Cameron, Featherstone, Tuttle and the new subversives


Have you got a 27B-6?

This post follows on from  the one from last night, on Cameron’s and Featherstone’s moves on gay “marriage”.  There’ll be a last post, I think, based around the thoughts of Restoring Britain in response [at the end of that link above].

The point I made was that it was not about gay “marriage”as such, it was about the oldest battle in the western world – trying to snuff out the Christian message and in secular eyes, that means the Church.  Having softened it up by white-anting it with the Rowan Williamses and others of the type now in place, people who’d hardly resist the onslaught and indeed, Cranmer-like, would try to abet it or at least come to terms with it – the scene is set for the next move.

Unfortunately, not all clergymen have kowtowed:

Cardinal Keith O’Brien: We cannot indulge this madness

… but they are isolated and can be swatted away, according to Cameron’s and Featherstone’s masters.

Blind Freddy can see the moves over the past few years and my blog is not a bad record of these changes. This and the former blog began with articles on the middle-east, the IRA, various biographies, things on sport and the PC madness and though it came about after a battle with an atheist, the blog was hardly about that. You can trace this for yourself.

This also describes my own life. Though a school chaplain said some things I did agree with when I was around twelve and I did essentially believe the Christian message in a general way, as part of our heritage, I was hardly religious, going through the usual teenage studying, angst, girls, sport, starting to drink a bit more, experimenting, politics and so on – the usual path of a young man of the time.

I knew there was religion on TV with those tele-evangelists and it was embarrassing, I’d run and hide if two earnest, suited young men with bibles came to the front door.

The bottom line is that I wasn’t polarized then as I am today.

Looking back to the mention, on this blog, of the hiding of the William and Mary cross, through the attempts at renaming Christmas and so on, it was the radical atheism, the blind atheism, of certain readers, pundits and agents-provocateurs out there which shocked me because hitherto, I’d never really thought about it all that much, if you see what I mean, not unlike a five year old not having given much thought to whether he’s homosexual or not – I was pretty passive in my belief -. but these people were quite rabid and seemingly very, very angry, actually disgusted by the very word Jesus.

“Why?” I thought. “What’s He ever done to them?”

Then I started reading things on blogs about how “Christians” caused all the wars, were intolerant of progress, [presumably meaning intolerant of child sex, drugs, the gay mafia, feminazis and the celebrity culture of the prostitute - all the wholesome things in life] … and so I began reading about all these.  What became blindingly obvious was:

1.  this narrative about Christianity’s crimes was straight out of the Voltaire/Kant/Nietzschean bloodbath manual and

2.  it was so historically inaccurate.

Huge amounts of reading followed, in the usual academic pattern of reading detractors first, then supporters and what came out was that so many of these pundits were hugely bigoted themselves but worse than that – so factually incorrect, accepting rash generalizations put out by the new textbooks of the last three decades, the university consciousness, the media and the like.  They were ascribing things to Christianity which simply didn’t hold water.

One reader put his attitude down to having had a bad time from priests and nuns, not understanding that they were humans, as he was, just as fallible as he was and taking things upon themselves with no biblical foundation.  They’d been just as brainwashed themselves.  You look at the tone of Jesus of Nazareth in his utterances and compare that to the fire and brimstone of churchmen of popular conception and they’re chalk and cheese.

There was one blogger who, every time I took him to task on some technicality, kept going back to the Old Testament for his justification, never to the font of Christianity itself – the gospels.  I’d point to the Beatitudes and he’d point to Torquemada.

And what?  I hoped he wasn’t holding Torquemada up as a Christian because a reading of that story shows a powerful lot of State involved and a pretty clear political agenda.  As the only umbrella religion was Catholicism, then these excrescences, actually no different to Them, were using the bible as a means to beat people into submission.  I mean, if I attack and rob you, is that because I’m English or brownhaired?

Again, look at the words themselves in the gospels and then at how people with agendas have selectively used them for their own ends, making them mean anything but what the original idea conveyed.  This is no different to PCists twisting “freedom”, “tolerance”, “equality” and “fairness” today.

Now I’m asking myself, at this point, what’s going on out therebut perhaps more importantly – why now?  Why can’t Christians and anyone else be left alone to believe what they want, to do it in their own way?  In the case of radical Islam, which is trying to destroy our nation, resistance is understandable but how on earth do the gospels destroy our nation?

What, am I going to hit you with a bible?

As long as you’re free to read your bible or your Voltaire or El Reg and Muslims are free to read their Koran, what’s the problem?

The problem is, of course, that certain people just won’t leave things be, will they?  They won’t let sleeping dogs lie.

Polarization

Slowly, inexorably, unwillingly, I find myself becoming polarized on things which weren’t even central to my consciousness.  I find myself being drawn into saying things in defence of Christianity I’d never dream of saying in years gone by.

