Should Page 3 Pictures be Banned? by Sean Gabb


This House Believes that Page 3 should be Banned
By Sean Gabb
Speech to the University of London Union
30th September 2013

Founded in 1828, the University of London Union describes itself as “UCL’s oldest and arguably most prestigious society.” The University motto, prominently displayed by the Union is the hexameter verse Cuncti adsint meritaeque expectent praemia palmae – which roughly translates as “Let all come who by merit deserve the foremost prize.” Last night, Monday the 30th September 2013, I spoke at one of its debates against the motion “This House Believes that Page 3 should be Banned.” This refers to the calls for The Sun newspaper to be stopped from publishing photographs of half-naked women on its inside front page.

This debate was most notable for the attendance of a television celebrity called Luisa Zissman. This may explain why the room was full to overflowing: I doubt so many people turned out to see me or any of the other speakers. And she was worth watching. Apart from her looks, she seems to make a career from the pretence of being stupid, when she is really very clever. She made a couple of good speeches without a script in which she poured scorn on the assembled lefties – “I never went to university, but expect to make a great deal more money than you ever will,” and so forth. Claims that she was collaborating in the “objectification” of women got a thorough roasting.

On the other side, arguing for the proposition, were a couple of dreary feminists. These read prepared texts and paid no attention to the Chairman’s frantic banging of his gavel when they went over their allotted time. Their speeches were fashionably opaque – though anyone able to understand the meanings placed on words like “challenge” and “education” and “change” could see well enough they were arguing for a pc police state with themselves in charge.

My opening speech was the usual argument, that freedom of speech is the right to publish anything that is not a breach of some private right, or an act of obvious treason. I elaborated: “Imagine someone stands up and says that the holocaust never happened, but should have; or that Christ or Mohammed were epileptic paedophiles – would this be free speech within my definition? Of course it would be!” (Cries of incredulity and outrage.) At this point, or soon after, some fool intervened with a point of information. Would I allow violent pornography to be published? he asked. “Assuming it is by and for consenting adults,” I answered, “yes.” (More groans.)

This brought me to the main point: “Let it be granted that nudey pictures in The Sun caused men to view women less respectfully than they otherwise might. You take that as grounds for censorship? Well, some Christians have used verses from The Bible as justification for acts of outstanding wickedness. So do some Israelis. And what of those Moslems who shot up that shopping centre in Kenya? No doubt they found their inspiration somewhere in The Koran.” (Shouted protests from a bearded man on my left: he may have been one of the Committee members.) “You may argue that these violent uses of scripture are perverse misunderstandings. But you have no monopoly of interpretation. So, let it be granted that we must ban nudey pictures from The Sun – why not also ban The Bible and The Koran? And what about The Communist Manifesto?”

I went on in this manner for seven minutes. I could write down more of what I said, but you probably get the drift. There were about half a dozen speeches from the audience. But I see no reason to summarise these. With the exception of one young woman, who spoke, with contempt plain on her face, about biological imperatives, these were uniformly risible. Only one man spoke. Like the one who raised that point of information, he was another of the girlie men you get in modern universities. He suggested that men should be educated into masturbating over pictures of old and ugly women, rather than women who look like Miss Zissman. Someone who described him or herself as transgendered got up for a long whine about “heterosexist dualities.” This set off a buzz of solemn apologising from everyone who had so far spoken. I wish someone had been filming this. I am sure some of you think I am making it up.

My closing speech went roughly as follows:

“What I shall most remember of tonight’s debate is the decidedly totalitarian state of mind in the audience. Do forgive me for what may be taken as a personal and unflattering reflection. But you may clothe your thoughts in soft and caring words about ‘changing the culture’ and ‘educating men about women.’ This does not hide the fact that many of you believe you have the right to interfere in the choices of consenting adults, and to make them think and live as you desire. You have no such right. No one has argued that the models who pose for The Sun are compelled to take their clothes off. Nor has it been shown that anyone is forced to buy The Sun. These things being so, you have no right to interfere.

“Let me put this to you. Every time you argue for something to be banned or regulated, you are asking for the empowerment of people you do not know, who are not accountable to you, who probably do not share your values, and who will, sooner or later, use that power in ways that you find shocking. Just because your people are currently in charge does not mean that they will always be in charge.

