Matthew Parris’ Poison

yes-scotland-poster-dont-let-them-tell-us-we-cantGay marriage illustrated it; Brendon O’Neill exposed it; and more recently the #YesScotland campaign highlighted and traded upon it: the UK’s political class is a corrupt, elitist, irresponsible, disingenuous, patronising, self-serving cartel. It must be urgently broken up and closed down.

Whatever you think of the issue itself, the gay marriage legislation last year was a democratic disgrace. Faithful one man/one woman marriage has been a defining and enduring bedrock of our society and culture – and the preeminent place of nurture for the nation’s children – for a millennium and a half.

lemmingsYet without warning, electoral mandate, Green or White Paper consultation or intelligent debate, and egged on by media, the PR industry, Hollywood celebs and the all-powerful gay lobby on both sides of the Atlantic (the UK perennially follows where the US leads), our political leaders like lemmings rushed off the marriage cliff and into the gay sea while emoting loudly and stupidly that it is “all about love”. Overnight, unitedly and unnecessarily they redefined, enfeebled and wrecked a hugely beneficial social institution.

As a consequence procreation and child-rearing are no longer primary purposes of marriage and conjugal faithfulness is no longer a primary characteristic. Marriage is no longer marriage.

This was extraordinary and irresponsible social vandalism by the Tory Bullingdon boys, their ilk in all parties and their fawning followers on the issue across the political class. Short-sighted adult gay rights today were prioritised over the weighty matters of our children’s upbringing and our society’s tomorrow. And sexual activity, identity, licence and gratification were legislatively endorsed by the Mother of Parliaments as the rising public values of our time. So, like Roman civilisation before us, hereon it’s all downhill.

Brendon ONeillIn a series of biting articles Brendon O’Neill, editor of Spiked Online, excoriated the whole democratically-bankrupt process. The titles of his pieces indicate where he was coming from: ‘The iron fist in the velvet glove of gay marriage’;   ‘Congratulations, gay marriage campaigners – you have completely destroyed the meaning of social progress’; and ‘Gay marriage: a case study in conformism.

The articles are worth reading in full as he incisively challenges the top-down soft-authoritarian imposition of gay marriage by the select liberal metropolitan elite. One sentence exemplifies O’Neill’s thrust: “The push for gay marriage has taken place entirely at the level of respectable society, being spearheaded by tiny handfuls of sharp-suited gay lobbyists, lawyers, celebrities, commentators and the Notting Hill/Hampstead sections of the political class.”

This is the same political class that Alex Salmond railed against so roundly in his #YesScotland referendum campaign; he labelled and damned it as “Westminster” or “London”. An astute Scottish observer of my acquaintance reckons that when all three UK party leaders were forced to drop their above-the-fray aloof posture, leave the capital and make panicky visits north of the border during the last 10 days of the referendum, 5% of Scots promptly switched sides to vote Yes against them.

Clackton on SeaAnd early this month the same patronising arrogance received an airing in its most ugly expression – so ugly that it’s almost a parody of itself. Matthew Parris, columnist for The Times, took a day trip to the former Tory stronghold of Clacton-on-Sea in Essex where a by-election takes place on 9th October and wrote about the experience.

His article reeks of racism, elitism and condescension. He reckons Clacton is peopled by the elderly, the ill, the has-beens and the anti-immigration English. “This is Britain on crutches,” he sneers. “This is tracksuit-and-trainers Britain, tattoo-parlour Britain, all-our-yesterday’s Britain.” “There are ten tattoo-parlours and no Waterstones,” he sniggers.  “Somebody has to represent the static caravans and holiday villages and the people and places that for no fault of their own are not getting where a 21st century Britain needs to be,” he sniffs.

I simply don’t see how a reputable newspaper in our modern egalitarian democracy can publish such neo-Nazi political eugenics. Parris advises the Tories that the residents of Clacton are not part of the metropolitan master race that inhabits Canary Wharf and other gilded, up-market neighbourhoods in the capital and that therefore they safely can be ignored. “The weak, the unlucky, the resentful, the old and the poor will always be the easiest to enlist as clients, for they have nowhere else to go,” he snorts cynically. Joseph Goebbels couldn’t have put it better.

