RETURN TO PART 1 | GO TO PART 3 | HOME

CHAPTER 3

FROM EVOLUTION TO REVOLUTION

... a surprising number of the elements which used to belong to traditional religion have regrouped themselves under the heading of science, mainly around the concept of evolution .. The power of these ideas still remains to be accounted for ... We need very badly to understand the influences involved.

Mary Midgley Evolution as a Religion

Carl Sagan, in the television series Cosmos, declares that "evolution is not a theory, it is a fact". Many scientists violently opposed to creation science, and the fundamentalists, would have been embarrassed by this assertion. Evolution is decidedly not a fact, and the scientific world knows it. There is a difference between objective and subjective truth. Sagan's statement tells us more about what is going on inside Carl Sagan's cranium than it does about the natural history of east Africa or the Amazonian rainforest.

The theory of evolution revolutionised man's ideas about religion, but to what extent might the theory have been actually inspired by a general philosophical acceptance of atheism and agnosticism? The common perception prevails that Darwin discovered some incontrovertible scientific fact which proved that life developed according to evolutionary processes, and inadvertently he just happened to step on a few theological toes.

Few people seem to give much thought to the philosophical forces at work on the development of evolutionary thinking. 1 The popular story is that Darwin, a trainee clergyman, was a firm believer in God who struck upon the idea of natural selection and, lo and behold, was confronted with the awesome possibility that God might not have been behind the creation after all! On the contrary, I suggest that Darwin was already well down the road of agnosticism, if not outright atheism, when he propounded his theory. He was already in a state of spiritual crisis concerning the existence of, and purpose of, God in the world and that, budding clergyman or no, he had virtually banished all thought of God from his mind when contemplating the origins of life. 2

Darwin's doubts symbolised the spiritual crisis of the Victorian age. For fundamentally philosophical, not scientific reasons, an alternative explanation of life's origins was required in the public imagination. If there had been no Darwin in the middle of the nineteenth century it would have been necessary to invent him!

In his investigations of the animal kingdom, Darwin was tremendously influenced by the case of the spider wasp. This insect deposits eggs within the bodies of its victims, which are then gradually consumed alive by the larvae. To Darwin it seemed incomprehensible that this phenomenon could be the result of divine creation. But here Darwin makes a serious error. He makes the mistake of imposing human values on the insect world. (My cat will stalk, pick up and eat a spider. Should I strive to understand this conduct in human terms?) Nevertheless, such attitudes will find widespread acceptance in times of religious skepticism.

When we survey society at large, we find a general consensus that life evolved, simply because no practical alternative appears to present itself. Consider the competing ideas. If man did not evolve, where did he come from? Given that, in our spiritual barrenness, we reject the idea of God and his role in creation, this does not leave much room for manoeuvre. Even if life originated in outer space ('panspermia' as propounded by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe), the question becomes where did this life itself come from? The issue of the origins of life on earth then comes down to these three alternatives. The religious explanation has become outmoded, the colonisation from outer space idea is too fantastic to consider, and in any case doesn't advance the argument any further. This leaves evolution as the only practical possibility. Is this because there is a massive amount of supporting evidence? No, it is simply that it is the only kind of answer which appears plausible to the rational mind, in the absence of viable alternatives.

The lack of ready-made answers to the question of man's origins might constitute a simple shortcoming in man's understanding of the cosmos, but the fundamentally important thing to appreciate is that this is a question which deeply unsettles people philosophically, and that we will go to almost any extreme to provide ourselves with an answer. This is because knowledge of our origins is inextricably linked with our understanding of our present condition. The present is simply the sum total of past events. (This is why history is not "bunk", as Henry Ford expressed it!) If we are to understand who we are, what we are doing here, and where we are going, we have to know where we came from. Man will have a conception of his origins at any cost, and if one does not present itself, he will invent one! This is the dimension to the evolution controversy which is missing from all the traditional arguments and assertions on the issue. My contention is that evolution is more than simply science. It is an idea which is invested with the character of an entire philosophy of life for its adherents, and furthermore, this is not to man's ultimate benefit even apart from the inherent faultiness of the theory. Its weaknessess will be overlooked, and it will dictate our thinking about man, society, and even politics, in ways that are detrimental to man's well-being. These aspects of the evolution controversy are too often ignored or neglected by a society desperately in need of an explanation of man's origins, and one which bears the stamp of accepted scientific wisdom.

If one were to ask a hundred people whether they believe in evolution, the overwhelming majority would say yes. But how many of these people have ever actually proved the theory of evolution for themselves scientifically. At this point the evolutionist will protest that we accept a whole host of things second-hand through reliance on the authority of experts in various fields of scientific knowledge, without verifying these ideas personally. But people do not adhere, with religious conviction, to other scientific propositions far more firmly grounded in experimental proof, and less philosophically engaging, than the theory of evolution. How many people are even aware of, much less hold as valid, the formula known as Hubble's Constant (a principle which expresses the relationship between the velocity of a galaxy and its distance from the earth). You might find one person who has heard of Hubble's Constant, but definitely not a host of people who will look upon the issue as a potential challenge to their most deeply held beliefs. In both cases we are dealing with straight-forward scientific formulations aren't we? The point simply is that nobody much cares about the recessional velocity of galaxies. When it comes to the origin of man however it's a different story. The common man believes in evolution, but not because he is by any means normally preoccupied with controversies of a scientific nature. Ordinary people do not understand evolution in a scientific way, they understand it in the manner of a faith, or belief

Even among scientists themselves, to say nothing of the wider community, I would not inevitably be inviting general personal abuse by arguing in favour of say the oscillating universe as opposed to the "Big Bang" theory. If I were to argue that there may be life on a planet circling the star Vega, my views might be met with derision by astronomers because the idea is unprovable, but unlike evolution (which is nothing if not inherently unprovable!) it would not possess the character of an assault upon a person's most deeply held convictions about life.

So we are dealing with a different kind of question when it comes to evolution, although it is generally construed as pure science by rationalists and secularists. When you hear someone say "Everybody believes in evolution!" he is not simply affirming a scientific truth. What he is doing is making first and foremost a philosophical statement, and in the process has moved a mile away from the verities of purely scientific fact. For all practical purposes evolution is not science, it is philosophy! The more one analyses the issue, the more one discerns the unmistakable hallmarks of traditional religious belief: intolerance of conflicting opinions; violent resistance to any challenge to received orthodoxy; ostracism of those who question the fundamentals of doctrine; and so on.

Consider the most immediately obvious objection to Darwinian theory, the fact that there exists virtually no evidence whatsoever of transitionary species in the whole panorama of "evolutionary history" -These should exist in abundance, and not be restricted to freakish occurrences like the (supposedly) feathered reptile Archaeopteryx, because such phenomena are the very essence of what evolutionary theory is about. Darwin himself could not explain this anomaly.

Of course it is not merely in the fossil record that this evidence is conspicuous by its absence. Why do transitionary species not exist in the animal world today? Why are there not around us myriad forms of life that are clearly on their way to evolving either to, or from, identifiably similar species? There is absolutely no reason why this should not be the case according to the evolutionary view of things, since the theorised changes are occurring at an imperceptibly slow rate? Since these changes are in response to gradual changes in the environment, why aren't the species almost perfectly adapted to the present environment, but not quite suited to the new environment which is gradually creeping up on us, be sharing the planet, in abundance, with the newly evolving species? Shouldn't the gradations between these various species be apparent in the form of myriad species of life which differ in nature only in the merest of degrees, and not restricted to biological freaks like the platypus? After all, man and apes (we are told) co-evolved in Africa did they not? Why then do man and apes still co-exist there? Why did not the apes die out? And why aren't there numerous examples of man/ape, ape/man species in evidence? Darwin endeavoured to explain this problem by reference to selectively bred species like the greyhound. Where, asked Darwin, are the intermediary species in this case? However this analogy is not entirely appropriate. Firstly, because the breeding of the greyhound was a man-made genetic innovation, not a product of extremely gradual natural selection. Secondly, because it is an observable fact that variations can occur and be artificially induced within species, but this provides no evidence at all for transformations from one species to another.

As a side-issue the question might even be raised, why is life itself not "evolving" in muddy pools all over the world at this very moment? Answer: primitive forms of life would immediately be eaten up by predatory amoeba! Alas, our earnest evolutionist would regrettably be unable to supply physical proof of the process! This ignores the probability that at least some forms of spontaneously evolving life should be detectable experimentally. (In the realm of nuclear physics we can detect sub-atomic particles whose life-span is measured in millionth fractions of a second!)

The lack of transitionary forms in the animal world is not a mere scruple with a small aspect of evolutionary science. The non-existence of this evidence places evolution within the realms of pure conjecture!

Evolutionists have gotten their way around the problem of the non-existence of transitionary forms of life by propounding the idea of of punctuated equilibrium". This theory is that evolution occurs through sudden genetic mutations, a scheme of things which leaves no trace of intermediary species in the fossil record. (Mutations are almost invariably degenerate forms of life, and not robust, virile biological innovations, the so-called "hopeful monsters", which take animal life down new evolutionary paths.) This explanation neatly avoids the obvious lack of actual hard evidence for evolution! How very convenient! Might it be too cynical to suggest that this theory has been devised simply to overcome the lack of evidence of the evolutionary process? The tenacity with which people hold on to the idea of evolution, in the face of the objections outlined above, testifies to the almost religious awe in which such ideas are held.

