Horizontal colloboration

Eskişehir, Türkiye

Saturday 6 April 2024

“I am very happy these spring days.

Each morning I wake between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m., then make tea, read for a while, work until 7:30, when I go for a walk.

Through the window I watch the day begin, from first grey light to full sunrise, as, in the evening, I watch it end.

It is a great joy to see each day’s first and last light.

After breakfast I read the papers, then work until lunch time.

After lunch, I lie down with a book and usually sleep for an hour or so, then walk or do gardening, mostly mowing the grass, followed by a late tea, work until about 7:30, another short stroll, supper, a game of cards with Kitty, and bed.

This quiet and serenity set one apart from public affairs.

The newspapers, which I still avidly devour, seem to be about another world than mine.

I continue to want to know about it, but not to visit it.

Above: Sazova Park, Eskişehir

A paperback series of religious books has, for its first volume, St. Augustine’s “Confessions”, and for its second “Sex, Love and Marriage”.

In contemporary terms, anything about fornication is religious, as anything about raising the standard of life, and ameliorating in material circumstances, is Christian.

Above: Berber theologican / philosopher Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)

In this sense fornication can be seen as sacred, an act of Holy Communion – which, as Euclid says, is absurd.“

Above: Greek mathematician Euclid (4th century BC)

(6 April 1961, Malcolm Muggeridge)

Above: English journalist / satirist Malcolm Muggeridge (1903 – 1990)

There are said to be three topics one should never discuss in public:

Politics, religion and sex.

Much to my surprise, I find myself compelled to speak of all three today, but perhaps not in such a way that my remarks will be considered blasphemous, libellous, profane or slanderous.

What has prompted this post is finding a reference by Wikipedia that today, 6 April, is “International Asexuality Day” and Muggeridge’s diary entry in the compendium of diaries that I collect.

As well, everyone at my place of work was encouraged to view video information about HPV awareness, prevention and vaccination, and I was asked why I felt that my attendance was not required.

Let me explain:

Human papillomavirus infection (HPV infection) is caused by a DNA virus.

Many HPV infections cause no symptoms and 90% resolve spontaneously within two years.

In some cases, an HPV infection persists and results in either warts or precancerous lesions.

These lesions, depending on the site affected, increase the risk of cancer of the cervix, vulva, vagina, penis, anus, mouth, tonsils or throat.

Nearly all cervical cancer is due to HPV.

Two strains – HPV16 and HPV18 – account for 70% of all cases.

HPV16 is responsible for almost 90% of HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancers.

Between 60% and 90% of the other cancers listed above are also linked to HPV. 

HPV6 and HPV11 are common causes of genital warts and laryngeal papillomatosis.

An individual can become infected with more than one type of HPV. 

The disease is only known to affect humans.

More than 40 types may be spread through sexual contact.

HPV vaccines can prevent the most common types of infection.

Nearly every sexually active individual is infected by HPV at some point in their lives. 

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection (STİ) globally.

My solution?

Abstain from sex.

But is that desirable or even possible?

I will return to this question below.

 

Above: Human papilloma virus (HPV)

Thomas Malcolm Muggeridge (1903 – 1990) was an English journalist and satirist.

His father, H.T. Muggeridge (1864 – 1942), was a socialist politician and one of the early Labour Party Members of Parliament (for Romford, in Essex).

Malcolm’s brother Eric was one of the founders of Plan International.

Above: Malcolm Muggeridge

(Plan International is a development and humanitarian organisation which works in over 75 countries across Africa, the Americas and Asia to advance children’s rights and equality for girls. 

Its focus is on child protection, education, child participation, economic security, emergencies, health, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and water and sanitation.

As of 2021, Plan International reached 26.2 million girls and 24.1 million boys through its programmes.

Plan International provides training in disaster preparedness, response and recovery, and has worked on relief efforts in countries including Haiti, Colombia and Japan.

Plan International was founded in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War (1936 – 1939) by British journalist John Langdon – Davies (1897 – 1971) and aid worker Eric Muggeridge.

The organization was founded with the aim to provide food, accommodation and education to children whose lives had been disrupted by the Spanish Civil War.)

In his 20s, Muggeridge was attracted to Communism and went to live in the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

The experience turned him into an anti-Communist.

Above: Hammer and sickle symbol of Communism

(Communism (from Latin communis, ‘common, universal’) is a left wing to far left sociopolitical, philosophical and economic ideology within the Socialist movement, whose goal is the creation of a Communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need. 

Problem 1:

How much is needed and who makes that determination?

A Communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state.

Above: Metro Station, Plošča Lienina, Minsk

Problem 2:

Why were we born individuals if not to want something for ourselves individually?

As much as I perceive the discrimination and inequality inherent in the classification of society, I think true equality between all people can only work if everyone is by their innate nature truly equal.

Or as George Orwell so aptly put it:

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other.”

Above: The Hoof and Horn flag described in the book Animal Farm is a parody of the hammer and sickle.

I think there is an inevitable division between people because of aptitude, circumstance and character.

My cousin, for example, is, by his very nature, a superior athlete compared to me.

If all else were equal between us, his natural aptitude for racing like the wind will in all probability mean that I will lag behind him in a footrace.

This does not infer that he is necessarily more deserving of happiness than I, but rather I need to attain my success in ways other than athleticism.

Above: Canadian athlete / humanitarian Steve O’Brien

The environment from whence you came also determines, to a certain degree, how “successful” your future may become.

