Winston McKenzie has caused some in the UKIP leaderhip to forget themselves for a moment in their welcome role as crusaders against Marxist social engineering powered by political thought-control. The gauntlet had been thrown down after the Rotherham insult; the ruling elite, their minions in the Town Halls, and the tiny pressure groups that manufacture Politically Correct outrage would no longer decide what is – or what is not – an act of racism. The right-minded people in the majority now had a voice, and we decided that rejecting multiculturalism is not the same thing as being prejudiced against people who happen to be in a minority according to their different skin colour. As it happens, it never was, and for political reasons we were only tricked into thinking it might have been.
Unfortunately, UKIP wasn’t so crusading when it came to rejecting the politicisation of homosexuality (from the Daily Mail, where the commenters are very supportive of McKenzie):
David Coburn, UKIP’s London chairman who is gay, insisted Mr McKenzie’s views were not party policy.
‘We entirely, wholeheartedly support equal rights for couples regardless of their sexuality,’ he said.
To be fair, I think I am right in saying that UKIP believes that civil partnerships should suffice homosexuals, and that full blown marriage is an equal right too far. And actually, the idea that homosexual couples should be considered equal to heterosexual ones is the controversial viewpoint; it’s not the other way around. The idea that homosexual couples can adopt children is the controversial viewpoint; it’s not the other way around. That you, dear reader, might flinch when Winston McKenzie announces that it is to be abusive to have children adopted by homosexuals is due to the fact that you have been conditioned these many long years to understand that what should be controversial is, in fact, completely acceptable. So, when Ben Summerskill, of gay rights charity Stonewall, reacted to Winston McKenzie by saying: ‘these 19th-century views are not acceptable in the 21st century,’ what he was trying to do was trigger your reflexive conditioning. He was trying to activate a feeling of being appalled so that you would not begin to consider if Winston McKenzie’s words had any merit.
But, don’t forget, the politically correct viewpoint, even if it isn’t always a minority one, is usually the controversial one. The whole point of the Marxist Revolution was to subvert British Judeo-Christian culture, so of course the politically correct viewpoint is the controversial one.
As the author has previously pointed out, the greatest thing wrong with homosexuality is not that it is not normal – every choice can be normalised and rationalised by living day-by-day through the ramifications of the decision, and especially if there is political approval and encouragement. The greatest thing wrong with homosexuality is that it isn’t very useful. This doesn’t matter very much when it is private. However, when it is promoted into a lifestyle choice – in other words, made into a public commodity that people can choose on an equal footing with heterosexuality – then it also starts to become destructive for society. When too many people have been convinced not to breed naturally, then, as I am about to explain, a certain power changes hands from its natural home with the individual and becomes the possession of the government. Besides which, a collective that believes that its contrived homosexual public identity has a right to be considered as equal to what is default must be legislated for; in a free country, most legislation is already too much.
The Establishment in this country likes to promote single and homosexual parenthood because it goes against the cultural expectation that children should be brought up by two (preferably married) parents, a male and a female. Of course, Marxist criticism would say that the cultural expectation is a false construct, but my response would be this: where in the physical act of producing a child is there scope to build a different construct whereby two men or two women will best raise the new Human Being they created between them? There isn’t one, of course, because there is no physical act that two men or two women could perform that would produce children.
Instead, they would need medical assistance, and in the UK that usually means the State. The State, of course, would love to have a hand in the artificial creation of children. I believe that the novel Brave New World by the eugenicist Aldous Huxley is the blueprint for the thicker end of the wedge that has at its thin end the separation of the sexual act and child rearing.
As far as I can see, Winston McKenzie never did say that medically assisted parenthood for homosexuals should be banned. However, he did seem to say that any child being raised by homosexuals was itself a form of abuse, and this is an (albeit unwitting) indirect attack on a system that enables the surrogate child-birth or artificial insemination needed to furnish homosexual men and their “wives”, and homosexual women and their “husbands” with an individual that all parties can imagine is their natural born child. I think that perhaps this is the real reason that Winston McKenzie found himself in so much trouble. There is no doubt in my mind that the advocacy of the complete homosexual lifestyle, including the raising of children by “daddy-mummy” and “mummy-daddy”, is political and towards diabolical ends; in that way it is indeed abusive for homosexuals to adopt children – all parties to the arrangement are being exploited – but we could also say of the bigger picture, it is public homosexuality in itself that is abusive to society as a whole.
Getting back to the context of what Winston McKenzie said:
‘To say to a child, “I am having you adopted by two men who kiss regularly but don’t worry about it” – that is abuse.
‘It is a violation of a child’s human rights because that child has no opportunity to grow up under normal circumstances’ he told Metro.
I don’t agree that it is a human right for a child to have a mum and a dad because in the normal course of things, sometimes one or both parents can die thus denying the child of his “human rights”. Bad luck cannot be legislated for or against, and having two homosexual parents could just count in these regards as a case of very bad luck. As for the idea that it is abusive for a child to be raised by homosexuals, what McKenzie seems to be referring to is how living in such an environment means that a child runs the risk of being normalised to a lifestyle that he very likely would not have chosen for himself had he been raised by heterosexuals (despite what the propaganda says, there are not very many people in the UK who are not heterosexual). Is that abuse? The answer may come down to the old nature or nurture debate. If a child inherently feels attracted to traditional domestic situations even though his own is decidedly weird, then the normalisation could be said to have been an unwanted imposition; an abuse.
Then there is the risk of the normalisation to homosexuality, in turn, encouraging deviancy in the child – ‘There are people out there who bring up their kids encouraging them to believe they are gay themselves,’ was the way Winston put it. It is in society’s best interest for all children to have balanced upbringings so that they can fulfil their basic role in life to reproduce and raise new life; to play a part in handing down through the ages our shared culture. If a child is in any way restricted towards this end, then of course it is abuse; deliberately arresting the development of an individual is an act of abuse. Besides which, whenever a human being is denied the opportunity to do what he is put on the earth to do, then it is a victory for the anti-human social engineers that control this country.