“…. as it proceeds from love so it cannot but end in love”

May 25, 2013

King James I

King James I

Parliamentary Tories this past week experienced a sort of renaissance of absurdity and bigotry, not really as noticeable on this scale since the Thatcher years. For example, Sir Gerald Howarth – self confessed ‘devoted to Thatcher‘ (and 1980s prejudices, apparently) – stood up to denounce the same-sex marriage bill as the work of “aggressive homosexuals” using it as a “stepping stone for something even further“. He didn’t elaborate on what “something even further” meant, or who the “aggressive homosexuals” specifically are. But he did show the World the intensely ridiculous lengths of a masterfully ignorant bigot, that we so woefully refer to as “Sir” will go to protect his prejudices.

Then came the manic ramblings of old Norman Tebbit. Tebbit remains insistent that allowing a same-sex couple to marry, would eventually allow him to marry his son to avoid paying inheritance tax. I address the ridiculous use of the slippery slope fallacy with regard same-sex marriage here, so I wont repeat myself. But Tebbit’s finest moment in this debate came, when he suggested that the Bill may in fact lead to a lesbian Queen with an artificially inseminated heir. Heaven forbid we have a Monarch who isn’t the result of slightly incestuous relationships.

It would appear that Tebbit is under the impression that people are only gay, if they can get married…. and that a gay Monarch would in fact be completely heterosexual, if only gays aren’t allowed to marry. Or maybe he’s suggesting that the gay Monarch will hide his or her homosexuality, and marry someone of the opposite sex, to produce an heir. Living their whole life as a lie, which apparently, doesn’t undermine the sanctity of marriage in the minds of the swivel-eyed loons. Norman Tebbit is more suited to the court of King Henry VIII, obsessing over heirs, than he is to any time after the 1950s.

Tebbit, as it turns out, in warning of a possible homosexual Monarch, is about 1000 years and about five Monarchs too late. The United Kingdom has had gay Monarchs in the past. Here are a few.

The third son of William the Conqueror, William II of England, succeeded to the thrown with great expectation. He was the Tiberius to his father’s Augustus. The second in the line of Norman Kings that began in 1066. William II was a rather terrible King. He was considered a tyrant, and had an incredibly fiery temper. He never married, produced no offspring, and surrounded his court with “pretty young courtiers” – all men. It is claimed that he promoted male courtiers, based almost solely on how attractive he found them to be. Rumours of his homosexuality sparked harsh disagreements between his court, and the Church. Owing to the times, William was ridiculed for surrounding himself with long haired attractive male courtiers, so much so that Henry I, upon succeeding William, insisted that no male courtier be allowed long hair. Rumours of his homosexual relationships were rife at the time.

In the graveyard of Hulton Abbey in Staffordshire, laid a decapitated body, belonging to a man named Sir Hugh Despenser the Younger. He was hung, drawn, and quartered following the overthrow of King Edward II by his wife Isabella in 1326. Despenser was married to Edward’s niece, Eleanor de Clare. This brought him close to Edward. He was considered a favourite of the King, joined him in battle, and was with him right until the end. The King reigned more and more favours and titles upon his nephew-in-law, leading to huge unrest with the nobility of the day. Despenser is also rumoured to be King Edward II’s gay lover. He wasn’t the first either. According to commentators of the day – including The Lanercost Chronicle – and some modern historians, posit that King Edward had been sexually linked to Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall, whose Royal patronage caused much upset during the reign. Gaveston’s biography, written by J.S. Hamilton, says:

“there is no question that the king and his favorite were lovers.”

Similarly, in “The Life and Times of Edward II” by Caroline Bingham, it is stated that when the not-yet-King, Edward was introduced to Gaveston for the first time, as youngsters:

“….the king’s son saw him he fell so in love that he entered upon an enduring compact with him.”

– There was a growing anger toward Edward’s treatment of both Gaveston, and Despenser. Queen Isabella noted that Despenser was a “sodomite“, and her jealousy is well documented.
The Meaux Chronicle, written a couple of decades later, states that King Edward:

“….took too much delight in sodomy.”

