Category: Blog

As a rule, I eschew the I-told-you-so genre of journalism. Tooting one’s own horn invariably produces discordant music in questionable taste.

And in any case, anyone writing regularly will get some things right on the strength of statistical probability alone. Pointing them out invites one’s detractors to cite things one got wrong, and that list may well be longer.

However, Charles Moore’s piece in today’s Telegraph has emboldened me to exercise a bit of vanity. For this is the first article I’ve ever seen in the mainstream press saying that the problems with the NHS just may be, to use the medical parlance, systemic rather than symptomatic.

Comparing the ways coronavirus is being fought in Britain and Germany, Mr Moore correctly states that our fully nationalised system can’t respond with the same efficacy and flexibility because it’s weighed down by parasitic, top-heavy bureaucracy.

In common with all such bureaucracies, it’s mostly concerned with protecting its own turf. This makes the NHS congenitally hostile to the private sector.

That’s why it fought for a fortnight against the rapid construction of a badly needed 4,000 bed hospital in East London. Once the NHS was forced to relent, the private sector stepped in and took just nine days to put up the UK’s largest hospital.

Mr Moore was also right in pointing out that, while some intrepid critics may at times find something wrong with the NHS in detail, no one has so far dared criticise the very principle on which it’s based.

It’s at that moment that a broad grin forced its way onto my face. For, ever since I moved to London 32 years ago, I’ve been saying and writing that the NHS has become an object of worship, if not downright deification. (If you tap ‘NHS’ in the search function of this blog, you’ll find dozens of pieces to that effect.)

No substantive criticism of it is possible – for the same reason that major religions discourage heresy and apostasy. The NHS is a surrogate deity, not a highly questionable way of financing medical care.

Even a close friend of mine, himself an NHS doctor and a conservative writer to boot, almost snapped my head off when I mentioned some 30 years ago that no entity built on egalitarian, which is to say false, premises will ever be successful. Since then he has changed his views, but then he’s an extremely intelligent man and therefore eminently capable of self-correction. Most people aren’t.

Part of his objection then was that I proceeded from a priori first principles, in that case that any large-scale socialist enterprise is corrupt by definition. Sooner or later, even if it didn’t start out that way, it’ll begin serving itself rather than the public.

The next step will be for the socialist enterprise to communicate the message that the public is supposed to serve it, rather than the other way around. Hence the PROTECT THE NHS slogan prominently displayed all over the country.

Mr Moore took exception to that self-serving message, but I (Me! Me! Me!) beat him to it by several days. Such quicker response comes from faith in first principles – provided I’m satisfied they are correct.

That’s me done – no more self-aggrandisement for any foreseeable future. Back to my self-effacing, vicariously British self.

Meanwhile, I hereby propose that Pontius Pilate be canonised, to assume the name of St Pontius, the patron saint of hand-washing and personal hygiene.  

What’s the difference between humanitarian aid and a commercial transaction? Easy. The latter involves payment; the former doesn’t.

However, when Vlad and Don get going, their double act is exempt from semantics. Witness the 60 tonnes of medical supplies Russia sold to the US yesterday.

It’s clear why the comments have been semantically slapdash: selling masks and ventilators to a country that can’t satisfy its own demand has no propaganda value. Offering them out of compassion does.

That’s why Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov felt obligated to say: “Trump gratefully accepted this humanitarian aid.” The little matter of the payment was glossed over.

As is his tendency when dealing with Putin, Trump happily went along with that propaganda stunt by referring to the sale as a “nice gesture”.  

“It was a nice offer from President Putin,” he said. “And I could have said no thank you or thank you. And it was a large plane of very high quality medical supplies and I said I’ll take it.”

Trump’s spokesman confirmed this accolade by describing the sale as “an act of goodwill”. Mercifully, not everybody in either country was as eager to endorse Putin’s special op.

Brett McGurk, who served as Special Envoy to three presidents, including Trump, described the sale as a “propaganda bonanza”. Gen. Ben Hodges, former commander of US forces in Europe, commented that: “it’s a gift TO the Kremlin, not FROM it.” And Carnegie’s analyst Andrew Weiss tweeted: “This is nuts”.

Why Vlad activated this op is clear enough. Russia is under US sanctions, introduced after her 2014 aggression against the Ukraine and 2016 meddling in US elections.

Like a boxer who smiles demonstratively after being hit, Russia pretended for a while that the sanctions didn’t hurt. However, when the price of oil collapsed, and with it Russia’s major source of income, such pretence no longer worked.

Hence the mighty resources of the FSB/SVR were partly shifted from trying to subvert the West in every conceivable way into a massive op aimed at having the sanctions lifted. Portraying Russia as a global charity much given to ‘nice gestures’ is part of that effort.

It has to be said that Russian doctors and nurses, sewing their own masks and dying from a lack of protective equipment, don’t feel particularly charitable.

Their trade union, The Alliance of Doctors, wrote: “It’s just making a mockery of everything.” They didn’t say that charity begins at home, but the proverb would have been appropriate.

Russia, or the Soviet Union as she then was, has form in neglecting her own people for the sake of strategic gains.

Thus in 1932-1933, when millions were dying in the famine deliberately organised by Putin’s predecessors, when parents were eating their children in the Ukraine and Kazakhstan, when corpses lined roads and scavenging was rife, and when a loaf of bread could have saved a child’s life, the Soviets, in need of hard currency, were selling millions of tonnes of grain to the West.

The situation isn’t quite so dire now. But, though Russians aren’t yet dying in their millions, they are still dying in large numbers. How large, no one knows, except people whose credulity has been bought wholesale and who therefore are willing to believe any information supplied by Russia.

While Vlad’s position in this transaction is crystal clear, Don’s is ambivalent. That is, it would be ambivalent but for the amply documented affinity he feels for his friend Vlad.

Not only has Trump never said a single critical word about Putin, but Vlad is one of only two foreign political figures he has ever unequivocally extolled (our Queen is the other one).

It was over Trump’s tooth and nail objections that Congress managed to push through the package of aforementioned sanctions. Since then Trump has been trying to reinstate Russia in the G8, from which she was expelled for beastly behaviour.

Putin’s clandestine support of Trump’s campaign is a proven fact, which even Trump can no longer deny. Although the Mueller inquest was unable to produce prima facie evidence of any collusion, any unbiased observer of the Vlad-Don double act would smell something fishy.

The characteristic smell had begun to reach our nostrils long before Trump’s presidential campaign, when he had extensive business dealings with the Russian Maf… – sorry, I mean businessmen – and was trying to secure contracts worth hundreds of millions.

He clearly senses a kindred soul in Putin, which may mean ill will, but can also be the traditional useful idiocy from which so many Westerners suffer where Russia is concerned.

Trump is trailing Biden in the polls, and he may well lose in November – major disasters, natural or otherwise, tend to be bad news for incumbents. I’ll be sorry if that happens, for I think Trump is on balance a decent president, especially by comparison to the available alternatives.

Yet should he lose the election, his relationship with Putin will, as far as I’m concerned, make me a little less sorry.

No one doubts that the world will suffer huge losses as a result of the pandemic. Yet, dialectics says that losses must co-exist with gains, and losers with winners.

Most of us will lose, but who will gain? First, a general observation: following a major upheaval, the world never emerges at the other end the same as it was going in.

The Black Death put paid to the Middle Ages. Napoleonic wars drove the last nail into the coffin of Christendom. The First World War killed what was left of traditional Europe and gave birth to two satanic regimes. The Great Depression followed by another world war enshrined the big corporatist state with strong socialist overtones.

Squeezing all such developments under the same umbrella is difficult, but some common tendencies are detectable.

The state steadily gets stronger, bigger and more centralised. The West becomes more secularised, with a tendency towards neo-paganism. Political extremism thrives, starting at the margins and slowly seeping into the mainstream. Society becomes more stratified, a tendency made even more obvious by the backdrop of incessant egalitarian propaganda.

Alas, neither history nor common sense points at things being substantially different in the aftermath of the current pandemic. Now, Cassandra’s plight shows the danger of making predictions. But hell, nothing ventured…

Hence, in no particular order, here’s my starter for ten:

The EU will soldier on, but the fault lines, already noticeable before the crisis, will steadily turn into chasms. That ugly construct has always shown its impotence at crisis time, and now more than ever.

Even the two seminal EU countries, Germany and France, are appealing to national, rather than pan-European solidarity. The choral finale of Beethoven’s Ninth has been effectively replaced as the EU anthem by each member screaming Sauve qui peut! at the top of his voice.

The state will assume greater powers throughout Europe. Major industries will be nationalised either outright or under the guise of rescue packages, and public spending – which is to say state power – will grow exponentially.

This will happen by popular demand, for Europeans have been brainwashed to regard ‘capitalism’ with suspicion. Their fickle affection for it has to be bought, and the price is steep: greater and more conspicuous consumption.

When an economy’s ability to deliver is hampered by either its own mistakes or force majeure, it’s seen as being in default of its promise. The people’s craving for a paternalistic state, carefully fostered over decades of strident propaganda, comes to the fore.

Thus a current poll shows that more than 70 per cent of the French want the state to nationalise key industries – and the same slant is observable throughout Europe, if perhaps not everywhere on the same scale.

Since European, and generally Western, countries are governed not by sage statesmen but by self-serving politicians, they’ll treat such polls as their marching orders.

As always, when a shift to greater corporatism happens, the money supply will be inflated. Savings, pensions and investments in long-term securities will collapse, while the value of properties will inflate in parallel with the money supply.

This will set the stage for a carbon copy of the 2008 crisis, but blown up to a greater scale and accompanied by wider unemployment. That will both increase the size of the dependent class and lower the purchasing power of those in work.

