Author Archives: DalrympleFans

The wisdom of Rowan Williams

The man who held the office of archbishop of Canterbury for a decade until 2012 looked, writes Dalrymple,

more like a druid than an Anglican, and one would not have been surprised to see him in ecstasy at Stonehenge during the summer solstice, dressed in a white robe.

Dalrymple notes that Williams’s best-known pronouncement,

in so far as head or tail could be made of anything he said (his incomprehensibility gave him a reputation for intellect among the gullible) was the inevitability of the institution of sharia in Great Britain.

At the druid induction

Explaining why Muslims — but not druids — should have their own laws in Britain

The inevitability of it all

In ecstasy at Stonehenge


Jargon that passes for science

Dalrymple writes that he has given evidence in cases

in which various psychiatrists have sought to explain (or is it excuse?) murderers because of their difficult childhoods, poor upbringing, bad education, and so forth.

He has watched

relatives of victims foully done to death squirm with pain and disgust as feeble exculpations of the culprits are offered in the language not so much of science as of jargon.

The Domino Theory

Dalrymple explains that according to the theory,

all the countries of Southeast Asia (and beyond) would fall to communism if one of them did so. It was therefore vital to prevent any of them from falling.

He asks:

Who can say what would have happened in Southeast Asia if the Americans had acted differently, according to some other geopolitical theory? It is not even possible definitively to decide whether the policy followed was a success or a failure. Even at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and untold destruction, to say nothing of the economic cost to America itself, it did not prevent the spread of communism in Indochina.

On the other hand, communism

spread no further, nor did it last indefinitely.

Whether its durance was longer or shorter because of the war

will remain forever a matter of speculation.

Dalrymple notes that the Domino Theory seemed to have held in Eastern Europe, though in reverse.

Brezhnev enunciated a doctrine of his own, namely that a country, once communist, could not return to capitalism.

This, Dalrymple points out, was

the Marxist equivalent of the Islamic doctrine that once Islamic, a country could not revert, which is one of the reasons why Spain, or al-Andalus, looms so large in the minds of fanatics.


it was obvious that once an Eastern European country had seceded from communism, the holdouts — Rumania and Albania — could not long survive.

Error and even malice are the price of freedom

In the realm of intellectual freedom, writes Dalrymple,

it is not truth that sets you free, but error, or rather the permissibility of error.

The freedom to tell lies

is one of the most basic freedoms. There can be no freedom without it.

Dalrymple points out that at Western universities, young people

encounter a narrow, powerfully self-reinforcing view of the world.

The pressure to conform

adds to the natural self-righteousness of youth, which is often mistaken for idealism, and young people’s impulse to censor in the name of their irreproachable virtue is strengthened and entrenched.

The long-term prospects for freedom of speech, Dalrymple notes,

are not altogether rosy. Those who value it are less vehement in their defence of it than are the self-righteous in their assault on it.

Time to end the absurd taboo on necrophilia

Surely, writes Dalrymple, it would be easy enough to adapt The Teddy Bears’ Picnic so as to enlarge the infants’ worldview:

If you go down to the morgue today
You’re sure of a big surprise.

Necrophilia, Dalrymple points out,

harms no one, a dead body not being a person any longer susceptible to harm.

Safe sex

Compared to sexual relations with living human beings, necrophilia is

trouble-free, if the right hygienic precautions are taken; and there is no need for contraception.

An’ the dawn comes up like thunder outer Berkeley ‘crost the Bay!

O brave new world, That has such people in’t!

The latest mad orthodoxy

The current monomania, writes Dalrymple, is transsexualism. He notes that the National Association of Head Teachers

has issued guidance (the kind that communist dictators used to issue when they visited locomotive repair workshops or sausage factories, their words of wisdom on every subject being taken down by scribes), to the effect that there should be books in all schools for children under the age of 11 about ‘transgender’ parents, and that ‘trans people, their issues and experiences’, should be ‘celebrated across the school’.

It raises the question, says Dalrymple,

of how one celebrates transsexualism: dancing round a maypole hung with packets of oestrogen or testosterone?


