What the Dutch learned during the Nazi occupation


The Nazi poison infecting most of Europe in the 1940s had a longer half-life than we like to claim. It left a legacy of all sorts of sinister ideas and practices.

For example, the current idea of a European federation revolving on a Franco-German (or, to be precise, Germano-French) axis goes back to the fruitful cooperation between Nazi, Vichy and other European bureaucracies during the war.

Still in its embryonic state, the notion of a single pan-European state was pithily expressed by Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who during the war served as Reichskommissar for the Netherlands: “The new Europe of solidarity and co-operation among all its people will find rapidly increasing prosperity once national economic boundaries are removed.” My friends Angie and Jean-Claude would readily sign their names to this heartfelt statement.

A Nuremberg noose prevented Seyss-Inquart from seeing his dream come true in the new guise of the European Union. But the political philosophy he so ably brought to life in the Low Countries left more than one poisonous legacy.

The Nazis firmly believed that individual lives had nothing but utilitarian value. The extent of their usefulness to the state was determined by, well, the state. If the value was perceived as negative, the state felt it had the right to take the useless life away the better to maintain the spiritual health of society.

Gypsies and especially Jews had to be expelled, exterminated or otherwise removed from the Aryan body brimming with spiritual health – that much was instantly obvious not only to Nazi leaders but, at the time, to most Germans.

But Jews and Gypsies weren’t the only offensive groups. Also blocking the way to achieving the Nazi muscular ideal of mankind were homosexuals, cripples and the mentally ill. By virtue of their deformities they forfeited their right to life, which point was driven home by the cyanide-loaded syringes wielded by German doctors.

That medical procedure was called ‘euthanasia’, which means ‘good death’ in Greek. Indeed, what could possibly be better than killing a few thousand for the noble goal of producing a GM race of unbounded mental and physical health?

The underlying belief that it’s neither God nor the person but the state that has the ultimate sovereignty over human life is common to every brand of socialism, national, international or ‘democratic’ (‘democratic socialism’ is the oxymoron to end all oxymorons). The wording will differ, as will the scale on which this principle is implemented. But the principle will remain the same.

Hence in 2002 Seyss-Inquart’s former bailiwick became the first European country to legalise euthanasia, albeit only for terminally ill patients expressing a “voluntary and well-considered request” to be done in.

Without going into the philosophical and – God forbid – theological aspects of that cannibalistic law, suffice it say that many so-called terminal cases are marginal. Even when all the doctors involved agree that the patient is on his last legs, miraculous recovery may still happen. (Much as I hate using myself as an example, doctors thought my Stage 4 cancer was terminal. Since then you’ve been exposed to 10 years’ worth of my vituperative prose.)

The issue of “voluntary and well-considered request” becomes even murkier when the patient suffers from a mental, rather than physical, illness. By definition, his competence to issue such a request has to be doubted – as should be the ability of psychiatrists to agree on an unequivocal diagnosis in this notoriously obscure branch of medicine.

Yet nothing would hold back the irrepressible Dutch. Between 2011 and 2014 the Dutch state put to death 110 mental patients, of whom some were only diagnosed with autism. (Altogether 5,036 patients were put to ‘good’ death there in 2014 alone.)

Analysing 66 of those 110 cases, psychiatrists from the National Institute of Health concluded that in many instances consulting physicians disagreed on how precisely the legal criteria had been met. Moreover, doctors proceeded with euthanasia in the 37 cases where patients had refused potentially effective treatments.

No one was bothered by the logical inconsistency of it all. If the patients were so mad that they had to be put down for their own good, and ultimately for the good of the state, how could they be deemed sufficiently compos mentis to decide on accepting or rejecting treatment?

This is the thin end of the wedge being driven into the very heart of our civilisation. If there is one founding principle that can be regarded as its cornerstone, it’s the certainty that every human life is sacred – and only God can decide when it ends.

Remove this understanding, and the ostensible differences among all those socialisms, state, national, democratic, international or Soviet pale into rhetorical triviality. They are distinctions, not differences.

