And what have we done?...

Learned the truth, sad to say.

Time for the red pill?

Let’s be immigrants. No.  Seriously.

And while the Independent and the Daily Mail battle it out in that latter case of enrichment as to whether the particular hominid that raped a ten-year-old in a swimming pool had his sentence dropped to a measly four years or raised to a horrific seven years in prison (instead of auditing his breathing apparatus with extreme prejudice) , we might ponder as to why our ruling class even allows this thing to happen at all.

I mean, looking at that third link what kind of ruling class mind-set lets a supposedly Christian charity be involved in this? :

‘In January, one month after the attack was reported, the government introduced a controversial cap on refugees to be allowed into the country...It set the bar at 37,500, fewer than half the number who arrived in 2015. It avoids a potential confrontation with the wider EU. Brussels had warned that a limit on numbers of asylum seekers would break the bloc’s rules, as well as pandering to the rise of the far-right. "Breaking EU law openly would have been a huge embarrassment for Austria," said a spokesman for Austria's Catholic Caritas charity, which works with refugees and asylum seekers.'   

We’ve learned that we Just.  Don’t.  Matter.

Not that we should be surprised. The same ruling class that already takes or plans to take an artisanal or tailor-made attitude to criminal sentencing is scarcely going to care overmuch about what the initials of EU stand for. 
Everyone's Union? Everywhere Union? 

Still, it’s good to know that Black Lives Matter’s history of peaceful protest and thoughtful rhetoric did not in any way contribute to the Trump-hating humourous asides made by the lightly sentenced torturing unfortunates that were found kind of guilty, yeah? I mean, you can call Trump a white supremacist and a Klansman all day and every day and be in no way responsible for the Trump-related torture of a white person. You just can't.

But complain rudely about Muslim immigration and you can lose it all and fair enough.

What can you expect from rulers determined to elevate democracy above populism? Above populism? Above populism? Above populism?

So what’s the Christmas Eve takeaway from all this?

Your rulers hate you and don’t mind much when you die and they will never apologise when they get you killed.

Your daughters and sons can be raped and be unavenged. You can be murdered and your killers are the real victims and you and your ancestors are to blame and your rulers will import more of the same forever and ever, world without end. You will be colonised from abroad and there is nothing your rulers will do to stop it and they will punish you if you complain or resist. And don’t even think about voting your way out. It’s. Not. Democracy. When. You. Do. It. 

Can you seriously want to conserve all this? Pickle it in aspic? Preserve it in amber?

Time to take the red pill.

Merry Christmas and a happy 2018. (Laughter, off)

Picture from here.

What Planet Earth was like 15 minutes ago will shock you

.. and Kim Kardashian wasn't even consulted!

It may be worse, probably is worse, even that this. 

Things usually are worse, but I’ll stand correction.

Huh? That's literally the whole parliamentary supremacy thing in a nutshell: we want to take our sovereignty back. We want to elect a Parliament and know that they will be able to govern the country, instead of having to go cap in hand to a foreign power to ask 'may I'?

Maybe this is (also) a symptom of the This is the Present Year Syndrome, originating in the amygdalae of all anatomically modern Progressives.

In a world where the most dignified predictions of the future are movie trailers, thanks to the resolute deeds of The Agents of Progress™ the past has been wholly erased by the Great Rainbow Squeegee : AKA The Narrative.

We’re not just talking about the Ministry of Truth rewriting the Times to prove we have always been at war with Eastasia here.

Instead, the Squeegee has assured that for many Progressive product-units, anything outside the Present Year simply does not exist: including present facts that do not happen to be Narrative-sanctioned. 

The Nicky Morons of this world - or more precisely her Millennial serfs - when met with “We have always been at war with Eastasia” are less likely to counter with “But we were at war with Eurasia last year when Eastasia were our allies,” than “What is Eastasia?” or “What war?” or most importantly “We?”

It’s inconceivable for many Narrative-addled bitbrains that barely 30 years ago it was controversial that a BBC TV show portrayed an abortion in a sympathetic light just before a Parliamentary debate on that very topic. Especially if it’s difficult to Google it on page 1. Especially so considering all the wholesome family fun that Michelle Fowler and her successors have had with that particular subject ever since.  

Also, Poles are stupid. And wrong.

So, Putney debates? What? 

The Restoration? That’s a TV reality show about doing up old houses, yeah? The Bill of Rights? That’s why it’s OK for blokes in drag to piss in the cubicle next to teenage girls in Asda and it always has been.

If those of us on the Right have been slow in catching on how (or even that) the culture wars have been fought and won by the bad guys, it also appears that the bad guys haven’t cottoned on yet to how thorough their victory has been.

We might just want to do something about that.

Picture from here.

What Planet Earth was like 15 minutes ago will shock you

.. and Kim Kardashian wasn't even consulted!