As a result, fascisoid authoritarian parties, of either left or right, will take over in some European countries, starting with the continent’s low rent part. Even if they don’t, they’ll acquire a more prominent role, and not only in Eastern Europe.

Hungary and Czechia will probably be the first to go that way, although in Hungary’s case the future tense may be misplaced: her nationalist PM Orbán is already ruling by decree, and his country is widely regarded as the first authoritarian member of the EU.

Orbán, Czechia’s Zeman and Poland’s Duda have close ties with Putin and his kleptofascist clique. Their countries may drift out of the EU, de facto at any rate, and into Russia’s re-established sphere of influence. That will effectively invalidate Nato and shift the global strategic balance towards Russia and, even more so, China.

Western European governments, including Germany, France and Britain, are all governed by ineffectual, what I call spivocratic, elites. However, bad is better than worse, and worse is better than worst.

Much as I may mock France’s Macron, for example, he is preferable to Le Pen or Mélenchon; and I’d rather Britain were governed by Johnson than by Corbyn, Tommy Robinson or their typological equivalents.

However, the Macrons, Merkels and Johnsons won’t stay in power for long – and even if they do, they won’t stay the same. The gravitational pull exerted by extremists will force the mainstream parties to abandon their few free-market policies and push them towards greater corporatism. Since their instincts already point in that direction, the shift won’t take long.

A swing to either extreme is bound to lead to an upsurge of chauvinism, xenophobia (in its real meaning, not as shorthand for opposing the Islamisation of Europe), anti-Semitism and other manifestations of pond life.

In France, Jews (either as such or as the embodiment of capitalism) are already being blamed for the pandemic. That seems counterintuitive, considering the origin of the virus in communist China, which is neither excessively liberal nor particularly Hebraic. But such emotions come not from the mind but from the heart and, as the French say courtesy of Pascal, le cœur a ses raisons.

European governments will rail against extremism in public, while doing nothing about it in reality. They’ll gauge the public mood and act accordingly.

No moral counterweight will be provided by Christianity, for even Catholic churches, to say nothing of Protestant ones, will empty out even more than now.

Brace yourself, in other words. Things will probably get tough, and they’ll certainly change beyond recognition.

Idaho is one of the few states I never visited, nor even drove through. If I were in the US now, I’d want to correct that oversight, if only to find out what a sane place looks like.

For Governor Brad Little has just signed into law two bills preventing the few deranged people from imposing their madness on the many sane ones.

One bill prohibits transsexuals from changing the sex listed in their birth certificates. The other bans transsexual athletes from competing in women’s events.

The reason, or rather the pretext, for the first bill is actuarial: the state justifiably insists that it needs to be able to record births accurately. The real reason has to be sanity, which evidently is still extant in Idaho.

Sex, its legislators state implicitly, is determined by chromosomes. It’s an immutable physiological characteristic, like height, fingerprints and colour of eyes. As such, it’s exempt from any exercise of free choice, which faculty has many other arenas for expression.

The other bill reflects basic fairness: men have certain in-built physical advantages that don’t disappear when their genitalia do. That was demonstrated by Richard Raskind, who in 1975 was born again surgically as Renée Richards.

In addition to being an ophthalmologist and the father of a child, Richard-Renée was a strong amateur tennis player, who then insisted on his/her right to compete in professional women’s tournaments. The nearest Richard could have got to professional men’s tennis was to watch it on TV.

Having won a court case, Renée joined the women’s professional circuit at age 43. Over the next few years, Richards parlayed her/his masculine serve into a lucrative Number 20 ranking, which most women on tour, especially the straight ones, found grossly unfair.

This is the kind of iniquity Idaho has now eliminated from amateur sports, those practised under the aegis of schools and universities. As a lifelong champion of equality in all its forms, no matter how perverse, I don’t like the new law – because I can propose a much better one.

Now open to arbitrary choice, sex identity has become so fluid as to be meaningless. If it doesn’t derive from ironclad physiology, it should be eliminated from sports altogether. Since distinctions between men and women are bound to be discriminatory in one way or another, all athletes, regardless of how they identify, should compete together in the same events.

That way, say, women tennis players will be guaranteed equal access to higher prize money, although something in me suggests that’s different from actually earning higher prize money. But high principles shouldn’t depend on high earnings.

In all likelihood, the Idaho law will run foul of a 2018 federal court ruling, making such bans illegal. After all, whatever those hillbillies claim, the primacy of central government over state rights was settled once and for all by the bloodiest conflict in US history, the Civil War.

The federal government can thereby decree any insanity it wishes, and all individual states can do is grin and bear it (the grinning part is optional). Creeping centralisation is of course not unique to the States – this is the vector of all modern politics.

The Idaho legislature will soon be reminded of this fact. Rudely.

