Daily Archives: May 7, 2012
Not many years ago, Cameron was seen as the best invention after sliced bread. Chosen in preference to the solidly conservative, but hopelessly rigid David Davies – a man whose renditions of a member of the Politburo made him a legend in his own time – Cameron won the sympathies of the party by promising to let it remain conservative, but presenting this conservatism in a new, more attractive and dynamic package.
He was elected, and soon things became to go wrong. Conservatives started to discover the new Cameron had time for hoodies, was after every fashion of the day – remember the hybrid car? And what about the ridiculous attempt of installing an opprobrious windmill on his roof? – and was beginning to talk in a very dangerous way, like a thinner and paler Oprah.
Soon the rumour went around it would be accepted that 50% of the party members would give back their cards. No doubt, they would be replaced by other, new party members.
In the meantime, the fashion craze went on. The party had now become “green”, to the point of changing its symbol for a ridiculous (green) tree. Whatever was hip and progressive, had the attention of the party leader. The man was positively intent in letting his voters forget he was a conservative.
But slowly, things had began to change. Already at the European elections (proportional vote, and a lot of EU questions unanswered by the party) in June 2009 the UKIP had got a huge rise in votes. The Cameroons still weren’t worried, and dismissed the UKIP’s now impressive record as a protest vote, which would disappear as soon as something important was at stake. They didn’t want to see the majority at the next election was gone already.
Then the election came, and the problems became serious. Cameron made a mistake whose consequences he is paying to this day, and which will probably cost him his skin. He managed to impose to the party around 100 utterly un-conservative Conservative candidates, many of them in safe constituencies, and clearly meant to continue to sabotage Conservatism. Once again, Cameron behaved as if Conservatism was the real enemy, instead of Brown. His candidates were rapidly christened “Cameron cuties”, and were mostly “tokens” in some way or other: token women, token minorities and, of course, token poofs.
The “cuties” were meant to give a fresh face to the party. They gave it a bloody nose instead.
On election day, the country assisted to the incredible show of a Conservative candidate not managing to get a majority against the most embarrassing opponent who ever fought – or ever is to fight – a leadership election. Gordon Brown let David Brent appear eminently electable, and I often surprised myself hoping his mother was already dead, in order not to have to endure the humiliation.
The election came, the Cameron “cuties” got a big punch in their politically correct face, and Cameron missed the easiest victory in human memory; but in his posh boy arrogance, he failed to see the warning signs and through an unholy alliance with a bunch of atheist, sodomites and “allied” of both, managed to get at the top.
The “love in” in the garden of Number Ten will probably haunt him for life, as he and his atheist girlfriend Clegg gave a rather disturbing show of how un-Conservative the new PM wanted to be, and how proud he was of it. Conservatism was buried in that gloriously sunny day, amidst the vaguely creepy glances between the two. I can’t remember if they got to the point of holding hands; if they didn’t, they certainly thought about it. Romeo and Romeo were, finally, in power.
At this point, Cameron stopped to be conservative altogether. In his arrogant, posh boy mind he and his new civil partner Clegg would solidly take control of the centre ground and, from there, live happily ever after in their Downing Street castle. Conservative values were at this point all but forgotten; the electors were expected to vote for him, be glad he was born, and generally shut up whilst they are modernised.
In the meantime, Cameron was becoming not only “modern”, but actively anti-Christian; not because of personal convictions (of which there is no trace whatsoever in his entire political life) but because his civic boyfriend Clegg was increasingly under pressure, and needed some scalp to justify his party’s existence as a power machine.
At this point, it got really bad. Cameron’s arrogance in criticising the owners of a B&B ( a private house, mind) not wanting to have sodomites under their roof was only surpassed by his stupidity in declaring homosexual marriage “conservative”, because family and commitment are, allegedly, conservative values, or so he “feels” (hear this? “Feel”? Very modern, isn’t it? I “feel”. What do I care for what is right? Sounds good, anyway…). Truly, it was as stupid as this, and it goes to show all the extent of Cameron’s arrogance and his belief that you can get away with pretty much everything, provided you package it in an acceptable way.
It went on: recently, it became known the government planned to take position against the British plaintiffs in a legal controversy in front of the European Court of human rights for the right to wear a cross at work, and at this point it’s fair to say all common sense had been thrown out of the window. Someone should have told Cameron about “in hoc signo vinces”, but they were probably sipping champagne too hard, and thought Christianity boring and old-fashioned anyway; particularly the girlfriend, an open atheist. To this, a couple of other blunders were added in a Government now resembling a bunch of crack addicts who had lost every contact with reality: the humiliating revolt about Europe, with more than eighty MPs reacting to the triple whip (stupid and senseless bullying, this) by whipping the PM in the face, and the growing dissatisfaction about another “modernisation” scalp, the reform of the Lords.
Only at this point, even the extremely patient, amiable, cricket-loving, Waitrose-buying, gin-and-tonic sipping Conservative England decided enough is enough, and Cameron got punched in the face until his arrogant, artificial smile had all but gone away. Osborne got the same punches, but as he always looked like a seventeen-years-old who doesn’t know why he is there and what he’s doing, no one really noticed.
It might, now, well be too late for Cameron to recover. Too much did he compromise himself with every piece of garbage under the sun, and his public persona will not be so easily recycled after years of love-ins in the garden, hoodie hugging, Christians-bashing, Cameron cutie-ing, sodomy-approving, and general inability to have any idea of what happens outside of his champagne-sipping circle of liberals and perverts.
Today, Cameron did something rather new: self-criticism in Russian style. Old tart that he is, he is hoping to gain the favour of his clients by promising he will now be most willing to satisfy their every desire. That’s Cameron for you: a moral vacuum, filled with hot air.