It may be worse, probably is worse, even that this. 

Things usually are worse, but I’ll stand correction.

Huh? That's literally the whole parliamentary supremacy thing in a nutshell: we want to take our sovereignty back. We want to elect a Parliament and know that they will be able to govern the country, instead of having to go cap in hand to a foreign power to ask 'may I'?

Maybe this is (also) a symptom of the This is the Present Year Syndrome, originating in the amygdalae of all anatomically modern Progressives.

In a world where the most dignified predictions of the future are movie trailers, thanks to the resolute deeds of The Agents of Progress™ the past has been wholly erased by the Great Rainbow Squeegee.

AKA The Narrative.

We’re not just talking about the Ministry of Truth rewriting the Times to prove we have always been at war with Eastasia here.

Instead, the Squeegee has assured that for many Progressive product-units, anything outside the Present Year simply does not exist: including present facts that do not happen to be Narrative-sanctioned. 

The Nicky Morons of this world - or more precisely her Millennial serfs - when met with “We have always been at war with Eastasia” are less likely to counter with “But we were at war with Eurasia last year when Eastasia were our allies,” than “What is Eastasia?” or “What war?” or most importantly “We?”

It’s inconceivable for many Narrative-addled bitbrains that barely 30 years ago it was controversial that a BBC TV show portrayed an abortion in a sympathetic light just before a Parliamentary debate on that very topic. Especially if it’s difficult to Google it on page 1. Especially so considering all the wholesome family fun that Michelle Fowler and her successors have had with that particular subject ever since.  

Also, Poles are stupid. 
And wrong.

So, Putney debates? What? 

The Restoration? That’s a TV reality show about doing up old houses, yeah? The Bill of Rights? That’s why it’s OK for blokes in drag to piss in the cubicle next to teenage girls in Asda. 
And it always has been.

If those of us on the Right have been slow in catching on how (or even that) the culture wars have been fought and won by the bad guys, it also appears that the bad guys haven’t cottoned on yet to how thorough their victory has been.

We might just want to do something about that.

Picture from here.

The Incredible Shrinking Land

La Manche grows bigger, thanks to the ever-loyal BBC.

Compare and contrast. First.

And last.

Oh, and if you think that’s just a mistake, here are the Welsh and Scots versions.

Happy Saint George’s day to… what’s the name of that little place again? London? Salford?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

As if the monsoon of liberalism drowning our political life in it PC sewage wasn't bad enough, even the Catholic Church (the surviving member of Harold McMillan's triumvirate of formidable powers) has the same culture war as the political world: their 'leadership' is rotten to the core with false liberalism and the tone deafness and stupidity in the face of change that typifies the Boomer generation and their acolytes.

Even much of the argument and the invective is the same.

I dare say the good old C of E is just the same.

And there are millions of people out there who hate the destruction or corruption of the old and the good. They'd do something about it and offer help and cash to anyone who promised to use authority to perform the tasks to which it is suited and who would also swear to destroy the falsely gained and cruelly used power of the Political Class with which it seeks to uproot and plough over everything good and old in England.
What a power such people would be, if honestly and bravely led. What a mighty forest they would grow into if only integrity and foresight weren't banned from public discourse.

There really ought to be a name for that kind of thinking, but I just can't put my finger on it right now. I guess we'll have to look forward to the best available deal that can be done with the Liberal Democrats and the BBC.

Meantime, serendipitously, a lovely blog called English Buildings.

Something else to fight Them for.



Picture, hilariously, from here.

Ho. Ho. Ho.

And we’re not talking Charlie’s Angels here.

My own angel is sleeping on for a while and so I’ll have time to post this before breakfast and all that festive and family stuff come into play.

First of all, I wish you a merry Christmas.

It’s kind of you to visit my blog and I hope that the rest of the day goes uphill for you after this! Leave a comment if you wish, and if I can’t answer today due to family commitments then perhaps we’ll meet tomorrow - all unknowing and in spirit if not in person - in line at the corner shop while queuing for the milk that we forgot to buy on Christmas Eve when we had the chance. Perhaps our eyes will meet for a moment of shared joy as the newspaper headlines glare at us, bringing their eternally uplifting Boxing Day message: More Of The Bloody Same. Perhaps also we shall find comfort in the ever-changing seasons of our beautiful planet, (and in the three inches of Global Warming through which we have trudged and slid to get there), and from the marvellous patterns of Mankind’s inventive and industrious existence as we stand amongst the cheerful new displays (pregnant as they are with hope and change even in the deep midwinter) of Cadbury’s Creme Eggs.

