Category: Blog

Talk to any woman who has gestated a foetus to full term, and she’ll tell you what a spiritually rewarding experience that is.

To feel a life growing inside you and then popping out to face the wonders of the world – such joy must transcend the quotidian life and reach out to the mystery of man, the mystery of God.

As a passionate believer in universal human rights, those bestowed not by some nebulous God but by the tangible, ironclad UN Declaration, I regard this transcendent experience as an inalienable right of every sexually mature human being, irrespective of sex… sorry, I mean gender, how very reactionary of me.

However, this indisputable right, bestowed by the United Church of Internationalism, has so far been denied to a full half of mankind… sorry, I mean personkind, how very reactionary of me. Granted, some men keep on trying to partake of this ineffable joy – 1.5 per cent of us if you believe research, or 25 per cent if you believe Peter Tatchell and other dedicated fighters for this sacred right.

Alas, all their vigorous, thrusting efforts to be impregnated by fellow men have remained in vain, frustrating their souls, blighting their lives and enraging those observers who, like me, are passionately devoted to equality über alles, the phrase Germans use to sing but prudently don’t any longer.

Any inequality demands correction and restitution, no one can argue against that. The first step is to acknowledge the enormity of it all and offer one’s heartfelt apologies.

His Holiness Pope Francis showed how the other day, by stating from the height of his ecclesiastical authority that “the Church not only should apologise to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by work.”

No parallel demand was issued for reciprocal apology from ‘gay persons’ who might have offended the Church, and quite right too. The Church, as everyone knows, is history’s greatest, nay only, oppressor, and she’s the one to keep apologising till the cardinals come home.

That’s the only way to pour balm on historical wounds, to alleviate the pain suffered by ‘gay persons’, women and children since that nasty male God chose to punish women by making childbirth excruciatingly painful.

All of us good Christians should sign, if only inwardly, this plea for forgiveness, but that doesn’t mean we can’t find something else to apologise for, thereby correcting the pontiff’s omission. So here I am, on bended knee, offering my grovelling apologies to all those men who have since the time of Adam craved pregnancy but have been denied life’s unique experience by the cruelty of God and inadequacy of medical science.

You might think that, being neither God nor a medical scientist, I’m not to blame for this outrage personally. That only goes to show it’s you and not me who’s hopelessly reactionary. There’s no such thing as individual guilt – all guilt is collective, shared equally by every member of the delinquent group and indeed society at large. So, on behalf of all men who have never wanted to get pregnant I’m hereby offering an apology to those who have.

Now comes the restitution part, doubtless inspired by courageous women like Chastity Bowick, born a man but miraculously transformed into a woman, and an appropriately named one at that. As a boy, Chastity dreamed about giving birth one day: “If you’re a trans woman, this is a way of completing the dream,” says Chastity, now as feminine as any woman you’d ever wish to meet, provided it’s not in a dark alley.

Well, Chastity, there is Santa Claus: the dream is about to become reality. According to Scientific American, the wonders of modern science are such that a former man can – or at least soon will be able to – become pregnant by uterine transplant:

“Here is how it could work: First, a patient would likely need castration surgery and high doses of exogenous hormones because high levels of male sex hormones, called androgens, could threaten pregnancy. (Although hormone treatments can be powerful, patients would likely need to be castrated because the therapy might not be enough to maintain the pregnancy among patients with testes.) The patient would also need surgery to create a ‘neovagina’ that would be connected to the transplant uterus, to shed menses and give doctors access to the uterus for follow-up care.”

A lovely read, that. All those technical glitches mentioned are soon to be removed – the march of progress is unstoppable. If something can be done, it must be done: progress springs to life from this unassailable premise. Hence before long it’s new women like Chastity who will develop that majestic glow hitherto denied them.

All we can do is rejoice with them, while apologising unreservedly for the cruelty of having denied them this dream for so long. I do hope His Holiness will join me in expressing such sentiments – he can do grovelling apology with the best of them.

The pernicious petition to hold a second referendum is being investigated for fraud, but not rigorously enough. For example, this document has been signed by 39,000 residents of the Vatican, whose census population is a mere 800.

At the same time some petition-mad woman published a postal code on The Guardian website, saying that anyone without a British address of his own is welcome to use it. One is tempted to think that the 77,000 fraudulent signatures already thrown out don’t even begin to scratch the surface.

This is much worse than just old-fashioned political corruption. The response to the referendum is fascism in action.

The other day I commented on the fundamentally fascist nature of the EU, arguing that arbitrary power may well flourish even in a seemingly democratic soil. Hence the classic question asked by political scientists: What if the people vote to sell themselves into slavery? If the government ignores the vote, it’s no longer democratic. If the government abides by the vote, it’ll never again be democratic.

We routinely accept the Lockean fallacy that government can only draw legitimacy from consent. In fact, it’s just government that forms consent, not vice versa. An idealised picture Locke must have had in mind was that of ‘the people’ coming together in the past and voting consent to the liberal, secular state.

Alas, this never happened. In fact, no modern attempt to replace a traditional monarchy with a ‘liberal’ republic, be that the English revolutions of the seventeenth century, the American and French ones of the eighteenth, or the Russian ones of the twentieth, involved asking ‘the people’ for their consent.

What they all did involve was an attempt by an impassioned and devious elite to impose their rule on the people in the name of the people. Unlike the democratic element in, say, the traditional English polity, modern unchecked democracy is always bogus: the demos doesn’t really have a say in how it’s democratically governed. It only thinks it does.