The primacy of the state over the individual underpins all modern states – whatever modifiers they attach to their names. We have Holland to thank for continuously reminding us of this fact.

May I suggest that, if at times you act eccentrically, as many Englishmen do, you watch yourself very closely when visiting Holland, especially if you’re of a certain age. By getting off the plane at Schiphol, you may implicitly forfeit personal sovereignty over your life.

Why Blair and his ilk want to destroy Britain

TonyBlairThat every British government over the last quarter-century set out to disfigure Britain’s demographic face is a fact.

Why they wanted to do so is a different question, and it’s worth asking – especially since most answers currently available are either mendacious or misguided.

But the facts first. Between 1997 and 2010 net migration to Britain was a whopping 2.2 million. That’s twice the population of Birmingham, and any visitor to that great metropolis would probably confirm that even one Birmingham is more than enough.

The annual net number of immigrants quadrupled under Labour, and such dramatic increases are never accidental; they betoken deliberate policy.

Tom Bower, a fine investigative reporter, has just published a book about it, which I haven’t read yet. However, familiar as I am with Mr Bower’s work, I’m sure he gathered an amazing corpus of evidence proving that there indeed was a conspiracy behind that massive influx.

The details he must have uncovered are doubtless impressive, and I can’t wait to read the book. However, the gist of the conspiracy has been known at least since 2013, when Blair’s hatchet man Peter Mandelson openly talked about it.

“We were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work,” boasted Mandelson, “we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.” Or, that failing, to come and claim benefits, something the spin doctor was too modest to mention.

Mandelson was a mechanic of power rather than its ideologue. Hence, if asked why he and his master felt the need to import millions of people, most of them cultural aliens, he’d probably play hard to get at first, but then admit that the reason for that maniacal hospitality was to create a new bloc of Labour voters.

It’s true that English people (a minority group in London and many other cities now) tend to vote Tory. In fact, if they were the only constituency in the elections Blair won, he wouldn’t have won them.

Labour can only come to power by mobilising electoral blocs made up of ethnic minorities and the denizens of the Celtic fringe. Therefore, Mandelson’s innermost convictions are hard to fault on pragmatic grounds. But he wasn’t the one who called the shots. Those who did had less cold-blooded motives, which is why Mandelson’s explanation is false.

Blair was closer to the mark when saying that he wanted the country “to see the benefit of a multicultural society”. His speech writer Andrew Neather clarified his boss’s meaning by explaining that the aim was “to rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

Mr Neather’s statement blends Blair’s afflatus with Mandelson’s pragmatism into one towering monument to most refreshing cynicism. But the blend is as disingenuous as its individual constituents.

First, no such thing as a multicultural society exists, nor can exist. A society lacking one dominant culture can be many things, except one: a society, a concept that presupposes a certain homogeneity.

This doesn’t mean a successful society has to be monoethnic – far from it. In fact, our urban civilisation would be lethally dull if, say, London were inhabited by Englishmen only. All cities, and certainly all major cities, have to be cosmopolitan to a healthy degree.

But ‘healthy’ is the operative word. For cosmopolitanism is like red wine: a couple of glasses a day are good for you; 20 glasses a day will kill you.

There is some limit beyond which a critical mass is reached. Some diversity makes society healthier and more interesting. Too much diversity, such as native Brits being outnumbered in their capital, smashes society to smithereens.

Second, the notion of rubbing the right’s face in diversity gets closer to the truth, without actually reaching it. Here the emotional satisfaction of getting the opposition’s goat overlaps with the Mandelsonian practicality of getting the opposition’s vote.

But the real reason for this lot’s (and I include the current ‘Tory’ government into that collective entity) desire to destroy Britain qua Britain isn’t electoral. It’s existential.

They aren’t endowed with real minds, but they do possess an animalistic nose for danger. And this unerring instinct tells them that the traditional traits of English society, traditional Englishness as such, represent a real threat of extinction to their whole tribe, that of denationalised, denatured, depraved spivs seeking to lord it over the country they neither like nor understand.

