Month: October 2013

Just about every Tory activist begged Dave not to push through his flagship law on homomarriage. This abomination, they pleaded, would hurt the party.

Now they’ve been proved right, Dave says he’s sorry. Oh well, that’s all right then.

What exactly is he apologising for? According to the Tory activists at the receiving end of the apology, Dave “still believes that gay marriage is right.”

A man with the power of his convictions then? If so, why apologise? You see, Dave isn’t sorry about his commitment to this subversive law. He’s only sorry about the effect it has had on the party.

The effect is well-nigh seismic. Under Dave’s sage guidance the party has lost more than half of its membership, with thousands of lifetime Tories citing this law as the reason for leaving.

Many of them have defected to UKIP, enabling it to act as a wrecking ball in the next elections. Unless a highly unlikely agreement is struck, this practically guarantees that the Tories won’t win the election outright. Another coalition beckons, emasculating the party and hurting us all.

There’s no doubt that the new law has done much damage not only to Dave’s party but also to the country at large. But having a PM like Dave is even more damaging – while the realisation that the other lot are even worse makes one weep.

Dave’s apology confirms that things like intellect, integrity, conscience and morality play no part in his decision making. Political expediency reigns supreme, and he only regrets he didn’t realise that his fanatical support of homomarriage went against the grain of that sole desideratum.

How was I to know? Dave asks. That makes him sound both disingenuous and daft. It’s the former because every association chairman told him so, imploring him to desist. It’s the latter because a modicum of common sense would have sufficed to anticipate the highly predictable result of his faddish stupidity.

Dave, Dave, Dave, what are we to do with you? Well, here’s what I’ll do: I’m going to give you a sure-fire procedure for avoiding such mishaps in the future. Next time you decide to tout an asinine idea, say post-natal abortion, compulsory euthanasia of wrinklies or humans marrying other species, guide what passes for your thought through these steps.

Step 1. Remind yourself that many grass-root Conservatives are different from you and your cabinet. They don’t regard the name of their party as strictly a figure of speech.

Step 2. That being the case, ask yourself what it is that they are trying to conserve.

Step 3. You’ll find that, generally speaking, they wish to protect what’s left of Christendom – its moral, religious, social and political tradition. Irrespective of their personal faith, they are desperate to conserve what they regard as immutable values at the foundations of their party.

Step 4. Accepting this as an overriding principle, you may be able to figure out how it applies to each particular idea that may cross your mind.

For example, homomarriage defies not only the 2,000 years of Christianity but also the 5,000 years of known human history. That’s 250 generations in about as many countries – you must tell yourself that not all of them were inferior to the one you so ably represent. Maybe they were on to something.

If you can’t go through the requisite mental process yourself, ask someone who can. Specifically, when an issue of public morality is at stake, you may wish to ask the Church. Flawed as it has become, the Anglican Church is an essential part of the realm, and it’s constitutionally empowered to offer such advice.

Just to be on the safe side, also ask some Tory thinkers, preferably those who aren’t seeking a political office. The late Prof. Ken Minogue would have been a good choice, but even after his death there are quite a few others.

Had you sought the advice of such people before shoving this abomination through Parliament, they would have told you that you’d run the risk of leading a party that no longer exists.

Step 5. Listen to what they have to say. They are cleverer than you are and just as committed to the party’s political success. What would make their advice particularly valuable is that they are committed to a few other things as well.

Alas, something tells me Dave is incapable of going through such elementary steps. That’s why one has to compliment him and his staff on the fallback election strategy they seem to have adopted.

Rather than re-emphasising their conservative credentials, they expect to win the next election by simply not being Labour. All that’s missing is a snappy slogan encapsulating the party’s promise to the electorate.

May I suggest “The Tories. We are the lesser evil”? Such truth in advertising just may carry the day.

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

We always hurt the one we love, goes a popular song. Perhaps. But there’s hurt and there’s hurt.