P.S. Speaking of government decrees, Boris Johnson has announced that all NHS coronavirus patients are to be put on a diet of nothing but kippers and pancakes. “Because,” explained the prime minister with his contagious chuckle, “they are the only things that can be slid under the door.” Happy April Fool’s Day!

When, just after winning her third term, Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no such thing as society”, the bien pensant brigade had a fit.

That only goes to show, they croaked, that the Iron Lady was preaching the 17^th century adage of every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. That’s the Tories for you.

But then everything Mrs Thatcher said received the same treatment. Had she observed that the sky is blue, she would have been accused of contaminating meteorology with Tory propaganda.

The bien pensant brigade, alas, includes not only unapologetic lefties, but nowadays also crypt-socialists calling themselves Conservatives. This Boris Johnson proved yesterday, by misinterpreting Mrs Thatcher’s statement in the light of current wokishness.

That 750,000 people, along with 20,000 retired medics, volunteered to help out the NHS, he said, proves that there is such a thing as society. Actually, it proves nothing of the sort.

His statement, on the other hand, does prove that – coronavirus or no coronavirus – Margaret Thatcher’s valiant attempt to return Britain to a semblance of solvency will be stamped into the dirt by Johnson’s populist commitment to a vast, socialist and ultimately ruinous state.

Those 770,000 noble people don’t prove the existence of society. They prove the vestigial existence of charity and solidarity – the same virtues that Margaret Thatcher not only extolled but actively tried to promote.

These are concrete Christian virtues that are part and parcel both of doctrine and the way of life universally accepted, if not always universally followed, in Christendom.

By way of refinement, the post-Christian world came up with the idea of society as part of its general tendency to replace specific notions with nebulous constructs. Society is one such.

To illustrate this point, Adam Smith, the quintessential figure of the Scottish, and generally British, Enlightenment, explained that society “may subsist among different men, as among different merchants, from a sense of its utility without any mutual love or affection, if only they refrain from doing injury to each other.”

One can only repeat Lord Byron’s quip: “I wish he would explain his Explanation.” ‘Society’ thus denotes any group whose members may hate one another but refrain from mass violence for some purely practical reason, such as fear of the police or of retribution.

Smith’s definition is too narrow to mean anything of substance. Today, on the other hand, most people define society too broadly. Society to them is an amorphous term that implies a much wider homogeneity and consensus than anything that exists in real life.

Modernity hates Christianity, with its specific demands on piety and behaviour, but loves loose concepts that can mean anything one could wish to read into them. Another such term is public opinion, which has nothing to do with what the public thinks.

In fact, the public doesn’t think; only individuals do. What’s called public opinion is in fact the opinion of a tiny elite formed by a couple of dozen journalists (mostly broadcast), a couple of dozen politicians, a couple of dozen ‘celebrities’ and perhaps a smattering of academics. Let’s say 100 people all in. A bit thin for public opinion, wouldn’t you say?

Society is another such arbitrary construct. Whenever it means anything at all, which is rare, it stands for a paternal, collectivist state. That’s how, for example, it’s used in today’s jurisprudence, where countless barristers repeat the same mantra on behalf of their thuggish clients: it’s all society’s fault.

That means the state hasn’t pumped enough money into fostering the already vast parasitic class. The essential Christian notions of individual responsibility, self-reliance and free will are as alien to modernity as the ‘mutual love and affection’ Adam Smith discarded as superfluous to society.

Margaret Thatcher’s consciousness was strongly affected by Christianity, specifically its Protestant variety. For her, self-sufficiency, thrift and hard work were cardinal and indisputable virtues.

I don’t know if she read Max Weber’s book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, but Weber would have approved of every ethical aspect of what’s inaccurately called Thatcherism.

Her remark on society was aimed against reliance on an omnipotent state as the panacea for all social and economic ills. Not only did that statement not preclude mutual assistance, charity and communal spirit, but it ineluctably implied it – just as the Christian concept of subsidiarity presupposes solidarity.

Johnson’s calculated slur on Thatcher wasn’t an offhand remark. It was a signal of a cardinal shift to a post-Thatcher, Cameron-style Conservatism that’s indistinguishable from Blair’s crypto-centristic socialism, with its rampant spivocratic statism.

That such a signal would have to be sent became clear when Johnson’s government unveiled its first profligate budget, a guaranteed road to a shining future of impotent individual and omnipotent state.

The kind of state, in other words, that serves mainly itself, not the public. It’s the operators and mechanics of the state who are the society that Margaret Thatcher railed against.

There are no political forces in the UK to resist this ruinous shift. And coronavirus provides a dense smokescreen behind which transition to, at best, Blairism can proceed apace. This is the public tragedy of coronavirus, standing apart from the individual tragedies of untimely deaths and the immediate economic devastation.

And, while we are on the subject of signals emanating from the government, note the slogan ‘Help the NHS’ prominently exhibited everywhere. Margaret Thatcher would have said ‘Help your neighbour’. But then she came from a different world.

