Month: August 2023

It’s about an hour before the kick-off of the Women’s World Cup final. And, as I write this, I’m doing my best to fight nausea.

I know it’s infra dig to admit affection for footie, but we are all allowed one common touch. This is mine, and I never miss a good match. Which, alas, women can’t play.

That’s why I’m not going to watch our Lionesses, who are really pussycats. The England women’s team is regularly thrashed by English schoolboys, and not the most senior ones.

Yet even if the women were able to raise their standards to the level of 15-year-old boys, I still wouldn’t watch them for fear of throwing up. Such an onset of emesis wouldn’t be caused by their ineptitude – God knows I’ve sat through many bad men’s matches without rushing to the loo with a hand pressed to my mouth.

What is truly emetic is the political hysteria artificially whipped up around women’s football in general and this World Cup in particular. An inordinate amount of newspaper space and TV time is devoted to this second-rate sport, and I’m being generous with that adjective.

Once woke politics moves in, reason walks out. More and more one hears frankly idiotic demands that women players be paid as much as men because they are every bit as good.

This reminds me of John McEnroe’s interview a few years ago, when he said that Serena Williams was the best women’s tennis player of all time. Why such qualifiers, asked the interviewer. Why not say she is the best player, full stop?

Now Mac is on the woke side in general, but that was too much even for him. “Whoa,” he said. “If Serena competed against men, she’d be ranked 700 in the world.” He was a bit PC there – any fulltime male player, including veterans and college stars, would beat any female pro. Serena wouldn’t have made it into the top 1,000 and she knew it.

When asked if she’d like to play Andy Murray, she honestly said that was a ridiculous question: “Andy would beat me love and love in 10 minutes.” Women’s and men’s tennis, she added, are two different things.

True. However, a massive political campaign waged over decades has forced the organisers of Grand Slam tournaments to give the same prize money to men and women. The sports are different; only the pay packets are the same.

Now the same kind of deafening campaign for equal pay is monopolising public discourse on women’s football. There’s a minor hitch though: it’s easier to lean on Grand Slam organisers than on football club owners.

The former have to work hand in glove with their federations and therefore governments. However, the latter are private – and in Britain usually foreign – individuals who treat their clubs as strictly commercial propositions.

They’ll be happy to pay women players the same astronomical amounts they pay the men if their game attracted as many viewers and sponsors. But it doesn’t and, for all the woke politicking, never will.

Yet one important member of the England team is indeed paid by the Federation: its manager, the Dutch woman Sarina Wiegman. Our eagle-eyed campaigners have espied that she is paid a meagre £400,000 a year, whereas her male counterpart, Gareth Southgate, is on three million.

A gross injustice, or what? The clamour for Miss Wiegman’s salary to be bumped up to Gareth’s level is getting shriller and shriller, with its rational component not so much low as non-existent.

You see, Gareth could walk away from the England job tomorrow and instantly find a club that would pay him as much or more (by an order of magnitude if he chose to move to Saudi Arabia). Miss Wiegman’s options are rather more limited. However, the former midfielder turned pundit Danny Murphy doesn’t think they should be.

“The fundamentals of football are the same, for men or women,” he writes, “so there is no reason a woman couldn’t do the England men’s job…”.

Now, I played for my university team back in Russia, and “the fundamentals of football” were exactly the same there as well. Would I be able to manage England then, Danny? If I asked that question, he’d laugh. That’s a different game, he’d explain. Quite. But this goes for the women’s game as well, same fundamentals and all.

“It doesn’t have to be compared to the men’s game,” continues Mr Murphy. “It’s a terrific event in its own right. I can’t wait for the final.”

The first sentence is God’s own truth. I can’t say anything about the second one because I haven’t been watching the “terrific event”. But I agree with the third sentence wholeheartedly, but with a small addition at the end: “…to be over.”

However, while our gushing commentators share the sentiment of Murphy’s last two sentences, they clearly disagree with him on the first. For they do compare women’s football to the men’s game.

Jacquie Beltrao, Sky News correspondent, was on the verge of orgasm this morning as she shouted that this is the first time since 1966 that England is in a World Cup final. It isn’t, Jacquie. Not the same team, not the same game, not even close to the same achievement.

Both Rishi Sunak, our prime minister, and Prince William, heir to the throne and chairman of the Football Association (affectionately known as “sweet FA” in some circles) implicitly recognise this. Both decided not to attend the event, instead sending recorded messages of encouragement.

That piqued the ire of AN Wilson, a columnist who looks as if he has never kicked a football in anger: “What a shameful – and sad – reflection this is of officialdom’s attitude to such a joyous and important national occasion.”

Obviously, the two gentlemen didn’t expect to derive much joy out of watching 22 mannish girls (“English Sheilas”, as the locals call them) run around in shorts and kick the ball with all the mastery of pre-teen boys. Neither do they see the occasion as important enough to justify an endless flight to Sydney.

Actually, Mr Wilson (AN are his initials, not his first name) hasn’t made the trip either, preferring to keep his air miles for something really “joyous and important”. He can whip up the hysteria without leaving his study, which is a smart choice. The same can’t be said for his championship of this political cause.  

Gloating at other people’s problems is morally wrong, and it’s certainly not Christian.

But I can’t help myself: whenever two woke orthodoxies turn out to be mutually exclusive, I experience a most delicious, nerve-ending stroking feeling of schadenfreude. I’ll have to talk to Fr Michael about this, see what he says.

I do hope he’ll absolve this sin (he has let me get away with much worse ones). So it’s with a sense of expected impunity that I smile like the Cheshire Cat observing the scandal engulfing the world of chess.

The International Chess Federation (FIDE) has passed a rule stating that any player who has transitioned from male to female “has no right to participate in official FIDE events for women.”

This has created a mighty outburst of indignation in all sorts of quarters, and I can see why. Hell, I can even sympathise with their predicament, although not too much.

The received view has been laconically worded by the Tory (!) minister Penny Mordaunt: “Trans women are women.” Agreed. But if that’s the case, why can’t they participate in women’s athletic events? Such as tennis, the only game other than chess that I know quite well.

In fact, it was tennis that opened that door ajar. In 1975 a good amateur player Richard Ruskind became Renée Richards. It took him/her two years to force his/her way into professional women’s tennis. In another two years, at age 45 (!), Richards got to the semi-finals of the US Open and achieved a ranking in the top 20, thus proving it’s possible to play tennis without balls.

That focused many minds, including those that didn’t object to that abomination on principle. If a male amateur well past his sell-by date could become a top female pro, there was a flaw there somewhere.

Yes, Renée was undeniably a woman, all progressive people agreed on that. But because she used to be a man she wasn’t quite, well, quite. Obviously her former sex conferred certain physical advantages, such as greater strength, faster speed around the court and more stamina. Hence such undeniable women should be barred from women’s tournaments.

