Month: July 2023

What do you call a man who doesn’t believe in God? An atheist. And what do you call a priest who doesn’t believe in God, doesn’t understand basic theology, but upholds every woke fad going? The Archbishop of York.

One has to arrive at this melancholy conclusion every time the Most Rev Stephen Cottrell, the second most senior Anglican prelate, opens his mouth in public.

This time His Grace delivered himself on the Lord’s Prayer, whose wording he considers problematic. I’m sure the originator of that text must apply the same adjective to His Grace.

The eloquent way he explains the nature of the problem brings to mind the great preachers of the past, from St Paul onwards. The famous pagan orators, such as Demosthenes and Cicero, also rate a mention as worthy precursors. But judge for yourself:

“I know the word ‘father’ is problematic for those whose experience of earthly fathers has been destructive and abusive and for all of us who have laboured rather too much from an oppressively patriarchal grip on life — then those of us who say this prayer together, whether we like it or not, whether we acknowledge it or not, even if we determinedly face away from each other only turning round in order to put a knife in the back of the person standing behind us, are sisters and brothers, family members, the household of God.”

Let me see if I get this right. Even though we’d dearly love to stab one another (incidentally, that feat would be easier to accomplish on a person standing in front of us), we are all sisters and brothers, members of the same family in the household of God. Yet people are siblings by virtue of sharing two parents, or at least one. In every language I am familiar with, parents are identified as ‘father’ and ‘mother’.

So God has to be either one or the other, and his son seems to have settled the issue by referring to God as Father and telling believers to start their daily prayer with “Our Father, which art in heaven…”.

One would think that even in our gender-fluid times any priest has a professional obligation to accept Jesus Christ as something of an authority on such matters. Where is the problem then?

It’s true that many earthly fathers take a rather lackadaisical view of parental duties. And yes, their offspring may have unpleasant associations with the concept of fatherhood.

However, I’d suggest it’s the pastoral duty of any priest, never mind a prelate, to explain to Kevin what’s what. God the Father, Kev, shouldn’t be equated with your Dad, who shagged your Mum, did a runner, and turns up only every couple of years to shag your Mum again, nick her social cheque, and then use you and her in lieu of a football or a punching bag.

God the Father isn’t that kind of bloke. In fact, Kev, God isn’t a bloke at all – he is God. He is called Father because he created us all and guides us lovingly through life, the way your Dad doesn’t.

I wouldn’t take Kevin into the thicket of recondite theology, but the Archbishop should understand, and be able to explain, why the first hypostasis of the Holy Trinity is called Father. This is how I tried to do so in an earlier piece:

“Judaeo-Christian God made the world as a free act of absolute creation, that is out of nothing (ab nihilo).

“The human father imitates this act by initiating conception. Though both he and the woman are essential to it, the man, by impregnating the woman, is the active agent; the woman, by being impregnated, is the passive one.

“Thus, referring to God as ‘he’ is a sound metaphor. But it’s also a sound analogy, for a father embodies what theologians call the ‘principle’ of procreation.

“Because a man procreates outside his own body, he stands outside and above his creation in the sense in which a woman doesn’t. She conceives and gestates the child inside her body, and in that sense the child is a part of her, even though the man also contributes his DNA.

“Symbolically the couple imitates the act of divine creation. The man is both transcendent (standing outside and above his creation) and immanent (present within it). The woman, on the other hand, is only immanent.

“The reason theologians insist on referring, both metaphorically and analogously, to God as father is that his transcendence is a more important property than his immanence.”

Kevin’s feelings about his Dad don’t come into this at all – they belong in a totally different spiritual and physical realm. Kevin’s plight is awful, but a priest isn’t above all a social worker, and nor is Jesus Christ a Shadow Home Secretary.

However, there’s something Kevin may not know, but a priest should. Orphanages were among the first institutions created by the early Christians acting in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Such institutions, along with those for the care of the old and infirm, widows, lepers and cripples rapidly spread already during Constantine’s reign. In fact, the emperor Julian the Apostate, who had switched from Arian Christianity back to his beloved paganism, reluctantly praised the ‘Galileans’ for looking after the weak and needy, “not only theirs, but ours as well,” so much better than the pagans did.