Matthew ParrisOf course even Parris wouldn’t want to hasten their end by consigning the weak, the old and the poor to the gas chamber. But his logic tells the Tories that there is no point in applying the scarce resources of the NHS or the welfare state to such nobodies. Better to invest in the Canary Wharf future than prop up the Clacton past.

It is pure poison. Parris’ stomach-churning and profoundly unChristian attitude towards his fellow citizens is both beneath contempt and amply illustrative of today’s metropolitan political class.

Two weeks ago I spent my first day campaigning for UKIP in Clacton.

Last week I applied to join the party.

8 thoughts on “Matthew Parris’ Poison

  1. Fortunately, most people can read between the lines of Pariss’s obnoxious drivel. Unwittingly perhaps, he is probably driving people away from the metrosexual worldview he aspires to, into the arms of UKIP. That doesn’t just apply to Clacton either. We should stand back and enjoy watching him shoot himself (and his kind) in the foot, repeatedly.

  2. Matthew Parris’ [has] “a profoundly unChristian attitude” . He is of course a convinced atheist (and gay).

  3. Very well said in all of this, Alan. The forcing through of same-sex “marriage” was surely the biggest attack on democracy in its history, truly a disgraceful act, as you say; and the fact that newspapers such as The Times print things like this simply shows the total decadence and moral bankruptcy of the MSM. I would NEVER buy one of their newspapers, and having to pay to fund the Brazenly Biased Corp (a state benefit scrounger, if ever there was one) grieves me.

  4. Inappropriate and misleading language

    At the moment we have the right to choose (inoffensively) the words we use (and for that matter those we choose not to) – it is vitally important that we use this freedom of choice wisely.

    I am sometimes gay (not homosexual) and I reserve the right to not use the word gay to describe anyone or any matter relating to homosexuality and would encourage others for the sake of clarity to do likewise. The word homosexual is clear enough to convey what is being meant without unnecessarily causing offense to those who are heterosexuals as a consequence of misinterpretation. I also civilly object to being described as ‘straight’. It has connotations of inflexibility, intolerance and when placed alongside the term gay as its opposite then it can also be interpreted as sad.

    A relationship between persons of the same sex is exactly that – a same-sex relationship. It is also accurate to describe some of those same-sex relationships as legalised. In such circumstances, no reference to the term ‘marriage’ is necessary. Carelessness in how we use vocabulary has resulted in us surrendering vital aspects of our language; it has not been hijacked. The correct use of language in this matter is not unimportant. If we continue to be ‘language lazy’ and careless then we will find it so much harder to resist the suppressing of the terms mother and father, husband and wife and so on from a wide range of instances such as official forms, school books etc. However, I would warn those who would adopt the practice of vocabulary accuracy, (which should be only be done with a spirit of love and tolerance), will at some stage attract hostility, but rather than that being a deterrent it should be an encouragement. Those who value the traditional use of the terms marriage, gay and straight need to be encouraged to use those terms only in the context of their original meaning.

    I would also encourage those who are accused of being homophobic to calmly challenge any such broad and ambiguous charge by requesting specific details when so accused, and when the cloak of ambiguity has been removed then such accusations are more charitably and non patronisingly dealt with in an edifying and illuminative manner (that’s not to say that such edification and illumination will be welcome) by those who are genuinely well intentioned and informed.

    Though some organisations and individuals may even vigorously oppose the current attack on marriage, their continued insistence in language surrender e.g. gay, straight, and gay ‘marriage’ instead of (legalised) same sex relationships; the term ‘guys’ to describe a group of both men and women, has been a significant factor in contributing to the circumstances we now find ourselves in.

    The campaign for the legalisation of same-sex relationships is not an equality or inclusiveness issue. It is also not a matter of political correctness. Neither is it primarily about the redefinition of marriage, it is about the redefinition of morality with the ultimate aim of the eradication of Christianity. Legalised same-sex relationships and the redefinition of marriage will be used to stealthily compel society (particularly through the education system) to embrace rather than tolerate practices and circumstances which people should have the right and freedom to civilly disagree with.

    In conclusion I would advise you that I believe that every human person is a unique and irreplaceable gift created by our loving God, and therefore must be treated with love, respect and dignity, which of course applies to those who would disagree with me.

  5. My parents live in the Clacton area. I will be encouraging them to vote UKIP and am very saddened though not surprised by Parris’ attitude. I sensed the same disdain from the film crew in the train carriage with me earlier this week.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *