Author: Alexander Boot

My wife objects to crude similes, but this one is too accurate to resist even at the risk of incurring her opprobrium. The EU is indeed like a dog’s vulva: it locks members in and doesn’t let them get out.

That’s what more civilised pundits mean when they say that the EU provides no mechanism for exit. The Union was designed to outdo the planned lifespan of the Third Reich: an eternity rather than a paltry thousand years.

Yet the people who run this wicked organisation now openly admit that Greece has plunged it into its worst crisis ever. Roger Boyes, an intelligent commentator by the modest standards of The Times, agrees.

He fears the same thing that makes people like me rejoice: that Greece may somehow loosen the gripping EU muscles and get out, delivering a potentially lethal blow to that whole setup.

Mr Boyes doesn’t seem to realise that what afflicts the EU isn’t a curable disease but a fatal genetic disorder. But when it comes to describing both the symptoms and the likely immediate outcomes, he’s accurate enough.

If Greece left, the Balkans would be likely to slide away from the West and towards Russia, an end towards which Putin is working tirelessly.

Hence it may be in the West’s interests (brace yourself for more crudeness, a metaphor this time) to say about Greece what Lyndon Johnson once said about Edgar J. Hoover: “It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.”

And yes, Mr Boyes is absolutely right that Grexit would encourage both leftwing anti-austerity groups across southern Europe and also the populist parties, all of which Mr Boyes lumps together. I’m not sure Ukip will be happy to find itself mentioned in the same breath as, say, Front National, but some of the party’s traits do invite such a lack of discrimination.

Mr Boyes blames the current situation on the German obsession with fiscal discipline, as if it were ipso facto a bad thing. Yet both economic prudence and basic morality demand that individuals and states pay their own way, and describing this principle as austerity, especially when the term is coloured with a pejorative tint, is wrong. I’d call it economic common sense.

By insisting on it, the Germans are absolutely right in theory. How to apply the same theory to vastly disparate economies in practice is a different matter altogether, and here common sense seems to have abandoned the Germans.

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of economics could have told them that uniting the economies of Greece, Benelux, Spain, Germany, France, Portugal and so forth into a single unit is a non-starter, while imposing a single currency, in reality the deutschmark, on them is cloud-cuckoo land.

Or so it would be if the euro were just a currency. It’s not though. It’s a force supposed to keep Europe united under Germany’s sway, and in this it more closely resembles not the deutschmark but the Waffen SS.

The Waffen SS failed in its mission, and so will the euro. It’s bound to, and pretty much for the same reasons.

Angie Merkel is faced with unenviable choices. She may stick to her economic guns and force Greece out of the eurozone, which will create immediate economic chaos, and probably not just in Greece. These are exactly the troubled waters in which assorted fascists, from Putin to Le Pen, could profitably fish – Mr Boyes is right about that.

Or she could abandon her principles, which would be nothing new either for the EU or for Angie personally. After all, she had a nomenklatura position in East Germany’s Kommunistischer Jugendverband Deutschlands, which, administrative window dressing apart, meant the Stasi. And both Germany and especially France routinely exceed the statutory EU borrowing limits.

Such an aboutface would again mean giving wrong ideas to countries like Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, probably France, certainly the Eastern European members. It would also mean an honest admission that the EU is strictly a political construct having nothing to do with economics.

Such a combination of honesty and realism would be most out of keeping with Angies’s character and the very ethos of the EU. So damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t – not a good position for the aspiring pan-European gauleiter to find herself in.

Mr Boyes acknowledges this conundrum (I told you he was intelligent). What he fails to do is to offer a good way out, indeed any way out. 

This may not be good news for Roger Boyes’s journalistic integrity, but it’s excellent news for those who agree with me in my moral, political and historical assessment of the EU. There is, nor can there be, a good way out.

It’s not for nothing that I chose such a crude simile to describe this abominable construct. It deserves nothing more elegant.

    

 

   

Having grown up in a country that rivalled Nazi Germany in promoting the cult of a strong leader, I have an intuitive aversion to the notion.

The intuition is backed up by ratiocination and several decades’ worth of observation accrued in countries that are more civilised than either the Third Rome or the Third Reich.

In such countries a longing for a strong leader only appears when society is weak. Seeing the liberties they enjoy being eroded, people bizarrely hope that the situation will improve should they be blessed with a leader strong enough to take their liberties away altogether.

For make no mistake about it: taking liberties away is what strong leaders do. Such men are typically free of self-doubt: they know exactly what the people need, which is usually the opposite of what the people want.

A strong society is one that doesn’t care how strong or weak the leader is. It’s one that wants the government to be small and inconspicuous enough to get out of society’s way and let people get on with their lives.

The British used to understand this better than any other nation, but this understanding is being buried under the rubble of an imploding Western civilisation, one that used to be called Christendom.

Suddenly the British have lost their formerly sure grasp of political fundamentals. Instead of trying to nurse our ailing society back to its erstwhile strength, they call for a strong leader in the Stalin or Hitler mode.

Not by name, of course. No Tory pundit or Ukip politician has to my knowledge explicitly extolled the Führer or General Secretary. But they do so implicitly, by bemoaning our absence of a typologically similar leader.

