Blog

 

 A Sun journalist opined on today’s Sky News that the real question about Jeremy Corbyn is whether or not he’s a leader.

This obsession with leadership is a relatively recent phenomenon, as if a strong leader is ipso facto a good thing, regardless of where he’s likely to lead the country. Messrs Stalin and Hitler, both unquestionably strong leaders, would no doubt agree.

A more interesting question about Corbyn is whether or not he’s a front man for a hard-Left conspiracy to take over Britain.

Now reasonable people are rightly wary of believers in conspiracy theories. Such beliefs usually come packaged with pet hatreds, psychiatric disorders or at best touchingly naïve credulity.

However, if we stop talking about theories and instead focus on practices, it becomes clear that some large-scale conspiracies have indeed shaped the modern world.

The Bolshevik party, for one, was conspiratorial, as any reader of Lenin’s canon will confirm. The two-phase conspiracy aimed at taking over Russia and then using it as a springboard for world conquest, and neither Lenin nor his henchmen were bashful about stating these goals in so many words.

The first phase worked to perfection, in the second the Bolsheviks achieved control of merely half the world. Some may see that as a success, some as failure, but nobody can deny that Bolshevism was a global conspiracy at work.

“Britain,” says Corbyn, “has a lot to learn from Marxism.” Well, she has even more to learn from Leninism, the better to counter Leninist tactics of seizing power.

Lenin advocated a two-prong strategy: combining violent revolutionary subversion with ‘legalism’, that is using loopholes in Western constitutions to overturn them.

He despised inflexible ‘Left-wing communism’, which he called an ‘infantile disorder’. Grown-ups were supposed to use Western parliaments to destroy Western parliamentarism and only resort to violence if that hadn’t worked.

This has always been the tactic of the British hard Left, and it almost succeeded during Harold Wilson’s tenure. That attempt, led by the Militant group, mercifully failed. But the group itself remained lurking in the background, waiting for its hour to come.

Suddenly it has sprung to life, which is evident from this statement: “The Socialist Party (formerly the Militant Tendency) wishes Jeremy Corbyn well in the Labour leadership election. If he is victorious it would be a real step forward and, in effect, the formation of a new party.”

No doubt. And if you wonder what kind of party it’ll be, just look at Corbyn’s key policies and sympathies:

• Getting rid of the royal family, turning Britain into a republic
• Scrapping nuclear weapons and leaving Nato, both unilaterally
• Nationalising railways, energy companies and banks
• Cutting less and taxing more (up to a 75% tax rate for the ‘rich’)
• Encouraging mass immigration: “The whole narrative on immigration… fails to recognise the huge contribution migrants have made to this country… we should let people into this country who are desperate to get somewhere safe to live” – with no suggestion of any limit on the number of such safety seekers
• Alliance with Hamas and Hezbollah, which it was Corbyn’s “honour and pleasure” to host in Parliament

As a sideline, it’s also Corbyn’s “honour and pleasure” to rub shoulders with virulent anti-Semites, such as Raed Salah, whom Corbyn described as “a very honoured citizen”. This honoured citizen has been imprisoned in Israel for inciting anti-Jewish racism and later found by a British judge to support the ‘blood libel’ canard.

Corbyn also defended the vicar Stephen Sizer, disciplined by the Church for anti-Semitism; presented a programme on the Iranian propaganda channel Post TV; allegedly donated money to Paul Eisen whose rabid anti-Semitism led to his being shunned even by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

None of this prevents Corbyn’s fellow MPs from praising him for his sincerity and unbending devotion to his beliefs. Well, Lenin was equally sincere about his plans, and neither did Hitler show any duplicity in promising to kill all Jews.

The methods used by the hard Left to support their man smack of Bolshevik ‘legalism’ more than of British parliamentarism. Hundreds of thousands of extremists are enlisting to vote in the leadership contest, even though they have never supported the Labour party before – 409,000 have rushed in since May. This proceeds against the background of massive cyber attacks on Corbyn’s opponents.

As a result, Comrade Corbyn seems certain to win a first-round landslide, which his reddish-brownish supporters will doubtless see as Phase 1. Phase 2 will be moving him to Downing Street – and make no mistake about it: this outcome is far from impossible.