In England, inner emigration is the only option for decent people

Britishers, writes Dalrymple, are

more comprehensively surveyed as they go about their daily business than the poor Soviets ever were.

The surveillance

is intended not to protect or deter, but to intimidate.

There is in Britain, he notes,

a nomenclatura who wield great and irresponsible power, whose life is distant from that of the great majority of citizens. As in the Soviet Union, they do not own the state institutions in which they work, but they have the usufruct of them. Their privileges are wildly out of proportion either to their merits or to the privileges that others enjoy. The first-class carriages of trains, for example, are almost exclusively for their use.


Dalrymple points out that England has become

a propaganda state. No matter what economies are imposed on those parts of the public services that deliver services to the public, there is always time enough and money enough in state institutions for the production and distribution of glossy propaganda to the workers who receive it compulsorily (for they are never asked whether they want it or not).

As in communist countries, the purpose of the propaganda

is not to persuade, much less to inform, but to violate the probity of the recipient, who has neither the energy nor the courage to protest against its lies, and therefore becomes in some way complicit in them. The more untrue the propaganda is, the more at variance with the lived experience of those who are subjected to it, the better, for the more completely it destroys the integrity of the recipient, rendering him docile.

Therefore, at the very time when hospitals are under threat of closure,

the staff receive glossy handouts portraying them as happy and smiling, at one with the management, just as Soviet peasants were portrayed feasting at tables groaning with produce at the height of famine.

There is

a constantly-changing langue de bois used by the hierarchy of public institutions, to disguise the reality. Words no longer have tolerably fixed meaning, but must be construed in their dialectical sense. Experience teaches, for example, that when the chief executive of an NHS institution says, ‘I am passionately committed to x,’ he means x is about to be disbanded or closed down, and about time.

Careless talk costs careers

An atmosphere of fear stalks Great Britain, says Dalrymple.

People are reluctant to speak their minds, even if what is in their minds is by no means outrageous. Whole subjects, some of them of great national importance, are beyond the pale of acceptable discussion. In the public service, underlings are afraid that their superiors might get to hear anything that contradicts the latest ideological doctrine, or that fails to use the latest accepted terminology, and that they might suffer.

Professionals have to take part in many fraudulent

ceremonial procedures, such as endless meetings of a semi-political nature, and perform bureaucratic tasks ever more intellectually corrupt and disconnected from the real goal of their work, compliance with which destroys their probity and turns them into ciphers.

Failure to protest

induces a state of self-hatred and contempt.

The best

go into inner emigration, and withdraw from public life completely.

The worst

join the apparatchiks.

Careerism, cronyism and looting of the public purse

Who is to blame for the Sovietisation of British life? Dalrymple explains that Margaret Thatcher played a large part.

Not only did she give the impression of being an economic determinist, a mirror-image Marxist, and not only was she a great centraliser, giving an impetus to the most ruthless forms of careerism and its corollary, cronyism, but she vastly increased the role of supposedly technocratic management in society, and particularly in the public service. She thought that professional managers were the way to control the vested interests of professions and public servants; in the process she created the new nomenclatura, with vested interests that dwarf all previous vested interests, and a looting of the public purse such as has not been seen for two centuries.

The Labour party,

to do it justice, saw its opportunity presented to it on a plate by the Conservatives. Trained in dialectics by those (many) among them with communist pasts, they read the situation with some subtlety. Not nationalisation, but a permanent revolution of ever-changing regulation, favour-swapping with big business, bureaucratic reorganisation, and the proliferation of parastatal bodies was the road to eternal power and the spoils it brought with it.

In the process,

the freedom and independence of the citizen had to be destroyed: a small price to pay, since they never valued it in the first place.

Dalrymple does not expect to see the Sovietisation reversed in his lifetime,

at least not without a cataclysm: and that might bring us something very much worse.

In the meantime, he has

joined the inner emigration.

The reasons are unprintable

Dalrymple writes that Kingsley Amis was ‘a man whom, for reasons neither interesting nor publishable, I did not much admire’.

Spiritual healers of today

Professor Kajali


Sheikh Kajali

Dr Sapolsky (left)