One man may hurt his wife by forgetting their wedding anniversary, or by drinking too much and earning too little, or by neglecting to do the dishes. Another man may hurt his wife by regularly putting her in A&E with broken bones.

Both may claim love and beg forgiveness, and the first man may well be justified in his declaration and his entreaty. But the second man must be locked up for as long as the law allows. And if he still insists he loves his wife, he’s either a hypocrite or a madman.

A man doesn’t express love for a woman with his fists. Nor does a political activist express love for a country with lifelong efforts to bring about a Marxist revolution. Never mind their – or their relations’ – protestations. In both instances, it’s hate speaking.

Ralph Miliband was such a Marxist activist. He devoted his life to glorifying Marxism in theory and trying to help it vanquish in practice. So whatever his son Ed  says in response to the Daily Mail article, Ralph hated Britain – objectively, to use a term from the Marxist jargon.

“Britain had to start working towards building a viable alternative that would be genuinely revolutionary socialist in its positions,” he wrote – and then worked towards this goal with enthusiasm worthy of a better application.

To those who haven’t experienced it first hand, Marxism may look like an innocent intellectual pose. It isn’t. Neither is it a beautiful theory perverted by the Soviets.

In fact even at their most murderous the Soviets fell far short of the cannibalistic prescriptions swelling the tomes by Marx and Engels.

For example, their Manifesto prescribes the nationalisation of all private property without exception. Even Stalin’s Russia in the thirties fell short of that ideal. In fact, a good chunk, as much as 15 percent, of the Soviet economy was then in private hands.

Marx also insisted that family should be done away with, with women becoming communal property. Again, for all their efforts, Lenin and Stalin never quite managed to achieve this ideal either, much to the regret of those who could see an amorous pay-off in such an arrangement.

Then, according to the Manifesto, all children were to be taken away from their parents and raised by the state as its wards. That too remained a dream for the Bolsheviks. Their kindergartens and young pioneers’ camps weren’t compulsory, and those fortunate women who could get by without full-time employment were still free to read Pushkin to their children.

Modern slave labour, such an arresting feature of both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, also derives from Marx – and again Lenin, Stalin and Hitler displayed a great deal of weak-kneed liberalism in bringing his ideas to fruition.

Marx, after all, wrote about total militarisation of labour achieved by organising it into ‘labour armies,’ presumably led by Marx as Generalissimo and Engels as Chief of the General Staff. Stalin came closer to this than Hitler, but again fell short: no more than 10 percent of the Soviets were ever in forced labour at the same time.

One aspect of Bolshevism and Nazism that came close to fulfilling the Marxist dream was what Engels described as “specially guarded places” to contain aristocrats, intelligentsia, clergy and other “noxious insects”, in Lenin’s heartfelt phrase.

Such places have since acquired a different name, but in essence they are exactly what Marx and Engels envisaged. Here Lenin and Stalin did come close to fulfilling the Marxist prescription, but they were again found wanting in spreading concentration camps to a mere half of the world. So where the Bolsheviks and Nazis perverted Marxism, they generally did so in the direction of softening it.

Genocidal or ideological mass murder widely practised by both the Nazis and the Soviets also derives from Marxism. Here are a few quotations from their works to give you a taste of exactly what Ralph Miliband tried to introduce to the country he supposedly loved: 

“All the other [non-Marxist] large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary holocaust. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary… these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character… [A general war will] wipe out all this racial trash.”

“In history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness… In short, it turns out these ‘crimes’ of the Germans and Magyars against the said Slavs are among the best and most praiseworthy deeds which our and the Magyar people can boast in their history.”

“…only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution… there will be a struggle, an ‘inexorable life-and-death struggle’, against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an annihilating fight and ruthless terror – not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution!”

“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”

Truer words have never been spoken. The Russians have never made excuses for the Marxist carnage they perpetrated. And now the Marxist Ed Miliband is trying to make excuses for his Marxist father.

Here we have another apple falling not far from the tree. Don’t pick it up – it’s poisonous.