Even if our phoney prosperity hasn’t run out of steam by 2020, there’s much the hard Left will be able to do to paralyse the country just in time for the next election. A general strike would do nicely, accompanied by the kind of disruption a small taste of which we’re getting on either side of the Channel Tunnel.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing,” said Edmund Burke. Jeremy Corbyn is a harbinger of such a triumph, which good men must realise – and do something about it.

According to Huw Lewis, Welsh Education Minister, religious (meaning Christian) education threatens “community cohesion” and encourages “extremism”.

Hence he proposes to muffle the destructive effect of Christianity by lumping it together in the same course with “philosophy, ethics and citizenship”, thereby instructing pupils on “what it means to be a citizen in a free country”.

A minor, or perhaps not so minor, point is that British pupils, even if they happen to be Welsh, aren’t citizens of any country, free or otherwise. They are subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

This isn’t a difference in semantics. Rather it’s a clue to two diametrically opposite types of statehood and civilisation.

In the modern Western context, ‘citizen’ is a republican, Enlightenment construct that came into being as a result of a concerted effort to break away from almost 2,000 years of Christendom.

It’s not for nothing that the first secular government in history, that of the United States, almost immediately declared that religion would play no role in state affairs.

The US Constitution coyly eschews the phrase ‘separation of church and state’. Instead the First Amendment states only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But in his comments both before and after the ratification Thomas Jefferson was unequivocal: this amendment, he gloated, built “a wall of separation between Church and State”.

The modern state pioneered by America and later developed by France is a revolutionary contrivance, only intelligible against the background of burgeoning hostility to Christianity, along with all of its ecclesiastical and secular institutions.

Monarchy is the fundamental political institution of Christendom because it unites in itself both the secular and transcendent aspects of national history. It’s thus an organic entity, as opposed to a revolutionary one.

This was reflected in the oath Her Majesty took at her coronation 62 years ago, when this dialogue took place: 

“Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do.”

The historical, moral, philosophical and religious background to this short exchange would take many volumes to explain and, more to the point, many hours of study to understand.

It doesn’t matter whether a pupil is a Buddhist, Muslim, Hinduist, Taoist, animist or – as is these days most likely – atheist. For our realm is Christian, and it can never be properly understood without an extensive study of Christianity, its history, scripture, dogma, ritual, worship.

Deprived of such study, British pupils will emerge as neither subjects nor citizens. They’ll be savages.

For they’ll be ignorant not only of the political essence of the realm, but also of the entire cultural heritage of our civilisation. All the most glorious achievements of Western art, music and literature, even if they aren’t overtly Christian, are a direct reflection of hearts and minds shaped by Christianity.

Of course churning out savages is the real goal of our education, this being a sine qua non for our government spivs, such as Huw Lewis, to stay in power. A properly civilised populace would run them out of town faster than you can say ‘multicultural tolerance’.

Tolerance is today’s shorthand for the absence of convictions and critical judgement. No hierarchy of ideas, tastes, faiths or anything else is supposed to exist. They are all equal.

I like contrapuntal music, he likes jazz, they like rap – who’s to say some tastes are superior to others? He tells the truth, she tells a lie, they can’t tell the difference – what does it matter?

It goes without saying that all religions are also equal, especially Islam. Of course insisting, in a Christian country, that Christianity is no better than any other creed is guaranteed to destroy Christianity, which is the whole point.

But never mind the Christian faith. Even asserting Christian morality or any of its aspects is these days classified as extremism. Hence our intellectually challenged Education Secretary Nicky ‘Nicola’ Morgan has explained that any child who finds anything wrong with homosexuality may fall prey to ISIS recruiters.

Yes, but what if the child got his ‘extremist’ views by reading Leviticus or St Paul’s Epistles? Well then, that would be even worse. He’d be an extremist twice over.

Tolerance is a wonderful thing, but only if the notion is properly understood. Yes, all people deserve love and respect because they are children of the same father and therefore our siblings.

But from that it doesn’t follow that everything anybody says, does or believes is equally respectable. Discernment and (dread word) discrimination are essential to forming mind and character.

An intelligent person knows the difference between sound and unsound, a moral one between right and wrong, one with developed taste between good and bad. It’s a school’s task to educate pupils how to judge such matters.

And, in Her Majesty’s realm, our choice isn’t between Christian education and some other. It’s been Christian education and none.

The following exchange took place an hour ago, after I posted my blog on Pope Francis.