Communism is a fanatical ideology, claiming to be the best political system in history, its ultimate fulfilment.

That, however, is demonstrably not the case. Other than murdering more people than any other political system in history, enslaving the rest and creating universal penury, communism has failed in every other endeavour.

To be able to continue making their megalomaniac, self-legitimising claims, communists have to lie. Hence lies aren’t an unfortunate by-product of communism but its very essence.

Communists lie to their own people, they lie to the world, and they lie about everything – even including natural disasters.

Thus, only after I left the Soviet Union in 1973 did I find out about the 7.3-magnitude earthquake that levelled the Turkmen city of Ashgabat in 1948. Of the city’s 198,000 inhabitants, 110,000 died. Yet the tragedy was never reported.

The same goes ten-fold for man-made disasters. Thus, according to the Soviets, no Aeroflot plane ever fell out of the sky – at a time when the airline had the worst safety record in the world, a leadership position it still hasn’t relinquished. As to hushing up and vehemently denying nuclear accidents, I wrote about that the other day.

Lest you might think the Soviet communists held exclusive rights to institutional lies, Chinese communists can match them with room to spare.

For example, Mao’s China denied the scale, indeed the existence, of the famine caused by the 1958-1962 Great Leap Forward. Yet 45 million died and about as many births were postponed, qualifying the famine as the greatest such calamity in history.

Ostensibly, China has changed since then. The Chinese now export things other than AK knock-offs to terrorists. Private enterprise is allowed, albeit under the government’s watchful eye. Most people are still poor, but at least they aren’t dying en masse. Wealthy Chinese tourists are seen around the world toting Gucci bags, rather than Red Books.

But the most important aspect hasn’t changed. China is still a communist, which is to say evil, state. That means the government still stamps out any dissent, suppresses free speech, controls even the intimate-most parts of people’s lives. And it still lies.

It’s only in this context that the coronavirus pandemic can be understood. Its immediate cause is Covid-19. Its real cause is the deadly virus of communism, with barefaced lies as its ubiquitous symptom.

At present, the Chinese communists lie about the scale and virulence of the infection, claiming they have it under control. That lie is neither sweet nor little, for it misinforms health authorities the world over, leading them to wrong conclusions and belated measures.

According to the communists, only 3,300 have died in China, one third the number of deaths in Italy. Yet Wuhan locals know the virus killed 42,000 in that city alone.

The Chinese already knew in early December about a “new viral outbreak”, driving up the number of pneumonia cases and clearly transmitting from human to human. Yet only on New Year’s eve did they notify the WHO about “pneumonia of unknown aetiology”.

Even then they insisted indignantly that no human to human transmission was occurring or indeed possible. The WHO obligingly acquiesced, accepting the lie on face value: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence…” and so forth – this, after some six weeks into the pandemic.

In fact, the aetiology of the problem was known from the start, at least to Dr Li Wenliang, who was already treating multiple cases in December. As a result of his heroic efforts, he was arrested by the secret police, accused of “spreading rumours” and made to sign a recantation.

Eventually Dr Li Wenliang contracted the virus and died, tending to his stricken patients until his last breath. 

When the pandemic was no longer possible to deny, the Chinese Foreign Ministry tried a new lie. Yes, it acknowledged, an epidemic was indeed under way. But it was created by the US military as an act of sabotage against the best possible political system.

In the time it took the Chinese communists to acknowledge the problem, tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands travelled to and from Wuhan, spreading the infection all over China and eventually the world.

But for the communists’ lies, the problem could have been nipped in the bud, and lives could have been saved – along with the world’s economies. As it is, we are looking at conceivably the worst recession since 1929.

What will the British government learn from the communist aetiology of coronavirus? Precisely nothing.

The moment our house arrest is lifted and loo paper again becomes available, we’ll reopen the valve on the pipeline carrying cheap Chinese goods into the UK. More important, we’ll stand by our decision to buy 5G technology from Huawei, a company that is de facto, though not de jure, owned by the communist government.

Our American allies are understandably nervous about this arrangement, what with its far-reaching strategic implications. The communists will be able to use this arrangement to compromise sensitive intelligence information and, push come to shove, scramble our communications.

But Huawei is cheaper than Nokia, and what else can possibly matter? Our powers that be refuse to accept that communist China (along with the KGB-run Russia) is our deadly enemy.

It’s in our vital interest to keep China at arm’s length, limiting trade to a bare minimum or, better still, cutting it off altogether. However, our government doesn’t think in those terms.

Smartphones costing people a few pounds more may cost our governing spivs the next election, and that’s not the risk they are prepared to take. However, risking people’s lives and the country’s security is perfectly acceptable. First things first.

Any student of human nature will tell you that it doesn’t really change at a time of crisis. It simply becomes manifest, with everything extraneous falling off and the innate, salient features getting crystallised.

