Blog

In resigning as LibDem leader, Tim Farron put it in a nutshell: “To be a political leader – especially of a progressive, liberal party in 2017 – and to live as a committed Christian, to hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching, has felt impossible for me.”

It felt impossible because it is impossible – and not only for Mr Farron but for any mainstream politician. All major parties everywhere in the West are progressive and liberal, with both terms meaning exactly the same these days.

Yes, some politicians may practise Christianity in their spare time, and conservative ones must pretend they do, especially in the US. But woe betide any politician who dares to let Christian commandments interfere with his day job.

Christianity is thus reduced to a hobby: some politicians play golf on Sunday, some have a lie-in with the supplements, some go to church. None of those pastimes has the slightest effect on what they’re going to do on Monday.

While applauding Mr Farron’s integrity, one may still wonder how he has managed until now to reconcile his faith with socialist politics – and until Corbyn’s communists took over Labour, the LibDems had been Britain’s most socialist party.

Reflecting on the virulent attacks on his faith, Mr Farron said that “we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society.” But we do, Tim, we do. It’s all a matter of definition.

Anyone, never mind a politician, must know that nowadays words with even remote political connotations mean the opposite of their real meaning. Thus liberal means illiberal, and tolerant means intolerant. Understood that way, nobody has to kid himself: we indeed live in a tolerant, liberal society, modern style.

It’s in the spirit of such tolerant liberalism that the paragons of modernity are never satisfied with people just meekly toeing the line. Like their communist cousins they demand not passive acquiescence but enthusiastic support. And if that comes belatedly, the culprit is supposed to debase himself by public recantation.

Mr Farron found that out the hard way in April, when sadistic inquisitors, otherwise known as reporters, subjected him to days of public torture. Time after time his tormentors demanded he acknowledge that homosexuality isn’t a sin.

Now no Christian can accept homosexuality as a valid, morally neutral option. However, no politician may these days even hint that he regards homosexuality as anything other than a normal, moral option.

But of course Mr Farron, who’s on record as having said that “abortion is wrong”, thereby attacking another ‘progressive’ article of faith, regards homosexuality as a sin. His religion is unequivocal on the subject.

He knew it, his torturers knew it, he knew that they knew, and they knew that he knew they knew. Hence their inquiries weren’t a genuine request for information but a demand for recantation.

To Mr Farron’s credit, he held out for days under a constant barrage, refusing to answer the question, while his tormentors refused to talk about anything else, including LibDem policies.

In the end Farron had to hiss through his teeth words to the effect of “Fine, fine, homosexuality isn’t a sin. Now will you leave me alone? Please?”

By now resigning Mr Farron proved he’s a good Christian. But his thinking appears to be jumbled.

In his resignation statement, he said he’s a “liberal to my finger tips” and, as such, would never impose his Christian views on others. If by imposition he means proclaiming the truth of his views, he doesn’t quite understand how his faith relates to quotidian life.

The founder of Christianity certainly didn’t expect his followers to keep their views to themselves: “And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He demanded not tacit reticence but fiery proselytism.

That’s why Christ’s temple is neither a social centre nor a self-help group. It’s the Church Militant: “For we wrestle… against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

Not much room for relativism there: spiritual wickedness exists. Rather than being confused or equated with spiritual good, it must be wrestled against. There isn’t a hint at the modern ethos of share-care-be-aware diversity.

The founders of the first modern and therefore atheist state, the USA, were perfectly aware of the fundamental incompatibility of newfangled politics and Christianity. As Christianity was the essence of the old order, it had to be shoved aside.

The US Constitution coyly eschews the phrase ‘separation of church and state’. Instead the First Amendment states only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

But in his comments both before and after the ratification, Thomas Jefferson was unequivocal: this amendment, he gloated, built “a wall of separation between Church and State”. He could have been more emphatic: modernity built a wall of separation between Christianity and politics.

Hence Mr Farron has made the right moral choice. Now he should make the right intellectual one and realise that he can’t be both a Christian and a “liberal to my finger tips”.

I hope he does, but meanwhile he must be congratulated on having already gone further than any other so-called Christian in Parliament.

The style is indeed the man (Le style, c’est l’homme même, as Buffon put it).

That’s why I’d impeach Trump simply because he tops a business suit with a baseball cap. A man who commits such sartorial solecisms either is a vulgar lout or, which is worse, pretends to be one for populist reasons.

Also, if the on-going investigation implicates Trump in illegal dealings with Putin’s kleptofascist regime, he ought to be not just impeached but imprisoned, with the key thrown away.

Meanwhile, Trump is trying all sorts of things on for size, some good, some bad. Some he gets away with, some are blocked in Congress and some others put him in the way of slings and arrows.

Amazingly, he’s drawing the densest barrage for one unequivocally good thing he has done: getting out of the obscene Paris Agreement.

The reason Trump cited involved American jobs: compliance with the Paris guidelines would shift them to countries that routinely flout international laws and regulations, especially China and India.

Perhaps a politician seeking popularity has to come up with this argument. But a truth seeker would simply explain that the whole global warming hysteria is a hoax, and a pernicious one at that.

It’s a hoax because the anthropogenic contribution to global warming is so small as to be trivial. It’s a pernicious hoax because its genesis isn’t in science but in ideology.

Solar activity is by far the greatest contributor to climate change: the more active the sun, the higher the temperature. And solar activity is cyclical, swinging within both a vast 1,500-year amplitude and a small 30-year one.

This explains why, since people began to juxtapose temperature and the sun some 400 years ago, 30-year-long thermal cycles on earth have consistently coincided with the 30-year-long solar cycles. Hence in the twentieth century temperature grew from 1900 to 1940, then dropped from 1940 to 1970, then began to go up again.

The bigger cycles follow the same pattern. The earth swings between periods of extreme cold, such as the Ice Age, and comfortable warmth, such as now.

Hippos, who hate cold, could be found in the Thames 150,000 years ago. When the Romans came to England, grapes grew in the North Country and in Scotland, suggesting a warmer climate than now – and Romans didn’t use aerosols. A thousand years ago world temperature was warmer than today, yet no fracking was under way. And 800 years ago, reindeer, who perversely like cold weather, roamed the woods of England – there must have been quite a chill in the air.

Nobody’s denying that we’re going through one of the warmer periods, even though the increase in temperature is nowhere near as steep or calamitous as Trump’s critics claim – nor as universal.

Global warmers are claiming that scientists agree with their doomsday predictions. Some do, but it’s a lie to say that a consensus exists. Many noted scientists specialising in disciplines tangentially touching upon anthropogenic global warming, such as physics, chemistry, astronomy, astrophysics, palaeontology, geology and so forth, blow this theory out of the water.

That isn’t surprising. After all, the anthropogenic origin of warm weather is the first discovery in the history of science made not by scientists but by a political body, the UN. Much as one admires the epic successes this organisation has enjoyed in its own field (Yugoslavia springs to mind, among many other calamities), one has to say that the evidential base of its theory is, to be charitable, weak.

The political base, however, is massive, and the banners of global warming have drawn all the same people who oppose nuclear energy, shale gas, medical experiments on animals, free enterprise and everything else that can improve and prolong human lives.

They use the word ‘capitalism’ as their bogeyman, but in fact they’re driven by visceral hatred of our civilisation. In the past, those dreadful capitalists exploited the proletariat; now they’re destroying ‘our planet’ (I’d make the admittedly radical suggestion that you should punch in the nose anyone who thus refers to the earth.)

Those same people, or their typological progenitors, used to prefer the virtues of Stalinism to the vices of capitalism. When the global warming myth runs its course – and they’ve already had to replace that defunct term with ‘climate change’ – they’ll march against something else.

They’re scaring us with a high content of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it’s indeed high. However, it was 12 times as high during the Cambrian period, yet somehow mankind managed to muddle through.

And what’s wrong with a higher level of CO2 anyway? Rather than harming people, it benefits them in any number of ways. Above all, it improves global food security, which is critical considering the rising population. Not only does CO2 make food more plentiful, but it also makes it better, for example by increasing the amount of Vitamin C in citrus fruit.

The ‘greenhouse effect’ does exist, but it’s trivial compared with the effect of solar activity. And in any case, plants, animals, volcanoes etc. will continue to produce CO2 in greater amounts than man does – and thank God for that.

But even assuming that the ideological scaremongering about warm weather has some merit (and this is an assumption no sensible person would make), the Paris Agreement is a grossly inadequate and implicitly subversive measure.

According to the iffy data touted by its initiators, global temperature is going to increase by 2-5 per cent over the next few decades. Yet even the stated goal of the Agreement is only to shave some 0.2 per cent off that.

However, the hysterical pitch of the clamour surrounding Trump’s correct decision suggests that the stated objective isn’t the real one. That’s always the case with massive crusades driven by ideology.

Lenin, Stalin and Mao supposedly sought the good of the people, whereas in fact they craved their blood anointing the power of an evil elite. The UN supposedly prevents wars, whereas in fact it reflects the perennial socialist dream of world government. The EU pretends to pursue Europe’s economic interests, whereas in fact its objectives are the same as the UN’s, if on a smaller scale.

By tossing away the dreadful Paris Agreement, Trump called its fans’ bluff. He’s being attacked not because their case has merit, but specifically because it doesn’t. No one is hated more than an apostate, and the president went against a tenet of the wicked global creed.

Why, for that one can almost forgive him that slumming baseball cap.

Since I’m grateful to any publication that expands my vocabulary, my gratitude to The Sunday Times knows no bounds. Not only did its article on the thespian Asia Kate Dillon teach me new words, but it also opened up whole new horizons in grammar.

You’ll notice that I eschewed a gender-specific noun like ‘actor’ or ‘actress’ in identifying Dillon, opting instead for the gender-neutral ‘thespian’. For, as the article explains, “The actor Asia Kate Dillon is non-binary, meaning they identify as neither a man nor a woman and use the pronouns ‘they/them/their’ instead of ‘she/her’ or ‘he/his’.”

This short sentence enriched both my lexicon (‘non-binary’) and, by implication, grammar. The implication involves the verb following the plural antecedent ‘they’, when used to denote a single non-binary person.

Speaking of Dillon, is it ‘they are non-binary’ or ‘they is non-binary’? This dilemma evokes the memory of my childhood language, Russian.

In times olden, a peasant always spoke of his master in the plural. Thus a butler would tell a morning visitor that ‘they are not up yet’, meaning his master was still in bed.

This usage is a solecism. Russian, along with just about every European language except English, has two forms for addressing a person: informal ты and deferential вы (tu and vous in French, du and sie in German, tu and usted in Spanish and so forth). But educated speakers don’t transfer these plural second-person pronouns into third person.

What sounds quaint in Russian used to sound impossible in English, but, thanks to The Sunday Times, things are changing. As a lifetime champion of progress, I jump up and salute. And, as a creative person of the masculine gender, I’d like to make a modest contribution to solving this conundrum.

Since ‘they are’ in the singular sense doesn’t sit easily with the archaic canons of English, and ‘they is’ doesn’t yet seem possible this side of certain demographic groups, I propose the gender-neutral verb ‘be’ as the panacea. ‘They be’ also sounds vaguely ethnic, but that offers the extra benefit of enhanced diversity.

Other verbs may still present a problem though. Saying that Dillon ‘love’ acting may hint not so much at non-binary sexuality as binary personality, which is a psychiatric disorder.

Here the solution must be less straightforward. For example, since we’ve already accepted ‘be’ as a cure for all reactionary ills, perhaps we could build any sentence around this grammatical breakthrough.

Thus, instead of saying ‘they love acting’ or, even worse, ‘they loves acting’, we could say ‘they be in love with acting’. A word of caution: when saying this, refrain from indulging in Ali G gesticulation.

The article is written with the empathy and sensitivity one has learned to expect even from our conservative press. For example, the author laments, blood dripping out of their [sic] heart, that “Throughout the process of writing this profile, I heard Dillon misgendered as ‘she’ multiple times and even their IMDB page refers to them as an ‘actress’.”

A stick-in-the-mud pedant might suggest that the first four words in that sentence could be replaced with ‘when’, but this is a minor quibble compared to the gratitude one must feel for having learned yet another new word. I bet you’ve never heard the verb ‘misgender’ or its derivatives before – I certainly hadn’t until enlightened by our venerable newspaper.

Dillon themselves be a graduate of the Sunday Times language school, as witnessed by this heart-rending passage: “I feel like one thing I encounter is that, particularly with men who identify as men, when they find out I’m non-binary, they don’t know how to be in relation to someone that isn’t something that they understand.”

According to the article, Dillon be in possession of a fine aesthetic sense and a keen understanding of utilitarian morality: “Their body is inscribed with eight tattoos, including ‘Einfühlung’, the German word for empathy, on their neck, and ‘What you will’ on their right inner forearm – the alternate title to Dillon’s favourite Shakespeare play, Twelfth Night (of course), ‘and a reminder to me that as long as I’m not hurting myself, or anyone else, I should do what makes me happy’.”

I feel ashamed about having neglected to use my body as a poster site advertising my erudition, such as it is. However, though grateful for discovering that ‘alternate’ now means the same as ‘alternative’, I could still make a timid objection to the statement at the end.

When my bladder is bursting, relieving myself in full view of a Chelsea crowd would make me happy without really hurting anybody. However… well, you get the point.

Yet this slight philosophical lapse is more than made up for by Dillon’s ground-breaking contribution to physiology and microbiology. To wit: “Sex is between our legs, gender identity is between our ears.”

Now though I can claim only cursory familiarity with the disciplines in question, I seem to recall reading somewhere about things called ‘chromosomes’ that supposedly determine sex – sorry, I mean gender – identity. Skimming the surface, I’ve also run across words like ‘hormones’ or, more specifically, ‘testosterone’ and ‘oestrogen’. Silly me, I’ve never realised that those things reside strictly between our legs – or, come to that, between our ears.

“Today,” continued the article, “Dillon… lives… with long-term partner Christopher, who identifies as a man (they have an open relationship), and Eugene, a 12-year-old cat.” Neither the cat’s identification nor its role in the open relationship was made clear.

What Dillon stated unequivocally was that, other than Christopher, those who identify as men present a deadly threat to them: “They’re, like, ‘Do I… am I supposed to kill you?’”

The article is in awe of their courage: “Dillon mentions the potential instinct to kill someone who is non-binary so casually that it almost doesn’t register, but the threat of violence is a reality that they and other gender non-conforming individuals face daily.”

If that’s true, I’m appalled and yet hopeful. Such troglodyte urges can’t stop progress, whose salutary achievement is that a non-binary person like Dillon now performs in TV dramas – rather than at the county fairs of yore, alongside a man with breasts and a woman with a beard.

 

Intellectual pygmies, especially those of the neocon persuasion, get giant salaries at American universities, belying the widespread belief in their superior quality.

I can prove my point with two words: Niall Ferguson. And if that still doesn’t do the trick, read his rant in The Times two days ago.

It was ostensibly against populism but in reality against Brexit, hostility to which is shared by all American neocons. In this, Ferguson, British gone native in the US neocon circles, toes the party line with unwavering loyalty.

That line ends in an arrow aimed at the heart of Brexit. This stands to reason.

The neocons have never shaken their Trotskyist heritage. They’ve only shifted the same radical animus from a ‘permanent revolution’ promoting communism to a permanent war promoting Democracy.

That’s why they’re non-conservative statists. A global crusade for a particular political form (divorced in their minds from any underlying content) can only be undertaken by the omnipotent state. To be able to do that, the state has to grow pari passu with the scale of global ambitions.

Since any single state has limits to its expansion, the neocons support the notion of a supranational state, ideally governed by America. The EU is seen as an intermediate step on the road to such unification.

Hence in the run-up to the referendum Ferguson wrote articles with such robust titles as Brexit’s Happy Morons Don’t give a Damn About the Costs of Leaving.

When the vote went the other way, it took Ferguson some six months to recover from the shock. “My mistake,” he then wrote, “was uncritically defending Cameron and Osborne instead of listening to people in pubs.”

Translating from snide to human, it was uncouth pub-crawlers who swung the referendum in favour of British sovereignty. Clever people like Dave, George and above all Niall knew better, but made the tactical error of not tossing the louts a few crumbs off the Remain table.

Now that Trump has won in America and Corbyn almost did in Britain, Ferguson develops the same theme.

It’s worth mentioning parenthetically that, though Trump is many things, a neocon he emphatically isn’t. That’s why the neocons sputter spittle at the very mention of his name – and that’s why many of them voted for Hillary, who has all the intellectual failings of Trump plus the moral one of being downright evil.

In any case, the neocons have nothing against the Democratic Party. Some of their iconic founders, such as Moynihan and Kirkpatrick, were Democrats themselves. And all four American wars in the twentieth century, the two world wars, Korea and Vietnam, were started under Democratic presidents.

Closer to home, Ferguson explains the Brexit vote by the fact that “Politics in mid-2016 was dominated by populist memes [such as] ‘Take back control’”. And he explains Corbyn’s electoral success by the failure of said “populist memes”, those that led the unwashed masses into wishing to reclaim Britain’s independence.

It’s true that Mrs May’s incompetent campaign featured, inter alia, a demand for a mandate to take a strong stand against EU blackmail. But it’s not true that most votes cast against the Tories were really cast against Brexit and its ‘hard’ version in particular.

Let’s agree on one thing: ‘soft’ Brexit means no Brexit at all, which is why the likes of Ferguson support it. Formally leaving the EU but remaining in the single market and customs union means negating three key reasons – and I can’t think offhand of many others – for leaving in the first place.

Our parliament would still be subject to superseding EU laws. We’d still have little control of our borders. We’d still have to pay billions into EU coffers. Effectively we’d keep every disadvantage of EU membership while relinquishing even our minuscule 1/28^th part of the control.

With the characteristic neocon knack for self-refutation, Ferguson unwittingly presents data giving the lie to his assertion that every vote against May was cast against Brexit.

First he writes that the election featured an usually high turn-out of young voters, with 67 per cent of those aged between 18 and 24 voting Labour. And second, “Only 8% of Labour voters said Brexit was the most important issue…”.

The first datum is a strong argument against the kind of democracy run riot that the neocons favour. The less qualified the electorate is to cast votes with selfless intelligence, the better it is for those wishing to entrench their own control. In that spirit the neocons and other crypto-socialists would gladly lower the voting age not just to 16 years but to 16 months.

Hence Ferguson’s implicit gloating over the swing of “the younger, healthier and better-educated” voters to Labour. He clearly shares the view of Trotsky, the spiritual progenitor of neoconservatism, that “the youth is the barometer of the nation”.

And yet Ferguson acknowledges that only eight per cent of Labour voters saw Brexit as important. How this proves that May lost votes because of Brexit escapes me, but then I’m not privy to the intricate thought processes of our intellectual elite.

“The younger, healthier and better-educated” voters so dear to Ferguson’s heart are those immediately before, during or soon after university. Since according to our sage himself they don’t attach much importance to Brexit, something else must have tickled their naughty bits, those the young use in lieu of brains.

Could it perchance be Corbyn’s irresponsible promise to abolish tuition fees and cancel the debts already incurred thereby? No, of course not.

Such narrow-minded selfishness would blow the neocons’ democratic totem sky-high, showing that even “younger, healthier and better-educated” voters are ignorant of, and indifferent to, the needs of society at large.

Ferguson’s analysis isn’t worthy of the name, representing as it does not serious thought but the longings of his apparatchik loins. Underneath it all, what matters to his ilk isn’t truth but victory for their perverse understanding of the world.

Commenting on my yesterday’s piece, a reader asked a question that cuts to the chase: “Why is it that the left seem always to be treated as occupying the moral high ground? People should be constantly reminded that this high ground is built from a mountain of corpses.”

One of those corpses is rather large: our civilisation. For socialism is the more wicked offshoot of a universal rebellion against Christendom, one going by the misnomer of the Enlightenment.

Therein lies the answer to my reader’s question, but it’s not a quick answer, preceded as it is by other questions and answers. Such as why did the rebellion occur? Why did it succeed?

Christendom was built on a set of Christian premises that, if taken seriously, imposed difficult demands on people.

Philosophically, it was based on the assumption that absolute truth exists, and it was at least approachable by activating a rigorously rational apparatus.

Morally, it postulated love above all, even love for one’s enemies. This was accompanied by the concept of free will, free choice between good and evil.

Doctrinally, it put forth the notion of the triune God, the unique synthesis of the physical, spiritual and metaphysical reflected in the whole civilisation.

Ritualistically, it was demanding. Fasting, for example, was paramount – for up to 250 days every year or at least half that with less than strict observance.

Looking at the glorious edifice built on such foundations, even non-believers had to admit the possibility that only God could have been the architect – the magnificence of the structure simply couldn’t be traced back to any other source.

However, the demands imposed by Christendom proved to be too difficult for many people. The same questions that were later posed by Hume began to be asked widely. If God is loving and omnipresent, how come there’s so much evil in the world? If He doesn’t know about it, is He really omniscient? If He won’t stop it, is He really good? And if He can’t, is he really omnipotent?

Theodicy wasn’t unduly hard intellectually. But most people weren’t looking for rational answers. They were looking for excuses, a justification for their inability to comply with the demands of their civilisation.

It’s hard to pinpoint the moment when the balance was tipped – the process was gradual. Perhaps the Black Death in the mid-fourteenth century was the pivotal point: with a third of Europe’s population perishing, theodicy could be swept aside with an air of self-righteous smugness.

The subsequent Reformation was in fact a mutiny against the Church, the depository and promulgator of Christendom’s religious, cultural and intellectual essence. As such it was a rebellion against Christendom as such, masked, like many other revolutions, as an attempt at purification.

But an all-out rebellion hadn’t gathered pace until the eighteenth century, when the philosophes provided a justification for apostasy, one as crude as the masses themselves were. This adumbrated the Age of Reason, which was an early example of words used to mean something opposite to their real meaning. Unreason became Reason.

The gullible avidly gobbled up a view of the world according to which Augustine and Aquinas were driven by crude superstition, whereas Rousseau and Voltaire, intellectual pygmies by comparison, were the bearers of high reason.

The West had found its excuse, and victorious rebellion was under way. Very early it bifurcated into two strains I call nihilist and philistine.

The two strains were close to each other, and in fact both combined philistine and nihilist aspects. The difference lay in their mix: to the philistine, the destruction of Christendom had to be accomplished in physical comfort and with a minimum of bloodshed. To the nihilist, comfort mattered much less, and the amount of bloodshed didn’t matter at all: destruction was all.

It’s instructive to observe how close the two strains are in their ends, if not always in their means. Philistine rebels (who later produced societies called democratic or capitalist) used attrition to phase Christendom out. Their nihilist cousins (those to be later called national, international or democratic socialists) opted for frontal assault, complete with apocalyptic casualties.

Predictably, the philistines were more successful, for the same reason that a seducer tends to run up a higher amatory score than a rapist. But both strains, and especially the nihilists, sought to create a new civilisation to dwarf the now moribund Christendom.

In that they’ve both failed spectacularly, and the nihilists catastrophically. Both are aware of this failure, which is why they try to camouflage it by preaching the simulacra of the traditional tenets of Christendom.

The nihilists, otherwise known as various sub-sets of socialists, are particularly keen to conceal their evil animus with vague references to Christianity. This can best be illustrated by the French revolutionary slogan liberté, egalité, fraternité. It was probably chosen for its Christian overtones purloined from the original owner for nefarious purposes.

To start with, let’s consider its tripartite form. You’ll notice that many revolutionary slogans of post-Christian modernity are constructed of three elements, either words or phrases.

One could cite the American ‘life, liberty and pursuit of happiness’, the Russian ‘vsia vlast sovetam’ or the German ‘ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer’. And even a somewhat less significant revolution had to chip in with a vapid ‘Work harder, produce more, build Grenada!’

This was the first stage of shoplifting larceny: the revolutionaries sensed that people’s ears were attuned to Trinitarian music. Therefore they were predisposed to respond to similar sounds even if they conveyed an opposite meaning. In this instance, however, it wasn’t just the music.

Also hidden in the French slogan was another mock-Christian allusion. For, according to the Enlighteners, ‘fraternity’ flowed out of ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’.

The philosophes argued that no brotherhood was possible without liberty and equality, which is to say that the third part of the triad proceeded from the first two. One doesn’t have to be a theologian to see how the subtle Christian doctrine of the Trinity had been vulgarised for a very un-Christian purpose.

Each element of the French triad was stolen property. To the original owner, freedom came from – and led to – the truth, which is to say God; equality was a natural consequence of jointly loving, and being loved by, a supreme being, which is to say God; brotherhood implied a spiritual kinship bestowed by a common father, which is to say God.

The intellectual cardsharps of the Enlightenment deftly pulled the ace of God out of the pack, leaving people with a hand of cards that were not only low but also marked.

Their descendants rule by simulacrum. Hence their attempt to occupy the high moral ground by claiming that ever-growing state control over the individual is the new freedom. Hence also their insistence that the state coercively taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who didn’t is the same as Christian charity – whereas in fact it’s its exact opposite.

Hence, perhaps most important, their glossocratic effort to control language and thereby thought, which is the essence of political correctness. That all such efforts have been successful testifies to the awesome potential of sustained brain-washing.

Gradual and accelerating glossocratic corruption has worked: the word socialism gives people a nice, warm feeling denied to such variants of socialism as fascism, Nazism, if not always communism.

Communism, they say, was a nice socialist idea lamentably distorted by the Soviets. No number of direct quotes from the blood-thirsty writings of Marx will work. People don’t need to read: they’re prepared to let communism bask in the shining sun of socialism.

It’s by such devious, evil stratagems that socialism, the secular religion of anomie, hatred and envy, has been allowed to claim a high moral ground, from which it can joyously relieve itself on the people underneath.

Rather than feeling instinctive revulsion at the very mention of the word, people feel guilty that they themselves fall short of socialist ideals. By way of redemption they vote for evil men like Corbyn, who know which platitudinous lies will work.

First, the positive. This is what I wrote on 20 May:

“Mrs May’s manifesto appears to be a cynical attempt to appeal to traditional Labour voters, ensuring thereby a large and lasting Tory majority.

“Alas, the only thing that really appeals to traditional Labour voters is traditional Labour policies – and, even more important, traditional Labour philosophies.

“This is what Mrs May has served up, thereby guaranteeing a Labour victory on 8 June. That this particular branch of the Labour Party paints itself blue rather than red is a purely chromatic difference.”

In that I was right. Mrs May clearly decided she could get away with alienating the core Tory support by painting herself a slightly paler shade than the blood-red colour favoured by Corbyn.

Everything else I got wrong. I, along with the Tory high command, assumed that whatever seats the Tories could gain in Labour areas would be a bonus on the number of seats they were guaranteed anyhow.

As I wrote a couple of days ago to a deeply concerned friend: “You and I are thoroughly alienated. But we aren’t going to vote Labour, are we?”

We didn’t. But enough people did to plunge the country into chaos, thereby reinforcing my contempt for our unchecked democracy and weakening my already brittle hope for our country.

Presented with two versions of socialism, diluted and neat, millions of people voted for the most subversive creature ever to lead a major British party. What the hell, go all the way, was a strong sentiment.

This shows how fundamentally corrupted the British electorate is. The job of corrupting it wasn’t hard, considering that, instead of relying on the head to decide such matters, most voters are driven by the organ located quite a bit lower.

There’s a quote attributed to Churchill: “If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.”

Actually, the organ I had in mind sits even lower than the heart, but neither one is a proper place for making decisions about the country’s future. A voter in a democracy is supposed to act as a statesman, choosing right policies on the basis of rational deliberation.

The assumption is that, since the average voter is capable of such deliberation, the arithmetic majority is always right, whereas in fact it never is. The average voter doesn’t know how to think about politics, or about anything else for that matter. Feeling is the new thinking, and, thanks to creeping infantilisation, not just among young people.

No one capable of thinking at the most rudimentary of levels would vote for a rank communist like Corbyn. Anyone with a modicum of nous would know in a split second that every policy Corbyn proposes spells an unmitigated disaster for the country and indeed for the Western alliance.

Yet even a modicum of nous can’t be presupposed in a population comprehensively educated to think with their gonads, not their brain. Witness the fact that over 40 per cent of the electorate voted for an evil communist creature devoted over a lifetime to obliterating Britain by whatever means possible.

Economically, Corbyn policies are Leninist class war designed to punish industry, enterprise and thrift. He’s committed to wholesale nationalisation, making the government the only serious player in the commercial arena. This is accompanied by the usual Labour dedication to high taxes and runaway spending – this time grossly exaggerated even by those standards.

Then there are some nice extra touches, such as Corbyn’s self-acknowledged commitment to collapsing the house market with his ‘garden tax’. That would impoverish millions of people, especially the older ones, those for whom their houses are their whole wealth.

In terms of national security, Corbyn has always been the terrorists’ best friend. In the good modern tradition he eschews discrimination and happily supports anyone who can murder his countrymen: the IRA, Hezbollah, Hamas, Muslims in general. There’s no reason to believe that, should he find himself in power, he wouldn’t turn Britain into a free hunting ground for murderers.

He’s also in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament, leaving the country at the mercy of any predator big or small. And of course he’d cut the army down to a level even lower than the one the Tories have criminally perpetrated.

This is accompanied by his zoological hatred of Jews in general and Israel in particular, and of course of the monarchy. I’m sure Comrade Corbyn wishes he could do to Her Majesty what his Russian co-believers did to her relation Nicholas II, but he’d be happy to settle for the next best thing: turning Britain into a people’s republic. May I suggest the BSSR as a possible name for it?

There are of course some hardcore communists in Britain, but they certainly don’t add up to 40 per cent of the electorate. That number has to include millions of those Charles Moore calls idealists and I call idiots, mostly young ones – those who don’t think but feel.

Corbyn fed them a few buzz phrases that made them feel warm down there, and off they headed, ‘down there’ first, for the polling stations. If any argument against unchecked democracy is needed, this election is it.

I’m not convinced, as some commentators are, that, had the Tories come up with a proper conservative manifesto, they would have had their landslide. Nor am I sure that anyone less of a nonentity than May could have led the Tories to Shangri-La.

It’s conceivable that a manifesto of low taxation, lower social spending, greater defence spending, resolute response to both Muslim terrorism and EU blackmail would have put Corbyn into 10 Downing Street, not just within a whisker of it.

The Conservative Party hasn’t been conservative for a long time, and our dumbed-down population only ever gives the Tories a large majority in the wake of universally acknowledged catastrophes perpetrated by Labour.

The British have become knee-jerk socialists and, given a decent economic situation, they’ll vote Labour – even, as in this case, its communist wing. Mrs May, devoid of any mental or moral strength, but amply blessed with cunning, realised this and delivered a Labour manifesto in Tory clothing, communicated with epic ineptitude.

The ploy has backfired. Our gonadic voters heaved a sigh of relief at realising that even the Tories are socialists at heart. Well then, why not vote with their gonads? No reason at all.

Even if Mrs May cobbles together a workable coalition with the Unionists, hers will be a lame-duck government unable to push through any grown-up policies – or certainly to get out of the EU on its own terms if at all.

Another election beckons, with probably a different Tory leader at the helm. But there are no different Tory leaders – only different names. It’s not only every nation that vindicates Joseph de Maistre by getting the government it deserves, but also every party.

Recently Stephen Hawking, a lifelong Labour supporter, declared that Jeremy Corbyn would be a disaster as prime minister.

Now, emulating Archimedes in his bath, Newton with his apple and Mendeleyev with his dream of the periodic table, the good professor has performed an instant turn-around. It’s now the Tories who would be catastrophic.

“Another five years of Conservative government would be a disaster for the NHS, the police and other public services,” says Hawking, regarded in some quarters as the world’s smartest man.

Perhaps he is just that, in one of those parallel universes whose existence he promotes with manic zeal. But here on earth, while I’m not qualified to judge his professional credentials, whenever he ventures outside his field Prof. Hawking tends to refute himself without realising it.

That is generally not a sign of an intelligent man. But judge for yourself, starting with his pronouncements on religion.

Prof. Hawking is an atheist, which doesn’t exactly preclude intelligence but, in my judgement, compromises it. It seems that the good professor has set out to prove this point.

“The universe is governed by the laws of science,” he says. And then, “There is probably no heaven… We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.”

As are we all. However, some of us may point out that, just as the very existence of universal laws presupposes the existence of a universal lawgiver, so does any design have to owe its existence to a designer.

When enlarging on cosmology, intelligent atheists keep words like ‘design’ at bay because they know that logically ‘designer’ will follow in its footsteps, and then ‘creator’ is just round the corner. I know this because some of my best friends are intelligent atheists, and they never delve into such issues, other than saying that we don’t know and never will.

Then there’s that old chestnut about an unresolvable conflict between religion and science: “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason,” says Hawking. “Science will win because it works.”

This is intellectually feeble, philosophically unsound and historically ignorant. Science (I assume he meant natural science) answers ‘what’ questions and sometimes ‘how’ ones, but it neither answers nor even asks questions beginning with ‘why’.

It can’t: when it comes to Hawking’s universal lawgiver or designer, natural science is out of its depth. Higher sciences, theology and philosophy, have to take over. Religion deals with the whole phenomenon; science, with just one aspect of it. That’s why there’s no conflict, no winners and losers. And that’s why just about every great scientist in recorded history believed in God.

Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Leibnitz, Maxwell, Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Mendel spring to mind, and the list can go on ad infinitum.

But never mind the greatest stars in the scientific firmament. Another militant atheist, Prof. Lewis Wolpert, mournfully admits that at least half of today’s scientists believe in God. They, along with all intelligent people regardless of their occupation, realise that the conflict between science and religion is a myth, and not a clever one at that.

When it comes to his political views, doubts intensify about Prof. Hawking’s intelligence outside his immediate field. He consistently supports just about every leftie cause, no matter how idiotic or pernicious.

I don’t even have to enumerate the causes: you name it, he supports it. Just off the top, Prof. Hawking is in favour of boycotting Israeli scientists because of Israel’s nastiness towards Palestinians. He wants Britain to disarm unilaterally and stay in the EU. And on the subject of medicine, he says: “I believe in universal medical care. And I am not afraid to say so.”

While applauding Prof. Hawking’s courage in supporting this extremely popular cause, one still has to point out something that ought to be obvious to the great mind. The argument isn’t about the advisability of universal medical care but the best methods of providing it. Insisting that those opposed to the NHS method want to see people dying in the streets is a sure sign of an intellectually challenged leftie replacing thoughts with rants.

Worst of all, Prof Hawking manifestly advocates the policies put forth by Jeremy Corbyn, some of which are downright wicked and all of which are hare-brained.

Corbyn’s tax and spend policies would push Britain over the edge of bankruptcy where she hovers already, largely (though, it has to be said, not exclusively) thanks to the legacy of the previous Labour governments.

His defence policies would render the country defenceless before enemies internal and external.

His immigration policies, unfolding against the background of his anti-Semitism and pro-Islamism, would turn Britain into a caliphate inside a generation.

His hatred of the monarchy would push Britain towards republicanism.

His hatred of capitalism would destroy free enterprise.

And – are you ready for it? – he’d make Diane Abbott his Home Secretary, thereby doing to the country what he used to do to Diane Abbott.

It takes not just an intellectually deficient man but a downright madman to support Corbyn with Hawking’s recently developed enthusiasm. Alas, if the polls are right, we have millions fitting this description. But, in this universe, no one else is described as the world’s smartest man.

Muslim brutality says all one needs to know about Islam. Our response to it says all one needs to know about us.

None of it is good. All we offer is cloyingly sentimental clichés, woolly explanations and pathetic defence measures. And our political ‘leaders’ liberally mix maudlin vulgarity with most refreshing cynicism, trying to exploit terrorism to their own ends.

Hackneyed phrases are a sure sign that sentiment has given way to sentimentality. How many times over the past two days have you heard the words “our thoughts and prayers go to the innocent victims”?

I suggest our public figures save their vocal chords, and our hacks their column inches, by abbreviating these platitudes to T&P and IV. This wouldn’t make the pronouncements any less trite, but it would certainly make them snappier.

At the French Open yesterday Andy Murray delivered a post-match interview in which every other word was ‘obviously’, the runaway favourite with our athletes. He then took up valuable TV time delivering the usual mantra. How much more inspiring it would have been had he just said “Our T&P go to the IV, and I was serving pretty well.”

The teddy bear industry is doing brisk business. There are shops in London that sell nothing but those cuddly toys. These days many of them end up on London Bridge and in Borough Market, which is supposed to show resolute solidarity in the face of terrorism. All it really shows is tasteless, mawkish sentimentality.

The Archbishop of Canterbury explained that the latest incident proves that scriptural texts can be “twisted and misused”. He then offered a toe-curling bit of moral equivalence by explaining that things like these also happen “within our own faith tradition”.

Saying that “this has nothing to do with Islam,” is wrong, opined Welby. That’s “just like saying Srebrenica had nothing to do with Christianity”.

It would be tempting to accuse him of rank ignorance, but surely even he knows that not a single verse in the New Testament calls for killing, while the Koran has hundreds of them. He must also be aware that the founder of Christianity was a crucified martyr, while the founder of Islam was a mass murderer – everyone knows that.

Hence there’s no moral equivalence. We’re all sinners, and Christians have been known to commit terrorist atrocities. But Christian thugs do that in spite of their religion, while Muslim ones do it because of theirs.

If the Archbishop is deaf to such nuances, he isn’t fit to be a parish priest, never mind the first prelate of our state religion. But deaf he isn’t. It’s just that PC reverberations drown out everything else inside his head.

Rachel Sylvester, writing in The Times, sees the roots of Muslim terrorism in “segregation and deprivation”, providing the useful datum that “more than three quarters of Islamist-related offences were committed by people living in the poorest 50 per cent of neighbourhoods”.

It’s true that the kind of Muslims who leave their Ferraris in the no-parking zone outside Harrods are unlikely then to drive said vehicles through a crowd. Yet Miss Sylvester doesn’t quite explain why white, Chinese or Indian people who share those same neighbourhoods with Muslims somehow desist from suicide bombing.

The same observation applies to the segregation part. It’s true that a few Muslim ghettos in Birmingham supply most jihadists. Yet there are parts of London, for example Acton, where one mostly hears Polish speech in the street. Yet the denizens of those Polish areas seem to favour plumbing over stabbing.

Jeremy Corbyn had the temerity to demand Mrs May’s resignation because, as Home Secretary, she reduced the size of the police force. Now since most of our policemen are unarmed, it’s unclear how they can stop large vehicles hurtling towards the IV to whom our T&P will then go.

Those policemen who are armed responded to the incident in a way that doesn’t suggest that their efficacy is hamstrung. It took them eight minutes from the first call to arrive on the scene and shoot the murderers dead. Pretty good going for an overstretched police force in a vast city.

In any case, Jeremy Corbyn is a fine one to talk. Even now he refuses to say one word against IRA terrorists whose mouthpiece he was, and neither does he renounce his Hamas and Hezbollah friends. Instead he proudly admits that “I’ve been involved in opposing anti-terror legislation ever since I went into Parliament in 1983.”

Is this the kind of idealism that, according to Charles Moore, endears Corbyn to young voters? This man isn’t an idealist but a villain, and we haven’t yet even begun to talk about his economic programme that, if executed, will destroy Britain at a speed that even previous Labour governments didn’t quite achieve.

That Corbyn is patently evil makes Mrs May good only comparatively speaking. She has responded to yet another Muslim atrocity by refusing to identify its provenance. Instead, having established that her T&P go to the IV, she then proposed a four-point programme to combat “Islamist” terrorism, each point perfectly pointless.

Point 1 is “countering Islamist ideology… with our pluralistic British values.” One doubts that British-born Muslims have been underexposed to such values. How can this exposure be increased? Pari passu with welfare hand-outs?

Point 2 is cracking down on online jihadist propaganda. Even assuming that this is achievable, such a countermeasure may only reduce the number of new recruits to the noble cause of turning Britain into a caliphate.

What about the tens – possibly hundreds – of thousands of jihadists already here? What about those to be admitted with an army of new arrivals? Especially, what about those 3,000 potential terrorists already known to the authorities as such?

Mrs May maintains trappist-like silence on such details, rendering this point moot.

Point 3 is closely related to Point 1, and just as pointless. It involves educational work in Muslim areas, teaching fiery-eyed youngsters the delights of moderation. Good luck with that.

Point 4 really takes the pita. According to Mrs May, “we need to increase the length of custodial sentences for terrorism-related offences”. But of course. A few more years in the pokey are guaranteed to be a powerful deterrent for people ready to blow themselves up.

Mrs May left out the fifth and most important point. We should publish a collection of vulgar post-murder clichés and issue free teddy bears to all who want them. That way we’ll be forearmed against those segregated, impoverished Muslims, as we’re already forewarned.

We were having dinner with friends last night, eating, drinking, laughing, telling off-colour jokes and at times even attempting serious conversation.

That’s what one does on a Saturday night. My preference is to do so at home: restaurants these days are too noisy to tell off-colour jokes or especially to attempt serious conversation.

Some others don’t mind that though; they like the buzz, the atmosphere of joyous exuberance. Why, they don’t even mind what passes for music these days drowning conversation in tribal, electronically enhanced din. Well, de gustibus… and all that.

Just as we were eating and drinking, thousands of others, mostly young people, were having a good time at the hundreds of restaurants and pubs in the recently gentrified Borough Market area of London, some six miles from us.

And then, at around 10 pm, as we tucked into our pudding, they weren’t having a good time any longer. Three men drove their white van through crowds at London Bridge, then crashed the van at Borough Market and jumped out brandishing 12-inch knives.

They then broke into restaurants and pubs and began slashing people’s throats. Eight minutes later they were dead, shot by armed police. Their rampage didn’t last very long. But long enough.

Seven dead, 48 in hospital with variously awful injuries, many walking wounded, river police looking for more bodies in the Thames. Saturday nights in London aren’t what they used to be.

Reporting on this witches’ Sabbath, the BBC at first didn’t say a word about the murderers, other than that they were men, three in number and probably terrorists. Others reported they were ‘of Mediterranean origin’.

Now the Mediterranean area, the cradle of our civilisation, is rather large. So what were they? Italians? Frenchmen? Greeks? Spaniards? Israelis?

And only the morning papers mentioned in passing, without making a big deal of it, that the murderers were “jihadists” who, for the benefit of the predominantly Anglophone audience, replaced the Arabic battle cry “Allahu Akbar!” with “This is for Allah!”.

Oh, so they were that kind of Mediterranean? Who could have thought.

Everyone, is the answer to this facetious question, especially since this is a third such incident in England over the past 10 weeks.

Everyone knows who drives HGVs through human flesh, slashes throats, sprays streets with AK rounds, blows up crowded buses and pop concerts. Not people of some nebulous Mediterranean origin, nor probable terrorists, nor even jihadists or Islamists, although here we’re getting warmer.

Muslims. That dread M-word that our politicians and journalists can’t bring themselves to utter. Devout followers of Islam, who do murder because Islam tells them to do it.

Yet no public figure has the guts even to say this out loud, much less do something about it. Quite the opposite.

Mercifully, no one has yet described Islam as a religion of peace, but we can expect that clarification before the day is out, although the M-word still won’t cross anyone’s lips.

Meanwhile Theresa May complimented Londoners on their bravery in the face of a “potential act of terrorism” and expressed sympathy with those “who are caught up in these dreadful events.” She later talked about the “single evil ideology of Islamist extremism”, whatever that means. Certainly not the M-word.

Comrade Corbyn, who hates Jews but has never met a terrorist he couldn’t love, regretted the “brutal and shocking incidents” and thanked the emergency services.

The Muslim mayor of London Sadiq Khan repeated his party leader’s statement almost word for word.

All good, appropriate and predictable. But where’s the rage directed at the true culprits? Where, above all, is an answer to the perennial question invariably asked by the pragmatic English: “What are we going to do about it?”

This question is neither answered nor even asked. Not ever, not in any tangible manner pointing at a real solution – and certainly not four days before the general election that Comrade Corbyn, who hates Jews but loves Hamas and Hezbollah, may conceivably win.

Churchill, speaking at a time when Soviet-made German bombs rained on London, expressed sympathy for the victims too. But he also said: “We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

He missed a golden opportunity to deliver a prescient oration presaging the rhetoric favoured by his successors:

“I join all of you in deploring the ghastly atrocities perpetrated upon London. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. However, at this moment of grief, I must caution you against blaming all Germans, or indeed all Nazis, for these dreadful events. The people dropping bombs on the East End of London are not acting as Germans, nor indeed as Nazis. They are Nazi-ists, the black, or rather brown, sheep in the healthy flock of the great German nation and the ideology it happens to favour at the moment. This ideology may be at odds with everything this realm espouses, but it is as deserving of respect in the spirit of diversity.”

Acts of Muslim terrorism are recurring with monotonous regularity, and I have to follow suit by saying the same things over and over again: we’re at war, different from the one 77 years ago, but a war nonetheless.

The sooner we realise this, identify the enemy and begin fighting “whatever the cost may be”, the better chance we have of surviving.

The fighting part should be left for those trained for it. But I’ll be happy to make my modest contribution to the first two parts.

We’re at war with Islam. Hence every Muslim must be regarded as an enemy alien, however unfair this might be in most cases. Those 3,000 already known to the police as potential murderers must be removed from the streets by any means available.

It’s possible that some aspects of English justice may be compromised in the process. They always are at wartime. This is often the worst, or at least longest-lasting, damage caused by war.

But – “whatever the cost may be”. For the only alternative to victory is defeat. Which in this case means the death of our nation, as assured as it could have been 77 years ago.

Margaret Court won more Grand Slam titles than any other woman in history, but she’s going to lose this shouting match.

When PC stormtroopers close ranks against someone, there can only be one winner. Mrs Court has found herself on the receiving end because she remarked that tennis is “full of lesbians”.

It took the stormtroopers minutes to marshal their forces. Riding their rainbow-coloured horses in the vanguard were three other former Grand Slam winners Martina Navratilova, Billie Jean King and Samantha Stosur. Martina immediately castigated Mrs Court as “a homophobe and a racist”, although neither the first nor especially the second follows from her remark.

Being lesbians, all three crusaders are in a weak position to dispute the factual aspect of Mrs Court’s remark, and nor is it their intention. In the distant past, people used to object to good women being branded lesbians. Now they object to good lesbians being branded lesbians.

Samantha still keeps one foot inside the closet, but the other two ladies proudly parade their perverse sexuality. Billie Jean once described herself as “a dyke with fat legs”, while two years ago Martina had the good taste to propose marriage to her girlfriend on bended knee in a crowded restaurant.

Anybody who follows tennis knows that Mrs Court was factually correct. This stands to reason.

Tennis is an aggressive game and, as numerous studies have proved, aggression is largely a function of testosterone. Women seldom start wars, do they?

It follows that professional tennis attracts a disproportionate number of women who are hormonally and psychologically close to men. I could name offhand dozens of known lesbians among women players, one with regret. I used to fancy Gigi Fernandez, who was gorgeous. It was heart-breaking to discover she was living with another player, Conchita Martinez.

My cracker-barrel explanation of this situation may be debatable, but the situation itself isn’t. Professional tennis indisputably has more than a statistically predictable number of lesbians.

Nor do the stormtroopers bother to deny it. They object not to the fact but to Mrs Court’s disapproval of it – especially since she’s on record as a fierce opponent of homomarriage.

Since her playing days, Mrs Court has become a Christian preacher, lamentably in the iffy Pentecostal confession. But whatever the denomination, she correctly says that not only Christianity but all Abrahamic religions regard homosexuality as a sin.

In fact, one Abrahamic religion executes homosexuals in variously imaginative ways, thereby creating a conflict of PC pieties. On the one hand, Islam satisfies PC multi-culti cravings. On the other hand, Muslims could be legitimately called homophobes and misogynists. Personally, I enjoy watching progressives tie themselves in knots trying to untangle this conundrum.

Yet on this issue there’s no conflict. Margaret Court has transgressed against the PC dicta and must be punished. For starters, Navratilova wants the Margaret Court Arena at the Australian Open to be renamed after a more acceptable personage. May I suggest Caitlyn ‘Bruce’ Jenner?

Or perhaps Andy Murray, who has joined the battle. “I don’t see why anyone has a problem with two people who love each other getting married,” he said. “If it’s two men, two women, that’s great… It’s not anyone else’s business. Everyone should have the same rights.”

Now Andy is an intelligent tennis player but that, alas, isn’t quite the same as an intelligent man. He clearly hasn’t thought about this issue as deeply as it requires.

First, marriage isn’t just about love. While it’s no longer invariably a union before God, it’s certainly one before the state, replete as marriage is with social, economic and demographic implications.

Hence it’s wrong to say that “it’s not anyone else’s business”. Both the state and society have their say, and not everyone has the same rights. For example, under the current subversive law Andy could marry a man – but not his brother Jamie. And if he should divorce his beautiful wife, he could marry any woman – but not his mother Judy.

Marrying anyone one pleases isn’t a matter of God-given right. The legalisation of homomarriage was a political act, which these days means a politically correct act. PC fascism rules the roost, with cockerels marrying other cockerels and hens marrying other hens to push through a pernicious, immoral and socially destructive ideology.

As both homo- and heterosexuals demonstrate, two people in love don’t necessarily cohabit or, if they do, don’t necessarily get married. In fact, about 60 per cent of cohabiting couples don’t end up tying the knot.

Homosexuals have lived together for centuries, in England unmolested. Even Oscar Wilde was convicted not for his predilection but for sex with minors. So why this sudden urge to get married?

Here’s another question, which is a kind of answer to the first one. Why is ‘correctness’ political and not, say, moral, ethical or social? Because for once our anomic activists are being truthful: PC is indeed a political tool designed to bring about tyranny.

No tyranny can be imposed without destroying all meaningful opposition. In this case the opposition comes from what could be broadly described as tradition or, even more broadly, Western civilisation.

For fascistic progressivism to triumph, Western civilisation has to be routed. Its religious and moral foundation, Judaeo-Christianity, has already been marginalised at best. Ditto, Western polity, reduced to spivs pandering to a braying mob. Ditto Western economics, rapidly heading for debtors’ prison. Now the PC crowd are destroying the family, the core unit of society.

You might say that the term fascistic is too emotive, but I don’t think so. Militant intolerance of opposing, especially traditional, views is a hallmark of fascism, however this is expressed. Initially different forms of expression vary only in the pejorative names screamed by the mob.

It could be ‘Jews’, ‘capitalists’, ‘whites’, ‘blacks’, ‘traitors’. Or, as is more fashionable in today’s West, ‘homophobes’. Typologically, neither the slogans nor the people who scream them differ all that much.

They’re all united by their hatred of the West and everything it has stood for over millennia. PC also means post-civilisation.