The church was thus willing to provide not only spiritual solace for children like Kevin but also tangible support, shelter, food and education. That was an attempt to ensure that children who lost their fathers would never remain fatherless.

The ‘problem’ highlighted by His Grace is new to me. So new, in fact, that one begins to suspect many of today’s Anglicans are actively looking for ways of taking Christ out of Christianity. The older problem, that of God’s pronouns, hasn’t gone away though.

In fact, the Church of England is about to switch to ‘non-gendered’ pronouns in honour of a fad that’s not only secular but aggressively atheist. Thus, the Rev Christina Rees said the Archbishop “has put his finger on an issue that’s a really live issue for Christians and has been for many years”.

I’m sure that’s “a really live issue for Christians” like her, those whose mission in life seems to be vulgarising Christianity into extinction. I’ll refrain from enlarging on my view of female priesthood, other than saying I regard it as an abomination.

But whatever one’s views on clerical ladies may be, any person with a modicum of taste would abhor the way the Rev Christina bemoans that: “It’s the way it’s been set for so long and so we’re stuck. And because Jesus called God ‘Daddy’, we think we have to call God ‘Daddy’.”

Alas, I am incapable of reading the Scripture in its original languages, but in no translation I’ve ever seen does Jesus refer to God as ‘Daddy’, ‘Dad’, ‘Pop’, ‘Pa’ or any such familiar term. The Rev Christina obviously wants to kill two birds with one stone.

First, she is out to reconfirm her woke credentials by insisting on a ‘non-gendered’ God. Second, she is trying to imply her special intimacy with God, with whom she seems to be on more familiar terms than even Jesus was.

In fact, she succeeds only in parading her staggering ignorance, irreverence and – I’m sure – crypto-atheism. She is such a strong living argument against female priesthood that I consider the case closed.

His Grace, however, isn’t a woman. Hence he must be a strong living argument against something else — I’ll let you decide what.

No, I didn’t think so. But suppose you had, and the question in the title is put to you by the disembodied voice of a phone pollster.

Now, you know you’ve just dismembered your neighbour and dumped him piecemeal into rubbish skips. So how do you answer that question? Yes or no? You realise that if you say ‘yes’, the pollster will probably forget all about confidentiality, call the police, and you’ll be in for a long stretch at His Majesty’s pleasure.

Hence you suppress whatever impulse you might have to come clean and say something like “Of course, I haven’t. Who do you think I am?”

Does this hypothetical scenario make psychological sense? It does? Good. Now you understand where the 80 per cent support for Putin comes from in Russia.

Even the meekest opposition to the Special Military Operation (SMO, otherwise known as Russia’s aggressive war on the Ukraine) is punishable by draconian prison terms, never less than five years and sometimes as long as 25. Each time such a sentence is passed, all Russian media publicise the verdict widely and incessantly, pour encourager les autres.

Suddenly, out of the blue, the phone rings, and a Russian citizen living his life in fear of putting a foot wrong is asked to answer these four questions (the questionnaire is recent and real, not imaginary).

1. Do you support Vladimir Putin’s domestic and foreign policies?

2. Do you consider Putin’s decision to start the SMO to be correct?

3. Do you support the SMO?

4. Do you consider the negative information about the Russian army to be true?  

Suppose for the sake of argument that our respondent 1) detests Putin’s policies, foreign and domestic, 2) considers the decision to start the SMO to be criminal, 3) emphatically doesn’t support the SMO and 4) believes all negative information about the Russian army to be true.

How likely is he to respond in that vein? Knowing that he may well spend the rest of his life in prison? Oh, I’m sure some intrepid individuals still speak their mind – I remember doing so myself, in my Soviet youth. But such people were in the minority then, and they are in the minority now.

In fact, in my day that minority was smaller than it seems to be now: if statistics are to be believed, 20 per cent of the Russians reply ‘no’ to some such questions. Given the circumstances, that’s a respectable number.

Those people would rather risk their liberty than strike the Faustian deal with the devil. And their liberty isn’t the worst risk they take.

Putin’s fascist thugs are just as likely to dispense with the casuistic shenanigans of quasi-legal proceedings and settle political or business scores the old-fashioned way: with guns, crowbars, poison or a simple push out of the window.

