Catholic
 Apostolic
 & Roman
Christian Order
Read Christian Order
Contents
Editorials
Current
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1990s
Features
Main Page

 

March 2013

Orwellian Pimps & Whores

THE EDITOR

BBC Radio 4 recently aired a two-part reading of extracts from George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, a book recounting his personal experience of the Spanish Civil War. Superbly dramatised, the readings brought Orwell to life and set me wondering how this man of the left, albeit one of integrity, would have viewed the oppressive, liberal-left socialists who rule the Western roost nowadays?

Long story short: Orwell went to fight for a Communist (anti-Stalinist) group against Franco's Nationalists, only to find the bizarre coalition of Republican forces he had joined being attacked by their supposed allies: namely, Stalin's men who, per usual, were terrorising and torturing all and sundry, not least Orwell's outfit. Finally, he and his wife, Eileen, who had gone out to join him, escaped the Stalinist purge with their lives.

Homage to Catalonia was published in 1938. It was followed by Animal Farm (1945) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). The rest is history. The term "Orwellian" passed into common usage to become one of the most familiar adjectives of our time. Understandably so, since it alludes to the ever increasing government control of every aspect of people’s lives via propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, manipulation of the past and denial of reality itself. Aided and abetted by the entertainment-media, things are so grim that even our supine Archbishop of Westminster has belatedly decried this tyranny of the social engineers.

Archbishop Nichols would never credit the prescience of those rare Catholic commentators, like my predecessor Fr Paul Crane and Scotland's Hamish Fraser, who long ago flagged and explained precisely how and why Socialism and Masonry would lead the affluent West to the frightening place we now occupy. Indeed he has probably never heard of these great men. (Such is the closeted life of career-clerics with an agenda.) Still, it was good to hear him dare to state last December, in reference to the Prime Minister's undemocratic foisting of Stonewall's "gay marriage" fiction on the nation: "George Orwell would be proud of that manoeuvre."

His Grace meant, of course, that Orwell himself could not have dreamt up a more totalitarian scenario than this attack against the natural building block of civilisation on the ideological whim of a pseudo-elite; a campaign in which "Newspeak," "Double Think," "Big Brother," "Prolefeed," the "Thought Police" and other features of Nineteen Eighty-Four have coalesced in demonic harmony. Orwell would have been agog to see himself out-Orwelled, so to speak, by a small subset of the already tiny 1% of self-identified sodomites in Britain, who together with their powerful political and media allies are intent on placing unnatural, sterile and overwhelmingly promiscuous "relationships" on an equal footing with natural, life-giving married love; effectively criminalising Christian conscience in the process. Bishop Mark Davies of Shrewsbury, for one, believes it will see the proclamation of "the beautiful teachings of Christ" on marriage soon become a criminal offence. (A Canadian prelate has already faced formal "gay" complaints over his Pastoral Letter on marriage.)

We might fairly presume that this jackhammering of the familial foundation of society, as part of the jackbooted cleansing of Christianity from the public square, would have disturbed Orwell. However, while it is difficult to imagine him as anything other than a strident critic of the wrecking crew, given his enduring Democratic Socialist sympathies how could he have argued (coherently) against them? For the rapidly emerging dystopia so reflective of his futuristic vision is being legislated by a dovetailing that has rendered "right" and "left"/"conservative" and "progressive" redundant: they're all SocialistDemocrats now.

The democratic socialism once embraced by many Catholics for its supposed proximity to Catholic social doctrine has long gone. All that remains is the socialist component: a purely materialistic conception of "human rights" and the common drumbeat of "keeping in touch" with whatever feel-good direction "modern Britain" is taking at the time. Materialism is the unspoken, bi-partisan glue. How else to explain otherwise decent family men, like Michael Gove and Catholic Iain Duncan Smith, suddenly pimping for perverts by voting to hand children over to "progressive" practitioners of bestial sex — even while facing down monolithic unions and bureaucracies to undo destructive decades of "progressive" welfare and education policies! The anarchic moral/political compass guiding this Orwellian sellout was exemplified by Mr Gove citing child protection as a prime reason for "gay marriage" — despite the renowned promiscuity of homosexuals, and the stratospheric rates of child abuse by a rampant homosexual subset (10 to 20 times greater than that of heterosexuals; also affecting children disproportionately abused in "gay" and lesbian households — see figures on page 19 herein).

"As Education Secretary I am responsible for child protection policy," stated Gove in perverse defence of his vote for the Stonewall-engineered Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, "and every day I see the consequences of family breakdown." Clearly in possession of the vital facts, his Tory colleague David Jones begged to differ, refusing to join Gove's complicity in the corruption and endangerment of the most vulnerable. Same-sex partnerships simply could not provide a "warm and safe environment" in which to raise a family, Jones told Welsh TV after voting against the Bill. Since hell hath no fury like a "gay" propagandist scorned, the Stonewall stormtroopers duly fired off their defamatory smoke bombs (aka "storm of protests") deriding Jones' "offensive," "deluded," "insulting," "ill-informed" comments as ... you'll be expecting this, "out of touch with modern Britain."

