Britain, the New Soviet (There appears to be quite a lot of us "nutcases")

By: Graham Moorhouse (Inspired and adapted from an article by Piers Paul Read in the Catholic Herald)

Back in May there was an exchange on Newsnight between Jeremy Paxman (a man whose liberal reflexes are so predictable he makes a Pavlov dog appear utterly fickle) and Nigel Farage.  This exchange underscored the media’s intolerance of anyone who dissents from the party line.

Farage was defending his party, UKIP, from the charge that it was filled with “nutcases”, a collective noun that in liberal speak includes everyone who has not embraced all the latest secular liberal dogmas; indeed, to fall short of endorsing them with passion without the tiniest mental reservation would be sufficient to earn one this label.

The particular “nutcase” he had in mind was Roger Helmer who twelve years ago had said that some people find homosexuality “viscerally repulsive”: a statement of the bleeding obvious that was about as controversial as a declaration that grass is green.

Listening to this exchange one could not help but recall how the Soviet Union used to use a diagnosis of insanity (and “nutcase” presupposes that one is insane) to confine those who were brave enough to dissent from the party line to an asylum.  And listening to Farage’s wretched grovelling apologies for Helmer’s comments reminded one of the miserable confessions rung from accused during Stalin’s show trials of the 1930s and in China during the Cultural Revolution.

Doctrinaire liberal zealots now command the heights of our culture and their ideology of intolerance is now default mode in government, the media and academia.  The British Film Institute, which is responsible for investing public money in the film industry, for just one example, has declared that applicants must be able to “tick the gay, female and ethnic” boxes.  Ed Vaizey, minister for culture has praised this initiative.  The CEO of the British Film Institute has stated that “this is just the beginning.”  Yet again one is reminded of the Soviet Union, where the livelihood of artists, writers and film makers was dependent on them fawningly towing the party line. 

The aim of government, the media and academia now is to demonize the recalcitrant and brainwash the malleable young.  “A Labour government,” Yvette Cooper announced recently, “will introduce compulsory sex and relationship education into schools”.  This, she added, would empower our daughters, “and we need our sons growing up as powerful feminists too”.  The aim of modern education, as in the Soviet Union, is not to educate, but to produce cloned zealots who will slavishly parrot the party's dogmas.

In higher education this philosophy is promoted in gender studies, a creed described by one Polish bishop as an ideology worse than Nazism and Communism combined.  This statement was picked up by the Economists and used to imply that Poland had more than its fair share of nutcases.  The article acknowledged that the bishop had some impressive philosophical and theological qualifications – clearly a scholarly nutcase, but nutcase none the less.

It is rapidly becoming a crime to hurt the feeling of anyone the cultural elite have declared a victim group – even if what one says is patently true, as witness the grovelling of Farage on Newsnight.

For those who are still not totally sold out to the brainwashing of the secular liberal Left, there are two must reads.  Neither of these books brings religion into the equation, they adhere strictly to the scientifically demonstrable social consequences of undermining the traditional family.

The first is The SexChange Society by Melanie Phillips.  Its subtitle is Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male.  She lays bare that the denigration of men as husbands and fathers (as found in Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch) is now the default setting of government and academia: “it appears to have become perfectly acceptable to do without an identifiable father from conception onwards.”  

The second book is Marriage Files by the sociologist Patricia Morgan.  Both Philips and Morgan clearly demonstrate the all important role of the traditional nuclear family in nurturing the young and identifies those forces currently seeking to destroy it.  Both clearly show the suffering of children divided from one of their natural parents, usually the father, and the consequential harm down to society in terms of delinquency, depression, academic underachievement, poor employment prospects and failed relationships.  Morgan proves convincingly from studies in countries that have brought into the same-sex “marriage" canard, that David Cameron’s claim that it will strengthen the institution is not only baloney but baloney on stilts.

                

From the traditional Catholic perspective one should also point out that by confusing the roles of men and women, the Devil has an agenda that goes far beyond the misery and disorder resulting from the breakup of homes.  A loving father is the image repeated used by Jesus to convey the nature of an otherwise unknowable Creator.  Children raised by single mothers and same sex couples will find it difficult to envisage God and therefore to have a meaningful relationship with Him in their adult lives.

Would it not be tragically ironic if Nigel Farage, having spent the best years of his life admirably fighting to free us from an unelected Brussels bureaucracy, should then by sycophantically paying homage at the shrine of political correctness, play no small part in enslaving us to the ideology of an unelected intolerant cultural elite - the very same political classes who constructed the EU behemoth in the first place?  This fawning to the Zeitgeist could also prove politically very expensive given that polls have shown that three out of ten people who voted for Cameron at the last election, say they will not be doing so at the next - precisely because of his heavy-handed promotion of gay “marriage”.

There appears to be quite a lot of us "nutcases".