Race, Culture and Nation

The Local World Part XI

by Geoffrey Dobbs

From Race to Sex War

Genuine social reformers and social revolutionaries have opposite objectives. Reformers aim to meet the real grievances and to alleviate the hardship and suffering of the 'undermen'; thus increasing the mutual trust and co-operation (sometimes called the social credit) which stabilises a society.
The revolutionaries aim to destabilise society by exploiting those grievances and suffering with propaganda and by provoking the "overmen," the powers that be, into repressive reaction, hence counter-reaction (which they organise) in a rising sequence of hatred and violence until the common essentials of life in a civilised society break down and people are forced to turn to a totalitarian dictatorship to provide, by force, the bare necessities of life in return for the surrender of individual freedom.

The first group are realists, dealing with the situation as nearly as they can, as it is. The second are ideologists, substituting their imaginary 'ideal' of peace and happiness, which they strive after by means of bitter satire, intrigue, hatred and violence to create fear - for the reality of the way the world works. For generations, now, the social revolutionaries have been at work throughout the world, destabilising every society with propaganda, with lies, and with terrorism.

Any normal Government is bound to react against this, and to be denounced as repressive and reactionary; and if not repressive enough, the provocation must be magnified until it is. In the case of Nazi Germany the reaction was as violent as the action, and partook of the same revolutionary nature. Hitler's main declared enemy was communism, the methods of which he quite openly followed. But in fact he extended the revolutionary ideology from class-war to race-war: a most damaging enlargement.

Then followed, by the same dialectical law of revolution, the Leftist reaction which I called Izanism in the last Chapter, not challenging the race-war, but merely redirecting its targets, and following the same revolutionary methods of exploiting and increasing its hostilities.

And now we have, alas! the spread of this revolutionary ideology from race-war to sex-war. It takes the form of the corruption of a normal movement (by no means restricted to women) for a rational reform of women's place in a technologically altered world, into an ideological assault on the very nature, not only of our culture and civilisation, but even of human nature itself, both male and female, but especially directed against the latter. As U. K. Chesterton put it long ago: A feminist is "one who hates the chief feminine characteristics."

Furthermore, this has been accompanied by other, mass-imposed, fragmentations of human life and nature, including the big-money youth- corruption culture, inflating the natural differences between youth, maturity, and old-age into near-impassable chasms, segregating people as never before into age-classes, even within the family, by divisive thought and language. Even the aged, the crippled and those sexually inhibited by inversion, are being used as grist to the mill of 'political correctness' by our self-appointed thought police.

The Politically Correct: Class-Race-Sex-War

The continuity of this new revolution with what is now known as 'old-fashioned Marxist-Leninism' has been obscured by the political disintegration of the former Soviet Union, and the re-emergence of, overt Christianity from under the crushing pressures of an openly hostile atheist regime which had utterly failed to eliminate it.

This has led to the widespread idea that Communism is on the way out, even though in the Third World it continues to operate quite openly and with its old brutality under its old name, and in China it still subjugates about a fifth of the World's population.

But in the West we are now confronted with a greater and more subtle danger. Revolutionaries now operate under various 'respectable' Leftish labels such as Social or Liberal Democrats, and some of them are engaged in the penetration and corruption of the main Christian churches and are succeeding in perverting Christian compassion into a revolutionary tool for undermining and reversing the substance and bearing of the Christian Faith.

Even godless Communism used to be described as a kind of Christian heresy, in that its propagandist 'aims' were, verbally, largely those of Christians, differing 'merely' in that their results were the opposite. The conquest of Socialist State Control by World Financial Control has not changed the common corrupted nature of them both.

But it is now high time that the continuity of the new forms of ‘contextual theology’ with the old Marxist revolutionary class-war, and now race-war and sex-war, were more widely realised in the churches. This term, which I get from Rachel Tingle of the Christian Studies centre, covers all those new 'theologies of Liberation': Black, Asian, South American, Urban (Inner City), Feminist and Homosexual 'contexts' among them, which depict Our Lord as a political partisan and saviour, not of all men, but only of those labelled collectively in some context as 'the oppressed’.