The difference between modern ‘democratic’ and ‘totalitarian’ states is that of method, not principle. The latter impose their will by an amalgam of propaganda and violence, the former relies on more subtle forms of manipulation. Consent is claimed in all instances, which goes to show how easily it can be falsified or, that failing, coerced.

Obviously anyone would rather be manipulated than killed. Fair enough – unless he thinks that, if he succumbs to dishonest manipulation, he remains free.

Modern governments all have seeds of fascism in their makeup. In the EU, boosted by its quisling viceroys in member countries, the seeds have sprouted luxuriantly. Witness the current events in Britain, a textbook picture of fascism in action.

First Cameron dangled the plebiscite carrot before the electorate. Both he and his EU overseers arrogantly believed they were offering nothing tangible: the combined weight of their lying, scaremongering propaganda would carry the day easily.

The plot has backfired: the British, those same hoi polloi our elites despise so much, are still a sturdy lot who don’t scare easily. We had the temerity to “confound their politics” and “frustrate their knavish tricks”, to quote the second, never sung, verse of our national anthem.

Thereby we showed our ignorance of modern democracy: we thought it was real, whereas it’s only a make-believe simulacrum. People are welcome to vote as long as their ballots don’t upset the applecart. Now that apples are rolling all over Europe, even simulacra aren’t good enough. Fascism rules, okay?

If the people vote wrong, they must be told to ponder and vote again. The British are children who’ve proved to be naughty. It’s time for the grownups in Islington, Notting Hill and Brussels to spank them.

The methods employed by said grownups are frankly fascistic: a massive – and massively mendacious – propaganda push, combined with mob action and stigmatising all opponents as stupid, racist bigots. But million-strong mobs, be that Lenin’s komsomol, Hitler’s SA, Mao’s Red Guards or the asinine youngsters in London streets, don’t gather by themselves. They must be organised, brought together and told what to bray.

Meanwhile that Blair creature is leading the chorus screaming that the disastrous consequences of the referendum are so blindingly obvious that it’s self-evidently invalid.

What consequences? Some initial turbulence in the markets that every half-intelligent commentator had predicted? No, the only disastrous consequence is another unleashing of the fascist beast lurking inside modernity.

When Gen. Pinochet, commonly described as a fascist, rather than the national saviour he really was, lost a national plebiscite in 1988, he accepted the result and graciously stepped down – even knowing this would entail criminal prosecution against him.

The EU lot, democratic in jargon but fascists at heart, aren’t like that. If a referendum goes against them, it must be repeated until they’re happy with the result. This has happened in Ireland, Denmark and France. Why should Britain be any different?

I’m opposed to plebiscites on principle, finding them an inadequate way to settle serious issues. But the EU lot don’t mind a referendum – they just aren’t prepared to accept any result they don’t like.

I smell logical and moral rats on a rampage, but fascism has logic and morality all its own. One just hopes there’s enough spunk left in the British to “frustrate their knavish tricks” irreversibly.

The barometer Trotsky talked about has fallen off the wall and smashed. Now real people are about to cut their feet on the shards of glass.

Anyone who has read my book Democracy as a Neocon Trick knows I have misgivings about an inordinately large franchise. And I’m not the only holder of this subversive thought.

Edmund Burke wrote that in his contemporaneous Britain there were only about 400,000 people capable of voting responsibly. Adjusted for population growth, today’s number would be about five million. Hence, since the actual size of our electorate is closer to 50 million, one has to infer that the requirement for responsible voting has been dropped somewhere along the way.

The reason is obvious. Ever since government by divine right was replaced with government by manipulation, politicians have depended on a silly electorate easy enough to manipulate.

The quickest way of achieving this devious goal is to lower the voting age. The young, so beloved of Trotsky and other tyrants, are so beloved specifically because, while their gonads are at their most active, their brains aren’t yet even wired properly.

This is an ideal combination for expert manipulators to take advantage of, and they’ve always done so in spectacular fashion. Every revolution in modern history featured mature gentlemen inciting murder, but the young actually perpetrating it.

Everywhere in the West the voting age is being pushed down, which is illogical. After all, in Burke’s time the average life expectancy in Britain was 41. Hence, arithmetically speaking, 18-year-olds were middle-aged then, and one could have understood allowing them to vote.

Today’s 18-year-olds are children physiologically and, typically, infants intellectually. Easy to organise into a rioting mob, they’re incapable of passing mature judgement on even trivial matters.

If you work for a company, would you feel comfortable if the entire management team were made up of scrofulous adolescents? Yet, though managing a business is child’s play compared to running a country, we feel that children ought to have an equal say in how the country is run.

The folly of this is being demonstrated even as we speak. A couple of days ago a gaggle of teenagers were asked on TV how they liked being excluded from voting in the referendum. They were aghast.

“We’re the ones who are going to live with this, so we should have a say,” was the general consensus. By the same logic, 2-year-olds will live it for even longer, so should they vote too?

The demographic break-up shows that the young went for Remain as solidly as the mature people went the other way. Fair enough, but now they’re acting not just like harebrained adolescents, but like babies throwing their toys out of the pram.

A mob of predominantly adolescent idiots are demonstrating in Westminster, demanding that we hold another referendum because they don’t like the result of the first one. And almost three million similarly handicapped persons, again most of them young, have signed a petition to that effect.

Even more bizarrely, many have also signed a petition for London to split away from Britain and enter the EU on its own. Admittedly, though the de jure aspect of this would be hard to work out, de facto London already doesn’t look English.

Descendants of those who made Britain great number a mere 40 per cent of the city’s population, which partly explains London voting to Remain. Most of its denizens must feel they’ve left England already.

There’s no legitimate reason to complain about the referendum. The turnout was the highest of any election since 1992, and Leave got more votes than Yes to Common Market in 1975, Major in 1992, Blair in 1997 and Cameron in either 2010 or 2015.

But the young don’t ponder, nor can they understand, such incidentals. Given the odd prod here or there, they’ll be happy to exert their pedocratic rule by mob action.

And prodders, foreign or home-grown, aren’t in short supply. That slimy fish Sturgeon is threatening to veto our exit in Scottish parliament. Lawyers and their hangers-on pontificate on the referendum not being legally binding. Assorted MPs, past and present, roll on the floor frothing at the mouth.

The stage is set for the EU, in cahoots with our governing spivs, to pull the same trick they’ve pulled so many times before. They could change the EU charter cosmetically, possibly allowing us to soften some of the social provisions, to regain some token control of our borders, perhaps even to repudiate a move towards a closer union.

After that they’ll claim that the deal has changed enough to invalidate the referendum – the EU the British voted to leave is no longer there. Then our own MPs, barely a quarter of whom supported Leave (contrasted with the 52 per cent vote in favour, this shows how out of touch our governing spivs are with the very demos in whose name they govern), will grasp the proffered straw with alacrity and then…

I don’t know what will happen then. All sorts of possibilities are on the table, including street battles and a likely disintegration of social order. What I do know is that we shouldn’t hold our breath. Leon Trotsky may not yet have said his last word.

 

 

 

 

Imagine being hit on the head, not hard enough to knock out but hard enough to daze. Good, now you know how the defeated federasts feel.

This stupor affects their thought, never especially deep to begin with, which then comes across in what they say.

Witness Labour’s Stephen Kinnock, MP, both of whose parents became millionaires off the EU’s euro, and whose wife was until recently Denmark’s PM. Given such family involvements, I for one wouldn’t expect Mr Kinnock to be impeccably disinterested on this issue.

But I’d still expect one of those who govern us to be less daft than the proverbial brush. Alas, Mr Kinnock frustrated such expectations by declaring: “If the British people voted to leave the EU that’s one thing. But can we really say they voted for the devastation and destruction of the entire exporting sector of our economy?”

He clearly sees this as an inevitable consequence of Brexit. One wonders on what basis he has reached that conclusion.

His co-believers are clamouring about the collapse of the pound in the wake of the referendum. Actually, going from £1.29 to £1.24 falls rather short of the apocalypse they predicted in the run-up to the vote.

But do let’s suppose that the pound will remain at its present level or drop even lower. That would make imported goods and travelling on the continent dearer.

However, a lower pound will reduce the unit cost of British goods, making them more competitive on world markets. In fact, currency devaluation is a time-honoured way of boosting exports, one that had enabled, say, France to compete with Germany until the deutschmark, in the guise of the euro, became the single currency.

Then, rid of prohibitive EY tariffs, we’ll now be able to trade more easily with countries outside the EU, which already make up 60 per cent of our foreign trade. At the same time our trade with the EU has been going down steadily, dropping below the pre-Maastricht level.

Rather than ‘devastating and destroying’ our export sector, Brexit will make it stronger. Market traders, more intelligent and less ideological than Mr Kinnock, realise this, which is why Rolls-Royce shares shot up yesterday.

Mr Kinnock seems to be suggesting that, now we’ve decided not to become a province of The Fourth Reich, the EU market will be closed to British exports.

However, our trade balance with the EU is negative: they sell more to us than we to them. Protectionism inevitably produces retaliation in kind, meaning that, should the EU slap punitive tariffs on us, we’ll do the same to them. So where will the Germans sell their expensive cars? Greece? Portugal? Why, if the EU tried to do what Mr Kinnock predicts, it’ll instantly implode.

In other words, he’s talking through his hat, or rather through a portion of his anatomy that can’t be named in this decorous space.

Then there’s Sir Anthony Seldon, who has used the occasion to plug his upcoming biography of Cameron. Sir Anthony is nobody’s fool, but ideological bias can make even a clever chap sound dumb.

Sir Anthony writes, correctly, that “Cameron’s lack of deep beliefs has been another trait.” Yet in the very next paragraph, Sir Anthony shows no olfactory sense for non sequiturs: “His high intelligence, work rate, calm during crises, and integrity were his greatest strengths. So too was his patriotism.”

How do ‘high intelligence’ and ‘integrity’ tally with ‘lack of deep beliefs?’ Highly intelligent people think deeply about the world, which activity inevitably produces deep beliefs. If they have integrity, they tend to live their lives according to those beliefs.

A politician with no deep beliefs can be many things: a cynic, spiv, unprincipled manipulator, even a traitor. One thing he can’t possibly be is a highly intelligent man of integrity.

Nor can a man who has tears in his eyes when announcing his resignation boast ‘calm during crises’. And, if Sir Antony seriously thinks that staking his whole career on dissolving his country’s sovereignty is a sign of a politician’s patriotism, then his take on that faculty is rather different from mine.

Because of my unfortunate accident of birth, I also read Russian commentators in addition to English and French ones. Now even otherwise brilliant Russian pundits know next to nothing about Western politics, and understand considerably less.

