Sex With Babies? On TV? Surely not!!  Not even on the BBC!!! But wait, let me explain. The recent furore over the Jonathan Ross / Russell Brand affair was merely a battle lost in a generation-long war conducted against the forces of tradition and morality by those of Liberal-Left Nihilism. The gains made by Liberalism are surrendered, as in that affair, only for time, if at all. There will be no end to its advance until a state of complete public depravity is arrived at, such as where babies can be sexually abused and killed for entertainment . Yes, Really.

What happens is that programme makers, who in general accept the tenets of the 60's Marx-inspired Cultural Revolution, abuse their position to propagandise those tenets. These consist in sum, of the belief in the need to destroy Western Civilisation, and to rebuild it on Marxist, egalitarian lines which admit no superiority of one morality over another (except Political Correctness, for reasons which are unexplained because inexplicable). Part of this destruction consists in undermining what leftist theory describes as the 'hegemonic' culture of the oppressors, ie ours, by inter alia denigrating or ignoring our traditional Christianity-based ideas of right and wrong.

Programe-makers vie with each other to try to make a name for themselves as 'daring,' 'controversial, etc and woo an increasingly jaded audience by being 'edgy,' ie probing the boundaries of currently acceptable taste which retain traces of traditional viewpoints. Other programme makers advance to the position won by the first, the public's morality is perverted and trained to accept the unacceptable or at least to put up with it, by a process of desensitisation through familiarity, and the new position becomes the standard by which further incursions are then judged. By this means, there is a continual progression down to the abyss.

Smut and the language of the gutter are now the common coin of everyday broadcasting, but in the interests of being 'non-judgmental' ie  of imposing no moral standards, we have now reached the stage when the BBC can depict pornogaphic scenes of lesbian lovemaking ('Tipping the Velvet' - the very name is an obscenity), a dog raping a woman ('Love Soup') and the corpses of viewers' relatives ('Malcolm and Barbara: Love's Farewell'). Channel Four has shown scenes of live sex ('Sex Inspectors') using the thin excuse of dispassionate enquiry and has devoted programmes ('Beyond Love') to those who are attracted to the idea of having sex with dead bodies and ('Animal Passions') those who have had sex with animals. But some sort of depth of debasement is being approached with a documentary screened by Channel 4 in 2003 which involved an act of cannibalism when a Chinese man ate a dead baby. 

There is nothing to stop this continuing slide into the abyss, once the restraints of religion and tradition are dismissed as they have been by the pedlars of bias and filth who now dominate the BBC and the other broadcast media. There are no further arguments to deploy because the only real argument, that of traditional, Christian standards of decency, has already been dismissed.  As the great Russian writer Dostoyevsky remarked, in the absence of belief in a meaningful universe and the prospect of immortality, 'not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world  would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be possible, even cannibalism'.  ('Brothers Karamazov').

Consider; What else is there? The alleged natural goodness of humanity which will ensure public outrage? NO. Though there might be some temporary halt, as we have seen, a public which has been cast adrift from its moral sheet anchor can be trained to accept things against its better nature which it would have thought absolutely shocking and disgusting only a few decades ago.

Human rights? Contrary to the belief of some, these are as flexible as public opinion, or in the hands of judges chosen for their liberalism, much more so. They can be interpreted at will to suit whatever agenda is at hand. And that is precisely what  the extremely prominent and  influential liberal philosopher Peter Singer, the Ira De Camp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, one of America's most prestigious, suggests we do when it comes to the 'Right to Life.' This can be made to mean no right at all simply be  redefining what is it be human, according to preference.

Children under about about one month of age, he says, should not be treated as human beings because they lack the mental equipment (self-awareness, the capacity for forward thinking, etc) to be treated as such. They are therefore of no more worth than a cabbage (Yes, he really does say these things) and may be killed at will if the parents and the others immediately concerned so desire. And if they can be killed at will, why not have sex with them as well, if that too is desired?

Singer's views, barbarism dressed up as reason, represent a logical outcome of the thinking of nihilist liberal - leftists such as run the BBC.  Rational liberalism banishes the sancity of humans as humans and normal, reasonable human love as a well -spring of ethics; love of one's family, love of one's people, compassion and care especially but not exclusively for  those nearest - such instincts and the religious traditions which address them, channel them and give them authority are outmoded; they belong to a dead era of human development and must now give way to cool reason; belief in the meaninglessness of the universe and that there is therefore no ultimate right or wrong - other than, conveniently,  Political Correctness.

The words of the founder of the BBC, Lord Reith, bear repeating, bitter to our ears though  though they sound now.  He said,

'If the day should come, and I don't think they will, when broadcasting should play to the lowest rather than to the highest in man, then the country will have fallen very low'.

Sadly the country has sunk very low, spurred on by the BBC and the other slimy amoralists of the media. Who can stand against this 'tide of filth' as the philosopher Anthony O'Hear has described it, which is carrying us down to the very depths of depravity?

Who is there but the BNP?