 

From Fr Bernard Mulcahy to AB:

 

Dear Mr Boot,

Since I enjoy and admire your work I am sorry to have to tell you

that the quotation attributed to Pope Francis (“Jesus Christ, Mohammed,

Jehovah, Allah. These are all names employed to describe an entity that is

distinctly the same across the world,” etc.) appears to be from the satire

website “National Report”. As a Catholic priest and theologian I would be

more sorry, however, if the Pope had actually said something heretical! (It

would mean I’d have to go become Orthodox, I suppose.)

Best,

Fr Bernard Mulcahy

 

From AB to Fr Bernard Mulcahy:

 

Dear Fr Bernard,

I feel like an idiot, to have been taken in. My only consolation is that I’m not the only one: several of my friends, some of them priests, sent me the link to the website, asking me to comment. Neither they nor, regrettably, I realised it was a spoof. The reason we swallowed it though is that, alas, the story is believable. Pope Francis has said many things along similar lines, such as those real-life statements quoted in the same article. That, plus Pope Benedict’s recent statement on the impending death of Christianity, followed by its rebirth, made me susceptible to the clever sleight of hand.

Thank you for putting me right – and also for your kind words about my work.

All best wishes,

Alexander Boot

 

From Fr Bernard Mulcahy to AB:

 

I agree that it is (almost) believable. I suspected it was a fraud because I believe the Holy Spirit prevents things this awful!

 

From AB to my other readers who pointed out that the story was a spoof, however believable:

See above – and thank you.

 

 

 

 

 A pedant would scream that His Holiness didn’t say that and, true enough, Pope Francis didn’t utter those words. But I challenge you to interpret what he did say in any other way:

“Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Jehovah, Allah. These are all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world. For centuries, blood has been shed because of the desire to segregate our faiths. This, however, should be the very concept which unites us as people, as nations, and as a world bound by faith… We are all children of God regardless of the name we choose to address him by. We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths…”

If I were a semi-nude African animist, I’d be mortally offended. How come my bull’s head sitting atop a totem pole was left out? What am I, chopped human buttock on toast? The Equality Commission is going to hear about this.

Now I’ve heard of ecumenism, but the Pope’s tirade is ridiculous. I don’t think any pontiff has uttered such blasphemous, arrant nonsense since 955, when the title of John XII was assumed by an 18-year-old youngster who immediately turned the Vatican into a place of ill repute.

Not only did he drink, gamble and fornicate but, much worse, the Holy Father celebrated mass without taking communion, gave regular banquets in honour of pagan gods and even offered toasts to Satan.

A full millennium later, Pope Francis has set out to outdo his medieval predecessor – not in deed but in word, and in the damage caused to the Church.

One wonders if His Holiness even begins to understand the religion over which he presides as heir to the throne of St Peter, or whether he worships Christ as fervently as he promotes his bien pensant Leftie ideology.

Since Christianity presupposes freedom of choice, anyone is free to espouse it or not. But believing in the sole truth of Jesus Christ as divine Saviour and the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity surely must be a job requirement for any priest, never mind the world’s highest prelate.

None of the deities the Pope saw fit to mention as “distinctly the same” as Jesus Christ can even remotely act in that capacity for any Christian, to say nothing of anyone whose mission it is to carry Christ to the world.

Even to the Muslims Mohammed isn’t God but merely Allah’s prophet, while for old times’ sake Christians still accept Christ as God. As to Jehovah, he is to Christians God the Father, the first hypostasis of the Holy Trinity from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds as it does from Christ.

The Pope is duty-bound to regard all religions other than Christianity and Judaism (in as far as it forms part of the Christian canon) as heresies. They may be variously dangerous but they are all equally wrong.

By effectively denying the exclusive truth of his faith Pope Francis relegates it to the status of a secular club socially and an extension of Leftie radicalism politically. A few hundred years ago much milder heretics used to be burned for less.

Religious tolerance is undeniably a good thing but, just as undeniably, religious suicide isn’t. And, by being unable to tell one from the other, that’s what Pope Francis is committing, wittingly or unwittingly.

In this world men accomplish “miraculous things” (otherwise known as miracles) not by “merging our faiths” but by heroically asserting the truth of one, Christian, faith over all others.

If the Pope doesn’t believe in this truth, he ought to be run out of the Vatican, unfrocked and – ideally – excommunicated. Ditto, if he doesn’t believe the drivel he utters but says it anyway to mollify his Leftie comrades.