Dozens of journalists and opposition politicians have suffered that fate in recent months. And the number of top Russian businessmen falling out of windows makes one wonder about the structural safety of Russian residential architecture.

Just a few days ago, Kristina Baikova, vice president of a major bank, plunged to her death from her flat window in Moscow – and she is far from the only one. There is a veritable epidemic of defenestration afflicting Russian executives, especially in the oil industry and banking, practically the only money-making parts of the Russian economy.

‘Unexplained’ deaths of healthy, vigorous executives in their 30s and 40s are also rife. These are typically described as suicide, with those upwardly mobile youngsters either poisoning themselves with exotic compounds or beating themselves to death with aforementioned crowbars.

The political situation inside Russia can only be properly understood in the right context: that of fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. And Russia’s business climate evokes fond recollections of Chicago during Prohibition.

Hannah Arendt’s phrase, the banality of evil, was meant to describe the Nazi Holocaust. However, it deserves a wider application. In Putin’s Russia, evil has become the norm, part of the daily routine that is as likely to cause ennui as outrage.

People used to think of evil acts as one-off incidents and even try to find rational explanations for them.

Razing the capital of Chechnya, Grozny, whose population was 80 per cent Russian? Oh well, there’s a war on. Things happen, even very nasty things.

Attack on Georgia? That’s unpleasant, but those Georgians must have asked for it.

Journalists murdered by the dozen? Shame, that. But perhaps they weren’t murdered after all, or else the guilty parties were jealous spouses or jilted lovers (the FSB put forth this last explanation when Paul Klebnikov, the American editor of the Russian Forbes, was machinegunned by two people in the centre of Moscow – jealous husbands tool up well in Russia, and they bring friends along).

However, as such crimes multiplied, the people’s nerve endings began to atrophy. The self-preservation instinct kicked in, and personal survival became the order of the day. Along with the hope that the outer limit of evil has already been reached.

Yes, Putin grabbed the Crimea. But surely he won’t move into mainland Ukraine. Oh, he has, hasn’t he? At least he won’t bomb civilians in their houses, hospitals and schools. Well, never mind that. Surely he won’t blow up the Kakhovka dam? That would destroy one of the best agricultural areas in Europe, not to mention the ensuing ecological disaster. He did? You don’t say. But that’s it – he won’t blow up the nuclear power station at Zaporozhe. That would be ten times worse than Chernobyl… but then the radiation wouldn’t reach me.

At least we still have enough food, and nobody has bombed our apartment block. People getting murdered and imprisoned for no good reason? Perhaps. But as long as I keep my head down, I’ll be all right…

And then the phone rings. A man with a velvety voice wonders if you wouldn’t mind answering a few yes or no questions…

This article is a reply to a reader’s question, and it’s a good question indeed: “Why do you not consider conservatism to be an ideology?”

Yesterday I defined an ideology as a “politically aggressive secular creed springing from a corrupt, or corrupted, idea.” None of these features applies to conservatism, which I’ll try to show by looking at them one by one.

Conservatism isn’t always, and never merely, political. Political views may be part of a conservative outlook on life, but they never define it.

A conservative may have no interest in politics at all. In fact, I know quite a few conservatives who wince with disdain whenever politics comes up in conversation.

Conservatism is a character or temperament trait, one that predisposes a man to favour certain ideas, including political ones, over others. In extreme cases, a man’s character may even lead him to develop a philosophy of life.

But conservatives don’t have to be philosophers; few are. However, when exposed to various philosophies, all of them intuitively accept conservative ones and reject others.

The same character traits prevent a conservative from being aggressive in asserting his views. Show me a man ranting from a soapbox, and I’ll show you the opposite of a conservative – this irrespective of his pet subject. Moderation and good manners are more important to a conservative than self-assertion.

Neither can a conservative be ideologically secular. That doesn’t mean a conservative necessarily has to be a believer, although many are. What no conservative can ever be is an atheist, someone who vigorously denies God.

That would be tantamount to dismissing in one fell swoop not just Christianity, but our whole civilisation with its history, morality, aesthetics, culture, law – even political heritage. By definition, conservatives are out to conserve, not repudiate, our civilisation.

