Be careful what you wish for

la droite populiste

Following a post at NO on Hollande and the blunderbussing of gay laws, followed by demonstrations up and down the country, commenter Richard wrote:

I am an atheist and gays (or wooly-woofters as I refer to them) are involved in voluntary relationships so intellectually I don’t see a philosophical problem with gay marriage. But, oh but… every country debating this “problem” at the same time as if it was a life or death matter? Seems a bit too organised to be anything ĺess than sinister.

Richard, agreed.

First of all, your freedom to express your atheism is a product of the society which ensures such freedom. Other societies do not, especially Muslim societies. This society of ours, for better or worse, enshrines that freedom and that’s the freedom we must fight for. Voltaire again.

Your intellectual non-problem can be addressed thus:

The issue is that there is no such thing as gay “marriage”. It’s been covered so many times – how many more do we need? The most they can hope for is “civil partnership” because marriage is an institution between a man and a woman for the purposes of propagating the species – that has been the way since the dawn of time, not the deliberate and orchestrated aberration of the past twenty years.

The issue within that is that marriage conveys a special meaning, far more than civil partnership, which gays are well aware of in their craving for people to be forced to recognize them as the same thing.

However, marriage is a covenant between God and Man and it’s still behind people wanting church weddings when they’re not particularly religious. They might arrange it for tradition but during the service, the word God appears a number of times and those two in there affirm this during the ceremony.

Two gays, being anathema in that context, are effectively doing dirt on God and that appears throughout scripture. There were two towns called Sodom and Gomorrah. You can argue about scripture being consigned to the dustbin of history but that’s a different argument again. Bottom line [sorry, no pun intended] is that same sex is in the same category of man-child, man-beast, man-inanimate object – it’s right off limits in a church.

After all that, there is also the element of political coercion in this – the State is blunderbussing this through against people’s wishes, hence all the demonstrations. A Catholic country [yes I know about the Huguenots etc.] holds the above view religiously, even if not particularly religious in everyday life.

In terms of numbers between those and the secular [also a long tradition in France], even if one was charitable to the secularists and said 50-50, that still means that the views of one half, not even held strongly by most of those but by maybe 6-10%, cross the line and are imposed by the State on the other half who do hold the view religiously.

Thus a god or Mammon situation arises – deliberately.

And that, as you say, Richard, is orchestrated and is a direct attack on the institution of the family, one of the planks in the platform:

1) Abolition of all ordered governments
2) Abolition of private property
3) Abolition of inheritance
4) Abolition of patriotism
5) Abolition of the family
6) Abolition of religion
7) Creation of a world government

That is also the goal of Marxism, which was only ever a variation on the same theme – there’ll be others. The goal is not even in dispute, only whether they’ll achieve it.

If they do, the State becomes the new god, the new omnipotence and there’ve been books about that, e.g. 1984. I lived in such a country for years and saw the vestiges of the system, spoke with many of the people on it. You wouldn’t wish it on your worst enemy.

This is all out war between State v People going on. The State army includes PCists, feminists, gay marriage advocates and secularists and the People’s side includes all those who have grown up in our traditions, patriots to the nation, people who believe there are families and then individuals and these, collectively, make up the society. The moral underpinnings, the spiritual element, if you like, is provided by Christianity.

In every society where that is the situation, the society is both developed and free[ish], with the State trying to reverse that the whole time and encroach on people.

In such a society as that, atheists, gays, Klingons and all sorts live in their wild animal luxury, as Dylan would say. Not many have any issue with that. Like you, I have no issue with atheists or gays per se – they live their lives, I live mine.

But what’s happening in France, even though it is using the language of “live and let live” is not seeking that in the least – it’s seeking State control of the moral and spiritual element of the people, with a view to total control, a la 1984. This is what secularists cannot see – they’re so anti-“religious” in which they conflate all faiths as being one that they fail to see the political issues behind this.

By opposing this push by the State, secularists interpret that as religious proselytizing and I’m really tired of having to reiterate it has nothing to do with converting anyone – it is about opposing the State in its agenda. And there are agendas, e.g. Agenda 21.

One half of society in France sees the issues very clearly and has been out demonstrating up and down the country. Hollande will not last past one term but in this term, he will have wrought great societal damage. Under Sarkozy, it was an economic thing and the bone of contention was his bling presidency and immigration. Under Hollande, it is the very basis of society itself, as every good Marxist would have it.

Just over half of that society and same over here, including me, won’t have a bar of that coercion.

4 comments for “Be careful what you wish for

  1. April 29, 2013 at 12:22 pm

    C’est bien, cela. Le sacre Etonien Cameroon est bientot dans la merde! Les pauvres Britanniques (on les appelle les ‘Plebs’)auront la possibilite de dire ‘Grand Con’ a leur Head Prefect et le foutre a la porte! C’est une merveille! A bas les politiciens!!

  2. John Bolton
    April 29, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    Can only second that. ‘A bas’ by all means.

  3. graham wood
    April 29, 2013 at 7:39 pm

    James. That was an excellent comment and defence of biblical and traditional marriage as generally understood.
    If I may briefly add a historical note:

    The word marriage is French in origin and came to England after the conquest of 1066. The word means a husband to wife. It’s introduction into what would become the English language was from the beginning a Christian word. As such it was used in the English translations of the scriptures. It was not and cannot be argued it was a secular word in English.
    When used in the New Testament, the word marriage was used by non-conformists such as the Lollards and found its way into the first printed English New Testament of William Tyndale, a dissenter, and from there into the King James version (Church of England) and has remained in our Bibles ever since.

    While the word marriage does indeed derive from French, this French word derives in turn from the Latin words ‘maritare’ (to provide a husband or wife for someone) and ‘maritari’ (to get married). The origin of the Latin predates Christianity as does the old English ‘wed’, and wedlock, but they still meant a husband to wife. Nonetheless, my argument here is that our word marriage, in England is not secular but Christian.
    Marriage is an English Biblical word; it came from the French after the conquest of 1066 and from there into the English language, but as a Christian word.
    The word marriage unlike wedded is an English Biblical word, it is not secular nor pagan, and is God given and God defined.
    Also, it is not a ‘church’ institution (although wedding “services” are), and hence no church or worldly organisation can change the definition of marriage.
    Graham Wood

  4. Wolfie
    May 1, 2013 at 10:30 am

    Another “Downfall” parody :

Comments are closed.