Just look at the outburst of almost erotic love our supposedly conservative writers feel for Tsipras, who has every potential to become a communist dictator, a sort of Stalin Lite. Yes, he was democratically elected, but so was Hitler.

How would you like your elderly mother being treated by a physician who has Dr Shipman’s portrait on his office wall? My guess is you’d look for a doctor who has different objects of adulation.

Yet we hear hosannas sung to Tsipras, who only recently removed a portrait of the mass murderer Che Guevara from his office wall.

To wit, Peter Oborne, who spoiled an otherwise good article in The Mail by this conclusion: “Marxist or not… Tsipras has been patriotic and bloody-minded enough to stand up for his people against the bullies of the European Union.”

Obviously, the EU getting a bloody nose must please anyone who understands the wicked nature of that geopolitical abortion. But do let’s keep things in perspective: Tsipras lives by an evil ideology, which makes him an evil man.

His actions have coincided with our interests – just as Hitler’s attack on Russia 74 years ago coincided with our interests at the time.

Yet I doubt that even The Mail, which had been openly pro-Nazi until the Luftwaffe started pounding British cities, would have run an article saying “Nazi or not, Hitler has been patriotic and bloody-minded enough to stand up for his people against the bullies of the Soviet Union.”

Even more worrying is the widespread adoration of Putin as another ‘strong leader’ Britain so lamentably lacks. Granted, most people are ignorant about the true nature of Putin’s Russia. But even some of those who know the facts still hold the KGB colonel up as a shining example for all to follow.

Every time I refer to Putin’s regime as kleptofascist, which is exactly what it is, I get irate readers screaming back that they wish we had a strong leader to look after us as well as Putin looks after his people.

Since when have Englishmen acquired this need to be looked after by a strong, fascist-type leader? Exactly what in the 1,000-odd years of England’s political history has pre-conditioned the people to develop this perverse urge?

Putin, gentlemen, doesn’t look after his people – he is rapidly reducing them to the kind of browbeaten automata they were under Stalin. The people he does look after are himself and a dozen close cronies, billionaires like him, all proud of having served in the organisation with the blood of 60 million on its hands.

Just look at the international ratings Russia enjoys under his strong leadership. In the rule-of-law category Russia stands at Number 92 out of 97 countries rated.

In upholding fundamental rights, Russia’s rating is 82, one behind the Emirates.

Russia ranks a derisory 148^th out of 179 on freedom of the press, which is widely regarded as a guarantor of liberty. That rating places Putin’s Russia below Bangladesh, Cambodia and Burundi.

Russia is Number 127 on the corruption rating, where she finds herself in a nine-way tie with such bastions of legality as Pakistan and Gambia.

These are all telltale signs of a fascist country, while Russia’s economy shows every trait of a corrupt Third World dictatorship: a small elite enjoying nabob-style luxury thanks to its control of the natural resources, a larger, but still by Western standards tiny, middle class living half-decently, and the masses subsisting in penury.

Add to this abortion still being the dominant method of contraception, a near-catastrophic ecology, and no ill Russian with two hard-currency pennies to rub together even thinking of getting treatment in his own country, and the picture is almost complete.

A massive sewer pipeline keeps disgorging tonnes of nauseating propaganda, catering to the Russians’ historic affection for the Good Tsar, and for the moment it’s working. But since when have the English longed for the Good Tsar?

That our government is weak is the least of its problems. It’s intellectually corrupt, amoral and spivocratic. It’s also the portrait our society has in its attic, reflecting its own moral decrepitude, ignorance and soulless materialism.

This is the government we deserve, and God save us from the evil of a strong leader on top of that. As long as society remains weak, a strong leader won’t make it stronger. He’ll make it enslaved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By securing the No vote in the referendum, the Greek PM seems to have done Ukip a good turn. Nigel Farage thinks so: “The EU project is now dying. It’s fantastic to see the courage of the Greek people in the face of political and economic bullying from Brussels.”

This suggests that, should Mr Tsipras lose his job, he could be fast-tracked into Ukip leadership, perhaps as the party’s head of PR.

That tacit promise apart, the first sentence in Mr Farage’s statement combines elements of truth and wishful thinking, while the second implies a hope that the Brits will display similar courage in due course.

The EU ‘project’ isn’t dying as a result of the Greek vote. It has been moribund from its inception, like all projects based on lies.

These start from the very term ‘Europe’, which to the founders of the EU didn’t mean the whole continent and the islands just off it. It meant Germany and France.

Having been at daggers drawn throughout much of their history, the two countries found a common ground at Vichy, 1940-1944. They saw Vichy France as a promising and extendable model for the post-war settlement.

For once the Germans and the French could stop killing one another in their separate quests to dominate Europe. Instead they could join forces and divide the spoils, with Germany playing the senior partner, just as she did at Vichy.

Hence, when today’s EU functionaries lie that it’s thanks to the EU that Europe has been at peace since 1945, there’s a method to their lying. They know that Europe has had numerous conflicts and wars since 1945. And if it has avoided another major war, it’s only thanks to the Nato nuclear umbrella.

But to them Europe doesn’t include all those Serbias, Bosnias, Czechoslovakias, Hungarys or any other nations that in the post-war period have been torn apart by civil wars or foreign invasions.

Europe is strictly Germany and France, and indeed they haven’t fought lately. The relationship has worked well, with Germany pretending it’s not exactly like Vichy, and the French pretending they like it even if it is.

Because war and peace are functions of politics more than economics, this Vichy-washy relationship has been more political than economic from the start, while the active participants both lie it’s the other way around.

Germany and especially France could have healthier economies each on her own. What neither country could do on her own was to widen Vichy to most of Europe.

If the strategy came from Vichy, the tactics employed were based on the Zollverein, the customs union Prussia imposed on other German states in the 19^th century to unite them all under her aegis. This typically involved extending free or cheap loans and downright handouts.

The lure of easy money is strong, especially to people who forget that free cheese can be found only in mousetraps. That was the case in the Zollverein, and it’s the case in the EU.

However, the ability of Germany and France to bribe other nations depends on robust economic growth. This hasn’t existed for a decade or so, hence the EU’s reluctance to continue to throw more billions down the Greek bottomless pit.

But reluctance doesn’t mean refusal, and they may eventually grit their teeth and toss another hundred billion or so the Greece way – in the full knowledge that more billions will soon be needed.

Even if Greece is forced out of the eurozone, the zone won’t disintegrate instantly. True, Greece would provide an example for others to follow, but this process may take a lifetime, making Ukip triumphalism premature.

It does, however, explain the party’s fiasco in the general election. Yes, Ukip was founded on the single issue of Brexit. But people en masse won’t vote for single-issue parties, and Ukip functionaries know this.

That’s why they’ve tried to repackage Ukip as the true conservative party Britain manifestly lacks. But the election showed that the voters saw through the ploy. And Mr Farage’s reaction to Greece confirms they were right.

He clearly shares the spirit encapsulated in the 1903 slogan of the French Radical Party: Pas d’ennemis à gauche! (No enemies to the left!). In Mr Farage’s case, this means loving anyone who opposes the EU – regardless of any other considerations.

Hence his affection for the ‘strong leader’ Putin, who has managed to fuse elements of the Third Reich, Third Rome and Third World into one kleptofascist state. But as long as Putin is against the EU, Mr Farage doesn’t mind how many aggressive wars Putin launches, how many of his opponents he murders, how many billions he stashes away in his offshore accounts.

Tsipras’s government is fine with Mr Farage too, even though it is, not to cut too fine a point, communist. And in its conflict with the EU, it’s at least as culpable as the EU itself.

A human mouse doesn’t have to reach for the cheese in the mousetrap. If it does, it’s just as responsible for its own death as whoever set the trap.

The Greeks borrowed cosmic sums they had no way, indeed no desire, to repay. This runs contrary not only to business ethics but also to fundamental morals, as expressed in the Eighth Commandment. Borrowing on false pretences is theft.

The EU corrupted the Greek government with free money, and the government then passed the baton of corruption on to the whole population. Receiving without earning seduced the Greeks into habitual indolence, and that’s a hard habit to abandon.

Thieving communist and fascist states are rotten bedfellows for a party trying to position itself as conservative. Politics is a cynical business, but it has to be fettered by at least some morality to have any value.

Ukip claims it’s morally different from other parties. Nigel Farage should be careful not to show it isn’t. 

 

 

 

 

 

The argument between 120 MPs and the BBC wasn’t one between right and wrong. It was a dispute between two wrongs, two facets of political correctness.

The MPs wanted the BBC to drop the term ‘Islamic State’ because the organisation in question is neither Islamic nor a state.

Lord Hall, BBC director-general, refused, saying that an alternative term was ‘pejorative’, and its use would therefore clash with the imperative to “preserve the BBC impartiality”, for which this broadcaster is widely known within its own headquarters.

The debaters have started off on the wrong foot. They don’t seem to realise that the different hymns they are singing are printed on the same sheet.

The politically correct line, preached with equal fervour by both parties, is that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

It just might be that, in addition to the job requirement of toeing the PC line, the Tory MP Rehman Chishti, who led the 120, may have a personal interest in trying to dissociate Islamic terrorism from the religion that so clearly inspires it.

Mr Chishti himself is living proof that not all Muslims go about shooting up Tunisian beaches, cutting off people’s heads or munching on human livers. But it’s a fallacy to extrapolate that, contrary to what they say, those who do such things don’t believe they’re inspired by Islam.

It’s a common mistake not to take villains at their word. In fact, evil men are more trustworthy than good ones. Driven by a satanic force, they’re free of self-doubt, which is why they don’t mind committing their thoughts to paper.

Marx and Engels drew the blueprint of such frankness by lighting up the paths for their Bolshevik and Nazi apostles to follow. One can find it all in Marx’s and Engels’s writings: concentration camps, genocide, democide, the party state, destruction of the family, robbing people of their property – the lot.

The two villains didn’t get the chance to act on their prescriptions, but others did. And they too said in advance what they were going to do.

Lenin honestly wrote that he planned to impose on Russia the dictatorship of a small cadre of ‘professional revolutionaries’ and proceed to annihilate whole classes, professions and religions. No one took him seriously – and yet he did just that.

Hitler’s Mein Kampf described in detail how he planned to combine the solution to the Jewish problem with a conquest of territories east of Germany. Exactly the same effect here: those good Westerners took Hitler’s rants for the same journalistic hyperbole they themselves practised. Surely not, old boy, what? Oh yes.

In the same spirit, Western scribes, themselves mostly socialist, refused to hear the second word in the name of the Nazi party. Yet they called themselves National Socialists because that’s precisely what they were. In fact, the Nazi economic Four-Year Plan is barely distinguishable from Stalin’s Five-Year Plans or indeed Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Similarly, those AK-wielding Muslims honestly declare they do nothing that’s not prescribed by the Koran. Their aim, they explain, is to create a global caliphate by incremental steps, of which the first is to demoralise the West by displays of inhuman cruelty.

By refusing to take them at their word, our media, spearheaded by the BBC, mislead the public. This creates troubled waters in which our spivocratic politicians can then fish, building a duped consensus.

This makes the media aiders and abettors of the crimes Islam is committing, which are only a foretaste of those it’s planning to commit on a vaster scale. So much for the ‘Islamic’ in Isis.

As to the ‘State’ in the same designation, to Muslims a state isn’t always, and never merely, a physical and legal entity. It’s largely a metaphysical concept, uniting, or supposed to unite, all Muslims at a spiritual level. Isis has a good claim to be doing just that.

Any way you look at it, the term ‘Islamic State’ is valid. In a facetious mood, one can also suggest that the urge to kill infidels is a natural Islamic state of mind, thus adding another dimension to the designation.

As to using “pejorative” terms, Dave referred to Isis as “a poisonous death cult”, but he only said so because he propagates, and his audience accepts, the lie that Isis and Islam are unrelated. I wouldn’t use this description as a terminological alternative to Isis, but not because it’s pejorative but because it’s emotionally coloured and imprecise.

And claiming that the BBC is impartial is akin to saying that jackals are vegetarian, snakes walk upright, and Dave Cameron is a conservative.

Just a few years ago Lord Hall’s predecessor Mark Thomson admitted the BBC was guilty of a “massive Left-wing bias”. This was like the leader of a jackal pack admitting to a carnivore bias among his followers.

The BBC unfailingly comes out on the side of every dim-witted leftie cause you can name. About 95 per cent of its staff vote Labour or LibDem, which laudable uniformity isn’t achieved by accident. The corporation runs appointment advertisements exclusively in The Guardian, our leftmost broadsheet.

By insisting on being impartial to Isis, the BBC thus breaks its fine tradition of indulging in leftie propaganda unrestricted by the Royal Charter under which this broadcaster is incorporated.

But never mind the Charter – this stance isn’t only politically motivated but also profoundly immoral. Supporting good against evil isn’t partiality; it’s the fundamental duty of every moral person.

Lord Hall and Mr Chishti should kiss and make up. They must realise they are saying the same thing in different words. What they won’t realise until it’s too late is that every word they utter is a potential nail in the West’s coffin.

 

 

 

        

 

 

This observation doesn’t include things like science, technology or farming. Even a committed Israel-hater must agree that the Israelis are rather good at those things – especially as compared to their neighbours.

For example, tiny Israel boasts three times as many scientists as the world’s Muslim population of 1.6 billion combined. She also has state-of-the art industry and the kind of agriculture that makes Israel look like an oasis in the surrounding desert.

Yet none of this is what Israel is mainly known for to the readers of our ‘liberal’ press. She’s mostly mentioned in the context of the country’s ceaseless genocide of Palestinians.

Now the word genocide tends to be misused, as pointed out by the late Prof. Rummel in his excellent books Lethal Politics and Murder by Government.

Used correctly, it describes the mass murder of people who have the misfortune of belonging to an offensive ethnic or racial group. Hence, though every genocide is mass murder, not every mass murder is genocide.

For example, the extermination of 1.5 million Armenians by the Turks was genocide because being Armenian was the sole qualification for the mass grave.

Conversely, the systematic slaughter of the Soviet population by Lenin and Stalin didn’t always qualify as genocide because the Bolsheviks laudably eschewed discrimination: they wiped out whole classes and professions strictly for political gain and regardless of race or ethnicity.

Prof. Rummel introduced a useful term, democide, to describe mass murder for political reasons. However, this term is useless for my purposes here for, unwilling to argue with our press, I’m prepared to accept for the sake of argument that Israel is conducting a genocide of Palestinian Arabs solely because they are indeed Palestinian Arabs.

This brings us back to the title above. For, as a reader of mine has pointed out (thank you, Mr Thompson), if the Israelis are indeed trying to annihilate Palestinians as a group, they are grossly incompetent at it.

For example, the Burundian Tutsis armed with most rudimentary weapons managed to murder somewhere between 80,000 and 200,000 Hutus in one month, April, 1972.

The Hutus got their own back with interest in Rwanda. In just three months of 1994 they murdered about 800,000 Tutsis. Most of them were hacked to death with low-technology machetes, which testifies to the Hutus’ fitness and conditioning.

Three months. 800,000. Mostly with machetes. Do you get what I’m driving at?

The current population of the West Bank is 2.72 million. Add to this the 1.7 Arabs living in Israel, and we arrive at the overall number of 4.42 million slated for Israeli genocide. That’s only six times the number of Rwandan Tutsis hacked to death in three months.

And Israel, as The Guardian never ceases to remind us, is an aggressive nuclear power, armed to the teeth with the most advanced weaponry in His creation and single-mindedly devoted to the genocide of Palestinians.

Yet despite all that, in the 67 years (more than 800 months) that the State of Israel has been in existence, the inept Israelis haven’t been able to complete the genocide of the peace-loving, practically unarmed Palestinians. If that’s not incompetence, I don’t know what is.

An alternative, and more likely, explanation is that our press simply uses Israel as a pretext for venting its anti-Semitism.

That sort of stratagem was pioneered in the Soviet Union, where anti-Semitism was both state policy and the passion of much of the population. However, the word zhid (kike) that the people heard in their hearts couldn’t be used in the press for fear of a loan-jeopardising reaction from the West.

Hence it was replaced with sionist (almost the same word as in English), which offered endless opportunities for Pravda cartoonists to draw caricatures of swarthy hook-nosed villains with blood dripping from their fingers. Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer looked positively amateurish by comparison. Worryingly, similar cartoons have now appeared in The Times.

This isn’t to say that anyone who criticises Israel is an anti-Semite. Far from it.

Israel is neither God who’s above criticism nor Caesar’s wife who’s beyond suspicion. But when the criticism is as stupid and irrational as accusing Israel of genocide, much, if not most, of it must indeed be motivated by rank anti-Semitism.

Hardly a commendable sentiment, that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The US Supreme Court’s decision that homomarriage is a constitutional right strikes a blow against aesthetics, morality, millennia of both religious and secular history, demographics – and the very idea of a written constitution.

This ruling was predictably greeted, in the US and elsewhere, by a celebration of degeneracy sickening even by the normally abysmal standards of Gay Pride parades.

Hairy buttocks everywhere, S&M-thonged men with little boys sitting on their shoulders, tattooed women French-kissing, women looking like men because they are men, simulated sex acts turning out not to be a simulation… There’s something wrong with a state that condones that sort of thing.

A little decadence here and there is no bad thing – virtue has to co-exist dialectically with vice. If nothing else, decadence has been known to produce some good art.

But there’s a difference between decadence and degeneracy, although one could argue that the former may lead to the latter. Indeed it may. In a society with a death wish, it will. And in a West stripped of its founding tenets, it has.

In my book Democracy as a Neocon Trick I take issue with the whole constitutional arrangement in the US. As is my wont, I cite my favourite constitutional thinker Joseph de Maistre, who argued that a constitution ought to be written not on paper but in people’s hearts.

If it is, a written document is redundant. If it’s not, a written document is useless. In a way, it’s like a prenuptial agreement stipulating the frequency of sex: if you have to write it down, you might as well not bother.

Neither politicians nor judges can inscribe a constitution in people’s hearts. This can only be done by millennia of tradition going back to the founding of our civilisation. And it was founded predominantly on Christianity and Judaeo-Christian morality.

The American 1789 attempt to go against the grain of this fact has been more successful than most others, but the Supreme Court’s ruling on homomarriage shows how flawed it nevertheless is.

Even the mostly agnostic or deist Founders would have called for the men in white coats had anyone suggested that homomarriage was a right to be enshrined in the constitution.

But they drafted that Lockean document so as to make it possible for future generations to treat any kind of degeneracy as a constitutional right. Thus the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This was an admission that no written document could possibly encompass every constitutional provision – it has to leave room for expansion, reduction and consequently invalidation.

A successful commonwealth can only be propped up by the three pillars on which, according to Burke, government should rest: prejudice, which is intuitive knowledge; prescription, which is truth passed on by previous generations; and presumption, which is inference from the common experience of mankind.

Burke and the entire previous Western history acknowledged that these were animated by the divine spirit, but the Founders had no time for such outdated superstitions. Trying to improve on transcendence, they only replaced it with transience, leaving the door ajar for future social destruction.

All modern states seek to build a new social model. The specifics of what they wish to build vary, but they all agree on what they wish to destroy: all vestiges of the traditional state of Christendom.

The most important of these is the family. Therefore the modern state correctly identifies it as its competitor, and annihilation is the only way in which modernity treats competition. It’s in this context that the legalisation of homomarriage can be properly understood.

The true founding document of our civilisation, the Bible, is unequivocal on marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Genesis 2:24 was the first to lay down this commandment, which was then repeated, practically verbatim, in Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7 and Ephesians 5:31.

No civilisation either before or after the Judaeo-Christian one has ever attached as much significance to marriage and family. That’s partly why no other civilisation has even approached its greatness.

Descending from that lofty plane, we can see how destructive homomarriage is even in purely secular terms. Such as demographics: if we all married people of the same sex, the human race would die out within one generation. Any approximation to that nightmare will work towards the same goal, more slowly but as surely.

Then there’s the slippery-slope argument: if homomarriage is a constitutional right, why not a polygamous, incestuous or interspecies one?

Marriage is all about luv, isn’t it? So what about the rights of a man who loves tucking a ewe’s rear legs into his Wellies? Or a libidinous chap who has enough love for more than one wife?