Hence their state media are gloating about Brexit, while the ‘liberal’ opposition bewail it, both for the same reason: only Putin will benefit.

First, it may come as a surprise to those solipsistic chaps, but we don’t always base our politics on what Putin would like or dislike. Second, exactly how will he benefit? By gaining a military advantage?

But Britain is leaving the EU, not NATO. And it’s NATO, not the EU, that keeps Putin’s aggressive designs in check.

Neither is there any discernible economic payoff for Putin’s junta. On the contrary, one immediate effect of Brexit was a drop in the price of oil, meaning that Russian cellists will have fewer billions to buy musical instruments in Panama.

Everyone is saying that Brexit is divisive. So it is: it divides those who think clearly and those who don’t. The Russians can be forgiven their traditional ignorance of the West, which license can’t be extended to Westerners themselves.

Never in my life have I been so happy, nay ecstatic, to be wrong. Along with so many others, including Nigel Farage, the bookies and the pollsters, I thought the cause was lost. Two propaganda juggernauts, those of HMG and the EU, had been rolling for months, and they seemed unstoppable.

Now I’d like to apologise to the English people for underestimating them. Their innate common sense has seen through the scaremongering lies.

I do mean English rather than British, for the Celtic fringe, besides Wales, supported Remain. Scotland in particular craves staying in, in the misapprehension that the EU’s shattered finances will stretch to picking up the bill currently being footed by the English taxpayer.

Scotland’s politics is aptronymically fishy, meaning it lives up to its leaders’ surnames, Sturgeon and Salmond. Now they’re demanding another separatist referendum, but they’re in for a letdown.

Should they get what they want, the EU will welcome them with open arms but tight fists. They’ll greet the Scots with the same message the Russian PM recently delivered to starving pensioners: Hang on and stay cheerful, but we have no money.

Another excellent result is that we can now say good riddance to Dave, whose photograph should adorn the dictionary next to the word ‘spiv’. His resignation speech was supposed to be dignified, but instead sounded pathetic.

Yet, as far as Dave is concerned, it demonstrated that there’s a silver lining to his referendum cloud. Dave may have lost his job, but he has regained the Eton-Oxford vowels he no longer has to suppress for political gain. Felicitations, old boy, your gain is ours as well. Now off you go, to all those speech-circuit millions. Say hello to Tony for me, will you?

Like any outgoing PM, Dave listed his achievements, in the descending order of importance. Characteristically, he mentioned his subversive campaign for homomarriage above any economic achievements.

One doubts he’s bright enough to see that his push for destroying the institution of marriage might have cost him this referendum. Much of the Leave success has to be due to so many intuitive Tories loathing Dave personally, a feeling doubtless caused largely by his shoving homomarriage down their throats.

People will believe scaremongering only if they respect the scaremonger. Otherwise they’re more likely to be annoyed, and I’m glad the English vindicated this observation.

Also pathetic was the coverage of the historic turnaround on Sky News, a daily dose of which I have to swallow on my France sojourns. One announcer betrayed his true feelings by rounding off the 48.1 per cent Remain vote to 49 per cent. Another screamed at Chris Grayling, one of the Leave leaders, that, contrary to his predictions, the markets are punishing us for the vote.

“I never predicted anything of the sort,” replied Grayling. “We always said there would be some initial turbulence, but it won’t last.”

Indeed, only an economic illiterate would have expected the markets to take such a momentous shift lying down. Traders hate cataclysms and normally respond with panic. Predictably both the shares and the pound plunged the morning after, but by lunchtime they recouped half of their losses.

Our Chancellor threatened a punitive budget if Brexit won, but he’s unlikely to stick around long enough to deliver it. Like Cameron, Osborne unwisely bet his political career on the cause of destroying our constitution. However, it has hung on, which means he won’t.

He predicted the Brexit aftermath to be ‘the first DIY recession in history’, displaying both ignorance of economics and moral turpitude.

It was ignorance because every recession is DIY. Economic upheavals aren’t force majeure. They may be metaphorically described as tectonic shifts, but in reality they’re always man-made, caused by human folly. It was turpitude because it’s conceivable that by DIY Osborne meant that he himself would cause a recession by punishing the people for their wrong choice.

The word ‘punishment’ is very much in the air all over Europe, along with more pleasing words, such as ‘contagion’ and ‘domino effect’. The federasts are running scared, and few sights are more delightful to behold.

Nigel Farage predicted that the EU was moribund whatever the referendum result. That might have been so, but there’s no doubt that the Leave vote makes this rewarding outcome more likely.

Nearly half the people in France, Italy and Holland want to leave the EU and many more (60 per cent in France, for example) have negative feelings about this vile contrivance. Demands for referenda are heard all over the continent, and this kind of fermentation can’t be kept in the bottle indefinitely.

Even the Germans are fed up with sharing their earned wealth with those who haven’t earned it, and Merkel’s political longevity is far from assured. One just hopes that all those Eurocrats, 6,000 of whom get higher salaries than the British PM, have invested their ill-gotten wealth wisely.

I don’t know if Johnson at No 10 and Gove at No 11 will be better than the outgoing duo. But at least they will have got there in the wake of a great victory. Congratulations to them and all those who have fought for it so valiantly and tirelessly. Let’s rejoice.

 

 

 

 

It’s not looking good. The early polls suggest that Eurofascist propaganda has worked. Yes, as US President Tom Dewey and our PM Ed Miliband could testify, early polls can be deceptive – I pray in this case they are.

