Friday, 20 October 2017

The casting coach goes back to the cave


How many fat, ugly sixty five year old men do you know who have an addiction to sex? How many have beautiful wives or girlfriends in their twenties? I don’t know very many. Aging academics may chase after girls who could be their daughters and sometimes even their granddaughters and some may even succeed in catching them, but still it is not a common sight to see fat ugly sixty five year old men with the problems associated with addiction to sex with the youngest most beautiful women in the world.



Strangely I don’t know any women at all who while approaching pension age chase after handsome, athletic young men. I likewise don’t know any women at all who are addicted to sex, or who seek to have sex with multiple people who they barely know. Perhaps such women exist, but I have never met them.

The prospects for most men or women who have arrived at middle age of sex addiction would anyway appear to be bleak. How many of us could go to the latest nightclub with the expectation of finding someone young and beautiful to share the night with. Even if we should try to feed our sex addiction every night it is unlikely that most of us could succeed in satiating it unless like so many other addictions we were willing to pay. There are no doubt some fat ugly men who feel the need to pay for this sort of company. But how many could obtain it for free?

The number of fat, ugly women on the other hand who could succeed in sustaining such an addiction to young beautiful men must be vanishingly small. I have never met one, nor even heard of one. Very few men indeed would marry a woman a lot older than them. I can think of Mr Macron and a certain presently unemployed Scottish politician, but there are very good evolutionary reasons why this situation is rather rare. Marrying your mother may well be comforting, but it is unlikely to give you any children. So if this trait in masculinity ever existed it probably was evolved out some time ago.

Here we arrive at the fundamental differences between men and women. Despite what feminists and other left-wing theorists may contend there are real differences between men and women that are not going to go away. These are due to our natures as human beings being different. It is therefore simply contrary to human nature to try to make that which is different the same. To try to do so damages both.  Instead of trying to reform human nature, which is the continual goal of the Left, the task ought to be to accept it for what it is and work with it so that all human beings have the best chance to arrive at something approaching fulfilment and happiness.

Women, of course, have desires, but they are different to the desires of men. There is no casting couch for male actors whereby female executives appraise the latest talent and then attempt to bribe them to have sex with the promise of acting jobs. There are no harems where a single powerful woman has hundreds of beautiful young men so that she can have a sex with a different one every night. Women, at least for the most part, simply don’t want to have sex with multiple young men. A harem might be a male fantasy, but even the role of the sultana is a female nightmare.

Men are attracted to physically fit, beautiful young women. If you doubt this please explain why successful Hollywood actresses are generally young and beautiful rather than old and ugly? Is it because acting talent is unevenly distributed amongst the population so that it is mostly associated with the young and the beautiful? Why isn’t the latest female lead in the latest Hollywood blockbuster unfit, middle aged and plain? Shouldn’t we just pick the most talented actress, no matter what they look like?

But why do men like beautiful, fit young women? Isn’t this terribly unfair to the rest of us? Perhaps it is, but it is also down to human nature. We are as we were forty-thousand years ago.  Consciously or not, we are all conditioned to do that which will bring most children into the world. Men differ from women because they can have children with multiple women at once and because they can have children until they are much, much older. Women desire one man who can look after her while she is having children. A female movie executive doesn’t have a casting couch, because it doesn’t help her get what she wants. A harem with one woman and one hundred men is simply a waste, for the sultana needs only one man to get her pregnant, while the sultan if he has enough energy can make all one hundred wives give him children.

Men desire youth and beauty. For this reason and for this reason alone we have fashion and supermodels. Likewise, men like to watch young and beautiful women even if they cannot have relationships with them. This is why we have Hollywood and other things beside that the Internet is useful for. Ordinary men, especially ordinary old and ugly men have no chance whatsoever of sleeping with young beautiful actresses or even young beautiful shop workers. But rich, powerful men can and do even if they are old and ugly. Why is this? The reason is that women are conditioned by human nature to find men who can look after us the most attractive. The man who can provide a young woman with a cave and who can provide her with food is a better bet even if he is forty than a man of the same age who doesn’t  yet have a cave or a steady supply of mammoth meat. 

It is because riches and power bring with it the possibility of sleeping with young women that men value these things and strive to obtain them. It is for this reason also that so many men wish to display their riches and power, frequently for instance, buying a car that is much more expensive than they need. Riches and power on the other hand don’t particularly help women find a husband. What qualities are most likely to get a woman a husband? The answer is obvious: youth and beauty. It is for this reason that women value these things. It is women who obsess about fashion and clothes and creams that give the secret to eternal youth. Men don’t buy these creams.

Women traditionally gained wealth and power not by themselves but by means of marrying someone wealthy and powerful. The key then to riches and power for women was beauty and youth. Therefore men sell riches and power in order to buy young women, while young women sell youth and beauty in order to gain riches and power. Once you grasp this, you grasp human nature. It may be unfortunate, but that is how it is.

There is a lot of controversy at the moment about rich, ugly fat sixty-five year old men sleeping with beautiful young actresses. But how many actresses today are where they are because of acting talent? Do Hollywood talent scouts go to the best drama schools and pick those actresses who show the most talent as judged by the various academics. Do we likewise pick supermodels on the basis of who can best walk down a catwalk? I would suggest that we pick neither models nor actresses in this way. We pick them because they are young and beautiful.  Having been picked because they are young and beautiful (but no more talented than the rest of the population), is it reasonable for these people to complain when they find it hard to gain work when they become old and ugly?

It appears that the route to Hollywood success for many actresses has frequently involved a rather unpleasant interview and bargain with rich, powerful, ugly old men. This has been the case since Hollywood began, but unfortunately it has also been the case since the world began. Men and women are involved in trade. There is something we both buy and something we both sell.

I once listened to a conversation in a Moscow café where two beautiful Russian women discussed where they could have belly-dancing lessons. They maintained that this was the best way to attract a rich husband. I likewise remember in one Russian university seeing beautiful women arriving for class looking as if they were going to a nightclub with full make-up. They didn’t spend their time before class looking at books, rather they spent it doing their hair in the mirror. Their primary goal in going to university was to meet someone wealthy. Did these belly-dancers think too much about the personalities or the looks of their future husbands? Did they mind that they would have to sleep with these people in order to obtain their riches and power? Not a bit of it. This was all part of the deal. They were willing to trade the commodity they had (youth and beauty) for the commodity they wanted (riches and power) even if it involved marrying someone who they otherwise would not have chosen. But I’m sorry this story has been going on since the world began.