Hate substituted for Love

These revolutionary theologians are concerned primarily with 'the struggle' against the 'oppressors,' whether they are seen as Capitalists. Imperialists, or Whites, or in the verbal sex-war Males, the family and the sexual normal - whatever the chosen context may be, and what- ever category may be persuaded to regard themselves as the 'oppressed’.

Forgiveness and reconciliation are ruled out, and those Christians who work for them have even been classed with the 'oppressors,' violence against whom has been called "a just and blessed act," an act of Peace- making by those who call themselves "the Sons of God." Thus, the whole message of the Crucifixion, of salvation for everyman is trans- formed into a collectivist ideology of a 'struggle' for the relief of mass-suffering (which Jesus shared on the Cross). Hate of the 'oppressors' is substituted for love, and the whole of the mission of Christ is turned upside down, often with the support of selected Biblical quotations and a passionate militancy. This is in fact a covert variant of the overt atheism from which it grew.

When one reads or hears of young people in the South African townships burning down the homes of black town councillors or 'neck- lacing' others who co-operate with Government plans while describing themselves as 'Christians,' this is the sort of 'Christianity' they have been taught. Nor is this sort limited to 'blacks' in South Africa. In less brutal form it has already permeated the Churches in the West, and notably those in Britain and the U.S.A., where it is manifestly leading towards the denial of the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Trinity in favour of other beliefs.

Because women by their feminine nature are more deeply concerned with reproduction and with nurture, both physically and mentally the attempt to reduce them to neutral 'persons,' boss-usable for any purpose for money, is to challenge the whole tide of Creation.

The current trivializing of 'sex,' as indicated in phrases such as 'having sex with' (much as one has a game or meal with) blinds people and especially the young to the fact that sex is a vital, profound and essential component of the living universe, not only at the physical level, but also at the mental and spiritual levels, as most people, in time discover. But that is real sex, not the sex-game. To teach techniques of 'having sex' before, or in the absence of, general biology is a cruel part of this.

Trivialising the Great Creative Power

It is not surprising that to conjure up this colossal living force of reproduction, with the intention of frustrating it, is visibly destructive, while its power of attraction, since it is the means of survival of the breed, is likewise immense; and there are few who can resist it unaided, especially in a society which encourages its trivial pursuit.

What is called 'sex' nowadays is not even semi-sex. Perhaps it should be called 'sub-sex.' Many discover the reality of the huge force they were playing with through bitter experience; but what is needed here is the experience of generations, as expressed in the religious inheritance and family tradition, permeating the societal culture.

This tradition is far stronger than we are being persuaded to think, but it is being eroded continually. It is of its protection that recent generations have been 'progressively' deprived by the more trendy, sarcastic and pay-worthy satirists of this century: the writers, journalists, artists, broadcasters, who have been training the public to swallow and demand more of the mental drug of sex-phantasy which they supply. They have been followed by the feebler, members of the mind-manipulator class, who naturally go where the money is. There is scarcely a word with a good, wholesome and decent meaning loft which has not been sneered out of public use in its proper sense. But they are still there for private and small-scale use.

If we interpret the great word Love not in trivial terms of 'feelings' but as referring to that creative power which expresses itself in mutuality, in the positive and complementary behaviour of all living things in relation to each other, which enables them to grow and survive, then the female gender has always had the primacy. To give the primacy to their usefulness in manipulating monetary ink-marks in the power- market over their innate genius with children and the family, with nutrition, and with religion, is a form of insanity which can lead only towards elimination of their breed of men; as it s doing.

Feminist Theology : the twisting of a universal Faith into a sexual-political context, uses its most deadly weapons in the inversion of language - a field on which the South African Institute of Contextual Theology (LC.T.) places great importance in the waging of the ideological struggle.

The Exclusion of Women from Mankind

Ever since the English Language was created under the influence of Christianity the primary meaning of the word 'man' (as in mankind) has been inclusive of all members of the human race. The everyday meaning of 'adult male,' exclusive of women and children, is secondary. Which meaning is being used has always been obvious from the context, but in religion, and especially in the Bible and the Prayer Book, the primary meaning is obviously intended in virtually all important places where 'male' is not clearly indicated; and this is quite vital to the Faith, and has never been in doubt until recent years.

