This post has already been read 2201 times!

Jacob Rees-Mog has caused outrage in the ranks of the so-called conservative party, and the media for telling the truth.

Rees-Mogg, a father of 6, and surprise internet sensation, made his views on abortion and gay marriage clear on a television show with Piers Morgan and Susannah Reid. Rees-Mogg does not agree with abortion under any circumstances, even under conditions of rape or incest, and doesn’t agree with gay marriage. Given that he is a Roman Catholic, these views are hardly surprising. His own opinions of course, have nothing to do with the law, they are just his opinions. We are allowed opinions aren’t we?

What is surprising is the overreaction to his comments by his own party and the media, being many times stronger than their reaction to something like Salman Abedi blowing up 22 people, including a girl of 8 at a pop concert in Manchester only three months ago, and all but forgotten. Words like abhorrent are used to describe Rees-Mogg’s attitude. The brutal murder of innocent teenagers enjoying themselves got no such reaction. The definition of abhorrent is: inspiring disgust and loathing, repugnant. This typical overreaction came from MP Margot James

But what did she have to day about the Manchester bombing where 22 people were murdered, 10 over them under the age of 20, and 250 injured?

So Rees-Mogg is utterly abhorrent, but victims of murder at the hands of religious extremists get condolences. And the perpetrator doesn’t even get a mention. Condolences are what you offer when someone loses an election campaign.

Can someone explain to me how suggesting that expectant mothers don’t terminate their unborn foetuses is seen as abhorrent? Equally, if someone believes that marriage is a holy act, that man and woman coming together in holy matrimony under God for the purposes of having a family is sacrosanct, then is it not perfectly reasonable for the sacred views of a major western religion; Christianity, to be respected. Labelling these views abhorrent is to label our national religion Christianity so too.

Rees-Mogg’s conservative views may be out of touch with modern society, but do his views differentiate him from many practicing Roman Catholics or Christians? (Piers Morgan says he is a catholic, but looking at his behaviour I would question this assertion)

Rees-Mogg is a Classical Liberal; he believes in personal freedom, freedom of speech and democracy. The majority of his party believe in none of these things. They believe in state socialism, censorship and decision-making by an elite class – hence the staunch efforts to overturn a majority democratic vote to leave the EU.

I would encourage the conservative party and the press who criticise Rees-Mogg to look up the definition of Classical Liberal, because it is very far from the so-called liberals of today. I would also encourage them to look up the definition of democracy, and ponder it for the next couple of months as Brexit negotiations unfold. These people have nothing but contempt for our freedom and democracy. They are not liberals, quite the opposite. If nobody has coined the term yet, allow me; ill-liberals.

As someone who believes in God, and in freedom of speech, Jacob Rees-Mogg says what he believes, and lets others do likewise. He would never tell anybody that their opinion was invalid, just that he didn’t agree with them. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I have my opinion, just as you have yours. Let us bring our ideas out into the light, and let us and others hear theses ideas for themselves, that they might persuade us to see things a little differently. Just as we did at Eton. Difference of opinion, offered in an arena of genuinely free speech will benefit us all. It will show us that individuals can think what they like, and the true diversity which results (not just diversity of skin colour, but diversity of thought) will make society a richer, more interesting, and more creative place.”

The media and the mainstream politicians are deeply embedded in groupthink, and there is no room for truth-speakers like Rees-Mogg who won’t toe the party line, or spout lefty dogma to win a popularity contest. He is a man of real principle, which makes him perfect for Prime Minister, but unfortunately he would be surrounded by ill-liberals who have no morals, and who would oust him in some media coup where he would end up looking unprincipled.

If nobody has coined the term yet, allow me; ill-liberals

I wonder whether the rest of the so-called conservatives would rather that Rees-Mogg didn’t express what he believed, that he lied instead in order to please those around him? Is this what people want from their politicians? Regardless of whether they want it or not, it’s mostly what they’re getting. In the eyes of ill-liberals, lying would make him a better human being. It would make him more accepting, more ‘progressive’. Since when was being bullied to lie about your beliefs any of these things? Censorship causes far more trouble than free speech ever did, and Jacob Rees-Mogg should be applauded for saying what he thinks, not derided.

Rees-Mogg has a faith; Roman Catholicism. His views on abortion and gay marriage fall in line with his religion. Those who have called his view abhorrent are not religious. Instead they have signed up to the creed of political correctness, and worship daily at its altar. Woe betide anyone who speaks against the religion of PC.

It seems to me that those who are most insecure about themselves or their beliefs, are those who make the most noise, reacting violently to any opposing beliefs. If you truly knew that God existed, or that abortion was the right thing to do, you wouldn’t be trying to persuade everyone else to shut up about their own opinions, and agree to yours.

There is a false belief that there is strength in numbers. One insecure person is not going to feel any more secure when they surround themselves with 100, 1,000 or even 1,000,000 more insecure people. Attempting to worship false idols like political correctness is a case in point. People are not allowed to think freely or speak freely about what they believe, because it shocks and destabilises the fragile beliefs that modern ill-liberals have about the world.

They lack any solid foundation on which to make their assertions and attack anyone who dares to speak against their political correctness, branding them heretics. But when you look at the facts in the cold hard light of day, the ill-liberals are the ones who look ridiculous; over reacting to someone’s opinion about not killing foetuses and protecting the sanctity of marriage, at the same time failing to condemn brutal murder on British Citizens carried out in the name of Islam. Do people like Margot James love Islam more than Christianity? Is would certainly seem so from her comments. But let us not forget, these are writ large in the teachings of their religion, political correctness.

Beware the media. If you like hearing what people have to say, if you stand up for the rights of someone to express their opinions without fear of reproach – whether you agree with them or not – give two thumbs up to Jacob Rees-Mogg for having the principles to say what he believes, regardless of the floppy left’s response. He would make a brilliant PM. I’m just not sure there are enough classical liberals in politics to support him. Maggie Thatcher was a revolutionary, but she surrounded herself with like-minded people; Nigel Lawson, Normal Tebbit etc. If Jacob Rees-Mogg is going for the top job, he will need to identify like-minded supporters to help him achieve it.

This post has already been read 2201 times!

Also published on Medium.