“In closing, I will remind you of a well-known statistic. Every night in this country, an average of 15.5 million people have sex with themselves. There is nothing you can do about this, and it is none of your business to try.”

I made this statistic up on the spur of the moment. No one asked any of the obvious questions about methodology. Needless to say, my side lost the vote. Half the men present voted for the motion. Most of the rest abstained.

When I was an undergraduate thirty years ago, one of the mature graduate students told me that the quality of debate was far below the standard of his own undergraduate days. By comparison with what I saw last night – and University College London is supposed to be one of the best universities in the world – the foaming lefties I knew at York were the equals of Burke and Fox and the Elder Pitt. I think he was wrong to hang so many of the lecturers. But I do think the Ayatollah Khomeini was on to something when he shut down all the universities in Iran for three years.

About these ads

46 responses to “Should Page 3 Pictures be Banned? by Sean Gabb

  1. A sterling performance no doubt, Sean. However, I am strongly of the opinion that we must stop the enemy framing the debate, or the hegemonic discourse, or what have you. We must set our own terms of debate and, most importantly, make opponents look not so much evil as ridiculous. This is a far more powerful tactic I believe. Many people are drawn to evil- even if they pretend to themselves that it is not evil. Evil is powerful, evil is decisive, evil Gets Things Done. Evil is appealing. Warning such people that if power is given to others, shocking things will be done with it, is as likely to give them mild arousal than to put them off. But make them feel they are associating with something ridiculous- ridiculous is weak, foolish, indecisive, nobody wants to be ridiculous- and we may get somewhere.

    This is part of my reason for being so determined to link the modern left to its Victorian forebears. Partly because it is indubitably true that these people are merely modern counterparts of the fusty moralists of that era, but partly because they have made an ideological career out of distancing themselves from it.

    So for me, in any such debate, rather than get trapped arguing in the mdoern po-ma and po-mo terminology about “objectification” and so on, I think one must just keep hammering home that the modern anti-sex movement is the same one as that of the past, and that the urge to ban Page 3 has entirely the same ridiculous motivations, even if dressed in marxist garb. They are merely Victorian ladies, fluttering their handkerchiefs and gasping for smelling salts. Mary Whitehouse was the last of the First Wave Feminists, and the Second Wave are the inheritors of her absurd, blue rinsed, shocked-at-what-was-on-telly-yesterday-evening ideals, ideas thoroughly rooted in the extremist forms of Christianity that these young leftist radical believe they are oppositional to. And it was the Feminist first wave that, through the social purity movement (suffragettes wore white as SP “team colours”) inaugurated nearly a century of hysterical homosexual persecution.

    And so on.

    These people are peddling an extreme reactionary creed dressed in marxist motley, and that needs stripping bare. Yes, it is a free speech issue; and so was the first wave of “decency” legislation in the nineetenth century. But they are not interested in freedom of speech, or rights. Make them look like old fashioned fools. That will hurt them far more, IMHO.

    • “This is part of my reason for being so determined to link the modern left to its Victorian forebears.”

      Don’t know if you’ve already seen these similar points by feminist and sexual freedom activist, Edie Lamorchief, when she wrote to the chief executive of the Co-op regarding the ‘modesty bags’ for lads’ mags:

      “As a woman I find the current trend towards more puritan values very disturbing. Lobby groups such as UK Feminista and Object represent the more extreme and fanatical end of this trend and I am very disappointed that the Co-op has buckled under pressure from them. With the proposed censoring of the Internet last week and the general moral panic at the moment about ‘sexualisation’ this is another retrograde step. It is almost like we are experiencing a sexual counter-revolution.

      I am worried about this overall message that demonises the female body and buys into centuries old patriarchal tradition that female flesh is sinful and corrupting. It is this mentality that spurred the Witch Trials of the 16th Century and in more recent times has cast a veil of silence over sexual abuse. It leads to an environment where people are made to feel shame about a perfectly natural urge leading to anger and frustration rather than self-awareness and understanding.”