If every single woman rejected selling youth and beauty it would no longer be a valuable commodity. This would likewise be the case if every man ceased to use riches and power to buy it. But this would also require us to reject our nature as human beings.

No-one should be forced to do anything. I believe in choice. But if my belly-dancers want to use this way to find a husband, let them. It isn’t my way of trying to get a comfortable, happy life, but for them perhaps it is the only alternative to a life of drudgery in a dead-end job. Who am I to judge?

How many ugly footballers have models for wives? Is it because these footballers possess charm, wit, personality and intelligence or is it rather because they have money? We may think it unconscionable that men are willing to use their wealth to buy young beautiful women, but then it is equally unconscionable that women are willing to sell themselves.  The existence of the casting couch depends on their being rich, ugly, old executives who want to buy youth and beauty by promising acting success, but it likewise depends on these actresses being willing to sell. If there were no women willing to sell themselves in order to obtain success in acting, there would be no casting couch.

It might be better if the route into acting was based on studying at university and going to acting classes. But this would not lead to the present multi-millionaire actresses working in Hollywood. Acting talent does not equal youth and beauty.

Women do not need to sleep with anyone to obtain happiness and success in the modern world. We can study and we can find a job that will pay us enough to live comfortably. We can likewise choose a husband on the basis of his personality, his looks and his intelligence. At various points in our life people may offer us something we cannot obtain otherwise unless we sleep with them. There is a word for this. It isn’t a very nice word. However we must accept that in the world as it is huge numbers of women are willing to make this transaction, either because they don’t think they have the talent to obtain what they want otherwise or because they think the transaction is worth it.


Rich, powerful, ugly old men can persuade young women to go to bed with them. They can do this in order to give them a job, or to give them a new dress or because they are willing to spend a large amount on a meal out. It would be better by far if women rejected these transactions and were not impressed by flash cars and large bank balances. It would be better too if men simply used their personalities, intelligence and conversational ability to persuade women to share their beds. But don’t let’s be quite so outraged at the fact that rich, powerful, older, ugly men can obtain sex because they too have something to sell that women want to buy. This transaction has been going on for some time now. Indeed it is the oldest profession. 

Friday, 13 October 2017

An unknown face for a new Conservative party


The great moment in modern British politics upon which all else turns was the election in 1979. The decade that followed brought in fundamental change, not because the Conservative Party sought consensus and the centre ground, but rather because it decided to take a different direction. There was disagreement, there was struggle. Sometimes it was even violent. But the results of the decade that followed are still with us.



Britain had been in decline since 1945. Both Conservatives and Labour had come to accept that governments intervened a great deal, that trade unions were powerful and had to be consulted, that nationalised industries would take a great deal of public money and produce little as a result and that the task of each party was simply to manage our decline. If this had continued, we would probably now be a rather second rate economy. The average standard of living for everyone in the UK would today be much lower if a radical Conservative Government had not been elected in 1979.

At one point it looked as if the election of Tony Blair in 1997 was also a turning point. He had embraced social democracy rather than socialism and had fundamentally changed the nature of the Labour Party. Here was the chance for something quite new and for a while it worked. The Labour Party more or less accepted capitalism and hoped to use the profits generated to increase public services and benefit everyone.

Blair’s legacy failed not because social democracy doesn’t work. There are many examples of it working in Europe and elsewhere. It failed because Blair himself became so poisonous that any idea associated with him becomes poisonous too. All of the reforms he made have now been thrown out. Labour didn’t so much go back to how politics was prior to 1979. It went further. Corbyn repudiates everything that was done to reform the UK in the 1980s. He doesn’t hope to reform capitalism, he hopes to overthrow it. He hopes to go back to October 1917.

The election of Jeremy Corbyn would be a radical turning point in British history. Of course such a government would make an almighty mess of the economy.  No doubt, after a few years of this the British public would come to its senses and vote Labour out. But would we get the chance? The problem with the Far Left is that they are not really democrats at all. They are revolutionaries. These people don’t always give up power without a struggle. This is why it is so dangerous for moderate Labour people to support Corbyn.  Perhaps they think that they could control and moderate him if he was Prime Minister. Perhaps they don’t really care what a Far Left Government would do to Britain just so long as it was a Labour Government. This above all is why voting tribally is so dangerous. Some people hate Tories so much they would prefer communists. But moderates forget what happens to Menshevism and democratic socialism when the Far Left wins. If you are lucky you get to repent for your sin of moderation, if you are unlucky you don’t.

But how should Conservatives respond to this threat? Firstly trust the British people. Labour did well at the last election partly because no-one thought Corbyn could win. This is not going to be the case at the next election. People will take it seriously that Corbyn might become Prime Minister. Secondly we must delay the next election for as long as possible. There are things that need to be done. We need above all to get out of the EU. Who knows what Labour would do with the negotiations, so don’t for goodness sake give them the chance to be involved.

For this reason Theresa May must be allowed to stay as Prime Minister until at least we leave the EU. However much some people dislike her, what matters is not to let Corbyn into power. Would it be possible to have a leadership election without having a new General Election? Would the Government even survive the bickering? This is all completely unnecessary. The task now is to wait.  

When considering who should be the next Conservative leader it is crucial to think about ideas rather than people. Few people had heard of Tony Blair much before he was elected leader, the same was the case for David Cameron. What matters is not so much the person as what the person believes.

The major problem that the Conservative Party has faced since the election of David Cameron is that it has not had a leader who really believes in anything. Cameron was concerned mostly in how to get the Conservatives into power. He therefore did all he could to occupy the centre ground. He wanted in essence to become Tony Blair. The difference between these two is essentially trivial. Both are in reality social democrats. They believe in capitalism, but they think that its purpose is essentially to fund state spending. Neither views the goal of government is to become smaller and neither wish to lower the amount that the state spends.

Theresa May takes a similar view. Worse still despite the occasional stern face she completely lacks conviction. She just wants to manage Britain as well as possible while spending as much as possible on nice things. She didn’t even really have an opinion on the EU. She campaigned half-heartedly for Remain and then became a Brexiteer. It is because she doesn’t really believe in Conservatism that she comes up with mush and incoherence and thinks the solution to all problems is to drift to the Left and end up in the centre ground.

Naturally the task is to get elected. But for what? There is no real difference in ideas between Tony Blair, Nick Clegg and Theresa May. This is the problem facing British politics. It doesn’t matter if we have New Labour, Lib Dems or Tory Wets. It will all just go on the same way.