For, if the early polls presage the outcome, Britain might have chained herself to a powder keg, with the wick smouldering away. An explosion will come, and we might be missing the chance to stay a safe distance away.

Yesterday I argued that the EU shows every telltale sign of a fundamentally fascist contrivance. It represents an attempt to replace politics with administration, thereby making the ruling bureaucrats unaccountable and their power absolute.

Mercifully, there’s one thing all fascist states have in common: they don’t last. The Thousand-Year Reich lasted 12 years. The Roman Empire reincarnated in Mussolini’s Italy managed 21. The Soviet regime, which Mussolini once correctly described as “a Slavic type of fascism”, lasted 70-odd years, but only by suppressing its own people with the kind of brutality no other fascist regime dared to try.

Yet no fascist regime has ever been ousted without some violence. Blood has always flowed, and every pre-condition is in place to suggest it will this time too, whichever way the referendum goes. It’s just that a Remain vote may eventually add a stream of British blood to a European river.

One such pre-condition is an economic catastrophe, and few would deny that this is exactly what’s happening in the EU, especially the eurozone. Stagnation reigns, with for example the Italian economy showing no growth since 1999. By wisely refusing to don that straitjacket, the British economy has grown by 35 per cent in the same period.

The EU’s fourth largest economy remaining the same size for 17 years means it has calamitously contracted in real terms, something that’s befalling France as well, with practically no growth for five years. I’m not even talking about Greece here, whose economy has contracted by almost a third. In fact, the only EU economy that’s growing nicely is Germany’s, but that won’t last.

Germany’s economy is driven by exports, and it’s hard to expect continuing growth when the principal target market is depressed. Nor is Germany immune to the EU banking crisis that’s cutting off the supply of credits, an economy’s lifeblood: her biggest lender Deutsche Bank lost €6.7 billion last year. But at least German banks are still lending, if at a loss, which few other European banks are.

No credits spell mass unemployment, another pre-condition for an explosion. The average unemployment rate across the EU is 10.2 per cent, twice Britain’s, but average numbers are misleading.

Germany has practically full employment, with a shortage not of jobs but of labour. That, incidentally, explains why Angela Merkel flung the EU door open to millions of Muslim migrants, 75 per cent of whom are young men. Anyway, if you take Germany out of the equation, EU unemployment rates begin to look truly disastrous, especially for young people.

Youth unemployment in Spain is 45.3 per cent, in Italy 39.1, in France and Belgium around 25 per cent and so forth. Even in Germany 6.9 per cent of the young are unemployed, which is all bad news.

When blood flows, it’s mostly the young who spill it, with the unemployed young leading the way. It was mostly unemployed lads who wore brown shirts in Germany and black ones in Italy. All it took to unleash them was extremist parties putting those shirts on their backs.

Burgeoning extremism is another pre-condition for an explosion. In Europe there’s no shortage of fascist parties, and they’re growing stronger by the moment. You may think there’s a paradox to predicting that fascist parties may rise against what I describe as a fascist superstate, but in fact there’s none.

France’s National Front, Belgium’s Vlaams Belang, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Hungary’s Jobbik, Italy’s Forza Italia, Austria’s Freedom Party and so forth all espouse fascism of the nationalist type. EU fascism, on the other hand, is internationalist, closer to the communist model than to the Nazi one. (The Nazis also preached pan-European unity, always provided Germany sat at the top. Suddenly, the EU doesn’t look that far from the Nazi model either.)

None so hostile as divergent exponents of the same creed. Thus Lenin and Stalin reserved their greatest venom for those socialists and communists they saw as heretical, not for the vermin they affectionately described as blood-sucking capitalists. Hitler culled Röhm’s heretical Nazis more mercilessly than even the communists. And the loony fringe will turn against the EU not because they’ll see it as diametrically opposite. They’ll see it as something close, but not close enough.

Today’s fascists are also excited by the massive influx of migrants, whom they correctly identify as aliens but deplorably wish to kill.

Hence every pre-condition for a violent explosion is in place, and it won’t take long. One just hopes that Britain will be wise to stay away from the epicentre.

“Leave campaigners sound a lot like Enoch,” moans David Aaronovitch of The Times, something which is repulsive to any leftie hack. Alas, they don’t sound like Enoch enough – because everyone will soon realise that Enoch Powell was right. I hope it won’t be too late.

P.S. My trusted Larousse translates ‘unaccountable’ as “les représentants qui ne sont pas responsable envers le grand public.” The blighters don’t even have a word for it.

The Elizabethan poet Sir John Harrington uttered an eternal truth: “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

In other words, emotively pejorative designations no longer apply if those who merit them emerge victorious. Hence, because so far the EU has swept all before it, none dare call it fascist. However, fundamentally that’s exactly what it is.

The word ‘fascism’ is rich not only in denotation but also in connotation, and the connotation is largely emotional, evoking as it does concentration camps and genocide. Yet state-initiated violence is but a manifestation of fascism, not its essence.

It certainly can’t be used for the purpose of defining fascism. In fact, so-called democracies may well outdo fascist states in that category.

For example, nobody calls the US circa mid-1860s fascist. Yet Lincoln closed down 300 pro-Southern newspapers (and had their presses smashed), suppressed the writ of habeas corpus and had 13,535 Northern citizens arrested for political crimes between February 1862 and April 1865.