Typically, in feminist revolutionary practice a 'grievance' is manufactured by constant misuse of the word 'man' in its all inclusive meaning as if it were 'exclusive' of women. In effect, feminists first verbally exclude their own sex from mankind and then accuse 'men' of doing so whenever they use normal English. Meanwhile, while trying to censor the age-old inclusive use of Man, the feminists demand the use of what they invertedly call inclusive language, by which they mean the sexually exclusive word 'She.' This then makes 'He' also exclusively sexual as applied to Man or God. The result is utterly confusing and destructive.

So they drag down the Eternal into the sexual sphere either as a Female or an Hermaphrodite; whereas the established usage escapes this in its primary, inclusive meaning of the verbally masculine. To this there is no valid alternative, since there are only two sexes, and the neutral 'It' is ruled out completely by its impersonality.

Though this ‘theft of Man' from the English language and religion is probably the deepest wound inflicted by the new feminists, the extent to which their word-distortions are damaging both social and marital life through their massive use by 'the media' is already achieving more in the de-stabilization of our civilisation than any other revolutionary assault.

Since male sexual vice as directed against women has much to answer for (though it is not all one-way), those earlier feminists who campaigned against the evils of drunken violence, of infidelity, of prostitution, pornography, 'white slavery' and commercial sex-advertising, deserved our gratitude; but they are now derided by the new feminists as 'old-fashioned' and 'self-defeating,' since they attacked the crimes and sometimes the sins of the male, not maleness itself - the bad husband and father, not marriage and fatherhood themselves - as do their successors.

The Undermining of Marriage by Hate-Language

The appalling thing is that love between men and women is excluded by this new language, and is replaced by a bitter, sardonic, acidulated hate. The descriptions of marriage as 'legalized prostitution,' 'the chief vehicle for perpetuating the oppression of women,' 'the most degraded relationship,' and so on, have been repeated so often and so widely, that they must have played a major part in the undermining of marriage as an institution, and in the growth of divorce, extra-marital co-habitation as a propagandist 'norm,' and promiscuity, with its doleful evils.

Lesbianism is seen as the preferred state for a feminist, as a political rather than a sexual stance. The young have been widely indoctrinated, by massive public jeering at 'old-fashioned morality' resulting in a merciless peer pressure, with the belief that every female has a 'moral right' to 'have sex' when, where and with whom she chooses, the consequences being borne by others. Should a new life in her womb be among those consequences, she should have 'freedom of choice' to have it killed for her, since it is 'part of her body'; even though every cell in an embryo's body is derived from both parents.

In straight language what is being demanded is the right to engender a human being as a by-product of sensual pleasure and then destroy it if not wanted. But our neo-feminists cannot use straight language. It is by such half-truths and language-mangling, in continuity with Marxist thinking, magnified a million times by the propaganda-machines, that our civilisation is being destroyed. A generation ago 'abortion' was a filthy word, ranked with 'murder' and 'rape.' It still is a nasty word for farmers, as applied to cows. But mass-word-twisting has changed that as applied to women. They call it 'feminism,' but the vast majority of normal women know that it is utterly un-natural, anti-feminine and a denial of that maternal love which is a part of their being, and which also tells them that where the consequences of sex may last a life time, a lifetime commitment is required.

Political Abortion

FREEDOM OF CHOICE (for abortion) is now the great feminist political slogan, notably in the U.S.A. But every woman has always had freedom of choice NOT to perform the act which engenders life (short of rape which proves that natural right by infringing it). The whole question of abortion is now political.

Here is an age-long human weakness which has always existed and has caused much suffering, but has now (along with casual 'sex') been seized upon and exploited. It is just when the social pressures upon women to dispose of an illegitimate pregnancy have been relieved that the revolutionaries have launched their holocaust of the unborn, carried out, for the most part, by the National Health Service. In doing so, they are depriving women of many good doctors and nurses who are avoiding going into gynaecology to avoid participation. Some of them, we learn, pay a price for their conscience. The revulsion, it may be, is greater than we know.

Feminists (of the old sort) used to complain of the 'double-standard' of sexual behaviour for men and women, implying that men ought to restrain themselves as was required of women. Now the same complaint is made the other way round, that women have a right to be as coarse and promiscuous as (some) men without criticism. That is the standard they seek, even in public rowdy behaviour, where we now have groups of drunken girls, matching the groups of drunken boys, except for screeching instead of bawling.