The self-reliance, emotional restraint, pragmatism, sentiment untainted with sentimentality, quiet, usually unspoken patriotism, love of freedom through justice, visceral conservatism of the English are the bugbear of our spivocracy. Hence the society that fosters such qualities has to be put to the sword.

Simple demographic dilution of Englishness with foreign, ideally alien, admixtures is one of many stratagems activated here, but it’s one of the prominent ones. Add to this education that doesn’t educate, an economy that doesn’t economise and a wholehearted commitment to destroying England’s political tradition, and the picture is complete.

It looks more like Munch’s Scream than a Constable landscape.


It is not just the working classes that drink is the curse of

Champagne_bottles_in_a_bucket_-_8439My friends will probably find it hard to accept me as a champion of temperance, and in fact I’m slightly hung-over even as I write this.

Having thus established my residence in a glass house, I’d nevertheless like to throw a stone or two – though not at drinking as such, and not even occasional heavy boozing. Few of us are without that particular sin, and this has been thus ever since Eve left some fruit juice out in the sun, for Adam to taste it a few days later and find the effect unexpectedly pleasant.

Not even Jesus held a dim view of drinking in an appropriate context. If he had, he would have turned that water into Ribena, not wine, much to the chagrin of the Cana newlyweds and their guests.

It’s only when endemic drinking stops being a problem in se and becomes instead a symptom of a catastrophic social and cultural malaise that it provides a fit subject for serious contemplation. Such, I’m afraid, is the situation in Britain now.

The story making the rounds at the moment is of a middle-aged female QC, regarded as a top legal mind, caught in flagrante delicto with a 51-year-old solicitor. The pair had had a boozy lunch and decided to consummate the resulting affection against the wall of Waterloo station at the height of the evening rush hour.

The top legal mind had her knickers around her ankles and the solicitor was similarly exposed when the lawyers were arrested for outraging public decency. They were held overnight and issued a caution, which both accepted.

However, six weeks later the top legal mind applied to have her conviction quashed, claiming she had been a victim of sexual assault. This status, unlike that of a willing participant in hanky-panky, entitles her to lifelong anonymity, and the top legal mind must have cottoned on that having her name splashed all over the papers might hinder her assent to damehood. The example of Graeme Stening, her partner cum would-be assailant, is vivid enough.

This sordid incident wouldn’t be worth talking about if it weren’t so depressingly symptomatic of the cultural catastrophe under way in Britain.

I can’t for the life of me imagine a top Queen’s Counsel, say, in the 1970s allowing herself to behave so swinishly no matter how much she drank. Nor do I recall seeing even in the 1980s scores of middleclass professionals throwing up along the whole 2.5-mile length of King’s Road (one of the city’s most upmarket streets, for the out-of-towners among you) every Saturday night.

Neither did many restaurants on the continent exhibit ‘No British groups’ signs in the their windows, as they nowadays do in, for example, Prague. The practical Czechs must have figured out that the profits they might realise from British stag or hen parties won’t cover the inevitable cost of a clean-up possibly followed by refurbishment and fumigation.

The footage of British proles turning places like Ibiza into hell on earth is depressing enough, but booze-fuelled anomie evidently transcends class divides – as anyone can testify who has seen photos of our young royals staggering out of nightclubs in the wee hours. They too talk about ‘going clubbing’, and there I was thinking it was a transitive verb demanding the question ‘Whom?’.

The English are a drinking race, and always have been. But in the past they didn’t drink with the aggressive purpose of smashing to bits the civilisation that makes them English. For civilisations are mainly defined by the inhibitions they impose on human behaviour.

When those inhibitions go out of the window, so does the civilisation. When a middle-aged woman fast-tracked for a damehood gets so blotto that she’s arrested for copulating in a crowded public place, she isn’t just breaking the law. She’s avidly breaking her civilisation.

I remember those office parties (I retired from that nonsense 11 years ago) when we had to send girls from good families home in taxis and tell the drivers where to go because the girls themselves couldn’t remember where they lived. The drivers were also pre-paid for cleaning out the likely vomit.