– We can of course never prove that King Edward was gay, or was sexually involved with some of his male friends, but the rumours at the time, the discomfort the Queen felt toward the relationship between her husband and male companions, and subsequent writings and plays from Marlowe, all strongly suggest it to be true.

It is rather ironic that those seeking to use the Bible to condemn homosexuality, may choose to do so by using the King James Bible, given that King James, is the only Monarch we can say with almost 100% certainty, that was gay. And a Monarch so dedicated to one of his lovers in particular, they would openly kiss in public, according to contemporaries at the Court of King James.
In the book “A History of England” by James Franck Bright, we are told:

“The first of his favourites was Robert Carr, for whom the King acquired a peculiar affection while he was lying wounded from an accident at a tournament. Carr had been his page in Scotland, and the King, feeling a natural interest in him, visited him and fell in love with his beauty.”

– We then learn that the King has a falling out with Carr, complaining, among other things, in a letter to Carr that still survives that Carr had recently been:

….withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you to the contrary.”

– After the downfall of Carr, King James seems to met, and fallen for George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham. Villiers was known to be a handsome man, of high intelligence. He was a commoners, and elevated to the Dukedom by the King.
In the early 2000s, the decaying Apethorpe Hall, a favourite of King James and the Duke of Buckingham was restored to past glories. During the restoration, a secret passageway was found, linking the King’s bedchamber, to the Dukes.
During time spent apart, Letters between the two that still exist raced between the two, and represent rather beautifully written Renaissance letters of romance and sexual flirtation. In one, Buckingham states:

“sir, all the way hither I entertained myself, your unworthy servant, with this dispute, whether you loved me now… better than at the time which I shall never forget at Farnham, where the bed’s head could not be found between the master and his dog”

– The King is also prone to letters of romantic intrigue, sent to Buckingham on several occasions. In one, James writes, referring to Buckingham as his wife:

“I desire only to live in this world for your sake… I had rather live banished in any part of the Earth with you than live a sorrowful widow’s life without you… God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband”

– In one particularly telling letter from King James to the Duke of Buckingham, James is extremely candid about the effect had on him, of their recent parting:

“I am now so miserable a coward, as I do nothing but weep and mourn; for I protest to God I rode this afternoon a great way in the park without speaking to anybody and the tears trickling down my cheeks, as now they do that I can scarcely see to write. But alas, what shall I do at our parting? The only small comfort I can have will be to pry in thy defects with the eye of an enemy, and of every mote to make a mountain, and so harden my heart against thy absence. But this little malice is like jealousy, proceeding from a sweet root; but in one point it overcometh it, for as it proceeds from love so it cannot but end in love. Sweet heart, be earnest with Kate to come and meet thee at Newhall [Buckingham’s mansion in Essex] within eight or ten days after this.”

– His jealousy, is out of love. His heart is hardened against his absence. The King refers to Buckingham as ‘sweet heart’. The passion and the love between the two is quite evident, and rather spectacular. I would recommend reading their correspondence. It is a wonderful story of romance, at a time when homosexuality was widely and violently condemned. On March 27th, 1625, King James died in his bedchamber, with George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham, at his side.

Rulers, not just in England, have been heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual throughout history. The only reason it is less discussed, and less historically provable, is because two of those three sexualities, have been oppressed so viciously for no other reason than religious doctrine. Rumours of homosexuality of rulers range from the Roman Emperors Nero, and Tiberius (the gender of a lover in Rome, was met with very little opposition, and far more indifference than much of the conservative party accept 2000 years later), to Emperor Jianwen of Liang, whose own poems speak of sexual liaisons with men. From Frederick the Great, to Al-Mu’tamid ibn Abbad. They range from Christendom, to Islamic societies, to the far reaches of the Chinese Empire. They do so, because the spectrum of sexuality is as natural and insuppressible as the spectrum of eye colour.

Norman Tebbit is simply echoing the bigoted screams heard throughout the centuries from hysterical anti-gay voices that wish a monopoly on telling others who to love, based on religious fanaticism. What we can take from this, is that Medieval anti-homosexuality language such as “sodomy” and “sinning”, and the unwarranted stigma that this attaches to homosexuality, is still used today by those who have apparently decided to forego all social, neurological, and genetic advancement, and instead choose to cling to archaic views made popular by 13th Century Papists who we may say, had the excuse that they knew no better. Norman Tebbit, and others like him do not have that excuse.


