April 10, 2011

The gay lobby continues to undermine the sacrosanct institution of marriage, according to a damning new report by a PR company.

Dichs&Lobley have made the report available to hungry journalists in the past week and are delighted with the coverage.

“We’re very pleased about the exposure we’re getting. We’ve been in the business for years and we know how to play the press. When we were offered a skip-full of cash to promote homophobia, covert racism and general intolerance towards minorities, we were delighted with the opportunity.”


Commenting on the difficulties they had conveying complex ideas to a readership with the mental age of a dead monkey, chief executive of Dichs&Lobley, Tristram Dichs added,

“It very difficult to distil lots of material down to sizes that the average gutter journalist can accommodate. Large passages are usually disappointing and put punters off. Size is important, and knowing when to release: timing is everything.”


Julian Gaggin, spokesgay for gay advocacy group Rings of Ire, says marriage has many benefits which shouldn’t be denied to gays and lesbians:

“For too long we’ve been denied the frisson of adultery. We have to make do with just old-fashioned promiscuity but marriage would open up a whole new world of excitement and moral degradation. Just think of the extra-marital affairs. Sex was starting to get dull for fags, and we’re tired of bareback sex with strangers. Even the monthly HIV test has lost its excitement. We want something new–we want marriage– and it’s a contravention of our rights to deny it.”

“We are also worried that the conservative press might tire of boring stories about cottaging and gay orgies. Gays are secretly worried that the tabs will move on to other outgroups. We’re terrified of the day we wake up and there’s not a single sensationalised story about dirty gays. If we don’t have the right to adultery then it will be Asians making middle England gag on its porridge.”


Felony Milps, of Decent Ordinary Christians Keeping Institutions Not Gay, opined that gays are trying to ruin a millenia-old tradition which has its roots in the inviolable wisdom of some old books.

“There is lots of evidence that gays make bad parents. Marriage must be between a man and a woman because it is the normative coupling in nature and the only one which can produce children into a safe, loving home environment which in turn produces unquestioning Judeo-Christian traditionalists thereby ensuring that normal values are ensured and enshrined in society as they ought to be according to the traditional traditions which have been the bedrock of civilisation and are unalterable and not subject to scrutiny nor any meddling by devious multicultural relativistic liberals who regularly resort to the sneaky tactics like independent thought, reasoning, logic and the wickedness of empirical evidence.”


Ed Todgebury, Conservative MP for Girthing Frockett and Minister for Fairness, has been leading a campaign in the Commons to put an end to homosexual behaviour with the exception of elite private schools.

“It’s alright in the boarding school dorm but when one reaches school-leaving age one must no longer tumesce when one espies the exquisite globularity of a pubescent boy’s bottom.”


The moral regression of Melanie Phillips

May 6, 2010

I have read the journalistic nonsense of Melanie Phillips for some years and it continues to surprise me how she actually gets away with it. She is a big fish in the conservative movement but in a riposte to Jonathan Freedland she coyly denied this:

Jonathan justifies his attack by claiming that I have massive influence. Would that it were so! I remain, alas, merely one journalist trying to tell the truth as I see it. Jonathan can breathe easily again.

Whatever the scale of her influence in 2007, and it was big, her influence is indeed massive in 2010: Lecturing widely, contributing to Fox News, a Daily Mail column, blogging at the Spectator, writing for the Jewish Chronicle, appearing on Question Time and BBC 4’s Moral Maze, promoting books–that’s massive. Liberal-minded people must watch with horror as her influence expands and the rhetoric intensifies. This week alone has seen her launch a new book as well as having a cover story in the Spectator.

Her big theme (aside from the Middle East, a subject for another day), abundantly reinforced throughout her writing, is that atheism, rationalism and the like are bad and Judeo-Christian voodoo is actually authentic reason. This is an attempt by one journalist to rewrite three millenia of philosophy. All the brilliant philosophers have been wasting their brains since Christianity because Phillips has figured it all out. Read the rest of this entry »

Remember Iraq on May 6

May 5, 2010

The political squabbling in the last days of canvassing season is an embarrassment to a nation which, if it stands for anything, should be voting in a single-issue election–Iraq. ‘Fairness’ seems to be the a frequent motif peppering the political guff. Brown think’s he’s been fair but he could have been a tad fairer, to be fair. He could have started by not supporting an illegal war. Cameron thinks that the ‘big society’ project will encourage fairness as a bovine electorate stands in for mutilated public services. Might prove to be fair, we’ll see. But the Tories would have fairly pounded the shit out of Iraq had they been in power too. Read the rest of this entry »


April 16, 2010

Lucifer’s hideous visage has been seen in satellite imagery over Iceland, prompting fears that Armageddon is imminent. Satan can be clearly seen belching vile ash clouds in an attempt to disrupt aviation.

A crisis meeting of EU leaders was convened at Brussels. Top of the agenda was the motion that God should be written into a new EU constitution. All member states are expected to ratify it.

EU commission president Jose Manuel Barroso conceded that Europe had been heading in the wrong direction, “We have been too liberal. We have forgotten about God and now we are defenceless against Satan’s foul facial farts. We need to return to our churches. Islam must be eradicated. And we must punish gays, lesbians and atheists because God is clearly ignoring us for tolerating their obscenities.”

Leading theologians expect God to respond promptly should the EU meet its promises. Michael Lloyd of the Church of the Suffering Christ expects a speedy response from God, “From what we know, God is always ready to forgive. And he always responds very quickly to sincere pleas for mercy. I expect the ash cloud to disperse within minutes of the ratification of the new treaty.”

“Godless Europe has no defence against Satan, who can’t waft his noxious breath towards America because too many good Christians live there”, he added.