It’s been a funny old year even if you discount how our formerly-free nations’ leaders have sold us and our posterity into tax- and debt-slavery while nearly finishing the project of abolishing our traditional freedoms. In response to all this my ranting will, inshallah, go on at least until the General Election campaign begins. Thereafter I might go a bit quiet as I tramp the lonely streets of Castle City spreading the news of something-or-other amongst people who I hope won’t immediately become an angry mob.

But that’s enough about me. Tell me - how wonderful do you think I am?

In politics there’s nothing so befits a man as malicious spite and hatred against his oppressors. I hope - or rather I fear - that 2010 will supply us all with far too many opportunities and way too much motivation to call down the wrath of Heaven (or at least of an enraged electorate) on our tormentors’ heads. As 1500 of you each month pop over here to glimpse me doing so, I plan to carry on publishing my hate-filled hate speech material: varied as its topics, quality and its ‘good taste’ can be…

But blog ranting is business: not personal.

…Or is it?

The personal is the political.

How to get back at the jokers?

How best to wreak vengeance on the destroyers who’ve scythed their nihilistic way through our civilisation like locust/chainsaw hybrids?

Mrs. Northwester; who is worldly wise as well as a gift from Heaven, suggests that living happily ever after is the best revenge. Forgiveness is the best way to get even. This seems on the face of it to be a paradox: as oxymoronic as the phrase Television Personality or a tabloid headline; Jordan’s Secret Wish.

Vengeance can tear you up. It can weaken you and waste your energy and your time when you could be fighting in the war instead of bemoaning its horrors. I’ve been involved in one of those long, draw-out family feuds that last for years and waste the substance and shatter the peace of the very people whom you are born to care for. It’s been very tiring and has served no purpose at all and it’s hurt some of my nearest and dearest and it wasn’t worth a damn.

So I’ve stopped.

I’m now making the most of the post-war peace and hoping that I turn out to be Japan rather than Italy, or West Germany rather than East Germany. But the way to cope with it now (and what would have been the way to prevent its several brutal winters of guerilla warfare), would have been to forgive the guilty parties for their offences (if such they were) and to have moved onto a battlefield where my faction could win, and win big.

Forgiveness doesn’t mean being passive in the face of injustice or threatened harm (or why else do we get involved with politics?) but it does mean not being eaten up with hatred for enemies, and worse still for lackluster or former friends. It’s working for me, up to a point, and in this fallen world that’s pretty much all you can expect. I’ve had to make some ideological adjustments (the go-to guy for forgiveness isn’t Hermes Trismegistus or The Great Mother after all, but the birthday boy Himself).

But being less like Mister Angry about perceived hurts to me and mine has left me with more time and in better spirits to live my life and to politick. The peace has left me with more energy to spend on active politicking in the real world so I can stick it to the Marxists and Islamists and their useful fools and dhimmi apologists and thus to become more active in supporting the British part of what’s left of Western civilisation and in cheerleading for its overseas branches.

The political is the personal.

Our enemies want us demoralized.

The Marxists want us alienated from love of family and from affection to traditionally respected institutions. Each time the Combined Left gets a cheap laugh at the monarchy or a Christian minister or other, respected person or institution, they make us weaker and less able to stand up for what generations of struggling people have come to regard as good, or useful, or right. The Islamists want us to be made full of doubt about our right to exist and to lead our lives as we have come to: free in conscience and speech, in our dress and in our entertainments.

Both projects are negative. Their activists believe that they are positive visions of the future but they are wrong. All Marxism will bring is what it always does: all-too-believable large numbers in terms of body-counts and refugee figures, and unbelievably high numbers where tractor production and literacy rates are concerned. Whatever the Caliphate brings, we probably won’t understand it because the message will be in Arabic and I don’t expect anyone to be teaching foreign languages to kaffirs come that dread day.

I’m sure you are all impeccably polite: thoughtful; charitable and tolerant (hell, you visit me, which proves the tolerant part), and have no need for lessons from me in making your way through life with grace and gentility. But be of extra good cheer: your good deeds and polite words are subversive acts against our rulers. Indeed, they are revolutionary in the old sense of bringing the old times round again.

Not only are our goodnesses just a matter of just plain getting along and doing it right for the sake of it; they are artillery salvoes in the culture wars.

Every time a man opens a door for a woman and she accepts it gracefully rather than with a glare it’s a victory for both over the Radical Feminists who argue that men will always oppress women as long as free institutions survive.

Each time we let someone onto the main road in front of us instead of making them wait then we both have another small reason to be grateful for living in a polite culture that’s not at civil war with ‘reactionaries’ or ‘lesser breeds’ or ‘the bosses.’

Every charitable donation is a declaration of moral independence from our gigantic and pernicious Welfare State and a rebuke to those who argue that only government activity can secure happiness and health amongst the suffering.