My law on marriage

February 26, 2011

If we are to take the Biblical view, that marriage is between a man and a woman, we must look at what Biblical marriage stood for. Christians who oppose gay marriage, if they are going to use to the Bible to try to justify their prejudices, must be consistent and follow through with the Biblical guide to marriage. So perhaps we should use the Bible to structure a new Federal law on the Defence of Marriage. Let’s call it, Futile Democracy’s Defence of Marriage Act 2010. I took it upon myself to write it up:

Section 1 define marriage:
A marriage is defined as a union between a man and a virgin woman.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
A marriage is also valid, in the eyes of God and so the eyes of the United States Congress, if it is between a man and his sister.
Genesis 20:1-14
The union also permits the man to take concubines whenever he sees fit.
2 Sam 5:13
2 Chron 11:21

Section 2 relating to women as captives:
If a man within the United States of America finds a desirable woman in a room of captives, he is entitled to marry her on the spot, without her consent.
After marrying a captive, it is required, by the consent of the United States Congress, that the man must first take her home, and shave her head.
Deut. 21:11-13

Section 3 relating to women as property:
Trading in women, is a perfectly acceptable form of property dealing, within the United States of America.
RUTH 4:5-10
Wives must not speak, or offer opinions, especially in Church, except in the company of her superior (husband) at home.
I Corinthians 14:34-35
If a man rapes a virgin, he shall pay fifty pieces of silver, and then marry her.
Deut. 22:28
If a woman is kidnapped at a party, this shall not fall under the law of the United States forbidding kidnapping, as long as the man marries the kidnapped woman.
Judges 21:19-25
When at war, is it permitted that you destroy their cities, kill all men and women and male children, take the female children for yourselves, and marry them.
Judges 21:7-23
Purchasing children of foreigners is acceptable in God’s eyes. You may marry them, as they are now your property.
Leviticus 25:44-46

Section 4 relating to adultery:
The punishment for adultery is stoning to death.
Death shall not be enforced before a quasi-trial is given for the wife. If the parents of the wife can prove that the wife is a virgin by spreading the cloth worn by the wife on a table to the City Elders, the husband must pay compensation to the parents and the wife is not permitted to see her parents ever again.
If she is found guilty, she must be put to death.
Deut. 22:22-30

Section 5 relating to pregnancy:
If a wife gives birth to a boy, she must spend a week in isolation because she is, by decree of the Congress of the United States, and God Almighty, unclean.
If a wife gives birth to a girl, she must spend two weeks in isolation, because she is, by decree of the Congress of the United States, and God Almighty, very very unclean.
Leviticus 12:5

Section 6 relating to the death of a husband:
Definitely don’t marry your dead husband’s brother.
Leviticus 20:21
Definitely do marry your dead husband’s brother.
Deuteronomy 25:5-10

Section 7 on divorce:
If a citizen of the United States of America abandons his wife and children, for Jesus, he will be rewarded.
Matthew 19:29
A woman who is divorced for a second time or widowed by her second husband, must not remarry her first husband.
Deuteronomy 24:3-4
Divorce and remarrying, is committing adultery against your first husband or wife in the eyes of Jesus and the United States Congress. This isn’t a law as such, just to let you know, if you get divorced, we think you’re scum.
Mark 10:2-12

Section 8 conclusion:
Marriage within the United States of America, is hereby described objectively as a union between a man, brother, rapist and a virgin woman, another woman, another woman, a few more women, a hostage, a rape victim, and the female children of parents who have just been slaughtered.
But NEVER let a homo marry. This is unnatural and immoral.

I think that just about sums up exactly what the new US law on Defence of Marriage should consist of, you know, if it really is about pleasing God, and not about simply being horrific bigots.