In the first instance he isn’t a Christian because he doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ. In the second, he isn’t a Christian because he betrays his religion to its haters. One just hopes that Francis goes before the Church does.

Oh Pope Benedict XVI, where are you when we need you? Please come back, Your Holiness – your successor is running Christianity into the ground.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This question is facetious of course. A royal of any rank is about as likely to be a republican as a pious Muslim to be a pig farmer or, for that matter, a pig to be a pious Muslim.

But sometimes our HRHs act as if they wished to hasten the advent of an RGB (Republic of Great Britain). Why, I don’t know, but I could venture a few guesses.

Some of them aren’t very bright. Some are irresponsible. Some have got tipsy on the spirit of the time (Zeitgeist, in the dynasty’s original language). Some, especially if they are only royal by marriage, don’t really understand what it means. Some haven’t been taught properly.

The latest case in point is Princess Beatrice’s little holiday on Abramovich’s yacht. This has drawn some flak from pundits, who display laudable numeracy by adding up all the princess’s holidays this year and getting the sum of 17, which they suggest is too high for an unemployed person.

Personally, I don’t care if Bea’s whole life is one contiguous holiday, especially if she combines ‘chillaxing’ with the odd bit of service she owes to the nation.

But it is indeed scandalous that she should accept an invitation from a man who made his billions in criminal ways, and one who’s widely known to be Putin’s personal banker – at a time when the realm of Bea’s grandmother is having a tiff with the KGB colonel.

The princess enjoys a life of privilege few ever know. She’s entitled to it – as long as she realises that the people are also entitled to something: her service to the dynasty and its subjects. Part of it is her weighing her every step, making sure they all lead to the same destination: a thriving British monarchy.

Hence she ought to be fastidious in her choice of companions to cavort with, making sure she always conducts herself publicly in a decorous, irreproachable manner.

No easy task, that, for a young, bubbly woman not blessed with excessive intellectual gifts. But someone must explain to her in no uncertain terms that she isn’t just any young, bubbly woman. She’s a princess who has duties to perform – even at the expense of denying herself some of the pleasures in which other young, bubbly women indulge.

Specifically, those British figures who stand for something other than just themselves should steer clear of any personal association with so-called Russian businessmen.

One realises that this would be too much to expect from the likes of Lord Mandelson, whose financial shenanigans twice got him sacked from the last Labour government, and who is now friends with the Russian aluminium king Deripaska.

But one expects probity from members of the reigning dynasty that’s supposed to embody the historical virtue of the realm. Yet Beatrice isn’t the only one who frustrates such expectations.

Prince and Princess Michael of Kent also insist on hobnobbing with various Russians whose power and wealth by definition have a dubious provenance.

Such as Mikhail Kravchenko, another Russian Mafioso, who three years ago was shot dead in Moscow. Shortly before that the victim had shared a Venice hotel suite with Princess Michael, whose husband has extensive business relations with Russians – in spite of knowing that business on this scale is only transacted in Russia by organised crime.

But Prince Michael wasn’t in the picture when his wife was photographed walking through Venice hand in hand with a much younger Mr Kravchenko. Speculation was rife that the princess’s relationship with him went beyond the ‘close friendship’ to which she owned up.

I really don’t care one way or the other, though Venice isn’t Milan and one doesn’t go there on business. But let the gossip columns ponder this. For me a ‘close friendship’ was bad enough.

Then let’s not forget Beatrice’s mother and aunt, whose joint efforts dealt the monarchy many a severe blow. Both women clearly suffered from the same cognitive dissonance: neither realised that, by marrying the heir to the throne and his brother, they forfeited the right to be ‘me’.

Their lives no longer belonged to them – they belonged to the nation and her two millennia of history. Diana and Fergie were duty-bound to sacrifice some of their natural instincts for a higher purpose, which duty they both ignored.

Diana, the ‘People’s princess’ in Blair’s apt phrase, chose to act like a young woman on the make, insisting on being ‘me’. She spread her favours so liberally that all of London was abuzz with sordid gossip, most of it true.

And Bea’s mother was routinely photographed by tabloids in flagrante delicto with young, athletic Americans, some of them sucking her toes, and not for strictly podiatric purposes.

