Blog

“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul…,” quotes St Matthew, and I happily comply.

Covid is a mass killer of bodies, but it can’t slay the soul of our civilisation, what little is left of it. Yet a feebleminded US president with woke instincts functioning in lieu of his brain can go Covid one better.

If a strong America makes enemies of the West run scared, a weak America has the same effect on its friends. And they have every reason to be afraid.

The Internet is abuzz with videos making viewers first laugh and then, after some deliberation, cry. But I’m not going to cite any visible and audible signs of Biden’s incipient dementia, his numerous gaffes and slips. Just look at Biden’s actions, not his incoherent speeches or pathetic pratfalls.

When an intellect is weak to begin with and further impaired by some mental disorder, the man can still function on instincts alone. And Biden’s are all woke and therefore subversive.

On Wednesday, he tried to lean on Netanyahu to “deescalate” Israel’s self-defence against Hamas terrorism by end of play. No similar pressure was applied on the terrorists, and not just because they tend to be rather truculent.

Biden’s woke instincts make him reach out tropistically for any anti-Western cause, especially if championed by those he sees as the downtrodden masses of the Third World. Israel is America’s only reliable ally in the Middle East, but she isn’t Biden’s ally, not emotionally at any rate.

Also, though I haven’t come across any visible signs of anti-Semitism in his pronouncements (other than the odd slip of the tongue, such as referring to bankers as ‘Shylocks’), I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden harboured such sentiments. They are part and parcel of his kind of worldview, certainly among woke gentiles.

One way or the other, Biden has been busily overturning Trump’s pro-Israeli policies. Thus he has reinstated financial aid to the Palestinians (meaning Hamas) that Trump cut off. And, more dangerous, Biden has renewed the nuclear deal with Iran that Trump shelved.

This effectively clears the path for the ayatollahs to acquire nuclear arms, and you get no prizes for guessing which country they’ll first threaten with such weapons. The Israelis, who to a great extent depend on America’s support for their survival, have every reason to be afraid.

And not just the Israelis. America’s allies in Eastern Europe, especially the Ukraine, also feel betrayed. Biden’s administration has announced it will waive sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, the German company overseeing the construction of Russia’s gas pipeline bypassing the Ukraine.

The company’s CEO is Matthias Warnig, a career Stasi officer and Putin’s loyal poodle, who sits on the boards of several Russian oil companies. When completed, Nord Stream 2 will further increase Europe’s dependence on Russia’s gas, thereby strengthening Putin’s hold on power and hence his capacity to escalate his hybrid war on the West.

While busily undermining America’s allies strategically, Biden has also pushed the button on the delayed-action inflationary bomb ticking away under their economies.

In his memoirs Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, recalls a lecture by Prof. Arthur Burns of Columbia University: “Burns… went around the room asking, ‘What causes inflation?’ None of us could give him an answer. Prof. Burns… declared, ‘Excess government spending causes inflation!’ ”

Put a different way, governments with socialist leanings cause inflation because they can’t control their rapacious spending instincts. It doesn’t take an economics professor to know that Biden’s plans to spend over $6 trillion are likely to tip inflation over the edge.

Nor is this just a theory either. In April, the US rate of inflation jumped from 2.6 per cent to 4.2 per cent, the highest level since the 2008 crisis. And, partly because world economies are pegged to the dollar, our inflation rate has also doubled.

Since most Western governments haven’t paid their way since God was young, that bomb was already primed when Biden took over. But his socialist instincts may well hasten an explosion.

The blast would be devastating on many different levels. Savers and mortgage holders would be hit hard, with shards of bankruptcies and foreclosures flying in every direction. Companies and entrepreneurs seeking financing may find they can’t afford it. And countries with high sovereign debts, such as the US and Britain, will find it impossible to service them. I don’t want to come across as a doomsayer, but we all know what happens when governments default on their loans.

Every time Biden opens his mouth or announces a new policy, I feel like echoing that 1920s American journalist and shouting: “Say it ain’t so, Joe!”. But it usually is, and I grow more and more scared.

The slogan of the more objectionable groups during the French Revolution was pas d’ennemis à gauche (no enemies on the Left).

One can discern echoes of that left-wing solidarity in today’s West, and you can prove this experimentally. All it takes is a single question posed to your average Westerner (not a Muslim): “Who do you think is the aggressor, Israel or the Palestinians?”

If the reply is “Israel”, one can confidently deduce the person’s position on any other issue, from transsexuality to progressive taxation, from open borders to secularisation, from comprehensive education to nationalised medicine.

Since such solidarity cuts across many parties – Labour, Socialist (Democratic, Christian or neat), Liberal, Green, Communist and so forth — whose manifestos may be quite different, one has to feel disappointed in the existing political taxonomy.

Its nomenclatures are clearly inadequate in conveying political convictions – unless you are willing to argue that, say, our Liberal Democratic Party is indeed liberal and democratic.

Since real conservatives stress the individual over the collective, they only add to the confusion by fracturing concepts even further. Our ‘liberal’ press deepens it by tarring, say, Thatcher and Hitler with the same ‘extreme right-wing’ brush.