Those born with advantages that others lack may have an easier time achieving their goals.

These advantages can be biological, economic, geographical or psychological.

I am not suggesting that having advantages that others lack is necessarily fair.

Above: English scientist Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) –  His proposition that all species of life have descended from a common ancestor is now generally accepted and considered a fundamental concept in science.

I believe society should contınue to strive to ensure that all its members have equal rights and dignity as defined by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, but beyond these definitions I also feel that those who are gifted with talent and ambition should be held worthy of respect for their individuality.

Money’s elimination seems improbable to me, for money establishes a common standard by which we judge value.

I have a cow.

You have a sheep.

We want to make a trade, but the difference in size between the animals suggests that the exchange may be perceived as unequal.

In Money and the Mechanism of Exchange (1875), William Stanley Jevons famously analyzed money in terms of four functions:

• a medium of exchange
• a common measure of value 
• a standard of value 
• a store of value

By 1919, Jevons’s four functions of money were summarized in the couplet:

“Money’s a matter of functions four,

A Medium, a Measure, a Standard, a Store.”

As much as I dislike the discrimination and inequality that exists between those who possess wealth and those who do not, I think the problem is not so much the money itself but rather human nature.

Above: English economist / logician William Stanley Jevons (1835 – 1882)

Problem 3:

Who keeps the society beneficial to all?

If standards are to be desired then they must be defined and maintained.

But the very need for definition and maintenance means that there needs to be individuals capable of making those decisions for others.

If I am equal to you, then can I truly respect you having power over me to make these decisions for me?

To accept authority over myself I first must acknowledge that you are in some way more capable than I am in making decisions that I am not as qualified to make.

A judgment of these qualifications should only be possible by those who possess those qualifications beforehand.

As much as the nature of a man leans towards freedom and individualism, there will be moments wherein I will require the aid of others to maintain myself.

If a mechanic is equal to a physician in aptitude and education then there would be no need of specialized professions.

I may possess basic human dignıty that suggests a doctor is equal to me in that regard, but a doctor possesses the skill, experience and qualifications when medical assistance is required.

I must acceed that the doctor is my superior in this manner.

I also must reward the doctor for the time and effort it took to develop the proficiency needed to repair my ailing form.

Who determines that doctor’s abilities to heal me?

There must be some authority that establishes criteria.

As people of common heritage have banded together into collectives, collectively there then needs be an institution that safeguards the well-being of that collective.

Thus the need for the state.

Above: Parliament Hill, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Problem 4:

The state is, in theory, representative of the people that reside therein, but those who claim to represent me may not necessarily hold my interests more paramount than theirs.

The advantages of power and the wealth and status it often confers make power desirable.

The acquisition and maintenance of power often results in the needs of the many denied in favour of the desires of a few.

Those who represent a nation may more often than not be negligent of the best needs of that nation.

Therein lies the failure of Communism.

There can be no true equality when the need for law and order requires those superior to myself to set those standards.

A universal society may sound desirable in theory, but it is damnably difficult in its execution.

I digress.)

Above: Flag of the Soviet Union (1955 – 1991)

The middle of five brothers, Muggeridge was born in Sanderstead, Surrey.

Above: All Saints parish church, Addintgon Road, Sanderstead

His first name, Thomas, was chosen by his father in honour of his hero Thomas Carlyle.

Above: Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle (1795 – 1881)

Muggeridge grew up in Croydon, attended Selhurst High School there , and then Selwyn College in Cambridge for four years.

Above: Selwyn College

Still a student, he taught for brief periods in 1920, 1922 and 1924 at the John Ruskin Central School, Croydon, where his father was Chairman of the Governors.

After graduating in 1924 with a degree in natural sciences, Muggeridge went to India for three years to teach English literature at Union Christian College, Aluva, Cochin.

Above: UC College, Aluva, Kerala

His writing career began during his time in Cochin via an exchange of correspondence on war and peace with Mahatma Gandhi (1869 – 1948), with Muggeridge’s article on the interactions being published in Young India, a local magazine.

Above: Mahatma Gandhi (1869 – 1948)

Returning to Britain in 1927, he married Katherine “Kitty” Dobbs (1903 – 1994).

He worked as a supply teacher before moving to teach English literature in Egypt six months later.

There he met Arthur Ransome (1884 – 1967), who was visiting Egypt as a journalist for the Manchester Guardian.

Ransome recommended Muggeridge to the newspaper’ editors, who offered him his first position in journalism.

Initially attracted by Communism, Muggeridge and his wife travelled to Moscow in 1932.

He was to be a correspondent for the Manchester Guardian.

During Muggeridge’s early time in Moscow he was completing a novel, Picture Palace, loosely based on his experiences and observations at the Manchester Guardian.

It was completed and submitted to publishers in January 1933, but there was concern by the publishers over potential libel claims, and so the published book was not distributed.

Very few first-edition copies exist today.

That setback caused considerable financial difficulties for Muggeridge, who was not employed and was paid only for articles that were accepted.

Increasingly disillusioned by his close observation of Communism in practice, Muggeridge decided to investigate reports of the famine in Ukraine by travelling there and to the Caucasus without first obtaining the permission of the Soviet authorities.

The revealing reports that he sent back to the Manchester Guardian in the diplomatic bag, thus evading censorship, were not fully printed, and those that were published (on 25, 27 and 28 March 1933) were not published under Muggeridge’s name. 

Meanwhile, fellow journalist Gareth Jones (1905 – 1935), who had met Muggeridge in Moscow, published his own stories.