I’m sure that, if asked, all royals will claim allegiance to the House of Windsor and everything it stands for. It’s just that some of their actions not only speak louder than their words, but also say diametrically opposite things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Over the last few days Putin’s storm troopers… sorry, I mean law enforcement agencies, have destroyed almost 350 tonnes of food. Meat, fruit, poultry, cheese, vegetables were bulldozed into the ground, incinerated, dumped to fester outside.

These were the Western foods covered by Russia’s countersanctions, yet imported into the country illegally. And of course, Russia has a rich tradition of law abidance, a foundation on which the present KGB/FSB junta has built a temple to legality.

The temple doesn’t quite reach up to the sky, what with Russia’s rank in the rule-of-law category currently standing at Number 92 out of 97 countries rated. That’s one rung below Belarus and one above Nicaragua, but hey – no temple has ever been built in one go.

As a champion of legality myself, I’m all in favour of upholding the law. By all means, the Russians must confiscate the contraband and fine (imprison, shoot) the smugglers.

But why burn the food? Surely, once the unscrupulous importers have been punished, the food could have been distributed to those who need it? It’s not as if no such needy persons existed.

According to the junta itself, 22.9 million Russians are living below the poverty line. That’s 15.9 per cent of the population, higher than in such economic powerhouses as Albania, Mauritius, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.

The poverty line in Russia isn’t drawn in the same place as in the West. Russian agencies define poverty not by the low number of I-pads per family member, but by the ability to survive.

That’s why they eschew the relative term ‘poverty line’ in favour of an absolute and more honest ‘level of subsistence’. This is defined as monthly income of just under £100 a month per person.

Depending on where you are in Russia, the cost of living there is roughly 10-20 per cent on either side of ours. So do the sums and ask yourself if you’d be able to subsist at or below this level of subsistence.

And, one way or the other, wouldn’t you be happy to get some free food? A pork chop or a slab of cheese? Some apples or tomatoes? In a country where no food banks exist?

To any denizen of a civilised country, apart from those who have homoerotic longings for a ‘strong leader’, destroying food in a country where millions starve can only be described as monstrous.

But, thanks to their history, the Russians aren’t particularly impressionable. They know that, since 1917, the government has been using food as a political tool.

From the moment the Bolsheviks took over they began to create artificial famines either to punish any resistance or to make the people too weak to resist. This was done with malice aforethought documented in numerous decrees and letters, such as this 1922 one from Lenin:

“It is precisely now and only now, when in the starving regions people are eating human flesh, and hundreds if not thousands of corpses are littering the roads, that we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of church valuables with the most savage and merciless energy…”

The Russians, much given to macabre humour, mocked the Bolsheviks’ Marxist cant. “Cannibalism,” they’d say, “is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.”

This wasn’t a figure of speech: cannibalism was rife throughout the 1918-1922 Civil War and again in the early 30s, when another famine had to be created to educate the recalcitrant peasantry on the benefits of collective agriculture.

Mothers were eating their children, orphans and street urchins whose parents had already died were being eaten by passers-by, baby fingers were being found in meat pies… – all to the accompaniment of the Wellses, Webbs and Shaws of this world, bleating about the daring social experiment Britain should emulate.

In the less carnivorous times of Khrushchev, Brezhnev et al, most Russians went undernourished, but not so many starved to death or ate their offspring – that’s progress for you.

But the government retained its monopoly on food, again using it for political purposes. The more trusted comrades were given access to special shops and distributorships unavailable to hoi polloi, who had to subsist on stuff that would make our dog food taste like a delicacy.

Those privileged shops existed on several levels, each reflecting the man’s value to the state (my father was allowed to use the lowest level for a few years). Similarly, some areas were supplied with food better than others and, when the underprivileged protested, they were machine-gunned en masse – as in Novocherkassk, 1962.

Putin’s kleptofascist junta is at present tightening the screws, somewhat loosened during Yeltsyn’s tenure. This means, mutatis mutandis, reverting to the rich legacy of Bolshevism, including its food policy.

Putin’s response to the sanctions came in the shape of a call to ‘imports replacement’ (importozameshcheniye). Considering that Russia imports 80 per cent of her food, much of it from the countersanctioned countries, that’s an awful lot to replace – especially since central Russia shows no signs of agricultural activity.

In effect, the new policy is a leap towards re-establishing the state monopoly on food, which – as Russia’s history proves – will include famines as an inevitable constituent.

Even that, I’m sure, will have no effect on today’s useful idiots. When Lenin coined the term, he applied it to Western lefties. Alas, today’s idiots come mostly from the right.