Corbyn’s Labour offers a real choice. He has passion and conviction. To oppose that do you just put up a composite of Blair, Clegg and May? If you do you may well find that the British public finds it lukewarm, just more of the same thin gruel. Don’t be surprised therefore when it spits you out. 

Trust in politicians is very low. People from all parties have been telling us lies and trying to deceive us for too long. We were promised a Common Market and instead found ourselves something rapidly becoming a United States of Europe. For how long have we been promised by politicians that they would take seriously our legitimate worries about how unlimited immigration was affecting the nature of our country? These promises never amounted to anything. The New Labour, Lib Dem, Tory Wet consensus has been taking our country in a direction most people don’t want to go. One alternative is to vote for Corbyn. The other cannot simply be a new version of the establishment that the electorate has come to despise.

What we don’t need is someone who thinks the task is to limit the damage from Brexit. We need someone who realises that leaving the EU is a turning point that can improve life in Britain. We therefore above all else need a Brexiteer to lead the Conservative Party. We need someone who actually believes in free markets, lower taxes and smaller government rather than someone who thinks that price controls are a sensible idea because Ed Miliband gained a few percentage points when he suggested them. Don’t let’s try to steal Labour ideas, let’s come up with new Conservative ideas.

We don’t need a new leader yet, but start preparing for the time when we will need one. Find the brightest minds in the Conservative Party, give them the task of coming up with the new ideas that will break us free from the cosy establishment consensus. These must actually address the genuine worries that ordinary British people have about our country. Let no idea be forbidden. But above all else make sure we develop Conservative ideas for a new Conservative Party. When that is done find the best communicator, perhaps someone we’ve never heard of, to present these ideas. Then believing in what we stand for,  with ideas that we believe to be true and important let us take on Labour and win. That just might just give us a new turning point. 

Saturday, 7 October 2017

A senseless struggle about nothing


There are two forces going on in human nature, the desire to unify and the desire to separate. The reason that we have nation states at all is because people have felt the need to unify with others who are similar to them.  In antiquity each small village had its own ruler, its own customs and often its own variety of language. Historical progress across the world has involved the process of people uniting to form nation states. These are the building blocks of international relations and without them there would be chaos.


The process of separation has occurred when nation states have overreached themselves and tried to include people who are too dissimilar. There is an ebb and flow throughout history. The Austro-Hungarian Empire broke up into its constituent parts, but the United States was able to unify much of the North American continent into a single nation state, made up of many states.

In recent decades we have on the one hand seen the European Union attempt to gradually form a nation state out of its parts, while on the other there has been a marked increase in nation states breaking up since the fall of the Soviet Union. While Germany provides a recent example of unification there are many more examples of separation.

But where is the optimum? At what point do we say this nation state is stable? It neither needs to separate nor to unify. One problem is that modern European nationalist movements want to do something that is inherently contradictory. They wish both to unify and to separate.

Scottish nationalists think that it makes sense for Scotland to separate from the United Kingdom, but to remain a part of a European Union that has the aim of becoming a United States of Europe. But the problem is this. If Scots cannot make a success of being part of a nation state called the UK, how on earth are we to make a success of being part of an eventual nation state called the EU?

The same obviously goes for Catalonia.  If Catalans cannot bear to live in a nation state (Spain) with people who are similar to them, how will they be able to bear to live in a nation state (the EU) with people who are dissimilar? If Spain, which has been a nation state for centuries cannot hold itself together we can have no long term expectation that the EU itself will remain intact.

I think this is why the EU has responded to the crisis in Spain in the way that it has. Secession has become all too frequent in Eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union, but if this spreads westwards then the EU is bound to find itself going in the opposite direction to the one in which it intends.

Moreover, if the aim is to have a federal EU what does it matter if a border happens to be here or there? If the aim is to be borderless why be so bothered about so called independence at all. A state in the eventual United States of Europe would be no more independent than Kansas or California. It won’t matter under these circumstances what is or is not called a state or where a supposed boundary is drawn.

In this sense the struggle that is taking place in Catalonia looks like it is about nothing at all. Both Spain and Catalonia want to be part of the EU. But then they are struggling over the boundaries of a nation state while at the same time both intending to give up this nation state.

The problem is that many people have contradictory ideas about the EU. They think somehow that it will be possible to remain a nation state while taking part in the process of EU unification. But this is a form of self-deception. The nation state called East Germany ceased to exist when it joined with West Germany. At an earlier point in history independent nation states like Saxony and Prussia eventually ceased to exist and simply became regions of Germany. For a hypothetical Bavaria to struggle to be independent from Prussia while both seek to join together to form Germany involves muddled thinking. It is a fight about nothing at all, a completely senseless struggle.

The problem is that for the moment it is just about possible to maintain the illusion that a nation state can remain independent and sovereign while being a part of the EU. It is this above all that fuels sub-nation nationalism. The Holy Grail of European nationalist movements is to argue that life will go on more or less the same, but we will be independent. We might even get a bit more because we won’t have to share our wealth with those English, or those Spaniards.

If there were indeed a United States of Europe, they would in one sense be right. It barely matters at all today that West Virginia split from Virginia in 1861, because each is now part of a larger nation state and neither is independent. Borders are not noticed. But being part of a nation state also means that we share and share alike, so this whole concept of what is mine and what is yours ceases. It’s not oor oil, because it belongs equally to all citizens of our nation state. But then as soon as the EU treats all its citizens as having an equal claim to the wealth of the whole, then the concept of independence (this is ours rather than yours) ceases. Not noticing borders in the end involves not having independence.

There are two ways to end the dreams of sub-nation nationalism. One is to leave the EU. People in England (e.g. Philip Hammond) with very little real experience of nationalism and only a distant understanding of what went on in Scotland should cease trying to be clever about the EU. It’s not clever. It’s thick.  Get us out and get us out quickly. It is this and this alone that will hold the UK together.  As I argued long before the EU referendum, the UK’s leaving the EU means that the SNP can no longer argue that life would go on much the same after independence. It turns independence into a radical step, that only a minority of Scots wish to make. It is for this reason that we will not face scenes in Edinburgh like we saw in Barcelona.

Spain could leave the EU. That would stop Catalan nationalism very quickly. But this won’t happen and perhaps can’t happen because of Spain’s membership of the Euro. The second option then is to make it clear that if Catalonia somehow obtains independence it will be outside the EU and outside the Eurozone. It will cease to be part of Spain’s internal market and it will cease to be part of the European Union’s Single Market. It is hard to imagine that this will benefit Catalonia economically. The issue of how much it does or does not share with Spain will hardly then arise.