Every minute spent comforting a friend instead of heading on to the next pub or to supper (as Mrs. Northwester did last night) is both living the ideal of western civilisation and at the same time a standing rebuke to those who say our country and its neighbours are places where love and decency can never truly exist until they have destroyed all that we now possess and they have built their paradises.

Whether our ability to be good to one another derives from the instincts of group solidarity inherited from thousands of generations of hunter-gatherers in Africa; or whether it is the evolved result of rational self-interest moulded into habits of courtesy and charity and learned from living amongst the free institutions of commerce, property and law; or whether it derives from something eternal and supernatural, it is a blessing and something to fight for.

And fight for it we should: sweetly in day-to-day life, I would suggest, and bitterly and with eager venom on the political battlefield when necessary.

Okay, I’ve buttonholed you at the party and blocked you off from the drinks table and more interesting company for long enough (assuming that you’ve even read this far). You’ll be wanting to get all festive and there’s a goose to prepare or a nut roast to defrost and antacids to chug (mea culpa.)

I expect to be back tomorrow - as bitter and cynical as ever - a northern brother to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. But inasmuch as this day is about one idea of where that goodness comes from originally, (and just this once I promise); I’ll see your Merry Christmas and raise you a God bless you, if you can dig it.

North Northwester.

Picture from here.

Satanic Sunday #2

‘Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.’

Conservatism 101.

Satan’s words are from Paradise Lost; my character-building slow-reading assignment for October (!), represent as neat a summation of what evil is and why is must be constantly and vigorously fought and, I think, helps to demonstrate why conservatism is the best response to such a mind-set.

The scenario is that Satan’s rebellious angels have just been thrown down into Hell by God’s victorious loyal angels. Even before we get to the part where Satan speaks his famous political aphorism above (a mere 263 lines into the poem), Satan makes it plain that he’s still up for a fight:

What though the field be lost?
All is not lost; th’ unconquerable will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield.

…

To be weak is miserable,
Doing or suffering.

…

And out of good still to find means of evil.

That’s a mere twenty lines after Satan and his refugee army hit the very bottom of the cosmos, and he’s already bouncing back and marshalling the troops for a rematch against Heaven. His army is in utter disarray: beaten disarmed, demoralized and exiled to the worst place imaginable… and still he’s ready to have another go.

So why is this stuff relevant to conservatism?

I first read this poem back in the early 1980s as part of the official reading list for my degree (my actual studies being: girls; cider; and shouting at Lefties: some things are just so much fun that you never find anything better). At that time the Soviets and their British adherents, paid and volunteer; knowing and unwitting, were running a full-time propaganda campaign to disguise the Soviet arms build-up and to slander and libel the West’s reactive rearmament against that. I sat in an English tutorial concerned with the poem and looked about me; there were half a dozen other undergraduates, the tutor, and me. Three undergraduates sported the CND badges and the tutor was well known on campus and in the town as supporting the campaign. Education is supposed to teach you things; things about human nature and the way of the world, right? But when I made the blindingly-obvious and unoriginal comment that Satan was voicing the thoughts and ambitions of the power-hungry the world over and at all times throughout history, I got blank states of puzzlement. Seeking power for its own sake: for the fun of conflict and conquest; for the sadistic joy of others’ obedience; for compliance with and service to The Truth; for the self-esteem of being top dog, regardless of the consequences to self and others, are constants of human nature - seemingly ineradicable. And therefore, I went on, eternal vigilance against such ambitions and the readiness to resist and overcome their aims was a constant necessity of life on Earth. I mean, it’d be crazy to let great big gangs of human beings with this kind of attitude walk around loose and unconstrained in the playground with the realpolitik equivalents of carpet knives and firelighters, yeah?

Then came the little smiles of smug recognition and adamantine rejection.

Well of course this is only a poem... It’s not about real life... And people, unlike angels, are open to reason and gentle persuasion... It doesn’t tell us anything about the real world.

Even then, twenty-five years ago, the culture wars were so advanced in their victory over us that so-called ‘students’ were prepared to state in front of their question-setting and Final exam-marking tutor that the meaning of words in literature don’t have anything to teach us about mankind or the world we live in.

So, assuming that evil can in large measure be (very, very roughly defined) as the willingness to exert power over others against their will or welfare, and regardless of suffering to self or object, how do the various kinds of political though deal with this issue?

Where are we now?

I wouldn’t start from here. The situation-based belief systems argue that such issues would pose little or no threat to the good life if only the external situation were changed. For socialists of the non-Marxist sort, power itself need not be corrupting or harmful if only the society is arranged in certain ways that allow people to meet their material wants and to satisfy their psychological needs. A fairer and more equal distribution of goods and opportunities by the State and law would either dissolve such bullying ambitions or weaken their power to do harm to others.