Putin, they say, ‘looks after his people’. He is ‘the strong leader we should have’. Speak for yourself, idiots. I for one wouldn’t like to find a tiny finger in my Cornish pasty.

 

An oncologist working at London’s Royal Marsden Hospital once told me that the NHS really stands for ‘Nasty Health Service’.

Proving the physician’s point, his co-worker Joseph Meirion Thomas, one of the world’s top cancer surgeons, has been pushed out for daring to criticise the NHS in print.

Professor Thomas’s expressed concerns about the scale of health tourism, and also complained that GPs don’t provide “even remotely personal service” because they hardly ever see the same patient more than once.

That, according to the Royal Marsden, brought the hospital into “disrepute”, making Mr Thomas’s continued employment there untenable. The action was triggered by the torrent of abuse from GPs, accusing Mr Thomas of lying.

Yet the real problem his detractors had with Mr Thomas wasn’t that he was lying. It was that he was telling the truth. 

However, their indignation gave the hospital administrators a pretext for claiming that Mr Thomas’s accusations weren’t “evidence-based”. Well, if it was evidence they sought they should have talked to any Londoner. I for one would have volunteered information with alacrity.

For many years my local practice was run by a superb GP, who at the beginning of our relationship (in the course of which he played a key role in saving my life) was an ideological champion of the NHS. Then, as his administrative load was getting heavier and the time he could devote to patients was getting shorter, his enthusiasm somewhat abated.

In the end he couldn’t take it any longer – red tape was throttling him. This excellent doctor had to retire at age 50 two years ago, when he could still do for hundreds of patients what he had done for me. Since then the practice has gone exactly the way Mr Thomas described – and, for those familiar with the notion of ‘postal-code healthcare’, my postal code is among the best.

Nevertheless it takes a fortnight to get a GP appointment now. Of course the patient doesn’t get charged for the privilege, which is heart-warming – unless, of course, he’s  bleeding too fast. 

And indeed, a patient hardly ever sees the same GP twice. As any doctor will tell you, this absence of on-going contact isn’t just cold-blooded emotionally. It’s also detrimental therapeutically, for regular observation of a patient may reveal some subtle changes that would be imperceptible from the case history on the computer screen.

But then the NHS isn’t mainly about treating patients, which is its declared mission. Being a socialist enterprise, it increasingly operates to benefit those who run it, not those to whose wellbeing the service is supposedly dedicated.

Front-line medical staff are being routinely cut, along with the hospital beds they service, and the funds thus freed up go to pay the burgeoning throng of Directors of Diversity, Facilitators of Optimisation and Optimisers of Facilitation, all on six-digit salaries.

One gets the impression that patients get in the way of the NHS discharging its real function: increasing both the size of the state and its power over the people.

When doctors who are horrified by what’s going on try to protest, they are treated the way Mr Thomas was. “If the NHS can treat a senior cancer surgeon this way, what chance does a nurse or a junior doctor with grave concerns about the health service have?” he asks. A rhetorical question if I’ve ever heard one.

In Mr Thomas’s case too, it’s the patients who found themselves on the receiving end. He had to miss two vital operations on patients with diabolical cancers. And he can no longer be involved in a potentially life-saving clinical study on 90 people with deadly skin malignancies.

It’s a mistake to think that, as our government claims, the NHS would be perfect if run more efficiently. It wouldn’t be. The NHS is so hopeless not because it’s run by wrong people in a wrong way but because it’s based on a wrong ideology.

Its implicit object is to provide not excellent medical care but the same care for all, and the two desiderata are mutually exclusive. Both history and common sense tell us that it’s only ever possible to equalise down, not up.

In any case the equality provided by socialism is like that seen when looking down at a crowd from the roof of a skyscraper. Everyone in the crowd, dwarf and giant alike, looks the same height.

This metaphorical vantage point is in our lives occupied by the state, with us as the identical ant-sized creatures down below. As long as the state can keep the people in the street and therefore equal, with itself looking down at them from its great height, it won’t care about their lives.

That’s how Britain, supposedly a first-world country, has ended up with a third-world health service. And that’s why any public critic of the socialist NHS has to be silenced, so far only administratively.

Mr Thomas ought to be grateful he’s still at large. Oh well, give our government a few more years…

Britain will no longer “tolerate the gap between the rich and the poor”, says London’s Mayor Boris Johnson. I find it harder to tolerate Mayor Johnson.

