1This article by a Universe columnist who also writes for “Britain's only socialist daily”, The Morning Star, seems a case in point (17/7/06). It is hard to read it without seeing an apparent general encouragement of criminal behaviour. First, the writer describes prison riots as “inevitable” – riots that would presumably involve vandalism and perhaps assault or worse. Newspaper articles expressing concern about recidivism, on the other hand, he describes, not as “inevitable”, but as “hysterical”. Crime seems further encouraged by the writer's assertion that prison does not work and, apparently, that narcotics (since he does not define the term “drugs”) should be legalised. These calls in turn seem to encourage blackmail, because prisons and anti-narcotics laws are shown “not to work” by the threat of repeat offences. (It is strange that the deterrent theory seems to work when used against the authorities but not when used by them.) It would help clarify matters greatly if the writer could explain what would work, in terms of defining the problem that is in need of a solution – not by fudging the issue with miscarriages of justice or issues relating to the mentally ill, but by tackling the actual problem that the newspapers are concerned about, i.e. the committing of crime by responsible adults. The writer should also provide readers with some criteria and illustrations of what would constitute a solution to this problem. This would help distinguish his concerns about violations of “human rights” from mere apathy towards crime. As a contributor to a Catholic newspaper it would also be interesting to learn how the writer believes that Hell does work, without resorting to the Protestant rule of private judgment in providing his answer. (See also this Telegraph article on attempts by the European Union bureaucracy to enforce on the Government of Poland the outright abolition of the concept of a moral penalty for crime (31/8/06). It is suggested here that the political abolition of objective moral responsibility assists the purpose of Liberal domination by increasing the sense of fear and distrust within society, thereby undermining the ability of the public to organise effective resistance to the Liberal regime at any level, local or national.)

From the apparent promotion of criminality by presenting the State as the villain, it is a small step to the apparent promotion of terrorism by casting those who would defend themselves against it in the role of aggressor (12/8/06). This latter statement comes not from Socialists but from British-based Mohammedans. For those who are bewildered by the apparent sympathy shown by some Liberals towards jihadists, in spite of seeming contradictions such as Mohammedan denunciations of sodomy, the picture can be clarified by the hypothesis maintained on this Web site that the principal goal of Liberalism is the destruction of everything that bears the hallmark of Divine order. Jihadists, who act in the name of a false prophet, have shown themselves to be a particularly effective ally in this goal, and are therefore not to be dismissed lightly. Curiously enough, however, even the United States Defense Secretary apparently cannot see that, just as one is capable of condemning Marxism without at the same time condemning all Russians or Koreans, so the belief system of Mohammedanism should equally be open to judgment and, if necessary, condemnation without implicitly condemning all Arabs, Turks, etc..