Daily Archives: October 15, 2012
And so Lady Sybil has kicked her finely chiselled, if so wannabe revolutionary, bucket at the tender age of 24 years, and Sir Julian Fellowes is today the most hated man by the women of the Country. I dare to say that if yesterday it had been made known that he has killed in real life, he would still have been hated for that less than for the loss of perhaps the most uncontroversially loved character of the probably most popular TV show on the planet. I would say that the ITV fat cats have guts, but I rather suspect Jessica Brown Findlay wanted to do something else instead, or was afraid of being typecast.
Be it as it may, the monstrous popularity of this TV show (excellent in part but if you ask me rather risible in others) is a living demonstration of how a phenomenon can change some habits, and let people think. I have read the UK consumption of port wine has sharply increased because of the copious amounts drunk on the series; I do not make any effort to believe that in times when even billionaires think nothing of going around in jeans, many people yearn after elegance, etiquette, proper things to do and to say, and a certain way of seeing life. It now appears Savile Row tailors are extremely grateful to the series, too.
What does this say to us? That TV series may change people. If not permanently, at least in the sense of letting them think, which Downton Abbey certainly does. Up to a point.
Sir Julian Fellows is, we are told, a rather conservative chap (I do not mean “Cameron” conservative, I mean real conservative). It is also said of him he is a Catholic, and not a wishy-washy one (I cannot check this, but to me you can’t be conservative in politics and trendy in your Catholicism; it just doesn’t square).
We notice this in several streaks and traits of the series: the only (thank God) homosexual among the main characters is the cynical baddie, and the other like him are was not better than he: nothing of your BBC “inclusiveness” here. Furthermore, rich people are depicted as having some amiable foible (Maggie Smith should get a monument) but as in the end altogether nice, and not at all exploitative; to the point that Tom, the wannabe revolutionary, looks very much like a childish idiot. Honour, scruple, decency, and valour are written very large. If you ask me, one of the reasons of Downton Abbey’s success (besides the wonderful setting, and the largely very good actors) is exactly this: the yearning after a world imbued in values that are not praised and set as an example anymore, and still are what people aspire to.
All this, I think, the producers perceive very well, and ITV not being anything similar to the BBC they have let the series run without any serious demand of politically correct insertions (think “history boys”; the shameless raping of the latest “Brideshead revisited”; the lesbian undertones in “Little Dorritt”; the massive homo propaganda in “The best exotic Marigold Hotel”; all produced or co-produced by the BBC) for now almost three years.
But then I think: is this not a huge lost occasion? Did Sir Julian Fellowes not have the standing to demand the inclusion of specifically Catholic – or at least conservative – themes? How easy would it have been to show a society where abortion and sodomy are simply inconceivable, and divorce barely thinkable? And if we want to be really shameless, what about a bit of Catholic propaganda here and there? It would not be less realistic than the one-night-stand of the heiress, the resurrected cousin, or the wise and prudent family head betting the farm on one Canadian railway company, over the head of his trustees to boot. And I spare you the young lady running away with the chauffeur only because the corpse is, so to speak, still warm.
Instead, the only Catholic we have is a mad Irishman with the maturity of a sixteen year old marijuana-fan, and of all the fiancées and husbands (real and potential; alive and dead; free and prisoner) not one has been depicted as a positive example of the True Faith. I wish Sir Julian would have insisted for more Catholicism and, if this partout does not go, a more clearly social conservative message, which would have been perfectly in touch with the times and the general tone of the series.
Alas, as it is we have the above mentioned wonderful setting, with less and less plausible characters basically changing personality according to the necessity of the script; and worse of all, without the robust injection of Catholicism which would have been so welcome and, I think, so eminently feasible.
As a consolation, let us enjoy some minutes of Maggie Smith…
Imagine one day your Government, following the “call” of the times, would decide that sexual intercourse with animals does not constitute a criminal offence. It is still horrible of course, but it has now been decided that prosecution (with the added expenses) is now not the way anymore.
In just a few years, behaviour once considered criminally perverted would be considered merely disgusting; after a while, purely very strange. Disquieting people would emerge from anonymity, beginning to give themselves as zoophiles names like “smart” or “spiffy”. Soon, they would begin to consider themselves a ” minority”, and the carriers of a “culture”, and this culture would be, of course, “discriminated against” by the “hypocritical” followers of “bourgeois morality”.
Give them just a few years more (the time to infiltrate Hollywood, and be considered “normal” by a generation of people who cannot even remember zoophilia was once a criminal offence) and Bob’s your uncle: they will be accepted. This point – when people start to say “some of my best friends are spiffies” without being ashamed; nay, feeling modern and alternative and “with it” – is the turning of the tide. After a while, calls for “civil partnerships” will be heard, and when one already has a neighbour living with an extremely nice female of German Shepherd it might not sound so absurd at all because the abomination was there, to be seen every day and shamelessly practised under the sun already; after a while, the calls for “marriage” will follow, and those who refuse to congratulate Bella (the German shepherd) and Adam (the English accountant) for their beautiful relationship will be called, by the then deputy Prime Minister, “bigots”, whilst the Prime Minister of the day will call their “commitment” something “conservative” and give his blessing. In the end, they say, Bella and Adam are “happy”, and how can anyone be so cruel as to be against, oh, oh, “happiness”?
What is this all to do with the so-called “gay marriage”, you will ask?
The debate about the so-called “gay marriage” (which isn’t gay; much less marriage) is not the product of some strange combination of planets; it is the unavoidable consequence of the abolition of sodomy laws. How was it not to be expected that the toleration of perversion would not, in time, lead to calls for its normalisation? One can’t be half against abominations. Either one refuses them altogether as taboos, or one will be forced to “include” what he is afraid to condemn.
Our forefathers, much smarter than we are and with no false gods of tolerance at all costs, knew this. We know this ourselves when some types of sexual perversions (paedophilia, say) are concerned. But again, after only one and a half generation without sodomy laws many people would struggle to even link the two and put them in the same ballpark, which countless generations before us did without any problem. This happens because, as I have often repeated, the laws of one generations are the morality of the following one. Those legislators who decriminalised sodomy in the Sixties certainly did not favour the so-called “gay marriage”, but clearly did not think this through. We now pay the consequences of their folly, and it might be a long time before sanity (and with it sodomy laws) returns.
We live in such senselessly stupid times that we have lost sight for elementary truths just because they impact some neighbour or colleague or “friend”. God is not part of the picture anymore, and no average “British Neighbour” wonders anymore whether he must really tolerate scandalous perversion out of his own front door. This happens, because he has not been taught to call a spade a spade; and whilst he feels all the disgust he has no heart to say what he thinks, lest he should appear a Neanderthaler in the eyes of his neighbours; many of whom, no doubt, think exactly as he does.
This cycle of cowardice – which generates more homo screaming; which generates more cowardice – has to stop. It has to stop if we want to go back to basic Christianity and elementary decency, instead of allowing Satan to manipulate us everywhere whilst we say to our friends how modern and tolerant we are.
So-called “gay” (I’d love to see the suicide statistics of such “gay” people) “marriage” is not fought against saying that civil partnership is enough of a civil right, because this invites the problem rather than avoiding it. If perversion is right, why should only half perversion be accepted? Isn’t the very institution of “civil partnership” the statement that sexual perversion is absolutely normal? If it’s normal, what’s the fuss?
So-called “gay marriage” is fought against by calling s spade a spade, and a pervert a pervert, not by giving perverts almost full recognition and then telling them they are ok, but really, they should not ask to be treated as such.
Bring back the sodomy laws.