I don’t see how a more equal division of the spoils of production (even disregarding the lower and poorer quality of goods and services that is likely to occur under redistribution) would necessarily protect a child from his obsessive and possessive mother’s urge to exert absolute control over him, for example. Even if everyone had a nice little house and fifteen K a year and went to a bog-standard comprehensive, wouldn’t such authorities that were willing and empowered to enforce such material equality be willing and able to drill down into family lie and interfere before breakfast, lunch, and dinner and likely do as much bureaucratic harm as such whining harridans? They do it now; why not after the election of True Labour? Now, in international relations, even if equality of some sort were arranged nationally, what is to stop outside, unequal regimes from attacking and re-dividing the equal society? George Orwell posited an army of a socialist Britain still wearing the Lion and the Unicorn of its uniform buttons but that good man had never seen sixty years of the social worker mentality being in charge of almost everything – and so he never observed how an obsession with kindness and fairness takes the sense of danger and fear of ‘the other’ out of a culture. Wishful thinking is inherently bred into people in such a polity – and martial caution is bred out. Witness the almost total absence of fear amongst the equalitariat that an apocalyptic loon who’s joyously anticipating the End Times is well on his way to having The Bomb. Satan’s attitude doesn’t give a stuff about day care centres, The Paper Bag Princess, or the ready availability of affordable contraception – one way or another he wants to rule your hippy arse, Crystalglow Moonchild, and no messing.

And what of the equality officials themselves? I know of one public official in an impeccably equalitarian and redistributionist bureaucracy whose personal feuds have led to numerous unjust disciplinary proceedings against clearly blameless minions; to suspensions on full pay; and to the non-delivery of services to the organisation’s pitiful ‘customers’ against the will of Parliament and of great waste and cost to the taxpayer. But the very bureaucracy that was set up to provide these services is being used to do great personal harm to the professionals concerned and to squander scarce resources. The bully is unconstrained, having a major ‘in’ with the governing authorities of the organisation concerned – she’s untouchable.

Equality is not enough.

Libertarians tend to look at our present situation of massive government regulation of economic and personal life, of high taxation and State-created poverty, and look for a world in which governmental power is severely reduced or abolished, and in which, therefore, most people will be freer and also richer and therefore more able to fulfill their personal wishes. Well, I’d like to be freer and richer and good luck with that, my friends; we’re three elections from any chance of a government even aiming at what libertarians want, I think, and with the mandate to do something about it. But even if a minimal state came about, it is difficult to imagine that it again would survive outside interference from the usual sort. I’ve read Devil’s Kitchen describing a libertarian foreign policy for Britain that involves home stationing of armed forces only, and a big navy to protect trade convoys; thus cheapening our defence needs, keeping ourselves to ourselves and our properties overseas, and not interfering with others’ ways of life. Let them get on with it. Splendid isolationism. No more Iraq wars. No Afghanistans. Except that evil is greedy – it wants it all. Devil’s Kitchen’s scenario doesn’t take into account the global ambitions of this mind-set. I wonder which ports our convoys will be allowed to dock in, and to offload what goods and to take aboard what commodities if this happens? I can scarcely imagine a more defenceless polity to inhabit than one in which we let Satan’s thoughts run amok- unconstrained and unanswered by arms.

And what of the bullying and power within institutions of freedom? Much lessened though they may be compared to the horrors of the Gulag and Madrassa and the concentration camp, still some consequences of freedom hurt.

What to do about a fashion industry that persists (freely and unconstrained apart from ‘voluntary codes’) in portraying ultra-thin and often under-age models as beautiful, and thus encouraging anorexia and bulimia? The decisions of models and young girls and women alike to starve themselves are free and voluntary. The fashion houses that use and celebrate ultra-thin models as beautiful and worthy of emulation use their imagination and justly acquired property freely and without coercion, and of course their critics are free to argue that it’s all a dangerous fantasy and a confidence trick played on women. But it’s still power, and still people are freely taken in and hurt by that power. Unintended consequences can be malign and deadly, and good intentions on the road to Hell end in the same place. Idealised freedom of the pure libertarian kind is the will to not-power.

Freedom isn’t enough.

Who: whom?

It’s an HR problem. For Marxists, the urge to power is no problem. It can achieve great success and great improvements in the world, only if it’s used properly. ‘Properly’ has a specific meaning here: it needs to be enacted by the right people and at the right point in history will assure this, and all will be well.

Likewise the supporters of aristocratic rule.

Likewise absolute monarchists.

Likewise fascists.

Plenty of room for, and evidence of, Satan’s opinion throughout history to prove my point there.

Choosing the right people isn’t enough.

Absolute deniers.