When we come to the issue of the evolution of man we find spectacular evidence of the transcendent assumptions of evolutionary theory. Here the dominance of subjective interpretation in the evolutionary ideology presents itself in the race to be the first to uncover remains of the first human fossils. This is related in a book called Bones of Contention by Roger Lewin. 3 It is a wonder this book hasn't been suppressed by the scientific community, for in it we find a record of the almost manic search by obsessed paleoanthropologists to be the first to find original human remains in the fossil beds of East Africa. Although the author does not appear to query the dictates of evolutionary doctrine, this book provides an eye-opening perspective on the enormous amount of subjectivity involved in analysing fossil remains. For researchers convicted of the tenets of evolutionary theory, this is a rather damning insight into their scientific methods. The controversies turn on the interpretation of ape-like remains as being more or less human. The stakes for finding the earliest human-like remains are high. They consist of increased funding for further research as well as the prestige and fame accorded the successful anthropologist from colleagues in the scientific world and society at large. The attention which this high profile area of scientific research attracts is by itself a demonstration of my thesis We hunger to know about our origins because it tells us something fundamentally important about ourselves, and "discoveries" in this area are received with more enthusiasm than those in any other field of scientific endeavour.

The book records the rivalry between leading personalities like Lewis and Richard Leakey, and Donald Johanson, and brings out the point that ideas about the human-like characteristics of the fossils are extremely subjective. As Lewin states:

Neanderthal, Piltdown, Australopithecus, Ramapithecus, Zinjanthropus - each in its turn has been the object of the exaggeration of traits favored by observers whose theories demanded them. 4

Such judgments are made within the framework of evolutionary thinking (why can't they be extended to the whole fabric of evolutionary theory?). Their value in ascribing human features to animal remains are therefore relative. That these fossils of ancient extinct animals (some of which may have appeared more "human" than others) are more or less human creatures is not questioned. Thus if one ape stands more upright than, relatively speaking, other apes, it is seen as inevitably another step towards the evolution of man, and not simply another exotic animal, which is evolving neither to, nor from, something else. In all cases the measurable differences in bone structure are minute, and only have meaning to a person committed to the evolutionary scheme of things. (Note that anthropologists have only skeletal remains, and not soft-tissue material to work with, a fact which greatly inhibits the forming of any kind of truly accurate picture about the nature of an extinct animal.)

Relative brain size quotients for example show man at around 7.5, whilst modern apes average around 2.0. The apes which are reputed to have given rise to man are pegged at 3.2 to 4.3. 5 As if by magic, man is clearly descended from these creatures. Even when other anatomical features show relatively man-like measurements in the same species, this in reality indicates nothing more than that some varieties of ape, more man-like than other species, have existed in the past. Apes are after all more man-like than bears, but this does nothing to actually prove Darwinism, short of the dictates of the evolutionary faith. Another measurement of relative difference concerns the shape of the arch of the upper jaw. The human is said to be arched whilst the ape's is said to lie in parallel lines. In the case of many of the fossil remains, the visible differences are obviously very much a matter of subjective opinion when it comes to distinguishing between teeth lying in a curve an those which don't. If you are determined enough to see evidence of evolutionary processes you will see it, and this has clearly influenced the opinions and arguments of the anthropologists. An early case involves the fossil remains of Ramapithecus:

... [the] problem was the power of preconception, of seeing in the anatomy what you expect to see.

'Contrary to ... my original view, Ramapithecus itself does not have a parabolic dental arcade,' says [David] Pilbeam. 'I "knew" Ramapithecus, being a hominid, would have a short face and a rounded jaw - so that's what I saw." Pilbeam and Simons were not uniquely guilty of this error. It occurs often, such is the uncertainty of interpreting fragmentary anatomy in fossils. 6

This fossil, long held to be part of the human evolutionary sequence, was subsequently "discovered" to be not so after many years of being recognised as an ancestor of man based on the analysis of fossil remains.

Consider also this quote:

There is therefore no question that the Australopithecines are hominids, and the consensus among paleontologists is that they walked erect. [My italics] 7

After many years of reading about how man's early Australopithecine "ancestors" walked upright, one now discovers that this basic "fact" of evolutionary science is determined by consensus! I submit that the element of consensus applies to the entire theoretical framework of the discipline.

A powerful argument against human evolution is the evident fact that human history and culture have not evolved. By this I mean that the origins of man are very sudden in the historical record. Man, when we look at his own historical writings, appears suddenly in the Middle-East about five to ten thousand years ago. Man begins to write, build cities, and till the soil, at about the same intantaneous point in time. There is no gradualistic evolution in these areas of human culture, no cities which we know are a hundred thousand years old. But why should this be the case if Cro-magnon man, has been around for hundreds of thousands of years in essentially unchanged form, with essentially the same mental and technological abilities, as those dictated by Darwinian theory? What we get from modern science are prognostications about how primitive man has been around for eons of time based on highly speculative dating techniques derived from the flimsiest and most fragmentary physical evidence of man's presence (a campsite, chips of bone, and so on).

On this subject, some interesting points emerge from a recent article in The Bulletin on dating by thermoluminescence. The article casts aspersions on accepted methods of archaeological dating. Archaeologist Rhys Jones says of radio-carbon dating, heretofore one of the most popular methods in use:

... because the amounts of radiocarbon are so small and because of the risk of contamination of samples with modem materials, it is unreliable. 8

and

The field of archaeology is full of wild claims.

Also, consider the following:

The TL dating method is based on the fact that isotopes of uranium, thorium and potassium in the sand emit radiation which makes electrons in crystal lattices move around and become trapped in defects in the crystal. When the crystal is heated ... it emits electron energy as light ... which is measured. The samples are collected in a sewerage pipe and kept in the dark, as light would remove the energy. Roberts showed lots of complicated graphs. Mulvaney's eyes closed. Roberts asked people if they had understood. No, they said, but they had believed. [My italics] 9

Who says there is no priesthood of science?!

Incidentally, being called a Neanderthal (a professional hazard for fundamentalists and other anti-evolutionists!) can now be considered a compliment. Traditional portrayals of Neanderthal Man as a thickset, plodding brute have now been overturned. The current thinking is that he was at least as intelligent as modern man, 10 and this has upset previous ideas about man's evolution. Traditional evolutionary thinking called for a brutish forebear in man's development. Neanderthal Man appeared to fit the bill, and so was consigned to this role, all via the force of the theoretical scheme, regardless of the facts. Like Ramapithecus, Neanderthal Man represents one more dead-end for evolution. Creationists should bear this in mind the next time they suffer verbal abuse at the hands of evolutionists! Like much of the response of secularists to Bible believing Christians, this abusiveness arises because evolutionists and the like are at once provoked and challenged by belief in a personal God. Like all people, they have a sense of God's existence but are unable to respond to these feelings. It enrages them when they confront creationists in argument who claim to know and believe in God, because they are themselves unable to do SO.

As regards "creation science" itself, my view is that the Bible is not a scientific text-book and does not aspire to be. As such I would not regard myself as a creationist, strictly speaking. I merely believe that true science will not contradict the Bible. Contrary to the beliefs of creationists I do not hold that the universe was created six thousand years ago - though, unlike the evolutionists, I have an open mind on such issues. Genesis 1:2 makes it quite clear that what happened six thousand years ago was not the creation of the earth from scratch, but essentially a re-creation of something that already existed. The expression "was void" is also translatable "became void" in the original Hebrew. In this regard, also note the word "replenish" (ie. fill with life once more) in Genesis 1:28 (KJV). I believe that all known life forms, including man, were created at this time. I do not think that previous instances of life on this planet, such as the dinosaur era, are inconsistent with the biblical record.

Evolutionists will hold that the North American bison has a woolly coat because it evolved in a cold climate. This provides us with an explanation which accords with our own reasoning. But in this, evolution limits us in comprehending the wonders of God's creation. It may be more difficult for us to explain why a supreme intelligence created life in the fantastic variety he has, and for the purposes he has, but this does not mean that the purely materialistic approach of secular science provides us with a superior understanding of the world around us.

Moreover, in rejecting an understanding of the natural world based on the spiritual knowledge conveyed in the Book of Genesis, we make themselves the instruments of the worst aspects of man's nature. Darwinism has played a crucial role in the rise of capitalism, communism, and fascism. This fact alone gives one cause to wonder about its value to mankind. Ideas about "the survival of the fittest" have supported ideas of racial superiority, capitalist exploitation, and despoliation of the environment in the name of progress, but above all it has, with its preoccupation with the processes of chance, instilled in modern man a basic sense of the meaninglessness of life. This is the ultimate legacy of Darwin's theories to people in our era, and has served to reinforce the materialism and secularism of our age. I don't know if it has ever led to an outbreak of humanitarianism! With all. its failures and shortcomings, at least Christianity, in previous eras has sent people out to the far corners of the earth as missionaries dispensing education and modern medicine to primitive peoples. Within our own societies it has given rise to charitable and benevolent enterprises and institutions (the Salvation Army, YMCA, etc.). Can evolutionists make the same claims about the beneficial consequences for man of evolutionary thought?

I have stated that evolution engages man's thinking on the most basic philosophical level, and that this accounts for the violent reactions it produces in its adherents (as well as its opponents!). Darwinism provides a scheme of human origins which is entirely materialistic. As such it is calculated to completely undermine ideas of a spiritual dimension to human existence. And as spirituality goes out the window, so too does any meaningful conception of morality. Just as evolution has provided inspiration for fascist ideas of racial superiority, it has also given support to ideas of violent revolution. In both cases, unrestrained violence and evil have resulted from the application of political ideas unmitigated by moral or spiritual considerations. It is the element of materialism in Darwinian theory which has endeared evolution to Marxists, who are totally opposed to all ideas of God and religion. This is a doctrine perfectly designed to validate such thinking.

