Blog

The young man who hacked 19 people to death at a care home in Japan is exotic of method but modern of purpose.

Crazy or not, his motives sound perfectly sane and rational to anyone inhaling the Zeitgeist of today’s medicine: “My goal is a world in which, in cases where it is difficult for the severely disabled to live at home and be socially active, they can be euthanised…”

Satoshi’s rationale sounds as if it might have been borrowed from some major cultural figures of the past, George Bernard Shaw for one.

Already in 1910 GBS advocated a wholesale cull of the old and disabled. With the prescience one expects from a great writer, he specified gas chambers as the best expedient of getting rid of the people who are “more trouble than they are worth”:

“A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

What better reason does one need for mass murder in our progressive world? Shaw must have taken his cue from Darwin, the guru of modernity, who advocated euthanasia to accelerate otherwise slow natural selection:

“It is the selection of the slightly better-endowed and the elimination of the slightly less well-endowed individuals, and not the preservation of strongly-marked and rare anomalies, that leads to the advancement of a species.”

Margaret Sanger, the pioneer of birth control, saw not only euthanasia but also infanticide as beneficial: “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

Our contemporary Peter Singer, bizarrely described by some as a philosopher, asks a rhetorical question: “Why… should the boundary of sacrosanct life match the boundary of our species?”

Of course according to Prof. Singer our sex life shouldn’t ‘match the boundary of our species’ either. He’s a vociferous advocate of heavy petting, as it were – no one can accuse Peter of specism, although perhaps poor Mrs Singer might accuse him of something else.

Milan Kundera doesn’t see much difference between people and animals either: “Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but one of them is extremely important: euthanasia is not forbidden by law in their case; animals have the right to a merciful death.”

Satoshi thus has his finger on the pulse of modernity. The pulse beats universally, even though his method of administering mercy must owe something to the Japanese obsession with knives – where else is self-evisceration seen as the preferable method of ending one’s life?

But one could argue that stabbing old people is more merciful than the practice common in our dear NHS, where those seen as hopelessly ill are simply left to die of starvation, thirst and neglect. This is supposed to be consonant with the doctor’s sacred right to withdraw therapy.

It’s also supposed to be consonant with the Hippocratic oath, whose modern version endorses euthanasia: “If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.”

The hypocritical disclaimers to the Hippocratic oath aside, one can safely say that inside every philosophically modern doctor lives a Dr Kevorkian, or perhaps a Dr Mengele, trying to get out. And modern laws conspire to make sure he does get out.

As seems to be the case with every modern perversion, it’s Benelux that leads the way – they don’t call those countries low for nothing. In Holland, euthanasia is responsible for two per cent of all deaths.

In 1990 alone Dutch doctors killed 20,000 patients without their prior consent. Shortly thereafter euthanasia was legalised, and doctors began to kill in earnest. Moreover, two-thirds of euthanasia cases aren’t even reported, in 20 per cent of the cases the patients don’t ask to die, and in 17 per cent potentially life-saving treatments are available.

With the government’s endorsement, both tacit and explicit, doctors thus play not so much God as Satan. Brainwashed Dutchmen approve, though the old people not so much: many of them are scared of going to hospital because they think the doctors may kill them. They sense unerringly that, when euthanasia becomes legal, before long it’ll become compulsory.

Active euthanasia still isn’t legal in Britain, as it is in Benelux and Switzerland. But one hears complaints all the time that our aging population is putting a great burden on the state’s fragile shoulders. A wholesale cull of the crumblies and hopelessly ill is increasingly broached as a valid solution.

To a godless, philistine society it’s not human life but physical comfort that’s sacred. When the former diminishes the latter, what was unthinkable before becomes desirable now – and pragmatic post-rationalisation is never in short supply.

Satoshi Uematsu will doubtless be sent down for administering euthanasia without proper credentials. But once he’s out, he should come to Europe: there are jobs for men like him.

One hears rumours that Russian citizens are stocking up on soap, salt and other staples, those that always disappear whenever a war starts. Such authoritative sources as Moscow cabbies confidently predict that one is just around the corner.

Admittedly, Moscow cabbies have been wrong before, for example during the Cuban crisis, when one couldn’t buy a bar of soap for love or money. However, even marginally more authoritative sources share their concerns, and to them we should listen.

Some 1,500 years ago a Roman writer uttered a strategy statement that has since been amply proved and never disproved: Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war.

According to NATO’s former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Sir Richard Shirreff, that’s exactly what we aren’t doing – thereby jeopardising the peace we want.

Sir Richard isn’t an ideologue. He’s a top military professional trained in analysing things like strategy, tactics, logistics, supplies, speed of mobilisation and deployment.

On this basis he has produced a briefing document issuing a scary warning: Putin is preparing for war, and NATO isn’t: “It is clear that Russia is capable of surprising the West… with potentially devastating implications for eastern Poland and fatal consequences to the Alliance”.

The general highlighted Russia’s growing militarisation over the last 18 months, her aggression against the Ukraine, her action in Syria, including last week’s bombing of an airbase used by British and US special forces, frequent clashes between NATO and Russian warplanes, incessant simulated air attacks on NATO vessels, the massive concentration of Russian troops along the western frontier.

According to Sir Richard, NATO would be defenceless against a Russian lightning strike at the Baltics and Poland. Putin’s Western Military District could establish a beachhead within hours, with massive reinforcements arriving from other areas in a day or two.

A mobilisation has already begun, under the guise of exercises, Russia’s traditional method of camouflaging war preparations. “Turning one of these exercises into an operation against one or several of the Baltic states would give very little or no early warning time for NATO,” warns Sir Richard.

His concerns are echoed by Canadian spies who believe that Putin is openly preparing for war with the West, and his intervention in Syria is a capability test for his forces.

The forces seem to be efficient enough to take over the Baltics and Eastern Poland before NATO could reinforce its formidable force of a few hundred soldiers, 200 of them British, already stationed there. That would establish a fait accompli, leaving NATO with only two response options: nuclear or none.

Both would be catastrophic: the latter would spell the end of NATO; the former, possibly the end of Europe.

It’s in this context that Theresa May’s commitment to retaining the Trident deterrent must be understood. This also explains why she’s the first PM to confirm unequivocally that she’d be prepared to order a nuclear strike.

Unfortunately, HMG sees the constantly dwindling defence budget as a zero sum: every billion more spent on Trident is a billion less spent on the conventional army and navy.

Foreign aid is considered a higher priority than defence of the realm. Gen. Shirreff points this out: “NATO members are not spending enough on defence to rebuild the range of capabilities necessary to deter a resurgent and aggressive Russia.”

Sir Richard is talking about spending more on defence overall, not robbing the Peter of nuclear deterrence to pay the Paul of conventional forces. He doesn’t see choosing life over death as a zero sum game.

However, Peter Hitchens, whose understanding of matters martial is less proven than his ideological attachment to Putin’s junta, begs to differ. According to him we don’t need Trident at all:

“Spending £100 billion on Trident and neglecting conventional forces is like spending so much on insuring yourself against alien abduction that you can’t afford cover against fire and theft…

“Trident,” explains Gen. Shirreff’s rival in military expertise, “was designed to deter the USSR, a state that ceased to exist 25 years ago.” Yes, but Russia’s nuclear weapons didn’t, and they’re still targeted at us.

Having thus displayed his impressive knowledge of modern history, Hitchens then kindly dirties his hands with a bit of logistic nitty-gritty: “All we need to do is to hang on to a few H-bombs and the planes to drop them and we can have all that Trident gives us, for 100th of the cost.”

Such effrontery can only come from staggering ignorance, bolstered by ideology. The few planes required to deliver “a few H-bombs” would almost definitely be shot down – which is hard to do with in-coming MIRVed missiles fired from constantly moving and virtually undetectable subs.

What Hitchens is suggesting is tantamount to having no nuclear deterrent at all, but then we aren’t supposed to need any: the USSR is now called Russia, so no problem there.

Don’t know about you, but I’d listen to Gen. Shirreff before Peter Hitchens. Sir Richard knows what he’s talking about, which of course doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong. But he could also be right – a possibility it would be criminal folly to ignore.

That’s what the Darling Bud of May is supposed to be, and she should receive the benefit of the doubt so early in her tenure. However, Mrs May imprudently asked to be judged on her past, and her record doesn’t make one feel overly optimistic.

Far be it from me to suggest that a Western statesman must be a pious Christian. Desirable as this may be, considering the Christian foundations of our civilisation in general and statehood in particular, it’s such an unrealistic expectation that one would be ill-advised to hold one’s breath.

However, it’s plausible to expect that, if a statesman claims to be a pious Christian, that’s what he – or in this instance she – is. The Darling Bud indeed so claims, but the ensuing expectation is instantly frustrated by her campaign speech.

Here are some choice bits: “I believe marriage should be for everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation…”

Or species? All right, let’s not indulge in reductio ad absurdum – what Mrs May said is absurd enough in light of her claim to Christian piety and indeed conservatism.

A devout Christian can’t support this profanation of marriage by definition. An educated conservative can’t, also by definition, follow the singular antecedent ‘everyone’ with the plural personal pronoun ‘their’.

The first aberration betokens adherence to political correctness, which is in part a concerted assault on Christianity and its civilisation. The second aberration also betokens adherence to political correctness, which is in part a concerted assault on Christianity and its culture, including linguistic aesthetics and precision.

But do let’s press on: “Equal marriage was a hugely significant social reform. And it also made a powerful and important statement that as a country we value and respect everyone.”

A Christian, or indeed any averagely intelligent person, ought to understand that respecting everyone shouldn’t mean respecting everything. The distinction was made by St. Augustine: “Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum” (roughly, “With love for mankind and hatred of sins”). The phrase is usually rendered as “love the sinner but hate the sin”.

On her supposedly regular attendances of church services, Mrs May must have heard of the Sermon on the Mount, specifically Matthew 5: 43-48, where Christ taught loving not only our friends but also our enemies.

Yet nowhere did he or any of his apostles or any intelligent person ever say that loving sinners also involves loving what they do. The Darling Bud’s statement was thus an ignorant non sequitur.

Then: “For me, equality is about fairness. It is simply wrong for anyone to face discrimination or abuse because of who they are or who they love.”

This is neither grown-up nor conservative nor clever (nor grammatical: one should say ‘whom they love’ in formal speech). Equality, Mrs May, other than equality before God, is about unfairness.

Modern egalitarianism is emphatically about overriding what’s fair. Fairness is giving everyone his just desserts without prejudice or discrimination. If today’s governments practised this concept, half of our population would starve. It’s only by discriminating against talent and enterprise that a government can enforce any semblance of equality.

And surely we’re allowed to discriminate against, say, those who love children inappropriately? Or against kleptomaniacs? Or those who love animals in other than sentimental ways?

Nor does opposing homomarriage, which is the context of May’s statement, constitute discrimination. On the contrary, state licence for it discriminates against those holding traditional, decent, intelligent and, well, Judaeo-Christian views on such subjects.

Let’s go on: “A Conservative government under my leadership would be unequivocally committed to supporting LGBT people, and continuing the vital task of tackling hate crime, homophobia and transphobia – both in the UK and around the world.”

I have to thank Mrs May for enriching my vocabulary, for I haven’t heard ‘transphobia’ before. ‘Homophobia’ I’ve heard, all too often, but wish I hadn’t.

According to its dictionary definition, a phobia is “a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation”. Lacking psychiatric training, I can’t state with certainty that this anxiety disorder, a persistent fear of homosexuals, doesn’t exist. I can only say that I’ve never met anyone so afflicted.

I have, however, met many extremely intelligent people, Christian or otherwise, who think homosexuality is wrong and homomarriage is a travesty of a traditional and vitally important institution. It’s such people who are accused of ‘homophobia’ by leftist trendies. Such trendies may be any number of things, but they can be neither conservative nor Christian nor intelligent – all those things the Darling Bud is supposed to be.

Moving right along: “I firmly believe in an open, inclusive, One Nation agenda of social reform which will change our country for the better.”

The kind of social reform Mrs May talks about has been going on for at least 70 years, and it has manifestly failed to “change our country for the better”. In fact it has made it a whole lot worse.

A conservative, intelligent and – God forbid – Christian statesman would know this. But Mrs May is none of those things. She’s a modern politician. Say no more.

Angela Merkel is prepared to die defending EU freedom of movement. Or rather she’s prepared to have many others die for it.

That stands to reason: the times are long gone when chieftains defended their tribe’s freedom in a joust with their counterparts. Today’s wartime chieftains specify non-negotiable freedoms and then let others die for them.

Also they refuse to acknowledge there’s a war under way. Hence their tendency to ascribe multiple casualties to a fit of madness suffered by some downtrodden loner acting on his own. They persevere until irrefutable evidence has come up, as it always does, that the loner wasn’t quite lonely in preparing his foray.

But then we can’t expect our leaders to be seers, a power I proudly possess. The moment I heard that someone had shot up a Munich shopping mall, killing nine and wounding 16, I went into my psychic mode.

I closed my eyes, looked at the picture of the carnage with my mind’s eye, and an image flashed through my mind: the murderer was a Muslim, who screamed ‘Allahu Akbar!’. Don’t ask me to explain this: seers never know how they acquire or activate their magic powers. It just happens.

Then reports came in, confirming the acuity of my inner vision. Ali Sonboly was indeed a Muslim. He was a member of the huddled masses yearning to get German jobs or at a pinch benefits – and then murder Germans, or at a pinch other Europeans, in the name of Allah.

His victims, most of them children lured into a McDonald’s by Ali’s promise of free burgers, died to uphold that essential human freedom of moving from one country to another without bothering with the formalities of acquiring proper travel documents.

Some warriors for Allah may actually have such documents, indeed possess them by birthright. But that doesn’t matter: even if born in the country in which they do murder, they still see themselves (although aren’t seen by others) as enemy aliens. Their loyalties are pledged to a cult whose exponents have been killing Europeans for 1,400 years, so they have a fine tradition to uphold.

My seeing powers demonstrably in working order, I exercised them again to turn into a soothsayer. I knew in advance that the hacks covering this skirmish in the war for Allah would claim that Ali probably acted alone.

That was the first reaction of those reporting on the recent mass murder in Nice: the initial accounts stated that Mohamed Bouhlel, who had massacred 84 people with a 20-tonne lorry, had acted alone. The reports were reluctantly modified several days later, when five accomplices were arrested.

For your benefit I’m prepared to strain my mind’s eye yet again, if you kindly wait a second. There… I’ve got it: Ali didn’t act alone. For a start, he had to have help to obtain his loaded gun and at least one spare magazine.

In Germany it’s impossible for an 18-year-old to do so legally. Anyone under 25 must first pass a psychological test and then wait for a year to get his gun license. Moreover he must produce a valid reason for wishing to own a gun, and the urge to shoot children doesn’t quite qualify.

Therefore Ali acquired his weapon illegally and, psychic that I am, I can’t see a Muslim-looking boy speaking with a heavy foreign accent just going to a Bierhalle and asking the Bavarian barman where he could tool up.

What I do see is Ali getting the gun from… wait another second… oh yes… here, it has come to me. He got it from another Muslim, one in touch with an underground network providing weapons and explosives for devout chaps with suicidal tendencies.

This network is part of an international criminal syndicate called Islam. That’s why one doesn’t have to be endowed with my psychic powers to know instantly that it’s Muslims who are responsible for any mass murder committed – or to be committed – anywhere in Europe.

One wonders if Frau Merkel and other federasts have a cut-off point in their minds for the number of casualties they’re prepared to take in the war they refuse to fight or indeed to acknowledge. Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

Or possibly hundreds of thousands, if those freely moving Muslims graduate from guns, lorries and axes to a nuclear, chemical or biological capability?

