Category: Blog

I hasten to reassure Alexis’s few fans: physically he’s very much alive and, one hopes, in good health. Politically, however, he’s that proverbial doornail.

Or at least he would be in any place where parliamentarism has any meaning. The brave new EU isn’t one. No parliament there, including the European one, does much more than wielding the rubber stamp.

In any country with a sovereign parliament, a PM who calls a national referendum, campaigns for and gets the consensus he wants, then goes against it by succumbing to external pressure, would have tendered his resignation already.

But, by surrendering to EU blackmail, Alexis may have earned himself an elevation to the inner sanctum of the pan-European mafia. He’ll never make Don, but he may be allowed to hang on as caporegime.

I watched some of Merkel’s press conference at breakfast, and she almost made me choke on my croissant. In the good tradition of modern politics, Angie never answered a single question directly.

Whatever the question, the reply was the same: the deal is done, Greece has agreed to be like Germany, her communist government can be trusted to oversee this conversion, the €350 billion debt will eventually be paid off, even though only €50 billion’s worth of public assets will be sold off. Details? Don’t you worry about them. Our finance ministers will thrash them out, that’s what we pay them for.

Angie sounded like a demented godfather (godmother?) making you an offer you can’t understand. 

Jean-Claude Juncker, Junk to his friends, was much more forthright. “Grexit is gone!” he screamed triumphantly, the decibel level typical of a man who has had a few during an all-nighter.

That’s what it’s all about. Angie, Junk, Tusk et al don’t care how many more billions they stuff into the shredder known as the Greek economy, nor about how much worse the already ailing European economies will get as a result.

Like a mafia family going to the mattresses, they don’t stop to think about the possible casualties. The family must survive at any cost. Grexit is gone! What else is gone with it is of no consequence.

You’ll be happy to know that some of the billions to be splashed against the Greek wall will come from our own pockets. But the brunt will be borne by the Germans, who don’t normally exhibit indifference to money among their salient characteristics.

One wonders how much longer Angie herself will survive as capodei tutti capi. Granted, things like national sovereignty, tradition or even basic honesty are these days pure phantoms, vague memories of European childhood. But money is real life, and at some point the Germans may wake up to what’s going on.

And Greece? Well, that soap opera has many instalments, and we’re nowhere near the end yet.

Like Red China back in the ‘50s issuing dozens of ‘final’ warnings to Taiwan, the federasts may heave a sigh of relief and congratulate themselves on having been able to shove their own Final Warning No. Whatever down Greece’s throats. Yet in a few months new final warnings will be needed and, more to the point, new billions.

Politics can trump economics, but only at the cost of destroying it. The very notion of 19 different economies sharing a single currency pegged to the monetary unit of by far the strongest one is sheer madness.

Such an undertaking can only succeed if the 19 economies become one. But fusing 19 countries into a single economy is only possible if they are also fused into a single nation, one with a single government, a single leader, a single monetary and fiscal policy, a single set of laws, a single army, ultimately a single people.

That’s what so many commentators mean when saying correctly that the EU isn’t an economic but a political project. But it isn’t just any old politics – it’s the nasty type.

Because the EU is founded on lies, every statement issued by it, including this morning’s effluvia, is a lie. And any political union based on lies and bribery will eventually have to dissolve or else use brute force trying to keep itself together.

The Zollverein, the 19^th century tactical inspiration for the EU, set the good example. Prussia used bribes and lies to unite the German states under her aegis, but when one of the states, Schleswig-Holstein, refused to play along, military aggression saw the light of day.

This is the choice the EU will face sooner or later, probably sooner. When another country – be it Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland or possibly even France – goes the Greece way, and neither Germany nor the IMF is any longer able to find the trillions needed, the EU will either have to self-liquidate or plunge the continent into a major war.

If history is anything to go by, evil political setups never leave without banging the door. I hope our own china won’t shatter inside the cupboard as a result.

Six days is a long time in politics, to paraphrase Harold Wilson, Alexis Tsipras’s ideological cousin.

Didn’t Tsipras go all out for the No vote in the bailout referendum on 5 July? Didn’t he get what he wanted? And didn’t the No refer to exactly the measures he’s now proposing in order to get another handout from the EU?

Then again, when an EU member holds a referendum, its results are only accepted if they suit the EU. If they don’t, the country is ordered to have another referendum – and keep doing it until she gets it right.

In this case, the EU hasn’t even bothered to do that. Its underhand dealings with Tsipras are proceeding as if no referendum had taken place. This is another useful reminder we ought to keep in mind: in the unlikely event the Brexit referendum returns the right result, it’ll be ignored.

However if the combined weight of Dave’s/EU’s Goebbels-style propaganda gets the In vote, Britain may never get another chance to regain her sovereignty.

But to get back to Greece, sitting down to write this piece I promised myself not to resort to cheap puns based on the country’s name: no suggestions that euros ought to be printed on Greece-proof paper and especially no wondering how many palms have been Greeced for Tsipras to come up with his 13-page SOS.

But it’s impossible for any halfway intelligent person to think that the unfolding saga is strictly aboveboard.

Essentially, contravening his voters’ wishes, Tsipras has agreed to pretend that, in exchange for another €53.5 billion in EU lucre, he’ll make sure that the Greeks will abandon their very ethos and, economically speaking, turn into Germans.

Specifically, they’ll raise taxes, cut social expenditure, eventually pay off their debts of hundreds of billions in whatever currency you care to name, and in general adopt the kind of approach to matters economic that they’ve never practised since Pericles, and probably not even then.

In her turn, Angela Merkel, who calls the EU tune because she pays the piper, will pretend that she believes Tsipras, against all historical, psychological and common-sensical evidence.

Just as two wrongs don’t make a right, two lies don’t add up to truth. The Greeks will gratefully take the €53.5 billion, provided Angie can twist the Bundestag’s arm to cough it up. Then this amount will sink without trace into the same hole that has already gobbled up €240 billion’s worth of two previous bailout packages.

There’s a pipeline well-hidden in the hole. Through it many of the proffered billions will be instantly pumped into discreet offshore accounts seemingly owned by numbers. Hiding behind the numbers will be the flesh-and-blood parties to the deal, mostly Greek but some EU functionaries as well.

The rest of the money will simply be frittered away by Tsipras’s or someone else’s socialist government. The situation will again come to a head soon, at which point a new pack of lies will be put together. Let the poor Greeks die so the eurozone may live.

For there’s no doubt whatsoever that the poor will, as usual, bear the brunt, which they always do in socialist economies.

Writing in The Mail, Alex Bummer, who understands economics unusually well for a journalist, shows that his understanding of socialism is less reliable. “It is a mighty poor form of socialism,” he writes, “when it has been the most vulnerable people in society who are the hardest hit.”  

But that’s what socialism is all about. Mr Bummer makes a typical mistake here: he confuses the socialists’ slogans with their practices. It is, however, more productive with people in general and socialists in particular to look not at what they say but at what they do.

Such an inspection will show that all socialist economies (which is to say all modern economies) have the widest gap between the rich and the poor. And, the less developed the socialist economy, the greater the gap, the harder the poor are hit.

For example, in the 19^th century, the era of dog-eat-dog capitalism, the average ratio of income earned by US corporate directors and their employees was 28:1. Yet in 2005, when socialism had made heavy inroads into the post-New-Deal US economy, this ratio stood at 158:1.

If such is the situation in America, you can imagine how socialism operates in Greece, which in her approach to the economy is typologically closer to Muslim caliphates than to Western social democracies.

We shouldn’t wonder about the cynicism of both parties to the deal, which may well go into effect tomorrow. Since the EU is founded on lies and blackmail, it can sustain itself only by lies and blackmail.

In this instance the blackmail is mutual. The EU is blackmailing Tsipras by promising to plunge Greece into an economic catastrophe, and himself into oblivion, if he refuses to proffer all the right lies. But Tsipras gets his own back, by blackmailing the EU with dark hints at accepting Vlad’s cash (and naval bases) if the EU refuses to take Greek lies at face value.