It is truly ironic in the current political environment that fundamentalists who literally believe in the Bible necessarily are the only people who believe in the literal brotherhood of man (all of whom are descended from Noah). Liberals and "progressive thinkers" who champion evolutionary theory in defiance of the creationists, and who have appropriated the language of world peace and universal brotherhood, hold such beliefs up to ridicule. They, in turn, subscribe to ideas of human origins which totally discount the possibility of the brotherhood of man.

Even when the evolutionary idea is not directly influencing people's actions for the worse on the political plane, it provides man with a general sense that all of life is meaningless and chaotic. As such it creates an intellectual climate which makes people receptive to ideas and philosophies of hopelessness and despair (Nihilism, existentialism, etc.). All this in the name of an explanation of man's origins which is purely illusory, a scientific teaching which is not scientific, and an idea which completely undermines belief in God, and feeds man's innate tendency towards faithlessness and skepticism. The basic sense of evolutionary teaching is that man is essentially an animal with higher aspirations in life than his own material existence. The Judeo-Christian religion teaches that man was made in God's image -not that of the animals - and that his aspirations are on the spiritual -not the material plane. Biblical Christianity teaches that man's ultimate destiny is divinity itself - sonship of God, and this thought should dictate all our endeavours in life. The view we have of our origins will influence our receptivity to these ideas. It is for these reasons (quite apart from disbelieving the literal wording of Genesis) that evolution and belief in God are definitely incompatible, contrary to the outlook of "modernist" Christians.

Evolution competes with Christianity not just because it is inconsistent with religion, but because it aspires to the level of a complete philosophy of life in its own right. In its portrayal of man's beginnings it has, for many people, something important to say about man's purpose on earth. In a world beset with spiritual emptiness, evolution provides the perfect philosophical premise for a secularised, materialistic view of the world.

In the United States the creation/evolution controversy has centred on attempts by fundamentalists to have the teaching of so-called 11 creation science" accepted in schools, alongside the teaching of evolutionary theory. The difficulty with having this proposition accepted legally is that the United States Constitution forbids the passing of any law which "establishes" (furthers the propagation of) religion. The creationist cause has foundered on this requirement because it has been accepted by the Supreme Court that creation science fails to qualify as genuine science, and thus can be regarded as an essentially religious exercise. The reason for this constitutional prohibition is that the Founding Fathers wished to prevent the establishment of a state religion which all citizens would be subject to (this was the very thing the Mayflower Pilgrims had fled from when they went to America). In an attempt to deflect this weakness in their argument and to put evolutionists on the defensive, creationists have contended that evolution is itself a "religion", relying on the many traits evolutionary theory possesses in common with religious thought. This objection is avoided by asserting that the basic requirement of any religion is that there should be some concept of a divine being present, and this is clearly not the case with evolution. However, this line of reasoning is not as far out as it might appear to be on the surface. In the 1700's the great fear was of a state imposed religion, hence the principle of the separation of church and state as enshrined in the U.S. constitution. Since that time, other systems of belief have arisen which constitute every bit as much a "world view" as religion. One of these is evolution. 11 If the Founding Fathers had prohibited the establishment of a state imposed ideology, as well as an official religion, the creationists may have won the argument. In fact, the teaching of evolution in schools does represent the imposition of an official ideology, one suited to the social and political beliefs of secular humanists, although of course the claim is made that it is objectively speaking pure science. This claim is patently false when one analyses the true well-springs of this idea.

The doctrine of the separation of church and state did not reflect contempt for religion by the Founding Fathers as it does for its modern champions. The Founding Fathers were in the main devout men who merely wanted to avoid the evils of a state religion. They would be horrified by the dry secularism of our age. In passing, their concern with rights and freedoms was balanced by ideas of individual responsibility and obligation to society, which are quite alien to the thinking of modern liberal ideologues! 12

Possibly the most devastating rebuttal which can be made to the evolutionary idea consists of one simple question which evolutionists rarely think about and cannot answer, and that is: Why did life evolve on this planet?

How is it possible that evolutionists can argue with such certitude for their theories when they can't even begin to come to grips with this most basic of all issues? Why does evolution occur at all vis-à-vis the origins of life? If life was just one big accident, why is the implicit assumption that the accident was a happy one? To put it another way, why wasn't the accident in the form of further chaotic devolution in the universe. In a chaotic cosmos how is it that things just happened to fall together in the form of order and harmony, and not continued disorder and confusion. This is another way of expressing the idea of a great designer, or lawgiver (William Paley's "Great Watchmaker") being responsible for creation. But it is very much easier to frame an argument for the creation by a supreme being of a universe which runs according to physical laws, than a purely chance occurrence of order.

Darwin did not address himself directly to the question of the evolution of life as such. In fact, this thought is usually put across as an inevitable corollary of evolutionary theory, and is actually a sleight of hand, as no biologist can claim to know just how life really originated on this planet. Evolutionists put forward their theories on this issue, and then make the thoroughly staggering (and evidently unselfconscious!) claim that the occurrence of life in the primordial seas amounts to a virtual miracle! - all the while belittling belief in a supernatural, transcendent God by simple-minded creationists! But where did the law that makes organic matter evolve from inorganic matter come from? Why isn't the universe simply in a state of continual chaos and confusion?

Leon R. Kass, in a recent article, has summed up the defects implicit in the ideology of evolution. He writes:

[The creationists] are properly dissatisfied with a scientific explanation of the universe that, quite deliberately, refuses to consider the ultimate sources and origins of things; they are dissatisfied with a science that contents itself with describing the processes of change while ridiculing the quest for causal explanations, dismissed contemptuously as a matter for metaphysics. The inquiring mind is not content with knowing how"; it wants also to know "why". To answer confidently that chance is responsible" is merely to confess our ignorance. Second, the creationists and their fundamentalist patrons correctly discern what is humanly and morally at stake in this controversy.] 3

If evolutionists can't tell us why life evolved, even when they presume, with serene confidence, to explain how such a thing occurred, what meaningful answers can they supply about some of the important related questions of life which arise from their science. Why, for example, is man inevitably evolving into a more intelligent being (the common assumption of all evolutionists), when it can be seriously questioned whether man's intelligence ever needed to evolve to the extent it did simply to fulfill the dictates of natural selection, or it survival of the fittest", in the natural world? These are the kind of questions evolutionary science has proved itself incapable of dealing with.

Evolution is essentially a convenient way for people to side-step questions about the reality of God's existence, and the imposition of moral and religious strictures on our lives which this implies. Moreover, we find it difficult to grapple with questions of life's meaning. Ideas like evolution help people to avoid these issues completely.

1. Howard R. Murphy, "The ethical revolt against Christian orthodoxy in early Victorian England" American Historical Review Vol.60 p .817

2. John Hedley Brooke, "The Relations Between Darwin's Science and His Religion" Darwinism and Divinity / edited by John Durant. - Blackwell, 1985, p.68

3. Roger Lewin Bones of Contention (N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1987)

4. lbid, p.305

5. Chris McGowan In the Beginning (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books) pp. 164, 175

6. Lewin, op. cit., p. 123

7. Ibid, p. 174

8. Lenore Nicklin "The Prehistory Cowboy Strikes Again" The Bulletin September 12, 1990, p.93

9. Ibid

10. "Modern Man: Survival of the Technologically Fittest" Economist February 25, 1984 p.83

11. Stanley Fish, "Liberalism doesn't exist" Duke Law Journal 1987, p.977

12. Henry Grunwald "The Second American Century" Time October 8, 1990 P-57

13. Leon R. Kass "Evolution and the Bible" Commentary November 1988, p.29

CHAPTER 4

THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

If Anita Bryant ever got hold of the 'pink pages' of The Advocate [the personal advertising supplement of a gay magazine], it would set gay rights back twenty years.

" Gay rights and straight realities" National Review, I I November 1983

The sixties was known as much for changes in social attitudes as it was for its radical politics. A previous era like the Roaring Twenties had witnessed a dramatic break away from the constraints of Victorian morality, but this was not accompanied by a transformation in the way we think about politics. In the sixties however, the self-centred and egotistical desire to do your own thing was elevated to the level of political philosophy, complete with resounding invocations of it political consciousness" and "social justice". Much of the agitation of the period centred on issues of a sexual nature, predominantly Gay Liberation, Women's Liberation, and abortion. And if it was not sex, it was other issues of self-gratification such as the liberalization of drug laws.

Homosexual liberation seeks to utilize political philosophy in an attempt to make acceptable what is, and always will be, morally repugnant to humanity as a whole. (Repugnance of homosexuality is obviously nature's way of ensuring the propagation of the species.) The struggle for homosexual liberation is actually a small part of a much larger struggle for the mind of twentieth century man. Its adoption by the politically liberal elements in society, who are not themselves homosexual, demonstrates the power of the underlying philosophical currents of thought at work. It represents a way for the disaffected and alienated intellectuals and "progressives" among us to attack traditional moral values. As such it is an important battleground in the ideological war. For its supporters it constitutes a bit of useful propaganda for their broader political and philosophical concerns.