These weren’t unfortunate accidents. The girls (and of course the boys) actually planned to drink themselves unconscious in front of their colleagues; this was the effect they were after. Before they passed out, some sex play often ensued, as if a drunken stupor was a precondition for passion.

It saddens me to have to chart a route bypassing pubs whenever driving home on a weekend night. When central London throws more drunks under car wheels than central Moscow does nowadays, it’s not drinking as such that’s the problem any longer. So please join me in a mournful glass to commemorate a great civilisation fallen victim to modernity.

















General Rose should do a Colonel Pride

General Sir Michael RoseUnlike today’s spivs who stack parliamentary votes by knavish trickery, Colonel Thomas Pride was a straightforward man of action. When in 1648 it looked likely that the Long Parliament would vote the wrong way, the good colonel moved in with his troops and removed those MPs who hadn’t seen the light of the new dawn.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favour of a military coup d’état as a routine method of government. However, as Guy Fawkes once said, desperate times call for desperate measures, and our times are as desperate as they get.

Continue reading “General Rose should do a Colonel Pride”

Walesa is no news in the news

Source: Giedymin Jabłoński [CC BY-SA 3.0 pl]
Our papers’ unquenchable thirst for regurgitating yesterday’s news is nothing short of amazing.

That Lech Walesa was in cahoots with Służba Bezpieczeństwa, the Polish secret police, has been mooted since 1989, when he was universally hailed as the heroic liberator of Poland. His codename in the Służba, Bolek, was also widely known.

Continue reading “Walesa is no news in the news”

Papal fallibility

Pope Francis

A pontiff is infallible only when speaking ex cathedra on matters of doctrine. It’s kind of Pope Francis to remind us that otherwise a pope may be very fallible indeed.

The latest reminder was given last Sunday, when His Holiness called for wholesale abolition of the death penalty. With all due respect, one can’t help noticing that this entreaty isn’t instantly persuasive.

Continue reading “Papal fallibility”

Hitchen’s attack on Ukranian independence

Peter HitchensThe other day I suggested that trying to support a wrong proposition can make even intelligent people sound silly. Any defence of Russia’s aggression against the Ukraine does just that.

Witness Peter Hitchens, who generally makes sense when arguing in favour of supportable propositions, such as leaving the EU or refraining from forays into the Middle East for the sake of spreading democracy. But he does have a soft spot for Putin, possibly predisposed that way by his own, not so distant, Trotskyist past.

Continue reading “Hitchen’s attack on Ukranian independence”

Barbarism taken to art

DelacroixOf all Latin proverbs, the relativist adage De gustibus non disputandum est just may be the most subversive. The implication is that taste is wholly subjective, with no right or wrong anywhere in sight.

You like Bach, he likes Amy Winehouse, they like Eminem – who’s to say that one taste is better than another? Yet the very fact that this question can be posed throws the cultural door wide open to barbarism. And the now universal reply (‘Nobody’) welcomes barbarism with effusive cordiality.

Continue reading “Barbarism taken to art”

The EU debate is lost no matter who wins

EU FlagThe less I say about the sick, pathetic joke that goes by the name of Dave’s deal with the EU, the better. Our papers are bulging with the details of this travesty, and there’s little one can add.

Regular readers of this space know that I predicted something along these lines months ago. Dave would get some crumbs off the EU’s table, I wrote, some meaningless and instantly revocable concessions. Then he’ll pass that as a triumph, claim that the very nature of our relationship with the EU has changed and rush into a referendum with every hope of winning it.

Continue reading “The EU debate is lost no matter who wins”

Some little children are insufferable

Hooded youthsThese days little children are insufferable

Jerusalem c. 33 AD was different from the modern world in too many respects to mention here. I’ll single out just one: children, those to be suffered, were still children.

They must have been occasionally destructive, for children tend to break things at the best of times. But they also must have retained some innocence, some opened-eye way of looking at the world and marvelling at its beauty.

Continue reading “Some little children are insufferable”