That was almost half a century ago, but I remember having my sense of logic offended. Either a trans woman is a woman or she isn’t. If she isn’t, let’s shout that from the rooftops. But if she is, keeping her out of women’s tennis is unfair and, which is worse, illogical.

Since then, what started out as a weird eccentricity has grown into a collective mental illness. Penny Mordaunt’s pronouncement is an orthodoxy that brooks no argument. Trans rights have now superseded all others, including the time-honoured right to maintain one’s sanity.

Trans women are women, and if you disagree you aren’t just someone who has a different view. You are an enemy to be hounded to the ends of the earth. Our laws are still too wishy-washy to throw you in jail, but you’ll be subjected to a career-ending ostracism.

Yet even against that febrile background trans women are still kept out of women’s sports requiring intense physical activity. Even if those sideshows pump themselves full of oestrogen and bring their testosterone level down into the female range, sports authorities still believe their male past gives them unfair advantages.

So it does. For example, in a 100-metre sprint, the men’s world record is almost a full second under the women’s. That means that a decent male college sprinter would win every race, including the Olympics, with room to spare.

But what about chess? Surely a chess player doesn’t derive any particular benefit from being able to run faster or lift greater weights than his rival? So what’s wrong with trans women playing against what Ricky Gervais calls “old-fashioned women, those with a womb”?

After all, chess is a mental, not physical game. It requires no muscular strength beyond what it takes to push pieces on the board.

What it does require is spatial imagination (similar to what’s involved in geometry), prodigious memory, a sense of structure (which explains why so many musicians are good at chess) and a calculating ability better than a modern accountant’s (who cheats by using calculators and computers, which chess players don’t do, at least in theory).

All these are intellectual qualities, aren’t they? And even if we begrudgingly admit that men are faster and stronger than women, we’d denounce to the thought police anyone who claims that men are smarter.

Anything men can do, women can do as well, if not better – you get that, you reactionary troglodyte you? I do, I really do, please don’t hurt me. But FIDE evidently doesn’t.

By denying trans women access to women’s tournaments, that august organisation as good as says out loud that men are intellectually superior to women. And the skies haven’t yet opened, and a lightning hasn’t struck to smite those infidels, those heretics, those apostates – those enemies!

Now I’d better come clean. I don’t think men are inherently smarter than women – if anything, I’m inclined to believe it’s the opposite. Penelope, for example, is definitely smarter than me, and whenever I can’t cope with a simple task I catch her surreptitious derisory glances.

Without getting into an argument about which sex thinks better, let’s just accept the blindingly obvious fact that they think differently. Women are better at some tasks and men at some others – that’s how God (or Darwin if such is your wont) made us.

And even the briefest of glances at the history of chess ought to convince anyone that one task men are better at is playing chess. Only one woman, Judith Polgar, has ever played against top male players on even terms.

Even a hack like me could back in my chess-playing youth hold his own against top female players. Specifically one such player, a former USSR champion, who was my girlfriend for a while. We never played a serious game, but we had an almost even score in blitz matches.

FIDE has taken a realistic approach to the problem, rising above ideology for the time being. That clearly couldn’t assuage the wounded sensibilities of those who live and breathe ideology.

Predictably, both biologically female feminists and trans female extremists have their knickers in a twist, now that the second group are entitled to wear that garment. The feminists are screaming bloody discrimination, the trans fanatics resent the implication that somehow they aren’t real women.

Me, I stay on the side lines, gloating quietly and enjoying myself. I hope both sides lose.

You probably don’t know this, and I must admit neither did I. But then a friend sent me a Telegraph article by Jenny Hjul, and those proverbial scales fell off my eyes.

Miss Hjul, she of the unlikely surname, is rightly indignant about the latest developments at Edinburgh Fringe. Two venues at that festival, known in the past for its no-holds-barred freedom (called licence in some quarters), have cancelled performances by Graham Linehan, stand-up comedian and creator of the popular TV series Father Ted.

(I’ve never seen a single episode but, taking a stab in the dark and going by the title only, I suspect the series is full of anti-Catholic jibes. I hope worldlier readers will correct me if I am wrong.)

The reason for the cancellations is Mr Linehan’s opposition to trans extremism, which he correctly identifies as “evil”. His basic view is that women can’t have penises, and anyone who insists they can is an extremist. Since the comedian hasn’t exactly kept his light under a bushel, those scorned fanatics have done their best to destroy his life.

Not only has his career suffered, but a torrent of vile threats against his wife and children have led to a breakup of his family. Yet Mr Linehan sticks to his guns, which these days takes much courage.

Having once been exposed to similar treatment, if on a smaller scale, I sympathise with his ordeal. And I commend Miss Hjul for being enraged by it.

However, much as I applaud her sentiments, her article is awful. She makes all the obvious, by now clichéd, points about freedom of speech, and how those trans fanatics stamp it into the dirt. Fair enough, but any conservative writer can make such points in his sleep, with his mind disengaged.

A proper analysis of the situation, however, requires some thought, and that’s where Miss Hjul falls woefully short.

She sets her stall in the very first paragraph: “Mary Whitehouse would have been impressed. The unofficial censor-in-chief of the 1960s and 70s only tried to shut down the BBC and take on permissive society, largely failing. Today’s morality police have descended on Edinburgh in an effort to unpick the entire Scottish Enlightenment, so far with some success.”

For those of you who are too young or too foreign, Mary Whitehouse campaigned against the use of obscenities on television. The issue came to the fore in 1965, when the critic Kenneth Tynan became the first person to say “fuck” on television.

The left praised him for that pioneering effort, whereas conservative commentators, taking their cue from Mrs Whitehouse, presciently warned that before long the floodgates would be flung open. So it has proved.

All standards of decorum, propriety and decency have since fallen by the wayside, and even a generally foul-mouthed chap like me winces when watching some TV programmes. To be honest, I don’t watch many, but most people do.

That’s why one routinely hears even primary schoolchildren use the kind of language that suggests familiarity with most sex variants. Few people, and still fewer conservatives, will hail this development as a step in the right direction. In retrospect, they agree with Mrs Whitehouse who valiantly tried to keep modernity at bay.

Miss Hjul is implicitly critical of Mrs Whitehouse’s effort, but there is nothing implicit about her ignorant remark about unpicking “the entire Scottish Enlightenment”.

“From being an exporter of tolerance and reason,” she writes, “Scotland has come to represent the dawn of a new Dark Age,… the Enlightenment in reverse.”

Let me see if I can follow the runaway train of her thought. Fascistic trans fanatics are jumping backwards to leapfrog “the entire Scottish Enlightenment” and land smack in the midst of “a new Dark Age”. If you aren’t fluent in ignoramus, modern people like Miss Hjul use the terms ‘Dark Age’ and ‘Middle Ages’ interchangeably.

The inference is unavoidable: those objectionable periods championed wokery, including transsexual cancel culture, and it took the hallowed David Hume and Adam Smith to reverse that licentious trend.

Conversely, the venue Leith Archers reverted to medieval sensibilities by cancelling Mr Linehan because his views didn’t “align with our overall values” and hence would not be allowed to “violate our space”.

Perhaps I am being too literal. Even though Miss Hjul’s sloppy statements can be interpreted the way I did, she didn’t really mean that the Enlightenment stopped medieval trans activism. She meant, more generally, that the Middle Ages were characterised by “ideological intransigence”, as she put it, while the Enlightenment adumbrated unfettered freedom.

This may be truer to her meaning, but not truer to life. In fact, both the word ‘ideology’ and the concept behind it were Enlightenment constructs. The term was coined by the Enlightenment philosophe Destutt de Tracy and turned into common currency by Marx.

This stands to reason because the Enlightenment was all about replacing faith with ideology, and the latter was indeed much more “intransigent”. Millions of resisters who were slow to see the light were murdered within a few years following the French Revolution (170,000 in the Vendée alone).

That notorious bogeyman of modernity, the Spanish Inquisition, was responsible for about 10,000 death sentences carried out during the 400 years of its existence. That number doesn’t even register on the scale of the cannibalistic violence perpetrated by Enlightenment ideologues, from Robespierre onwards.

The Enlightenment replaced freedom with liberty and eventually licence. The distinction is vital. Freedom is an internal exercise of free will enabled by God. Liberty is a set of rights demanded by the people and granted by the state. Freedom is spiritual; liberty is political.

The former comes from God, the latter from ideology. The former is constrained by God’s commandments, the latter by ideological demands. Whereas freedom is boundless, liberty provides unlimited leeway only within strict ideological limits.

God’s commandments are immutable but ideological demands constantly change, typically by new ones being added to the existing ones. What doesn’t change is the unwavering severity of enforcement.

This may vary from millions of lives taken to Mr Linehan’s professional and family life destroyed, but this is a difference of degree, not principle. A series of post-Enlightenment begets have formed an ideological chain strangulating all free expression outside the received ideology.

Anyone who understands causality will know that the current orgy of depraved cancel culture is happening not in spite of the Enlightenment but because of it. It’s a result of the Enlightenment snowball rolling down the hill and gathering mass as it goes.

The problem with clichés is that a mind weaned on them can’t distinguish the good ones from the bad ones. Miss Hjul treated us to some good ones about freedom of speech, but then got mired in the lazy ones about the Enlightenment and the Middle Ages.

If this is conservative journalism, I wonder what the lefties are writing. Much of a muchness, I suspect, if with a different slant.

Dr Richard Levine was in his mid-50s when he decided to get castrated and become Rachel.

As a lifelong champion of inclusion and chairman of the Charles Martel Society for Multi-Culturalism (of which, you’ll be happy to know, I’m no longer the sole member), I salute Richard/Rachel for his/her courage.

After all, Richard had to explain the transition to his wife and two children, which must have confused them no end. “So, Daddy, are you now our Mummy?” “No, silly, I’m still your Daddy, but if I have any more children, I’ll be their Mummy.”

Richard’s little metamorphosis didn’t hurt his spectacular career. A paediatrician by profession, he served in the US Navy, which raises interesting questions about its recruitment policy. After all, a paediatrician treats children, and one would like to think a modern Navy doesn’t use many of them.

Does the US Navy pressgang children into its ranks? I must investigate. One way or another, Richard/Rachel reached four-star rank, the first transsexual to climb so high on the career ladder. And that wasn’t the only first that sea she-wolf has attained.

In 2021, Joe Biden appointed him/her Assistant Health Secretary, making Dr Levine the highest-ranking transsexual in the administration and the first such holder of a post requiring Senate confirmation. That duly arrived, but by a razor-thin majority of 52 to 48.

Frankly, I’m surprised it wasn’t unanimous. Clearly, some work still needs to be done to make sure American legislators march in step with progress. As it was, 48 senators, all of them Republicans, tried to stall that march.

Now Dr Levine is in a position to enlarge my vocabulary, which he did obligingly if inadvertently. He/she visited Identity Alaska, a centre looking after the ‘LGBTQIA2S+’ community which stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, and two spirit. The term is new to me, and I wouldn’t have learned it without Dr Levine’s initiative.

The care provided by Identity Alaska is essential and, says Dr Levine, even more than that. According to him/her: “These inspiring people work tirelessly to create a more equitable future, where all those living in the U.S. have equal access to lifesaving medical care.”

Lifesaving, no less. Who wouldn’t want to support an organisation that saves human lives? No one – except those dyed-in-the-wool reprobates who want to know exactly how IA goes about its noble task.

If you are one of those disagreeable individuals, you ought to know that IA promotes ‘gender-inclusive biology’ (another term new to me) by teaching children that doctors assign gender to babies by making a wild guess.

The guesswork is based on the crude technique of checking out what babies have between their legs. Amazing how simplistic some people can get, how hopelessly mired in the past.

IA has also made invaluable contributions to English, specifically mine. For example, they recommend that the word ‘mother’ be replaced with ‘egg producer’.

Now, much as I abhor gender-specific language, this particular term needs work. In most people’s minds an egg producer is associated with a hen, which has vaguely pejorative overtones. Even worse, when a prospective egg producer still hasn’t produced any, she might be called a ‘chick’ – and you don’t need me to know how misogynistic this term is.

Perhaps aware of such pitfalls, IA propose an alternative: ‘gestational parent’. This is much better, but the term doesn’t really roll off the tongue, especially in combinations. For instance, I can’t see Ravel’s Gestational Parent Goose Suite on too many concert programmes. Still, even though some refinements may be needed, this is a step in the right direction.

To keep things in balance, IA extends its life-saving work to censor the word ‘men’ as well. Their proposal, ‘XY individuals’, does get around gender specificity, but it’s not without its own problems.

Dr Levine’s own example proves that not all XY individuals are men, as far as modern nomenclature goes. Moreover, one detects a suggestion that an XX individual can’t become a man, and surely that’s unthinkable.

I don’t even know what to suggest. The first idea I thought of was ‘an individual with male reproductive organs’, but the word ‘male’ puts paid to that suggestion. According to IA, and presumably Dr Levine, children must be taught to call such organs ‘penis and testicles’, which at least has the advantage of descriptive simplicity.

IA, with Dr Levine’s blessing (which is to say with the blessing of the US administration), then veered away from simplicity by taking issue with the term ‘gender reveal party’. I didn’t quite understand what sort of revelry that was, and I still don’t. But, much as I love long words, I still don’t think many people will like, or indeed understand, ‘embryogenesis parties’. 

“The treatment options for gender-affirming care for transgender youth really are evidence-based,” Levine said, making me wonder how renouncing one’s own sex can be seen as affirmation. But I bow to the experts.

But then he/she said something that jarred. Dr Levine, while professing boundless love for his/her own children, says that kiddies should start ‘gender-affirming’ treatment as teenagers – even if that means they won’t be able to have children.

What kind of evidence-based statement is that? Doesn’t the good admiral know that medical science has advanced so much that men can now get pregnant?

So fine, such men didn’t start life as XY individuals, but I have every confidence that before long Dr Levine’s colleagues will find a way of implanting female reproductive organs into the bodies of bearded men born with a penis and testicles.

All that advance will take is more state funding, and I’m reassured to know that, according to Dr Levine, gender-affirmative care for children has the “highest support” of the Biden administration. Yes, but what if the Biden administration doesn’t come back after next year’s elections? That doesn’t bear thinking about.

But seriously now. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and psychiatric disorders used to be seen as a disqualifying condition for any holder of a government post.

Hence I’m happy to know that medical care in the US is so superlative that it isn’t affected by the second-highest health official in the country being – to use a technical term – unhinged. Or rather I would be happy if the situation were indeed sunny.

But it isn’t. Every time I talk to my American friends, they tell me horror stories about medical care in their country. While stopping just short of fully imitating our own dear NHS, Americans have still imported its worse features.

Under such circumstances, one would think someone in Dr Levine’s position would have more important things to worry about than gender-affirmative care for children. Yes, that would be the case if we lived in a sane world. But we don’t, so it isn’t.

Franz Kafka, where are you when we need you? It takes someone of that genius to give justice to today’s world. As it is, you are stuck with me.

I don’t mean Alaric and his merry men, circa 410 AD. The vandals in question are Western tourists, circa 2023 AD – our contemporaries.

One such gentleman (see photo) recently used a key to scratch his name on the masonry of the Colosseum, and you’d think the ancient structure has suffered enough damage since it was built by the Flavian emperors in the first century.

Vespasian (who ruled in 69-79, going down in history as the victor in the Judaean War and – for lovers of trivia – the only perfectly straight Roman emperor) started the construction, his elder son Titus (79-81, known for destroying the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD at his father’s behest) completed it, his younger son Domitian (81-96, known for his persecution of Christians) modified it.

Earthquakes and fires inflicted much damage on the Colosseum that the subsequent generations of Italians haven’t bothered to repair. And now modernity is adding its own unmistakable touches.

Nor is it just in Rome. The vandals, otherwise known as mass tourists, are befouling what’s left of our civilisation with gusto, turning formerly elegant and civilised places into giant pastures for grazing herds.

Tourism has become not just affordable but cheap, and our huddled masses are taking full advantage of it. They have to tick off all the places they look at without seeing anything, and understanding even less.

We used to go to Florence quite often, where we made friends with a Scotsman who owned an English-language bookshop. He told us that some Anglophone, mostly American, tourists would drop in every day asking for directions.

They wanted to know how to get to the Bridge of Sighs (“It’s in Venice.” “And where are we?”), the Colosseum (“It’s 160 miles south of here.” “Gee, that’s a long way) or even the Parthenon. With that kind of cultural baggage it’s no wonder they don’t think twice before vandalising a structure built two thousand years ago.

Not far from where we are in France there is a 12^th century Abbey at Pontigny, what’s left of it. That’s where Thomas Becket found refuge when he was on the run from Henry II.

Only the Romanesque church has survived the previous swarms of vandals. The rest of the Abbey buildings were destroyed first by the 16^th century Huguenots, then by the 18^th century revolutionaries. Thus spoke nascent modernity, but it didn’t quite say the last word.

That privilege has fallen to the tourist masses yearning for cheap travel. They don’t quite go so far as to take the surviving church apart stone by stone, but they do their level best to disfigure the snow-white nave walls with crude graffiti.

Some only sign their name or that of their current love interest, but others also gratify future historians by helpfully dating their contributions. None predate the late ‘60s, early ‘70s, when herds of vandals began to pollute ancient places en masse.

These days it’s impossible to go to great European highlights in season, and some have been turned into a contiguous stampede even during the off-season. Venice, for example, has become a theme park for the culturally disadvantaged all year round. Anyone going there even in winter must be prepared to shoulder his way through noisy, gawping, selfie-snapping throngs.

“How revolting,” I thought the last time I was there, as I was spray-painting my name on the wall of the Doge’s Palace… Just kidding: I did no such thing. But some people did, vindicating my heart-felt belief that modern masses have a Midas touch in reverse: everything they touch turns to muck.

A useful parallel can be drawn with fruit and vegetables over the past half-century. Victorious modernity has decreed that most produce should be available to most people throughout the year, regardless of seasons. And so it is, except that to achieve that goal we’ve had to sacrifice everything that used to make produce worth eating: taste, fragrance, texture, nutritive value.

Such a fate has befallen our culture as well, including the part expressed in the stones of great ancient cities. Vandalism is the founding animus of modernity, and these days it’s enabled and encouraged.

Given half the chance, today’s heirs to the Visigoth vandals, Huguenots and revolutionaries will vaporise those sublime places, using the latest technological achievements of which they are so proud.

For the time being they merely have to content themselves with using their house keys to etch their names into ancient masonry. Thank God for small favours.

P.S. An à propos headline in today’s Mail: “Le hangover! Two US tourists are found asleep near top of the Eiffel Tower after getting stuck inside Paris landmark overnight ‘because of how drunk they were’.” And I thought only Britons did that sort of thing.

Every coin has the other side. Every action produces a reaction. If a drug has clinical effects, it also has side effects. There’s a cloud behind every silver lining.

And these are just simple things. Something as complex as a civilisation serves up dichotomies and trichotomies galore – nothing is unequivocal, straightforward, clear-cut.

If asked to name the two most salient features of the modern West, most people would probably mention political democracy and scientific progress. Moreover, the same hypothetical respondents are likely to opine that both features are without a downside.

If someone told them that, for all their virtue, democracy and progress may well destroy our civilisation culturally, intellectually and possibly even physically, they’d decide they are talking to a madman. Yet there would be method in his madness, and truth in his assertion.

Both Plato and Aristotle were wary of democracy, especially when it isn’t balanced by other forms of government. (In fact, they favoured mixed regimes and warned against any unalloyed political system, be it democracy, oligarchy or monarchy.)

Aristotle referred to democracy as a “deviant constitution”, and he didn’t just mean it was flawed politically. He feared that democracy would produce a wounding ricochet on society because, if people are equal in one respect, they’ll deem themselves equal in all respects.

That would destroy the hierarchical spine of society, without which neither culture nor social stability would be possible. It was mainly in this sense that first Tocqueville and then Mill feared that democracy would bring about the “tyranny of the majority”.

In a representative democracy, the majority exercises political power only nominally. It delegates real power to a rather small elite that steadily moves away from the electorate while fostering the illusion that the people govern themselves. Such an elite can indeed become bossy or even despotic, and modernity serves up many illustrations of that.

But the real danger is different. For, when democracy is elevated to the status of absolute good, it vindicates Aristotle by spilling out into domains other than just political ones. Because everyone has an equal vote on political candidates, people eventually get to assume that the same horizontal arrangement applies everywhere.

Every opinion is as valid as any other, every taste as impeccable, every judgement as infallible – democracy breaks political banks and floods every walk of life with toxic effluvia. The effect is devastating and instantly observable.

Since commerce is also egalitarian in essence and, nowadays, all-pervasive, people acquire boundless power to vote for intellectual and aesthetic products with a show of hands, each clutching a wad of banknotes.

As a result, opinions that would never even be voiced in any other system become dominant. Abominable tastes marginalise beauty. Ignoramuses mould orthodoxies and set trends. Depravity trumps normality. Discernment bites the dust.

This directly affects the other claim that modernity has to civilisational ascendancy: scientific and technological progress. However, for all its usefulness, it exacerbates the downside of democracy.

Just because people can fly around the world in less time than it took to travel from London to Newcastle a couple of centuries ago, they develop such a deep attachment to progress that they assume it’s ubiquitous.

Science, in the shape of Darwinism, reinforces this view of life. People transpose their belief in Darwin’s slapdash theory of predetermined meliorative evolution into the conviction that political, social, economic and cultural trends are similarly vectored. But they aren’t.

People begin to see society as a machine that can be easily finetuned or redesigned, or else as a biological mechanism functioning according to predetermined rules. Yet it is neither. Society is a fragile and complex construct susceptible to all sorts of dangers.

One danger is the growing chasm between scientific progress and human regress. Prometheus might have given people the gift of fire, but he also gave them ways of turning that fire against themselves.

I’ll steer clear of dystopic, yet realistic, scenarios of mankind destroying itself with its advances in nuclear physics or artificial intelligence. Suffice it to say that sophisticated tools require sophisticated operators. When this condition isn’t met, trouble ensues.

What’s worth mentioning is that scientific progress can act as the sand in which mankind can bury its head and ignore unfolding social catastrophes. Take something as mundane as crime – specifically murder – rate.

About 400 homicides a year were committed in Victorian England. Today, the corresponding number is 600, give or take. Considering that the population has grown to double the size, we may flash a smug smile and rejoice: if anything, today’s situation is better and it’s certainly not worse. So what’s that about the moral decline of modernity?

In fact, we are looking at a catastrophe hiding behind scientific progress. Our surgical techniques, pharmacology and life-saving equipment have improved so much since the 19^th century that thousands of wounds that would have proved fatal then are today regarded as mere scratches.

This is good news for victims who’d otherwise be dead, but catastrophic news for the moral health of society. If today’s victims of assaults were treated with 19^th century techniques, our murder rate statistics would surge upwards exponentially.

Some experts estimate that today’s murder rate would be at least 100 times higher than in Victorian England. That means we have a much higher proportion of individuals ready to inflict grievous wounds on their neighbours. Hence our pride in modern scientific advances should be leavened with horror at the moral and social catastrophe those advances mask.

There used to be a stock joke in the Soviet army. A sergeant would ask a recruit: “What’s the most important part of a rifle?” Having heard the answer, he’d say: “Wrong. The most important part of a rifle is the soldier’s head.”

Far be it from me to offer Soviet NCOs as paragons of intellectual attainment. But you can see how that crude exchange could be extrapolated to Western modernity, with its unshakable belief in democracy and progress. Out of the mouths of babes, and all that.

Francis Poulenc’s opera Dialogues des Carmélites tells the story of 16 eponymous nuns guillotined in 1794 by the forces of progressive modernity.

Poulenc depicts this tragic event with poignant power. His nuns go to their fate chanting Salve regina, after which the sound of the falling blade is heard repeatedly over the orchestra. However, the same progressive modernity that popularised that sound so widely has now added another one, by way of counterpoint: crunching popcorn.

Some American tourists contributed that musical insight to the performance of the opera at the Proms the other day. Those sitting next to them failed to appreciate the subtle dissonance, and the two groups almost came to blows.

One concert-goer raised obvious concerns in a language harmonised with the Proms philosophy: “WTF is the Royal Albert Hall doing selling POPCORN during the Proms? Involved in a near fight at one tonight. Ruined the first half of a superlative evening.”

Allow me to explain WTF. The Proms were designed to carry real music to the masses, and the words ‘pearls’ and ‘swine’ never occurred to anyone at the time.

Since the masses, populus in the language of the Carmelites, only want popular entertainment (circenses), the Proms have developed along a certain vector pointing towards popular entertainment crystallised, which is to say a football match.

The organisers of the Proms have sought from the very beginning to eradicate every reminder of real music’s genesis in church liturgy. People are encouraged to go walkabout during the performance, talk to their friends, stamp their feet on the floor while applauding.

This process has been gradual, with new touches added year on year. Punk, pop and rap concerts are supplementing the usual musical diet, and of course popcorn the customary culinary one. The Carmelites can now go to their death to the accompaniment of sweets being unwrapped, crisps being crunched and popcorn being munched.

It’s not long before football-style chants will be allowed or even encouraged. “The conductor is a wanker!” and “You are shit and you know you are!” would be a good start.

I’d also recommend “Get your trills out for the lads!” when Yuju Wang is on the platform, or perhaps “Wang me rigid!” and “There’s only one Wang!”. A stock chant could also greet the appearance of any Korean performer: “He will play the whole score, then he’ll eat your Labrador!”

James Ainscough, Chief Executive of the Royal Albert Hall, can’t understand WTF the problem is: “We’ve sold small packets of popcorn, along with crisps and sweets, in our bars since 2014 without protest… Different people enjoy different shows in different ways, so we always hope audience members will be considerate of those around them, and polite when they speak to each other.” 

Allow me to translate: Vox populi has spoken, and all our concert organisers can do is hang on to every word and comply with every wish. If the people want to barrack the performer or, conversely, loudly cheer every fast passage, then by all means they should do so. That’s what carrying music to the masses really means.

Mr Ainscough didn’t even moot the possibility that, whatever refreshments are sold in the foyer, they may still be banned in the actual hall. That despotic infringement of the masses’ free self-expression isn’t unknown: many concerts halls display signs saying “No food or drink allowed beyond this point”.

However, any such restrictions would defeat the implicit purpose of the Proms: to lower music to the aesthetic level prevalent in stadium terraces. People like Mr Ainscough aren’t yet empowered to exclude real music from the Promenade Concerts. So they do the next best thing by slowly vulgarising it into oblivion.

Real music can only be fulfilled by a tripartite collaboration between the composer, the performer and the listener.

It goes without saying that the middle link in that chain, the musician, has to display prodigious powers of concentration when going about his task. What does need to be said is that the listener must concentrate just as hard, to make sure he stays in harmony with composer and performer.

Some of the composer’s intent is bound to be lost in the performance. Real music represents the acme of the human spirit, and any performer can only approach that summit without quite reaching it. The greater a musician he is, the smaller the shortfall, but some gap will always remain.

Similarly, even a listener with perfectly trained and attuned senses is bound to miss some of the musical nuances conveyed by the performer (I’m talking about real musicians, not anti-musical showmen like Lang Lang or aspiring pole dancers like Yuja Wang). It’s the task of every musician and every listener to make sure such unavoidable losses don’t distort the sublime meaning of music too much.

That’s why it’s critical that all extraneous distractions be eliminated from the concert hall. Even the slightest rustling noise can break the listener’s concentration, hurting not just his enjoyment (dread word) but the music being played. For a few moments his ability to participate in the collaboration is destroyed, meaning that so is the music.

Allowing any food, especially the noisy variety, into a concert hall is like allowing weapons into a stadium: the whole purpose of the event will be undermined. Yet I realise that the Ainscoughs of this world and I define the purpose of a concert differently.

All they want is to put more bums on seats, and the Royal Albert Hall has over 5,000 seats to fill with willing bums. If many of them go empty, that’s all the organisers’ job is worth, and they’ll do anything to stay in gainful employment.

That singlemindedness of purpose is shared by food franchises and also so-called music critics banging out equally gushing reviews of every performance, no matter how inept. Suggesting that a performance enjoyed (dread word) by so many was indeed inept would be tantamount to taking issue with the paying public’s taste, and that’s clearly not on.

Thus, the collaboration I mentioned earlier is replaced by a collusion of cynical organisers, playing nonentities, various commercial interests and uneducated audiences. They all gain whatever it is they are after. It’s the defaced music that loses.

This photograph was taken an hour before the two girls, Svetlana (19) and Kristina (21), were killed by a Russian missile strike on Zaporozhe.

Their death represents a significant strategic advance for Putin. After all, as he claims and Hitchens confirms, Russia is really fighting NATO, not the Ukraine. Hence the two girls who loved to sing had to be the lynchpins of NATO’s war effort.

Alternatively, they are merely two more victims of Russia’s evil aggression that pursues genocidal, no longer military, objectives. The idea is to break the Ukraine’s spirit or to force NATO to lose interest.

The first option isn’t going to happen; the second one may, if the current polls are anything to go by.

The latest CNN survey shows that 55 per cent of Americans are opposed to providing any more aid for the Ukraine. Even more worrying is the fact that 71 per cent of Republican voters feel that way.

Thus any Republican candidate, most likely Trump, can canter to the nomination on an anti-war promise and then make an appeasement stance a key plank of his national platform. Trump, a Putin admirer of long standing, won’t let that opportunity go begging.

Similar tendencies are noticeable all over the world, from China and Turkey to Western Europe, where the Zelensky government is being urged to exercise ‘common sense’. The choice of recipient of such entreaties is baffling.

After all, only someone who started the war can end it. And no one this side of Hitchens and his ilk identifies NATO or the Ukraine as the aggressor.

It’s Russia that’s murdering tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians like Svetlana and Kristina. It’s Russia that’s levelling Ukrainian cities and destroying their infrastructure. It’s Russia that tortures, rapes, loots and kills Ukrainians, kidnapping their children into the bargain. It’s Russia that’s threatening the world with nuclear annihilation.

How come no one is appealing to Putin’s common sense then? Why does everyone want Zelensky to sue for peace and beg for negotiations?

Actually, Zelensky has never opposed the idea of negotiations. He has a few preconditions though: first, Russia withdraws from every inch of the Ukrainian territory occupied since 2014; second, the Ukraine gets ironclad security guarantees, not the Mickey Mouse variety exemplified by the Budapest Memorandum and the Minsk accords.

Putin, on the other hand, may agree to a ceasefire along the current demarcation line, but he’ll never accept any guarantees of lasting peace. On-going imperial expansion is a precondition for his staying in power, or indeed alive.

That’s why, having failed to defeat the Ukraine on the battlefield, Russia is stepping up her propaganda efforts, activating both her own troll factories and her Western stooges.

For example, Hitchens wrote a lengthy piece last week, explaining that Russia was severely provoked by the Ukraine’s 2014 “putsch”, otherwise known as a popular uprising to unseat Yanukovych’s puppet government.

Yanukovych, a career criminal, did win an election on a quasi-patriotic programme. He then pledged allegiance, de facto if not yet de jure, to Putin, making a mockery of the Ukraine’s cherished and hard-won independence.

Having realised their electoral mistake, the people kicked him out, which offended Hitchens’s worship of democratic propriety. That noble feeling is selective: he never seemed to mind the openly stiffed ballot boxes in Russia. That was all right, especially considering that Hitchens had been writing gushing articles about Putin ever since the start of his blood-stained tenure.

He and his likeminded Putin fans never tire of bemoaning Ukrainian corruption and yes, fair cop, the Ukrainian government is indeed corrupt. It’s not the only one: every post-Soviet republic, emphatically including Russia, has been warped by decades of communism. The Ukraine is no worse than most of them and better than some.

Yet all such considerations miss the point by a mile. Corrupt or pristine, governed by democratically elected officials or otherwise, the Ukraine is an independent country. Her internal affairs are her own business.

The implication that her practices disapproved by Hitchens somehow legitimise Russian aggression is more criminal than any transgressions ever committed by the Ukraine. Implying that, or blaming NATO for the war, is enemy propaganda at its purest, something not seen in Britain since Lord Haw-Haw.

Only one country, Russia, is guilty of unspeakable crimes against humanity. And only one, the same, criminal country harbours far-reaching plans that go beyond the Ukraine. That’s why it’s so upsetting to see so many Americans (and others) falling for Kremlin propaganda.

What do they think is going to happen should the US government listen to vox populi and cut the Ukraine off? Do they seriously believe Putin will be happy to negotiate an equitable peace? Do they expect him to be satisfied with a piece of the Ukraine his missiles have turned into wasteland?

If so, they should stop listening to Putin’s propagandists and exercise real common sense, not the spirit of surrender going by that misnomer.

Once the Ukraine starts running out of ammunition, Putin will launch a new offensive on Kiev – and this time he may well succeed. New pictures of tortured and mutilated corpses will flood the Internet, with the sound accompaniment of lies about the Ukraine and NATO. The Ukrainian army will go guerrilla, and in the 1950s their ancestors managed to carry on for years against much more formidable odds.

Meanwhile, Putin will see the West’s ‘commonsensical’ surrender for exactly what it is. He’ll get another confirmation of NATO living in fear of any direct confrontation with Russian bandits.

Those who wish to know what will happen next ought to read up on European history circa 1939. That would remind them of what happens when the West practises ‘common sense’ when dealing with an evil aggressor.

Svetlana Semeikina and Kristina Spitsyna, RIP

Umberto Eco defined fascism as, inter alia, “essentially rejecting the spirit of 1789, the spirit of the Enlightenment. Fascism sees the Age of Reason as the beginning of modern decadence.”

I would have been tempted to add another redolent spirit to the list, that of the Vendée. Following the 1793 regicide, the revolutionary government slaughtered 170,000 inhabitants of that province (about 20 per cent of its population) who had risen in protest against the closure and robbery of churches. The spirit of the guillotine wouldn’t go amiss either.

Thinkers like Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre instantly saw the link between “the spirit of the Enlightenment” and revolutionary violence, leading to a frontal assault on Western civilisation. Let’s describe them, along with the Vendée martyrs, as proto-fascists and move on, keeping in mind that people like Eco use the words ‘fascist’ and ‘conservative’ interchangeably.

Having read his definition, I realised it fit me like a glove. I then looked at myself in the mirror, expecting to see the scowling mug of a fascist. Instead, I saw, well, me – a rather rotund gentleman not in the first flush of youth whom I happen to know rather well.

This chap has many foibles and he has committed many sins. Nevertheless I am absolutely certain he doesn’t have a fascist bone in his body.

So, I thought, fearful that a lightning from the sky will smite me, Eco must be wrong. One may see a direct link between “the spirit of 1789, the spirit of the Enlightenment” and today’s decadence, and still be something other than a fascist.

Yet even people who wouldn’t dream of taking issue with all those spirits can’t help noticing certain unpleasant things about modernity. These fall in the broad range between decadence and degeneracy morally, bossiness and tyranny politically, uniformity and freedom socially.

Name your own bugbear, and you’ll find it in today’s life. Children as young as seven encouraged by their teachers to undergo castration. Education that doesn’t educate. Policing that doesn’t police. Justice that isn’t just. The law that fails to protect property and life. Madcap permissiveness combined with systematic suppression of free speech. The state meddling in every aspect of private life. Idolatrous worship of flora and fauna…

You can extend this list or compile your own. One way or another, it takes a singularly unobservant person not to see that something is rotten in our modern world. Yet being observant doesn’t make one a fascist. What does then, Mr Eco?

Obviously, it’s regarding those enormities as a natural consequence of the Enlightenment, rather than its unfortunate malfunctioning. A fascist, according to Eco, is someone who detects congenital defects in the Age of Reason and shows how they ineluctably lead to moral degeneracy and political tyranny.

Back in the late 90s I wrote a book titled How the West Was Lost, in which I argued that all the regimes of modernity, such as liberal democracy, socialism, communism, fascism and Nazism, have much in common. Moreover, that commonality is directly traceable to “the spirit of the Enlightenment”.

Talking specifically about liberal democracy, the dominant method of government in the West, I pointed out many features it shares with communism. That line of thought drew on my personal experience of both regimes, and my personal sadness at seeing the gap between them getting narrower.

The Enlightenment was all about the wholesale repudiation of the old and replacing it with the new. The entire history of the preceding 1,500 years was declared to be nothing but a sustained practice of superstition, obscurantism, oppression and ignorance.

The lyrics of the communist anthem, the Internationale, capture that sentiment perfectly: “No more tradition’s chains shall bind us/ Arise, ye slaves, no more in thrall;/ The earth shall rise on new foundations,/ We have been naught we shall be all.”

Rousseau opened his Social Contract with the words “Man is born free, yet he is everywhere in chains.” The spirit so dear to Eco was supposed to blow away those tethers by changing not only the existing methods of government but the very nature of man. Man was supposed to recover his primordial beauty destroyed by Western civilisation.

Western, which is to say Christian, Man was to be replaced with a new sociocultural type, Modern, which is to say liberal-democratic, Man. He would have no use for such anachronisms as God, autocracy, social stratification or hierarchies of any kind. Instead he would marshal his own unlimited resources to conquer nature (including human nature) and create a new world.

Alas, that type didn’t exist yet. It was an ideal to strive for, and society was to strain every sinew to make sure its march towards that ideal would be unstoppable. Every snag in its way was to be eliminated – man finally saw the truth, and it was to make him perfect eventually, if not in one fell swoop.

Does this sound at all familiar? It should, because this is where liberal democracy converges with communism, socialism and fascism. They all see life as a steady evolutionary development away from an unsatisfactory past towards a shining secular ideal. Life to them is a linear and teleological evolution towards paradise in this world, for there is no other.

This teleology is chiliastic: once the ideal has been reached, man will no longer have to travel anywhere – he will have arrived.

People (including me) mocked Francis Fukuyama who responded to the 1991 ‘collapse of communism’ in Russia by declaring the end of history. Yet he merely expressed the fundamental liberal-democratic tenet: liberal democracy had triumphed even over its erstwhile formidable adversary.

Hence, history in the sense of evolution towards a pre-set goal had indeed ended. Fukuyama knew the odd twist and turn would still occur, but by and large stasis had arrived. The ultimate goal of progress is to stop progressing.

Liberal democracy seems to differ from communism and fascism because it sets great store by liberty as a hoist raising common man to hitherto unreachable heights. However, this concept of liberty has caveats built in by definition. It presupposes severe limitations on the liberty of those who dislike the declared ideal and see it as appallingly destructive.

Liberty is allowed only within the narrow channel through which society inexorably moves towards its ideal. Any step outside that channel is variously treated as treason, heresy or apostasy. This must be discouraged by any means necessary, and that’s where liberal democracy still differs from other products of the Enlightenment.

Communism and fascism rely on propaganda and, should it fail to achieve the desired result, unrestrained violence. Liberal democracy also practises total, not to say totalitarian, propaganda, but its use of violence is so far limited – mainly because it’s unnecessary.

Ostracism, demonisation, exclusion from meaningful careers, damning and shaming seem to be adequate as a means of hushing up people who are better able than Eco to see historical trends in their dynamic development from inception. But if at some point those he calls fascists and I call conservatives refuse to be silenced, violence will be used more widely.

Some people rejoice to see that liberal democracy is still different from communism and fascism. That jubilant emotion, however, shouldn’t interfere with the ability to see their common origin and weep over the increasing similarity between liberal democracy and its Enlightenment cousins.

They all innately have more in common with one another than any of them have with the traditional Western societies and governments. They all set out to stamp tradition into the dirt and realise an ideologically contrived eudaemonic ideal. The first part has proved easier.

“What’s in a word?” asked Shakespeare, who then answered himself along the lines of not very much. The great man thus predated by four centuries Jacques Derrida with his silly deconstructionism.

I disagree, most respectfully. Not wishing to step on the toes of either our national poet or France’s faux-philosopher, I still maintain that in our prosaic life words are crucially significant.

Take the term ‘illegal migrants’, which is always in the news these days. Most people who use it in the media tend to slide over the adjective and stress the noun, evoking horrific images and appealing to our charitable instincts.

True enough, vast areas of Africa, the Middle East and, these days, Eastern Europe are suffering horrific wars, genocide and famines. That compels thousands, or rather millions, of people to save themselves and their families by fleeing.

The safest harbours they identify are all in the West, emphatically including Britain known for her munificence. And it’s also true that whatever is left of Christian charity (or, barring that, basic decency) should make us welcome those poor people and do as much as we can for as many as we can.

Yes, politics tends to be based not on Christian charity or even basic decency, but on cold-blooded pragmatism (however misconstrued). Yet there have to be exceptions. Shrugging our shoulders when proverbial women and children are being slaughtered means betraying everything good in our civilisation.

That’s why we have generous immigration quotas, and it could be argued that they should be made even more generous in some situations, with extra provisions for cases of genocide. Agreed? Good. We’ve now milked the noun part of ‘illegal migrants’ for all it’s worth.

Now let’s talk about the adjective. My trusted dictionary defines ‘illegal’ as “contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.” That’s where the word game comes in, called ‘transformation’ in linguistics.

This means replacing lexical or grammatical structures with their full equivalents that clarify their meaning without distorting it. Thus, using the above definition as the starting point, we can transform ‘illegal migrants’ into ‘criminal migrants’. Rather than relying on our generous immigration quotas, they choose to break the law.

People who cross the Channel in small boats and then seek asylum in Britain aren’t legitimate migrants or refugees. They are law-breakers, otherwise known as criminals. And their numbers, though still short of the D-Day force going in the opposite direction, are still significant.   

In 2020, 8,466 crossed over in small boats, which number increased to 28,526 in 2021 and more than 40,000 in 2022. This year it’s estimated to grow to 56,000, creating an unmanageable backlog in asylum applications.

That’s a lot of criminals to swell the ranks of the rapidly expanding homegrown variety. This raises the question of what to do with them.

The most obvious stratagem would be to prevent them from landing in Britain in the first place, and the Royal Navy has a fair amount of relevant experience. At different times in our history, it prevented the invasion of such formidable adversaries as Philip II, Napoleon and Hitler.

While admitting that firing broadsides at those small boats would be ill-advised, one still likes to hope that the Royal Navy could do something to turn those boats around. After all, they aren’t shooting at our ships either.

That hope seems to be forlorn. The Royal Navy lacks either the incentive or orders or capacity to stop the influx of small boats carrying criminals to our shores. So what happens next?

The government started out by spending millions to accommodate the arrivals at hotels boasting a various number of stars (up to four). Alternatively, they are housed in abandoned military bases – due to Britain’s lackadaisical approach to defence, there exist many of those.

This creates all sorts of problems, and funding is the least of it. You see, many, I’d even dare say most, of the new arrivals are – what would be an inoffensive term? – differently civilised. Their hygienic, amorous and acquisitive practices are often at odds with the local mores, which creates conflicts.

The locals sign petitions, demonstrate outside migrant centres and sometimes even resort to violence. So far no deaths have been reported, but that situation is likely to change.

I don’t think people in the Home Counties are blood-thirsty Little Englanders, but they do have legitimate concerns about their tranquil neighbourhoods turning into hellholes. They feel their home is where charity should begin.

The most obvious solution is to remove those criminals from Britain, send them somewhere where their habits would be less jarring to the ambient mores and ban them from ever applying for asylum in Britain. Rwanda was mooted as a possible destination first.

That sounds like a good idea to me, but not to those who accentuate the noun in ‘illegal migrants’ at the expense of the adjective. Thus possible deportation to Rwanda was tied up in legal challenges. And in June the Court of Appeal ruled it unlawful because the Rwanda asylum system wasn’t deemed to be up to scratch.

Ascension Island is the current candidate, which also strikes me as appropriate. After all, if St Helena was good enough for Napoleon, Ascension Island in the same part of the South Atlantic should be good enough for those criminal migrants. And if they find that not being the case, then many others could well be deterred from entering Britain illegally.

Yet I fear that any deportation scheme, to Ascension Island or elsewhere, will suffer the same fate. After all, it goes against the grain of the dominant ethos declared and enforced by our lumpen intelligentsia.

This group spouts humanitarian slogans with the best of them, but in fact it’s driven by neither Christian charity nor even basic decency.

As one of their intellectual leaders, Peter Mandelson, once explained with refreshing candour, importing large groups of cultural aliens expands the electoral base of the leftmost parties. Thus, what his boss Blair described as “the forces of conservatism” would be neutralised.

Neither Blair nor Mandelson nor their current followers have bothered to put any upper limit on their generosity. That’s a serious oversight, considering that billions of people worldwide would rather live in Britain than in their own countries. The size of our island suggests that some sort of limit is necessary.

The seminal difference between legitimate and criminal migrants also seems to be moot. Thwarting the forces of conservatism is vital; upholding the law isn’t. Those gentlemen are, however, adept at camouflaging their cynicism with bien pensant jargon.  

Thus Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, is appalled by the Ascension Island scheme: “This is more shameful demonisation of men, women and children fleeing from countries such as Afghanistan, the bloodshed in Syria and Sudan and persecution in Iran.

“It is time for the government to stop its obsession with unworkable and inhumane schemes that treat people like human cargo and address the shocking mismanagement of the asylum system with seriousness and accountability.”

In other words, let’s fling our doors wide open and admit them all, legal or otherwise. Never mind legality, feel the empathy.

The causal relationship between crime and punishment immortalised by Dostoyevsky has fallen by the wayside – the noun in ‘illegal migrants’ has trumped the adjective. That’s like arresting a man who has stolen £10,000 and, instead of sending him down, awarding him the same sum by court order.

If you think this is a spurious simile, I suggest you look up the meaning of ‘illegal’ in any dictionary you trust.