People just aren’t like that (any more.) Liberals of all sorts tend to take the position that power-hunger, greed for office, and the determination to dominate are personal matters that can be softened or eradicated altogether by circumstantial changes or appeals to folks’ better natures. It is only the constraining institutions of social life – bullying family structures, economic inequality (again), or economic freedom (again), or beliefs in religion, or nation, or theories of human nature or the market or sexual supremacy or whatever, that lead people to dominate and do harm to others. Take away the structures and re-educate the beliefs out of people in a rational and kindly way and you’ll eradicate Satan’s will to power.

Have these people never been in playgrounds?

Our species derives from a meat-eating savannah and scrubland primate that has hunted and gathered in small family groups for millions of years; variously fleeing from and in turn menacing predators and competitors for game and forage, and the instincts that allowed us to do that are unlikely to go away after a mere 12,000 years or so of settled living. The instincts to reproduce and to have one’s children especially favoured; to survive by impressing one’s own will on others around oneself; to be first in the scrum to eat the prey are old. Fifteen minutes a day of Rousseau and sixty of Sesame Street just aren’t going to dig that deep into our complex natures.

Teaching people right from wrong isn’t enough.

So where am I going with this meandering collection of truisms, platitudes, massive generalizations, incomplete arguments, probable non-sequiturs and likely enough straw men?

‘The problem of politics’ is often expressed by formulae like; goodwill is limited, or altruism is constrained… and therefore how do we deal with our species’ imperfection in communal life?

The one single answer is that there isn’t just one single answer.

Belief systems that go off on one track alone or principally on one track – hunting after equality, or freedom, or king making or remaking ordinary human beings into better creatures not only often misunderstand what we are (which itself is damnably complicated), but of course ignore all the other things that can possibly go wrong other than their own favoured Source Of All Evil.

They all pretty much fall at the first fence in that specific constitutional arrangements or prescriptions for personal improvements might - just - address the obvious manifestations of Satan’s ambition, but they also let it in the back door (through ignoring unpolitical kinds of bullying) or through the front door in the form of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

And there’s always another Satan along in minute or a decade.

In the days when our rulers treated their countries and the people in them as property to be snatched and hoarded and passed on to their own descendants there was always some overseas marriage to consummate at lance-point or some local land deal to seal in blood, if the Turk or the moors didn’t haul you off from Cornwall or Sussex into slavery first. When the Christian religion became the battlefield the people of these islands had to figure out the right form of communion using little ships, brass cannon and pikes. And then came the blasted republicans; rebelling in American and threatening our trade on the Continent and shooting us in the back in Ireland – some of it turned out just fine, but some turned into a 200-year bloody grudge down to today and some warped into a crazed proto-dictator or late-era Caesar or cut-price Bourbon – take your pick. And then when he was dealt with there came diplomacy and colonial wars (and you might paint us as the villains sometimes then as we weren’t always gentle) and then Prussian militarism segueing into nationalism and later into something that made Prussian militarism seem like cricket by comparison, and fascism and communism staring us down throughout the weary Twentieth Century with a side order of Feinian horror, and them when the Soviets went away the Religion of Peace raised on victory in Afghanistan and oil money decided to have a bash in the airlines and oilfields and mill towns of the world, and none of that could have been appeased or halted or slowed much by good housing, a thorough grounding in the classics, a hearty round of the National Anthem or lower marginal rates of tax. No matter how often we think we've sorted it all out and can get the spare room fixed up and the poor fed, some evil swine always comes along with a better idea of what to do with our time and the contents of our arteries and the rest of our children's lives. There just plain is no single cure for the reasons that Satan through humanity attaches to his hunger for power and taste for blood.

And that’s just Pride – merely one of the Deadly Sins against which our culture once taught us to fear. What of the others? What of Sloth: how to deal with benefits couch potatoes and trust fund drones and their opposites and counterparts; Stakhanovite corporate workhorses ignoring their families because of Career or suicidal Japanese students going for impossibly high grades at exam-time? Or Anger: how to manage it in the body politic to avoid vendetta, lynch-mobs and genocide without degenerating into appeasement of the Great Dictators or the passive acceptance of mediaeval dhimmis averting their eyes as the Sultan’s men ride past their crumbling and legally unrepairable churches or synagogues?

We don’t all live today like homo ergaster on the one hand or Neil Armstrong on the other. Nor are we all like Chairman Mao or Mother Teresa: not all of us all of the time, and some of us none of the time. Over the millennia since agriculture was discovered and the settled dwelling in fixed communities that it made possible, billions of people have discovered millions of ways of living together without reverting to cannibalism at one extreme and suffering under absolute tyranny at the other. There are a lot of problems and a lot of cures for those problems.

This is why philosophies like conservatism that take the well-mixed compost heap stance to political and social life score over the single-thrust type.

Mix and match and accept that circumstances alter cases and admit to yourself that change is the only constant, and that panaceas are mythological and you still might go wrong, but do otherwise and you will always go wrong, eventually.