It is not just a matter of live and let live on the part of gay-lib proponents. Mere tolerance of homosexuals, as it has traditionally been understood, is not the issue. That individuals should be allowed to do their own thing is a commonly felt sentiment. Whilst not approving of homosexual conduct on moral and religious grounds, one might intellectually accept this view of things. But this is not the thinking of pro-gay activists. Their aim is total acceptance, by the wider community, of homosexuals and homosexual practices, as a legitimate "lifestyle" devoid of any negative moral connotations. The goal now is to portray homosexuals as a valid "third sex", or as if they were simply one more ethnic minority seeking full political rights. The problem with this approach of course is that rejection of homosexuals relates not to who they are, but what they do! Homosexual apologists constantly try to obscure this issue, but their protestations often betray the essential contradiction which they are saddled with. Is homosexuality a predetermined biological trait, or is it simply a matter of choice concerning one's lifestyle? If the latter, then moral objections to homosexuality by the majority of the populace are harder to dismiss out of hand. It is noteworthy that so many supposed "homosexuals" are in reality bisexual. This lends credence to the belief that the issue is basically one of moral depravity, rather than the expression of an entirely natural and inborn disposition. How can those who are happy and willing to have sex with females claim to possess sexual inclinations so at odds with heterosexuality? This sounds more like an excuse for bizarre sexual immorality than a legitimate biological orientation.

Political support for gay Liberation forms part of a humanistic worldview about what kind of creature man really is, or should be. Since homosexuality - like cannibalism - occurs in nature, it is acceptable behaviour for human beings - implication: man is just an animal - period! As such it has become part of the secular religion of our time; an article of faith among believers of liberal political philosophy, that they are in the process of recreating man and society. Any possibility of an absolute prohibition on deviant behaviour, whether it is proscribed by either God or nature, is dismissed out of hand. In doing so they seduce man away from his spiritual underpinnings and move him further into the realms of moral relativism.

The politics of homosexuality is most clearly seen when we look at the issue of AIDS. As soon as this disease was diagnosed, and its connection with practicing homosexuals was established, an automatic defence mechanism sprang into operation among the ranks of the socially enlightened. The ramifications of AIDS were immediately obvious to people ideologically geared for combat with the dark forces of traditional morality.

In a socially progressive news journal like Time magazine this phenomenon could be seen to its best effect. In week after week of reporting the growing AIDS epidemic, Time would recite a familiar litany of those classes of society especially affected. AIDS, it was said, was a disease primarily of:

HAEMOPHILIACS, HAITIANS, homosexuals, AND HEROIN USERS

One could almost hear Time's editors whispering the third category (the first in reality of course!) They nevertheless were clever enough to hide it away discreetly among the others to avoid drawing undue attention to this "H-word". Hopefully the public would not draw dangerous conclusions.

Even to the politically uninitiated, the deliberate attempt to obscure the true nature of AIDS, as largely a disease of homosexuals, was too obvious to miss. Any suggestion that it may be was considered too insensitive a proposition to contemplate! This deception continues. The liberally inclined have been doing nothing but obscure the so-called "AIDS debate" ever since. They are peddling an ideological view of homosexuality and AIDS which neatly avoids any considerations of truth. The constant refrain of pro-gay lobbyists has been that the "AIDS debate" is being muddled by reactionary forces intent on reviving "medieval" attitudes of bigotry against our homosexual citizens who deserve society's full support and encouragement for their perversions. These forces of right-wing reaction are using AIDS to bolster their traditional abhorrence against homosexuals by falsely claiming that AIDS is largely a gay disease when the "facts" indicate it is not. The persistence with which its proponents pursue this line of argument is truly breath-taking. It is in reality they who are deliberately ignoring the facts, obfuscating the issues, and in the process demonstrating the profoundly ideological commitment they feel towards the aims of the gay liberation movement. I hesitate to embark on a discussion of this controversy by once again alluding to the "facts" and statistics which are being endlessly trotted out to support either side of the argument. It is the ideological predilections of the combatants which is of primary interest here, because it these aspects which are dictating the course of the argument. Suffice it to say that in the early 1990's AIDS is still overwhelmingly a disease of homosexuals, and that moreover its spread, and the subsequent threat to the community are directly traceable to the activities of the newly liberated homosexual community, which has flourished in the post-sixties era. It is a tribute to the power and strength of the left-liberal belief system that these commonsense observations are so often and so strenuously either contradicted or ignored. One of the most spectacular distortions, if not outright lies, is that gay-lib sympathisers in the wider community are not the tools of gay liberation lobbyists. To the contrary, gay-lib proponents themselves trumpet the amazing success they have achieved in pushing their cause in the political sphere, by way of consciousness raising-

Am I denying that traditional moralists see AIDS as a vindication of anti-homosexual prejudices? Not at all. But my point is that by far the greatest amount of ideologising is undertaken by hard-core gay-lib apologists whose number one priority, even above that of combating the disease itself, is to prevent, if possible, the roll-back of social gains made since the sixties in the struggle for homosexual legitimacy. The wider community, not always as sensitive as it might be to ideological nuances, remains less than fully informed about the nature of the debate which, with its mass of facts, figures and assertions, they are being daily bombarded with.

What about the concern of right-wingers to punish homosexuals via the AIDS issue, or to go on the offensive by trying to restrict the use of condoms because they promote a general climate of sexual permissiveness among heterosexuals and homosexuals alike? In fact, there has been little right-wing morality translated into action over the issue. There has been no mass destruction of condom vending machines or action to have homosexuals rounded up and banished to some far comer of the continent. The reaction of traditional moralists has been quite justified in the circumstances. At least right-wing moralizing has some basis in reality. After all, it was the homosexuals who gave us AIDS. It is they who are on the defensive. The onus is upon them to engage in some genuine soul-searching concerning the consequences that their acts have wrought upon society. This is the true reality of the AIDS crisis and the traditionalists have every right to feel that their moral principles have been vindicated.

Despite the pronouncements of hordes of liberally minded opinion formers in the media, churches and academia, whose whole understanding of life is bound up with their ideological certainties, AIDS remains a stunning witness to the ultimate fruits of man's depravity. The community at large knows this, but the "politically progressive" among us risk philosophical suicide by allowing such ideas to be admitted openly.

The seventies witnessed a plethora of homosexually related medical ailments such as Hepatitis B and Gay-Bowel Syndrome. It would take a dyed-in-the-wool ideologue-not to perceive that something was happening here which was contrary to nature, and contrary to the law of God. The development of AIDS clearly results from anal intercourse, and perhaps even more significantly (which may provide insight into just why the Creator outlawed homosexual conduct in the first place) the spectacularly unrestrained promiscuity of the newly liberated homosexual community, undeterred by the fear of pregnancy, and reveling in uninhibited male sexuality. (Can

homosexuality truly be described as sexuality? It is in reality not sexual at all since this word assumes sexual differences not all that relevant to homosexuals!). In a letter to the journal Commentary, Dr. Robert Carillon writes:

Sodomy leads to fecal contamination, which is the microbiological equivalent of eating sewage. That is, it is the sanitary equivalent of a journey to the Third World or a trip backward in time to the early 19th century, before cities like London had pure drinking water and sewers.

The result, for homosexuals, has been an alarming rate of infection by bowel pathogens, both bacterial and parasitic. Most of these pathogens were described in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and their mode of transmission was perfectly understood well before the arrival of the sexual revolution of the 1960's. And all this, of course, occurred before AIDS ... I

And - Carillon might have added - before the onslaught of a radical ideology of homosexual licence, sufficient to blind many of us even to the truths of medical science, and common sense.

Among the ideologically initiated (as distinct from the merely aware and intelligent) members of the public these truths necessarily produced a knee-jerk response of desperation. Somehow people had to be dissuaded from drawing obvious conclusions from the advent of the AIDS crisis. The main counter-attack has proceeded along the following lines: AIDS is spreading among the heterosexual community, therefore AIDS is not primarily a disease of homosexuals. That this argument should be pursued as doggedly as it is, its logic pushed remorselessly to its limits, suggests more than a mere preoccupation with statistics and a desire to uncover important truths about the AIDS epidemic. Just why is it necessary to make such an issue of AIDS being a "heterosexual" disease when everyone knows that the overwhelming majority of people with AIDS are homosexuals? Is it because, ideological considerations aside, it is important that we don't become complacent about the problem and assume that it is restricted only to an unpopular minority? This argument is plausible, but not I daresay, the true motivation for its propagation. It is true that heterosexual transmission is something which should be warned of, but the fact is that this is only one of many things about AIDS which the medical fraternity is simply not sure about. Has the hoopla surrounding heterosexual transmission come about through fears of complacency? Of course not! It is transparently a product of pro gay-lib propaganda, and really not much more than that. With statistics showing that homosexuals are still overwhelmingly the largest group infected with the AIDS virus, it insults our intelligence to have gay-lib lobbyists and their many friends in the various public forums making such a big deal of this issue in such a blatantly biased way. I do not claim to know whether AIDS is about to explode into the heterosexual community (there is good evidence to the contrary) 2 but it is clear that gay-lib activists have to push this idea for the sake of preserving their political position.

What about the millions of Africans who are infected, with heterosexuals constituting the majority of victims? For one thing it is known that hygiene (or lack thereof) has played a significant part in heterosexual transmission through the re-use of scarce needles, and the prohibitive cost (in the African context) of screening blood supplies for infection by the AIDS virus. Obviously in these conditions AIDS would grow exponentially! However, the "heterosexual" argument was being touted before the extent of the AIDS crisis there was widely known. The point is that whatever the nature of heterosexual transmission of AIDS, the immensely strong homosexual lobby has to believe, and have everybody else believe, that AIDS is "everyone's problem" or risk suffering a crippling, if not mortal, blow to its efforts at social emancipation for homosexuals.