Being a politician, he personifies the failings of the breed. One of them is seeing any problem as merely an opportunity for scoring cheap points off the opposition. In this case, Boris’s sole message is that the Conservative Party, especially if led by him, will reduce the offensive gap.

He suggests that increasing social mobility through better education will do the trick and he may well be right. Bad education is definitely a factor of poor upward mobility, though it’s not the only reason.

But why is our education so bad? And what does Boris propose to make it good enough to act as a social hoist? That’s where the problem with modern politicians lies: none of them has either the brains to identify the real problem or the courage to do something about it.

The problem in question can be summed up in one word: socialism. The more socialism, the wider the wealth gap – to this rule there are no known exceptions.

In the USA, where the millstone of socialism is somewhat lighter than in Britain, MIT and the Federal Reserve did research on a broad sample, producing interesting results. 

In the second half of the nineteenth century, when Marx’s dreaded capitalism was at its peak, the average ratio of income earned by US corporate directors and their employees was 28:1. Yet in 2005, when egalitarianism proudly reigned supreme, this ratio stood at 158:1.

This is less spectacular than the 700:1 Boris quotes for one FTSE 100 company, but good enough to make the same point: unfettered competitive activity creates numerous opportunities for economic advancement. It also produces competition for qualified labour, which leads to higher pay at the lower levels.

However, socialism, even in the relatively small doses administered in Western countries, is a poison reducing capitalism to corporatism.

Corporate executives running this quasi-socialist system come not from the entrepreneurial classes but from exactly the same gene pool as politicians. Hence they display the same characteristics: dishonesty, selfishness, powerlust, greed – qualities identical to those of which they accuse capitalists. Hence also the ease with which they float from corporate to government careers, and vice versa.

Fair enough, national education is also poisoned by socialism, to death. The system of selective grammar schools, destroyed in 1965, ensured that about 25 per cent of the people were well-educated, with the rest functionally competent enough to fend for themselves.

Conversely, the egalitarian system introduced after Anthony Crosland, Labour Education Secretary, vowed to destroy “every f***ing grammar school”, has predictably produced two generations of illiterates unable to support themselves.

Not to worry: the socialist welfare state steps in to take care of the barbarised and brutalised populace, with a two-fold destructive effect.

First, the welfare state is funded by strangulating the productive economy with inordinate taxation, running deficit budgets and increasing the national debt. This slows the economy down, reducing opportunities for advancement.

But much worse is the adverse moral effect of the welfare state on both its operators and its recipients. Both are corrupted equally, if in different ways. Our rulers don’t mind: the welfare state combined with comprehensive ‘education’ serves their needs perfectly.

By making many unable to pay their own way, the state creates a culture of dependency, increasing its own power. And keeping the population ignorant makes it more likely to vote for nonentities, the dominant type among today’s power seekers.

Thus the gap that vexes Boris so isn’t a mechanical problem but a systemic one. It can only be solved not by tweaking the mechanism here and there, but by redesigning the system. Once this is properly understood, specific steps will suggest themselves.

The welfare state must be eliminated, with the Exchequer taking care only of those too old or infirm to look after themselves.

The system of multi-tier education must be reintroduced. As Boris himself said a few years ago, before he realised he could become prime minister if he played his cards right, “some people are too stupid to get ahead”. Possibly, but only total imbeciles can’t acquire basic literacy and practical skills.

Children with brains and get-up-and-go, about a quarter of all, won’t have to depend on having parents rich enough to put them through private schooling – and neither will they be held back by standards pitched at the least capable.

The latter group won’t be cast in the role of perennial underachievers. They’ll learn less in the way of the humanities and more in the way of practical skills – just as they did in the secondary moderns of yesteryear.

That way they’ll be able to survive handsomely – and, as sociologists know, survival is a much stronger inducement to hard work than the desire to increase one’s comfort.

To sum up, only by abandoning socialism can we close the wealth gap. So is this what Boris is proposing?

Not at all. He isn’t proposing anything radical, or indeed anything at all. He just mouths generalities and party slogans, proving he’s perfect prime-ministerial material.

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of their party affiliation, politicians say little but talk a lot. And the more they talk, the greater the statistical likelihood that they’ll say something that makes sense.