The public coarsening of the feminine mind as exhibited by many female entertainers and writers, along with jeers at natural womanly modesty and delicacy, is now avidly demanded by some organisers and publishers, and has already engendered a big-money demand which formerly would have been catered for only in the dingiest of haunts. Supply and demand now feed upon each other. Every now and then there is a 'backlash' of revulsion against all this but it never fully cancels the descent. There is a 'ratchet' effect which prevents it doing so. The 'ratchet' is money.

The root force is money-worship. Feminists complain of the indignity of the economic dependence of women upon men. The truth is that, in the home, economic interdependence between the sexes is wholly mutual. What they mean by 'economic' is 'financial.' "Money" says A Feminist Dictionary (Pandora Press, 1985) "dignifies, what is frivolous unpaid for." "Without money, you are nothing."

These are sentiments highly acceptable to the gentlemen who create by book-keeping the means of purchase we all need, as an ever-inflating debt; by which arrangement, whereas one wage per family used to suffice, now it requires two to have a 'job,' however pointless in the face of grossly excessive productive potential. It is now expedient in the face of feminist outcries to allot some of the upper-hireling jobs to women; but for every woman so favoured there must be a hundred who are driven to neglect their homes and children by the sheer necessity to sell a lot of their lives to remote bosses for money-tokens.

Money over Womanhood

The spiritual and moral consequences of this worship of 'money' (without which, "you are nothing") are Satanic. Love goes out and with it the meaning of service. Since the hierarchy of employment by the Big Money with its remote bosses alone is held to confer 'status' even the bottom grades of hirelings are held 'superior' to the unhired customer, and the producer now rules the consumer while pretending to the opposite.

Large firms or public services are constantly making changes to relieve employees of having to take care or pay attention, by thrusting those duties on the customer, or simply reducing the quality of service. The general rule seems to be that if you are paid to do something you must be spared all possible trouble. If you pay, the 'trouble' is up to you.

So that service which is freedom, the service of love, is derided, if not entirely ignored as if it did not exist, by the neo-feminists, as also by the modern money-marketeers. The dignity of the wife who serves with love a loving husband and children, and in doing so is mistress in her own feminine sphere off her own small queendom of the home, is beyond their understanding, for that is otherwise pre-occupied.

How sad, and how terrible is the social price we are all paying for the withdrawal of much of the deeper loving, caring and serving power of womankind from society and its replacement by the sort off female who puts money and career, the 'right to sex' and to, abortion, before her children and her home. The whole of society, including employment, is now permeated with this sub-sex-cult. Why do feminists complain of what they call 'sexual harassment' at work when it is they who insist that all women have a right to be 'available' for what they call 'sex' when they are 'in the mood'? How does the male, deemed to have a similar 'right' to follow his hormones, find out whether the she-mammal is on heat?

The Cult- War on Normality

It is necessary to deal here with another aspect of the sex-war which is even deeper than that between the sexes, since it injures both sexes internally. It is rather a disease of sexuality than a war, and one which infected the old paganism as it does the new. As ever with all perversions it is sold to us by a corruption of language; in this case by the stealing and misusing of the lovely little word: 'gay.'

If anything can rightly be called a perversion, a wrong-turning, it is the 'orientation' towards the same sex of the great, creative, sexual force, thus frustrating its fundamental purpose in the universe. But when politics dictates 'correctness' it is invariably to psycho-bully people into denying an obvious truth.

As with the neo-feminist version of political correctness so with the neo-homosexual version, a minor and deadly cult in the U.S.A. has been blown up in a few years by the big, money-backed media into a 'normality,' accepted and magnified now by the State-backed and official agencies and public services and embodied and imposed in the law and the language of the ruling classes, including the language and politics of many Church leaders. Why?

In both cases the whole basis of real Christianity is denied, not openly, but simply by taking for granted that it can and must be manipulated to fit in with the current power ideology. Sin, and with it personal responsibility for its consequences, as awesomely demonstrated on the Cross as an essential part of Love, is re-defined as opposition to, or even failure to conform with, the current 'context' of 'political correctness.'