Barack Hussein, Chairman and President of Oh bummer!, the world’s biggest chain of department stores, has written to shareholders, explaining why all outlets have suspended trading:

My fellow shareholders,

First let me thank you all for your continuing loyalty to the Oh bummer! project. Allow me also to assure you that this loyalty is reciprocated in my heart. However – and it pains me to have to say this – any more tangible reciprocity unfortunately has to be put on hold until further notice.

Starting today, Oh bummer! can afford to keep on only a skeleton staff of essential personnel, specifically our security guards and also the guys who turn the lights off and on.

This, I have to say, also means that no dividends will be paid to any of you for any foreseeable future, and Allah knows that this hurts me more than it hurts you.

Many of you will blame me for this unfortunate situation, and I am man enough to admit that, as President of Oh bummer!, I have to shoulder some – a teensy-weensy portion – of the blame.

The rest – most! – of it, belongs to the real vipers on the Oh bummer! board, who shall go as nameless as they are mindless, gutless and spineless. Oh well, if you insist, I am specifically referring to that boehner-headed viper John, who happily combines the mind of a cockroach with the moral sense of a skunk.

Still, in the good tradition of the Oh bummer! project, the buck stops with me, meaning that no bucks will flow in your direction. As this represents a most unfortunate situation, you are within your right to demand an answer from the board and specifically from me as its Chairman.

Why? I hear you ask. Why could you not carry out the inventory without having to shut down all the stores? This question, my friends, is best addressed to that boehner-headed viper John. For it was he who led the revolt against the product line I had proposed and spent all my adult life (along with some of my infancy) to refine.

This line of health products is guaranteed to ensure not only the physical wellbeing of our customers and shareholders but also their peace of mind. Allow me to reiterate for those of you with special needs what the Oh bummer! project is all about.

In a move never before attempted, if often dreamed about, in the history of retailing, all Oh bummer! customers will be obligated to buy our health products. Should they fail to comply, our security personnel and those guys who turn the lights off and on will force them to do so.

The derelicts’ charge accounts will be debited considerable amounts, and if even this measure fails they will be locked up in our warehouse. There they will stay until they accept that Oh bummer! only has their best interests in mind.

What can be fairer than this? Nothing at all. And yet that boehner-headed viper John persists in his maniacal insistence that this breakthrough retailing innovation somehow restricts the freedom of our customers and shareholders.

Nothing can be further from the truth. That boehner-headed viper John has forgotten the words of V.I. Lennon, the true inspiration behind the Oh bummer! project. Freedom, taught Comrade Lennon, is acknowledged necessity.

Therefore, all that our customers and shareholders will have to do is acknowledge the necessity of buying our line of health products. This will chisel their freedom in stone for generations to come – and let that boehner-headed viper John weep and wail and gnash his dentures.

In the spirit of openness and transparency for which Oh bummer! is so justly famous, I also have to share with you another problem – or rather another dastardly plot being concocted by that boehner-headed viper John and his co-conspirators.

As I am sure you realise, no business can operate without a bank overdraft. The bigger the business, the bigger the overdraft – to this universal law there are no exceptions.

Well, although Oh bummer! is the world’s biggest chain of its kind, our present overdraft stands at a paltry $16.7 trillion, barely $52,863.15 for every customer and shareholder.

This most reasonable overdraft is up for renewal in 16 days, which is a routine annual procedure. Yet that boehner-headed viper John, in cahoots with the bank manager, has colluded to deny our request to raise the overdraft ceiling to whatever amount I will deem necessary.

This means that a spectre is haunting Oh bummer!, the spectre of default. This creates the real and present danger of us having to shut shop altogether, not just for a temporary inventory, which is not an outcome any of you want.

So I appeal to you, my fellow shareholders: stop that boehner-headed viper John in his tracks, so the business can proceed as usual. Long live freedom, as I define it! Long live Oh bummer! Death to [fill in the blank]!