I’ve said it a thousand times if I’ve said it once: peacetime niceties never apply at wartime, and we are at war. Not with Islamists but with Islam. Not with Islamofascists but with Islam. Not with ISIS but with Islam.

Ideological refusal to acknowledge this and act accordingly, coupled with an equally ideological commitment to the idiocy of free movement or indeed of the EU as such, makes Merkel, likeminded federasts and bien pensant cretins of other ideological hues accomplices in mass murder.

The blood of those Munich children isn’t only on Ali’s hands. It’s also on yours, ladies and gentlemen – and you’ll never wash it off until you change your criminally irresponsible tune.

Since Cicero thus quoted another Roman consul, this question has figured prominently in forensic investigations. Proceeding from that starting point, many observers have concluded that Erdoğan himself organised the coup, the better to Islamise Turkey.

Erdoğan has certainly profited, having increased his power to dismantle the quasi-secular republic created by Atatürk. It was only quasi-secular because many Turks never doused the Islamic fire in their loins.

I recall finding myself in Istanbul’s business district some 20 years ago. The street was crawling with young men sporting Armani suits and other questionable off-the-peg garments, and carrying attaché cases.

Suddenly a muezzin began singing from the nearby minaret, and all those Armani-clad chaps prostrated themselves where they stood. In a few seconds the street became a sea of heaving backs, something one seldom observes in the City of London.

Secularism may have existed in government for almost a century, but it has never made inroads into many Turks’ hearts. Devout Muslims, which most Turks are, don’t mind an Islamic state, and Erdoğan had no trouble drumming up popular support against the coup.

Did he organise it? Not literally, I don’t think. Staging such a giant spectacle is probably beyond Erdoğan’s directorial talents, especially since he would have had to recruit many suicidal volunteers, some among his close friends.

It’s easier to believe that Erdoğan merely provoked the coup. The army, the only force in the country still predominantly loyal to secularism, had legitimate grievances, and most rebels acted in good faith. But many agents provocateurs must have been quietly working behind the scenes, egging on those anti-Erdoğan officers.

Thus encouraged, they marched but were easily routed by the loyalists, who then started a major purge. So far 60,000 people have been arrested or sacked, with the army beheaded, independent judiciary ditto, and the school system brought to heel. Domestically the question in the title has a single-word answer: Erdoğan.

But it’s the international aftermath that interests me most, and there the answer would be both longer and impossible to provide without historical parallels. Many observers draw those, mainly with the 1933 Reichstag fire in Berlin.

The Nazis used it to consolidate their power. Hitler profited to such an extent that it’s commonly believed he himself had instigated the arson. The evidence for this is scant, but Hitler definitely took maximum opportunistic advantage of the situation.

In that sense, the parallel with the Turkish coup is valid, especially when it comes to the domestic ramifications. But an earlier parallel, involving Germany and Russia, elucidates the strategic impact of the coup much better.

Russia ended the First World War (and, incidentally, started the Second) as Germany’s ally, which turned both into pariah states, treated as such at the 1922 Genoa Conference, especially since Soviet Russia repudiated the Tsar’s debts.

German and Russian diplomats then slipped away to Rapallo, a nearby resort. There they signed a treaty, agreeing to “co-operate in a spirit of mutual goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries”.

Just like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 17 years later, the Rapallo Treaty had secret clauses. The Germans agreed to provide the technology and the know-how the Bolsheviks needed to create a modern military industry. In their turn, the Russians undertook to help the Germans circumvent those provisions of the Versailles Treaty that limited the country’s military capacity.

As a direct result, German and Russian tank officers and pilots trained together at Russian schools built and financed by the Germans. It was at the Kama School near Kazan that Russian and German officers (including Guderian and Manstein) worked out the tactic of flanking armour thrusts, which both used to devastating effect against each other later.*

Today’s situation is eerily reminiscent of Rapallo, 1922. Both Erdoğan’s Turkey and Putin’s Russia are rapidly turning themselves into pariah states, bereft of Western allies. This is drawing them closer together, and a Russia-Turkey axis, which may or may not also include Iran, is becoming a distinct possibility.

The relations between the two countries soured on 24 November, 2015, when a Turkish F-16 fighter shot down a Russian SU-24M bomber that had violated Turkey’s airspace. Russia demanded, and Turkey offered, an apology, which was rather perfunctory.

Talk of another Russo-Turkish war was in the air, as if the 12 such wars the countries fought between 1568 and 1918 didn’t suffice. However, the coup changed all that.

The mayor of Ankara, a staunch Erdoğan loyalist, declared that the pilot who shot down the Russian jet was among the rebels. Hence his Russophobic action had been inspired by Fethullah Gülen, the anti-Erdoğan dissident. Since Gülen is currently living in Pennsylvania, he’s obviously a US puppet. “Our relations with Russia were spoiled by these bastards!” screamed the Mayor.

The tone of Russian propaganda has also changed noticeably since the coup, with Turkey routinely portrayed as an ally against the US.

Considering the critical importance of Turkey to NATO, her possible alliance with Russia is deeply worrying. Just like the Germany-USSR alliance of yesteryear, it can only be aggressive, with the West its target.

Something needs to be done fast, before things get out of control. As they did in 1939.

*The Russophones among you may be interested in the documentary evidence of this cooperation gathered by Yuri D’yakov and Tatiana Bushyeva in their book Фашисткий меч ковался в СССР (The Fascist Sword Was Forged in the USSR). I don’t think it has been translated.

Though sporting success is among the most trivial of man’s achievements, rooting for one’s national team is relatively innocent. People want their teams to do well at the Olympics, and even a fossil like me, who doesn’t really care one way or the other, would rather see a British athlete winning than, say, a German one.

However, when fascist dictators crave Olympic success, it’s neither innocent nor trivial: for them every medal won is an affirmation of ideological superiority. Leni Riefenstahl conveyed this in her masterly, if morally evil, film Olympia, showing the grinning Führer presiding over the pagan pageant of the Berlin Olympics.

The Germans got more medals than the Untermenschen of other nations and especially other races. The Aryan superman powers were thus confirmed, and young Germans were ready to charge into the slaughterhouse of a great war.

Putin is another fascist dictator, if in a state of flux. He hasn’t quite graduated to murdering his enemies openly and en masse. Poor Vlad still has to rely on Al Capone’s, rather than Hitler’s or Stalin’s, methods of dealing with dissent, such as the odd surreptitious bullet or a car bomb, such as the one that killed the journalist Pavel Sheremet in the centre of Kiev yesterday.

Yet Vlad needs his sporting success too, mainly to keep the natives from getting restless. He can’t put food into their bellies, but fire can work even better, if expertly stoked. When Vlad’s role model Stalin told his starving, enslaved people that “Life has become better, life has become merrier”, many felt a surge of exhilaration – they were prepared to believe the leader rather than their own eyes looking at their hungry children.

Vlad doesn’t have much in the way of a mind, but his fascist instincts are of sterling acuity. Russia’s declining sporting powers just weren’t on: Vlad wanted success, and he wanted it at any price. The price he has paid is the greatest doping scandal in history.

It wasn’t about winning fairly; it was about taking drugs. That was one event in which Russia had no rivals, not with her entire resources focused on stealing Olympic medals. The project had two major parts: first, coming up with drugs that worked; second, covering up their universal use.

The first part was easy: Grigori Rodchenkov (who later blew the whistle on the scheme), director of Russia’s anti-doping laboratory during the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi, developed a steroid cocktail of metenolone, turinabol and oxandrolone, mixed with whisky for men and vermouth for women. This heady mixture turned the fiasco at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics into a glorious victory in 2014, with hundreds of athletes having enjoyed the Putin cocktail hour.

Concealment was harder, but that’s where the expertise of Putin’s alma mater the KGB came in handy. Those boys can break into vaults, never mind a few supposedly tamper-proof bottles of urine samples.

At first they succeeded famously: between 2012 and 2015, at least 312 positive tests were covered up across 28 sports. Overall there were 577 positive samples, including 139 in athletics, 117 in weightlifting, 26 in cycling, and 11 in football and rowing.

And a ‘mouse hole’ in the Sochi testing laboratory enabled FSB agents to break into ‘tamper-proof’ bottles and replace steroid-laced samples with pristine ones.

However, whistles were blown, bottles were analysed by independent experts, and the conspiracy was uncovered. What little was left of Russia’s reputation was drowned in a sea of dodgy urine.

As a result, the Anti-Doping Agency recommended that Russia be banned from this year’s Rio Olympics for “mind-blowing levels of corruption”. Russia’s subsequent appeal was turned down, but Putin’s response was refreshing in its impudence.

Like a thief screaming “Stop thief!” louder than his pursuers, Vlad described the impending ban as a “dangerous relapse into the interference of politics in sport”. In fact he ought to be proud: Russia has maintained her leadership as one of the world’s most corrupt countries, sharing the pedestal with the likes of Nigeria and Uganda.

To put it plainly, Putin’s kleptofascist junta is stealing the country blind, with 111 people owning 19 per cent of all household wealth. Back in 2001 INDEM (Information Science for Democracy) estimated the volume of corruption in Russia at $30 billion. By 2005, that figure grew by an order of magnitude, to $300 billion.

More recent INDEM data are unavailable but, judging by the billions laundered through Panama by just one modest cellist, there’s no reason to believe that the Olympic-calibre speed of growth has slowed down.

If Leni Riefenstahl came back, her creative genius would be severely tested. Leni was ready to glorify mass murderers, but she’d be stymied by the task of glorifying mass thieves. Say what you will about the Nazis, but they thought bigger than doctoring urine samples and laundering cash.

One only hopes that FIFA will take the 2018 World Cup away from Russia. Let Putin’s lads compete in drug-pushing tournaments, they’d be odds-on.

 

 

 

 

The other day I talked about hate crimes, but I left out an important proviso. Apparently killing white people or policemen doesn’t qualify as hate crime even if explicitly perpetrated out of hatred for those groups.

Thus Micah Johnson, who murdered five Dallas policemen and wounded seven others, didn’t commit a hate crime even though, according to Police Chief David Brown, “The suspect said he… wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”

That to me qualifies as a hate crime or specifically a crime motivated by racial hatred. However, Jamilah Lemieux, Ebony’s editor, disagrees:

“When we use a phrase like ‘hate crime,’ we’re typically referring to crimes against people of colour, people of various religious groups, LGBT people, people who have been historically attacked, abused or disenfranchised on the basis of their identity. To now extend that to the majority group and a group of people that have a history with African-Americans that has been abusive, and we can apply that to either police officers or to Caucasians, I think gets into very tricky territory.”

The ability to use English with anything resembling professional expertise is clearly not a job requirement for the editor of that venerable publication. Neither is logic or any reasonable frame of moral reference. Hostility towards whites and policemen, offset by an all-abiding love of sexual deviants and Muslims (her name suggests that’s the religious group Jamilah had in mind) seems to be a sufficient qualification.

“Don’t shoot until you see the whites” appears to be a philosophical premise with which Ebony sympathises, even if the magazine doesn’t manifestly call for putting it into practice. Now I’d suggest that there’s something wrong with any society that fosters a climate in which such scurrilous rags can thrive or indeed survive.

Slavery hasn’t existed in America for over 150 years, and race discrimination has been outlawed for over half a century. One would think this is long enough for the blacks to bury the hatchet (or the rifle, as it were) and for the whites to assuage their sense of guilt and start treating blacks as equals, not as retarded children to be mollycoddled lest they might harm themselves and others.

My dictionary defines racism as “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior”. There isn’t one word there to suggest that black prejudice against whites is exempt from this definition.

Yet such an exemption is openly demanded by black ideologues, such as those at Ebony, and eagerly accepted by white ‘liberals’, a group that dominates the US opinion-forming media, including all TV networks bar one and all major newspapers bar none.

Hence Miss Lemieux’s statement wasn’t a rant by a marginalised nutter: it was a measured expression of vox populi, that dummy seemingly enunciating words actually being uttered by a wire-pulling ‘liberal’ ventriloquist.

This is lamentable on too many levels even to mention here, never mind to enlarge upon in any detail. I’ll still mention a couple, such as the very concept of hate crime.

Not only in America but also in Britain, hatred by category is treated as an aggravating circumstance in, for example, murder. Yet I can’t see any valid moral distinction between a murder committed out of, say, greed and one perpetrated out of racial or any other hatred.

Or rather I can see a distinction but not a difference. Murder, the unlawful taking of a human life with malice aforethought, is a capital crime seen as such in the founding moral code of our civilisation, the Scripture. How murdering a man just because he’s chromatically different is any worse than murdering a man because he’s richer escapes me entirely.

In fact, drawing such a distinction does untold damage to the very principle of – and therefore respect for – the law, by implicitly denying the absolute value of a human life. Human lives can’t be listed in the descending order of importance. The life of a white policeman is no more or less valuable than the life of a black handyman – and hatred by the latter towards the former is every bit as reprehensible as the other way around.

This is so basic that it pains me even to have to mention it. One should, however, ponder the tectonic shifts in society that have made this a legitimate topic for discussion. Some invisible plates clamped together to produce an earthquake whose shockwaves have never been attenuated. On the contrary, they seem to be getting more destructive as they spread out.

Alas, it’s impossible to do anything about this without revising the founding concepts of Western modernity, starting with those enunciated during the American and especially French revolutions.

All such principles are expressed in words that turn out to mean exactly the opposite of what they really mean. Hence liberty means bondage, equality means inequality and brotherhood means egotism. What Messrs Orwell and Huxley wrote was meant to read as dystopic fantasy. Instead it reads as reportage.

As founder, president and so far the only member of the Charles Martel Society for Multiculturalism, I’d like to thank my friend Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for reminding us of the wonders of diversity.

Specifically he has highlighted the exquisitely exotic taste of Turkish delight, a delicacy as sweet as revenge. Recep, being like me a religious man (and we know that all religions are at base the same), has served his God well.

“Alex, people don’t really understand God, or to be precise Allah,” Recep told me this morning over some fine raki, drunk out of tea cups for decorum’s sake.

“They think he’s all about mercy and loving your neighbour and in general being like a social worker with a stupid smile pasted onto his mug at all times.

“But Allah can also be jealous and wrathful, when need be. It’s like the Hegelian unity and struggle of opposites, catch my drift?

“Such a lopsided understanding of God creates a dangerous theological imbalance, which Islam in general, and I in particular, are out to correct – as a favour to our NATO partners and, in the near future, our fellow EU members. Different cultures learning from one another, that’s what multiculturalism is all about, isn’t it? Your health, my friend.”

“Yes, Recep,” I nodded, draining my glass as he drained his. “But people may get the wrong idea. They may think you’ve tipped the balance a bit too far the other way. Pictures of all those battered, naked men trussed up, all those beatings and beheadings in the streets…”

That got Recep agitated beyond control. “Men?!? There are no men among those plotters! They’re pigs! Dogs! Shaitan’s spawn! May a bridge break in half under their feet and they drown in a river of dog’s dung! I’m going to cut them up into little pieces and make doner kebabs out of their… whatsit!!! They went against me! Meaning against Allah!”

“Are you saying you’re Allah?” I asked, looking around uneasily. Fortunately, all the other Muslim drinkers in our nice Edgware Road bar were too preoccupied with their own tea cups to pay any attention to us. “Isn’t that kind of blasphemous?”

“Blasphemous, you filthy piece of pig’s dung?” objected Recep, who always addresses me and his other British friends by this epithet, designed to conceal the depth of the affection he feels for us.

“I’ll tell you what’s blasphemous, you glob of dog’s urine. It’s not recognising that cultures are different. Call yourself a multiculturalist? Well then, this is what our culture is all about.