Thus sodomites must not be called sodomites, even to distinguish them, as is very necessary, from all homosexuals, and even after that improper conjunction of the sexual with the excretory organ has been shown to be especially liable to transfer the H.I.V. virus, and with it a lingering death. Wrong application is what 'wrong' is. Dirt is matter out of place. Dung is vital stuff on the land, but not, please, on the dinner table!

Even when the wages of this particular collectivist sin is known to be death it is deemed more offensive to say so, than to deny the 'right' to choose a homicidal 'life-style' as a means of self-expression. This is quite parallel in policy with the 'right' of a woman to abortion.

As with class and with race, so with gender there is a proper, and an improper discussion, and if necessary, disputation. Until the word feminist was usurped by anti-male sex-warriors it might properly be applied to most normal women, who have confidence in the endowments of their own sex, and are prepared where necessary to defend their freedom to exercise them. As it is I shall have to accept and use the word in its current use, as applied to the latest cult of anti-male hostility which has spread in recent decades from the U.S.A. Neo-feminism might be another name for it.

Feminist Derision of the Feminine

Just because there is a large overlap between the physical and mental properties of men and women, so that many women can surpass many men in ways in which, as a generalisation, men excel, this is no excuse for perverse disparagement of the sexual difference and disdain for the non-masculine characteristics of the female.

Here again we have an inversion, in that self-styled 'feminists,' while attacking the violence, aggressiveness and power exhibited by men in the 'male-dominated' world, proceed to a blatant imitation of what they object to in the worst of males. They abandon the gentler and more constructive superiorities of their own sex for a bitter, aggressive demand for a greater share in the hierarchy which 'operates the despotism of the power-world. With an obvious adaptation of Marxist ideology, the theory is that when selected feminists have aggressively clawed, bullied, intrigued and maybe seduced their way to the 'top' positions. they will suddenly revert to the womanly gentleness and pacificism which as feminists they deride, in exercising their power over the rest of us. (Cf. the 'withering away' of the communist State).

Hostile references to male-domination or patriarchy occur (ad nauseam) in almost every sentence of feminist writers, as distinct from feminine writers, when they complain, usually with reason, of the misuse of power by males. But the feminists with their lumpen-thinking are concerned to deny the natural properties of both male and female which, historically, have ensured that all human societies have been openly dominated mainly by males ever since they grew beyond the simplest level of the enlarged family and attained anything of the nature of civilisation.

Some women have, of course, taken the trouble to scramble up the power-hierarchy, but for the most part sensible women have found something more vital to do, and have preferred to leave such secondary matters to the men - until recently; which is not to say that their influence in the home has not been of vastly greater importance in the civilizing of society than anything they can possibly achieve in the seats of power.

The Primacy of Women

Since women have always had the primacy in the gentler, the more positive and constructive side of life; because, as Henry Drummond pointed out long ago, their very bodies were created (call it evolved if you 'must) for altruistic giving, both the womb and the breasts for growth and nourishing and the whole for love and caring, the main function of the male has been to protect, shelter, and provide the larger means of survival for the more essential and sacred women and children. And so it still is, though the fact has beer forgotten, and the vast and complex systems of political, commercial. social and financial power are assumed to exist for themselves alone ; which is why they seem so oppressive to many of us.

The bitter thing is that the Green Movement, which started out to reverse the trend towards ever-growing violence and aggression, in favour of greater gentleness, thoughtfulness for others (including other species) willing service and mutualism, now seems to have swallowed the feminist drive for male-style bully-power, and the deriding of the gentler qualities in which women excel. Kinde, Kjrche und Kueche, the proverbial orbit of the German Hausfrau, sums up the contempt both of Nazis and of feminists for what is, in fact, what the Greens most want: the decentralised, peaceful, constructive and essential natural role of women in human life.

How on earth do those who use the slogan Small is beautiful adopt the policy of monetary herding of women into the Market Place, fighting for pointless 'status' as the pay-slaves of remotely centralised, usually anonymous, ever-changing money-powers?

All praise to those, male or female, who have chosen to adopt a real, independent and useful profession, or to acquire a real skill, craft or technique with which, by genuinely serving their fellow men, they can also earn a living. There is, however, a limit to this which most people are satisfied to observe. 'Small' is not only beautiful, it is also efficient in terms of human satisfaction. Beyond that limit in size and power there is a loss of contact with reality, and an increasing corruption.