The whole thing is more reminiscent of dealings between two mafia families than of legitimate diplomacy. But hey, it’s the EU we’re talking about.

 

 

My trusted Chambers defines the word as “to be entitled by merit”. This goes to show how out of touch lexicographers can be.

These days ‘deserve’ means something else. When someone says “I deserve X”, what he really means is “I don’t deserve X, but feel entitled to it anyway.”

If I were compiling a lexicon of modern usage, my entry for ‘deserve’ would say: “deserve v.t. not to deserve, receive without earning. See also living wage, George Osborne, glossocracy, Greece ”.

When our politicians mandate that employers must pay their workers “a living wage” because “hard-working people deserve it”, one is tempted to reply that obviously they aren’t hard-working enough, because otherwise they’d earn a living wage without relying on governmental coercion.

In a free country, wages ought to be determined by the market, not state fiat. Doing it the modern way isn’t only morally wrong but also economically unsound.

Employers who can’t afford to pay the decreed wages may decide not to hire a chap, who’d then probably dip into the state’s coffers. And even if a mandated wage doesn’t have such an immediate effect, it’ll still work as a time bomb ticking away.

Employers aren’t going to eat the extra cost of hiring. They’ll pass it on to consumers, which will have a negative knock-on effect on the economy, ultimately leading to more unemployment.

Moreover, such dictatorial practices throw the market out of kilter. This has been invariably shown to hurt the economy in every country where the government tries to play, not merely referee, the economic game.

As if to prove that human intelligence is regressing, such economic basics had been known even before the Industrial Revolution got going in earnest.

Thus, for example, Edmund Burke: “the moment that government appears at market, the principles of the market will be subverted.” I won’t bother to cite similar statements by Adam Smith and other economists: such quotations could fill a book.

It’s up to the market to determine how much workers should be paid. So it does, by making companies, be it banks looking for managers or restaurants looking for waiters, compete for qualified personnel as fiercely as they compete for customers.

In order really to deserve a living wage, a youngster should study hard at school and acquire marketable skills. Then he’ll earn a decent income without giving the state an opening to put its crushing foot down and give the economy a bum steer.

‘Deserve’ is only one of many words that nowadays mean the opposite of their dictionary definitions. ‘Justice’ is another.

The dictionary says it means “the awarding of what is due”. Yet, when modified by ‘social’, justice means awarding something that’s not due – injustice, in other words. If Britain were to function according to the principles of properly defined social justice, a quarter of our population, systematically corrupted and undereducated by socialists, would starve to death. 

‘Liberalism’ is another trans-semantic word. When it was coined, it meant limited government, personal liberty, laissez-faire economics at home and free trade abroad.

As used today, it means replacement of individual responsibility with collective security, various degrees of command economy, as much state control and as little personal liberty as is achievable this side of concentration camps. Thus liberal means illiberal.

The same goes for cognates of ‘liberal’, such as ‘national liberation’. When applied to places like Rwanda, it designates a transitional stage between colonialism and cannibalism. When applied to the ‘former Soviet Union’, it stands for a shift from de jure to de facto Russian control. When applied to Asia, it means Mao, Ho and Kim.

Yet again the dictionary definition falls by the wayside. Words no longer mean what they really mean. They mean whatever modern tyrannies need in order to impose their power on the individual.

Lewis Carroll realised this was coming, which is why he made Humpty Dumpty conduct this dialogue with Alice: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.” 

Nothing short of prescient, that.

 

P.S. By way of illustration, tennis star Caroline Wozniacki has been knocked out of Wimbledon by Garbine Muguruza. The match was played on Court 4, which according to Miss Wozniacki was unjust (see ‘justice’ above).

She said women “deserve” (see ‘deserve’ above) to be featured on Centre Court, but don’t get the same opportunities as men.

Centre Court has a capacity of 15,000, much greater than the outside courts. Now which match would 15,000 tennis lovers rather see: the crushing bore of Wozniacki-Muguruza or, say, the sublime QF five-setter between Gasquet and Wawrinka? Yes, quite.