I found this poet, Alvin Lau, in a powerfully beautiful poem exploring the bullshit of Christian homophobic attitudes that are prominent on the American Right wing. I cannot think of a better way to put into words exactly how I feel on the subject of gay marriage, than Lau does:


The madness of British Politics

May 29, 2010

David Cameron is Prime Minister.

He wishes to cut the number of MPs whilst increasing the number of Lords.
We now can’t get rid of the Government with a no confidence vote in the Commons, for the first time, well, ever.

George Osbourne keeps saying “We’re all in this together” whilst walking out of his mansion, toward his Rolls Royce.

David Laws apparently thinks he needed to spend £40,000 of taxpayers money to hide the fact that he’s gay (Firstly, why does he need to hide the fact that he’s gay? We’re not all regressive Tories. We don’t care that he’s gay. And secondly, how will not spending £40,000 of taxpayers money, reveal that you’re gay?), whilst at the same time telling us all rather hypocritically that we should all prepare for mad spending cuts and a decade of Tory and Tory-lite Lib Dem inflicted misery. It’s sad that it took a Telegraph revelation for Laws to say he “regretted it“. He didn’t regret, for eight entire years. He suddenly has an attack of conscience, on coincidentally, the day it becomes public. This is the “new politics“? It looks ominously like the old politics.

Paddy Ashdown practically gave Laws an on-air blowjob, telling Sky News how wonderful the little fraudulent Lib Dem actually is. Apparently the story of millionaire David Laws ripping off the taxpayer by claiming £950 a month for almost a decade, to pay for his accommodation, that he rented, off of his gay lover, whom apparently his not his gay lover, despite the fact that they have been…….. gay lovers, since 2001.

EDIT: David Laws has just resigned. It’s a sad day for people who are secretly gay and apparently have to spend £40,000 to gay lovers, for no apparent reason, to keep it a secret.

Vince Cable has lost all credibility by suddenly becoming a Tory on the issue of spending cuts (apparently he “changed his view” because the “situation changed” which roughly translates to “I sold my soul for a bit of power“).

Cable then signified his intention to sell the roads, because NM Rothschild, have described how wonderful it will be to privatise absolutely everything. Today the roads, tomorrow the air, and next week; you’ll have to pay to smile because McDonalds or Starbucks will own the rights to smiling.

The Tories refused to let a Minister go on Question Time because Labour had chosen Alastair Campbell, who is not elected, to go on. Which suggest the Tories think they have a right to dictate the rules of Question Time. The Murdoch backed Tories trying to undermine the BBC? I’m only surprised it’s taken this long.

And now John Prescott will be given a Peerage.

Oh, and Thatcher is STILL alive.

British Politics has officially gone mad.


The National Insurance Row.

April 11, 2010

The big news this week politically, is that a group of business leaders have signed a document throwing their support behind the Conservatives, over Labour’s plan to increase National Insurance. The group of businessmen signed a document calling for the 1% planned rise, to be scrapped. The news media are treating it like a huge coup for the Tories. The news that business leaders support the Tories, is being treated, like huge surprising news. Surely this is less interesting and surprising news, than Ricky Martin telling the World he is gay, about fifteen years after we all figured it out any way. In other news, Jim Davidson is still shit, the BNP are still racist scum, apparently a bear shat in the woods today, Hitler was a bit of a git, and the sun might rise sometime tomorrow morning according to latest reports.

One of the business leaders who signed the document, is Paul Walsh. Walsh earns £3.6million a year as Chief Exec. of Diageo PLC, a huge wine and beer company based in London. It’s net income last year was £1,725,000,000. Now obviously, earning close to two billion pounds is not enough. A 1% N.I increase would apparently cripple them. Lucky for Diageo then, that they have a dedicated management team who do not really like to pay taxes. According to a Guardian report, Diageo over the past decade has paid a little over £43,000,000 in tax. That’s around £4,300,000 a year. In reality, they should have paid £144,000,000 a year. That equates to £1,397,000,000 tax loss. If you were to scrounge an extra few pound a week benefit payout, you’d be threatened with prison. Scrounge an extra £1,397,000,000 and you’re well on your way to being knighted for your services to “CREATING JOBS AND BEING ALL WONDERFUL!” That gap in the treasuries takings, according to the Guardian would take 20,000 households paying income tax to fill. So wondrous are Diageo, and so committed to the wellbeing of their workforce, that after posting profits of almost £2bn, they closed a Jonnie Walker blending plant which had been a community of Kilmarnock local historical institution, and made 700 people redundant. Around the same time, Mr Walsh’s salary increased.