When parliamentarian Wilson Tuckey declared that AIDS is a disease you have to let someone give you, 3 he brought down a storm of condemnation on his head in the media. What is the explanation for this reaction? What Tuckey was daring to do was to challenge the philosophical basis for the kind of liberal sentiments which seemingly dominate discussion of the AIDS issue in the name of tolerance and 11 social justice". It is not that what he said was untrue which caused the uproar, it was in attacking the tenets of a philosophy, an ideological view, which enraged the pro-gay forces. One must ask - particularly in relation to the AIDS crisis - just when does tolerance end and stupidity begin. Do we accept child molesters on the grounds that tolerance is some kind of absolute value? Pederasts are already organised for political action to have their sexual perversions accepted by society. (There is a clear connection between homosexual perversion and pederasty 4 ) One can imagine that in ten or twenty years time their arguments will win favour by liberals in their quest for "social justice" (this time on behalf of the sexual rights of children!) Liberals are wrong to argue that we should accept homosexuality as a social norm, but the truly awesome thing is the transparently ideological character of their position.

How does the antipathy of the fundamentalists square with the law of Christian love as expressed in the New Testament? Literal application of Bible truth should after all be the hallmark of Bible believing Christians. The answer to this problem lies in the simple fact that it is the actions of homosexuals, and not hatred of the people themselves which is of primary importance. It sounds trite to repeat this standard line of the fundamentalists, but it is nevertheless true. There is absolutely no reason in the world for anyone to actually hate homosexual people. It is the philosophy which lies behind the gay liberation movement which is to be deplored. Yet an activist of reputedly high intelligence like Dennis Altman can ask the question "Why does Fred Nile hate me?" 5 Whether the Reverend Nile does hate Altman or not I cannot say, but as one who in general shares Nile's antipathy to homosexuality, I can positively assert that hatred of homosexual people has no bearing on the issue. (If I was walking down a dark alley at night, I would rather run into a group of homosexuals than a gang of young toughs out to "prove their masculinity".) In fact, even the practice of homosexuality itself does not raise one's hackles to anything like the extent that the gay liberation ideology does. At least when dealing with homosexuality per se one can feel a measure of sympathy for fallible human beings caught up in a condition which one sees in terms of a moral sickness (as with drug users). The political expression of these practices on the other hand engenders outrage because the deepest feelings of abhorrence people feel towards this phenomenon is casually dismissed via a statement of principle, unsullied by considerations of truth. This is especially galling when such feelings are supported by the extraneous evidence.

Then there is the controversy about AIDS being the judgment of God upon homosexuals. This is an issue surrounded by much ignorance on both sides of the debate. Liberal Christians wish at all costs to avoid the conclusion that AIDS is some kind of divine retribution against homosexuals, because it supposedly offends against the image of altruistic love enshrined in the teachings of Christ, who is held up as the epitome of tolerance and forgiveness. Fundamentalists and Bible literalists on the other hand, argue rigorous and retributive teachings from the Old Testament to support their viewpoint. The liberals seek to bring their religious views into conformity with the popular ethical concepts of the modern era. Their religion is not immutably founded upon a literal interpretation of the Bible, but an ever-evolving scheme of morality based upon the presumed framework of Christ's teachings. The liberal view is that Christianity represents a huge leap forward from the teachings of the Old Testament. The fundamentalist view is uncompromisingly moralistic. Both camps are moving inexorably away from each other in the present philosophical climate. In the case of liberal Christians, the movement is towards essentially humanly centred standards of morality, combined with a reluctance to view God as working directly in the affairs of the world. After all, the strongly developed sense of political activism of left-wing Christians is the ultimate by-product of a disbelief in a God of supernatural power. It is the absence of any direct experience of the divine which is responsible for the moribund and empty farce that is modern mainline Christianity (at least for the overwhelming majority of its adherents). Accordingly, modernist Christians recoil in horror from any suggestion that there might exist a real God judging and working in this world. The notion is taken to offend against supposedly sophisticated and informed attitudes to the world and its problems.

The implications of this for the AIDS controversy are that the idea of divine retribution is not a viable explanation for the epidemic. AIDS is, after all, killing young and even unborn children is it not? This could not be the work of a loving God could it? This argument is held to clinch the issue for liberals. But this is to take an overly simplistic view of divine retribution. In fact, it can be convincingly argued that far from being simply a punishment on homosexuals alone, it is really a judgment on society as a whole for tolerating homosexual behaviour. The death of society's children is a judgment on the whole community, homosexual or non-homosexual, for not banishing this perversion from its midst. In terms of biblical morality the issue is cut and dried. In the Old Testament law homosexuality is portrayed as an abomination warranting the execution of offenders (Lev.20:13). Was the God of the Bible suffering from some aberration in treating homosexuality in this way? Of course the counter- argument to this view is that modern Christians no longer revere the precepts of traditional Bible law. If we see things in this light what is the basis of our belief in God? We now, with the appearance of AIDS, have a demonstration of why God has forbidden homosexual conduct. Ideas of tolerance are of no relevance here either. The Christian ideal is one of forbearance towards those labouring under sin, not one of acceptance of the sins themselves. The modern idea is that homosexuals should not merely be shown toleration, but that their "lifestyle" be positively accepted as merely a choice of sexual identity. Claims that the Old Testament law has "passed away" on this point are theologically incorrect, since the founder of Christianity himself endorsed Old Testament law (Matthew chapter 5). In any case, homosexual conduct is specifically proscribed in the New Testament in several places (Rom.1:26; I Cor.6:9-10). It is so much theological mumbo jumbo for modernist Christians to argue otherwise. They are merely demonstrating the hopelessly secularistic nature of their thinking, and the way in which empty, sterile philosophies have displaced the biblical truths of Christianity. It all amounts to a rather pathetic attempt to fall into line with popular political and social attitudes which bear no relationship to the truth of the Bible and the Christian message. As on so many other issues of social policy, instead of being beacons of light to a dark and confused world, these left-wing Christians only betray the foundations of their beliefs in the name of It enlightenment". They have not even succeeded in making Christianity more palatable to the general population, as numbers continue to decline in mainstream Christian church observance. The great truth which these people miss is that people want and need strong guidelines for living, and no more so than in the area of religious belief. People do not, deep-down, want a religion whose rules are made by fallible man himself but by an all-knowing creator-God! This is a basic element in man's psychological make-up that is only dimly perceived today, and which should be understood above all else by the religious fraternity. Unfortunately, they are as spiritually blind as the rest of society. The churches' slack attitude to homosexuals and homosexuality is probably the saddest example of these short-comings.

Indeed, the moral objections to homosexuality, and the demonstrable vindication of these beliefs embodied in the AIDS crisis, are not the end of the issue. Not only is homosexual conduct profoundly wrong in and of itself but the controversy surrounding gay liberation should be looked at in its own right as a social and political phenomenon. Since gay liberation is not, through its political actions, going to work any basic change in the natural order of things, all these people can do in reality is simply sow discord and create divisions in society. Firstly, a blow for gay rights is in effect a blow for any other kind of sexual freedom you'd care to think of. This is obviously the attraction of this kind of thinking for the many heterosexuals who support gay liberation. They have always had their own program of sexual liberation to pursue. Secondly, gay rights pits itself against man's basic and in-ground abhorrence of homosexuality. As well as being destructive of family life, it creates conditions of conflict with elements in society which can never be reconciled to homosexuals, and encourages ideological dispositions towards anarchic and nihilistic thinking. Proof that gay-lib is characterised by degenerative thinking is abundantly evident in the so-called "AIDS debate" as already mentioned. Consider the contradictions evident in an address given by former Health minister Neal Blewett before an AIDS conference:

the obsession of a few people with AIDS as a disease of [male] homosexuals borders on homophobia...

the vast majority of [AIDS sufferers] happen to be [male] homosexuals.

the sufferers of AIDS are our fellow men and women ... whatever their sexual preferences." [Italics mine] 6

These internal contradictions and distortions are the result of a tortuous adherence to an ideological position.

It has recently been argued by revisionist gay-lib commentators that the movement should tone down its aggressive behaviour. The feeling is that much of the political protest of recent years has alienated potential supporters by its stridency and assertiveness. Homosexuals, it is said, should now promote a more sober and responsible image, and be content with mere accommodation with straight society, and less concerned to achieve positive approval. This highlights an aspect of homosexuality very often taken for granted, but which tells us much about the true nature of the phenomenon, which Fay-rights activism has helped unconsciously to bring to the fore. That is, the homosexual inclination towards self-parody. The public face of homosexuality is just about always one of buffoonery. There is no possibility of homosexuality co-existing with any concept of human dignity. The self -denigration of homosexuals represents the deep-seated psychic turmoil engendered by this condition. Homosexuals are a caricature of humanity, and everything from the gay Mardi Gras, to the stereotyped television image of the limp-wristed, clown-like figure, unknowingly reinforces this fact. Behind the public facade of light-hearted, devil-may care merriment lies the wreckage of human tragedy. It is practically impossible to dissociate homosexuals from this public image, and to invest them with anything suggesting the profound or serious in life. There is in short nothing ennobling about the homosexual condition as such (contrast heterosexuality). Many great human beings may have been homosexual, but they are not admired because they were homosexual. They are admired despite their homosexuality.