The two accounts helped to confirm the extent of a forced famine, which was politically motivated.

Above: Gareth Jones (1905 – 1935)

Writing in the New York Times, Moscow bureau chief Walter Duranty denied the existence of any famine. 

Jones wrote letters to the Manchester Guardian in support of Muggeridge’s articles about the famine.

Above: Starved peasants on a street in Kharkiv, Ukraine, 1933

Having come into conflict with British newspapers’ editorial policy of not provoking the authorities in the Soviet Union, Muggeridge returned to novel writing.

He wrote Winter in Moscow (1934), which describes conditions in the “socialist Utopia” and satirised Western journalists’ uncritical view of the Soviet regime.

He was later to call Duranty “the greatest liar I have met in journalism“.

Above: Walter Duranty (1884 – 1957)

Later, he began a writing partnership with Hugh Kingsmill.

Above: British writer / journalist Hugh Kingsmill (1889 – 1949)

Muggeridge’s politics changed from an independent socialist point of view to a conservative religious stance.

He wrote later:

“I wrote in a mood of anger, which I find rather absurd now: not so much because the anger was, in itself, unjustified, as because getting angry about human affairs is as ridiculous as losing one’s temper when an air flight is delayed.”

Above: Malcolm Muggeridge

After his time in Moscow, Muggeridge worked on other newspapers, including The Statesman in Calcutta, of which he was editor in 1934 to 1936.

In his second stint in India, he lived by himself in Calcutta, having left behind his wife and children in London.

Between 1930 and 1936, the Muggeridges had three sons and a daughter. 

His office was in the headquarters of the newspaper in Chowringhee.

When war was declared, Muggeridge went to Maidstone to join up but was sent away:

“My generation felt they’d missed the First War, now was the time to make up.” 

Above: Images of Maidstone, England

He was called into the Ministry of Information, which he called “a most appalling set-up“, and joined the army as a private.

Above: Senate House, the Ministry of Information headquarters in London during WW2

He joined the Corps of Military Police and was commissioned in May 1940.

He transferred to the Intelligence Corps as a lieutenant in June 1942.

Having spent two years as a Regimental Intelligence Officer in Britain, he was by 1942 in MI6.

Above: The SIS Building (or MI6 Building) at Vauxhall Cross, London, houses the headquarters of the British Secret Intelligence Service.

He had been posted to Lourençco Marques (now Maputo), the capital of Mozambique, as a bogus vice-consul (called “a special correspondent” by London Controlling Section).

Above: Images of Maputo

Before heading out, Muggeridge stayed in Lisbon for some months, waiting for his visa to come through.

He stayed in Estoril at the Pensão Royal on 17 May 1942.

Above: Costa do Estoril, Portugal

His mission was to prevent information about Allied convoys off the coast of Africa falling into enemy hands. 

He wrote later that he also attempted suicide. 

After the Allied occupation of North Africa, he was posted to Algiers as liaison officer with the French sécurité militaire.

Above: Images of Algiers

In that capacity, he was sent to Paris at the time of the Liberation and worked alongside the Free French Forces of Charles de Gaulle.

He had a high regard for de Gaulle and considered him a greater man than Churchill (1874 – 1965).

Above: Charles de Gaulle (1890 – 1970)

He was warned to expect some anti-British feeling in Paris because of the attack on Mers el Kébir (on 3 July 1940, a British naval attack on neutral French Navy ships at the naval base at Mers el Kébir, near Oran, on the Algerian coast.

Above: Battleship Dunkerque under fire

In fact, Muggeridge, speaking on the BBC retrospective programme Muggeridge: Ancient & Modern, said that he had encountered no such feeling and indeed had been allowed on occasion to eat and drink for nothing at Maxim’s.

Above: Maxim’s Restaurant, Paris

He was assigned to make an initial investigation into P. G. Wodehouse’s five broadcasts from Berlin during the war.

Though he was prepared to dislike Wodehouse, the interview became the start of a lifelong friendship and publishing relationship as well as the subject for several plays.

(Wodehouse was an English writer and one of the most widely read humorists of the 20th century.

His creations include the feather-brained Bertie Wooster and his sagacious valet, Jeeves.

In 1934 Wodehouse moved to France for tax reasons.

In 1940 he was taken prisoner at Le Touquet by the invading Germans and interned for nearly a year.

After his release he made six broadcasts from German radio in Berlin to the US, which had not yet entered the War.

The talks were comic and apolitical, but his broadcasting over enemy radio prompted anger and strident controversy in Britain, and a threat of prosecution.

Wodehouse never returned to England.)

Above: Pelham Grenville Wodehouse (1881 – 1975)

Muggeridge also interviewed Coco Chanel in Paris about the nature of her involvement with the Nazis in Vichy (Nazi-occupied) France during the War.

(Gabrielle Bonheur “Coco” Chanel was a French fashion designer and businesswoman.

The founder and namesake of the Chanel brand, she was credited in the post–WW1 era with popularizing a sporty, casual chic as the feminine standard of style.

This replaced the “corseted silhouette” that had earlier been dominant with a style that was simpler, far less time-consuming to put on and remove, more comfortable, and less expensive, all without sacrificing elegance.

She is the only fashion designer listed on Time magazine’s list of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century. 

Above: Coco Chanel (1883 – 1971)

A prolific fashion creator, Chanel extended her influence beyond couture clothing, realizing her aesthetic design in jewellery, handbags, and fragrance.

