According to quantum freaks, there exists a parallel, timeless, self-multiplying universe into which all dead people move to live on in perpetuity.
Epileptics, they say, are envoys from that universe, which is why they supposedly can see the future as clearly as the rest of us see the present.
One may ask why, if so, they never win the lottery, and this is just one way in which that madcap theory can be mocked. Yet reading the news makes one take just about any madness seriously – so-called reality outpaces them all, carrying us into a parallel universe.
For example, saying that there just may be something wrong with homomarriage will soon become a criminal offence under the government’s new Extremism Disruption Orders.
Ostensibly the Orders are being introduced to curb the propaganda of Muslim terrorism in mosques and Islamic schools. Now who, other than aspiring suicide bombers, could argue against this?
Nobody. We all feel the urge to prostrate ourselves before Dave and thank him for doing this for us. But the urge subsides when we remind ourselves that, by doing a lot for the people, a modern government will inevitably do a lot to them as well.
Just look at the victors in the last big war and ask yourself which of them became freer as a result of their triumph. Russia? America? Britain?
None, is the answer to that one. Forgetting Stalin’s Russia as an irredeemably evil place, even the supposedly virtuous governments of the UK and the USA, while ensuring victory against Nazism, also scored one against their people’s liberties. For a modern state a war or any other extreme situation isn’t just a cause but also a pretext – to increase its own power at its citizens’ expense.
Another all-out world war hasn’t quite arrived yet, but in its absence terrorism will do nicely. In that sense all modern governments are alike. They all act according to the inner imperative to increase state power at any cost, and the personalities of specific leaders don’t matter.
Margaret Thatcher, for example, was made of much sterner moral fibre than any subsequent PM, yet she didn’t hesitate to knock out one of the cornerstones of Englishness: the right not to give self-incriminating evidence. Her stated reason was an upsurge in IRA terrorism, but in its absence she or some other PM would have found another pretext.
Then in 2005, when IRA murderers had been elevated to the rank of statesmen, the government of the ghastly Tony Blair abandoned another lapidary law, that of double jeopardy. That time it used not terrorism but newly fashionable sex crimes as a pretext, but anything else could have done just as well.
Our self-admitted ‘heir to Blair’ spied with his little eye the green light turned on by his predecessors and floored the accelerator.
First he shattered the very institution of wedlock by shoving homomarriage down the throats of a thoroughly brainwashed and dumbed-down public. Now, under the pretext of combating terrorist indoctrination, he’s equating any opposition to homomarriage with ‘hate speech’.
And hate speech is one of the tautological ‘hate crimes’ (I’ve never heard of a ‘love crime’, have you?). The concept is based on secular ‘equality’, that evil Enlightenment simulacrum of equality before God.
In the past – in England, a very distant past of 800 years ago – this was extended into equality before the law. A little sleight of hand, and the concept has been larcenously shifted to mean the equality of everything: vice and virtue, normality and perversion, good and bad, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly.
Right and wrong are deemed to be relative – that is, relative to whatever the state is saying at the moment. No absolutes based on our religious, moral or political history, or even on good old common sense, shall be allowed.
Codify this subversive idiocy into law, and suddenly anyone who observes that, say, one ethnic group is more prone to criminality than another, or that Christianity has more to do with England than Islam, which is why Christian education isn’t the same as Islamic propaganda, is thereby breaking the law.
By the same token, to the state – our state, ladies and gentlemen! – a suggestion that a marriage can only be a union of a man and a woman is as criminal as propaganda of mass murder and inducement to terrorism.
Both are classified as hate crimes to be punished, and ‘equality’ demands, or will soon demand, that both be punished with the same severity.
Tastes differ but, if the fight against terrorism is being used this way, I’d prefer not to fight it at all. Terrorists can only kill a few people, while the modern state can use anti-terrorism to kill England and Englishness.
Can we please leave the phantom of parallel universes and go back to reality? We used to be so comfortable there.