The same applies to states. An extreme situation brings their essence out, but the essence is there to begin with.

That’s why it’s pointless to lament the alacrity with which the liberal democratic state has imposed totalitarian measures at the first sign of trouble – and the docile lemming-style resignation with which the people have accepted such tyranny.

Those who throw up their arms in horror and disbelief have been too credulous in heeding the messages of the modern state, too eager to accept its make-believe as real and its vocabulary as valid. They think the state is betraying the liberal democratic ideals, whereas in fact it’s asserting them.

For, stripping it of its mythological shell, one finds that liberal democracy is in fact neither, if we take its etymological promise on faith. Its principal desideratum is to control the demos, not to liberate it – while creating an illusion that the demos governs itself.

All modern states are shot up with an overdose of the growth hormone; all are united in their craving for power; all are governed by a small, typically homogeneous elite. The differences among the three main types of modern states – liberal democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian – aren’t those of principle.

All three types seek to extend their control over the populace into the private, and increasingly intimate, domain. All three wish to assume a paternal role by creating a culture of dependency. They only differ in the methods the elite uses for its ascendance, and in the constraints imposed on its powerlust.

The totalitarian state relies on naked force plus propaganda, the liberal democratic state on subterfuge plus propaganda, and the authoritarian state on a mixture of them all, but easier on the propaganda.

In that, the authoritarian state is typologically closer to the traditional states of Christendom. The difference between, say, the Spain of Philip IV and Franco was trivial compared to, say, the difference between the contemporaneous France of Louis XIV and de Gaulle.

The totalitarian and liberal democratic state both paint and enforce a mendacious picture of themselves that goes against the grain of history, anthropology, culture, experience and plain common sense.

The liberal democratic state tends to be more successful in that endeavour over time, for the same reason that a wily seducer usually runs up a higher amatory score than a brutal rapist. Yet both types are after similar gratification.

The key thing about crises, be they military, economic or epidemiological, is that they loosen the tethers constraining the innate bossiness of the modern state. It gets a ready excuse to slip off the mask of liberalism and put its foot down. It no longer has to pretend.

In that sense, Jeremy Corbyn is justified in claiming that coronavirus proves him right. Push comes to shove, the state puffs itself up with virtual cash and moves closer to the totalitarian ideals of Corbyn’s role models Lenin and Trotsky.

It’s just that Johnson had to wait for the crisis to let the feral statist cat out of the bag, whereas Corbyn was prepared to do so anyway. If Johnson’s government had to keep the prefix ‘crypto-’ before socialism, Corbyn’s would have honestly dispensed with it.

We in the West are too hung up on discussing politicians at the expense of pondering politics. We choose to gloss over the inner logic of the modern state, wherein politicians matter only as much as actors in a play. Some actors are better than others, but the play remains the same no matter what.

Much as I praise Corbyn’s honesty, a trait he shares with Messrs Lenin, Trotsky and Hitler who never concealed their intentions either, I have to rebuke him for his language.

Right and wrong are meaningless concepts in the absence of absolute standards. Athens and Jerusalem had them, but, while claiming to have a foot in both places, modernity ended up at neither, splashing down somewhere in the Mediterranean.

Modernity itself stayed afloat, but both the sagacity of Athens and the morality of Jerusalem sank to the bottom. Truth got fractured into minuscule fragments, with none retaining the characteristics of the whole.

We simply lack a moral and intellectual system wherein the question of right and wrong can be answered, or indeed even asked. At best, we can only wonder what works better or worse. But even if the modern state knows the answer to that simplified question, it won’t let the truth hold it back.

Modernity echoes Pontius Pilate by asking the rhetorical question to which it knows there is no answer: What is truth? And then it continues to emulate Pilate by virtuously washing its hands, just as ordered.

A pandemic is like a war: a tragedy for the people, a boon for the state. The state will emerge stronger and the people weaker – history offers no exceptions to that rule.

This in no way prevents me from wishing Boris Johnson a quick recovery. I’m sure he’ll get over coronavirus – just as I’m sure we won’t.

Before I answer this question, I have to disappoint you: there are no vacancies left. And if there were, you wouldn’t qualify.

To prolong the suspense even more, sometimes God and life serendipitously join forces to prove my point.

Thus, no sooner had I written yesterday about totalitarian regimes’ cavalier attitude to public health than the news came about a motorway being constructed through a nuclear waste dump in Moscow.

But I won’t hold you on tenterhooks any longer. The world’s best-paying job is that of Putin’s close friend. And none are closer than the brothers Arkady and Boris Rotenberg.

Hence their construction company miraculously wins tenders for many juicy projects, from gas pipelines to the Olympic facilities at Sochi, from the bridge connecting the Crimea with Russia to, well, the motorway in question.

By the Rotenbergs’ standards, the 17-mile, 8-lane stretch is small beer, bringing a mere £527 million into their coffers. But every little bit helps.