Comparing his record with that of the indisputably fascist Mussolini, who only managed 1,624 political convictions in 20 years and yet is universally and justly reviled, one begins to see political taxonomy in a different light.

Any valid definition has to be exclusive to what’s being defined. I’d suggest that fascism can be best defined as the end of politics and thus of governmental accountability. A fascist state replaces politics with administration.

The administrators are neither politicians nor statesmen, but bureaucrats who rule more absolutely than any Christian monarchs ever did. Whether or not the bureaucrats are elected doesn’t matter as much as is commonly believed.

By whatever means they ascend to power, once they get there they’re no longer accountable, and their power becomes arbitrary even if they had to go through the travesty of elections along the way.

People don’t like to be excluded from politics, which is why there’s always a fair amount of dissent fomenting at the grassroots of fascist states. Therefore they have to rely on two expedients to hold on to power: propaganda first, violence second. The former is ever-present, but the amount of the latter may vary from nonexistent to egregious. Whatever it takes.

Modern Western states all have germs of fascism within their systems. But some, those loosely called democracies, also have antibodies preventing the germs from wreaking havoc. These are traditional institutions, those that inoculate the body politic with healthy doses of accountability and equity. The older and more robust such institutions are, the less likely are the germs to develop into a full-blown disease.

That’s why we mustn’t be misled by the EU still not building concentration camps. It’s nonetheless a classic fascist state in the making, only a step or two removed from gestating to full maturity.

The boot in the face may or may not come. If this god-awful contrivance sticks around long enough, it definitely will come sooner or later. For, make no mistake about it, since the state being created on the European continent bears every hallmark of fascism, sooner or later it’ll have to protect itself with violence.

The EU is an unaccountable bureaucracy riding roughshod over every national tradition, institution and custom. It may not yet crash a boot into your face, but it’s already crushing underfoot everything that makes England English.

For England, or for that matter Britain, is dramatically different from other European states. Most of them had an outbreak of wartime fascism and, even if they’re now in remission, few have been cured of this horrible disease. It reveals itself, as it does in Germany and France, as greater tolerance of statist bureaucracy reaching for greater power.

It’s on this heritage, latent or otherwise, that the EU is building its shaky foundations. This isn’t the kind of building that England can live in – not with her 800-year tradition of just, accountable government. This is our vaccine, but it can be overridden.

The other day the Queen asked her guests to name three good reasons for her realm to stay in the EU. I doubt they managed to do so, for there isn’t a single one.

Every reason the Remain campaign has concocted is spurious, if not downright mendacious. Yet the Leave campaign hasn’t communicated the reason to shake the EU dust off our feet clearly enough.

Instead it has tried to catch the red herring of immigration by its tail. Yes, unlike the Remainers’ harebrained scaremongering, uncontrolled immigration is a real problem. But much of it is caused not by the EU but by our own negligence in controlling our borders, which had been too permeable even before 1992.

I suspect this problem will exist, on perhaps a smaller scale, even if we left the EU. Yes, reducing the scale of this problem is a reason to leave, but it isn’t the reason.

The reason, the only valid one, is choosing liberty over servitude. It’s to nip fascism in the bud, before it has conquered. As history shows, it’ll still be stoppable then, but only at an awful price.

Tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen, is your chance to say no to fascism, while we still dare call it what it really is. Please don’t miss it, for this would upset me too much.

Dave is delighted: his noble cause of turning Britain into a gau of Germany has been endorsed by David ‘Golden Balls’ Beckham, who used to bend it like, well, Beckham.

I remember Ali G interviewing Becks and his wife Posh (the nickname shouldn’t be understood literally: it only reflects the contrast between Victoria and the other four sla…, I mean members, of Spice Girls). The couple’s son Brooklyn was then little, and Ali steered the conversation towards him.

“And how’s your little boy?” he asked Posh (having first enquired politely if there was any truth to the then popular football chant “Posh takes it up the a***.”) “Has he learned to speak in complete sentences yet?” “Yes,” said Posh. “And what about Brooklyn?” smirked the indomitable Ali G.

That joke was based on the common knowledge that Beckham, whom even his doting wife once described as a ‘tattooed yob’, is considered moronic even by the undemanding standards of professional football.

That Cameron welcomes support from such quarters shows he’s really scraping the bottom of the barrel. “You can’t win in Europe unless you’re on the pitch,” said the moron, and Beckham said something along those lines too.

The little boy may not have learned to talk in complete sentences of his own, but at least he has learned to read those written by others. It was clear that neither he nor his advisers were sharp enough to conceal the fact that Becks was being a dummy to someone else’s ventriloquist.

On the contrary, they positively advertised it by making Golden Balls utter words that are patently not in his vocabulary. He talked, for example, of us living “in a vibrant and connected world”, whose problems we “for our children and their children should be facing together and not separately.” Vibrant and connected? Really, David. Stick to “I hit it first time, and there it was in the back of the net.”

Who are ‘we’? And together with whom exactly? Doesn’t the EU discourage togetherness with the vibrant and connected world outside the 28 members, soon to be augmented by Turkey? And is it really necessary to dissolve our ancient sovereignty to face the vibrating challenges of our connected world, or is it connected challenges of our vibrating world?

I’m sure that, before taking the microphone, Becks had thought such issues through with his customary depth. And in any case he was speaking from personal experience: “I was also privileged to play and live in Madrid, Milan and Paris with teammates from all around Europe and the world.”