The danger however is that this would involve a Greek style ejection from the Euro and a shock to the European economy that none of us would like to go through. These things tend to be contagious.  This might encourage the Catalans into thinking that the EU wouldn’t dare expel them. Perhaps they are right, but it is a very dangerous game to play. Careful what you wish for dear Nats. A Catalan let alone a Spanish default might affect your savings too. 

Scottish nationalists may hope that an independent Catalonia or indeed an independent Kurdistan might help them towards their dream. On the other hand scenes of violence or even war may remind everyone once again that nationalism is always a very dangerous political card to play and therefore is best put back in the deck. I suspect though that most Scots who are not already obsessed are not paying much attention. This will continue unless things get much worse.

Nationalism begets nationalism and no doubt it is in part because of Typhoid Nicola that Scottish flu has spread to Spain. Get well soon Spain. But remember the best way to do this is to relax and be patient. Let the fever subside. With tender care it will.  Don’t go bashing people’s heads in. It isn’t the most likely way to persuade them to remain a part of your country. Enforce the law by all means, but far better to simply take law breakers to court and fine them a few Euros, than to do anything more horrible than that.



Above all the EU should now explain to nationalists that if they want to be part of the EU then they will not have any independence. The EU has tried to achieve European unity in such a way that no-one will notice and with the illusion that everything will somehow remain as it was. But this fiction of maintaining independent nation states within a united European nation state is now fuelling nationalism. It is time to be honest, open and direct about where the EU is heading. It is abolishing Spain as an independent nation state and unifying it with all the other European nation states. This means that to fight for Catalan independence only to later abolish it is senseless. It is not worth one truncheon, hitting one head. It is time therefore for both the Spanish and the Catalans to realise that, given they both wish to be part of the EU, they have in fact no dispute at all and that they are in fact fighting over nothing. 

Saturday, 30 September 2017

No-one expects the Liberal Inquisition


There must be something in human nature that means we always need to take a good thing too far. In this way far from turning it into a very good thing we instead turn it into a very bad thing. The fault, for instance, with Christianity is not what Jesus and his disciples taught, but that many centuries later when the Church had become powerful it started burning people at the stake for believing one thing about Jesus rather than another thing. It’s impossible to imagine either Jesus or his disciples thinking that this was a good idea and yet Christianity taken to the extreme did indeed lead to the opposite of Christianity. At the point at which the Church persecuted people for not believing a particular version of Christianity or for believing something else or indeed nothing at all, the Church reached the point where it no longer expressed the core of Christianity (“Love thy neighbour”, “Be thee doers of the Word”, “Turn the other cheek” etc. etc.). Rather the Church expressed the opposite of these things and had in fact become Anti-Christian.



I think the same can be said for nearly all ideas. When we read about the early socialists who attempted to create heaven on earth in the 1840s we read about something perhaps misguided, but at least benign. Some people created communal forms of living in various parts of the world. They attempted to put into practice various ideas about equality. These attempts failed, no doubt because they were contrary to human nature, but they did little harm. It was only later when the ideas of socialism were pushed further usually by means of forcing human nature to change that we got the horrors of the twentieth century.

We are now seeing this same process of extremism in contemporary liberalism. The ideas of the liberal left which started off with a plea for tolerance and an attempt to make a fairer world have arrived at the point where they are the source of intolerance and they are making the world worse.

What we have now is a position where liberals are tolerant if and only if you agree with them about everything. But this is very similar to Christianity at the time when non-believers were burned at the stake. Liberals may not actually be proposing to burn Jacob Rees Mogg at the stake, but they are just as angry with him as the Church used to be with heretics. This is not liberalism. It is the opposite of liberalism.

There are a set of views that everyone must hold and that cannot even be discussed. The creed of modern liberalism involves believing certain things about race, about equality, about women, about gender and about sex. We all know what these things are even if sometimes it is difficult to articulate quite what can be said and what cannot. We all know what sort of things might get us metaphorically burned at the stake.

Being polite to other people strikes me as perfectly reasonable. Don’t call people nasty names that they dislike. Fair enough. But it has now been turned into the unforgivable sin. Someone who fails to keep up with the latest preferred term may find that they don’t have a job anymore. Someone who disagrees with some aspect of feminism, even if there is good evidence that this aspect is questionable may too find themselves forced to recant and then repent. We have reached the stage where we must not discriminate in any way between a British citizen and a citizen of any other country. Anyone who thinks we ought to discriminate, for instance by maintaining an international border and limiting immigration, is precisely thereby a bigot, far-right or worse.

The pressure to conform to the extremes of liberalism is just as much as during the Inquisition there was pressure to conform to the teachings of the Church. This liberal/left-wing inquisition is what keeps nearly all of us silent even when we disagree. To fail to conform to the teachings of liberalism about anything risks the person being called a modern heretic. Sometimes the word you are called ends in “phobe”, homophobe, Islamophobe, transphobe etc., sometimes it ends in “ist”, sexist, racist, fascist etc. But all of these words mean heretic.

Nearly everyone will do almost anything to avoid being called any of these words. Even if this means them having to believe something they think to be false or undesirable they will still refuse to say or do anything that might lead to the charge of heresy. Why is this? Well would you have told the Inquisition that there was no such thing as the Virgin Birth? Would you have defended your beliefs and proclaimed them in the market square in Seville in the 1550s? Would you have relied on the tolerance of the Inquisition? But those days are in history. Now we have liberalism and tolerance.

The extremes of liberalism are taking us to disaster. Feminism in the United States has reached a stage where promiscuity (hook up culture) is combined with puritanism so that almost any man can be made to wear the Scarlet Letter R for Rapist. Rape is a crime of violence, but the word is being so devalued that it is being applied to drunken sex where there is no violence at all and no-one actually expresses lack of consent. It is now apparently possible to refuse consent months after the event, possibly after a break-up or a divorce and for this refusal to apply retrospectively. 

At its extremes we find feminists who think all sex is rape and a whole industry has built up that hunts for the witches in our midst. There are denunciations and there is hysteria and quite frankly there is Salem in the twenty-first century. In this way radical feminism achieves the left’s aim of attacking the fundamentals of human nature (sex, love, marriage) so that they can be reformed, it strives to create disharmony between men and women so that the solutions of the left can come to the rescue. The genius of feminism is that even to express doubt about it is to at best be a sexist at worst an apologist for rapists. No wonder hardly anyone dares say anything out of fear that they will be called a heretic.

The extremes of anti-racism have taken us far beyond the point where we were simply supposed to treat people kindly and with respect. It now means that we have to gradually, or not so gradually, allow the whole world into our continent. We have to do this not because we think it is a good idea. We have to do it even if it makes our lives more dangerous and unpleasant. We must do it because if we don’t we risk being accused of committing the unforgivable sin.

Whenever the liberal extremists seek to go one more step along their path towards heaven on earth, they frame the argument in such a way that no-one dares say anything because we are all scared to be treated as heretics. What this means is that writers on the right nearly always go to extraordinary lengths to show that they are not extremists and that they do indeed conform. This always has the effect of conceding defeat in the battle even before the battle has begun. In our desperation not to be seen as far-right extremists we cease to be conservatives at all. It won’t actually matter if we make just one more concession to liberalism. Let them tear down just one more statue. Let them destroy just one more tradition. Let them have just one more gender neutral toilet.

But we are heading towards a world where it will be impossible to tell at birth whether you just had a girl or a boy? How could you possibly tell? You’ll have to wait years before the child itself determines its identity. Soon, perhaps even now, anyone for any reason whatsoever can declare themselves to be a man or a woman or neither simply on a whim. This is extremism. It is also completely bonkers and false.

We are heading towards a world where quite soon certain European countries will in effect cease to exist or at least they will be unrecognisable from what they were fifty years ago. This is extremism. Nothing more extreme has happened to such countries in all their long history up to now.

We are heading to a world where Jacob Rees Mogg will be driven from public life and forced to recant and repent.  This act of penance was once called an auto-da-fé.  We are not quite there yet. But who knows. No-one expects the Liberal Inquisition.  Perhaps the only thing that might stop it  and much else besides is if we have a real conservative as a Prime Minister.

Saturday, 23 September 2017

Encouraging nationalism involves a heavy responsibility


As many of us have noticed this week, Spain is trying to prevent one of its parts from holding a referendum on independence. I normally don’t pay much attention to the internal politics of European countries. I can’t even routinely name the leaders of more than a few EU countries. But I began noticing the dispute in Spain a few years ago and from time to time have paid attention. There is a reason for this. Independence movements feed off each other. Scottish nationalists wave Catalan flags and vice versa. The example of one potentially helps or hinders the other.


 In the UK there has been a longstanding political convention that we govern by consent and that this means that if a part of the UK expresses a wish to leave then it will be allowed to do so. It was for this reason, owing to the fact that the SNP gained a majority in the Scottish Parliament they were allowed to hold a referendum in 2014.

A similar principle applies to Northern Ireland. Because a majority of people in Northern Ireland wished to remain in the UK we allowed them to do so. We were willing to go to a great deal of trouble, spend a large amount of money and lose not a few lives to defend this principle. It was right for us to do so. But in order to make peace we came to an agreement that if a majority in Northern Ireland wished to leave the UK they would have the right to do so. The same principle no doubt applies to Wales.

It is important to realise however that this is a political principle. The UK like any other nation state can grant the right to any of its parts to hold a referendum on independence. But it can also withhold the right. It can change laws. It can revoke treaties. Parliament is sovereign and a majority of MPs can more or less vote as they please. Moreover, convention in UK politics changes and evolves. While we govern by consent, we have the same rights as any other nation state to defend ourselves against foes both foreign and domestic. The consent by which we rule is not without limit. For instance, London could not decide to secede from the UK even if a majority of the people living there decided they were not British. We may or may not allow a right to self-determination, but like everywhere else it is balanced by the right of a nation state to maintain its territorial integrity.

Despite what many nationalists think, there is not a universal, unilateral right to self-determination. There are various conventions and precedents and laws. There are matters that encourage other countries to recognise such a right to self-determination. These include a place being a colony, part of a tyranny or the victim of aggression. But the right to self-determination if it exists at all is still balanced by the right of a nation state to maintain its territorial integrity. For this reason a modern democracy in Europe or the United States need not grant a part the right to secede, though it may do so.

We recognised the rights of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to secede from the USSR. This was because they were parts of an undemocratic tyranny. We likewise recognised the right of the parts of the former Yugoslavia to secede because force was used to try to prevent their leaving. But there is a limit. Few indeed are the European nation states that recognise Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia or Crimea as instances where secession was or is justified. It doesn’t matter that the majority in Crimea wished to leave Ukraine (if indeed they do) because Ukraine has a right to maintain its territorial integrity. The same goes for Moldova and Georgia. Kosovo was recognised by most of the Western world, but only because of the violence done to it by Serbia. Even here, not everyone recognises Kosovan independence, seeing it as a dangerous precedent. Spain for instance thinks that the right of Serbia to maintain its territorial integrity supersedes Kosovo’s right to leave.


 Does Catalonia have a right to a referendum on independence? No. Catalonia is a part of Spain in the same way that Crimea is a part of Ukraine. It doesn’t matter if the majority wish to leave, they cannot unilaterally decide to do so. Lots of countries in the world have or have had secession movements. They do not have to allow a vote on independence. The UK is one of only a very few nation states that has or would allow such a vote. Canada is another, though perhaps not any longer. But France for instance would certainly not allow Corsica an independence vote. The United States too famously refused to allow the Confederacy to leave even though not one Southern State voted for Abraham Lincoln and unquestionably a majority of voters wished to leave. The United States was willing to fight the bloodiest war in its history to prevent independence. This did not mean that the United States ceased to be a democracy.

It doesn’t matter that Catalonia at one point was an independent country in its own right. Crimea too was once independent and is only now part of Ukraine because it was annexed by the Russian Empire and then given to Ukraine by the Khrushchev. None of these things matter, because Ukraine has the right to maintain its territorial integrity just as much as the United States has.

It likewise doesn’t matter that some people think Catalonia is a country or a nation. These words are woolly and can apply to almost anywhere. I can decide that Aberdeenshire is a nation or a country and that people living here are a people distinct from the others in Scotland, possessing our own traditions and language. Almost anywhere can claim to be a country. But as places like Crimea and Transnistria have discovered, this does not have to be recognised. The reason is that what matters is not the word “nation”, or “country” what matters is the words “sovereign nation state”. These provide a place with the right to defend its territorial integrity.