Her signature scent, Chanel No. 5, has become an iconic product.

Chanel herself designed her famed interlocked-CC monogram, which has been in use since the 1920s.

Her couture house closed in 1939, with the outbreak of WW2.

Chanel stayed in France and was criticized during the war for collaborating with the Nazi German occupiers and the Vichy puppet regime to free her nephew from a POW camp.

To secure his release Chanel began a liaison with a German diplomat/spy she had known before the war, Baron Hans Günther von Dincklage (1896 – 1979).

Following her nephew’s release, she collaborated in minor ways.

After the war, Chanel was interrogated about her relationship with Dincklage, but she was not charged as a collaborator due to intervention by her friend — British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

When the War ended, Chanel moved to Switzerland, returning to Paris in 1954 to revive her fashion house.

In 2011, Hal Vaughan (1928 – 2013) published a biography about Chanel based on newly declassified documents, revealing that she had collaborated directly with the Nazi intelligence service, the Sicherheitsdienst.

One plan in late 1943 was for her to carry an SS peace overture to Churchill to end the War.

Vaughan establishes that Chanel committed herself to the German cause as early as 1941 and worked for General Walter Schellenberg (1910 – 1952), chief of the German intelligence agency Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service / SD) and the military intelligence spy network Abwehr (Counterintelligence) at the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Security Main Office / RSHA) in Berlin.

At the end of the War, Schellenberg was tried by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for war crimes.

He was released in 1951 owing to incurable liver disease and took refuge in Italy.

Chanel paid for Schellenberg’s medical care and living expenses, financially supported his wife and family and paid for Schellenberg’s funeral upon his death in 1952.

Above: SS-Oberführer Walter Schellenberg, Chief of SS intelligence, the Sicherheitsdienst

Suspicions of Coco Chanel’s involvement first began when German tanks entered Paris and began the Nazi occupation.

Chanel immediately sought refuge in the deluxe Hotel Ritz, which was also used as the headquarters of the German military.

It was at the Hotel Ritz where she fell in love with Baron Hans Gunther von Dincklage, working in the German embassy close to the Gestapo.

When the Nazi occupation of France began, Chanel decided to close her store, claiming a patriotic motivation behind such decision.

However, when she moved into the same Hotel Ritz that was housing the German military, her motivations became clear to many.

While many women in France were punished for “horizontal collaboration” with German officers, Chanel faced no such action.

At the time of the French liberation in 1944, Chanel left a note in her store window explaining Chanel No. 5 to be free to all GIs. )

Above: Hotel Ritz, Paris

Muggeridge ended the War as a major.

Muggeridge wrote for the Evening Standard and also for the Daily Telegraph where he was appointed deputy editor in 1950.

He kept detailed diaries, which provide a vivid picture of the journalistic and political London of the day, including regular contact with George Orwell (1903 – 1950), Anthony Powell (1905 – 2000), Graham Greene (1904 – 1991) and Bill Deedes (1913 – 2007).

Muggeridge kept detailed diaries for much of his life, which were published in 1981 under the title Like It Was: The Diaries of Malcolm Muggeridge.

Muggeridge comments perceptively on Ian Fleming (1908 – 1964), Guy Burgess (1911 – 1963) and Kim Philby (1912 – 1988).

When George Orwell died in 1950, Muggeridge and Anthony Powell organized Orwell’s funeral.

Muggeridge also acted as Washington correspondent for the Daily Telegraph.

He was editor of Punch magazine from 1953 to 1957, a challenging appointment for one who claimed that:

“There is no occupation more wretched than trying to make the English laugh“.

In 1957, he received public and professional opprobrium for criticism of the British monarchy in the Saturday Evening Post.

The article was given the title “Does England Really Need a Queen?“.

Its publication was delayed by five months to coincide with the Royal State Visit to Washington DC taking place later that year.

It was little more than a rehash of views expressed in a 1955 article, Royal Soap Opera, but its timing caused outrage in the UK.

His notoriety then propelled him into becoming better known as a broadcaster, with regular appearances on the BBC’s Panorama, and a reputation as a tough interviewer.

Encounters with Brendan Behan (1923 – 1964) and Salvador Dali (1904 – 1989) cemented his reputation as a fearless critic of modern life.

Above: Malcolm Muggeridge

Muggeridge was described as having predatory behaviour towards women during his BBC years. 

He was described as a “compulsive groper“, reportedly being nicknamed “The Pouncer” and as “a man fully deserving of the acronym NSIT—not safe in taxis“.

His niece confirmed these reports, while also reflecting on the suffering inflicted on his family and saying that he changed his behaviour when he converted to Christianity in the 1960s.

In the early 1960s, Muggeridge became a vegetarian so that he would be “free to denounce those horrible factory farms where animals are raised for food“.

Above: Malcolm and Kit Muggeridge

He took to frequently denouncing the new sexual laxity of the Swinging Sixties on radio and television.

He particularly railed against “pills and pot“:

Birth control pills and cannabis.

In contrast, he met the Beatles before they were famous.

On 7 June 1961 he flew to Hamburg for an interview with Stern magazine and afterwards went out on the town and ended up at the Top Ten Club on the Reeperbahn.

In his diary, he described their performance as “bashing their instruments, and emitting nerveless sounds into microphones“.

However, they recognised him from the television and they entered into conversation.

He acknowledged that “their faces were like Renaissance carvings of the saints or Blessed Virgins“.