Yes: we need freedom to discover new ways of living, but no; we should be unafraid to adjust for those who will be trampled or left behind. Yes: the individual is a moral creature and a unit of intelligence and a proper recipient for consideration and expensive help sometimes, but no; without family and society he’s pretty much a rogue hunter much of the time. Yes: nationhood is a collective defence and gives a focus as to how large problems can be solved, but no; it should not be treated as the sole or overwhelming political goal. Yes: the free ownership and disposal of property can conjure up all kinds of wealth and opportunity, but no: when it concentrates naturally it can become as much of a pestilence as rank poverty. Yes: the family is a mainstay of and orderly social life and a conserver of property, but remember also feudalism and honour killings.

There is nothing so lovely and charming that human beings can’t make a weapon or other curse out of it, but also there is little that is so vile that inspiration and hope can’t be founded on its horrors – from the slow torturing to death of an innocent man to the lengthy starvation and slaughter of half a people. There is no single thing that can keep Satan and his terrible companions at bay forever. No country; no religion; nor sum of money nor language nor marriage nor single book of truth that serves us at all times and in all ways to live together without warring amongst ourselves forever.

When it comes down to it, if we want to solve stuff, we’re left pretty much with human beings – human beings who can imagine and anticipate Satan…and his converse.

But what the hell do I know? I’m only human.

Dear Santa

Just in case you don't know about it yet, the Great Doctor has a new book out - a collection of his Spectator pieces.


Drug addicts and desperate drunks, battered wives and suicidal burglars, elderly Alzheimer's sufferers and teenage stabbing victims. They all pass through Theodore Dalrymple's surgery, and he uses the experience of treating them to examine life for those unfortunate enough to live at the bottom end of society. He writes with a combination of dry humour, compassion and, occasionally, anger - mostly at the inhuman bureaucracy of the system, which works against the doctors and nurses as they try to help their patients.

I haven't read it yet, obviously, but amidst the gloom of Labour's eugenics programme to breed the British, starting with the Right, out of existence or at least out of power in our own country if we don't choose to be Left Hand Path, plus David Cameron's apostasy ( or is it his time-delayed truthfulness?) that he won't hold a referendum to see which countries will govern Britain after the Lisbon Cosntitution is inserted into our body politic by Brown, Mandelson, & Co, it' still nice to know that someone's still providing us with much that we need to know about the bottoms-up Trahison des Clercs as the local and quango State has been destroying the people and their morality on an individual basis.

No doubt it will be presented in his familiar beautiful prose: full of wit and human understanding, and the dagger of his irony will be so much the sharper and more deadly, as always, to the snake-oil philosophies of the United Left for having its edge hidden in silk until it is too late.


Cancel the Space Hopper request please, Father Christmas - I want this one instead.

It's war. Smell the coffee

Phrenology: it could come back.

In what way are the following examples not part of a full-scale cultural war?

Huge increases in immigration over the past decade were a deliberate attempt to engineer a more multicultural Britain, a former Government adviser said yesterday. Andrew Neather, a speechwriter who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, said Labour's relaxation of controls was a plan to 'open up the UK to mass migration'.

As well as bringing in hundreds of thousands to plug labour market gaps, there was also a 'driving political purpose' behind immigration policy, he claimed. Ministers hoped to change the country radically and 'rub the Right's nose in diversity'.

But Mr Neather said senior Labour figures were reluctant to discuss the policy, fearing it would alienate its 'core working-class vote'. The published version promoted the labour-market case for immigration but Mr Neather said unpublished versions contained additional reasons.

'Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural. 'I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.' The 'deliberate policy', from late 2000 until 'at least February last year', when the new points-based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

Mr Neather defended the policy, saying mass immigration has 'enriched' Britain and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

Get that?

All this deliberate change was unannounced and indeed disguised as a labour-market adjustment.

Britain’s people were never consulted about any of this and were repeatedly lied to as a matter of official government policy as the Labour Party sought to import anyone, from anywhere, as long as they were different from the native British, with the utterly partisan intention of frustrating their political competitors.

No matter what the cost to (and the possible destruction of), public order and the civil society which had formerly consisted of native people growing up and living together under common rules and accepted, established institutions – Labour had a plan to frustrate the Tories, UKIP, LPUK, and (presumably) the BNP.

Never mind that we were sure to lose our country’s precious habit of abiding by the laws of the land when Britain was purposefully restocked from regions where the only laws are brute force or the absolute and arbitrary rule of the eldest man in a family, or the teachings of a religion that insists on a permanent and merciless war of conquest and oppression by believers against everyone else.