Spain then certainly has the right to defend its territorial integrity. It has the same right as every other sovereign nation state in the world. It is for this reason that Catalonia will get almost zero international support. The reason is this. While Spain is a sovereign nation state, Catalonia is not. You won’t find Catalonia listed in the members of the United Nations, nor in any other international body. It doesn’t matter that Catalonia once was a country, nor that many even most Catalans think that it is still a country or a nation. None of these things matter because it is not a sovereign nation state. You cannot infer that because you think somewhere is a country, or a nation that it ought to be a sovereign nation state, because almost anywhere, almost everywhere has once been a country or a nation and some people, especially nationalists may think that it still is. These thoughts do not give you the rights of actually being a sovereign nation state. Nationalism does not in itself give you sovereignty.

Just because the UK gave Scotland the right to hold an independence referendum, it does not follow that Spain ought to do likewise. Different countries have different traditions. Moreover they evolve. The fact that Scotland has been given a referendum and voted “No” changes the convention. That vote has to be taken into account in the evolving question of whether there should ever be another vote. The result of a referendum cannot be ignored, at least not for a while. That too would be undemocratic. While we might be willing to allow a vote on independence, we do not have to allow it continually and whenever Scottish nationalists might want it. That is neither fair, nor reasonable and ignores the UK’s right to maintain its territorial integrity.

Is it wise however for Spain to try to prevent a vote on Catalan independence? This is quite tricky. I much prefer the UK method of solving these issues. Scotland was given a vote and the SNP lost. Now that we have also voted to leave the EU, which makes Scottish independence far less attractive, it may well be that Scottish nationalism simply withers on the vine. If so, then we have both been able to maintain our territorial integrity and grant the right to self-determination. We determined to stay in the UK. The granting of the referendum may have shown that because independence was possible it wasn’t necessary. Why leave a UK which is so democratic that it even is willing to vote itself out of existence?

On the other hand if David Cameron had simply told the SNP that they could not have a referendum would that have angered ordinary Scots so much that the demand for independence would have become unanswerable. Who can tell? We reacted to Theresa May telling Nicola Sturgeon that she would have to wait with relief and proceeded to vote out as many SNP MPs as we could.

It has to be recognised however, that while giving in to SNP demands to have a referendum may have worked out, it was a close run thing. We very nearly lost in 2014 and if the vote had been held in 2015, when the SNP won nearly all the seats in Scotland, then we probably would have lost. A nation state that continually allows a vote on its own existence is liable not to last very long.

Spain has existed for many centuries and is well within its rights to say that Catalan nationalism is transient and therefore ought not to be able to destroy Spain. The problem is that if Catalonia became independent, what of Galicia? Each part of Spain has a character and sometimes a language or dialect of its own. A glimpse at Spanish history shows that it is made up of parts that once were separate kingdoms. But whatever greatness Spain achieved in its history was because of its unity rather than its disunity.

Spain has the right to maintain its unity. But while there is not a universal, unilateral right to self-determination, there is a right to revolt. The danger for Spain is that by taking away the democratic right to self-determination it leaves the Catalans with only the option to take the matter into their own hands. While there is an obvious risk to Spanish unity by allowing a vote, refusing to allow it makes revolt more likely and also more justified. After all the United States declared it had a right to revolt from British rule.

This is where things get dangerous. The United States maintains both the right to revolt and to prevent revolt. It could fight its own war of independence, but prevented the Confederacy from achieving its independence. These principles have come down to us today. Secession is both allowed and not allowed. There is a limited right to self-determination and when a people have no other means to achieve it they may revolt. But a nation state has an unlimited right to self-defence.

 So long as Spain is circumspect it will be able to maintain the unity of its country. No-one is going to recognise an illegal referendum, nor even an illegal declaration of independence. Catalonia will end up as Transnistria if it isn’t careful. No-one in the rest of the world apart from a few Scottish nationalists will either notice or care.  What Spain must avoid however, is any sort of violence. It is perfectly legitimate to enforce Spanish law in Spain, but Spain must do so in a proportionate way. The only way that Catalonia can reach recognised independence is if Spain turns it into Kosovo.  

We don’t know what is going to happen. Hopefully nothing much. Let Catalonia go back to obscurity. Let the whole thing end up in a constitutional court tied up in knots that cannot be undone. It looks as if the UK has gone through its crisis and that the threat to our unity is easing. As usual the British way of muddling through has worked out. But this is Britain. It’s not Spain. Those Scottish nationalists who encourage nationalism in a country that fought a Civil War in the 1930s should realise that the example they have set has been followed. In Catalonia there is the same division and the same hatred and the same use of words like “Quisling” and “traitor”. Only they are much more dangerous words there. Spain has only been a democracy since the 1970s. The roots are not deep. Catalonia is divided, mixed in terms of language and identity and people are passionate. If there is tragedy, the fact that Catalan nationalism was in part encouraged by Scottish nationalism and saw it as an example to be followed will leave a stain on the conscience of the SNP that might equal if not exceed their dubious record during World War Two.  
      

The theology of Jacob Rees-Mogg


Britain has become an extremely intolerant country. We have reached the stage where in the name of liberalism and tolerance only certain views are allowed to be expressed. This is neither liberal nor tolerant.

It should be completely uncontroversial that a Catholic or at least some Catholics follow the teaching of the Catholic Church. Yet many people now appear to think, and it looks like they are right, that even to say that you agree with these teachings is to commit some sort of unforgivable sin that disqualifies you from public office. This is not tolerance. It is intolerance.


 When Jacob Rees-Mogg calmly and rationally explained his opposition to gay marriage and abortion no-one, but no-one actually looked at his argument. His opponents did not provide counter arguments rather they simply asserted that his views were unacceptable. Do we not have freedom of religion in Britain? Yes of course we do, but some religions are more equal than other religions.

The Church of England is no longer the established Church, nor indeed is the Church of Scotland. They may be this officially but in reality the only established Church is the Liberal/Left establishment that establishes what is correct and what is incorrect. Although some people in Britain can believe what they please and will never be asked about God and the consequences that follow from actually following the teachings their religion, others must cease believing what their religion tells them to believe and follow the Church of Political Correctness. This is not freedom of religion. This is not tolerance. It is intolerance.

Rees-Mogg thinks that gay marriage is simply not possible because marriage is a sacrament and Parliament has no power over sacraments. This lack of power is self-evidently true. The difficulty with his argument is that it would logically imply that only those who believe marriage is a sacrament are actually married. This would have the consequence of dissolving the vast majority of marriages in the UK.

Strictly speaking Protestants including those in the Church of England ought to think that there are only two sacraments (baptism, and communion). Catholics and Orthodox Christians think there are seven one of which is marriage. The difficulty for Rees-Mogg’s argument then is that it would not only invalidate gay marriage it would invalidate the marriage of everyone who is neither a Catholic nor Orthodox.