Hence a conservative may be an agnostic, but never an atheist. Though a conservative agnostic is denied the gift of faith, something he may or may not rue, he acknowledges our civilisational debt to Christianity and hence refrains from holding extreme views about it.

Another aspect of conservatism is that it isn’t a creed. It may be an intricately interlaced system of many creeds, but never a single one. Hence, unlike just about any ideology, conservatism can’t be defined with a slogan.

That puts it at a political disadvantage when it comes to rallying the masses by rabble rousing. As any adman will tell you, the masses don’t respond to complex, nuanced ideas. Give them liberté, égalité, fraternité, and they’ll jump up and salute. Try to explain to them that liberté and égalité are mutually exclusive, and their eyes will glaze over.

Even as conservatism isn’t based on a single belief, neither can it be reduced to a single idea. It’s more a matter of temperamental and intellectual predisposition that may or may not be encapsulated in specific ideas.

So far I have proceeded apophatically, by arguing what things conservatism is not. All those things can be described with one word: ideology. Having thus defined conservatism negatively, let’s try to define it positively by showing not what it isn’t but what it is.

Here it’s difficult to look beyond Edmund Burke, whose seminal book Reflections on the Revolution in France should (though never will) be required reading at every school.

The great Whig, who towards the end of his life abandoned Whiggery, reduced the complexity of the conservative temperament to one dominant feature: prudence, caution in advocating novelties.

Burke specifically talked about political prudence, not acting emotionally on the spur of the moment, thinking a thousand times before introducing one irreversible change. That doesn’t mean resistance to change as such. In fact, Burke wrote that: “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”

Some change is thus both inevitable and desirable. But what are the guiding principles of introducing it?

In answering that question, Burke came as close as it’s possible to get to identifying the key beacons lighting up the conservative mind: prejudice, which is intuitive knowledge; prescription, which is truth passed on by previous generations; and presumption, which is inference from the common experience of mankind.

Burkean four Ps, Prudence, Prejudice, Prescription and Presumption, obviate the need for the other 25 letters to describe the conservative mind. Those four Ps manifestly have nothing to do with any ideology, in my definition or anyone else’s.

They can, however, act as the building blocks of ideas, including political ones. However, a political idea thus constructed mustn’t be allowed to degenerate into an ideology. If it does, it loses its conservative underpinnings to become something else, such as, say, libertarianism or even anarchism.

This can be illustrated by any number of examples. Free markets versus nationalised ones is an obvious one, closely related as it is to the issue of small versus big government.

Like everything else in our civilisation, this dichotomy can be traced back to a Christian idea, in this case that of individual responsibility for one’s own destiny. The notion of personal integrity and autonomy precludes meek submission to secular authority in matters beyond its just reach.

The same applies to the complex interaction between the state and the individual. The Christian believes his life is eternal. He also knows from history books that the life of a state is not: even extremely successful ones only ever lasted between 1,000 and 1,500 years.

Compared to eternity, this stretch seems tinier than a speck of dust would appear next to the universe. The individual will therefore perceive himself as more significant than the state and for that reason alone will never accept its tyranny.

Etched into a Christian’s soul is the innate conviction that he is transcendent but the state is transient. Hence in everything that matters he can only regard the state not as his master but as his servant.

If the state’s actions suggest that it is assuming the role of master, then the believer may either resist it or pretend to be going along to protect himself from persecution. But inwardly he will never acquiesce. 

Against that civilisational background, a conservative, even if he himself is an agnostic, will be a champion of free, as opposed to nationalised, markets.

First, he will know from empirical evidence that free markets make more people less poor. And the four Ps I mentioned earlier demand attaching a great value to empirical experience accumulated over history.

Second, and more important, a conservative also knows that nationalised markets make the central state so strong that it will inevitably start encroaching on areas beyond its natural remit, laying claims on individual integrity traditionally held sacrosanct.

That is an impeccably conservative attitude, one based on an idea, not an ideology. Yet when thinkers who aren’t themselves natural, intuitive conservatives get hold of that idea, they can drag it into the quagmire of ideology.

