Boris Johnson er virkelig ikke nogen gennemsnitspolitiker. Hvor mange andre vesteuropæiske politikere ville kunne gennemføre denne timelange samtale om Rom og Athen med klassisisten, professor Mary Beard? Johnson har i al fald tre ting til fælles med forbilledet Churchill: Han er lærd, han er menneskelig, og han er stor i fejl og stor i dyder.

Politikere er som industriøl: Tomme kalorier uden smag

Allerede her skiller han sig ud fra den almindelige rugbrødspolitiker, “manden uden egenskaber m/k.” Disse er som industriøl, deres fornemmeste opgave er ikke at fornærme nogen. Det er det, der sælger de store volumer – også i politik. Johnson lægger sig endda ud med offergruppe nummer ét: Islam. En dansk konservativ der tør det? Hør den inkompetente panegyrik, de fornærmer befolkningen med.

Rigtige konservative har lov at nære forhåbninger til Johnson. Om han kan overleve den daglige, politiske nærkamp, må tiden vise. Aktivistpressen vil slagte ham hver dag, ligesom den gjorde med Trump. Det vil skade dem  og gavne ham, ingen andre end journalister har taget notitis af aktivistpressens toårige kampagne mod Trump, der iøvrigt har været bygget på pladder og  varm luft: The Terrible Truth About Robert Mueller – Diana West and Stefan Molyneux. Se også Peter Hitchens nuancerede portræt: The Boris Act og Boris will be on the side of free speech, of causing offence, of uttering heresies: Thank God!

Hvilke var Robespierre’s stedord?

Da jeg gik i skole, var den franske revolution eksamensstof i syvende klasse. Man kunne den, når man var 13 år gammel, længe inden man opdagede, at det kunne være nyttig viden. Jeg ved ikke, om Roberspierre og Jakobinerklubben siger 13 årige noget i dag, men hvis ikke, kan de jo tro, at Politiken og Dagens Nyheter selv har opfundet “aktivistisk journalistik,” at DR har opfundet det politiserede srpog, og at Goebbels og Stalin opfandt revolutionær, politisk propaganda, men Robespierre levede 200 år inden, og massemorderen Pol Pot så rigtigt, da han indså, at Robespierre var en meget tidlig kommunist.

Totalitær kommunisme døde aldrig helt, selv i dag lever den videre i smuk, nærmest kinesisk enighed med storkapitalen, i “hen,” klimaalarmisme, genusvidenskab og politisk korrekthed i det hele taget. Oven i købet har vores “talentfulde” politikere tilføjet os endnu en revolutionær kraft af historiske dimensioner: Islam. Robespierre går en stor tid i møde i fremtidens EU. Man kan sige, Robespierre ligesom islam også ville skabe en gudsstat, men at hans guder bare var nogle andre end Allah.

Hvordan kan en hel nation, Sverige, begå selvmord med åbne øjne? En fanatisk tro på ideologien længe efter at virkeligheden har fejlbevist den. Hvordan kan EU mene, vi skal aflive vor egen nation på den samme måde, som svenskerne ikke særlig diskret har været tvunget til? Ideologi og magtbrynde. Følg fanatikeren Guy Verhofstadts tweets, så ved du, hvad jeg mener.

Peggy Noonan, blandt andet Reagans taleskriver, skriver ugen virale artikel: What Were Robespierre’s Pronouns?

The French Revolution was led by sociopaths who politicized language

The French Revolution was led by sociopaths who politicized language, much like today’s Jacobins. We often make historical parallels here. History doesn’t repeat itself but it does rhyme, as clever people say. And sometimes it hiccups. Here is a hiccup.

We start with the moral and political catastrophe that was the French Revolution. It was more a nationwide psychotic break than a revolt. a great nation at its own throath, swept by a spirit of not only regicide, but suicide. For ten years they simply enjoyed killing ech other.

Robespierre, the “messianic schoolmaster,” saw it as an opportunity for the moral instruction of the nation. Everything would be politicized, no part of the citizen’s life left untouched. As man was governed by an “empire of images,” in the words of a Jacobin intellectual, the new régime would provide new images to shape new thoughts. There would be pageants, and new names for things. They would change time itself! The first year of the new Republic was no longer 1792, it was Year One. To detach farmers from their superstitions, their Gregorian calendar and its saints’ days, they would rename the months. The first month would be in the fall, named for the harvest. There would be no more weeks, just three 10-day periods each month.

So here is our parallel, our hiccup. I thought of all this this week because I’ve been thinking about the language and behavioral directives that have been coming at us from the social and sexual justice warriors who are renaming things and attempting to control the language in America.

There is the latest speech guide from the academy, the Inclusive Communications Task Force at Colorado State University. Don’t call people “American,” it directs: “This erases other cultures.” Don’t say a person is mad or a lunatic, call him “surprising/wild” or “sad.” “Eskimo,” “freshman” and “illegal alien” are out. “You guys” should be replaced by “all/folks.” Don’t say “male” or “female”; say “man,” “woman” or “gender non-binary.”

In one way it’s the nonsense we’ve all grown used to, but it should be said that there’s an aspect of self-infatuation, of arrogance, in telling people they must reorder the common language to suit your ideological preferences. There is something mad in thinking you should control the names of things. Or perhaps I mean surprising/wild.” Peggy Noonan: What Were Robespierre’s Pronouns?