Since the compliant Mr Gove need never fear such derision, it is incumbent upon those close to him, who share Mr Jones' righteous concern for children, to explain to the Minister that it is not about "equality" as he continually insists. Rather, it is all about the following equation and its ghastly bottom line: "gay marriage" = perversion institutionalised = innocence corrupted = RECRUITMENT. To hammer home that reality they could read him the following account provided to Phil Lees of the Family Coalition Party of Ontario, from a mother who contacted him about a mock Grade 3 same-sex wedding ceremony in February 2012, in a school in Hamilton, Ontario:

“My son returned home from school and I asked, ‘How was school today?’

He responded, ‘Today in class I married my best friend James.’ To this, I asked, ‘How did that happen?’

My son shared, ‘Well, today we talked about love (close to Valentine’s Day) and that some boys fall in love with girls and some girls fall in love with boys, but sometimes girls fall in love with girls and boys fall in love with boys and get married. Then she thought it would be a good idea for us to find a friend (of the same sex) in class to marry. Then a person dressed like a minister performed a ceremony and we all got married.  Then we celebrated with cake and ice-cream’.”

But wait... Mr Gove recently boasted that "One of my proudest moments as a father was just over a year ago when my children acted as page and bridesmaid to two [male] friends of ours ...." [The Mail on Sunday, 3/2/13]. Far from condemnation, therefore, this sickening indoctrination/recruitment of Canadian infants presumably finds favour with the man "responsible for child protection policy." In which case his advisers might then place it in brutal perspective by way of a few hard stats: like the fact that 64% of all forcible sodomy victims in America are boys under 12, with age 4 the most common age of assault on boys. And further underline the purposeful proselytising by slipping this snippet from American researcher Judith Reisman into his inbox:

Labelling boys homosexual allows child abuse to be legitimised as consensual homosexual sex. While thousands of boys have been infected by men with AIDS, the adults who kill these boys by sexual assault are not prosecuted for child abuse or murder. See my website, drjudithreisman.org, for extensive documentation on this issue.

The Department of Justice quietly reported 58,200 “non-family child abductions” in 1999, two-thirds involving sexual abuse; 35% were boys, commonly kidnapped by the 2% homosexual male population, bearing out the disproportionately high rate of homo-to-hetero child abuse.

If the Minister waves away that evidence, he should be handed a few first-hand accounts by the children of "gay marriage," such as Dawn Stefanowicz's Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting [see CO, Dec. 2012]. And/or offered a copy of British homosexual activist/broadcaster Simon Fanshawe's documentary "The Trouble With Gay Men" (BBC3, 2008). A blunt depiction of the English "gay" scene, Fanshawe reveals the dissolute world behind the classroom role-playing, sanitised TV sitcoms, and "equality" cant; a hellish place where cases of syphillis (to mention just one disease) increased 616% in five years because "promiscuity has become the norm" and "swimming around in a sewer" is viewed as  "normal." So says a disgusted Fanshawe to Paul, one of his homosexual brethren — only to be rebuked for his trouble! Perfectly content with swimming in sewage, at least there is logic and consistency in Paul's adamance that this deathstyle is incompatible with happiness and fidelity in human relations, He even expresses his dissatisfaction with civil unions legislation, explaining matter of factly: "The temptation of other things will always stand in the way of two gay men having a long-term, loving, caring relationship." (Welsh Secretary David Jones was vilified as "homophobic" for saying as much.)

Finally, it could be put to Mr Gove that at the very least, in the democratic interests of "equal" treatment, not to say public health, first-hand accounts like those related by Mrs Stefanowicz and Mr Fanshawe should be both compulsory reading/viewing in his teacher-training colleges, and briefing material for his Cabinet colleagues.

But enough wishful thinking! There is no educating the Education Minister. Self-interest and PC ideology suffuse the Westminster bubble and "lobbies," not ministers, now dictate policy without regard for truth, fairness, equality, or democratic means. All that matters to Stonewall and their ilk are the ends: the perverse equation and the diabolical bottom line.

The approach is two-pronged. Channelling Marx and Engels, the Gay Liberation Front insist that "complete sexual liberation for all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished." The abolition of marriage and the family, viewed as "a patriarchal prison that enslaves women, gays and children," being number one on their institutional list. At the same time, Stonewall play "good cop" by working within the establishment to promote "gay marriage" and "gay adoption" as more conventional strategies to achieve the same destructive end beneath a "progressive" mantle. Cameron, Gove, Duncan Smith and the rest are merely "useful idiots" in this onward march to the Animal Farm utopia where all "rights" are equal — except that some (like, say, the rights of buggers over those of parents and children) are always more equal than others.