I’ve met many people who call themselves conservatives but who are, in fact, what I call ‘totalitarian economists’. They converge with Marxists in preaching the primacy of economics, the be all and end all of public virtue.

Nationalise the means of production, insist Marxists, and everything else will follow, universal bliss will arrive. Free up the markets, insist totalitarian economists, and everything else will follow, universal bliss will arrive. Like Orwell’s animals, both species reduce everything to a single issue. They just can’t agree on the number of legs.

That’s why I never regard ‘totalitarian economists’ like Mises, Hayek and Friedman – or especially their less brilliant followers – as fellow conservatives. They teeter on the verge beyond which an idea ends and an ideology begins. No room for conservatism there.

There we go, the surface of the non-ideological nature of conservatism thoroughly scratched. Delving deeper would require a different format, that of a weighty tome. Still, I must apologise to my reader by paraphrasing Mark Twain: “Sorry about such a long response – I didn’t have time to write a short one.”

P.S. For even a longer response, you may want to look up some of my books in which I talk about such subjects at greater, but still manageable, length, especially How the West Was Lost, The Crisis Behind Our Crisis and Democracy as a Neocon Trick.

My contention is that this is impossible. If it’s good, it’s not an ideology. And if it’s an ideology, it’s not good.

This is one of my recurrent themes, but what has made it recur today is an interview with some Tory health official I watched for a few minutes this morning.

Presenter Kay Burley queried the woman, whose name I didn’t catch, on the dire state of the NHS. Don’t we need fundamental changes? Of course, we do, agreed the woman, and you can count on the government to introduce them. She then took in Burley’s steely look and open mouth, and expertly pre-empted the inevitable question cum accusation.

Whatever we do, she hastened to reassure urbi et orbi, we remain staunchly committed to the sacred principle of ‘free at the point of delivery’. Yes, she admitted mournfully, people do pay for the NHS through their taxes, and they pay a lot. But while she has any breath left in her body, that will remain the only method of payment.

Considering that the woman herself looked in dire need of the services within her remit, the commitment didn’t look eternal, but she certainly meant it that way. Why?

Here comes the first litmus test to distinguish an ideology from its cognates, ‘idea’ and ‘ideal’.

‘Everyone must have equal access to medical care’ is an ideal. ‘Everyone should have equal access to medical care equal in every respect’ is an ideology. ‘Medical care must be free at the point of delivery’ is an ideology too. But it’s based on an idea: ‘a fully nationalised medical care is the best way of providing it.’

This is definitely an idea, but a wrong one. When I lived in that land of greedy, money-grubbing medics, the US, medical care, which I needed lamentably often, never cost me anywhere near the 12 per cent or so of my income the Exchequer extorts for that purpose.

Since the medical care provided by the NHS is grossly inadequate, in addition I have to pay exorbitant premiums for private medical insurance. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that perhaps full nationalisation isn’t the best way to keep Britons healthy.

Moreover, if Britons were asked whether they’d rather pay 12 per cent (or in my case considerably more) of their income for ‘free’ medical care or, say, half that proportion for the kind that isn’t free, I suspect most would choose the latter. But the question is never put to them.

I know this, the interviewee knows it, even conceivably Kay Burley knows it, although the impression she unfailingly conveys is that she knows nothing about anything. But the two ladies are constitutionally incapable of treating the NHS as just one of many ways to finance medical care.

Yet that’s exactly what it is, nothing less, and certainly nothing more. Hence it must be dispassionately weighed against other methods and found either superior or inferior. If it’s found to be inferior – and it’s worth noting that most other European countries refuse to have a fully nationalised health service – then it should be abandoned and replaced with something that works better.

That’s how we know that the NHS isn’t an idea but an ideology. It’s impervious to rational arguments and held to be off limits for any kind of comparative judgement.

The late Chancellor Nigel Lawson correctly defined the NHS as “the closest thing the English people have to a religion.” And a religion without God is what any ideology really is – and has been since the term first appeared.

It was coined in 1796 by the French Enlightenment thinker Antoine Destutt de Tracy. The reason no one had thought of the word earlier is simple: there had been no need for it.