Another businessman to sign the statement in support of the Conservative Party, is Justin King, chief executive of J Sainsbury. The President of J Sainsbury, is John Sainsbury, Baron of Preston Candover, with a net worth of £1.3bn, he is a Conservative Party donor, and member of the Conservative Party.

A third businessman to sign the statement in support of the Conservative Party is Simon Wolfson, chief executive of Next. Wolfson is a member of the Conservative Party and donated to David Cameron’s 2005 campaign, and named by the Telegraph as the “37th-most important British conservative.”

A fourth businessman to sign the statement in support of the Conservative Party is Philip Harris, chairman and chief executive of Carpetright. Harris is a Conservative member of the House of Lords, and is worth £285,000,000. He is considered a close personal friend of David Cameron, and has donated money to the Conservative Party.

Do you see a pattern forming?

The Treasury expects unemployment to fall by a quarter of a million, next year, despite the 1% increase. And whilst Tory donating Businessmen have come out against the increase, most economists appear to be suggesting that the businessmen are wrong. The Times says:

“Martin Weale, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, pointed to the last time NI rose, in 2003. Rather than cut jobs, employers responded by paring back the growth in wages.”

The Tories claim that they will stop the rise, and instead cut £12bn of public sector waste. Apparently, that isn’t classed as attacking jobs. Even though, according to Professor Colin Talbot at Manchester University, Britain’s foremost academic expert on public sector efficiency, even £6bn would cause 120,000 job losses in both the public and private sector, because the Tories planned “savings” include hitting small private I.T firms. The business leaders don’t seem too bothered by that. Because, afterall, it doesn’t affect their huge salaries.

Of course business leaders have backed the Tories. We’re all fully aware that a 1% rise in National Insurance is not going to destroy Britain in the way these big bosses say. It is the same rhetoric they used to attack minimum wage introduction legislation; businesses everywhere will go bust; riots on the street because poor people love big businessmen and don’t wish to be paid a minimum standard of wage in order to stay alive, if it means those poor businessmen can’t afford a new yacht; England (which will be renamed Ingsoc) will set on fire; Dorset will be completely submerged beneath a sea made by evil socialists; and gay people will rule the World, all because of minimum wage. In other words, fear tactics built on empty rhetoric. Because twelve years later, minimum wage is one of Labour’s greatest achievements.

The letter says:

“In the last few years, the private sector has improved its productivity by around 20%, while productivity in the public sector has fallen by 3%.”

Not surprisingly, they didn’t offer any evidence to back that claim up.
Firstly, if that is true, that’s quite an impressive statement from a conservative section of society toward a Labour government. (Although, i’m not sure how you actually measure public sector productivity, given that it isn’t a product based sector, nor is it profitable) Surely, that is indirect backing for Labour? Secondly, whilst the private sector may have improved productivity by 20%, but whilst wages have been kept low, bosses salaries, according to Incomes Data Services firm investigation, have risen 18.3% to now 150 times greater than the average employee. Sir Peter Bonfield CBE, FREng, C.U.N.T of BT saw BT share price go from £14, to £5, under his control. He then left BT with over £6,000,000 whilst thousands of workers lost their jobs. This was in 2002, before the recession struck.

So wondrous has the private sector been over the past few years, it has brought the entire financial system to it’s knees, demanded bailouts from all of us, and those responsible are now living in luxury whilst their employees are struggling to find work and keep their homes heated.

The letter goes on to say:

“Cutting government waste won’t endanger the recovery – but putting up national insurance will.”