So, Cameron says he gets the message. The problem is whether the conservative electorate got his: Cameron is a slimy, lying, opportunistic, mediocre clown with a posh voice and no clue of conservatism, and who would sell his mother to whoredom before you can say “hug a hoodie” if this would only help him to stay in power. I follow politics since I am a little child, and I have never seen such a… one as this one.
In the meantime, the tree on the internet site is blue again. A blue tree. Now that‘s smart, and modern…
Cameron has, today, recognised the necessity of being more Conservative. You can be rather sure the matter of sodomarriage will now be buried as quietly as possible. But the question is: why should the party leave the task to become Conservative again to him, instead of entrusting the job to a Conservative?
I might be wrong, and it will take some time. But I think the writing might already be on the wall.
Cardinal Piacenza has suggested some days ago the VII documents should be read on one’s knees, because V II is “en event of the Holy Spirit”. All 141,000 words of them, I think he meant.
I have been trying for a while to give some sense to this rather extraordinary declaration. I could not find any other possible explanation than the following ones:
1. The Cardinal is a fun-loving person, always ready for a joke. Well said, Your Grace!
2. The Cardinal loves physical exercise, and thinks it should extend to one’s knees. I am not sure about the appropriateness of this particular suggestion, but I commend the concern for our physical health.
3. The Cardinal is very fond of penance, and well aware of the redeeming virtue of sufferance. Therefore, he wants to add to our spiritual penance (the self-infliction of the V II documents in their entirety, so that we may say “never again!” with renewed conviction) a strong element of physical pain. I for myself would suggest such a penance only to the strongest souls, but again one understands where the Cardinal is headed.
On a slightly more joyous and therefore less suffering note, the Cardinal might be aware that the Society of St Pius X is on the brink of being fully reconciled to Rome; an event which, no doubt, goes to the great credit of the latter.
It would be interesting to know:
a) whether the cardinal thinks this is an “event of the Holy Spirit”, and
b) whether the Holy Father has demanded the SSPX bishops perform the above mentioned penance, seen that the V II documents were an event of the Holy Spirit…
But no, really, I think His Grace wanted to be funny.
Interesting article about a book from a NY Times journalist, Ross Douthat. The book examines the way Protestant denominations have changed and “adapted” their message to the “challenges” posed by increasing secularism. The author is a Catholic convert, and from what I can see the exam of the convenient “variations” of Protestant mainstream culture is a clear reference to the Church which has the truth whole, rather than selectively chosen among the flavours of the age. I would like to add here a couple of considerations of my own, due to my personal experience.
As a European, a couple of things strike me of the American society: a) the pervasiveness of religion, obviously at a more or less deep level, and b) the “New Protestantism” of some of its more popular preachers; say, the Joel Osteens of the world.
As to the first phenomenon, as a European you can’t avoid noticing the number of people who publicly put Christianity in the centre of their existence. This doesn’t happen by us, in the sense that in traditional Catholic countries this would sound extremely strange (you don’t say “I am a Christian mother” in Italy; in a sense, everyone is or think she is; much less would you hear of people “meeting Jesus”, or the like) and in traditionally Protestant countries like the Netherlands or the United Kingdom Christianity is considered almost like a private weakness of one, which can be mentioned only if no one in the company is offended. A bit like saying “I like smoking”, or “I am a fox hunt supporter”. If my American readers thinks we are in a bad way, yes, we are.
As to the second, a striking difference with Europe is the presence of these “selective Christians” who, whilst probably sincere and intentioned to live authentic Christian lives, end up with a warped message. I do understand it is important to have an optimistic outlook and to tackle life with self-confidence and a healthy fighting spirit; but if you listen to one or two of these TV preachers you soon notice there is something missing: a proper consideration of the “bad news”, of the vale of tears, of the reality of suffering, and of its redeeming value. The exaggerate attention given to the “health and wealth” message (nothing wrong with either, of course) will,from what I have seen, still be inserted into a proper Christian context (teaching one the importance of reacting in a Christian way to suffering), but it still ends up being (for a Catholic) strangely and unnaturally unbalanced, as you will very soon notice if you listen to any one of them for even just half an hour.
Don’t get me wrong: I am fully persuaded these heretics are infinitely more Christian than our Archbishop Vincent Nichols, or the worst among our progressive priests. I also think most of them are sincere in their intentions, and are trying to do the best they can within the erroneous Christian frame they find around them. Moreover, I wonder how could they be attracted to Catholicism when for decades the work of US Catholic bishops has been focused more on social justice issues than on transmission of Catholic Truth. Still, it is in my eyes evident this kind of Christianity is very unbalanced. It is, so to speak, like being told from now on you should only eat chocolate, because it tastes so good.
For this reason, the now numerous attempts of rich Protestant organisations to conquer the, erm, rich Italian market have always failed. Whilst the protestantised Anglo-Saxon Catholics may easily succumb to the lure of the “health and wealth” prophets (apparently, a widespread phenomenon in the United States, probably due to the lack of Christian context their find in their own Catholic parish, and the total ignorance of the value and significance of the Catholic Mass), Southern European Catholics, solidly rooted in the robust common sense of a religion which still permeates their entire culture, easily smells the rat and refuses to buy the new “product”.
Having said all that, the success of these preachers even among Catholics is a clear indication of the dismal failure of the US clergy to transmit Catholic values to their flock. This is what happens when proper instruction is neglected for decades in favour of kindergarten tales about the importance of “rejoicing” and saying hello to your neighbour.
God willing, this is about to change.