New words appear to designate new concepts or phenomena. In this case, the phenomenon was a mass revolt against Western civilisation, otherwise known as Christendom. The concept was replacing God with secular virtue based on academic abstractions contrived by people like Tracy.

So it has remained to this day. Tracy defined ideology as a ‘science of ideas’, but the more accurate definition would be a ‘politically aggressive secular creed springing from a corrupt, or corrupted, idea.’

Most ideologies do start with an idea, and some ideas may not be so bad. Ending racial discrimination, for example, is a damn good idea. That being so, any decent person should welcome any sensible steps towards putting it into practice.

But when that idea acquires aspects of a politically aggressive cult, it stops being an idea and effectively loses all links, other than etymological ones, with that word. It becomes an ideology that isn’t subject to correction by reason or fact. Unlike an idea, an ideology cauterises people’s minds – at least the parts dealing with such issues.

Most people’s minds aren’t so easy to invalidate. Hence another hallmark of an ideology: it gains public acceptance not by its intrinsic truth, nor by rational persuasion, but by a massive brainwashing effort. That’s what it takes for otherwise (moderately) intelligent people to accept, say, the critical race theory as a valid representation of history.

My examples show two ideologies that became what they are by systematically corrupting originally good ideas: that all sick people should be treated, and that no race should be singled out for persecution.

Most ideologies, however, aren’t like that. They start out as corrupt and then reach out-and-out evil by a succession of incremental steps. Communism, Nazism and fascism spring to mind, with all their numerous offshoots.

These are considerably more carnivorous than the NHS or the critical race theory, which may make some people overlook the similarity among all ideologies, a crossroads where they all come together.

Whatever their declared aims, all ideologies are driven by hatred, the urge to repudiate the core founding tenets and practices of our civilisation. This is the overarching umbrella covering them all, sanguinary or seemingly pacific, those that scowl at you with bared fangs or greet you with a beatific smile.

That’s why a good ideology is a glaring oxymoron. Sort of like free medical care.  

Three items have caught my eye, each supporting the melancholy conclusion in the title. This, though in two of the cases a TV presenter was supposedly making an argument for the sane side.

One such presenter was Piers Morgan, interviewing a fellow journalist. His guest spends much of his time in France, where his dog Bella runs free among the vines. That puts her in danger, but mercifully an Austrian company provides a dog tracking service. The device attached to the collar lets the owner know where his pet is at all times, which is a good idea.

However, to paraphrase a well-known expression, no good idea goes unpunished. In this case, the punishment came as the Austrian company’s demand that all its tracking devices exhibit the rainbow badge of the on-going Gay Pride Month. Virtue-barking was supposed to augment virtue-signalling.

Morgan’s friend refused, and as a result the company cancelled his dog, or rather his subscription to the tracker. If you are a troglodyte homophobe, was the implicit message, may your dog croak, see if we care.

The owner protested, and miraculously the company relented. It ascribed the confrontation to an overzealous employee, reinstated the tracker and even gave the owner three months free by way of compensation. In his letter the company’s president explained that, much as he disagreed with the owner’s views, he wasn’t going to punish him for holding them.

A victory for sanity? Not so fast.

Discussing the event, Morgan and his friend proved that nowadays every such victory is illusory. It’s just another word for defeat.

Both Morgan and his guest did their utmost to reassure their audience that there isn’t even a particle of homophobia in their bodies. Some of their best friends are homosexuals and all that. And it went without saying that they loved and supported the idea of Gay Pride.

Their only objection was that it takes a whole month to celebrate such hubris. After all, we have only one day to glorify our veterans and just a handful to hail Jesus. Wouldn’t it be better to put Gay Pride somewhere between the two? Why give it a whole month?

The two also objected to being forced to display those rainbows. Nothing wrong with the symbol, but let us decide when and how to show it. Both agreed that demanding canine devotion to the rainbow-clad alphabet was ill-advised.

That’s it, argument lost. Because Morgan and his friend conceded the fundamentally perverse premise, while then arguing against its ineluctable consequences. That’s like giving a man dying from brain cancer a couple of aspirins for his headache.

I don’t know what either of them really thinks about this whole mess. Nor do I care because what they really think is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that, even if they thought, as I do, that copulating with a person of the same sex is nothing to be proud about, they would never be able to say so.

