The Nonsense of "Homophobia".

As someone how is not politically correct and who opposes things such as "gay marriage", I have often had the word "homophobe" or "homophobic" thrown at me. I have always seen the word "homophobia" as being a ridiculous one and now I have decided to put my ideas down after having been questioned about my rejection of the word before.

One of the main reasons for the rejection of the term "homophobia" is that it is etymologically nonsensical. The "homo" section of the word could either derive from the Latin word homo meaning "man" or "mankind" or it could come from the Greek word homo meaning "same". The word "homosexual" stems from the Greek word, essentially meaning "same sex". But the word "homophobia" can not be eveb partially derived from the Greek word as then it ould be that "homophobia" would mean "irrational fear of the same", which it doesn't as whose who are described as "homophobic" often aren't the same as those who they are accused of being afraid of. The word cannot come from the Latin either, as then "homophobia" would mean "irrational fear of mankind". This isn't what those who use the term "homophobia" mean but the word "homophobia" was in fact used in the past to describe a sort of misanthropic fear of mankind or the human species.

Therefore considering the fact that "homophobia" makes absolutely no sense etymologically, there is plenty of reason not to use it. The insane and frankly amateur construction of the word "homophobia" shows it's true roots, as a propaganda word invented by leftist psychologists and gay activists in the 1970's.

My second reason for rejecting the term"homophobia" is the fact that it is falsely applied, which isn't surprising considering it's roots. The word is meant to mean an "irrational fear of homosexuals" but instead of only being applied to those who fear homosexuals, it is applied to anyone who disagrees with the politically correct consensus on the issue of homosexuality. It is quite clear that the vast majority of those who disagree with homosexuality aren't in any way fearful of homosexuals.

I might be more inclined to accept the term if it was applied according to it's supposed meaning and not to anyone who disagrees with the politically correct opinion.

The word "homophobia" is also by nature a propaganda word. Not only can this be seen in the way it is used but also in it's etymology. A "phobia" is described as being an "irrational fear" and that that "phobia" is contained within "homophobia" shows that the essentially use of the word is to paint someone who disagrees with homosexuality in any way as being irrational. Anyone who uses this term towards anyone else is telling themselves more about themselves than about the other person.

Homophobia is quite clearly a nonsensical propaganda word invented by radicals in the 70's to silence all opposition to their agenda. No serious academic should use the term.

Russell Kirk's List of Conservative Books

After reading this transcript of a lecture by the great American conservative Russell Kirk on his most recommended books relating to conservatism, I deciding to list the books that he mentioned as the poorly written transcript is very hard to decipher.

I will also add some of my own suggestions to the list. This will be of great benefit for those who wish to learn about conservatism.

It is important to note that because of conservatism's anti-ideology stance there is no "Bible" of conservatism as something like 'Das Kapital' is of communism.

Here is the list of Kirk's 10 most recommended conservative books:

Reflections on the Revolution in France - Edmund Burke
Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocqueville
The American Democrat - James Fenimore Cooper
The American Republic - Orestes Brownson
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity - James Fitzjames Stephen
Is Life Worth Living? - W.H. Mallock
Democracy and Leadership - Irving Babbitt
The Attack on Leviathan - Donald Davidson
The Social Crisis of Our Time - Wilhelm Ropke
Notes towards the Definition of Culture - T. S. Eliot

As Russell Kirk is an American there is a specific focus on American conservativism and the American political arrangements. The books that I will recommend will be either more general political philosophy or be more concentrated on the British nation.

Here are my recommendations:

Conservatism: Dream and Reality - Robert A. Nisbet
The Conservative Mind - Russell Kirk
The Meaning of Conservatism - Roger Scruton
Arguments Ror Conservatism - Roger Scruton
The Abolition of Britain - Peter Hitchens

Well, I hope you enjoy both the recommendations of Mr. Kirk and those of myself. I also hope that if you aren't already a conservative, then that you are persuaded to become one of us after reading these books.

In Defense of British Monarchism

Not only has monarchy survived in Britain for thousands of years, it has grown and adapted to suit the political climates of the times as any institution must do. The fact that it is also a much loved traditional institution that has an astounding basis in history and is therefore very likely to have numerous things in it's favour, essentially means that the burden of proof lies upon those who wish to abolish or even reform this institution. They must provide good reason for their desires to do so.

But not only are there no good reasons for abolishing the monarchy, there are numerous practical reasons for supporting the institution that most defines this land.

First of all, while the monarch occupies the highest office of the state, no one can take over the government. While he is head of the law, no politician can take over the courts. While he is ultimately in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army. This argument from Churchill shows that the monarch is the ultimate bulwark against any dictatorial regime, perhaps only rivaled by the institution of the family.

Second, the monarchy is completely pro-family. Children of the royal family are brought up to be heads of state and often have far more knowledge of being a British head of state than any would be President would have. The royal family are covered in the traditions of our nation and have an immense sense of patriotic duty.

Thirdly, the egalitarian ideal which is often invoked by the enemies of the monarchy has no basis in human nature. As the French sociologist Émile Durkheim knew man needs something above him for society to survive. If men do not bow to Kings, who will they bow to? Rather a noble King than a decadent celebrity.

And finally, the monarchy is an institution that almost defines this nation. It is a beloved cultural tradition which in time past has been shown to be both beneficial and practical.

And now after my defence of the British monarchy I close with only a few words: God Save the Queen.

The Death of the Noblest Generation

Harry Patch, the last British survivor of the trenches of the Great War, has finally died at the age of 111.

The man from Combe Down, near Bath, fought in the horrific Battle of Passchendaele in 1917 where 70,000 of his compatriots lost their lives.

He represents the death of a forgotton era where patriotism and loyalty to one's country were not frowned upon or seen as not "cool" enough but were in fact encouraged and respected. It is such a shame to see soldiers disrespected and mistreated as they so often are nowadays. Regardless of one's feelings about a particular war or conflict that one's nation is engaged in, one must treat the soldiers, who often have little choice in the matter of their deployment, with the respect and honour that they deserve.

Gordon Brown called Harry Patch's "the noblest of all generations". On this issue I certainly agree with him as well.