The markets also rallied after news of the new treaty, after one of the worst openings in months. One city trader expressed his relief at the news, “We’re just beginning to recover from the recession. Armageddon would be a dreadful setback now. I’m glad the EU has responded positively.”

Israel, Palestine and the illogicalities of a culture war

March 17, 2010

Ugh. I dread to write about Middle Eastern politics because it such an incendiary subject, fraught with partisan agitators on both sides. The arguments of so many columnists and forum fighters are riddled with illogical and apocryphal nonsense, making any contribution to the ‘debate’ both futile and farcical. Often, when the moronic accusations grow tiresome (x are Nazis, y are Nazis), the history of the region and its peoples becomes the focus–it reduces to a matter of squatters’ rights.

The squatters’ rights rationale asserts that those who are there longest have an inalienable entitlement, irrespective of anything. Subsequent immigrants are simply interlopers who ought not be there at all.

This is a simple idea but there’s a catch. You’ll find that advocates for both sides claim that their favoured faction has been there longer than the other. What? But surely a common or garden history book will settle this dispute. Apparently not. The internet, bless its gullible soul, abounds with many bowdlerized, hackneyed and revisionist versions of Middle East history. Both sides have their insuperable histories so they are both wrong and both right–the quantum cat is neither dead nor alive, and the truth cannot be revealed until someone opens the box (or the history book).

So how to surmount the conundrum? You could start by reasoning that both sides are right and wrong. You could say that there is a long presence of both groups in the region which is complex, and, importantly, difficult to ascertain with certainty, given that we simply don’t have the detailed data available to provide any certainty.

But surely this is all irrelevant if you believe that an individual has the right to live freely in the place of his or her birth. In which case both Israelis and Palestinians are equally entitled to live where they are. Is the passport of a Briton born of Lithuanian parents any less valid than a Briton who can trace his roots back to the Middle Ages? To be born in a nation-state of the Western world is to be an automatic and equal citizen of that nation; provenance is scrubbed at birth. So why are supporters on both sides so desperate for it to be different in the Middle East?

Catholic primates

March 16, 2010

From The Irish Times:

Bishops unaware cardinal held Smyth inquiry

I am enjoying the demise of a controlling, immoral and inept cabal of half-wits.

Melanie Phillips on marriage, values, sex and bastards

January 10, 2010

Melanie Phillips is clearly rejuvenated after the winterval, and possibly drunk on the dregs of the brandy and port. She is a skilled rhetorician, able to swaddle a lot of intolerance in the cosy blankets of traditional families and her cluster-bomb answer to everything, Judeo-Christian values. Stab yourself with your pen, burn your laptop, your godless logic cannot survive Judeo-Christian values.

I am surprised, then, that a recent post in the Spectator seems to have slipped under the radar and not caused even a flicker of anger because her opinions here are unusually extreme even by her standards. She begins with the usual disparagement of Cameron’s Conservatives for not being conservative enough. That is de rigueur for an M.Phil. critique of the ‘Cameroons’. She then expounds the virtues of that most vital of institutions, marriage.

Finally her head rotates and she projectile vomits a black, viscid bile. She doesn’t of course but I find the following comments disturbing, retrograde and utterly prejudiced:

the cementing of that union [marriage] is achieved not just by law but through a complex web of custom, assumptions and attitudes which are promoted, enforced and policed at a social and cultural level.

‘Enforced’ and ‘policed’? Sounds a bit nanny state, does it not?

The reason marriage has been so catastrophically undermined is not just because married couples no longer enjoy financial rewards but – much more crucially — because unmarried people have been both awarded incentives and lost disincentives to produce children outside marriage. Incentives such as welfare benefits, both cash in hand and services such as flats for teenage mothers; removal of disincentives such as the abolition of the legal status of illegitimacy, the removal of fault-based divorce, the non-judgmental approach to elective lone parenthood with fatherhood now reduced in some cases to anonymised fluid in a test-tube — and perhaps most disastrous of all, social approval for cohabitation, that great contemporary engine of mass fatherlessness, with all levels of society, from officialdom downwards, now creating a level playing field between marriage and unmarried ‘relationships’ through the ubiquitous use of the word ‘partner’

What an unbelievable world view. Illegitimacy should not even be mentioned because it is horrendous and indefensible. Stigmatizing children and families because of unconventional domestic situations was plainly barbaric. What seems implicit in the text is that its abolition was somehow a bad outcome. Phillips’ disdain of cohabitation is another baseless prejudice: cohabitation is no more immoral than marriage and it is not normal to disapprove of it. Again the logic of her argument is invalid–most couples cohabit before they marry.

If marriage really is to be restored to its rightful place as a unique institution with unique status and privileges, then disapproval of unmarried sexual relationships and the production of fatherless children has to be restored

Condemning sex before marriage is dysfunctional and authoritarian. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Staunch social conservatives like Phillips see no hypocrisy in pontificating about what people should do in their bedrooms, while whingeing about the repressive regimes of foreigners.

Social liberalism is all about destroying the normative Judeo-Christian moral principles of society which social conservatism is all about defending

It is debatable whether Judeo-Christian values are the ‘normative’ morals of society. And even if they are, it does not logically follow that they should warrant special merit. Phillips believes that every other set of values, especially secular, should be subordinate to a strict moral code arising from the precepts of Christianity and Judaism, as she sees them.

What the marriage zealots have forgotten to mention is the status of being single. If they were to get the dispensations for marriage they so desperately want, the single person would be penalised simply for being single. Widow, divorcee, person who can’t find a partner, let alone a spouse: they would all find themselves marginalised for not being married. This would be a bizarre and illogical outcome, and it exposes the flawed reasoning of bigoted columnists like Phillips.

For a woman whose journalistic output consists of so much criticism of radical Islam, there is a lot in her post which would have the Taleban nodding in agreement.