Above: The Beatles, 1964

His book, Tread Softly for You Tread on My Jokes (1966), though acerbic in its wit, revealed a serious view of life.

The title is an allusion to the last line of the poem “Aedh Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven” by William Butler Yeats:

“Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.”

Above: William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

In 1967 and 1970, Muggeridge preached at Great St. Mary’s, Cambridge.

Above: Great St. Mary’s, Cambridge

Having been elected Rector of Edinburgh University, Muggeridge was goaded by the editor of The Student, Anna Coote, to support the call for contraceptive pills to be available at the University Health Centre.

He used a sermon at St. Giles’ Cathedral in January 1968 to resign the post to protest against the Students’ Representative Council’s views on “pot and pills“.

The sermon was published under the title “Another King“.

Muggeridge was known for his wit and profound writings often at odds with the opinions of the day.

“Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream“, he liked to quote.

He wrote two volumes of an autobiography called Chronicles of Wasted Time (the title is a quotation from Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 106“).

The first volume (1972) was The Green Stick.

The second volume (1973) was The Infernal Grove.

A projected third volume, The Right Eye, covering the postwar period, was never completed.

Agnostic for most of his life, Muggeridge became a Protestant Christian, publishing Jesus Rediscovered in 1969, a collection of essays, articles and sermons on faith, which became a best seller. 

Jesus: The Man Who Lives followed in 1976, which was a more substantial work describing the gospel in his own words.

In A Third Testament, he profiles six spiritual thinkers, whom he called “God’s spies“, who influenced his life: Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430), William Blake (1757 – 1827), Blaise Pascal (1623 – 1662), Leo Tolstoy (1828 – 1910), Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 – 1945) and Soren Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855).

He also produced several BBC religious documentaries, including In the Footsteps of St. Paul.

(Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.

Another definition provided is the view that:

“Human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.“

The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 – 1895) coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said:

“It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.“)

Above: T. H. Huxley

Muggeridge became a leading figure in the Nationwide Festival of Light in 1971 protesting against the commercial exploitation of sex and violence in Britain and advocating the teaching of Christ as the key to recovering moral stability in the nation.

He said at the time:

“The media today — press, television, and radio — are largely in the hands of those who favour the present Gadarene slide into decadence and Godlessness.”

(The Gadarene story shows Jesus exorcising demons out of a man and into a herd of swine, causing the swine to run down a hill into a lake and drown themselves.)

Above: Mosaic of the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac from the Basilica of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy (early 6th century)

In 1979, along with the Bishop of Southwark Mervyn Stockwood (1913 – 1995), Muggeridge appeared on the chat show Friday Night, Saturday Morning to discuss the film Life of Brian with Monty Python members John Cleese and Michael Palin.

Although the Python members gave reasons that they believed the film to be neither anti-Christian nor mocking the person of Jesus, both Muggeridge and the Bishop insisted that they were being disingenuous and that the film was anti-Christian and blasphemous.

Muggeridge further declared their film to be “buffoonery“, “tenth-rate“, “this miserable little film” and “this little squalid number“.

Furthermore, Muggeridge stated that there was “nothing in this film that could possibly destroy anybody’s genuine faith“.

In saying this, the Pythons were quick to point out the futility of criticising it so vitriolically since Muggeridge did not think it was significant enough to affect anyone.

According to Palin, Muggeridge arrived late and so missing the two scenes in which Jesus and Brian were distinguished as different people.

The discussion was moderated by Tim Rice, the lyricist for the musical Jesus Christ Superstar, which had also generated some controversy in Britain about a decade earlier over its depiction of Jesus.

The comedians later expressed disappointment in Muggeridge, whom all in Monty Python had previously respected as a satirist.

Cleese said that his reputation had “plummeted” in his eyes.

Palin commented:

“He was just being Muggeridge, preferring to have a very strong contrary opinion as opposed to none at all.”

Above: “The Battle of Brian“

In 1982, at 79, Muggeridge was received into the Catholic Church after he had rejected Anglicanism, like his wife, Kitty.

This was largely under the influence of Mother Teresa (1910 – 1997) about whom he had written a book, Something Beautiful for God, setting out and interpreting her life.

His last book, Conversion (1988), describes his life as a 20th century pilgrimage, a spiritual journey.

Muggeridge died on 14 December 1990 in a nursing home in Hastings, England, at the age of 87.

He had suffered a stroke three years earlier.

How did a compulsive groper of women become a critic of the Swinging Sixties?

How did an agnostic become a defender of the faith?

How did a satirist become a stark opponent of satire?

I have not read Muggeridge’s works, though I do recall seeing video clips of “the Battle of Brian“, so I can only surmise how these transformations in Muggeridge’s character came about.

Let me turn to Australia’s best known family therapist and parenting author, Steve Biddulph, who expresses many of my thoughts on the topic.

What should be one of our greatest glories in Life is often one of the greatest disappointments.

Biddulph estimates that 60% of men under 40 are sex-addicted as opposed to sexual in a whole and balanced way.

When it comes to sex, many of us have been short-changed.

Human sexuality is potentially a huge energy source which pushes us towards union with a partner and release from the ordinary.

It is tragic that a facet of Life so important to Humanity has been exploited, misunderstood and demeaned by our cultures and religions.

I am a firm believer in the idea that culture (the way we do things here) developed over millennia in the name of pragmatism.

For example, take the prohibition of the eating of pork by some faiths.

Pigs need moisture to protect their hides and thus the instinct to find mud to wallow in.