Indeed a Montana man, inspired by the Supreme Court decision, has already applied for a licence to marry a second wife – and he threatens to sue the state if rejected. He has a point.

Since the USA is widely accepted as the leader of the free world, American perversions invariably spread like the HIV. We’ve already legalised homomarriage, so let’s look forward to every possible combination of legal conjugal partners reducing what’s left of our civilisation to rubble.

 

Pope Francis has declared that he plans to chew coca leaves on his forthcoming visit to Bolivia. Now I’ve heard of patronising local produce, but this just may go too far.

As a general rule of thumb, perhaps prelates should refrain from doing (or sampling) things that would make Ali G bump fists with them and say “Respect!”

I wonder whether this papal wish is coincidental, or he actually decided to visit Bolivia specifically because coca is grown there.

One can just imagine Pope Francis asking one of his cardinals, “I say, Eminence, where can one score some decent merda but without too much wallop?” “Well, Your Holiness, that depends on the kind of merda you’re after. If you want a mild high, perhaps Bolivia…” “Say no more!”

I wonder if Columbia is on the papal itinerary too and, if so, whether His Holiness will feel it his duty to try, and thereby endorse, the crop for which that great country is so justly famous.

There is of course the minor matter of chewing coca leaves being illegal in Bolivia (except for medicinal reasons), but then divine law must supersede man-made regulations. His Holiness is an earthly envoy from a kingdom that’s not of this world, meaning that it’s higher than this world. So if he wants to try some local merda, who’s to say he can’t?

And who’s to say he shouldn’t explore the rich possibilities offered by coca leaves? Granted, alkaloid cocaine makes up only about one per cent of the coca content. But it’s an easy enough matter to synthesise it and then – the sky is the limit.

Let’s not ignore the commercial opportunities either. The Pope, after all, is not only the Bishop of Rome and leader of Western Christianity. He’s also sovereign head of the Vatican City State, established by the 1929 Lateran Treaty.

Both the religion and the state are in dire need of funds and, now His Holiness has given his blessing to the mildest coca stimulant, the path is open to marketing a broad range of derivative products with a greater effect and appropriate trade names.

Vatican Snow would be bog-standard cocaine powder, whose generic name really rolls off the tongue: benzoylmethylecgonine. As mentioned before, it’s a synthesised concentrate of coca, and its effect is much more satisfying than that of chewing coca leaves au naturel. Vatican Snow is a sniffed stimulant whose excessive use can damage the nasal membrane. However, there’s no shortage of doctors who specialise in nasal restoration, so no problem there.

Papal Freebase would be produced by heating Vatican Snow with ether, which can be easily done by putting the mixture on a metal spoon and holding a lit lighter underneath. The resulting fumes can then be inhaled or smoked to add to the sum total of the world’s joy. To enhance the commercial opportunities, Papal Freebase could be marketed in a kit, also including a silver spoon, a lighter and the addresses of bail bondsmen in the area.

Ex Cathedra Crack would be obtained by crystallising Papal Freebase, a derivative of Vatican Snow. When smoked, the crystals release dopamine, which produces a feeling of euphoria that’s nothing short of divine.

Sanctified Speedball also offers promising opportunities for line extension. Since this mixture of Vatican Snow and heroin is injected intravenously, it could be packaged with a syringe, a designer belt and a venous catheter for repeated use. Chemically speaking, heroin is diamorphine, whose raw material is poppy flowers. These could be obtained in bulk on a papal visit to Afghanistan, should the pontiff decide to proselytise to Muslim infidels.

Another possibility is… Well, I shouldn’t let my morbid imagination run away with me. It’s just that reading about Pope Francis’s intention to get a mild kick from coca made me think about his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI.

How likely would you say he’d be to sample the local delights on a visit to South America? About as likely, I’d suggest, as he would be to carry on at length about the evils of capitalism, the damage it does to ‘our planet’ and the economic inequality it engenders.

The likelihood of any such actions or pronouncements in the previous papal tenure would have been exactly zero. Pope Benedict didn’t seek the kind of mass appeal that’s harvested by leftie populism. The greatest modern theologian, he was the true Vicar of Christ who understood and communicated the Word of God to those in desperate need of it.

Pope Francis, unfortunately, is cut from a different cloth, and it’s not the kind of which papal vestments should be made. The colour is wrong; it should be closer to purple than to pink.

One can only regret the Pope has missed this year’s Glastonbury Festival. But not to worry, Your Holiness: it’s an annual event. Respect!

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

London’s finest are proud of themselves: they’ve managed to shift anti-Semitic marches to be held on 4 July a few miles away from the Jewish areas.

Banning them altogether isn’t on, according to a police spokesman: “We have a duty to safeguard the right to protest, and cannot impose unreasonable restrictions upon that right. We carefully consider the use of any of our powers against the Human Rights Act.”

If ever I’ve heard a ringing denunciation of that pernicious Act, there it is.

Fine, one can understand the reluctance to “impose unreasonable restrictions” upon the right to protest against Jews. But what about reasonable restrictions?