A facet of modern political debate not unrelated to issues of homosexuality, gay-rights, and sexual identity is a phenomenon which could be described as the feminization of politics. It is interesting that, at a time when women still do not generally dominate in most fields of human endeavour, they tend to play a disproportionately influential role in political activism and debate (leaving to one side overtly feminist issues). As regards the feminization of males politically, consider the point that almost the first thing a male left-wing activist will come out with these days is the incredible assertion that the world would be, a better place if it were run by women and not men! This thought is directed at the qualities of aggression, militarism and gung-ho patriotism which are generally associated with the traditional "macho male" sex role. But why, logically, should female, as opposed to male, attitudes and perspectives on social and political issues predominate? What about the traditional "male" role of protecting women and children from harm in times of crisis. This will be seen as paternalism or condescension. But why is it that such attitudes can be dismissed so easily when they are so often to the advantage of women? Think of the Titanic. In a true situation of men exploiting women don't you think it would have men into the life-boats first, and women and children last? (This is the kind of "exploitation" I could put up with!) It is also true that in our male dominated world things have been organised in such a way that women do not have to suffer the horrors of warfare as front-line troops. Even in an embattled state like Israel, women serve generally in non-combatant roles. Surely we " self- interested" males should have arranged things differently to our own benefit! Perhaps some degree of male sexual stereotyping is not such a bad thing! The fact is that females desire to be nurtured and protected by men (this is an inborn trait, not an example of social conditioning) notwithstanding the ideological posturings of a relatively few militant feminists, who continually assert that they know what all women really want!

In their enthusiasm to adopt almost any novel idea which runs counter to traditional thinking, liberals embrace distinctly "un-macho" stances which have been heavily influenced by female political activism in the post-sixties' period. Consider the call by Senator Jo Valentine for an Australian defence policy to be premised on the idea of "passive resistance". 7 We are talking about the defence of my country here. However sensible such ideas might appear to many women, they would be rejected out of hand by the vast majority of men. I don't want these fruit-cake ideas to be seriously contemplated simply as some kind of gesture to female political consciousness, something which liberals, though not realists, are prone to do. (Perhaps in future military engagements we could replace the Australian Army's M-16 rifles with carnations, and place advocates of "passive, non-violent resistance" in the front line!)

The trouble with the feminization of politics (as well as feminism itself) is simply that it denies something legitimate in our experience regarding the very real differences between men and women psychologically and temperamentally, as well as physically. It originates in ideological concepts of radical change which overlook these genuine innate differences in sexuality and sex roles. If feminists could organise it, there would exist no differences at all between the sexes, via the dictates of their ideological position, just as non-homosexuals who support gay liberation would seek to nullify man's innate abhorrence of homosexual conduct. Liberals obscure the moral issues of homosexuality according to ideological dogmas. They also sacrifice ideas of sexual identity to the same ends. Sexual politics basically fills a void created by the unrealized dreams of the sixties. It represents the bankruptcy of the left philosophically. With the collapse of Marxism in Europe (and with the exception of radical environmentalism) it is practically its last stronghold. The left has nowhere much else to go, politically.

In the case of homosexual rights, the moral and spiritual dimension of the issue has become lost for people whose outlook is dominated by ideological and political considerations. Homosexual perversion, combined with the philosophical arguments raised in its defence, corrupts and degrades man both morally and intellectually.

1. Commentary February 1987, p.4

2. Michael Fumento The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS (New York: Basic Books, 1990)

3. The Age 9 August 1988

4. Joseph Sobran "Summa of inversion" National Review February 18 1983, p: 197; D.G. Sturgess Inquiry into Sexual Offences Involving Children, (Goprint, 1985) p.9

5. The Bulletin 20 December 1988

6. "Blewett defends AIDS policies" Canberra Times 29 April 1989

7. The New Australian Militarism / edited by Graeme Cheeseman & St. John Kettle (Pluto Press, 1990) p. 175

CHAPTER 5

INTERNATIONALISM, MULTICULTURALISM AND THE REJECTION OF WESTERN SOCIETY

... the 'new class' hates traditional Australia so much it wants to change it through mass immigration.

Australian Book Review, 1989(no.10)

The western world is besieged by a set of "isms" held in common by alienated intellectuals posing as political progressives, and expressed in words like "internationalism", "Third-Worldism", multiculturalism", and "anti-Americanism". My contention is that all of these ideas are rooted in a single, underlying thought. It has to do with the way in which western people view the sterility of their own culture, the boredom and meaningless of their own lives (regardless of what may be going on in the "Third-World"), and their almost total lack of identity as human beings - people who are adrift from moorings and foundations in traditional ideas of race, religion and culture. This condition manifests itself most especially in the area of racial identity. This has led to a bizarre infatuation with any and every Third World country and racial minority in our midst, by people who see in this overly romanticised view of alternative cultures, relief from the sterility of their own society. This, in my view, is not the right way to approach issues of racism, nor to work for the "brotherhood of man", because it is premised on something negative and destructive. It is using the idea of opposing the evil of racism to conceal a condition of mental anguish.

Multiculturalism is the latest of these "isms" to be bandied about in popular discussion. My view is accurately expressed in the quotation reproduced above.

Multiculturalism is something, we are told, which serves only to enrich and enliven our otherwise dull existence, via the infusion of exotic culture, spicy food, etc. Those who oppose the increasing ethnic diversification of this country are simply racists who are mired in conservative thinking and traditional attitudes. The idea seems to be that people possess some intrinsic right to settle in this country. The only issue for debate is whether they will be accepted into our midst with open arms, and without a lingering trace of the "racist" attitudes of the past. Deeper issues are ignored. Little thought is given to the fact that immigration to this country is the consequence of some personal travail for virtually all people involved. They are invariably endeavouring to escape from conditions of social or political privation. Even in the fifties, English people who came to this country were people for whom continued existence in their home country was more or less untenable for some reason. No-one migrates away from their homeland to a place like Australia (or America) other than with the utmost reluctance. In short, the phenomenon of mass migration is an aberration, a grotesque commentary on the generally miserable condition of humanity, and the obligation of countries like Australia to deal with it should not be put across in the airy fairy language of creating a more colourful and exciting community, and injecting some life into our dull and dreadfully boring Anglo-Saxon culture, ideas pressed upon us by people who hate everything about their own traditional societies. It is as if the whole meaning of immigration is to make our lives more interesting, or more specifically, to make trendoid-liberals feel good about living in a cosmopolitan society. The Greeks, Yugoslavs, and Cambodians in this country should not be here. In a more perfect world they would be living entirely viable existences in their own countries. Why don't people involved in the immigration/multiculturalism debate concentrate more upon such factors right from the outset as a way of placing things in proper perspective? Instead, they constantly invoke the "wonderful" benefits we reap in the form of spicy food, et al as an irrelevant side issue to the what is the true reality of the immigration phenomenon, ie. the miseries which have provoked it. Acceptance of migrants by this country forms part of a human tragedy! It isn't something to rejoice about. Furthermore, there are only a handful of countries in the world which are called upon to countenance the influx of vast numbers of aliens into their own societies. These countries are mainly the pioneering Anglo-Saxon countries of the New World. We do not see millions of Anglo-Saxons (nor Germans and Swedes for that matter) queuing up to migrate to Botswana or Bangladesh. My point is that much of what is put down to racism in our country on this issue is basically a legitimate desire on the part of native Australians to simply preserve their sense of racial and cultural identity in the face of a potential immigration onslaught. This could, and should, be a part of the national make up of all societies. Why is it that countries like the U.S. and Australia are considered to be disqualified from aspiring to this aim?

Trendy ideas of racial diversification have distorted our picture of things, and given us a false perspective on the problem. After all, do not proponents of a multicultural Australia accept that every nation has a legitimate reason to maintain defence forces? Why do countries maintain armed forces? To prevent foreign invasion and takeover by alien nations. What justification exits for this when we are told that a country like Australia should simply open its gates to all and sundry persons that wish to live here. It is not simply an issue of "racism". It is the desire to preserve one's own identity. This does not have to imply racial hatred, and - if it were not for the exceptional nature of countries like our own to receive immigrants - it is not something which would arise in the normal course of events. (It is a little like a person protecting his house against a robber, and then being accused of being materialistic and greedy for gain!) Mass movements of populations between countries is not the norm in the national experience of most countries in the world. I do not hear multiculturalists rebuke Japan for wishing to preserve its cultural and racial identity by excluding immigrants! What about the refugee intake? The need to accommodate these people is on a different plane to that of other immigrants. They are fleeing political oppression and are not in the main merely "economic immigrants" (as our government prefers to believe - partly because the refugees are a category of people who could not be relied upon to vote ALP!). Why do liberals lacerate themselves over the question of this country accepting unlimited numbers of voluntary immigrants, having regard to the generally woeful response of the international community to the refugee crisis? (Australia takes in more refugees, per head of population, than almost any other country).

In Fiji, race problems exist because Indians were brought in and intermingled with the native population of Pacific Islanders. Look at the hopeless situation of racial conflict which exists there now. Why would anyone wish this sort of thing on Australia, when it is clear that racial admixture almost always leads to strife and divisiveness? Any intake of immigrants should be closely managed, and the doors not simply flung open to all and sundry. Exclusion does not imply racism. It should simply be the prerogative of this country to limit immigration any way it thinks fit. It is not the prerogative of an elected government to decide these issues, because they transcend party politics. The people of Australia, by way of a referendum, should have the ultimate say in such crucially important questions relating to our country's future and its destiny. Opinion polls have shown that the people of Australia do not support our government's immigration policies. I

Those who argue against these ideas would not dream of denying ideals of national and cultural homogeneity to a whole host of other nations in the world which people are not desirous of migrating to. The aspiration to maintain one's racial make-up should not simply be written off with the slur of racism. We should look more deeply at what it means for a people and a society to want to retain these aspects of national life. And we should also look at the reasons why in a country such as Australia, as well as other affluent western countries, it should be so easy for the liberal intelligentsia to be able to rebut these ideas simply by raising the spectres of "racism" and "intolerance".