Their families won’t live anywhere near the motorway, and neither will Putin’s. However, some 100,000 Muscovites will, and they are up in arms.

When the Moscow Polymetal Plant was built back in the 1930s, it was outside the city. But Moscow has expanded, and now the defunct site sits in a residential neighbourhood.

In the 1960s the plant began to make equipment for nuclear reactors, with 60,000 tonnes of radium, thorium and uranium eventually stored in its waste disposal dump. Even now the radiation levels there are 60 times the norm, and that’s before the site has been dredged by Putin’s mates.

The residents are trying to protest, since the resulting radioactive dust will increase the already sky-high risk of cancer. Moreover, they suspect that contaminated soil will end up in the nearby Moskva river.

However, weak as the Russian authorities may be on responsible environmentalism, they know exactly how to deal with protesters. So far 70 of them have been arrested, and rubber truncheons have seen the light of day.

Moscow’s mayor Sergei Sobyanin doesn’t see what the fuss is all about. Yes, he admits, there are some “insignificant traces of contamination” on the site (to the tune of 60 times the norm). But as construction develops, the waste will be “shipped out” of the city.

Alas, instead of thanking him, along with the Rotenbergs and Putin, for the environmental benefits thereby accrued, those local ingrates charge truncheons and batons trying to hinder the project. There’s no understanding some people.

For Sobyanin at any rate. Yet other Russians understand them very well. They remember rabbits the size of wolves running around the woods near Soviet nuclear power stations and research facilities.

They also remember visiting Japanese scientists who refused to leave their hotel in central Moscow because their Geiger counters were screaming danger. That, at the time when young Putin and the Rotenbergs were practising judo throws in Leningrad.

And what do you know, those Russians cursed with elephantine memory just don’t believe things have changed, not in that department at any rate. Still, in their confrontation with the Rotenbergs, my money is on the latter. So is Putin’s.

That’s how many of us blame China for Covid-19, and racism, according to the liberal Zeitgeist, is the only explanation for blaming any non-Western country for anything at all.

However, those of us operating outside the liberal Zeitgeist, and especially those who despise it, might feel the 73 per cent of our population have a point, both specific and general. Moreover, the point they have has nothing to do with racial bigotry.

The specific point is that the virus did spread globally from China. Many epidemiologists make a convincing case that the culprit is both the appalling hygiene at China’s markets and also the nature of their merchandise.

For the Chinese, trained on decades of murderous famines, eat anything that moves, including wild species not manifestly designed for human consumption. If, say, a skunk or a beaver is roadkill to a Westerner, to a Chinese it may well be dinner.

China’s government indirectly admitted guilt. When the pandemic began to spread about a month ago, the ruling (and only) party issued a wholesale ban on eating wild animals.

The general point is perhaps even more informative. Totalitarian governments are notoriously lackadaisical when it comes to protecting life and limb.

That’s hardly surprising, considering that they kill their own people so avidly that they can’t be overly concerned when epidemics or accidents provide some competition in that area.

Take nuclear accidents, for example. In 1957 an explosion at the weapon-grade plutonium plant near Chelyabinsk spread deadly radiation over an area of about 20,000 square miles, eventually killing thousands of people.

The accident was kept secret for years, and even in the immediate aftermath the residents of the nearby villages weren’t informed. Evacuations started belatedly, when thousands had already been exposed to lethal levels of radiation.

The 1986 Chernobyl disaster is better documented, but the Soviet government under Gorbachev also issued indignant denials. Had the Geiger counters not gone haywire in Sweden, 600 miles away, the Russians would still be lying about it.

Even these days, when Chernobyl is mentioned by a Westerner, the Russians immediately invoke the accidents at Three Mile Island in the US and especially Fukushima in Japan. The minor difference is that no one died at either place.

How many thousands died at, and because of, Chernobyl is impossible to assess. Suffice it to say that, when I visited Minsk in 1995 as an observer at the Byelorussian elections, radiation maps were being sold all over the city. Some parts of it were coloured red, indicating deadly levels. All in all, the number of excess cancer deaths is estimated at 27,000.

The Soviets’ record on epidemics is also noteworthy. For example, smallpox had been eliminated everywhere in the West by 1900. Yet in 1958 an epidemic broke out in Moscow, caused by a Russian traveller from India (coincidentally, my mother’s friend). Again, the Soviets lied about the scale of the epidemic and the number of victims.

However, they were alive to the military possibilities. In 1967 Soviet scientists isolated the Indian strain, and by the mid-1970s they had produced 20 tonnes of smallpox weapons.

In 1972 a weapons test gone wrong caused another deadly outbreak of smallpox in Russia, and, true to form, it took the Soviets years to acknowledge it. Since then, some of their stockpile of smallpox weapons is known to have fallen into terrorists’ hands.