Hitherto the chief restraint upon that descent into the unreal world of increasingly remote control through power and money has been that half of mankind which is concerned with the primary essentials of life, with the home and family, which are local and on-the-spot; and so, only secondarily, with the larger society which is built upon such secure foundations.

Moralism versus Morality

What we are up against is an imposed 'moralism' based upon human artefacts such as words, images and money, which is being substituted for the practical, tested 'morality' (mode of behaviour) born of the way the world was created and works. In human affairs sexual re- production and the family are so vital a part of that 'reality that the term 'morality' is too often applied solely in that connection. But the difference between 'morality' and 'moralism' is crucial. The one is practical, the other ideological.

Verbal precepts such as the Ten Commandments, and the Two Commandments to love, are of great value so far as they are tested in practice. Otherwise, being only symbols, they can be turned aside or inverted. The engineer who said that to get things 'right’ morally was of the same nature as to get things 'right' mechanically, i.e. so that everything fits and works as it was meant to, threw a light on morality which Christians greatly need. Jesus was not a moralist, but is a Way!

He did not condemn the woman taken in adultery; neither did he condone it. The New Moralism forgets that He told her not to sin again. He did not even condemn the moralists who would have stoned her. What he said made them look at their own sins instead of hers.

But is warning the same as stone-throwing? Our social revolutionaries seem to imply that it is; that to teach that this leads to that, that this is right and that is wrong as can be seen by their results--- to teach facts at all, whether it be the right and wrong connection of + and - electric terminals or of sexual intimacies, is itself to be reviled. It is to be noticed that most of the perversion which is being urged upon us is towards doing a right thing in the wrong context; and that those who jeer loudest at the sinful Christian are liable to work most profitably at increasing the sexual temptation and social pressure to do wrong. Not for nothing is one of the names of the Devil 'The Accuser'!

Public Orientation towards Death and Sterility

The official 'Health' agencies merely promote "fewer" sex-partners and the use of condoms (with illustrations and detailed 'advice'). On no account will they mention the only certain preventative, which is the faithful observance of marriage vows, and NO 'sex' outside marriage, for this would show up the irresponsibility of those: writers, artists, broadcasters, teachers, opinion-former, who have persuaded so many that virginity, faithfulness, celibacy, are old-fashioned titter-matter, and that in 'sex' (and drugs or any other immediate gratification) everything is 'normal.' As the advertisers say: Buy now, pay later (with interest).

The one thing about the public discussion of H.I.V. and A.I.D.S. is the instant, passionate defence of that cult or perversion which, in the Western World, is largely responsible. This shows the 'orientation,' not only 'of homosexuals but of a whole class of godless, satirical jeerers by word-and-image who so largely command our minds. They turned away from actual reality, and towards death, sterility, crime and perversion, with their backs to the life more abundant.

Homosexuality itself is quite another matter from the cult by which it is now politically and publicly encouraged. It is the political cult which has stolen the word 'gay' and smeared it, not only with sex-inversion but with 'politics' and subversion. Its connection with atheistic Marxism, especially at Cambridge, need only be mentioned.
So far as I can tell from the literature, some homosexuality, if doubtfully congenital, is at any rate an irrevocable defect, a form of blindness to the natural attraction of the other sex; but it need not be total, and there is no doubt that, as with other habits and attitudes of mind, it can be caught, and taught, and is so being now it has been developed into a powerfully supported and fashionable cult. The human damage is pitiable.

Personal sexuality is a private matter, and despite sex-boasters in bars, normal, decent people keep it so: and these include decent people who, apart from this one disablement are otherwise normal and, like the rest of us, would never dream of flaunting their sexual habits in public. When the defect is not complete and the sufferer is dim-sighted rather than blind to the other sex, and able to marry and to have children, such a handicap nowadays may lead to a break-up of a sub-marriage; in a true one (for better or worse) it will not, any more than would the loss of sight or of a leg. In any case this is an intensely private matter, and the proper place for it is in what the jargon flow calls the closet.'