When you’re in a position to be able to resist all government “waste” because you earn over £1,000,000 a year, you can say things like that, and continue on your deeply ignorant path in life. Many people rely on social services, that would be put under major threat under another Tory government. Of course, the huge salaries of the big bosses wouldn’t be under threat, and so the bosses don’t appear to care. It is obvious that under a Tory government, the way to cut the deficit will be to hit those who cannot afford to feed themselves the hardest, whilst the wealth of the very wealthy will be protected. That is the legacy of the Thatcher government. The business leaders’ priority is not the public good, nor is it maintaining the wellbeing of the Country that allowed them such obscene profitability at the behest of others (No matter how much they say a 1% N.I rise is a huge “tax on jobs”); their priority is handing a healthy amount of money over to the shareholders who actually don’t do any of the work that brings the wealth in themselves (Corporate Socialism, I call it).

The idea is to create a business haven in the UK. And that’s fine. If it is supported by a top class public service and a decent infrastructure. You can go to a third World country and do business uninterrupted and deregulated to the extreme. You can be a real businessman. Use children. No National Insurance. No equal rights. Don’t pay too much out in wages. No work hour limits. Real Capitalism.

The CBI, the guys who actively protested against the introduction of minimum wage, the guys who want students to pay far more for their education whilst they themselves went to University when it was free, the guys who suggested cutting any educational courses that they deemed to be “micky mouse”, said:

“We applaud the decision by a number of Britain’s most senior business leaders to take a public stand against the planned rise in national insurance – which is a clear and unequivocal tax on jobs.”

I would like to take this opportunity, to say just how much I despise the CBI. Thatcher killed off the Unions because they had too much power of the Government. Well, she opened the door for the CBI, arguably the most powerful union of them all, and they keep flexing their puss filled muscles every chance they get. Why are we listening to people who campaigned for banking deregulation, and a free-for-all attitude to banking? They should disgust us. They have damaged us far more than the Unions ever could. The very same people who are telling us how best to deal with the recovery, were the people who contributed to the mess we’re all in, in the first place. We were deceived by these people, playing with fake money, for years, and now they are running the show again? Has nothing changed?

Growth is an interesting concept. Growth when it comes to the business World is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. Growth and “giving jobs” as is often the defence of big business. But what does this apparent wondrous philanthropy actually mean? Well, it means that the cunt businessman at the top wants to protect his millions, the shareholders who do nothing for the good of the company or humanity in general get a healthy pay cheque every so often, the workers are paid as little as physically possible, and the producer is paid even worse. We’re then encouraged through the constant raping of our minds to buy pointless shit we don’t need, purely to prop up businesses that shouldn’t actually exist, and buy another lovely house in a sea side resort for the business man who only uses it once a year and so contributes to the destruction of the once healthy and happy sea side town (See Beadnell in Northumberland for confirmation). I’m all for growth, when it extends the public good, feeds the hungry, and creates affordable drugs. Growth to me, does not equate to greed. I am not for a manipulated and diseased form of growth by big business, who then claim they are “creating jobs“. Growth, within the system that we live, equates to nothing more than a lovely big return on investment, regardless of the public good.

These businessmen are not worried about their businesses. Their businesses are doing just fine. They are not worried about the little people, as proven with Lloyds group and over 10,000 unemployed recently whilst their boss makes more money than every before, they are also not worried about the deficit and the Country. They are worried about their own wallets. They want more. If they are seen to back the Tories, and the Tories win, you can bet a mountain of deregulation and further destruction of the public sector will follow. Another generation of people from poorer backgrounds who are taught they are worthless, and should resign themselves to a job at McDonalds.

The problem is, the system failed. The private system. These top businessmen sucked it dry for all it is worth for years. They used their new found immense profits to pay workers as low as possible, keep the money away from producers, create offshore accounts to avoid tax, fund the Tory party, but on the plus side, buy a lovely new Mercedes. And now, once that gravy train failed, they have washed their hands of it, and will blame everyone else. Socialism, or lazy people, or Governments, or Unions. Business will never blame business. The Tories will never blame business. Business afterall, “give us jobs!!”. The workers, to these people, are dispensable and just cogs in machinery. Their lives are not important. I hope the entire stinking system fails miserably. I secretly hope for a workers revolt, in which expensive business suits are thrown onto bonfires and a form of Anarcho-syndicalism is proclaimed.