Both the Soviet Union (aka Russia) and China poison the environment in ways unimaginable anywhere in the West. Their nuclear plants emit radiation levels exceeding Western standards by orders of magnitude; their industrial emissions in general are unparalleled anywhere in the civilised world.

Totalitarian countries ignore every reasonable environmental and hygienic standard, never mind the madcap ones of Greta Thunberg’s febrile fantasies. The coronavirus pandemic is another evidence of their blood-chilling contempt for human safety and indeed lives.

Whether it was caused by the rodents featuring so prominently in Chinese diets or perhaps, as some insist, by an accident at a bacteriological weapons factory is really immaterial. One way or the other, China is to blame. And if you believe the official data on the number of cases and deaths there, there’s a bridge over the Yangtze up for sale.

When Donald Trump referred to Covid-19 as the ‘Chinese virus’, slings and arrows turned the air dark. Yet the president was amply justified in describing the epidemic by its country of origin.

Coronavirus is a tax on globalisation, and we are all paying it. After all, we share the globe not only with nice countries, but also with evil ones, those whose concern for lives is a great deal laxer than ours.

Yet when this panic blows over, trade with China will proceed apace. The West, corrupted by its newfangled ethos, won’t have the guts to put a moratorium on such trade until China (and similar countries) has learned to run its economy in a civilised way. That would be a very long moratorium, I can tell you that.

P.S. And speaking of globalisation, on my daily walk through the newly and nicely deserted streets of Fulham (the westernmost part of central London) I espied a sticker saying Lazio merda on a lamppost. That faecal reference to a Rome football team had to come from a supporter of its principal rival, Roma. It’s good to witness the cultural benefits of the free movement of people mandated by the EU.

That placid Scandinavian country full of big-breasted blondes (its only aspect that has remained etched in my memory after a visit some 20 years ago) is betraying the ideals of European federalism.

The most cherished of them is that of uniformity. European countries should become so thoroughly homogenised that they’ll become identical. Greece would get its fair share of big-breasted blondes and Sweden of swarthy beauties, Dutchmen would be pinching women’s bottoms on public transport, Italians would start eating mountains of bland cheese.

That’s why Sweden is risking international – well, certainly European – opprobrium, possibly ostracism. While other countries are desperately looking for something to do about the pandemic of coronavirus, the Swedes have chosen to do precisely nothing, or as near as damn.

All they’ve done so far is ban gatherings of more than 500 people and close universities. Other than that, life goes on: schools are open, bars and restaurants are doing brisk business, as are ski resorts, people are going to work, the economy is ticking along nicely.

And what do you know, so far Sweden (population 10 million) has reported 33 coronavirus deaths. By contrast, 6,000 have died in a quarantined Italy (population 60 million), whose economy is a basket case, just like everyone else’s.

“Sweden,” said Johand Carlson, head of the public health agency, “cannot take draconian measures that have a limited impact on the epidemic but knock out the functions of society.”

What on earth does he mean? Every other country can commit economic suicide and Sweden can’t? Who do the Swedes think they are? Well, let me tell you… sorry, I stopped myself just in time from saying something unprintable.

European governments are both aghast and fearful. Sweden, they say, is playing Russian roulette with people’s lives, staking her hopes on ‘herd immunity’. That’s tantamount to experimenting on humans, Dr Mengele-style.

All well-meaning Europeans are scared – but not because they think the Swedish experiment may fail. They are terrified that it may succeed.

You’ll notice that, ever since the pandemic struck, the EU has insisted that all its members adopt exactly the same measures. This even went for Britain that may be on her way out, but is still technically a member.

They all had to take exactly the same sledgehammer to their economies, incarcerate their populations, close their borders and contribute to the upcoming recession from hell.

Rather than protesting, all Europeans were supposed to genuflect and worship the state, national and especially supranational. All of them were expected to rejoice at the sight of the state hijacking many of the powers that used to belong to individuals.

Such pan-European levelling was never guaranteed to achieve the best results. We’ve never had a pandemic of Covid-19 before, so there are no guarantees. (Come to think of it, there’s no guarantee that Sweden’s experiment will succeed either.)

But that’s not the point. The point of enforced uniformity was to eliminate comparators, countries that would go their own way and conceivably do better than everyone else. If one country refused to adopt what Mr Carlson called ‘draconian measures’ and came out better, or at least not worse, off, that would show the folly of all other governments.

More than that: successful unilateral action would cast doubt on the very legitimacy of European governments. This, though people have been house-trained not to question their rulers’ wisdom too much, not too fundamentally at any rate.

However, looking at the smouldering ruins of their livelihoods destroyed by state action, they might not be able to stifle their screams. You did this, you, Messrs Ministers! And for what!? Just look at… . Well, in this case Sweden.

I pray for the success of the Swedish experiment. Its success would spell the failure of the post-war corporatist model shoved down the throats of Europeans. Sooner or later reflux was inevitable, and it’s possible this situation will act as catalyst.