The implication is that, until the 1992 Maastricht Treaty came down to us from the burning bush, British footballers could go abroad no farther than the Isle of Man. I don’t know if David’s newly enriched lexicon includes the word ‘history’ but, if it does, he could refer to it for the names of British footballers who played on the continent way before 1992. Mark Hughes, Paul Lambert, Glenn Hoddle, Gary Lineker, Kevin Keegan, Jimmy Greaves, Dennis Law, Ian Rush, John Charles et al spring to mind.

As a loyal wife should, Posh backed her ‘tattooed yob’ all the way. “I believe in a future for my children where we are stronger together and I support the Remain campaign,” said the rare example of a woman happy with a husband who’s conspicuously dafter than she is.

Her words caused an uncomfortable pause because many people remembered that a few years ago she had said that the EU was “destroying [the UK’s] national identity and individuality.” When this was mentioned, Posh immediately accused the Leave campaign of “trying to put a spin on quotes”.

Those xenophobe Little Englanders were too narrow-minded to grasp the true meaning of Posh’s unequivocal words all those years ago. What she meant, and only a bigot would fail to get it, was that the EU was giving us what we had sorely missed for all those centuries: our national identity and individuality.

Beckham’s namesake Cameron sounded as if he had just scored a hat trick for England. “There was a very moving statement today from David Beckham talking about his children,” he said. Of course in our world, where sentimentality is confused with sentiment, any mention of children has to be moving, one must acknowledge that.

But would Dave be equally moved by the suggestion that our children would be better off growing up in a sovereign country with the world’s best political tradition, rather than in a province of the EU, which is another word for Germany? Or if someone reminded him of the thousands of English children killed during Germany’s previous attempt to unite Europe?

The rich amalgam of cynicism, stupidity and amorality permeate this whole episode. And I’m talking not about poor Becks, who doesn’t know better, but about Cameron, who should – in fact, about the entire Remain campaign that hasn’t produced a single argument going beyond platitudes or lies.

I pray this lot don’t win tomorrow. I fear they might.

P.S. It’s commonly known that football writers are only marginally higher than football players on the intellectual food chain. Henry Winter of The Times proved that by explaining his reasons for voting Remain: “The debate seems to focus on the politics and economics of Europe rather than the people,” meaning that he had met a lot of nice people of Europe. Just to think that the future of our country is being decided by cretins like that.

Rape and sexual abuse just aren’t what they used to be. They are – in the sense that what was regarded as rape since the abduction of the Sabine women (circa 750 BC), still is. But the concept has been expanded to include things that in the past were seen, at worst, as boorishness.

This means there are more cases for our newspapers to describe in every salacious detail so beloved of their panting readers. And boy, do they ever. One can’t open even a formerly respectable broadsheet without seeing stories of lusty males forcing themselves into chaste females.

Forensic rigour is nonexistent: the hacks don’t even notice that their stories include contradictory facts. Take today’s hit: a student describing himself as a ‘choral scholar’ allegedly raped a fellow student. The victim is female, which has made me upgrade my general assessment of choristers.

The way the case is covered, however, hasn’t appreciably shifted my view of hacks. Here I go by only what I read in the papers, and it doesn’t make much sense.

The half-dressed victim and the perpetrator were in bed together, engaged in heavy foreplay. Even at the time of the Sabine women, that was regarded as the first stage of a sex act – hence the name. “He started kissing me, then more passionately,” said the girl. “I was reciprocating at that point but then he got out of bed and manoeuvred himself on top of me”. The libidinous chorister then pulled her pyjama bottoms off, and nature took its course even though she said no.

The facts one can infer from this description is that the couple were in bed. It’s not immediately clear why the man had to get out of bed to ‘manoeuvre himself’ back on it, but that detail isn’t significant. The other details are, and not because I think that a young girl who goes that far issues a carte blanche to full-pen hanky-panky.

Alas, as one walks through life one does run into unsporting women who echo Job 38:11 (“Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further…”). They may be only prepared to remove some or all of their clothing and indulge in what used to be called heavy petting, leaving the man frustrated and often in physical pain.

If he refuses to stop, he’s a brute and, according to the current definition of rape, probably a criminal. Hence I don’t think that the girl has only herself to blame just because she let the chorister into her bed, and reciprocated his passionate kisses.

What interests me here isn’t so much the case, but the way it’s covered. And the article says that, “Jurors were told that [the chorister] had forced himself on her on at least two other occasions the previous month, in similar fashion.”

Do I smell a contradiction? After the first time she was raped, the girl didn’t report the crime to the police. Instead she found herself in the same room with the same man again, and got raped again. Yet though bitten twice, she didn’t get shy even once. Twice the victim of a violent crime, she found herself in bed with her attacker a third time, engaged in voluntary foreplay. Can a university student be so stupidly devoid of any self-preservation instinct?

There may be crucial details that the reports omitted. Yet apparently the hack felt the details were sufficient to describe the case as an out-and-out rape, without mentioning the incongruities that caught my eye.

One gets the impression that the piece was written for purely commercial purposes: sex sells, and coerced sex sells even better. Moreover, reporting of this kind is a gift that keeps on giving. The more coverage such cases get, the more cases there will be: women are being actively encouraged to come up with any stories of abuse, even if it happened half a century ago.

That’s another thing: one gets the impression that it’s not so much blondes as dead men who have all the fun. No sooner a celebrity, especially one known for his questionable morality, dies than a swarm of OAPs claim having been abused when they were still teenagers.