I look at myself and wonder why I’m doing this but then see the politics behind it and it becomes much clearer.  It’s zero to do with religion but all to do with certain aspects in Christianity militating against the Brave New World Cameron’s and Featherstone’s masters have in store for us all.  Plus the Church still influences many and therefore the Church must be suppressed and its property confiscated to help pay off the debt the State has plunged us into.

And I’m looking at this argument that I’m the stick-in-the-mud trying to oppress and restrict people’s freedom.  What, the freedom to sell drugs to kids, the freedom to press kids into sex, to impose a prostitute celebrity culture on people, to get people to throw off all neighbourliness and become me-me-me, to turn in any neighbour who disagrees with the State – is that the sort of freedom I’m opposing?

Because if it is, I plead guilty.

Look, in a nutshell, I’m not accepting gay “marriage” and that’s that because firstly, there is no such thing, secondly, it has no place in Christianity and thirdly – the most important one to me – it’s the thin edge of the wedge.

You’re auto-response might be: “Don’t gays have a right to marry?”

No they don’t, for the simple reason that it’s not marriage.

But yes, they have the right to a life with each other if they choose, they can have their civil ceremonies and good luck to them – nothing to do with me.  They live their lives, I live mine.  That is a far, far cry from the effing State telling me I have to go along with enforced ceremonies in churches.  One is about live and let live, the other is about coercion, forcing me to accept something I simply refuse to accept.

Ditto with people not believing in Christianity.  Good luck to you all, hope you have a happy life.  I do believe in it and there we are.  Are you going to let me do that or are you going to daub the sides of buses with “G-d does not exist”?  Are you going to try to rename our Christmas with some other contrived name based on the Babylonian religion?  Are you going to impose your own views on us?  Are you going to ransack a church and take its crosses away, for fear of “offending other religions”?  Will you go along with that and say absolutely nothing, Niemoeller-like, about me being oppressed?

When I see articles in the Mail like:

2030: The year Britain will cease to be a Christian nation with the march of secularism

… I seriously wonder what is driving these people?  I mean, they seriously have a bee in their bonnets, do they not?  2030?

A bit of reading

Then I do something I should have done long ago – I go back into the gospels themselves and other scripture and see what they have to say.  The story, roughly, is:

There’ll be a falling away, no respect in the home, child against parent etc., there’ll be a general demoralization, false prophets abounding, fooling the masses, including the intellectuals themselves and the persecution will begin again, starting with those who follow the name of Jesus, it seems.  People will have to have some sort of encoding to buy and sell and compliance with State dictums becomes the order of the day.

Hey, we seem to be close to that point now.  So, I can see it – in flatly refusing to cooperate with the State and the brainwashed portion of my fellow-countrymen on these things:

1.  at first people will try to persuade me otherwise, pretending to be freedom lovers themselves and that I’m denying freedom to others – in other words, things turned on their head;

2.  when I fail to comply, the ostracism begins – I think it might already have done so to a great extent on my blog – I’m not exactly the most popular blogger with many;

3.  the ostracism allows the authorities to then demand that I change my view, as if one little person’s view is of any consequence and at the same time, the so-called freedom lovers nod on and agree I should be prosecuted;

4.  eventually I’m removed and the Brave New World can continue untrammelled – or so they think.  Obviously this same thing will be going on with hundreds of others up and down the country.

Oh and here we go.

Resistance and underground

Christianity, now being a subversive activity, goes underground again, as it always had to and becomes radicalized, with my neighbours part of the enemy who would turn me in – Father, forgive them for they know not what they do – just as in Soviet days in Russia.

And it’s the very Sam Lowry/Harry Tuttle-like radicalism and desire to subvert the State’s agenda in these matters which will cast the die and usher in the era of Big Brother.  Christians are first – you’ll come later.

If this is the way these things must go – then I say bring them on and let’s get it over and done with.

4 Responses to “Cameron, Featherstone, Tuttle and the new subversives”

  1. JD March 4, 2012 at 15:06 Permalink

    excellent post James
    you appear to be aligned with the ‘spirit’ of this book-
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Men-among-Ruins-Reflections-Traditionalist/dp/0892819057/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330872992&sr=1-5

    “Men Among the Ruins is Evola’s frontal assault on the predominant materialism of our time and the mirage of progress. For Evola and other proponents of Traditionalism, we are now living in an age of increasing strife and chaos: the Kali Yuga of the Hindus or the Germanic Ragnarok. In such a time, social decadence is so widespread that it appears as a natural component of all political institutions. Evola argues that the crises that dominate the daily lives of our societies are part of a secret occult war to remove the support of spiritual and traditional values in order to turn man into a passive instrument of the powerful. “

  2. A K Haart March 4, 2012 at 15:34 Permalink

    “You’re auto-response might be: “Don’t gays have a right to marry?”
    No they don’t, for the simple reason that it’s not marriage”

    I agree. They don’t have the right to change an ancient institution.

  3. James Higham March 4, 2012 at 17:43 Permalink

    AKH – exactly.

    Wolfie – thanks for that. Most interesting.

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string 76Uomg to the field below: