Author: Alexander Boot

One should never recount personal experiences – unless they lend themselves to extrapolation.

Hence I’d never mention meeting someone I’d regard as sui generis, say a sixtyish man wearing short trousers, a school blazer and socks with sandals. However, meeting someone so typical as to throw light on a  cultural phenomenon is a different matter.

Such people are more (sometimes actually less) than individuals. They’re paradigms, personifications, illustrations. They elucidate by typifying, which makes them, well, not exactly interesting but useful, at least to a commentator on social mores.

In that spirit, the other day I found myself at a dinner party sitting next to an exceedingly successful and rather attractive woman, late 50s at a guess, but doing a good job trying to look younger.

Talking to such people, one realises how woefully one’s own life has been wasted. From the scant biographical details my dinner companion (let’s call her Libby) divulged, she grew up in South Kensington, which to a Londoner is what Fifth Avenue is to a New Yorker.

Libby was privately educated, which hardly needs mentioning. A degree at Oxbridge followed (I think) and then another one at Sciences Po in Paris, the hatchery of France’s political class.

She’s now a high-rolling international lawyer. Libby’s boyfriend is French, she told me, as is her divorced husband. Neither was present.

Once everyone’s travel stories had been exchanged, the conversation around the table veered to matters of shared interest: the EU, politics in general, monarchy and so forth.

When the first subject came up, Libby raised her eyebrows when I expressed views distinctly different from hers. That naturally prompted a query of my credentials.

“Do you know much about the EU?” asked Libby. “A fair amount, actually,” I replied to her obvious incredulity.

“Where were you educated?” was the next question and, realising that my modest Moscow university could compete with neither Oxbridge nor Sciences Po, I described that rubric in my CV as “the School of Hard Knockers followed by Screw U.”

Such levity only reinforced Libby’s sense of superiority, both innate and acquired. She voted Remain, she announced proudly, because Britain derives numerous benefits from EU membership.

Name one, I begged, at least one that justifies sacrificing our sovereignty, not to mention billions of pounds every year. Libby then proved her formidable intellectual background by demanding that I define sovereignty.

Self-government, I suggested, with all laws passed by our Parliament, rather than foreign legislative bodies. But all our politicians are inept, objected Libby, the implication being that Messrs Juncker, Tusk and Macron are intellectual giants of Aristotelian proportions.

Moreover, many of the EU laws are better than our own. That may be, I agreed, and I share her dim view of our governing elite. But this is a separate subject, and there I was, thinking we were talking about sovereignty.

Thus it’s conceivable that, had the Nazis won the war, they could have run France better than the French. But that wouldn’t have meant that France remained a sovereign country.

The lines were drawn. Libby had established her upbeat, interesting credentials that alone could be seen as socially acceptable, whereas I had shown myself to be an uncouth troglodyte mouthing ideas that weren’t just uncool but antediluvian.

And as to the benefits of EU membership, continued Libby, just look at how vibrant the City of London is. That would only mean something, I countered, if it could be shown that the City had been dormant in its torpor until 1992. But hadn’t it been the hub of Europe’s financial activity at least since the Congress of Vienna?

Libby took a dim view of that historical reference and went on to prove in the course of the evening that no such allusions cut much ice with her. The EU, she reiterated, is simply wonderful. It’s just that our successive governments handled it badly.

Thus Major shouldn’t have signed the Maastricht Treaty, Blair shouldn’t have agreed to a closer union, and Cameron shouldn’t have been born. At that point I added another blot to my copybook by drawing another parallel.

That’s the logic of Western communists, I said. Communism was a world-saving idea, but it was compromised by the Russians’ brutality and incompetence. Should Western communists get the chance, they’d get things right.

Wouldn’t it more logical to believe that, if an idea proved monstrous everywhere it was tried, it’s a monstrous idea? And, if every British government failed to work the EU properly, could it be that it’s unworkable?

That logic was way too spurious for Libby’s taste. As far as she was concerned, the inexorable march of history began in 1992, and it was pointless looking backwards or even sideways.

That’s why, she explained, she detested monarchy in general and the British monarchy in particular, although she simply adored the Queen. Had she met her? Well, no. So how did she know the Queen is adorable? Surely one couldn’t separate a monarch from the monarchy?

Yes one could, insisted Libby and effortlessly segued to Jacob Rees-Mogg, whom she loathed. Why? Because “he speaks from a position of privilege”.

Libby liked that turn of phrase so much that, facing my objections over the next five minutes, she repeated it 12 times. I kept the score and congratulated her each time she ran it up.

Which of his ideas are based on his privileged background? Rees-Mogg speaks from a position of privilege.

Does that disqualify anything such a person says? We’ve had a few decent PMs who were even more privileged, Churchill for one. Rees-Mogg speaks from a position of privilege.

But I thought all Leavers were lowly, illiterate louts, not privileged individuals. Rees-Mogg speaks from a position of privilege.

But ad hominems are rhetorical fallacies. One should address the intrinsic value of a man’s ideas, not his personality. Rees-Mogg speaks from a position of privilege.

And so forth, ad infinitum. I wasn’t talking to a person. My interlocutor was a mouthpiece for stock mantras, easily replaceable with any other mouthpiece of the same mantras. In fact, I could have scripted every sentence Libby said before she said it.

The mantras are dominant among the illiterati at London’s smarter parties; they are the password one has to utter to gain admittance to the smarter parties.

This dovetails neatly with the theme of my yesterday’s article on social envy and hatred.

The fashionists, the reflux of the social digestion in their country and their class, can’t sound interesting to their own kind unless they profess contempt for both the country and the class. They use a ladder to climb high up and then kick the ladder away.

Their supposedly towering, but in fact clichéd and dull, minds feel suffocated within any narrow confines, be those of their nation with everything that makes it national, their own upbringing (“For a second there I thought you grew up in Peckham, not South Ken,” I teased Libby) – even elementary logic.

Their amour propre co-exists in dialectical symbiosis with haine propre. Like a prostitute pretending to be virginal to please some clients, they try to keep their true selves away from prying eyes.

Yet both the girl and her customer know this is make-believe, not real life. It’s just the game they play. Oh well, personally I prefer tennis.

Every time envy comes up in conversation, I grin smugly.

For envy is one of the two deadly sins to which I’m immune, greed being the other. Having thus got on my high moral horse, I then quickly dismount it, remembering that I’ll still have to answer for the remaining five.

Mercifully, however, it’s envy and not, say, lust or gluttony, that’s my subject today, so I can talk about it without risking an accusation of hypocrisy.

“Envy is more irreconcilable than hatred,” wrote François de la Rochefoucauld, and he was right in that aphorism, as he was in so many others.

Yet, going a step further, one could suggest that hatred is so often motivated by envy as to be practically indistinguishable from it.

Taking another step, one might realise that envy typically starts as self-hatred, which is then expressed as loathing others. Yet leaving the domain of homespun psychology, one can still say that envy is, well, unenviable even on an individual level.

However, when it becomes collective and pandemic, envy may destroy not just the person obsessed with it, but the whole society – especially if the state actively promotes it by deed if not necessarily by word.

One could say that the more envious the society, the sicker it is, the further removed from the civilisation in which sin wasn’t just a figure of speech.

Thus, if a recent survey is to be believed, British society is healthier than German, French or American.

German economic historian Rainer Zitelmann commissioned a poll of 4,000 people in those four countries to establish their ‘social envy index’. The British turned out to be much less resentful of the rich than the other three nations under investigation.

Only one in five Britons agreed with the statement “the super-rich, who always want more power, are to blame for many of the world’s problems”, compared with a quarter of Americans, a third of Frenchmen and half of Germans.

I have no first-hand knowledge of German society, but I know the other three countries personally and intimately. However, my personal and intimate knowledge of the US goes back 30-odd years, and the country must have changed drastically since I lived there.

Then I would have said that most Americans were remarkably free of envy and its product, class hatred. When a typical American saw someone else’s palatial house, rather than wishing to burn it down he tried to figure out what he had to do to earn one just like it.

Since class envy and socialism enjoy a symbiotic relationship, socialism has clearly made more inroads into America, which is what my American friends have been saying anyway. Next time I’ll listen to them more closely.

By contrast, because my knowledge of Britain and France is current, I can rely on the evidence before my eyes. And my observation tallies with Dr Zitelmann’s finding that “France and Britain were at opposite ends of the spectrum.”

The difference was even starker when people were asked if they were in favour of “drastically” cutting the income of well-paid executives and distributing the money among their workers, even if the latter only received a tiny extra sum a month.

In Britain 29 per cent said yes. In France the figure was 54 per cent, almost twice as high.

Talking to the French, I’m not surprised. Few words carry more pejorative connotations in France than patron (boss). This isn’t just a little verbal quirk – it’s barricades, tear gas, burnt cars, smashed shop windows, cobbles used as projectiles.

It’s even mutilation: last weekend one of the gilets jaunes protesters got his hand blown off when he picked up a tear gas bomb thrown by the police and it went off before he could throw it back.

Envy is the root of social disharmony, and it largely drives the protests crippling France. “You can’t govern a country that makes 300 kinds of cheese,” said de Gaulle, which is a good but hardly indisputable quip.

What’s indisputable is that you can’t govern a country stricken by a pandemic of envy and resulting class hatred. You certainly can’t run a successful economy that way.

However, socialists, which is to say purveyors of social envy, don’t care about how successful the economy is. They don’t love the poor as much as they hate the rich, and the on-going social unrest in France illustrates this point perfectly.

The gilets jaunes are demanding lower fuel taxes, and there I’m in sympathy: along with other sensible persons, I dislike taxation even with representation.

However, they are also demanding that the wealth tax, instituted by Mitterrand and abandoned by Macron, be reintroduced.

This demand proves my point, for the wealth tax makes the poor poorer, not just the rich. For, as experience of any country in the world shows, when wealth is taxed it flees – taking jobs and opportunities with it.

The purpose of wealth taxes isn’t economic but political, which in this case means punitive. By introducing it, a government panders to, and promotes, the urge not to help the poor but to punish the rich.

It’s refreshing to observe such blatant disregard for rational thought in a nation that prides itself on having inaugurated that great misnomer, the Age of Reason.

However, schadenfreude, that smirking emotion the British tend to feel about any misfortune of the French, would be misplaced. France may exhibit more virulent symptoms of a prevalent malaise, but the malaise is universal and spreading fast.

Reason is excommunicated from the political forum everywhere. More and more people rely on their viscera, not their brains, to form political views (and vote on them), and viscera is where envy resides, sharing quarters with hatred.

I’d be curious to know how many respondents would agree with this statement: “The rich should be dispossessed even if you became poorer as a result.”

Quite a few, would be my guess. Probably more in France than in Britain though, which is a small consolation, but a consolation none the less.

Everyone knows these old lines: “Thigh bone connected to the hip bone// Hip bone connected to the back bone// Back bone connected to the shoulder bone…” and so on.

The message is that things are interconnected and it’s often ill-advised to analyse them in isolation. When this sage observation is applied to the human skeleton, few would fail to grasp its truth.

It becomes more complicated when one ponders something as multifarious, divisive and emotive as mass immigration. Yet if there’s one issue that demands serious, dispassionate commentary, that’s it.

After all, only about a billion people of the 7.3 billion inhabiting the world live in the West. I’m speculating here, but it’s possible that the West is where at least half of the remaining six-odd billion would like to live.

If even 10 per cent of them get their wish, the West would no longer be Western in any other than the geographical sense. Britain, Germany and France can’t each accept 100 million new arrivals, nor the US 200 million.

Thus immigration needs to be curtailed as a matter of simple arithmetic. Nor can it be regarded as a natural right, for, if it were so regarded, it would be wrong to curtail it.

The issue then boils down not to the advisability of restrictions but how, to whom and in what numbers they should be applied. That’s where all those metaphorical bones come together.

They fall into several groups, social, cultural, political and economic. Merging the first two groups together, one would have to start from a premise that doesn’t seem to be as self-evident as it should be.

Every civilised nation has its own character, which is worth keeping more or less intact. A few minor tweaks here and there are both desirable and inevitable, but a drastic change can have unpredictable and in all likelihood devastating effects.

Immigration provides one such tweak, and it’s to be welcomed as long as the tweak remains minor. Speaking of the city I know best, London, perhaps some 10 to 15 per cent of immigrant population would make it more interesting and no less English.

A major city with an entirely homogeneous population is dull in all sorts of ways. Subsumed in a population that’s 85 to 90 per cent native, the immigrants would have a great incentive to adapt, while still being able to add more spice to the city.

However, at present it’s native Englishmen who are getting subsumed. The last time I looked there were only 40 per cent of them, and the proportion is diminishing.

As a result, one can walk through the centre of London and seldom (in some areas, never) hear native English spoken. This situation is deplorable, or at least seen as such by anyone who loves England.

In some cities of the Midlands and North things are even worse. Clearly, though some immigration is good, we’ve had too much of it.

Immigration has often been promoted for nefarious political reasons, either immediate or indirect. The immediate ones have been laid bare by some mandarins and other fruits in the Blair government, such as Peter Mandelson.

They opened the door to immigration from Asia and Africa because they knew they’d be importing Labour voters. Also, by signalling the obligatory multi-culti virtue, they strengthened their support among voters who take multi-culti virtue seriously.

Their ploy is as cynical as it’s easy to understand. But they have even deeper reasons to wish to dilute the core populace.

For it’s mainly the native element that preserves and passes on the cultural, social and political traditions of a country. And modern political elites have nothing to lose and all to gain from suppressing those, for they’d never be political elites in a world where such traditions held sway.

Other political reasons are specific to the EU. That awful contrivance heavily depends on eradicating national identities, turning Europe into a melting pot and providing a model for the rest of the world to follow.

That goal too can be achieved by flooding native populations with vast groups alien, ideally hostile, to them. That explains the now notorious million Muslims hospitably accommodated in Germany over the past few years, and as many again arriving in other European countries.

This is accompanied by propaganda of the uncountable benefits conferred by new arrivals. It’s so deafening that one would expect EU members to fight one another for the privilege of attracting as many migrants as possible.

So much more surprising it is then to see that, quite the opposite, they’re trying to palm migrants off to one another. In fact, the on-going conflict between France and Italy is partly caused by France blocking the border and keeping at bay the masses huddled in Italy.

Then there’s the economy, and here all the bones really come together. Migrants are seen in some circles as a drain on national resources, and they may be just that. But not always and not everywhere.

For example, it was a chronic shortage of manpower in a booming German economy that made the country admit a huge wave of Turkish workers in the ‘60s. The German government laboured under the widely shared misapprehension that some mythical tap exists that can turn immigration on and off.

But the Turks stayed, and their number grew regardless of the fluctuating economic situation. Today there are over four million people of Turkish descent in Germany, and, in her less virile economy, they create more problems than they solve.

They tend to be less educated than other ethnic groups, the unemployment rate among them is higher than the average, and more of them receive social benefits. Nor is the problem specific to Germany and her Turks.

Such is the most visible economic aspect of immigration. Some others are less obvious.

Officially, there are 3.5 million foreigners currently employed in Britain. Since many new arrivals operate in the cash-and-carry sector of the economy, I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual number of migrants in work were twice as high.

Most of the jobs they take are manual, not to say menial, as anyone will know who has ever employed a plumber, house cleaner, a live-in nurse or a builder.

Now some 1.5 million people are listed as unemployed in Britain, most of them native-born, but that statistic is misleading. For calculated here are only those who are able and willing to work but can’t find jobs. Yet over 4,000,000 families with no pensioners derive more than half their income from welfare.

Juxtaposing these statistics, one can see that native Britons could do most of the jobs taken by migrants. Could – but won’t.

I can’t say I blame them. Why work if you don’t have to?

Sociologists will tell you that there are two possible inducements to work: survival and advancement. And of the two, the first one is much more powerful.

Our welfare state removes that strong stimulus, providing a living that would take some education and skills to better, not to mention hard work. Yet those unattractive jobs still need to be done, and it’s migrants who take up the slack.

Hence those who say it’s the welfare state that attracts migrants are right, but not necessarily the way they mean it. They’d be hard-pressed to explain why so many migrants risk life and limb trying to get to Britain from France.

Are our social benefits higher or easier to get than in France? Hardly. What’s easier to get here is work, which is a compliment to British labour laws and general economic flexibility.

Rolling back the welfare state would therefore cut immigration by the ricochet of encouraging Britons to become waiters, dish washers or even house servants, jobs they despise at the moment.

Conversely, keeping things as they are won’t stop immigration, Brexit or no Brexit. Brexit will only enable us to decide how many and what kind of immigrants to admit – not necessarily to reduce their numbers.

Such are the bare bones of a very complex problem, one that may lend itself to simple solutions, but not to simplistic ones. Because the thigh bone is indeed connected to the hip bone, and the hip bone…

A double apology is needed here.

First, to my regret I was unable to find a nicer metaphor for the EU than a snake, partly because my zoology is weak and partly because no nicer metaphor really fit.

Second, to my even greater regret, observing Manny Macron’s two-front war with Germany and Italy, I experienced a shameful and decidedly un-Christian feeling my friend Angie Merkel would describe as Schadenfreude.

Gloating at other people’s misfortunes is as disgraceful as it’s hard to resist. Especially here, for, amazing as it sounds, Manny is on the right side of the argument in both cases. Well, sort of.

First Manny got cross with Italy’s Deputy PM Luigi Di Maio. The uppity Italian had the temerity to meet Christophe Chalençon, the leader of France’s gilets jaunes protest movement and express his unwavering solidarity.

Now the gilets will have many candidates standing in the upcoming elections to the European parliament, and they’re likely to take seats from Manny’s own party.

Thus one can understand Manny’s ire over what he almost correctly perceives as Italy’s meddling in France’s internal politics.

‘Almost’ is a necessary qualifier because Di Maio really meddled in European, not French, elections. If all EU members have the same parliament, who says they have to restrict campaigning to their own countries? If populist parties from across Europe form a coalition, surely they can be expected to seek votes wherever they can find them?

Yet one can understand why Manny should feel aggrieved by this interpretation of the grand European idea. Indeed, using one of his mouthpieces, Manny thundered about “unfounded attacks and outlandish claims”.

France then recalled its ambassador to Italy, saying the situation was “unprecedented” since the end of World War Two. That gave me two shocks.

For one thing, I would have thought that the EU is such a close-knit family that exchanging diplomatic missions should be redundant in the first place. I mean, Sussex and Kent don’t send ambassadors to each other and neither do, say, Texas and Ohio.

But then appearances need to be kept up, and the outside world must be given the impression that EU members don’t yet form a single state, although they plan to do so in the near future.

That explains the ambassadors. But what about recalling the French envoy? That’s an act of a hostile foreign power, not of a warm and loving next of kin.

Now that Manny mentioned the war, for example Germany and the USSR didn’t recall their ambassadors until the shooting actually started – this even though they had known for months that war was imminent.

The thing is that, though Di Maio and Salvini, the leaders of Italy’s governing coalition, can have their arms twisted to accept EU money, they detest the EU. That feeling is naturally extended to Manny, who’s the EU’s most fanatical shill.

Actually, though they do like EU money, they’d rather it weren’t denominated in euros, a currency they not unreasonably blame for many of Europe’s troubles. Di Maio and Salvini would love to bust the euro – and Manny too while they’re at it.

After all, Manny did refer to Italy’s governing coalition as “leprosy”, which doesn’t sound to me like a term of praise. However, as someone who alternately despises and hates the EU, I’m pleased to see the second and third largest economies in the eurozone at daggers drawn.

However, if you believe Charles Dickens, accidents will happen even in the best regulated families, and few families are as tightly regulated as the EU. Yet the EU has a family within a family, and you know what that is.

Since the Germans no longer want to be Germans, but the French do, the two countries have for all intents and purposes already fulfilled the dream of forming a single state.

It may not yet be officially known as such, but, with the two countries having agreed to merge both their domestic and foreign policies, I’d say it’s as near as damn.

So one would expect the two senior members of the EU to be in agreement on most vital issues. It’s a crude parallel, but it’s fine for two brothers to exchange blows every now and then but, when Mummy and Daddy do the same thing, the integrity of the family is seriously threatened.

Transsexuality being in fashion, I dare say it’s Angie who acts as the father in this relationship, with Manny assuming the maternal role. Yet women no longer accept subservience, and Manny attacked the EU father figure with all he had.

You see, Daddy-Angie is playing footsies with Putin, who has pumped $11 billion into Nord Stream-2, the project of building two more gas pipelines to Europe.

As I argued a couple of days ago (http://www.alexanderboot.com/europes-energy-policy-is-a-gas/), this is going to increase Europe’s already worrying dependence on Gazprom, which is to say Putin.

Manny agrees, and this is the first time he and I have agreed on anything, although we come at the problem from different angles.

Manny’s angle is that most of Europe’s populist parties are on Putin’s payroll, meaning that the Russian mafia (aka government) finances bids to unseat traditional governments.

One such government is Manny’s own, and one such party is Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, formerly known as the National Front.

Understandably, Manny is trying to torpedo the project through Brussels’s good offices, while Angie is fighting back with masculine vigour.

I can’t understand those British parliamentarians who wish to remain in the midst of such squabbles, not to mention in the midst of the recession into which both economies are slipping – and pay with British sovereignty for the privilege.

If you can, I’m open to explanations. Meanwhile, let’s have fun watching the EU’s tail disappearing into its gullet.

Any social anthropologist can have a field day with the US president. And any non-American social anthropologist is likely to be perplexed.

An Englishman in particular would have a hard time squeezing Trump into the confines of a particular social class.

After all, the president grew up in a family with two generations of wealth behind him. He was educated privately and expensively, eventually getting his degree from Wharton, one of the world’s best business schools.

An Englishman of a similar background, one educated at, say, Eton and the LSE, may still be daft and uncultured. But he could be confidently expected to speak, write and dress in ways that would distinguish him from hoi-polloi.

He might say stupid things, but he’d say them in a refined accent (an Englishman of Trump’s age, that is – his son might talk differently and his grandson almost certainly would). He might write gibberish, but it would be grammatical and at times even elegant gibberish. He might dress down, but in a way that would suggest he’d be more comfortable dressed up.

By contrast, Trump talks like a man with a high school diploma at best (and not a good high school at that), writes illiterate tweets, dresses like a lout wearing his ‘will the defendant please rise’ suit accessorised with baseball caps and ties a foot too long – and in general acts in ways that belie his background.

An outsider may conclude that Trump simply puts that persona on for political gain, to come across as a man of the people. Yet no one is that good an actor.

It’s not that he cunningly pretends to be what he isn’t. It’s that he sees no reason to conceal what he is.

In that, the president acts as someone who absorbed with his mother’s milk a certain ethos peculiar to his country. He doesn’t pretend to be a transplanted Englishman. He’s a stereotypical American and proud of it.

As someone who rejects any kind of determinism, I don’t believe that national character is shared by everyone in the nation. Individual will remains free, and it can shed the shackles of any collective proclivity.

Hence, though many Frenchmen pretend to be more cultured than they are, I know some who don’t. Some Dutchmen don’t consume mountains of mediocre cheese. Some Germans have a sense of humour. Some Englishmen dislike milky tea. Some Spaniards find bull fights barbaric. Some Italians don’t pinch women’s bottoms on public transport.

However, that some people refuse to act out their national stereotypes doesn’t mean such stereotypes aren’t true to life. By and large they are, which is why they are stereotypes.

Most Americans too tend to act in ways specific to them, those they’ve been breathing in from ambient cultural air all their lives. One such has to do with class, something Americans will rarely discuss, and outlanders will often misunderstand.

Many Europeans believe that Americans are separated not dynastically and socially but only fiscally, and someone at the bottom of the social mountain can rise to the peak by getting rich. Well, yes and no.

Money by itself indeed determines an American’s social class – but only in the first generation. Once great-grandpa made his pile, each subsequent generation may acquire more of the same traits that characterise upper classes in Europe.

However, if European aristocracy typically traces its roots back to martial valour, American aristocracy does have strictly middle-class origins. And, just like a tree’s foliage that doesn’t look like its roots but is fed by them, the link between middle-class origins and upper-class status will never be severed in America.

Boston Brahmins, along with descendants of the Dutchmen who settled New Amsterdam or of the original passengers of the Mayflower may hide in their estates, speak some mid-Atlantic patois, order their wine from Bordeaux and their clothes from within 500 yards of Piccadilly.

But they’ll still function within the American ethos, if only in subtle, barely perceptible ways.

Most other Americans, including Trump, are affected by that ethos more directly, powerfully and visibly. Because of that they fall victim to a dialectical paradox springing from America’s founding ideology.

This was formed by the Protestant fundamentalism of the original settlers (coupled with hatred of apostolic confessions and the old continent where they were practised) and the Enlightenment humanism of their descendants.

The former explicitly called for the repudiation of any spiritual authority, along with any hierarchical cultural patterns deemed to be European. It promoted egalitarianism with a religious dimension.

When overlaid with the social egalitarianism of the Enlightenment, the religious dimension gradually fell off, to be relegated to the status of personal idiosyncrasy – so much is obvious. Some other developments are less so.

The newly blended egalitarianism, boosted by the Protestant work ethic, demanded an elevation of the common man to a status rarely attainable in Europe at the time. Naturally, any society seriously committed to such a goal (as opposed to merely proclaiming it) will end up governed by market transactions above all else.

As a result, vindicating the First Law of Thermodynamics, the traditional European hierarchy didn’t disappear. It merely transformed. Society remained as stratified as anywhere else, but, because it was ideologically committed to using the common man as its iconic role model, its stratification had a different basis.

That’s where the paradox came in. The use of economic activity as a social hoist required drive, hard work, entrepreneurial spirit – all highly individualistic qualities. Yet a society built around the common man demanded conformity to his cultural, intellectual and social properties.

That created both the most individualistic and the most conformist society of all. But its individualism and conformism are displayed in different spheres of life.

American economic individualism needs no illustration; it’s widely seen as the nation’s defining feature. But its stultifying conformism is as pervasive if less obvious.

For example, American speech is much more idiomatic than British. But, being common property, set expressions and stock phrases are conformist by definition. If Europeans often try to make their language more individual, Americans tend to go the opposite way.

Thus on a sweltering summer day thousands of New Yorkers will ask casual acquaintances and even strangers the same rhetorical question “Hot enough for you?”, only to get the same stock reply “It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity”.

Mandatory demotic folksiness is expected even from highly educated people, and they usually comply.

I recall that even William F. Buckley, the late pundit who possessed by far the richest vocabulary I’ve ever observed in the public arena, occasionally felt compelled to force unnecessary prole colloquialisms into his prose, sometimes to a jarring effect.

The same conformism can be seen in the way Americans dress, furnish their houses, eat and drink. (Paul Fussell covered this subject brilliantly in his book Class, written 35 years ago but still current.)

Recession to the mean occurs in every society, but only in America is it aided by an irresistible gravitational pull exerted by the country’s founding ideology and her entire history.

Donald Trump is an American in every pore of his body. Hence he grew up sensing that there’s no social price to pay for crude lexicon, bad grammar and proletarian clothes. On the contrary, there just may be a social premium to collect.

By now this isn’t his second nature; it’s his first and only, and he doesn’t have to pretend that’s the case – it is. He isn’t like Tony Blair, who comically dropped his aitches and used the glottal stop, only sometimes forgetting to do so and reverting to the speech of his class.

Trump is as close to being American upper-class as it’s possible to get without being one of the Lowells, who, as the popular ditty goes, speak only to Cabots (“and Cabots speak only to God”).

But that’s not at all like being upper class in Britain. With the compulsory ‘not every…’ disclaimer, Americans do walk a different walk and talk a different talk. Contrary to Churchill’s quip, it’s not just the common language that divides them from the British.

At least some Tory MPs understand what true conservatism is all about.

Acting on that insight, Crispin Blunt has proposed that parliamentary proceedings should no longer start with a prayer.

Parliamentary prayers, he explained, are “not compatible with a society which respects the principle of freedom of and from religion”.

As a lifelong champion of progress and secularism, I couldn’t agree more. Alas, some, mercifully few, unrepentant reactionaries agree quite a bit less. In fact, they don’t agree at all.

Their turgid arguments don’t deserve to be repeated, but I’ll mention them anyway, just to show how grossly they misunderstand the essence of today’s conservatism.

Thus they claim it would take a major constitutional shift to free Britain from the overbearing yoke of religion. They even dare to remind us that, unlike some other Anglophone countries one could mention, Britain has a state religion.

In fact, and I’m ashamed even to think of this, our reigning head of state promised on her ascent to maintain “the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel”.

Those fossils should look at the calendar. It’s 2019 now, and that oath was taken in 1953. This means that those alive at the time are now either dead or at least in possession of bus passes.

In other words, these wrinkly reactionaries are the same scoundrels who tried to derail the train of progress by voting to leave that most progressive of all political arrangements, the EU. Off to the knacker’s yard with them – or the euthanasia clinic if you’d rather.

The rest of us must march on to the beat of modernity because the dial of civilisation is reset in every new generation. In one era, out the other, that’s what I say.

Today’s vibrant, progressive generation needs no God, no Queen (we do need many queens, but that’s a separate subject) and – between you and me – no Britain, oh so self-righteous about her precious sovereignty.

Another specious argument is that parliamentary prayer has been around since 1558. But that’s precisely the reason to bin it now.

You wouldn’t drive a 1958 car, would you? No ABS, no automatic transmission, no seat belts, no GPS – who needs that piece of antiquated rubbish? Why then would you want to keep an antediluvian practice that’s 400 years older than that?

However, my good friend Crispin and I may be progressive Tories, but Tories we are. That’s why we think twice before wantonly abandoning anything.

Hence, rather than dumping parliamentary prayer out of hand, we ought to make a good fist of bringing it up to date in accordance with the progressive standards of our time.

Crispin and I have been trying to do just that, but it’s still work in progress. So we’d welcome any suggestions from our fellow progressive Tories, and proponents of other progressive beliefs too, come to think of it.

Meanwhile, this is where we’ve got so far, editing this outdated document word by word.

“Lord, the God of righteousness and truth…” It should be instantly obvious that the word ‘God’, unless implied in the acronym OMG, has no place in a modern legislature.

‘Lord’, however, can stay, provided we specify which lord we have in mind. Mandelson? Adonis? Or, if we’re after blind allegiance, Blunkett? We’re still debating that, but you catch the drift.

“… grant to our Queen and her government, to Members of Parliament and all in positions of responsibility, the guidance of your Spirit.” OMG, one doesn’t know where to begin.

But Crispin and I are sufficiently adept to turn this passage into something meaningful with just a few minor tweaks. Our current thinking is in favour of this wording: “…grant our queens in government and Parliament the guidance of the Maastricht spirit…”.

Short, to the point and no silly superstition in sight, that’s a bit of all right, as Crispin likes to say.

“May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals…” Now this is silly, not just obsolete.

Our parliamentarians wouldn’t have stood for their seats if they didn’t love power. They have, goes the new phrase around Westminster, “the convictions of their power”. Rather than the other way around, get it?

So it stands to reason that, if our MPs didn’t love power, we wouldn’t have any MPs at all, and the whole discussion would be pointless.

As to the other two phrases, Crispin and I both feel they undermine democracy. At a pinch, your representatives may have no ideals at all – in fact, as real Tories we’d prefer it. But, by definition, they can’t have unworthy ideals because, if they did, you wouldn’t have voted for them.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with the desire to please? If they don’t please you, you’ll vote them out, and they won’t be able to exercise their power.

All in all, our preferred wording is: “May they use their power to please enough voters to stay in power.” There, that’s much better.

“… but laying aside all private interests and prejudices…” Excuse me?

The whole idea of democracy is tossing all private interests into a giant cauldron and boiling them together to produce a tasty, homogeneous stew.

That delivers public good even if those private interests are stupid and subversive. A negative times a negative equals a positive, that mathematical law has never been repealed.

So our MPs’ private interests, rather than being laid aside, should take pride of place. As should their prejudices, provided they don’t include faith in the bearded chap up in the clouds, whose nonexistence has been decisively proved by Darwin, Dawkins et al.

“…keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind…” This we like, but the brief is too broad:  ‘of all EU’ makes more sense, and it also encourages us to remain, as all true Tories wish.

“… so may your kingdom come and your name be hallowed.” Whichever lord we decide to worship, be it Mandelson or any other, we certainly don’t want him to become king even if he’s already a queen.

Nor do we want his name to be hallowed, whatever that means. Hence we propose to omit this meaningless and redundant phrase altogether.

There, our parliamentary prayer is finally taking shape. It’s brave, it’s new, it’s worldly – and so, so us.

No one doubts that energy supply has a significant political component. But some countries pretend not to realise it.

Like a patient who doesn’t really care who his kidney donor is, Westerners tend to overlook not only the internal ghastliness of some suppliers but even the strategic risk they present.

Thus it wouldn’t be stretching the limits of credulity to suggest that, say, America’s close alliance with Saudi Arabia isn’t really a case of two soul mates united in their sense of values and common pursuit of goodness.

Neither is it a secret that Russia has been using hydrocarbons as a geopolitical weapon for decades. The strategy has been two-fold.

First, the Russians encourage Europe to develop addiction to Russian gas mainlined into the veins of European economies. Second, they do all they can to prevent the West from becoming self-sufficient.

This explains the febrile campaign against nuclear power the Soviets instigated, financed and more or less ran, partly through their fronts, such as the CND. Nuclear mushrooms adorned Soviet and some Western newspapers every time another nuclear power station opened.

Characteristically, it was only the West that was supposed to be at risk of such a physically impossible calamity (the uranium grade used in power stations can’t produce an explosion).

Thus, while the communist state in East Germany was densely covering the country with nuclear plants, its offshoot, the Communist Party of West Germany, was organising massive rallies against a similar development west of the border.

The purpose was transparent: to increase Europe’s dependence on Russia and its client states. In other words, the Soviets were adding oil to the fire of the Cold War.

The global campaign against nuclear power invariably reached hysterical pitch whenever a nuclear accident occurred, and Western media, not always hostile to Soviet interests, were always ready to add a helping hand.

To this day the accidents at America’s Three Mile Island and Japan’s Fukushima are described as ‘nuclear disasters’, leaving one to wonder what word would be used to describe accidents in which people actually died.

So far the only murderous nuclear disasters have occurred at Soviet power stations, proving that nuclear power is only unsafe in the hands of technologically backward, morally irresponsible regimes that have scant regard for human lives.

But in our impressionable world perception is reality and, though nuclear energy is by far the safest of all that can actually provide our energy needs, it’s being phased out. Those bogus mushrooms have had a cumulative effect.

Britain and France, which derives 75 per cent of its energy from atomic plants, are rolling back, while Germany has proudly announced that all its nuclear power stations will be shut by 2022.

Moreover, Angie Merkel, deeply sensitive to planetary concerns, is also getting rid of all the coal-powered stations, which makes inquisitive minds ask where in that case energy is going to come from. (Britain, incidentally, plans to follow suit.)

One possible answer is shale gas, of which the world in general, and the US in particular, has practically unlimited supplies. Shale gas has already turned America into a net exporter of energy, and it’s expected to keep US and Canada warm and light for another century at least.

Problem solved? Not quite. Here we’d be well-advised to dust off that old anti-nuke LP, put it on and listen to the same familiar tune.

You see, extracting shale gas involves a technique called hydraulic fracturing, fracking for short.

This technique is supposed to offend some planetary sensibilities, even though its potential for causing earthquakes and other ecological nastiness is somewhat hypothetical. What’s real is that fracking makes it possible to generate electricity at half the CO2 emissions of coal.

But when it comes to energy sources that can make the West self-sufficient, no balance sheets of pluses and minuses are kept. Such sources are held down to zero-risk standards and, since these are unattainable by definition, anti-fracking hysteria is deafening.

Instead the West is expected to reverse half a millennium of technological progress and revert to producing energy by wind, sun and water. Should we then also ditch antibiotics, while we’re at it? They too have side effects.

The old song that’s being played all over Europe brings back the anti-nuke campaigns of yesteryear, with ‘fracking’ replacing ‘nuclear’ in the refrain. And the inspiration is exactly the same: to make the West dependent on evil regimes, ideally Russia or her allies.

Russia is the world’s biggest supplier of natural gas, accounting for 35 per cent of Europe’s consumption. Yet the distribution is uneven among various EU members.

Gazprom supplies 100 per cent of Finland’s and the Baltics’ gas, 83 per cent of Hungary’s, 62 per cent of Austria’s, 57 per cent of Poland’s, 45 per cent of Germany’s and so on.

What is already a dangerous dependency will become a toxic addiction when the next two lines of the pipeline Nord Stream-2 come on stream. The immediate consequence will be an inordinate growth of Russia’s power in Europe, especially its eastern part.

That worries all Scandinavian countries, Sweden in particular, and Eastern Europe, with the possible exception of Oban’s Hungary. But it doesn’t worry Angie Merkel, making one wonder if her relationship with Putin would withstand the same scrutiny as that to which Trump is subjected.

Speaking at this year’s Davos forum, Merkel explained that, since “natural gas will play an ever-increasing role for another several decades… we’ll continue to get it from Russia… because energy must be affordable.”

Alas, affordable energy may be dear at the price. And the price in this case will be Putin’s growing power to blackmail Europe into doing his bidding – as he’s already blackmailing the Ukraine and its neighbours.

Merkel’s statement was tantamount to admitting that she doesn’t mind such a development in the least. That puts another weapon into the hands of Europe’s most wicked regime, and this weapon may well prove scarier than nuclear missiles.

Writing about the controversy surrounding the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays, the actor Mark Rylance comments:

“You have to ask, if the man from Stratford wrote the plays, how did he manage to leave not one trace during his lifetime that he was a writer or even attended school? Why has the evidence disappeared for the years he might have attended grammar school? Did the author of the Shakespeare works really never write or receive a letter? He has been subjected to the greatest literary inquiry of any author’s life, but there is nothing but the attribution of the First Folio to prove that he could write at all.”

These are all perfectly legitimate questions, and they’ve been asked even by Shakespeare’s contemporaries. In fact, I’ve read a small library of books arguing (rather convincingly) that Will Shakespeare of Stratford didn’t write the plays attributed to him and insisting on alternative candidates (somewhat less so).

Now Shakespeare is the only great writer of his time who gives rise to such speculation. Sydney, Bacon, Jonson, Marlowe, Webster – we know almost as much about them as we know about our own contemporaries.

And even if some biographical details may be uncertain, no one has ever disputed the authorship of their works. With Shakespeare, such doubts simply refuse to go away.

The reason, as the above passage shows, is that what we know about Shakespeare the man doesn’t really tally with what we know about Shakespeare the writer. The disharmony is so pronounced that researchers are compelled to delve deeper and longer into the minutiae of Shakespeare’s life and work.

Rylance, incidentally, has co-authored a book on this very subject that uses computerised textological analysis as a tool. I haven’t read the book yet, but apparently it shows strong indications of, as a minimum, collaboration between Shakespeare and Bacon, among others.

I don’t feel qualified to pass judgement on the substance of this thorny issue or especially to come down decisively on either side of the debate.

Nor can I vouch for the reliability of textological analysis in general. I do know of cases where it worked and of some others where it didn’t.

One way or another, some arguments against Shakespeare’s authorship strike me as persuasive, some less so, but all are sufficiently interesting to encourage further study.

Now regular readers of this space are familiar with my frequent lament about the all-pervasive politicisation of every aspect of life, including those that ostensibly have nothing to do with politics.

One would have hoped that a forensic effort aimed at establishing definitively the identity of probably history’s greatest playwright, and arguably its greatest writer tout court, would be spared political fisticuffs. Yet such a hope would be forlorn.

For Will Shakespeare, or whoever hid behind that pseudonym, has been recruited to man the barricades of class war. You see, the Stratfordian was a man of a rather modest social background, a glover’s son in a provincial town.

Hence, whenever anybody dares argue against his authorship, that reckless individual is instantly accused of class snobbery, a refusal to accept that ordinary people are capable of extraordinary achievement.

Such a vice shoves a stick into the wheel spokes of egalitarianism, which makes it impossible to assess the saboteur’s data and arguments on merit.

It doesn’t matter whether his case is made well or badly. What draws spittle-sputtering opprobrium is that the case should be made at all.

The old you-can’t-say-this ethos kicks in, albeit in the guise of reverential respect for an iconic personage of literary and theatrical history. The air gets thick with flying accusations of conspiracy theories, elitism, snobbery and what have you.

Such is the level of debate one observes in the academe and the press, where politicised invective and general ad hominems have become commissioned as weapons of mass instruction.

Considering the ideological bias in our universities, one isn’t particularly surprised. After all, attacking the opponent’s person rather than his ideas is a time-proven trick liberally employed by those whose own ideas can’t withstand scrutiny.

Now some 20 per cent of our faculties in the humanities self-identify as Marxists, and the likelihood is strong that another 70 per cent are so close to that end as to make no difference.

Hence, since most people professionally engaged in the humanities base their intellectual being on ideas as unsound as they are immoral, one shouldn’t be surprised that even such an innocuous subject veers into the morass of ideological nonsense.

So I’m not surprised. But I’m saddened. I suspect that Will Shakespeare, whoever he was, would be too.

After all: “Make the doors upon a woman’s wit, and it will out at the casement; shut that, and ‘twill out at the keyhole; stop that, ‘twill fly with smoke out at the chimney”. And in this case woman embraces man.

I don’t know how to explain to Trump’s critics something that shouldn’t need explaining.

So repeat after me: a bilateral treaty is only as good as bilateral compliance.

And if one side cheats, it’s to blame for the collapse of the treaty, not the other side that refuses to go on under such circumstances. Still not clear?

Fine, an analogy then. Suppose you’re playing poker against a chap who deals himself four aces from the bottom of the pack. If you then call him a cheat and walk away from the table, who’s to blame for it, you or him? Good. Glad we’ve sorted that out.

Extrapolating from there, one ought to praise President Trump for putting an end to the INF treaty banning the deployment of land-based intermediate-range missiles in Europe.

He and his Foreign Secretary Pompeo correctly point out that Russia is cheating because it has deployed just such a missile system. As a result, the US no longer considers itself bound by the terms of the INF treaty.

Unfortunate but unavoidable, I’d say. Nor can there be any conceivable doubt as to who’s to blame, right?

Well, if you think so, it means only two things. First, you have a logical mind. Second, you haven’t read the international outburst of attacks on Trump, ranging from hysterical to perfidious.

Skipping the first category, let’s focus on the second, as exemplified by Mark Almond, a regular and sympathetic guest on RT.

Writing in today’s Mail, he rues Trump’s decision that creates a situation “far scarier” than the Cold War. That’s regrettable, considering “the Kremlin’s relatively small number of mobile medium-range missiles”.

Relative to what? To the zero number of such missiles deployed by Nato? And how many of those systems does it take to wipe out every European capital, should the spirit move Putin? Well, exactly the same number Putin has already primed: relatively small.

“And in such uncertain times,” continues Dr Almond, “the proliferation of medium-range [the actual term is ‘intermediate-range’, the ‘I’ in INF, but who am I to point this out to the expert] nuclear missiles brings the risk of nuclear war that much closer…”

That’s cleverly done. Who in his right mind can possibly argue with the observation above? No one. Nor can anyone dispute the fact that the US has pulled out of INF.

But when the two statements appear side by side, they implant into the reader’s mind that it’s Trump who’s to blame for this situation. The fault lies with the player who catches the cardsharp by the hand, not with the cardsharp.

Incidentally, why is the present situation “far scarier” than the Cold War? Well, you see, “The Cold War was a neat divide between Washington and Moscow. Now there are other players in the game.”

Indeed there are, and that’s one of the truths that are so useful to throw a smokescreen over a lie. The impression one gets – is designed to get – is that the US amply justified action will encourage a free-for-all for the “other players”, such as China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and those are just the ones we know about.

But, since none of those countries is a signatory to the treaty, they are in no way constrained by its terms. Quite the opposite, by responding to Russia’s double dealing, Trump clearly hopes to replace the treaty Russia has abused with a multilateral arrangement that includes strict verification provisions.

This morning Russia made a song and dance of leaving INF too, in response to American war-mongering. However, Russia de facto left the treaty years ago by cheating – as it has cheated on every arms-limitation treaty before, SALT 1, SALT 2, you name it.

Until yesterday’s announcement, the US (and hence Nato) was the only country whose defence capability was limited by the treaty. Surely the president should be praised for trying to change that iniquity and, one hopes, make the world safer as a result?

Instead Dr Almond repeats, practically word for word, Putin’s mendacious response to the American action. But then he must have learned that language on RT.

The other day I fortuitously stumbled on a YouTube lecture by the neuroscientist Jordan Peterson and was sufficiently impressed to order a couple of his books.

Prof. Peterson has devoted his life to the study of the most impenetrable subject of all: human behaviour and factors affecting it. From what I’ve seen so far, he makes more sense – and displays more courage – than most of his colleagues.

So much more jarring it was to hear him make frequent references to Darwin, especially when using primates as a key to some aspects of human life.

There are two problems with such references: they are redundant in that they explain nothing that can’t be explained otherwise; and they are based on a defunct theory that would have been discarded at least a century ago if it weren’t so politically charged.

Prof. Peterson delivered a well-reasoned attack on tribalism that divides the world into two distinct and usually adversarial groups: us and them.

History indeed provides uncountable examples of an exaggerated sense of tribal affiliation causing no end of trouble. Clearly, mankind hasn’t heeded St Paul’s lesson on “neither Jew nor Greek”.

People seek group identification because few of us are sufficiently comfortable in our own spiritual skin. This applies to many variously pernicious groups, from the Nazis to supporters of Chelsea FC.

Prof. Peterson is amply qualified to elucidate this tendency, expressing it in the terms of his profession and drawing on reams of statistical analysis in support.

So why on earth does he need to draw a parallel between human and simian tribalism? He cites the research of the eminent primatologist Jane Goodall, who indeed provided many illuminating insights into apes and their instincts.

I have utmost respect for her work, but not when it’s used to seek insights into human behaviour. For, following St Augustine, I believe that the ape is but a ghastly caricature of a human being. (He described Satan as ‘the ape of God’.)

It’s a reminder of what will happen to us if we abuse our God-given humanity to live by nothing but instincts, however shameful, and appetites, however reprehensible. The ape, in other words, isn’t our past, but it may well be our future.

The difference on this subject between Prof. Peterson and me isn’t that I’m more intelligent (I don’t think I am) or better-educated in such matters (I know I’m not). It’s that I use a different cognitive methodology from his, and I’m prepared to argue that mine is more likely to make the world more intelligible.

In this case, he cites Jane Goodall’s finding on primate tribalism. Apparently, chimpanzees divide themselves into tribes and, should an intrepid outsider come anywhere near, they tear it to pieces.

I don’t remember Prof. Peterson’s exact words, but he used that interesting but, to me, irrelevant fact to comment on human tribalism, presumably as manifested by the Nazis and supporters of Chelsea FC (or some typological equivalent of the latter from his native Canada).

That misses the vital point. A chimpanzee’s behaviour is entirely predetermined by its biological makeup, while a man’s behaviour isn’t. A man is endowed with free will, enabling him to choose between good and evil, vice and virtue, beauty and ugliness.

In that sense a chimpanzee is closer to a plant, which too has no choice but to live out its life according to biological diktats. A man, however, may indeed choose to tear an outsider to pieces, but he may also welcome the outsider, offering him food, shelter and solace.

Yet if we accept that man is nothing but a confluence of molecules coming together over a long time as a result of some initial biochemical accident, then the parallel with chimps makes perfect sense.

It can be demonstrated that chimpanzees are microbiologically close to humans. The two share 99 per cent of their active genetic material, and the genetic distance between them is a mere 0.386.

If that were all there is to it, then chimps would be practically human, even though their intelligence demonstrably falls into the low end of the human range, the one inhabited by the likes of Jeremy Corbyn, Richard Dawkins and most supporters of Chelsea FC.

All I can say to such arguments is that it’s obviously the remaining one per cent that makes all the difference. It’s that one per cent that makes a man close to God and a chimp close to a fern.

That towering difference reduces all biological similarities between humans and apes to the level of petty atavisms of interest mainly to recondite specialists and trivia buffs.

One hopes Prof. Peterson will eventually ditch Darwin’s half-baked, long since discredited theory and its derivatives as an illustration of human behaviour. He has enough deep insights of his own not to need to venture outside Homo sapiens to explain the behaviour of Homo sapiens.

Such excursions are not only redundant and ill-advised, but they can also be harmful if politicised. And what isn’t politicised these days?

Thus we routinely talk about animal rights, forgetting the dialectical relationship between rights and duties. Since animals have no duties, they can have no rights by definition.

However, believing that man is but a more sophisticated animal makes all sorts of absurdities possible. Thus back in 1993 Princeton professor of ‘bioethics’ Peter Singer founded the GAP project, campaigning for apes to receive full human rights.

That project is still going strong, with the Spanish parliament having already acted on Singer’s prescriptions.

He himself displays the sexual power of his convictions by allowing that humans and animals can have “mutually satisfying” sexual relations because “we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes.” Therefore such sex “ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.”

This proves yet again, if any further proof is necessary, that it’s possible to build a seemingly logical structure on a false premise. There can be no valid objection to Singer’s little predilection unless we reject his presupposition of the animal nature of man.

Much as it’s probably based on a frank self-assessment, this presupposition is wrong. That’s why I’m upset when real scientists like Prof. Peterson come so dangerously close to it.