Where I think he is right however is in the suggestion that marriage is at least connected with God. Until relatively recently everyone believed this. Nearly every marriage in Britain until a few generations ago would have followed the words of the Prayer Book which explained why there was such a thing as marriage.

First, It was ordained for the increase of mankind according to the will of God, and that children might be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy name.

This is why we have marriage rather than simply living together. Even people who have ceased to believe in God still maintain the traditions of marriage, just as many people who have ceased to be Christians still follow Christian morality. But why?

Why should we think it necessary for people to marry? Why when they do marry should we think it desirable that they remain married? The Church has an answer. Marriage was created by God, firstly so that there would be children.

Secondly, It was ordained in order that the natural instincts and affections, implanted by God, should be hallowed and directed aright; that those who are called of God to this holy estate, should continue therein in pureness of living. 

The problem is that if you don’t believe in God why should you want to be a part of something ordained by God? Alternatively if you don’t think that marriage was ordained by God, but instead was created by human beings, why should you want to be part of it at all? Why not just live together?

The whole point of marriage and the reason it developed in our country as it did is to regulate our natural instincts and to make them pure. But if you think this is all lies and nonsense why get involved at all? Why follow this tradition? The fundamental problem is that marriage is above all a promise to love someone and remain with them forever. If it isn’t this, it isn’t anything. But what makes me keep this promise. For a Christian, like Jacob Rees-Mogg the answer is clear. He must remain married because he promised to do so in the sight of God. But if you don’t think God sees, why should you keep your promise?

We also, of course, have secular laws with regard to marriage. We don’t have to marry in a church at all. But we still promise. But why and what makes us keep it? The answer I’m afraid is that nothing makes us keep our promise. As soon as many of us tire of our wives or husbands, or as soon as we cease to feel the passion that we once felt, or as soon as we meet someone else, well at that point we break our promise. But this isn’t marriage. It is living together with a few legal strings attached.

It turns out then that Rees-Mogg is at least partly right. Most people in Britain marry in a conditional way, crossing their fingers when they promise. The loss of God is the loss of marriage. No law holds us to our promise, not for long anyway. No secular morality tells us that we must keep our promise. We are all free to break it when we please. But this means that we don’t promise and therefore don’t get married.

It turns out then that marriage is inherently connected with the Church. Without the God the idea of marriage as traditionally conceived simply collapses. We are left with the ritual, quite an expensive one, but it has become empty and quite literally meaningless. This is what happens when you keep the tradition but lose the foundation that keeps it from standing. It falls down.

The reasons given for marriage by the Church make the very idea of gay marriage inconceivable. Gay marriage contradicts the purpose of marriage. Of course society can decide to make any civil laws it pleases. If gay people wish to live together and make certain legal promises there need be nothing to stop them. But it isn’t marriage. The way to discover what is a thing is to ask the question what is it for? The purpose of marriage is so that women can have children in safety and security and so that the natural instincts of both men and women are regulated in a way that is beneficial both for themselves and for society. We have forgotten this purpose and so marriage has become purposeless. Worse by extending marriage beyond its purpose we have ended up with a situation where only those who believe that marriage is a sacrament or at least that they promise in the sight of God actually marry. Everyone else is just taking part in a very expensive charade involving white dresses, castles and drunkenness.

When you take away the foundation of morality, you are left with mere law. Everything at this point becomes permissible so long as you can get away with it. But the logical outcome of permissiveness is to say that marriage is an outdated tradition that we should dispense with. In the end if everyone can get married, then no-one can. We have already reached the point where almost no one does.  

Rees-Mogg also got into trouble because of his views on abortion. His argument will go something like this:

Killing people is wrong,
Babies in the womb are people,
Therefore killing babies in the womb is wrong.

You really have two choices here. Either you can deny that killing people is wrong or you can deny that babies in the womb are people. The first option is unpalatable for obvious reasons. If killing some people is not wrong, where are we going to draw the line? The problem with the babies in the womb are not people argument is that it looks awfully like the slaves are not people argument that meant that in the United States they could declare that all people are created equal except slaves. Why should we discriminate against these people who happen to be situated in a womb?

If I was teaching in a school and discovered that one of the children in the class was conceived as a result of rape or incest would I be morally justified in killing it? Obviously not. But why should I be justified then in killing it because it is situated in a womb rather than a classroom?

But what about the rights of a woman to do what she wants with her body? Indeed these rights must be taken into account. But which human right gives me the right to kill another human being? Self-defence perhaps gives me that right. But babies in the womb are only rarely a threat to a woman’s safety.

The babies in the womb are not people argument is faced with the difficulty that we all accept that babies outside the womb are people. Killing babies which have been born is wrong is liable to lead to a murder charge. But then if we wish to maintain that babies in the womb are not people, we are forced to say at what point they become people.

Jacob Rees-Mogg thinks that the moment of conception is the moment at which life begins. For this reason he thinks that all abortion is wrong. This is logical rather than shocking.  But why should the moment of conception be theologically significant. I think he is mixing up science (the moment of conception is only known about because of science) with theology.

Traditionally the Church knew no more about the mechanics of conception than did anyone else. A few hundred years ago no-one knew that a sperm entered into an egg. They didn’t have microscopes that were powerful enough. When did the Church think life began? It thought that it began with quickening or the moment when the woman first feels the baby in the womb. The Church traditionally treated this moment as the moment when the baby gains a soul.

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.

Elisabeth the mother of John the Baptist is filled with the Holy Spirit at the point when she first feels her baby moving. The baby gains a soul at this point not before.

For this reason it is not necessary to believe as Rees-Mogg does that all abortion is wrong from the moment of conception. It is perfectly possible to say we have an actual person when it gains a soul but prior to that we only have a potential person. But two people who first meet and think about marrying have in them any number of potential persons. Their failure to marry and have sex may prevent one of these potential persons from becoming an actual person. But there is clearly nothing wrong in this. If there were, a man could demand sex on the grounds that it makes a potential person actual.

From this we need not be quite as strict as Rees-Mogg. There is a window of opportunity where it is possible to abort babies without doing anything seriously wrong. Quickening occurs between 15-20 weeks after conception. Rape victims and victims of incest ought to be able to have an abortion prior to that. Other women too who elect to have early abortions need not feel that they are doing anything particularly wrong. A cluster of cells that is neither conscious nor self-conscious may or may not become a human being, but it is not a human being yet. A potential thing is not the thing it might become. An acorn is not an oak and therefore while chopping down an oak may be wrong throwing an acorn on the fire is morally unproblematic.