Man witnessed pigs in mud, equated mud with dirt and disease, so a philosophy emerged wherein the consumption of pork is considered unclean.

Avoid eating a dirty animal and thus avoid disease that may emerge from the dirt seems to be the reasoning.

Consider the prohibition against promiscuity.

Did a divine advisor command monogamy and condemn pre-martial sex merely as evidence of our obedience and faith?

Or could more pragmatic concerns be the cause, such as the succession of property or the difficult demands of time and energy that comes with parenthood that should be soberly considered?

Above: Giacomo Casanova (1725 – 1798) was famously promiscuous.

Most men are basically still ashamed of their sexual feelings.

At best we have been taught to see male sexuality as something ordinary – just an itch to be scratched.

We come through boyhood into manhood having all kinds of cheapened messages about our deepest feelings.

Our genitalia should be wings on which to fly to Heaven, instead as viewed as inconvenient impulses.

Sexuality urgently needs to be made richer in pleasure and in meaning.

I work in Türkiye.

My wife resides in Switzerland.

I am occasionally asked how I cope with a man’s basest desires with so many miles that separate us.

I abstain.

For me, physical intimacy needs to be rich in pleasure and meaning or it becomes merely reduced to being simply an itch that needs scratching from time to time.

Not because society or religion dictates my monogamy, but rather because I want the totality of love from my wife rather than seeking solace from strangers.

A woman truly is a Wonderland in that there are more erogenous zones on her body than on the body of her male counterpart.

Women’s increasing awareness of the female body and its sexuality has led to women craving more from sex as merely a method to draw a male provider into her sway.

Her oft unspoken desire to experience the full potentiality of the sexual act has led some women to question what a woman wants beyond the urgings of procreation and the seduction of a male provider.

Women have to discover themselves then educate men in how to pleasure them.

But the reverse is also true.

Men have to understand themselves, discovering what they want and don’t want, while at the same time refusing to be demeaned or be self-demeaning.

We remain societies lacking the confidence to be able to talk honestly and easily about sex, denying ourselves more exuberant and intimate lovemaking as a result.

Instead our orgasms are as stunted as our lives.

Sex could be an aria of sensation as powerful as the collision of a truck and simultaneously as soft as snow, as majestic as a king in costume and as sensual as a slide down a slippery slope.

The real goal of lovemaking has always been the formation of a deep connection, not just of bodies intertwined and fluids flow, but the look of love reflected in the eyes of our partner, hearts open, bodies relaxed and abandoned, gradually dropping our defences in trust of each other and of the natural power that possesses you.

Lovemaking is not always so intense but it is a whole person, a whole two people, not just naughty bits co-mingling on a speed date.

Sex should be sacred where the divine sense of self is in awe, swept away by a feeling of being more than each other but rather a miracle of unity.

Where the divine in man meets the divine in woman and they are spun through space and time, knowing everything, lost in the wonder of life and love.

There is an old joke that a man spends nine months trying to get out of a woman’s womb and the rest of his lıfe trying to get back in.

Maybe there is a truism here.

We start Life as tender babies and spend our whole lives trying to regain that absolute openness and trust.

Standing on an ocean beach watching the moon rise, dining by candlelight, making love on a rug by a fireside, impulsively falling to the ground together, exploring anew the warmth beneath, that is romance, that is bringing a wild heart to an erotic body with the naked earth beneath us and the universe above.

Of course, it has been suggested that a solitary man can scratch the itch through the voyeurism of adult movies, but pornography fails men in that it can only capture the mechanical motions and not the inner qualities of sensory and emotional experience.

We need to focus less on what to do and more on what we wish to feel.

Above: Scene from From Here to Eternity (1953)

Maybe, just maybe, a belated awareness of this, caused Muggeridge to evolve from creep to compassionate companion.

Too many men are creatures of low self-esteem, unable to develop sustained intimate friendships with others, because we have never really learned to trust ourselves or others.

Despairing of happiness, some men find women much easier to see as objects to exploit rather than the complex counterparts of men.

Despairing of ever finding love and closeness, he seeks to balance the scales of constantly being denied the power of choice a woman possesses over her body by denying himself the hope of a relationship.

All human beings need to feel loved.

To be valued as we are, treated with kindness and to experience daily intimacy.

But too many men lack confidence.

Not merely sexual confidence, where sexual rejection is confused with outright rejection, but a deep sense of self worth.

Too many equate the acceptance of others as the sole validation of their worth.

Happiness is never found in anyone.

Happiness must come from within and then, and only then, it can be shared.

A man who needs to use his strength, his guile, his money or other power plays to impose his desires upon a woman then he has abandoned the difficult path of intimacy for the expressway of exploitation and may be truly lost.

I would never presume to tell another person how active or inactive an intimate life they should have.

(International Asexuality Day (IAD) is an annual celebration of the asexuality community that takes place on 6 April. 

The intention for the day is “to place a special emphasis on the international community, going beyond the anglophone and Western sphere that has so far had the most coverage“.

An international committee spent a little under a year preparing the event, as well as publishing a website and press materials.

This committee settled on the date of 6 April to avoid clashing with as many significant dates around the world as possible, although this date is subject to review and may change in future years. 

The first International Asexuality Day was celebrated in 2021 and involved asexuality organizations from at least 26 countries.

Activities included virtual meetups, advocacy programs both online and offline, and the sharing of stories in various art forms.

Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity. 

It may be considered a sexual orientation or the lack thereof.

It may also be categorized more widely, to include a broad spectrum of asexual sub-identities.

Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy, which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual’s personal, social, or religious beliefs.

Sexual orientation, unlike sexual behavior, is believed to be “enduring“.

Some asexual people engage in sexual activity despite lacking sexual attraction or a desire for sex, for a number of reasons, such as a desire to physically pleasure themselves or romantic partners, or a desire to have children.

Acceptance of asexuality as a sexual orientation and field of scientific research is still relatively new, as a growing body of research from both sociological and psychological perspectives has begun to develop.

While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, other researchers disagree.

Asexual individuals may represent about 1% of the population.

Above: A black ring may be worn on one’s right middle finger to indicate asexuality.

Various asexual communities have started to form since the impact of the Internet and social media in the mid-1990s.

The most prolific and well-known of these communities is the Asexual Visibility and Education Network, which was founded in 2001 by David Jay.

Because there is significant variation among those who identify as asexual, the term asexuality can encompass broad definitions.

Researchers generally define asexuality as the lack of sexual attraction or the lack of interest in sexual activity, though specific definitions vary — the term may be used to refer to individuals with low or absent sexual behavior or exclusively romantic non-sexual partnerships in addition to low or absent sexual desire or attraction.

The Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), an online forum dedicated to asexuality, defines an asexual as “someone who does not experience sexual attraction“, as well as adding that asexuality “at its core” is “just a word that people use to help figure themselves out“, and encourages people to use the term asexual to define themselves “as long as it makes sense to do so“. 

Above: Asexual symbol of the AVEN community (Asexual Visibility and Education Network)

Asexuality is often abbreviated as ace, a phonetic shortening of asexual.

The community as a whole is likewise referred to as the ace community.

Above: Asexual Pride Flag

In 2001, activist David Jay founded the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), whose stated goals are “creating public acceptance and discussion of asexuality and facilitating the growth of an asexual community“.

Some asexuals believe that participation in an asexual community is an important resource, as they often report feeling ostracized in broader society.

Communities such as AVEN can be beneficial to those in search of answers when questioning their sexual orientation, such as providing support if one feels their lack of sexual attraction constitutes a disease.

Online asexual communities can also serve to inform others about asexuality.

However, affiliating with online communities among asexual people vary.

Some question the purpose of online communities, while others heavily depend on them for support.

Asexuality has always been present in society, though asexual people have kept a low profile.

While the failure to consummate marriage was seen as an insult to the sacrament of marriage in medieval times, it has sometimes been used as grounds to terminate a marriage, though asexuality has never been illegal.

However, the recent growth of online communication and social networking has facilitated the growth of a community built upon a common asexual identity.

Above: David Jay

Studies have found no significant statistical correlation between religion and asexuality, with asexuality occurring with equal prevalence in both religious and irreligious individuals. 

Asexuality is more common among celibate clergy, as non-asexuals are more likely to be discouraged by vows of chastity.

It has been suggested that a higher proportion of Muslim respondents reported that they did not experience any form of sexual attraction compared to Christian respondents.

Because the application of the term asexuality is relatively recent, it is unclear what stance most religions have on it.

In the Christian Bible (Matthew 19: 11 – 12), Jesus mentions:

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others – and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven“.

While Christianity has not directly mentioned asexuality, it has revered celibacy.

The apostle Paul, writing as a celibate, has been described by some writers as asexual. 

He writes in 1 Corinthians 7 : 6 – 9:

“I wish that all men were as I am.

But each man has his own gift from God.

One has this gift, another has that.

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say:

It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

A 2012 study published in Group Processes and Intergroup Relations reported that asexuals are evaluated more negatively in terms of prejudice, dehumanization and discrimination than other sexual minorities, such as gay men, lesbians and bisexuals.

Both homosexual and heterosexual people thought of asexuals as not only cold, but also animalistic and unrestrained.

A different study, however, found little evidence of serious discrimination against asexuals because of their asexuality. 

Asexual activist, author and blogger Julie Decker has observed that sexual harassment and violence, such as corrective rape, commonly victimizes the asexual community. 

Above: Julie Decker

Sociologist Mark Carrigan sees a middle ground, arguing that while asexuals do often experience discrimination, it is not of a phobic nature but “more about marginalization because people genuinely don’t understand asexuality“.

In works composed prior to the beginning of the 21st century, characters are generally automatically assumed to be sexual and the existence of a character’s sexuality is usually never questioned. 

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859 – 1930) portrayed his character Sherlock Holmes as what would today be classified as asexual, with the intention to characterize him as solely driven by intellect and immune to the desires of the flesh. 

Above: Sherlock Holmes

The Archie Comics character Jughead Jones was likely intended by his creators as an asexual foil to Archie’s excessive heterosexuality, but, over the years, this portrayal shifted, with various iterations and reboots of the series implying that he is either gay or heterosexual. 

In 2016, he was confirmed to be asexual in the New Riverdale Jughead comics. 

Above: Jughead Jones

Gilligan, the eponymous character of the 1960s television series Gilligan’s Island has been classified as asexual.

The producers of the show likely portrayed him in this way to make him more relatable to young male viewers of the show who had not yet reached puberty and had therefore presumably not yet experienced sexual desire. 

Gilligan‘s asexual nature also allowed the producers to orchestrate intentionally comedic situations in which Gilligan spurns the advances of attractive females.

Above: Bob Denver as Gilligan

Other fictional asexual characters include Sponge Bob Squarepants and his best friend Patrick, and Todd Chavez from Bojack Horseman – generally well-accepted by the asexual community as positive representation.)