As I keep arguing, the underlying orthodoxy is already chiselled in stone, and no one can chip away at it without risking his job, status and in some cases even liberty. That again brings back the hideous memories of the Soviet Union, where it was only possible to criticise little excesses at the lowest rungs of the Party hierarchy – never the premise for the existence of that hierarchy.

Whenever I point out the similarities between the Soviet Union and today’s West, people counter by citing the differences. However, while rejoicing in the latter, we should still bemoan the growing number of the former. Not only does today’s West resemble the USSR in many respects, but the gap between them is getting smaller by the day.

The second case again involves Sky Breakfast News, which I watch for some 10 minutes over my first cup of coffee. That’s usually enough time to vindicate the title above.

This morning, presenter Kay Burley was interviewing the chieftain of Just Stop Oil, the subversive movement whose members disrupt traffic and sporting events. Their chosen weapon against the latter is orange paint that they spray all over everyone and everything within range.

Cesare Lombroso would have had a field day with Burley’s guest. He looked every bit the fanatic he is, his eyes glaring in a way that would make me cross over to the other side of the street if I saw him coming. As my professor friend used to say back at university, “When you see a madman, step aside.”

Again, Burley repeated Morgan’s cowardly (or else stupid) stratagem of taking issue with the zealots’ methods, while endorsing their principal premise. “Scientists agree that we are in the midst of a climate crisis,” ranted the fanatic. “No one is disputing that, but…,” objected Burley.

That was another orthodoxy on show. “Roma locuta; causa finita est,” as Augustine once said. Rome has spoken; the case is closed. Except that in this instance, the speaker isn’t an almighty empire, but the rancid, malodorous zeitgeist emanating from the vociferous woke minority given the power to put its foot down.

It would be pointless to suggest even to the marginally sane Burley, and certainly to her rabid guest, that scientists don’t really agree. Some write extremely well argued and extensively documented books against that fraudulent claim, and I could recommend a small library of such tomes.

Yet they would remain unread and unmentioned. Orthodoxy locuta, and, as GULAG guards used to say to marching prisoners, “Any step aside will be treated as an escape attempt. We’ll shoot without warning.”

The two cases I’ve mentioned show that the only possible outcome of any meekly abject resistance to insanity is putting an added emphasis to its resounding victory. Perhaps realising that, the Bank of England decided to go the whole hog and surrender unconditionally without even pretending to put up a defence.

That venerable institution agreed that people of any ‘gender identity’ can become pregnant. And should any employee feel the need for gender reassignment treatment, the Bank will pay for it using private medical insurance.

Its memorandum on ‘family leave policy’ uses the phrase “birthing parent”, neglecting the rather long tradition of calling such a parent ‘mother’. To clear up any possible confusion, the Bank explains that the term means “the parent who is/was pregnant with the child but includes persons of any and all gender identities.”

The Bank also reiterated its commitment to gender-neutral lavatories, a shift to which is described as an “upgrade”. At the same time, the Bank’s 4,000 UK employees have been drafted into the service of insanity.

Each of them will be given a “diversity and inclusion objective” for every year, at the end of which their performance will be assessed on that criterion. They are also encouraged, though not yet ordered, to wear a rainbow lanyard and display the symbol at their workstation.

It’s good to see that, at a time of interest rates going up and inflation refusing to go down, our central bank never loses sight of what really matters in life. High principle comes before petty pecuniary concerns, and isn’t that laudable?

Piers Morgan and his dog-loving friend wondered why Pride activists defend their noble cause by such ignoble methods. Why can’t they be happy celebrating their well-merited pride for the same number of days as the calendar assigns to Jesus?

I’ll be happy to answer this question. They do those things for the same reason Bella licks her genitals: because they can. And, as their fellow subversive Lenin taught, if they can, they must.

Their objective isn’t to assert the right of homosexuals proudly to parade perverse practices, but to take away the majority’s right to resist.

All modern perversions, and not necessarily sexual ones, are inherently aggressive. Their aim is to smash traditional society to smithereens and reassemble its fragments under the rainbow (red, green) flag of victorious insanity.

If they are the lunatics, we are the asylum. And you know who is in charge.  

In a slight deviation from its ‘all-white’ rule, Wimbledon has allowed female players to wear coloured shorts under their skirts.

Even a traditionalist like me doesn’t mind. A little spot of colour doesn’t offend my sensibilities in any way.

That, however, doesn’t mean my sensibilities are impervious to offences of any kind. Gross affronts to taste and propriety still make me wince, as does vulgarity of any kind.

(To pre-empt my friends’ sneering and invoking teapots and kettles: I don’t necessarily consider swearing to be vulgar. It only becomes that when used in wrong places and at wrong times.)

And when Sky presenter Anna Jones and sports reporter Jacquie Beltrao discussed that Wimbledon innovation this morning, my sensibilities took a savage beating.

The ladies explained, in that chatty yet serious way TV hacks always assume whether or not it’s appropriate, that Wimbledon officials weren’t driven by aesthetic considerations. Nor was it a conscious decision to modernise the old fuddy-duddy codes.

The problem was that white knickers can get visibly stained when a woman player has her period. Apparently, tampons don’t always provide a perfect seal and some unfortunate leakage can occur. (Ideally, I’d suggest a girl should make gravity work for her by playing on her head, but that way she wouldn’t get to the ball fast enough.)

The victim of that malfunction would then have to rush to the lavatory, but the number of times a player can do so during a best-of-three match is limited to one. Should a different need arise later, the woman would have to grin and bear it – or else do a Paula Radcliffe (I’ll spare you the details).

Now those who know me well will confirm that my standards of what is and what isn’t fit for public airing aren’t unduly stringent. But at that point I winced: Jones and Beltrao were really telling me more than I wanted to know.

Yet they didn’t stop there. What followed was a series of interviews with some top players who all hailed the code change. One after another, in the same matter-of-fact tone they’d use to discuss their warm-up techniques, they were saying things like: “I had my period during last year’s Wimbledon, and it was [“embarrassing”, “uncomfortable”, “cramping my style”, take your pick].

As far back as 1965 Kenneth Tynan became the first to say “fuck’ on British TV. That widened the boundaries of the allowable in one fell swoop, and they have been pushed further apart since then.

However, it may be only me, but I don’t mind hearing obscenities as much as I mind graphic, technical discussions of matters gynaecological, physiological, excremental, urinary, prostatic and so forth. I could just about tolerate them when they come from a doctor offering public-service advice, though even that could be delivered more discreetly through less public media.

But when TV presenters evoke vivid images of tennis players leaving blood trails on the Wimbledon grass, I see that as gratuitous vulgarity, a forehand slap in the face of decency and propriety. What makes it even worse, especially in the British context, is that such logorrhoea is part of a general trend.

Britons, especially middle-class ones or higher, have traditionally been known for their reserve and reticence. In my wife’s family, for example, certain subjects always were off limits even among adults, never mind children.

Even now Penelope, who has lived her life in the blasé circles of musicians, artists and writers, won’t allow one of the latter, namely me, to broach some topics, especially in a language she never heard from her parents.

She succeeds at home, but outside she is spitting against the wind (it has taken Penelope years to make me say ‘spitting’ in that expression). Britons have been brainwashed to think that reticence is a sign of a psychological disorder.

One can only validate one’s mental health by letting it all hang out, sometimes literally. Nothing is off limits, there are no tabooisms left. It’s grown-up and healthy to talk openly and publicly about our sex lives, excretions, VDs, private and intimate matters. Actually, there are no private and intimate matters left – everything has been shifted into the public domain.

It’s fashionable these days to blame all our social ills on Americans, but in this case there is some justification for it. However, Americans have had much experience in that sort of thing, and it comes naturally to them.

I found such openness quite irritating even when I lived there but, you know, when in Rome… and all that.  But when Britons begin to walk and talk like Americans, they sound strained and generally pathetic.

A message to Sky presenters: next time you talk about Wimbledon, stick to backhands and volleys or, if such is your wont, strawberries and cream. Leave menstruation to gynaecologists or perhaps the players’ parents. Talking about it on camera is grating, cringe-making – and vulgar in a particularly un-British way.