Allegedly the marchers have issues not with Jews in general, but only with the Shomrim, the neighbourhood-watch patrols. One can understand their indignation: how dare those Jews protect themselves against pogroms?

Solzhenitsyn, the ideological twin of our British anti-Semites, had similar problems retrospectively. In his openly anti-Semitic tract 200 Years Together, he castigated the Jews who had the gall to defend themselves.

He was particularly unhappy with the Jews of Gomel who, in response to the murderous Kishinev pogrom of 1903, organised self-defence groups. When their turn came, they met the frenzied Russian mob with pistol shots, rather than flowers, which the great writer must have felt would have been more appropriate.

To febrile anti-Semitic minds, Jews just can’t win. When they meekly go to Nazi gas chambers, they are despised for not resisting. When they defend themselves, they are hated for fighting back.

Unlike the self-defence groups in Gomel, circa 1903, those in London’s Golders Green and Stamford Hill, circa 2015, go unarmed. All they do is patrol the streets and try to detain any wrongdoers until the police come.

The category of wrongdoers includes not only anti-Semitic thugs but also muggers, burglars, rapists and so forth. It’s thanks to the Shomrim that the crime rate in Stamford Hill is lower than in the rest of its borough of Hackney.

So what’s there to protest against? Silly question, really. It’s not the Shomrim that ‘protesters’ have problems with. It’s the Jews.

Yesterday the would-be protesters daubed sickening graffiti on the gates of a Jewish primary school. The text didn’t say “F*** the Shomrim”. It said “F*** the Jews”, broadening the message to cover the world’s entire Jewish population, which has just managed to reach the pre-Holocaust level.

Incidentally, this school shares its playground with a Muslim free school, although one can’t readily see how the words ‘Muslim’ and ‘free’ belong in the same designation.

On the same day, a ‘protester’ wielding an axe smashed the windows of a car parked outside a synagogue in the same area. Unfortunately there were no members of the Shomrim in the vicinity.

One of the organisers of the rallies the Met are powerless to stop explained on his blog what the protests are really about. He called for the participants to destroy Israeli flags – by hand, for burning them is against the law. It’s good to see that our fascists are so mindful of legal niceties.

He also advertised a “private ceremony” to take place just before the rally, in which Jewish scriptural texts will be burned. And there I was, unaware that those texts were all about the Shomrim in Golders Green and Stamford Hill.

Long live freedom, in other words. Yet, as I never tire of repeating, freedom isn’t a suicide pact. If untrammelled by discipline, it can drag the whole society into a putrid anarchic swamp, throwing up all sorts of creepy-crawlies.

One could argue that constitutional protection must not be extended to those who aim to undermine the constitution. It’s not only Jewish areas but society at large that has the right – nay, the duty – to protect itself from fascists, communists, fans of UK Sharia and all those who abuse the rights of Englishmen in order eventually to deprive Englishmen of those rights.

One has to observe also that our police display varying degrees of zeal when protecting the people’s right to protest. Would they be as understanding about a march protesting against the Islamisation of Britain, homomarriage, abortion on demand? Somehow one doubts that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a lifetime champion of political correctness, I’m deeply offended by the flagrant sexism of Wimbledon officials.

We all know that treating the sexes equally is the cornerstone of modern morality. What other cornerstone can there be anyway? The Decalogue? The Sermon on the Mount? If you think that, wake up and smell modernity.

In that – unassailable! – spirit, men and women get equal prize money at Wimbledon and other majors, even though this clashes with many time-honoured practices.

Such as equal pay for equal work: men with their five-set matches spend almost twice as long on court. Also, at the risk of sounding unchivalrous, some women players look a bit… well, what’s the kind word… Rubenesque.

Thus they clearly don’t spend as much time not only playing but also training, which is additionally proved by the technical problems most of them have. There’s no physiological reason why women can’t, say, kick their second serves the way men do, yet very few are capable of it. And don’t get me started on women’s volleying.

All things considered, the women get paid more than twice as much per hour, without being as good, which offends the champion of equality in me.

But I’m willing to dismiss such crass arguments as irrelevant. As a religious man, I believe that equal pay has nothing to do with equal work. Women players are entitled to equal pay because their activists say so, and it was the Word that was in the beginning.

What does strike me as odd is that Wimbledon officials have introduced clearly discriminatory – sexist! – measures. Because this week is rather hot, they’ve decreed that a cooling-off period of 10 minutes should take place between the second and third sets whenever the heat-stress index (combination of air temperature, surface temperature and humidity) exceeds 30.1C.

Now yesterday, over my wife’s objections, I played for a couple of hours when air temperature alone was over that cut-off point, and I can testify that it wasn’t easy. My partner and I split the first two sets and agreed not to play a third, a luxury that professionals can’t afford.

Yet I’m old, overweight and dipsomaniac, which presumably none of the Wimbledon competitors are. One would think that trained athletes can endure a bit of hot weather, but I’m willing to allow that they put more effort behind their tennis than I do.

Fair enough, we don’t want players to keel over and die of heat stroke or cardiac arrest. So by all means, do let’s have a cooling-off period, the same one for all the players.

However, and this is where I get confused, the Wimbledon officials have decided that only the women need to cool off before playing the third, and for them last, set. The men can play five straight sets, sometimes lasting over six hours or even longer, without such annoying interruptions.