We ought to be living in a free society which is tolerant of the views of everybody whether religious or not. The law about things like marriage and abortion must take into account the wishes and beliefs of everyone. It cannot be that religious views dictate who can or cannot form a life-long partnership. But I must be free to say that I don’t think that it is possible for gay people to marry. I believe it contradicts the meaning of the words “man”, “woman” and “marry”. They on the other hand are free to call what they are doing what they please. But they are not free to compel anyone else to go along with the way they use or misuse language. Likewise religious views ought not to determine at what point abortion is legal or illegal. We do not, thank God, live in a theocracy. But I am free to think that early abortion is morally and theologically unproblematic while also maintaining that late abortion is a form of legalised murder. Rees Mogg should be free to believe what he believes. It should not disqualify him from high office, nor lead to him being described as a bigot. He is not the bigot. It is those who describe him as such who are bigots. Only when we allow everyone to believe what they believe without fear of prejudice will we find that we are living in a tolerant country. We are not living in it today.    


Saturday, 16 September 2017

It’s not bad enough yet


 I was going to write about something else this week. I had something almost ready about Jacob Rees-Mogg’s views on theology. But then I saw that he had ruled himself out from being leader, no doubt because of his views on theology. Maybe at a later date I will discuss those views. I think there is an interesting rational argument to be had about the subject. But why stick your neck out. It’s not bad enough yet.


 Every other day now North Korea either has a new test for a new sort of nuclear weapon or else it sends a rocket over Japan. Kim Jong-un is the Little Engine that Could. He’s little and a little round and he can. Everybody gets very angry about this and makes all sorts of threats. But nothing is going to happen until and unless he does. If any sort of nuclear weapon actually lands on American territory or the territory of an ally then there will be a nuclear response. But until and unless that happens Mr Kim knows that he can pretty much do as he pleases. The Chinese don’t want to see a unified Korea, so they will do nothing. The Russian’s chief foreign policy goal is to do the opposite of what the Americans want and so they will do nothing. Mr Kim wants attention and perhaps needs it and so he will throw his rockets out of his pram, but the game requires that he doesn’t go too far. The only problem is if he miscalculates. What if one of his rockets accidentally lands in Japan? Is there a response then? But fundamentally until the situation gets bad enough the Americans will do nothing. It’s not bad enough yet. I think it has to get very bad indeed before any sort of military action is taken against North Korea. So Mr Trump’s threats are probably empty, just as Mr Kim’s rockets are empty. The game is very dangerous indeed, but for the moment that’s all it is.

The same logic applies to our domestic security situation and the situation of every other Western European Country and indeed the United States. Here we face a situation that is much more dangerous than North Korea, but here too it isn’t bad enough yet.

Every now and again for the last while we turn on the news to find there has been another terrorist incident somewhere in Europe or the United States. We’ve had big ones (9/11) and small ones (Parson’s Green) and medium ones (e.g. Nice).  But none of these are bad enough. What we always get afterwards is the same meaningless words from politicians and the same meaningless gestures. The Eiffel Tower is lit up with the colours of another country’s flag. Scared people tell other scared people that they are not scared. We promise that we won’t give in to terrorism while trying to modify what we say and do in order not to provoke it. None of these things do any good whatsoever. We’ve even ceased to listen to what the politicians say as we already know what they said last time and what they will say next time.

The problem is this. Just as Jacob Rees-Mogg has to rule himself out of being Tory leader for telling the truth about his views, so all of us have to rule ourselves out of membership of polite society if we tell the truth about the nature of the problem and provide solutions that might actually solve it. It’s not bad enough for us to do this and so we say nothing.

There is an unforgivable sin in the modern western world. Because of this unforgivable sin most people go to great lengths to prove that they are not sinners. The unforgivable sin is so awful that I dare not even name it. I can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit with impunity, but we all know that certain words and certain truths may not be said in modern Britain. The reason they may not be said is that it isn’t bad enough yet.

Since Scottish politics became a dead issue not worth writing about I have spent the whole summer trying to explore the fundamentals of politics. Our problem is that we have turned equality into a God that must be worshipped at all costs. It means that whenever we face a situation that requires discrimination we fail to discriminate. We may start off with the best of intentions, after all we all want to be treated fairly, but we end up ignoring real difference. There is a real difference, for instance, between men and women. We are all of us who are not blind and unable to touch fully aware of it. But the logic of the equality lobby leads to children of six being told that this difference is not real and that girls and boys are interchangeable at will. The truth remains the truth and reality remains reality. The foundation of human society is the real difference between men and women. Throw away that foundation at your peril. Men and women want different things and to an extent we think differently and are often good at different things. Treat us fairly by all means but don’t ignore the reality of our difference.

There is likewise a difference between the duty I owe to my family, my fellow citizens and the duty I owe to people in general. These are real differences. I do not have a duty to ruin my own country in order to save the people of another. We are not equal.

When we turn equality into the thing to be worshipped at all costs, the cost in the end is Parsons’s Green. Discriminate has become a bad word. Not the worst of words of course, but bad enough. But really it means to recognise a distinction. People are different. Of course there are fundamental characteristics that we share with people the world over. But anyone who has travelled realises that there is a distinction between my society and your society, my culture and your culture. This is a real distinction. The attempt to erase this distinction because of equality is leading the West to disaster. Many people on the Left because of their belief in equality are trying in effect to create a world without borders. The result will be very bad indeed. It already is pretty bad as you may have noticed in the last five years or so. It may get much worse.

Can anything be done? Possibly. The most important step is to leave the EU. This makes Parliament sovereign and gives us the power to elect politicians who will do what it takes to make our country safe. It also gives us the power, if we choose to exercise it, to act in the interests of our own citizens rather than the citizens of the whole world. We must have no foreign court telling us what to do. The problem is that whenever a country attempts to do what is necessary to make itself safe (e.g. Poland, Hungary etc.) other countries condemn them for failing to share in our common danger. Each of our European countries ought, after all, to be equally dangerous otherwise we sin against the God of Equality.

Will anything be done? Probably not, at least not yet. I think it probably needs a plane to fly into the Houses of Parliament and for that plane to be packed with radioactive material or else some form of chemical or biological weaponry. Such a plane could easily have been flown on September 11th 2001 in which case it might have killed 100,000 people rather than 2996. That would probably have been bad enough. In that case our politicians would not have gone on about what this had nothing to do with. Rather they would have solved the problem. We wouldn’t have had any choice. But this won’t happen, not yet anyway, because it’s not bad enough.