As for the partially or wholly sex-inverted - they are subject to the same rules of integrity, self-control and morality as the rest of us; but it is well known that many of them are able to re-direct their energies, often with great talent, into the arts, notably the theatre, and sports.

Sexuality is Personal and Private

Thus, private, personal homosexuality is not the business of the rest of us, unless we are consulted as parents or doctors or father confessors or very intimate friends. But when it comes 'out of the closet' as it is constantly urged to do, and forms a mass-cult which sets out to attract others, then it becomes very much the business of the rest of us whose culture, religion, morality, health and even lives are being threatened.

One of its saddest aspects is the blight that the cult has cast upon that noble love which is called friendship which is normally free of the pseudo-sexual urge, making it hard for friends of the same sex to live or sleep together without being smeared with homosexual implications.

It is not personal, 'closetted' homosexuality which has spread a lingering death by H.I.V. and A.I.D.S. among us, but the lethal habit of collectivist, pluralist blood and body-slime mixing as a cult among the young, whether by drug-needle, sodomy or promiscuous 'sub-sex' and even by criminally careless public blood-transfusion. But before the immunity of the body to invasive disease could be destroyed, the immunity of the mind and the morals had first to be invaded on a vast scale: and this has been the task of 'the Left' (of whatever party, church or movement) for generations, until its lethal spiritual virus permeates the leadership of even our official and major institutions and has corrupted the language.

It is noticeable how our collectivist 'health-minders' take these deadly habits of multiple pseudo-sex for granted, as 'natural.' They are not. Nature as well as religion has prescribed that in a huge mass-society such as ours, if the spread of such contagion is to be prevented, extreme physical intimacy must be limited by the institution of marriage, which they ignore. The temptation to misuse sex is strong enough in all conscience. It does not need our health and educational agencies to promote it with illustrated instructions on how to yield to it, while reducing the risk from only one of its deadlier consequences.

Anti-life, whether by contra-conception, abortion, euthanasia, sex-inversion, or multiple body-fluid exchange habits, is of the essence of this philosophy, which gains ground through the assumption that all but an unfashionable, satirized minority must share it. Which is quite untrue; but it is eroding the solid bulk of decent people, and especially the young, many of whom are being deprived of their defence against it.

Neither modern political feminism nor public homosexualism could have become more than their usual minor cults had not the big-money media multiplied them a million-fold, and governmental, 'official,' educational, and other influential institutions accepted their language and made it 'respectable.' These included many of the churches, as judged by their most publicised leaders, who have inverted the charity which forgives, raises up and saves - into the indulgent sympathy which thrusts down and damns. There remains, ever, a core of goodness and of living faith; but this kind of jeering devil will not go out without much prayer and fasting, probably for generations to come.

When I first considered the huge quagmire of fear, insecurity and misery into which our bitter, godless, money-controlled mind-twisters with their use of the vast multiplying apparatus, have thrust the young of two generations while depriving them of their Christian heritage, I found it impossible to resist a reaction of fury.
This was directed especially at those who apply their sex-collectivist 'moralism' to the instruction of the young in fornication as the 'norm,' who supply abortion as a 'service,' and teach that homo-sexuality and what they absurdly call hetero-sexuality are alternatives; and who take no responsibility for the results in fear of pregnancy and disease, abortions, lonely burdened mothers, fatherless children, 'broken marriages, mental break- downs and suicides.

Yet all this is but a human fragment of the death and pollution that the rule of these anti-lifers is casting upon the whole earth.
But anger is ineffective and self-destructive. What has followed is an immense dolour, so deep that, though I am a poet of sorts, I cannot express it. Perhaps I have had too easy a life.

Into my mind came these lines, written by Wilfred Owen, one of those poets who died in their youth after suffering the witless mud and blood of the Flanders trenches:

Was it for this the clay grew tall?
- 0 what made fatuous sunbeams toil
To break earth's sleep at all?

Despair? Almost, but No, not quite! They are questions, not conclusions.

-----------------------------------

Geoffrey Dobbs wrote a series of articles - each interconnected with the other - over a number of years. You will find them commencing with The Local World Part I...

Further reading of Geoffrey Dobbs: "The Shape of Priests to Come": "Responsible Government in a Free Society" : "What is Social Credit?"