Miss Wozniacki clearly uses ‘deserve’ in the Humpty-Dumpty sense of the word.

 

P.P.S. It hasn’t taken long. People are already quipping that euros should be printed on Greece-proof paper.

Little girls are so touching, don’t you think? That’s why their father should touch them, recommends a subsidiary of Germany’s Ministry for Family Affairs.

The rather bossy recommendation comes in its two 40-page brochures entitled Love, Body and Playing Doctor, the first one talking about children from 1 to 3, the second about those from 4 to 6.

The kind of touching this august body has in mind would have landed Daddy in the pokey anywhere in the West not so long ago, and in some places it still would.

For what’s meant here isn’t just a hug or a pat on the head, accompanied by the lapidary if rhetorical question “So who’s Daddy’s gorgeous little girl then?”

“Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters,” laments the 1 to 3 booklet. “Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex.”

Such neglect is so bereft of reciprocity that it’s plain wrong, continues the Ministry: “The child touches all parts of their father’s body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same.” Fair is fair, and never mind the grammar.

It has been a long time since I was a tot, or indeed the father of one. But, if memory still serves, back in the old days mutual masturbation wasn’t seen, or recommended by governments, as an essential part of paternal care for infants.

Morally, that sort of thing was regarded as degeneracy; technically, as incest; legally, as a crime. It was generally believed that an infant girl’s development would be better served by Daddy ‘devoting attention’ not to her clitoris but to another organ: her brain.

Let’s just ponder the tectonic social, moral and cultural shift that has had to occur for the government of a Western country to have come up with such a swinish call to incest, delivered with a typically German attention to detail.

For this criminal act isn’t an isolated event. It’s Zeitgeist, as those Family Affairs degenerates would call it.

To wit, 11-year-olds in Borken, Germany, were last year ordered in class to draw the cross-sections of male and female genitalia.

Apparently, however, children in that sleepy town hadn’t yet acquired the sophistication we expect from our little ones. This they proved when two impressionable tots fainted, while some others hyperventilated. All in all, 10 children were taken to hospital.

In France the parents of a little girl were fined a hefty amount. Their crime? They failed to bring their daughter up properly. The little one rushed out of the classroom when shown an “educational” (pornographic) film about coitus. Such squeamishness was treated as culpable absenteeism.

In Switzerland parents demonstrated against their four-year-olds receiving graphic tuition in the facts of life. As part of that valuable education, the precocious kiddies were taught “how it is, when one doesn’t know exactly whether one is male or female. They can then consciously choose their sexuality, just as they do with religion.”

But, though they may choose their sexuality, they don’t choose their religion, or rather they choose none. That is the whole problem, the impelling force behind the shift. For religion isn’t all about what people do on a Friday night or Sunday morning. It’s also about the way man defines himself.

If a father sees himself as the creature God made in His image and likeness, then he’ll raise his daughter to be proud of her humanity, not her vagina.

He’d try to instil in her certain eternal truths that can be best absorbed in a state of innocence, the longer-lasting the better. He’d try to teach the little girl that life has a profound meaning, and her genitals aren’t the place where it can be found.

If, however, a man believes that, when he dies, he turns to fertiliser and that’s it, then life to him can have no meaning – or rather the process of life becomes its own meaning.

Deriving as much pleasure out of every moment from the earliest possible age becomes the ultimate desideratum. In fact, the very definition of pleasure has to be pushed downwards, ideally all the way down to the crotch.

So why wait until the girl grows up and, God forbid, marries, reactionary as such a possibility may sound? Why waste the valuable years between 1 and 3, when she can receive hands-on tuition in what her clitoris is for? No reason at all.

Such is the ledger sheet of our much-vaunted progress, ladies and gentlemen. On the credit side, children operating computers with nothing short of wiz-kid dexterity. On the debit side, fathers encouraged to masturbate their one-year-old daughters.

When you try to calculate the balance, keep in mind that, devoid of their moral character, those same children may well grow up to use their computer skills for all kinds of nefarious purposes. Such as launching ICBMs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    

 

   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

        

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardly a commendable sentiment, that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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