No thought was taken into account of the economic effect that this would have on British people at the lower end of the earnings scale when cheap labour was pumped into the catering and hotel trades, and garages, retailing and residential care industries. No account at all was taken of the likely financial cost to services such as schools, hospitals and General Practitioners, and housing, transportation and public leisure facilities; let alone of how whole neighbourhoods and entire city areas would have their character changed forever by unassimilated and intolerant colonists who would insist that the native British alone should change our ways.

We just don’t matter in our own home, we British, we don’t count for anything, nor does our civilisation – not when the United Left has a plan.

They did it on purpose, with malice aforethought as a convenient by-product of their building-boom, housing boom bubble.

And this from the telegraph on the ideological onslaught against our fee-paying schools.

Last week, Dame Suzi Leather, the head of the Charity Commission, made an unusual concession. She announced that schools which charge fees will have more time to prove that they provide a "public benefit". The commission has already decided that two fee-paying schools should lose their charitable status because they do not do so.

What is the Charity Commission, an unelected, unaccountable quango, doing deciding whether or not fee-paying schools should remain as charities?

For decades, a political argument has raged about whether private schools should be entitled to charitable status and the tax benefits that go with it. They have enjoyed that status since the Reformation. In a democracy, most of us would expect a decision to abolish it to be made democratically.

But in 2006, when Parliament passed the Charities Act, Labour found a way of changing that without any need to go through the tedious process of gaining electoral support for it. Its Charities Act dropped the old assumption that organisations devoted to education, the promotion of religion and the relief of poverty are of "public benefit" and should automatically count as charitable enterprises. Instead, it lets the Charity Commission decide what counts as "public benefit": which means it can decide when an institution can be counted as a charity, and when it will lose that status.

Does anyone imagine that any Islamic ‘charity’ will face such threatened loss of ancient, traditional rights? Still, good idea to finish off the hard core of the last few competent schools.

Finish off this creep’s work.

And via Mark Steyn, this is from a former Tory cabinet minister’s son:

It is certainly true that "fewer people equals a greener planet" is simplistic. In 2050, 95% of the extra population will be poor and the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today's standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis.

As a result, NGOs such as Oxfam, for whom I've just written a report on climate change's impact on humans, insist that dealing with consumption in the rich world is much more important than tackling population growth.

Is there any part of this Better that more westerners were dead talk recognizes anything of worth in the culture whose population that Green philosophy is cheerfully condemning as a pestilence?

And the Tories have bought into the whole deal. They either won’t fight – afraid of the ultimate witch-hunt and being accused of raaaacism and so that their alternatives to open-door-breed-the-Tories-out and to hell with the white working class are woefully inadequate.

Here’s their limp-dick answer to Labour’s people-herding social engineering.

Bet that’s got the Somali warlords and their clitoris-cutting crones shaking in their council flats, right? Not much to say about the unintegrated millions already here, though, is there? Locking the barn door after the horse has bolted was made for the Cameroons.

Oh, no, silly me, they’re going to ‘tackle..unacceptable cultural practises.’

How, I wonder: handcuff the brutal old biddies until their knife-hands fall off? How about chartering Ryanair flights and a couple of dozen hefty coppers a week and flying off into the wild blue yonder back to Africa with all the parents and grandparents of any mutilated children who were born here, and adoption for the surviving kids into nice, well-integrated Afro-Caribbean families? Or white ones?

No. Not the clueless, spineless, Office Yes Please But Real Power No Thanks Cameroons.

So they can fanny around with the edges: shave a fraction off a tax rate there. new truncheon for the police there. Maybe stop them persecuting Christians for expressing age-old prejudices here.

But they’ll never rule; never govern in anything but name. Not until they realise that fighting and winning the culture wars is the only way they can translate their policy ideas into anything like good governance.

When large swathes of a country’s cities are populated by people with no affection for, or loyalty to, the host culture; when its public servants actively seek to destroy its ancient institutions (and some of the few schools that deliver anything like a good education); and when many of its natives hate their own kind so much they are happy to use genocide as an example of good planetary management, then the colour of the rosettes and the name of the Prime Minister are pretty much irrelevant – he might as well be a corrupt and effete Bourbon or a late Romanov, because the real power lies elsewhere.

What happens in the streets and the benefits offices; the ‘schools’ and education authorities; the ports and airports; in pubs and homes and council chambers; in the police stations and town halls and quangos matter. Power lies in the minds and imaginations of people: Westminster, not so much. Nobody’s going to work, or fight, or agitate or pay subscriptions to preserve things they either know nothing about, or care little, or have been taught to actively hate. What’s to conserve?

It’ll never change until someone at Tory HQ goes down to their IT people and borrows the lart (Luser Attitude Reconfiguration Tool) – also known as the Clue Bat, off the people who fix the computers and make the email go out. Then it’s upstairs to the suits for some reconstructive phrenology. Don’t hold your breath.