That’s why in my book How the West Was Lost I instead proposed dividing Western people into two broad categories. Rather than Left and Right, I suggested ‘Westman’ and ‘Modman’.

A Westman feels profound kinship with our civilisation, its religion, culture, philosophy and traditional political forms. A Modman may enjoy some of the fruits of Western civilisation, but he is alien, or often hostile, to its traditional core.

This classification overlaps with the Right-Left divide only partly. Just about everybody on the Left is a Modman, but far from everybody on the Right is a Westman.

That’s why I can’t feel solidarity with everyone perceived as right-wing, even if we may share some convictions. Nor can I adapt the revolutionary slogan to say pas d’ennemis à droite. Calling those I disagree with my enemies would be too strong, but neither can I see them as allies.

Edwin Poots, the new leader of Ulster’s Democratic Unionist Party, is a case in point. I’d describe him as a man after my own heart. However, this is one of many cases where my heart is somewhat in conflict with my head.

‘Somewhat’ is the operative word here because both my heart and head are in agreement on some of Mr Poots’s cherished beliefs.

He wishes to preserve the United Kingdom intact – so do I. He is a Christian – so am I. He supported the Christian bakers who refused to make a wedding cake for two LGBT activists – so did I. He is opposed to Northern Ireland effectively staying in the European Customs Union – so am I. He has problems with Darwin’s theory – so do I.

However, some of his other beliefs give those good causes a bad name. Most of them spring from his religion, which is sectarian Protestant with an accent on biblical literalism.

Atheists who insist that the Bible must be accepted literally or not at all do so because they hate Christianity. Christians who insist on the same thing do so because they are thick or, at best, ignorant.

They expose themselves and, more important, Christianity to ridicule. Thus Mr Poots argues against Darwin and his cheerleaders, such as Richard Dawkins, from the platform of biblical literalism. That makes their inane statements sound clever by comparison.

Even if Darwin’s theory were a scientific fact, which it isn’t, it wouldn’t invalidate Genesis. Since God is outside time, few biblical references to years, months or days are precise chronology. Hence the six days in which the Earth was created fall into the realm of poetic imagery, the dominant literary idiom in use when the Bible was written.

It might indeed have been six days, or it might have been six billion years: God, being omnipotent, is capable of creating things slowly as well as quickly. In any case, Darwin never got around to explaining how species came into being in the first place.

After all, before things evolve, they have to be. All this talk about primordial soups spinning out a single cell out of which Bach and Einstein popped like chicks out of an egg is nothing but fanciful pseudo-scientific speculation. It has more to do with sci-fi than serious science.

The only reason Darwin’s slapdash theory has become orthodoxy is its subversive political impact, not its scientific rigour. The emerging Modman desperately needed something like that to drive the last nail into Westman’s coffin. To him, everything had to have a materialist explanation, and Darwin’s Descent of Man did nicely as a biological companion to Marxism.

The way to argue against the likes of Dawkins – an unsporting undertaking, actually – is by pointing out the gaping holes in Darwin’s intellectual trousers. The disciplines to be invoked are molecular biology, palaeontology, physics, chemistry, logic, philosophy, history etc.

Mr Poots’s arguments, on the other hand, make even Dawkins sound bright. He denies that the Earth is old enough for evolution to have taken place. “My view on the Earth,” says Mr Poots, “is that it’s a young Earth. My view is [it was created] in 4000 BC.”

That’s akin to insisting that the Earth is a flat plate resting on the backs of three giant whales. Some civilisations pre-date Mr Poots’s chosen date by quite a bit. Mesopotamia, for example, goes back to 6500 BC. But that’s not even the point.

Science is vague on how the Earth came into existence, but not when. Radiometric dating puts its age at about 4.5 billion years, give or take 100 million or so. Arguing against radiometric dating is next to impossible for even an enlightened amateur, which Mr Poots demonstrably isn’t. As to his dating the Earth from 4000 BC, that’s simply bonkers.

When Mr Poots was a culture minister, a Modman interviewer feigned disbelief: “You’re the culture minister and you don’t believe in evolution?”

If you want to know how I’d answer this question, type ‘Darwin’ into the SEARCH rubric on my blog, and you’ll find several pieces I’ve written on the subject over the years. This is how Mr Poots answered it: “Yes, absolutely. And you’re telling me that all of this evolution took place over billions of years, and yet it’s only in the last few thousand years that Man could actually learn to write?”

First, no one says that Homo sapiens appeared billions of years ago. His age in measured in thousands of years, not billions. Second, being able to write isn’t a defining characteristic of man.

There are many people, such as many of our comprehensively educated youngsters, who are undeniably human and yet can’t write. Large ethnic groups existing even today are illiterate. Many peoples in the north of Russia, for example, manage to survive without literacy or their own alphabet, as do some in and around Australia. That the Sumerians first began writing in cuneiform around 3,400 BC in no way proves that neither they nor the Earth had existed before that date.

I know that some of my conservative friends may disagree, but I feel that, with friends like Mr Poots, who needs enemies? A thick ally is more dangerous than an intelligent adversary.

No enemies on the Right? Not on your nelly.

“Wokers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your minds.”

This version of the popular slogan should now adorn Prince Harry’s coat of arms. Gone is the boozing party-goer occasionally donning a Nazi uniform. No more is the dashing officer, Captain Windsor.

Squeezing into the hole they’ve vacated is a woke, emotionally incontinent Californian lad, spouting psychobabble with the fluency of a paid-up member of the Screen Actors Guild.

What I find amazing is that serious people try to come to terms with Harry’s metamorphosis by descending to his level. Taking their cue from his voracious appetite for self-denuding, they delve into the subterranean depositories of psychological complexity, trying to pinpoint the tectonic shift that tipped Harry over the edge.

Take your Occam’s razor out of its sheath, chaps. Look for simple answers first – most questions can be settled that way. Harry may be complicated, but he certainly isn’t complex. There’s nothing about him that’s hard to understand.

This reminds me of a story told in her memoirs by Nadezhda Mandelstam, the widow of the sublime poet murdered by the Soviets. “We were wondering,” she wrote, “why N. says so many stupid things. But then we remembered he is a stupid man and stopped wondering.”

This is the key to the enigma that is Harry. He is an extremely stupid man.

Alas, something about us resists arriving at this conclusion whenever we hear people mouthing nonsense. We look for more involved explanations, usually those of a psychological nature. Or else we ascribe their failings to an educational lapse. If only they had read more books, they’d be as intelligent as anyone.

No, they wouldn’t. They’d only become a worse kind of idiot, a well-read one.

I don’t know what Harry’s IQ is, but I’m willing to bet it doesn’t reach three digits. Approximately half of all people reside in the same band, below the median IQ of about 100.

An interesting datum: the US army accepts no recruits with an IQ of 73 or lower – this even though it badly needs more personnel. The assumption, probably a correct one, is that those cursed with such low intelligence can’t be trained to function in any productive capacity.

That disqualifies about 10 per cent of all people. Just think: one in every 10 people you meet is too stupid to be even an infantry grunt. A harrowing thought, that.

Harry served in the British army, and I don’t know what its minimum IQ requirement is. Whatever it is, Captain Windsor must have shaded it. I doubt though that he overshot it by a wide margin.

Granted, IQ measures not intelligence, but the potential for developing it. Someone with an IQ of 120 may have realised 100 per cent of that potential, which would make him smarter than someone who has only utilised half his IQ of 140. Yet such qualifications only come into play with IQs that are average or above. Someone with an IQ of, say, 90 won’t become intelligent no matter how fully he explores his potential.

IQ measures problem-solving intelligence, which in practical life translates into an ability to think for oneself, to make correct decisions affecting one’s life. Hence it must take a high IQ to become a really good officer.

However, observation suggests that some, perhaps most, soldiers can coast on relatively low intelligence, at least until they are thrust into a situation that calls for instant life-or-death decisions. This stands to reason: much of the discipline that a civilian must find within himself is imposed from without in the army.

Even basic decisions, such as when to go to bed and get up, when and where to get one’s meals, what to do throughout the day and often what to say, are routinely made by one’s superiors. That’s why so many soldiers, even very bright ones, find transition to civilian life so hard: all of a sudden, they have to make every decision by themselves.

And if a soldier isn’t especially clever to begin with, he may look for a surrogate discipline, some other source of ready-made formulas determining his actions and pronouncements. This partly explains the ease with which Harry has adopted wokery – it’s an instant how-to guide, a compendium of simple solutions, glib explanations and made-up pieties.

A conscientious woker needn’t be intelligent – in fact, intelligence would prevent him from woking hard. The entire complexity of life can be instantly explained by invoking some sort of injustice, racial, economic, social or, for that matter, psychological. Childhood traumas are particularly productive: they can justify any dysfunction, with the extra benefit of making one look interesting in the eyes of one’s fellow wokers.

Harry’s wife acts as a sort of superior officer, a conduit for the external discipline to be internalised. When she speaks, Harry snaps to attention and salutes, if only inwardly. He knows authority when he sees it, and authority is what he craves.

One endearing quality of stupid people is that they don’t realise they are stupid. That’s why they blithely say things that an intelligent person wouldn’t utter on pain of disembowelment.

Harry is a case in point. The other day he perplexed even his American fans by admitting he can’t get his head around the First Amendment. “I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time,” Harry said.

Now what part of it doesn’t he understand? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This text wouldn’t challenge a person of even average intelligence, a level Harry manifestly can’t reach. The British Constitution, uncodified in a single document, does require some grounding in history and political philosophy to understand properly. The US constitution, on the other hand, can be easily understood by any literate person.

It’s not without its intricacies, and it takes a trained legal mind to work them out. But anyone who can read should be able to understand the Constitution on a basic, everyday level. Well, apparently not anyone.

Whether or not he returns to the royal fold, Harry will never want for anything material. But I fear for his sanity when he realises he is no longer the flavour of the month in America. And that month is drawing to an end.  

P.S. Road sign in West London: “Hammersmith Bridge is closed to traffic. Please choose an alternate route.” Doesn’t London’s government employ anyone who knows the difference between ‘alternate’ and ‘alternative’? Apparently not. But then, considering who heads it…

As founder, president and so far the only member of the Charles Martel Society for Diversity, I’m happy to see that London is making giant strides towards multiculturalism.

Yesterday a convoy of cars tastefully decorated with Palestinian flags drove through the Jewish areas of North London. Defying the naysayers who claim Muslims can’t be properly integrated, the drivers and passengers displayed an impeccable command of colloquial English.

They were yelling: “Fuck Jews… Fuck their mothers, fuck their daughters and show your support for Palestine. Rape their daughters and we send a message like that. Please do it for the poor children in Gaza.”

Given my lifelong commitment to diversity, I see this drive-by as proof that we can’t be locked in our shell of white supremacy. Immigrants, the more the merrier, enrich our lives by adding new sparkling facets to the diamond that is Britain.

Where the immigrants are from, what they believe and how they feel about the ambient civilisation is immaterial. We can all improve as persons by learning more about other cultures, especially those whose religion and philosophy of life may be different from ours.

Looking at the case in point, I’ve learned that raping Jewish girls in St John’s Wood, Finchley and Golders Green will alleviate the problems of the poor children in Gaza. I’m not sure about the exact mechanism of this interaction, but then I did tell you we don’t know enough about other cultures.

That I don’t understand the intricacies of interracial relationships, such as punitive rape, doesn’t mean that the chaps in those cars don’t either. They must have insights beyond the reach of white people, especially Jews and Christians, and that’s exactly why we need diversity.

However, humbled as I am to realise the depth of my ignorance, there is another thing I don’t understand. There I was, thinking that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism were two different things. Being opposed to Israel is one thing, hating Jews is another.

Now, thanks to those Muslim chaps, I’ve learned they are one and the same. Even though half of the world’s Jews live outside Israel, they are directly responsible for the actions of the other half. And even if Israel were to disappear, as the Muslims dearly hope, and all Jews lived in the diaspora, they’d still be held responsible for something or other.

What warms the cockles of my multicultural heart is how all progressive people are united in their hatred of Israel. And the more progressive they are, the more they hate it. This stands to reason. After all, hatred – of the West, Christianity, capitalism, white people, you name it – is the prime mover of progress.

Greta Thunberg, for example, has forayed outside her sphere of abiding interest to say that both sides should desist from violence. Transposing that statement to North London, those Muslim lads should try not to rape Jewish girls but, if they can’t help themselves, the girls shouldn’t scratch and bite the lads. Equity all around.

In a parallel development vindicating diversity, two Muslims attacked a rabbi near his Essex synagogue, putting him into hospital. A soothing message sent by the congregation to its members explains – irrefutably! – that: “From the description of how the incident started, it does not, at this point appear to be an antisemitic attack.”

Of course not, perish the thought. Neither, one has to add for the sake of balance, was it philo-Semitic. It was yet another blow (actually, quite a few blows) struck for diversity, a concept so dear to every progressive heart. 

However, one has to admit with chagrin that Essex police described the incident in less conciliatory terms: “It is believed that two teenagers stepped out in front of the victim’s vehicle whilst he was driving, they shouted at him and spoke in a derogatory way about his religion before going on to damage his car…” … and then the driver.

I’m happy to see that even those capitalist hirings didn’t claim the assault was racially motivated. There is no place for racism in our society, and this incident proves it.

Hostility to religion, on the other hand, is commendable – provided the religion is Judaism or Christianity. Hostility to Islam is racism; hostility to the two offensive creeds is either progress or diversity, take your pick. Actually, you don’t have to choose: progress and diversity are inseparable.

Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian demonstrations are continuing in London and throughout the countries of the erstwhile Christian persuasion. They assert the Allah-given right of those eternal refugees to respond to the eviction of three Arab families in the West Bank by firing thousands of rockets at Israel’s residential quarters.

Since the reaction seems to be out of proportion to the action, one has to believe that the said eviction wasn’t so much the reason as the pretext. After all, those thousands of rockets are like Rome – they weren’t built in a day. They were built and stored over months, with those eternal refugees waiting for yet another affront to multiculturalism to let the missiles fly.

Typically, the demonstrators deny – justly! – the right of Israel to respond in kind in an attempt to defend its people against the march of progress. Raping those Finchley girls would be a natural extension of that noble campaign, as a simulacrum of what the Muslims and other progressives would like to do to Israel and then to the West at large.

Those Muslim lads are right: wholesale rape would indeed send a message, if perhaps different from the one intended. Long live diversity, I say.

Evil, as personified by 150,000 anti-Western, anti-Semitic zealots, attacked decency yesterday. One of London’s best neighbourhoods was overrun, paying for its sin of housing the Israeli embassy.

Pro-Hamas fanatics led by Jeremy Corbyn staged an obscene show organised by various Muslim groups and our own Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, that KGB front of long standing.

Since Russia has been the only country to use radioactive weapons since 1945, when Putin’s agents poisoned Litvinenko with polonium in 2006, it wasn’t immediately obvious exactly what was the CND’s dog in the on-going fight. But all subversive causes and organisations are united.

For example, as the footballers ‘took the knee’ before a match the other day, the commentator said that was a gesture of protest against “inequality and social injustice”. I thought it was only racism that called for genuflection, but never mind the cause – feel the animus against the West.

As the Met tried in vain to disperse the largely Muslim crowd, missiles were thrown, and nine police officers were injured.

According to Jeremy Corbyn, under whose inspiring leadership the Labour Party no longer bothered to conceal its anti-Semitism, that was a way of showing “succour, comfort and support” for Hamas. Israel, which is being attacked with thousands of rockets aimed at the residential areas of its cities clearly doesn’t qualify for any such sympathy.

Boris Johnson called for both sides to “step back from the brink” and “show restraint”. That leaves me, for one, happy that his idol Churchill didn’t display the same even-handedness when Luftwaffe bombs rained on London the way Hamas rockets are raining on Tel Aviv.

The Met arrested 13 people in all, four of them for breaching the Health Protection Regulations. If the cops felt the kaffiyeh offered insufficient defence against Covid, they should have arrested Corbyn too who wasn’t wearing even such a flimsy barrier to the contagion.

As to the scaling of buildings, climbing on traffic lights and the gates of Kensington Palace, setting off fireworks and smoke bombs, and trying to smash the gate leading to Kensington Garden Road (aka Embassy Row), those peccadilloes were no grounds for arrest. They didn’t kill anyone, did they? So the demonstration was wholesomely peaceful.

Identical actions paralysed other cities in Britain and elsewhere. Since competence is laudable wherever it’s found, one must compliment the organisers for their skill at coordinating international mayhem. If only those Palestinian darlings displayed similar proficiency at creating a decent life for themselves, perhaps they wouldn’t stay so downtrodden for three generations.

As it is, while the Israelis have turned an arid desert into a blossoming garden, those eternal refugees are doing exactly the opposite on their side of the fence. Hatred of Jews is a time-honoured emotion, but it’s useless when it comes to any productive activity.

Meanwhile, Israeli bombardment brought down the office tower in Gaza that houses Al Jazeera and the AP news agency, among other media outlets.

According to a spokesman for the Israeli Defence Forces, “The building contained civilian media offices, which the Hamas terror organization hides behind and uses as human shields. The Hamas terror organisation deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip.”

The agencies affected outrage, saying that only sheer luck prevented fatalities among journalists. They neglected to mention that luck was augmented by the warning the IDF had issued an hour before the strike.

No such warnings come from Hamas whose rockets, fired from behind schools, hospitals, residential and office buildings, are killing, as they are supposed to, Israeli civilians.

Yet no international protests are heard, no one tries to storm the missions of Arab countries or the Palestinian representatives. And only an American veto has prevented the UN (as in UNwestern) from passing another anti-Israel resolution.

Still, I sympathise with our protesters, including Jeremy Corbyn. That’s why I think we should do everything we can to ease their passage to Gaza, where they can put their flaming conscience in the way of Israel’s fire.

P.S. At the end of yesterday’s FA Cup final, the victorious Leicester players unfurled a Palestinian flag. Take the cup away from them, I suggest, and tell them next time to stick to kicking footballs and, if they must, their opponents.

The football commentator wanted to say “the importance of this goal couldn’t be overestimated”. What came out of his mouth was “the enormity of this goal couldn’t be underestimated”.

In other words, the goal was so revolting and inconsequential that the team ought to have been penalised for scoring it.

Yes, fine, I could make allowances for our comprehensive education and guess what he was trying to say. In that context, I would probably have guessed right.

But there are many other contexts in which guesswork could lead to a misunderstanding or even danger. For example, a man may hurt himself and others if he thinks inflammable means in no risk of conflagration. Or he could be embarrassed if he asks his colleague to apprise (rather than appraise) him and, instead of getting the progress report he expects, he hears that his management skills aren’t up to scratch.

The other day a chap at my club used the word meretricious when he meant meritorious. Had he said, for example, all show, no substance, the communication would have been complete. As it was, his attempt to sound ‘posh’ left me guessing which of the antonymous derivatives of the Latin merere he meant. Either one could have fit the context.

Now, if we accept that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, then we can extrapolate ever so slightly and agree that it isn’t just weapons but also words that must be licensed. After all, the good book says a word came before everything else, including weapons.

Anyone who disagrees must insist, illogically, that a handyman who fixes a leaky tap must be legally accredited to provide that service, whereas, say, a paramedic is free to say acute when he means chronic (a widespread error). Surely a little drip in the plumbing isn’t as fraught with danger as a confusion between medical antonyms?

For a communication to take place, words must have the same meaning for everybody. That’s why we have dictionaries, those thick books telling us what words mean. If the meaning one wishes to attach to a word diverges from the dictionary definition, a game of Chinese whispers is likely to arise.

Someone who says he is bemused when he means amused vandalises communication, thereby disconnecting people from one another – with potentially disastrous social consequences. Rather than forming a society, people run the risk of becoming deracinated, asocial individuals punished by God.

After all, in God’s eyes erecting “a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven” with the subsequent disintegration of language was severe punishment: “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”

But don’t despair: help is on the way, and Babel will not prevail. All you have to do is petition your MP (or congressman, if you are American) to put forth a bill based on my modest proposal. Here it is: Every adult, especially if his speech often finds itself in the public domain, must be licensed to use a specific level of vocabulary.

The levels would depend on the frequency of usage. According to the Oxford Dictionary, there are 171,146 words commonly used in English. Yet some of them are used more commonly than others. For example, soon is comfortably within the first 1,000 most frequently used words, while saliency is just outside the top 45,000.

Hence I propose four frequency bands, with each requiring its own licence. The first band should include words ranked within the top 2,000; the second, those in the top 10,000; the third, those in the top 30,000; and the fourth, unlimited.

Misusing words one isn’t licensed to utter should be punishable by incrementally escalating fines. These may or may not be means-tested – I haven’t really worked out every detail yet. Actually, since I dislike the very notion of means-tested fines, perhaps making the punishment commensurate with the size of the audience would be fairer.

I readily admit that this proposal is somewhat radical. But radical is better than impossible, which is the only other option: getting a system of education that doesn’t churn out generation after generation of ignoramuses. You know, the kind Britain used to have before the arrival of progress in the 1960s.

Israel, the only civilised country in the Middle East, has since Monday been hit by 1,600 rockets fired by Hamas savages.

You see, when you express this situation in such simple terms, it sheds all its superfluous baggage. Granted, simple runs the risk of being simplistic, and one may argue that Islamic civilisation has a rich heritage too.

It has, but it’s a very distant heritage. Over the past 500 years (I’m being generous here), Islam has created nothing but mayhem. The whole Muslim world has produced 10 Nobel Prizes, of which six are of the meaningless peace variety. By contrast, Trinity, Cambridge, just one college in one Western university, boasts 34, all of them for science.

As to other aspects of civilisation, the less said about them, the better. All in all, if we limit ourselves to the present and not-so-distant past, Israel is indeed the only civilised oasis in a region dominated by various stages of barbarism.

Yet even within the vast desert of Muslim ignorance and backwardness, the so-called Palestinians take the pita (‘so-called’ because the way the term is used, one might think Israelis aren’t Palestinians). Those eternal refugees are consumed with malice, hatred and fanaticism, neglecting more useful and productive emotions.

Anyway, how many generations does it take for refugees to stop being refugees? I’ve got news for the ‘Palestinians’: millions of people (including yours truly) don’t live in the countries of their birth. Search a few generations back, and that number will grow to hundreds of millions of those who can trace their roots to foreign lands.

And yet we all, including those who were driven out of their countries against their will, somehow manage to make a life for ourselves. Some shed most of their heritage, some keep more of it – some even retain ethnic rancour whose origin goes back centuries. But no one stays a refugee for three generations, the way the ‘Palestinians’ have.

Some Arab states, notably Jordan and Lebanon, did the charitable thing and allowed ‘Palestinians’ to settle in their countries. By way of gratitude, those wild-eyed maniacs started civil wars, reducing Jordan and especially Lebanon to a charnel house.

Nothing but their own savagery prevents the ‘Palestinians’ from acquiring their own state. All they have to do is acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and abandon their murderous urge to kill every Jew in the region (and preferably beyond). But they’ve always refused to make even such elementary concessions. And now that Gaza and the West Bank have been taken over by Hamas terrorists, violence is all the ‘Palestinians’ are committed to.

Violence is what they are perpetrating now, with those rockets whose provenance isn’t hard to trace. Both Putin and his foreign minister Lavrov are regularly photographed canoodling with Hamas chieftains, and Russia is one of the few countries that have refused to recognise that Hamas is an extremist and terrorist organisation. The ruling junta has a soft spot for terrorists, doubtless sensing spiritual kinship.

If Russia provides tangible support for Hamas, Western ‘liberals’ keep it afloat by proliferating pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli propaganda, with moral equivalence as its leitmotif. Thus both parties are being asked to exercise restraint during the current exchange of fire.

At the same time, the ‘liberal’ media never tire of pointing out that the ‘Palestinian’ civilian population is suffering the greater casualties. There you go then, goes the refrain. Those Israelis are bullying their ‘Palestinian’ victims.

The difference between the Israelis and the other lot is that the former are civilised and the latter are savages – and ideologised savages at that. To Israel, the people are the end; to any ideology, including Hamas, they are the means.

Every Israeli killed is the country’s tragedy. Every ‘Palestinian’ killed is Hamas’s propaganda tool. That’s why those rocket sites are placed close to hospitals, schools and tower blocks – sometimes even on the roofs of those buildings.

The Israelis are doing their best trying to avoid inflicting civilian casualties by delivering precision strikes against rocket sites and terrorist leaders. Unfortunately, some civilian casualties can’t be avoided because Hamas does nothing to protect its non-combatants. Its own strategy is to target residential areas indiscriminately, and only the extensive defensive measures taken by the Israelis are keeping the body count down.

What Hamas is doing is an extension of Islam’s mission pursued over the past 1,400 years. Muslims see their conflict with the West as a clash of civilisations, a mortal struggle in which only one side can be left standing. Yet Western ‘liberals’ refuse to accept the situation on those terms.

They too hate Western civilisation, with its Judaeo-Christian origin and hence emphasis on individual freedom. Proceeding from the old adage of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”, they see any Third World demagogues and terrorists as their spiritual brethren, whose desiderata (if not necessarily their methods) they share and whose enemies they loathe.

Hamas and the ‘Palestinians’ qualify as spiritual brethren, while Israel, with its Western civilisation, amply qualifies as the enemy. Add to this a healthy dose of run-of-the-mill anti-Semitism, and it’s clear whose side the ‘liberals’ are on.

This animus is camouflaged with appeals to even-handedness and mutual restraint. Moral equivalence all around.

Yet as the founder, president and so far the only member of the Charles Martel Society for Multiculturalism, I maintain that there is no equivalence, moral or otherwise, between civilisation and barbarism. The former must triumph in Israel if it’s to survive anywhere.

It’s not often that school chaplains are accused of terrorism.

Although, contrary to Jesus’s entreaty, some little children are well-nigh insufferable, chaplains still typically try to appeal to their good nature, if any. Mowing youngsters down with an assault rifle, poisoning their water supply or blowing up their bus isn’t normally associated with pastoral care of sinners.

That’s why I was quite taken aback when reading that the Rev Dr Bernard Randall of Trent College near Nottingham had been accused of a terrorist offence.

His case was secretly referred to the anti-terrorism Prevent programme, but the villain got off lightly. Having reviewed the case, police decided that Dr Randall posed “no counter terrorism risk, or risk of radicalisation”. However, better safe than sorry, said the school administrators. So they sacked him, just in case.

On balance, Dr Randall should count himself lucky. The way we are going, a few years down the road he might indeed have been charged with, rather than merely accused of, terrorism. For his crime is heinous: he delivered a sermon in which he told his pupils they have the right to question LGBT indoctrination (I’m omitting many initials of this acronym).

Dr Randall planted that seditious idea into the young minds by way of a counterbalance to the noble effort being undertaken by an outfit called Educate & Celebrate, engaged to “embed gender, gender identity and sexual orientation into the fabric” of the school. 

Dr Randall’s terroristic sermon preached that we all “need to treat each other with respect”. This is consonant with the Christian imperative of loving the sinner, whatever we think of the sin.

However, that doesn’t mean we should meekly submit our brains to be scoured by any faddish dogma, especially one that contravenes Christian morality. “You should no more be told you have to accept LGBT ideology,” continued Dr Randall, “than you should be told you must be in favour of Brexit, or must be Muslim.”

Considering that Trent is a Christian school, one would think its chaplain wouldn’t overstep his brief simply by stating the basics of Christian teaching not only on homosexuality and other sexual aberrations but also, more important, on free will – as aided by the secular notion of free speech.

Yet the school explained to Dr Randall that his sermon was “inflammatory, divisive and harmful to LGBT pupils”. Worse than that – according to what that Christian establishment then told police, the sermon was tantamount to an act of terrorism.

To the school’s credit, it wasn’t only the pupils but also the teachers that were being indoctrinated. The educators were ordered to spare the brittle sensibilities of transsexual pupils by abandoning offensive terms like ‘boys’ and ‘girls’.

Also, in an eerie reminder of Red China’s re-education sessions, the teachers had to attend training sessions, during which they were to chant “Smash heteronormativity!”. At least, they weren’t ordered to smash the dog’s heads of binary holdouts, which was a welcome improvement over the shrieks of the Red Guards. This provided a useful reminder that it’s not just decency and sanity that fall victim to woke fascism, but also the much-suffering English language.

Dr Randall’s defenders point out that his sermon was moderate and balanced. All he did was remind the pupils that they had the right – nay obligation – to think for themselves.

In fact, my own quibble is that the sermon was too moderate and balanced. I would have couched the same message in much stronger terms, in which case the terrorism charge would have probably stuck.

But judge for yourself – here is what Dr Randall preached:

“There are some aspects of the Educate and Celebrate programme which are simply factual – there are same-sex attracted people in our society, there are people who experience gender dysphoria, and so on.

“There are some areas where the two sets of values overlap – no one should be discriminated against simply for who he or she is: That’s a Christian value, based in loving our neighbours as ourselves.

“All these things should be accepted straightforwardly by all of us, and it’s right that equalities law reflects that.

“But there are areas where the two sets of ideas are in conflict, and in these areas you do not have to accept the ideas and ideologies of LGBT activists. Indeed, since Trent exists ‘to educate boys and girls according to the Protestant and Evangelical principles of the Church of England’, anyone who tells you that you must accept contrary principles is jeopardizing the school’s charitable status, and therefore its very existence.”

And so on, all in the same, seemingly moderate, vein. Dr Randall clearly knows his Christianity better than he understands modernity.

During his ill-fated 1964 presidential campaign, Barry Goldwater uttered a statement put into his mouth by his speechwriter, the philosopher Harry Jaffa: “Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

Our brain-washers could adopt a slight paraphrase of that spiffy adage: extremism in the defence of wokery is no vice, but even moderation in the pursuit of sanity definitely is.

Dr Randall’s incendiary sermon indeed constitutes terrorism to today’s ‘liberals’, and it’s worse than simply blowing up a train or driving an HGV through a crowd of bystanders. To a totalitarian ideology, dissent, no matter how soft-spoken, is much worse than any common-or-garden mass murder.

People don’t matter; only the ideology does. And Dr Randall’s life and career, which he says are “in tatters”, are simply fodder providing Leviathan’s daily sustenance.

A society where something like that could happen is beyond decadent and even degenerate. It’s deeply, and one fears irreversibly, evil… sorry, slip of the tongue. I meant ‘progressive’.

I try not to write about Russia too often, and certainly not two days on the trot. In keeping with this commitment, I’m here acting only as a translator, not a writer.

Vlad Putin, addressing the military parade on Victory Day (VD for short), 9 May, 2021:

“During the most critical time of the war, in the decisive battles determining the outcome of the struggle against fascism, our people stood alone, alone on the arduous, heroic, sacrificial road to Victory…”

Stalin replies, 29 March, 1943 [the emphasis is mine]:

“Personal and secret message from Premier I.V. Stalin to Premier Mr W. Churchill, 29 March, 1943

“I have received your message of 28 March.

“I congratulate the British Air Force on its latest successful raid on Berlin.

“I hope the British armour will use the improved situation in Tunisia to deny the enemy any breathing space.

“Yesterday I and my colleagues viewed the film you have sent, Victory in the Desert, that made a great impression. The film expertly depicts England’s war effort, while giving the lie to the blackguards – and they exist even in our country – who claim that, rather than fighting, England is only watching the war from the sidelines. I eagerly look forward to your similar film about the victory in Tunisia.

“The film Victory in the Desert will be widely shown to all our armies in the frontline and also to the country’s civil population.”

Stalin, speaking at the Tehran Conference, 28 November – 1 December, 1943:

“Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war.”

Nikita Khrushchev in his Memoirs, 1974:

“If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. One-on-one against Hitler’s Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me.”

Victory Day is 9 May in Russia, a day later than in the West because the Germans capitulated on their Western front more hastily.

This day wasn’t a public holiday until 1965, and no Red Square parades were held. Stalin, and Khrushchev after him, didn’t want to make too big a deal of the occasion, possibly because they were reluctant to have to answer – or rather refuse to answer – all sorts of uncomfortable questions.

Such as, “Why did the Soviet Union start the Second World War as Hitler’s ally?” Or, “If the purpose of the Soviet-Nazi Pact was to prepare for war, how come we lost practically the whole regular army in the first few months, with the Germans taking over 4,000,000 POWs between late June and early December?” Or, “Why did we continue to suffer much higher casualties throughout the war?”

Under Brezhnev, Victory Day became more prominent, but still military parades were held in Red Square only every five years. Now it’s every year, with Putin regaling the troops and TV audiences with rousing speeches about the rise of Russophobia necessitating vigilance and battle readiness. (Russophobia is defined in those quarters as less than enthusiastic support for Russia’s crimes.)

Now that the real veterans have mostly died out, the aspiring faux-veterans respond to Putin’s sabre-rattling with posters and bumper stickers screaming “On to Berlin!” and “We can do it again!” So propaganda does work, as if we needed any more proof.

The war, in which the Soviets lost 28 million people, is being broadcast hysterically at the masses day and night, the way communism used to be under Khrushchev. Like communism then, the war is the ideology now.

Putin’s regime is all about whipping up and exploiting chauvinistic frenzy to cover up its real objectives: robbing the country blind to enrich the Great Leader and his jolly friends. A worthy goal though that may be, it can’t function as the official raison d’être of the state.

Hence the war, sacralised and draped in the new imperial mantle, has to take up the slack. Hence also the recent death warrant to history as an academic discipline: any attempt, no matter how factual, to equate Hitler and Stalin or dispute the noble, liberating mission of the Red Army will be punishable by up to a fiver in prison.

Since any conscientious researcher is bound to uncover similarities galore between the two evil dictators, serious history of the war is in effect banned. Only propaganda and pagan processions are allowed.

The war has been turned into a bull’s head on top of a totem pole, with the poor, brainwashed populace expected to genuflect and worship. Ignorance and bellicosity are being raised to high civic virtue, a piety in all but name.

Real veterans wouldn’t have fallen such easy prey to indoctrination. They knew what that war was like, and adulation was the last thing on their minds.

This is what the writer Victor Astafiev (1924-2001) had to say, and he earned the right to tell the truth. Himself a veteran of that war, he was twice wounded, the second time grievously. Astafiev only saw the dawn of the Putin era, with its glorification, and sacralisation, of the war – but he read the signs unerringly:

“Soviet militarists are the most strident, most cowardly, most evil, most stupid of all who have ever existed. It is their kind of ‘victory’, a 1:10 casualty rate! It is they who tossed our people into fire like straw – and Russia is no more, the Russian people are no more. The land that used to be called Russia is now barren, grown over with weeds. And what is left of our people have fled into towns to become rabble, those who left the village without arriving in the city.

“So how many perished in the war? You do know and remember. Yet it is terrifying to cite the real number, isn’t it? If you did so, then, instead of your dress uniforms, you’d have to don hairshirts and beg your people’s forgiveness for the ineptly ‘won’ war, in which the enemy was buried under Russian corpses, drowned in Russian blood.”

Thus spoke a true Russian patriot, for whom the war was a national tragedy, not a pagan pageant. Hear, hear.