It is because these people believe in nothing which supports concepts of national self-identity. They see nothing worth preserving in our Anglo-centric culture, nor that of the native cultures of the migrant communities as well. The paradox of activists in the sixties was that we had white, middle class students, with university degrees, working for the salvation of the ignorant, ineffectual, inferior peasants in Asia and Africa who couldn't really be expected to be able to help themselves. This was to prove the point that these people were being lorded over and treated condescendingly by the western nations (partly composed of white, middle class students)! In short, they were acting in pursuance of their own self- aggrandizement and their own emotional hang-ups, rather than in the interests of Third World peasants. In a similarly paradoxical way, multiculturalists whose views have been greatly facilitated by the social activism of the sixties, set themselves up as champions of every minority culture in our midst, in the face of the dominating Anglo-centric one, but in reality these are the very people who hate the whole concept of a unique national identity! Their success in propagating these ideas says much for how lacking the wider community is in its own sense of uniqueness. It is precisely that we lack a sense of living for something bigger than ourselves which allows such ideas to flourish. Multiculturalism is a symptom of social and spiritual sickness - not a vibrant application of the principle of tolerance! Imagine a "multiculturalist" going to a country like Greece or Spain and working to promote alien cultural ideas and customs (and necessarily working to undermine the unique character of these societies) and then expecting to be congratulated for his efforts!

Like multiculturalism, "internationalism" runs counter to all traditional systems of values. Internationalism is a fundamental tenet of Marxism, and it was probably this aspect of the ideology which most appealed to radicals in the sixties. Supposed identification with nations suffering from western exploitation was more compelling to these activists than ideas of capitalists exploiting workers. They were rebelling against their own societies more than agitating for the underdeveloped world.

When Britain went to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982, the world witnessed a truly bizarre phenomenon. With near total unanimity, ideologues of the fashionable left scrambled to the defence of the Argentineans. That they empathised with the Argentineans was rarely ever overtly stated, but it was something implied in most of their public pronouncements. Writing of the British task force, left-wing journalist Bruce Wilson invoked the sinking of the Russian fleet at the hands of the Japanese, in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 2. In Britain, the BBC was widely criticised for its tortuously "even-handed" coverage of the war which, in the context of a conflict involving one's own country, and the result of aggression by the enemy, amounted to virtual sympathy with Argentina. The sinking of the battleship Belgrano was portrayed as an act of inexcusable brutality on the part of the British. In this country, ABC presenters like Peter Ross and Geraldine Doogue would emphasise the horrendous costs of the war: read "The costs exacted by Thatcher's war-mongering policies", not Argentinean aggression. One suspects that these left-wingers desperately wanted to see Britain humiliated in a military debacle in the Falklands, especially in view of the political fall-out which would accrue to Margaret Thatcher.

To many people all this may have seemed a rather curious reaction to the situation in the South Atlantic. After all the country offended against was a western democracy (even if ruled over by "iron lady" Margaret Thatcher) and, one whose interests would (presumably) be far preferable to leftists in the west than a right-wing, Latin American military junta. Why did the left almost uniformly throw its moral support behind General Galtieri, and his regime? One possible answer is that the military response of the British was considered excessive given the nature of the situation (after all the fate of only a thousand or so British subjects was at issue) and the murky territorial claims of the participants. Against this, however, lies the evident fact that hostilities were initiated by the Argentineans, and in any case anti-war activism since the sixties has, as previously argued, never been simply pre-occupied with issues of military conflict per se. There is something darker and more deep-seated going on here. The truth is that the response of the western intelligentsia was a product of a deep sense of alienation from their own culture. These feelings were so profound that even a political regime normally anathema to the left was seen as preferable to the interests of one's own country and civilization, even when the regime has been systematically wiping out leftists (during the so-called "dirty-war" of the 1970's). Hatred of Thatcher, and indeed of the whole idea of western culture, was sufficient to create an affinity with a collection of right-wing Latin American militarists, according to the principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

More mysterious still is the unspeakable, insufferable, unfathomable phenomenon we know as anti- Americanism! Why should the freest, most abundant and materially well-endowed country in the world inspire such enmity? Most assuredly the U.S. is hated far more by western intellectuals, many of whom dwell in economic comfort and political security within the embrace of its democratic system, than it is by Third World peasants who are the supposed victims of its expansionist, imperialistic designs. The U.S. is still looked upon by the huddled masses of the underdeveloped world as the land of freedom and opportunity. It is the favoured destination of refugees and immigrants. The countries of the Arab world have always politically been far more kindly disposed towards the Americans than their persistent suitor the Soviet Union - notwithstanding America's dogged support of Israel. America is the greatest nation there has ever been, and its democratic and moral ideals are a blessing to mankind.

Proponents of anti-Americanism portray themselves as pitting themselves against an evil, imperialistic world power. Is this a valid interpretation? Fear and loathing of America can hardly be compared with that felt towards Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan (nor Turks and Mongols in previous eras). To seriously suggest that in the U.S. the world faces a vicious, predatory world power is quite ludicrous. Anti-Americanism is pure symbolism. For the people of the sixties, whose formative years were the fifties, America stood for everything which was considered good, noble and heroic. Television and the movies presented an endless parade of cowboy heroes slaughtering Indians; John Wayne and the marines fought for all that was good and decent. In the sixties, when things turned around, and young people rebelled against everything in their lives which smacked of traditional ideas, morality and authority, it was America the symbol, not the reality, which now became the focus of rebellion against old ways, ideas and institutions. America, the America we had grown up with in the fifties, was like Mount Everest. It could not be ignored when it came to re-formulating ideas about the world and life in general. Furthermore, opposing the U.S. was tantamount to opposing authority itself! This idea is central to the politically radical. These represent the enduring features of anti-American feeling among progressive thinkers, especially to those in the western world, with their adversarial attitude to everything in their own societies.

Anti-war protest aimed at America's prosecution of the Gulf War also has reflected the attitudes, sloganeering, and general ethos of the sixties. The problem however is that this is as just a war as you are likely to get. The activism inspired by this war against a Middle-Eastern aggressor, demonstrates that sixties' style protest is not merely a reaction to "unjust and unnecessary" wars, but consists of straight-out anti- Americanism (ie. anti-western civilization). So-called "anti-war" feeling is a pure rationalization for expressing angst against one's personal situation in life. (No-one took to the streets over Iraq's occupation of Kuwait on the grounds that it constituted militaristic aggression!) We can now see how irrelevant, in retrospect, the anti-war "arguments" of the sixties really were.

In his book Political Pilgrims 3 Paul Hollander examines the curious phenomenon of the political radicals who go off in search of the revolutionary societies of their ideals only to be exploited by their hosts, and who then return with glowing descriptions of these states. The willingness of these people to accept uncritically all that they are fed by way of propaganda from Stalinist Russia to Maoist China and Castro's Cuba, is truly staggering, and is a testament to the desperate need of these normally very critical people to believe in something. Such is the barrenness of modern intellectuals that they will happily engage in transparently deluded thinking. As Hollander states:

It did not take long to realize that travel writings describing these societies tended to reveal more about their observers than about the countries observed. 4

As the National Review puts it:

For at least fifty years America's best and brightest have been taking their minds on vacation ...

How could they have disgraced themselves so? How could [they] have been so profoundly wrong? Obviously, they saw what they wanted to see. But the real question is, Why did they want so desperately to see it? ... [Intellectuals] are people who need profoundly to believe in something. When religion degenerates for them into a mere butt for their scornful superiority they look to something closer to terra cognita. And that of course is secular ideology ...

One of the most appealing characteristics of totalitarian regimes (left-wing ones) to Western intellectuals is the apparent integration of action and intellect... [italics mine]5

It is disenchantment with their own society, and with their own lives, which has inspired this lunacy. It is their own profound sense of boredom with their own circumstances in life which causes them to express these dissatisfactions by turning against their own culture. It is as if intellectuals simply have nothing else to occupy their minds! Hollander's investigations provide proof of these observations. Likewise, this explains the fervent identification by these people with people in the Third World struggling with poverty and oppression. My argument is not that this is not a worthy sentiment, but that the nature of the problems are totally distorted out of all recognition by the real underlying root impulse of these attitudes. A case in point is the argument that Third World nations are in poverty because of the western exploitation, and not the result of the generally inept rule which most of these countries labour under. In light of the above, the question becomes Why do western intellectuals and radical thinkers idolize societies in the Third World (practically all of which are dictatorships of one sort or another) at the expense of their own western democratic societies? How is it possible that they can identify so strongly with these alien societies? That they have historically been exploited by the west is not disputed. But that their continuing problems can be put down to this factor is a grotesque misrepresentation of the truth. The only possible explanation is one which takes into account the psychological. and emotional state of the protagonists themselves.