The odds of that happening improve en route to the right end of the political spectrum, but even a left-wing demagogue may surprise you by sounding reasonable for a second or so.

That’s how long it took Jeremy Corbyn, the likely future leader of the Labour Party, to suggest that Tony Blair’s 2003 foray into Iraq ought to get him tried for war crimes.

For those of you who are as unfamiliar with Corbyn as I had been until a couple of weeks ago, he’s our leftmost MP whose political views place him somewhere between Harold Wilson and Kim Jong-un.

Corby is a bit like Gorby in other words. By comparison, Ed Miliband comes across like Attila the Hun’s military advisor, but Ed is no longer the party leader.

The party is in the throes of a leadership contest, and Comrade Corbyn (he addresses his audiences as ‘Comrades!’) has appeared out of nowhere to find himself so far ahead of other contestants that his appointment is practically a cinch.

The Tories are jubilant: Corbyn, they say, will move his party so far left that it’ll stay out of power for the next century and eventually disintegrate. Some intrepid Tories are even tricking their way into voting for Corbyn in the Labour contest, to make sure he gets to lead Labour to perdition.

That, to me, looks like a total misreading of the situation, for Corbyn is at least as likely to destroy the Tories. He has clearly united every strand of the hard left by enunciating views they all share but for the last 20 years have been afraid to make public.

That one of Britain’s two main parties is about to be led by a rank communist is a national problem, not a Labour one. This development suggests that the whole political spectrum in the country is shifting leftwards, and it takes rather lamentable naivety to believe that the Tories will benefit.

It’s a political truism that it takes the ownership of the middle ground to win a national election. Yes, but the site of the middle ground isn’t fixed – it’s constantly shifting.

For example, the middle ground Margaret Thatcher claimed in 1979 would these days look like extreme right, while Attlee’s all-out welfarism would today place him left of the middle.

If history is anything to go by, Dave’s focus groups will confirm the tectonic leftward shift, and he’ll respond the only way he knows how: pushing his party in the same direction, although one hesitates to see what more he could do to achieve that goal.

Possibly completing Britain’s unilateral disarmament could do the trick, or perhaps legalising interspecies marriage, post-natal abortions and enforced euthanasia would send the right, or rather sufficiently left, signals.

Meanwhile, by attacking Labour’s most successful election-winner ever, Corbyn has made clear that Labour no longer has to pretend being Tory in disguise.

“We went to war,” he said, “that was illegal, that cost us money, that lost a lot of lives, and the consequences are still played out with… refugees all over the region.”

All true, while Tony’s defence makes no sense at all: “Saddam Hussein,” he says, “wasn’t exactly a force for stability, peace and prosperity for his country.”

No doubt. But neither are the leaders of at least 100 other countries. Does this constitute casus belli, as far as Tony is concerned? Should we attack them all even if such belligerence goes against our national interests?

The Hague clearly beckons, though my personal preference would be to try Blair not for war crimes, and not in international courts, but at the Old Bailey for treason.

In evidence I’d submit Lord Mandelson’s frank admission that Blair’s government deliberately imported hundreds of thousands of Muslims to skew elections the Labour way. That subverted the electoral process and, much worse, dealt a blow to our social fabric from which it may never recover.

Iraq and Afghanistan, where 633 British soldiers died and many more were wounded, could be latched on to the indictment to guarantee a long custodial sentence. But I’d prefer the charge of manslaughter, rather than war crimes. Let’s wash our dirty linen at home, shall we?

However, that Corbyn said one thing that’s both intellectually sound and aesthetically gratifying shouldn’t obscure the fact that his ascent creates the danger of Britain falling in the hands of the hard left.

As PM, Corbyn would destroy every traditional institution, from the monarchy to the House of Lords, from free trade to the rule of law. And make no mistake about it – if the cookie crumbles a certain way in five years’ time, he may well find himself at 10 Downing Street.

All it may take is a timely collapse of our phoney prosperity created by exactly the same methods as those that culminated in the 2008 crisis. Combined with at least half the population already resenting Tory ‘austerity’ (which is also phoney, but most voters don’t realise this), this may well create a wave on whose crest Corbyn will surf to power.

By all means, let’s shout ‘Hear, hear’ when the possibility of sending Tony down is mooted. But let’s pray at the same time that we’ll be spared a hard left state run by Corbyn. To avoid that I’d even agree to see Tony at large, much as it pains me.