“I may not be Allah, nor even Mohammed, but I’m their messenger. Like Allah, I’m prescient, catch my drift?

“That’s why I knew in advance who the 50,000 plotters would be. Had the list of them on my hard drive, may Allah turn them inside out and a scorpion sting them into their bare livers. That’s before they themselves knew their own fiendish plans, catch my drift?”

“Yes, Recep, I hear you’ve so far had some 6,000 officers and judges arrested, and 15,200 teachers sacked.”

“Those Shaitan’s spermatozoa are jolly lucky they only got sacked in this sense. Personally, I’d rather sew them up into burlap sacks and drop them into the Bosphorus, but that’ll have to wait until the passions have quieted down.”

“But Recep,” I asked, “what is it I hear about your reintroducing the death penalty and having thousands of conspirators executed in public? Some in the West may think…”

“I don’t give a sow’s penis what some in the West may think,” explained Erdoğan. “I only care about what Allah tells me. And Allah tells me these wouldn’t be executions. It would be pest control. So don’t call them conspirators – they’re a blight, may Allah shove their noses into their own rectums, so what comes out goes up their nostrils.

“We will continue to cleanse the virus from all state institutions, because this virus has spread. Unfortunately like a cancer, this virus has enveloped the state,” added Recep.

“Actually this gives me an idea… Can cancerous cells be implanted into people? I mean you strap them down, out comes the syringe, and Mohammed’s your uncle, Fatwa’s your aunt…”

“I don’t know, Recep,” I confessed. “I’m into multiculturalism, not medicine…”

“Oh well, never mind, you ignorant piece of boar’s droppings. There’s a toast I want to propose. To multiculturalism! Allahu akbar!”

We both drank, I gratefully, Recep triumphantly. Between us we had the whole issue of multiculturalism sorted out. Live and learn, I say. So here’s to you, Recep, may Allah sprinkle rose petals on every path you ever tread, and may you deflower those 70 virgins before you meet Allah in heaven.

And oh yes, if you, or any of my readers, would like to join my Charles Martel Society for Multiculturalism, I’ll be pleased to send you an entry form.

I’ve made my decision to come clean and I feel better already. So here it is: the story of my criminal life, in every lurid detail.

I first committed a hate crime when I was 14 or so, and one supposes this could be put down to the impetuosity of youth. Except that it didn’t end there. Once I found myself on the wrong side of the law, the lure of illicit activity proved irresistible.

Since then I must have committed hundreds of hate crimes, possibly thousands – I’ve lost count or rather, truth be told, never bothered to count. The crimes varied in detail, but the motivation was always the same. Misogyny. Expressed through countless acts.

Mercifully, I can’t yet be tried and convicted for, Britain still being a comparatively free country, we can only answer to laws that were in force at the time the crime was committed.

Luckily for me no appropriate law existed at the time I was involved in multiple criminal activities, and even now it’s coming into existence only in Nottinghamshire. But such pioneering efforts never go to waste, and I’m sure that before long other police departments will join forces to stamp out vermin like me, serial misogynists.

Even though this initiative could conceivably clamp me in prison, I must say I admire the effort. It’s time we put an end to misogyny, and the best way of doing so is to define the crime as broadly as possible, casting the net so wide that no wrong-doer can get around it, nor slip through.

This is what Nottinghamshire Police have done but, credit where it’s due, they received invaluable help from Nottingham Women’s Centre. Together these two bedrocks of East Midlands probity worked out a definition of misogynistic hate crime that’s guaranteed to inculpate not only me but also potentially every post-pubescent male in the country.

According to the initiative, misogynistic hate crime includes: complimenting a woman on her appearance, texting or otherwise communicating unwanted amorous interest, any “unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement”, including such heinous crimes as “wolf whistling”.

But don’t let me indulge in fragmentary quoting. This is what a spokesman for the force actually said: “Unwanted physical or verbal contact or engagement is defined as exactly that and so can cover wolf-whistling and other similar types of contact. If the victim feels that this has happened because they are a woman then we will record it as a hate crime.”

One can only applaud this statement for being not only legally precise but also stylistically elegant. ‘Jane feels she was raped because they are a woman’ – who can argue against such usage? No one, for it’s consonant with the same spirit that animates this whole initiative, aimed at eliminating not only misogyny but also singular personal pronouns.

If a woman feels they is a victim of a crime, they is. What’s startlingly attractive about this idea isn’t just its (their?) grammar, but also its endless opportunities for expansion.

Defining any crime as an act seen as such by its victim makes it possible to charge every one of Her Majesty’s 65 million subjects with some sort of felony, and this includes babes in arms, who tend to soil their clothes and disrupt their parents’ sleep.

Such legal wisdom is already applied to race crime, which is just that if the victim feels offended. So why not misogyny?

But let’s not imagine things that might happen. Let’s concentrate instead on something that has happened: my lifelong criminal activities, as defined by Nottinghamshire Police.

I committed my first crime in a Moscow courtyard when I was 14, by planting an unwanted kiss on a neighbourhood girl. She called me something that doesn’t easily translate into English and told me to wait until I grew up.

Having thus stepped on the criminal path, I’ve since travelled it all the way. Of the criminal activities specifically mentioned by Nottinghamshire Police, I’m only innocent of texting (because that wasn’t an option for most of my life, and I still haven’t learned how) and wolf whistling (because I’ve never worked on a building site.)

Neither have I ever suggested to a woman that one didn’t get many of those to a pound, nor asked her if her legs go all the way up to the top. But I’ve complimented probably hundreds of women, many of whom didn’t look pleased. In my youth, I’d often make improper suggestions by way of testing the waters, only to find many waters to be reluctant or even downright contemptuous. I’ve been known to say scabrous things to female colleagues, and not all of them were pleased to receive such attentions.

I… well, I don’t want to spoil your appetite by more of such gruesome confessions. Just remind me to keep my mouth shut and my hands to myself next time I’m in Nottingham.

“Nottingham is leading the way with this – it’s not happening anywhere else in the country…yet!” said a Women’s Centre spokesman. Hear, hear! I’m sure the implied confidence isn’t misplaced.

The coup in Turkey is another victory for Islam – and another proof that the West is hoisting itself with the petard of its own folly.

Having abandoned the content of our civilisation, we’re obsessed with the form. Hence the fetishistic worship of the democratic shell, regardless of what it contains, from unbounded corruption to downright despotism.

This explains the reaction of Western leaders to the failed coup. Divided as they may be on many issues, they stand united in shallow understanding of their own field, coupled with an understated intellectual and moral integrity.

Hence our new Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, the token Etonian in May’s class-war cabinet, expressed HMG’s support for Turkey’s “democratic elected government and institutions”.

So did the French Foreign Minister Ayrault: “France hopes that… Turkish democracy will emerge reinforced by this test and that fundamental liberties will be fully respected.”

Merkel added her pfennig’s worth: “Tanks on the streets and air strikes against their own people are injustice.”

The White House ploughed right in: “The President and Secretary agreed that all parties in Turkey should support the democratically elected government of Turkey.”

Chaps, I know it’s difficult, but do try to understand that it’s not method of government that matters, but what kind of society it brings forth.

The greatest achievements of our civilisation came when democracy was either a far cry from today’s one-man-one-vote madness or didn’t exist at all. Conversely, democratic governments either perpetrated or abetted the greatest calamities in history, such as two world wars.

Nor does democracy automatically preclude tyranny, as shown by the democratically elected Hitler, Perón, Mugabe, Putin and Macîas Nguema (who gratefully murdered a third of the population of Equatorial Guinea that had voted him in).

It was in the name of democracy that a neocon-inspired US ousted secular Middle Eastern regimes to watch on gleefully as feral-looking Muslims flocked to voting booths. As a direct result, the whole region is aflame, with millions dead or dying, and bloodshed spilling over into Western streets.

Like all philistines, democracy fetishists believe that everyone is, or wants to be, like them. Since they themselves regard religion as an annoying irrelevance, they assume that Muslims are similar. But that assumption is wrong: the green banner of Islam still has more unifying power than any other current institutional symbol. And history shows that Islam has been doctrinally hostile to the West for 1,400 years.

The conclusion is straightforward: the more fervently Muslim a state is, the greater danger it presents to the West. Therefore it’s in the West’s interest to support the most secular Muslim regimes, while trying to undermine those run by proselytising fanatics.

In practice this means supporting undemocratic regimes, for most Muslims, unlike most Christians and Jews, are active believers. A democratic election is therefore likely to bring to power an Islamic theocracy – and this is exactly what happened in Egypt, to cite one example.

In 2012 Egyptians voted for the Muslim Brotherhood, installing Mohamed Morsi as president, much to the delight of Western democracy hounds. That eccentric gentleman believed that Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11, and the explosions that brought down the Twin Towers “happened from the inside”.

Overnight Egypt was transformed from a reluctant ally of the West into its deadly enemy, and few were the Westerners who didn’t heave a sigh of relief when a year later the army overthrew that evil, democratically elected regime.

Historically the army is the only force in the Islamic world that’s capable of keeping Muslim piety, and concomitant savagery, in check. Yet the generals seldom take over by democratic process. It’s military coup that’s the normal expedient.

This has been the case in Atatürk’s Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia – in every place where variously vile but generally secular regimes were installed. Of course democratic demagoguery wouldn’t wear it.

Anyone with elementary knowledge of history will know that an Ayatollah is the only realistic alternative to the Shah, the Muslim Brotherhood to Mubarak, tribal cannibals to the Ba’athist regimes in Iraq and Syria – and Erdoğan to a secular government beholden to the army. A Winston Churchill isn’t an option in any of those places.

Hence the only intelligent reaction would have been for Western leaders to support the coup in every way they could. What we get instead is vacuous drivel on the delights of democracy and the evil of military coups as such. When the West was still led by nation-serving statesmen, rather than self-serving spivs, things were different.

For example, when the 1944 Generals’ Plot against Hitler was unfolding, one can’t picture Churchill, Johnson’s professed role model, saying something like: “Admittedly, Herr Hitler is an implacable enemy of this country and her allies, and we are aware of the crimes his regime has perpetrated. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that, unlike the military junta trying to oust it, Herr Hitler’s government was democratically elected. Therefore, we cannot welcome the Generals’ Plot unequivocally. In fact, we denounce it for the denial of the democratic principles that HMG is here to uphold.”

“Tempora mutantur”, the classically educated Mr Johnson would doubtless say. Yes, and usually for the worse, as he has so ably demonstrated.