This week’s raping savage is Sir Clement Freud (d. 2009), and his shenanigans are being reported in every lurid detail. Personally, I’d expect any beastliness from the grandson of that grandfather, but it’s journalistic standards that excite me at the moment.

Three rapes have already been reported and lovingly described, but last night a fourth victim raise her hand and said ‘me too’. Apparently Sir Clement kissed a nubile 19-year-old without permission. That’s a bit naughty, but only in our time, where faked prudishness is liberally mixed with real pornography, would it be seriously considered newsworthy.

What makes the case grotesque is that the nubile 19-year-old is now 62. Let bygones be bygones, I’d say. I hardly know a woman who hasn’t had a kiss forced on her, and none of them claims, as this grandmother does, that the incident left her feeling “repulsed, numb and shocked”.

What memory you have, Grandma. But you inadvertently left out ‘traumatised for life’. You must read the papers more regularly.

 

For a nation supposedly committed to reason, the French are lamentably short of that faculty. In their defence, this deficiency is selective, only manifesting itself en masse in politics, economics – and especially the EU.

I’ve heard intelligent and educated Frenchmen talk about federalism in platitudes at best. I suppose I could try to analyse this paradox, invoking, for example, the unhealed trauma of 1940 and the subsequent Stockholm syndrome, making the French want to be Germans.

But instead I’ll focus on the latest manifestations of this malaise. One such manifestation is called Emmanuel Macron, France’s youthful finance minister. That is, at 38, he’s youthful for a minister. Otherwise he’s supposed to be mature, an expectation Manny frustrates by often sounding like a petulant adolescent.

If Britain leaves the EU, he whined, she’ll be like Guernsey, a Channel island of 63,000 souls. Since even Mr Macron can’t possibly think that Britain’s population will shrink so dramatically, he must mean that Britain will resemble Guernsey economically.

This prediction represents a downgrade, for a couple of months ago Manny foresaw Britain becoming like Jersey, a larger Channel island. Obsessed as Manny is with insular communities, I’m amazed he didn’t compare the UK to Devil’s Island, France’s notorious penal colony.

One can infer that, by contrast, Mr Macron regards France’s economy as a shining model to follow. Well, frankly, if we’re talking specifically economics, I’ll take Guernsey over France any day.

Even though Guernsey doesn’t inundate world markets with superior wines and inferior cars, it has a higher per capita GDP than France. Its unemployment rate is a negligible 1.2 per cent, as compared to almost 11 per cent in France tout court and 25 per cent for young people.

Not to cut too fine a point, France’s economy is a basket case, with not only a soul-destroying unemployment rate but also a practically nonexistent growth, exports stifled by the euro, unsupportable social costs made catastrophic by uncontrollable migration, constant strikes and riots – you name it.

Also, Guernsey boasts a top tax rate of just 20 per cent, as opposed to 45 per cent in Britain and 75 (!) per cent in Manny’s own economic fiefdom. Can we become like Guernsey please? And can we please not become like France, which we will if we vote Remain?

Sensing that his puerile rants don’t add up mathematically, Manny then switched to philosophy. Brexit, he said, will spell “the end of an ultraliberal Europe that the British themselves have pushed for, the end of a Europe without a political plan, centred on its domestic market.”

I’d like to have some of what Manny’s on, for I can’t imagine even a harebrained politician mouthing such gibberish if not under the influence. Rather than being ‘ultraliberal’, the EU is a protectionist bloc suffocating external trade with punitive tariffs.

That’s what Manny probably means by an economy ‘centred on its domestic market’. In other words, he equates economic liberalism à la Adam Smith and David Ricardo with protectionism. This is like equating sensible population control with Pol Pot.

This is what the original liberal economist Adam Smith had to say about Manny’s pet idea: “To give the monopoly of the home-market to the produce of domestic industry… must, in almost all cases, be either a useless or a hurtful regulation. If the produce of domestic can be brought there as cheap as that of foreign industry, the regulation is evidently useless. If it cannot, it must generally be hurtful.”

And the EU not having ‘a political plan’? Manny should brush up on the pronouncements of EU founders, Nazi, Vichy or other. The EU, as conceived by them, is nothing but one contiguous political plan, that of a giant suprastate pushing to grotesque limits the innate étatisme of Germany and France.

It’s staggering that the finance minister of a major European country can be so ignorant of history, economics, philosophy and basic arithmetic – in addition to being incapable of elementary sequential thought. But in that last category he’s outdone by the IMF head Christine Lagarde.

It’s refreshingly selfless of Miss Lagarde to divert her attention from her upcoming corruption trial to our EU referendum. I wonder if she’ll continue to pontificate on such matters even from the prison cell in which she’s likely to find herself. If so, one hopes she’ll learn to express herself with more logical rigour.

Miss Lagarde started out by correctly describing European economy as being on the verge of total collapse “due to political pressures”. She diagnosed the disease correctly, but her aetiology is suspect: she omitted her own role in this state of affairs, first as Manny’s predecessor and then in her current position.

But back to logic. What’s Britain supposed to do under the circumstances, Christine? Why, remain in the EU of course (!). This is what the Romans called ‘non sequitur’ and what the Russians deplorably call ‘woman’s logic’.

Then again, Miss Lagarde is a woman and, judging by George Osborne’s lascivious glances in her direction, a seductive one – at least to George Osborne. I suppose one has to make allowances for that, even as one rushes in four days to vote Leave.