Yet men are statistically more prone to cardiac problems, and every once in a while male footballers, to name a different sport, collapse and die while playing, something women don’t do.

So are the men at Wimbledon so much fitter than the women that they don’t need a break to play twice as long in deadly heat? And if so, isn’t that a tacit admission that the men train harder, which brings us back to the issue of equal pay?

Let me tell you, tennis madness isn’t just about loving the game. It’s also a medical condition afflicting those who run the game or write about it.

The other day, for example, a tennis correspondent for one of our broadsheets opined that “Serena Williams is the best player, male or female, in the tournament.”

This isn’t just stupidity and ignorance – no one who has ever watched, never mind played, a tennis match can be that stupid and ignorant. It’s a psychiatric disorder.

A sane observer would know that any decent male county player in Britain (or an American college player) – never mind professionals playing at Wimbledon – could wipe the court with Serena without breaking a sweat.

And even those who know nothing about tennis can’t fail to see that all four of Serena’s limbs each go their own way at the completion of her strokes, while the men’s limbs all move in compact synch. This means she has technical problems, which she overcomes only by sheer muscular strength.

That’s why she’s perhaps more favoured to win the tournament than any other male or female player, which is probably what the hapless hack wanted to say. But what he actually did say proves that tennis madness is a real disease reaching pandemic proportions.

On a personal note, I’m supposed to play a tournament match tomorrow, when the temperature where I am will hit 41C. My wife told me I could only do so over her dead body, and I’m still weighing my options.    

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dave’s reaction to the Tunisian massacre proves yet again that he isn’t human in any other than the purely technical sense. Oh, he has all the requisite body parts, and one may even claim with some anatomical accuracy that he has a brain.

Yet possessing a brain isn’t a uniquely human characteristic. The manner of using it is, and that’s where Dave shows his extra-human nature, proving he belongs to Homo politicus, not Homo sapiens.

Central to Dave’s species is the oft-professed belief that all groups of people, be they ethnic, racial, professional, sexual or religious, aren’t just equal but for all practical purposes identical. Thus if members of one group consistently act in ways that separate them from all others, this must by no means be explained by their collective identity.

Hence Dave’s response to the Tunisian massacre: “Such terror attacks can happen everywhere.” Quite. Everywhere where there are Muslims.

Since 9/11, Muslims have been committing murderous terrorist attacks at the rate of five a day, including only the life-taking assaults whose perpetrators self-admittedly act out of religious duty.

In 2014 the BBC calculated that in the single month of November Muslims carried out 664 attacks resulting in 5,042 deaths. Yet, in spite of the shrieks of Allahu akbar! accompanying many of these and thousands of other crimes, Dave refuses to take the Muslims at their own word.

The terrorists may think they understand Islam, he effectively says, but they don’t. Dave does. True Islam “is a religion of peace”. This mantra originated by Dubya has become de rigueur for Homo politicus, and Dave feels duty-bound to repeat it every time Muslims prove exactly the opposite.

Surely Dave’s understanding of Islam isn’t based on its founder’s CV? For Mohammed’s first act after moving from Mecca to Medina was to murder hundreds of Jews with his own hand. This is how Mohammed’s earliest Muslim biographer describes this 627 AD event:

“When [the Jewish Qurayza tribe] surrendered, the Prophet confined them in Medina… Then he sent for them and struck off their heads… as they were brought out to him in batches… There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900…”

Mohammed also dictated over 100 scriptural verses explicitly calling for killing infidels and, say what you will about the Muslims, unlike us they follow their commandments religiously, as it were.

No human being could possibly argue Islam’s peaceful nature in the cosmically moronic way of Dave and his ilk. Relatively few Muslims, they say, strap explosives to their bodies or spray bystanders with bullets. That’s God’s own truth.

But using the same Homo politicus logic, one could also insist that racism is an ideology of peace – after all, few racists, including those living in Charleston, South Carolina, shoot up black churches.

Dave’s suspect biological origin wouldn’t be worth discussing if his extraterrestrial drivel didn’t compromise our ability to prevent the religion of peace from committing further such crimes.

While Dave strikes lachrymose poses and claims that what passes for his heart “goes out to the victims and their families”, the National Crime Agency warns that Muslims are working hand-in-glove with organised crime to smuggle hundreds of automatic weapons into Britain.    

Most of them are Czech-made Skorpion SMGs, vindicating Dave’s other humanoid belief in the valuable contribution Eastern European immigrants make to British culture.

The only way to prevent those Skorpions from firing is to stop indulging in word games based on the nonexistent semantic distinctions between ‘Islamic’ and ‘Islamist’.

If we really had a human, as opposed to humanoid, PM, he’d be announcing that he’s instructing our police to treat every young Muslim as a potential mass murderer.

“The first duty of the government is to protect its people,” a human being would be saying. “Such measures would never be introduced in peacetime. Yet we aren’t at peacetime. We’re at war with the deadly cult of Islam, at present especially impassioned and dangerous.”

Alas, we haven’t got a Homos sapiens governing us. We have a specimen of Homo politicus in charge, so let’s brace ourselves for blood flowing in our streets.