As a cruel barb it could be said there is much ado about feeling nothing, but in fairness I cannot offer condemnation for non-participation in sexual activity either.

There could be a curious kind of freedom in not having the need for physical contact, but for so many men this need is so strong and its fulfillment gives men such intense pleasure, that I suspect that this need may be the only way a man can be controlled without resorting to force.

As a man must fulfill his sexual desires and since he tends to want exclusive rights over his partner’s intimate parts, a less sexually dependent partner can manipulate him accordingly.

A man could (and ideally should) condition his sexual needs, but instead of learning to suppress his needs, a man will allow them to be encouraged whenever possible.

The downside of being a man with strong sexual needs is that the afflicted man must become more dependent on his partner to sate his thirst and satiate his appetite.

A woman can profit from her anatomy whenever she can, while a man is often a slave to his.

I will never suggest that a person feel ashamed of his desire (or lack thereof) to experience intimacy with another mature consensual adult.

But intimacy means knowledge of who you are and who your partner is.

My only thought I wish to share here is that perhaps one should get to know one another emotionally first before discovering one another physically.

I tire of the constant bombardment that sex should be sought quickly almost as soon as the physical changes of adulthood manifest themselves.

I tire of the message that a man who is sexually inactive is not a complete man, that perhaps his masculinity must be doubted, that a man choosing to abstain is merely an excuse for his involuntary celibacy.

I tire of the message that a woman must author a transformation of her natural self, that her femininity is less the result of biology as it is a manufactured creation wrought by cosmetics, hairstyle and clothes.

I am saddened by the delusion that the raw material of a woman is insufficient to generate the desire of a man.

I am astonished by the notion that a woman making herself as diametrically different from a man as she can will in turn result in a man feeling confident enough to approach such an alien creature.

I have often believed that if your beauty can be erased by a wet tissue than there is no real beauty beneath.

Men want women they can relate to and feel comfortable with, someone whom they can trust.

If I cannot trust what I see to be real, then how can I ever get to know who you really are?

I believe a woman has a right to cover or uncover her body as she so desires.

That being said, if the attention you draw to your body distracts me from the possibilities of the magic and wonder of your heart and mind then you have reduced yourself to being an object of lust rather than allowing for the opportunity for love through getting to know who really are.

I am not anti-feminine but for every effect that you create there is a result that is produced.

And it may not always be the result that you desire.

Dress (or undress) as appropriate to the situation.

It is said that women are and that men must become.

Somehow that has mangled our minds.

If a woman cannot be accepted by a man as she is, without embellishments, then he is not a man worthy of her consideration.

The reverse is also true.

Women have high standards for the men they seek, but are they all worthy of these standards?

I leave that to your own opinion.

Men, in their desperation to feel loved, should also have standards for the women they pursue.

Women are more than external beauty and the bounty of booty.

Can they bring compassion and companionship to a man’s life?

Can they engender not just lust but as well respect and trust from a man?

What if, in a revolutionary turn of events, a woman tried to influence a man without resorting to the stimulation of his body through sensory parlour tricks but instead appealled to his heart and mind instead?

I think Muggeridge evolved from an agnostic into a zealot, for the simple reason that Man wants to believe in something, someone, beyond himself.

We cannot prove nor disprove that God exists, but we hope against hope that He does.

We scrape our souls on the restraints of religion, forgetting that religion offers only rites while faith sustains us.

Religion lends ceremony to a person’s rites of passage from birth to maturity, from the wedding to the grave.

Faith, on the other hand, suggests a design in the indecipherable, a meaning to our lives and a hope that death is merely the promise of a potential Paradise.

Agnosticism is the acceptance that the night is cold.

Faith is a search for a blanket with which to warm ourselves.

A resistance to pills and pot is merely a manifestation of the fear that those with choices are now given carte blanche to act irresponsibly.

And, yes, some of us will misbehave.

When I consider Muggeridge’s condemnation of The Life of Brian I find myself marvelling at the intensity of expression that satire or criticism seems to produce.

If God truly is all-powerful, then does He need mere mortal men to defend Him?

If God truly made Man is His image then isn’t humour and even self-mockery inherent in Man’s character also a manifestation of the nature of God?

To paraphrase the late great comedian Robin Williams, surely God must have a sense of humour, for why else place a person’s reproductive facilitıes next to a sanitation disposal?

And how else can we explain the sheer diversity of nature, the infinite variety in infinite combinations, if God had not made these for both His glory and His amusement?

Above: Robin Williams (1951 – 2014)

Consider the duck-billed platypus and tell me that God doesn’t have a sense of the absurd!

Above: Duck-billed platypus, Tasmania

As for criticism of a belief, whether religious or ideological, my feeling is that if the belief is strong it surely can sustain questioning.

As religion, though perhaps divinely inspired, is a creation of Man surely criticism offers reform and progress.

The sole comfort and counsel I can console the soul of Muggeridge with is that only through communication and contemplation will we discover who we really are and what we truly seek.

But until we learn how to openly express ourselves and actively think about our actions rather than merely reacting to the messages thrust upon us then the full potential of happiness will remain ever beyond our grasp.

Seek quality not quantity.

Sources

• Wikipedia

• Google Photos

• The Assassin’s Cloak: An Anthology of the World’s Best Diarists, edited by Irene and Alan Taylor

• Manhood, Steve Biddulph

• The Manipulated Man, Esther Vilar