been by a narrow minded purse-lipped power hungry elite for its own attempts to gain power and misuse it.