Which leads us back to Orwell. A decade after returning from Spain, he wrote that "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." In that event, one might assume he would have understood and repudiated the sort of socialist democracy pushing this oppressive "gay" and anti-Christian ideology. But it is by no means certain. He may have grasped that "gay marriage" and the contrived non-debate surrounding it negate two fundamentals of any viable and civilised nation — the love of a man and a woman, and the love of inquiry and truth. But for all his intelligence he lacked the sine qua non of deeper understanding: the love of God.

Raised on the black legends of Whig and Socialist pseudo-history he equated totalitarianism with Catholicism. As one critic put it: "He had learned a hard lesson, especially about the new political Europe. Totalitarianism, the new creed of 'the streamlined men' of Fascism and Communism, was a new manifestation of Orwell's old Catholic enemy, the doctrine of Absolutism." Or as someone else explained, in the eyes of Orwell "imprisonment without trial, confessions extracted under torture with summary executions to follow" simply meant that "the ghost of Torquemada had arisen." Who knows, the sight of the Church getting its comeuppance for its Absolutist stand on marriage and family might have trumped his totalitarian misgivings about the poisonous "gay" agenda? He was, after all, an intractable lefty.

The terrifying Spanish experience had given Orwell a different view of Socialism, but he did not repudiate it in toto. "I belong to the Left and must work inside it, much as I hate Russian totalitarianism and its poisonous influence in this country," he wrote in 1943. What a contrast to Malcolm Muggeridge, whose own first-hand encounters with Stalinism, as related in his novel Winter in Moscow (1934), destroyed every last vestige of his socialist leanings. Orwell returned to England fuming against Stalin and the covert Stalinisation of the Spanish Republic, but still imbued with the socialist spirit. Muggeridge, on the other hand, came to see and denounce the core problem — the materialism embodied by both Socialism (of every stripe) and Liberalism. In fact, he considered the latter, not Stalin, "the true destroyer of Christendom" and "the greatest of all destructive forces, for its total moral vacuity inevitably leads to terrorist government."

Arthur Koestler also acknowledged some value in Christianity. Another ex-Socialist with no religious pretensions, he exposed Stalin's murderous "show trials" in his novel Darkness at Noon. Examining its major themes, a critic writes that one "suggested repeatedly by the Pieta and other Christian imagery, is the contrast between the brutality and modernity of Communism on the one hand, and the gentleness, simplicity, and tradition of Christianity. Although Koestler is not suggesting a return to Christian faith, he implies that Communism is the worse of the two alternatives." Thus, even Koestler glimpsed an elementary truth that completely escaped Orwell, who, closed to the supernatural, retained his blind faith in the here and now. Only God's grace acting on his notoriously fallen nature could explain why Muggeridge, after the same Stalinist awakening, saw beyond the empty materialism to the transcendent first principles of his Christian heritage: roots he duly rediscovered before finally entering the one true Church — wherein faith and reason, like men and women, naturally meet and marry.
And yet, irrespective of his limited vision, Orwell was not one to toe the party line. So just as his "understanding" of "democratic socialism" did not extend to Stalinism, one hopes that it also excluded the legislating of perverse and dangerous fantasies that deny the natural law, after the fashion of Bruno Nestor Azerot.

A Socialist MP from a small town in Martinique, a society built after the abolition of slavery, Azerot received a standing ovation from the Opposition for his recent defence of the natural family in the French National Assembly. In the teeth of the Socialist Party which has denied the right of a conscience vote to its members, Azerot bravely declared that while the government proposes its law on the basis of "equality for all, this is not freedom but a law which will render more fragile the delicate fabric of our society ... It is not the law which denies the ability to have a child to two men or two women, but nature herself. We cannot deny the reality of human life. ... I speak for the profound aspirations of my people, as a free man, and a socialist, and in the name of my people I reject this law."

Certainly, Orwell would have flailed the Pravda-like media for its "gay" advocacy and suppression of facts: "the lying propaganda found in most of the press," as he once put it. But I also like to think he would have stood shoulder to shoulder with the dissident likes of Azerot and the 175 British MPs (including 22 Labour) who would not be pimped into legitimising a homosexual scam. Indeed, if we replace "soviet regime" with "gay lobby" in his following 1944 denunciation of the Russian influence over the allies, we might imagine him denouncing the 400 Socialist Democrats right and left, who, with Messrs Cameron and Gove, waved away "the reality of human life" itself to prostitute themselves on Stonewall's degenerate, Orwellian altar of political correctness:

"Do remember that dishonesty and cowardice always have to be paid for. Do not imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking propagandist of the "gay lobby," or any other lobby, and then suddenly return to honesty and reason. Once a whore, always a whore."

We take Orwell’s point. But since his pessimistic conclusion is belied by the Lord’s cleansing of a renowned woman of ill-repute [Mk 16:9], we should continue to pray with confidence: that St. Mary Magdalene herself will intercede for the godly enlightenment of our governing class, by the casting out of the unclean spirits that blind them.  

 

 

Back to Top | Editorials 2013