Anti-western feeling dominates debates about South Africa. The most immediately striking thing apparent to this observer is the religious zeal which western activists bring to bear on this issue when considered against the fact that, for all its injustices, oppression of blacks in South Africa via apartheid is really quite mild compared with the kind of oppression which is going on in a host of other countries (many of them dictatorships of the left). Again, one notes the tremendous symbolic significance of South Africa. For here we have white racists, white supremacists in action. The blacks are suffering only a fraction of the hardships of their black ruled brothers in the rest of the continent, socially, economically and politically. In a score of black nations, tribal elites rule fellow blacks who are as different from each other as the European nationalities are. Yet none of these countries meets with any particular disapproval. Only South Africa is singled out for special treatment by western activists, because here it is white man ruling black man. The oppression in Marxist societies of people who possess a natural and healthy desire to become shop-keepers or private farmers, as much a human characteristic or quality, as the colour of one's skin, has barely ever rated a mention, by comparison.

South African whites face an imminent takeover by the blacks of a country which, they perceive, they largely created by their own ingenuity, and did not simply march in and take over as in traditional colonial societies. (In South Africa most of the native peoples migrated into the country following the establishment of white settlement). It is arguably the only country which actually works socially, economically, and even politically, on the whole of the African continent - to the benefit of blacks as well as whites. White people want to hold onto power in this country because they want to preserve their culture and history. There are no doubt many whites in the country who hate and despise black people, but the concern of white people is clearly something with historical, social and cultural roots, and which does not have to necessarily imply undiluted race hatred (as existed in Nazi Germany). Western activists are unable to raise an ounce of sympathy for, nor identification with, fellow white people who basically only want to hold onto a way of life which they themselves take for granted in their own societies. The black takeover, when it comes, will not be accompanied by western style democracy, any more than presently exists. 6 Why the obsessive pre-occupation of liberals in the west with this situation when it is a long way from being the worst example of non-democratic rule in the world? None of this is meant to justify the white regime or apartheid. I do not pretend to have a solution to this problem, but I do know that the simple call for majority rule is not really the answer. The situation is far more complex than that. On purely practical grounds for example, people in the west can forget about the Afrikaners simply passively accepting the imposition of black rule. They would fight to the death to stop it. (Palestine, Beirut and Northern Ireland all rolled into one!) Some kind of equal division of power would have to be worked out, and this already destroys the essence of western opposition to apartheid (ie. a commitment to majority rule). This is the reality of the situation. Obviously the ideal solution would be some kind of partition of the country, but this is no doubt virtually impossible to achieve in practice.

The problem in South Africa is simply that blacks are denied the vote. They are not being whipped, put in chains, and worked to death on plantations as the slaves were in the New World. Again, the evils of apartheid are essentially symbolic in nature. They engage western liberals on this symbolic level because it compliments their ideological world view. South Africa itself as an example of man's inhumanity to man is not important. It is what it stands for to these people that matters. In short, they are not exposing the ills of the world so much as saying something significant about themselves.

This ideological framework is a purely negative 'exercise in overturning traditional ways of thinking, on the intellectual level alone. This is an inadequate way of dealing with the world. There is no real attempt to come to grips with what is really the problem, which relates not to the way we think about things philosophically, but what we are. The answer is spiritual, it is not ideological. There are positive aspects to a recognition of racial differences and racial identity. There is such a thing as national character. It expresses itself in corporate strengths and weaknesses. One only has to look at the national disposition of people like the Japanese towards technological innovation to appreciate that some nations are better than others in some spheres of life, just as individual people are. Nations are families grown great from ancient times. There is no reason why entire peoples should not possess strengths and weaknesses just as do individuals. In the case of the Anglo-Saxons it might be ventured that they possess an ability to create and sustain a democratic society which other nationalities seem unable to bring about. In passing, just how many non-Anglo-Saxon democracies are there? Except for a few Northern European countries, there are only a handful of extremely fragile democracies scattered about (India, Spain, Greece, the Philippines, Argentina). Of the big powers, Japan and Germany had democracy imposed on them by an Anglo-Saxon power, and wrote the text-books on twentieth century dictatorship!

None of this has to imply racial hatred, and yet ideological and philosophical certainties dictate that these things cannot be said openly. Those who go out their way to oppose apartheid should admit that if they were to apply a genuinely balanced view of the world's problems, putting the real evils first, and not merely those which proceed from their trendy, twentieth century, psycho- spiritual condition, they would find that South Africa really looms small among the evil regimes of the world. One might cite the continuing saga of Ethiopia whose famine has been seriously aggravated by the political machinations of its Marxist rulers. Chronic famine conditions in Vietnam can likewise be blamed on the ridiculous political system this country labours under. In these countries political oppression is killing people in far larger numbers than in South Africa - all to a crescendo of silence by western liberals! We should also remember the silence of leftists in the thirties regarding the forced collectivization of peasants by Stalin, which led to the death by starvation of millions of people in the Ukraine. (This has been documented by Robert Conquest in his book Harvest of Sorrow - which should be compulsory reading for all fellow - travelers!) They remain unrepentant about their uncritical support of Stalin at this time. These people have been lionized in promotions for a recent ABC history of the Australian Communist Party as "these great Australians" . (I confess that I literally could not believe what I was hearing. Were these Greek Australians; perhaps grateful Australians?!)

Also note that millions of blacks are not taking to the high seas to escape apartheid, as are refugees from communism in the case of " progressive" Vietnam!

What explains this incredible state of affairs? The argument is that South Africa is uniquely evil and a more obvious case of injustice, because there you have a political system premised on the concept of racial superiority. Even where you have monumental evil occurring as happened in Kampuchea, the point is that here you had the application of a political philosophy at least nominally aiming for social justice, even if it assumed the extermination of millions of people. Even Idi Amin's Uganda, with the systematic slaughter of many thousands of people, produced no significant political agitation, because it said nothing about the defects of western civilization.

Do people care - do white liberals in this country really care - about the situation in Liberia, where a vicious civil war has raged in recent times? This is the country where, in 1980, the ex-government was lined up on a beach in Monrovia and shot in cold blood, after a military coup. The perpetrator, staff-sergeant (!) Samuel Doe, was himself recently overthrown, tortured and then killed by an equally caring and sensitive bunch of humanitarians. Does anybody, left-wing, right-wing or any-wing, actually care about the fate of this country or its people? I am not saying that I can do anything about the deplorable situation in Africa, but I don't fool myself that I have done something meaningful by simply adopting a "posture" towards South Africa! People in Australia do not possess the least bit of concern about the sufferings of people in Africa and Asia, but on "sexy", high profile issues which appeal to them on an ideological plane (like Vietnam or South Africa) they are able to kid themselves that they do.

This illustrates the way in which the judgment of relative evils is twisted by reference to a social policy dictated by an ideology which is adversarial to everything which smacks of the conservative and the conventional. It is not simply that radical leftists are being morally selective in these matters. This is not a case of mere fickle favouritism. The fact is that they must emphasise the kind of evils which they perceive in their own societies, and conversely they must ignore and refrain from criticising political systems and ideologies founded upon exactly the same ideas about radically changing society away from the traditional, which they themselves are concerned to promote. Leftists hate South Africa more than any other evil, not because it is peculiarly evil, but because it represents white civilization. The truth is that western liberals are not less racist than their conservative counterparts, they are merely ideologically opposed to their own culture. They would not dream of denying nationalism and pride of race to people of other nationalities, but do so dogmatically in the case of their own people. They reject western civilization, and frame their rejection in terms of solidarity with the "independence struggles" of any and every national group in the Third World.

The consequences of pursuing egalitarianism at all costs is that it ignores truths of life which might strike some people as unfair, but which are realities nevertheless. The classic illustration here concerns the work of Hans Eysenck whose research has consistently shown that according to his findings blacks do not perform as well as whites in IQ tests. My purpose is not to defend his conclusions, but to simply draw attention to the fact that for purely ideological reasons, this man's views are not allowed to be given serious consideration in the scientific community, or in the world at large.

People who are pre-occupied with issues of "racism" so-called cannot face reality on these matters, because their motivation stems from a deep-seated need to dissociate themselves from their own cultural foundations. This is not actually high idealism as supposed. Instead, it represents a knee-jerk rejection to a society which has not satisfied their inner cravings for meaning, identity and purpose. We give scant regard to these aspects of our psychological make-up, and radical opposition to everything about white, western society is the result. The real issues here are not the failings and injustices which exist in our own societies (always greatly exaggerated for dramatic effect). The reason why people with strongly held religious ideas are generally immune to this kind of thinking is simply that they do not need a substitute for a coherent philosophy of life. Christianity supports ideas of national pride (unsullied by racism) as is implied by Christ when he expresses favouritism for the Jews and the people of Israel (Mat. 15:22-28). Christ never forgot that he was a Jew, and always remained faithful to the nation of Israel.

The dogmatic application of egalitarianism is not inspired by ideas of brotherly love, though it is ostensibly a way of dealing with the inequities and inequalities of life. It is simply a way of denying identification with a wider society which is despised for its conventionality and conservatism. These kind of negative, hateful attitudes are not a particularly good foundation upon which to build ideas of improving the lot of mankind.

1. Geoffrey Blainey All for Australia (North Ryde: Methuen Hayes, 1984) p.44

2. Bruce Wilson "U.S. picks the Brits as winners" The Herald May 27, 1982

3. Paul Hollander Political Pilgrims (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 198 1)

4. Ibid, p.vii

5. Chilton Williamson Jr. "Under a Dozen Suns" National Review February 5, 1982 p.115-116

6. Andrew Kenny "Purgatory or Hell" Spectator 18 August I990

CONTINUE

Free search engine submission and placement services!