      Full letter:

      http://moronwatch.net/author/edie

  2. Nick diPerna

    What a sorry state academia is in? It would appear that the New Universal Faith of feminism, multiculturalism, LGBT ‘rights’ and environmentalism etc., is indeed a thinly-disguised totalitarian movement or cult.

    I am grateful Mr Gabb, that people like you still have the patience and strength of character to subject yourselves to these ‘freak shows’.

    But nevertheless, should there be a Page 3 ban, I’m sure all the former models will find gainful employment by the state as compensation. As for us men, we’ll just have to make do with looking at our own tits.

  3. Desmond Obongo

    I don’t understand how libertarians can be in favour of sexual licentiousness. Those societies which most approximate what libertarians want, such as the antebellum USA or Britain prior to 1914, were extremely and fiercely protestant societies, with extremely strong civil societies and also blasphemy and obscenity laws. Is there no connection?

    • Britain’s obscenity laws were a recent late Victorian invention imposed by Progressivist radicals. Britain was not a “fiercely Protestant society” until those radicals made it one. Prior to their ascent to power, we were a liberal society. You can have one or the other, and have to choose.

      • “The liberty of the subject is very jealously guarded in England, and so tenacious are the people of their rights and privileges that the legislature has not dared to infringe them, even for what by many would be considered a just and meritorious purpose. Neither are the magistracy or the police allowed to enter improper or disorderly houses, unless to suppress disturbances that would require their presence in the most respectable mansion in the land, if the aforesaid disturbances were committed within their precincts. Until very lately the police had not the power of arresting those traders who earned an infamous livelihood by selling immoral books and obscene prints.”

        -London Labour and the London Poor, Vice Supplement, 1862. This preface was written by an American, whose name I don’t have time to look up by Googling. But it’s indicative of how late in history supposedly “traditional” values were put in place.

      • The Obscene Publications Act 1857 was the first effective law against porn in England. It was introduced and carried through the Lords by Lord Campbell, the Lord Chief Justice and a Liberal politician. I am minded to test your hypothesis by getting hold of this: H. Montgomery Hyde (1964) /A History of Pornography/. London, Heinemann. HMH is a sound authority on all these matters.

  4. Would suggest that Desmond read Thaddeus Russell some time. Sean-I didn’t know who Luisa Zissman was but thanks for indirectly introducing me to a gorgeous girl!

  5. “fiercely protestant societies,”

    Compared to what era? Just because people were inconsistent in their practice of liberty doesn’t mean there was a connection. The principle remains.

  6. Desmond Obongo

    Thank you for the information about obscenity laws. I wasn’t actually aware that they were relatively late in existence: I will certainly read more about it. Who is Thaddeus Russell?

    I don’t see much of an answer to the broader point. Surely a libertarian society requires a self-disciplined citizenry? Given the collapse of religious faith in this country and the resulting crime, hedonism and drug use, how do you expect a libertarian society to occur? I don’t say this to provoke: I am genuinely curious.

    • A fairly short answer might be this motto wot I’ve just invented; “The wages of self-discipline are hedonism”[1]. That is, in a liberal/libertarian society, you produce in order to support yourself and dependents, then you’re free to party.

      We might consider a puritan society to be one that works but does not play; a debauched society to be one that plays but does not work. My own personal vision is a society which comfortably balances the two. I think that is entirely achievable and was indeed much what made England great before the resurgent puritans tried to make us into a work/no play society which ultimately destabilised the social fabric and landed us where we are today, a society that is not very good at either work or play. People need to work, but they need the beer and skittles too.

      [1] My grammar on this is unclear. Should it be “is hedonism”? Neither looks right to me.

      • Ian, the Wages of Sin are Death. (But the hours are fucking good.)

        • I just can’t help thinking the plurals are all messed up. Either it ought to be the wage of sin is death, or the wages of sin is death (if wages are a singular like trousers). Oh wait, the trousers of sin are death, also.

          Sometimes I hate English. Anyone know what it would be in Ancient Greek?

          • The Greek is unhelpful – τὰ γὰρ ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας θάνατος (Romans, 6:23) – as subject and predicate in Greek don’t always require a copulative verb. However, the verb in an English sentence should always agree in number with the subject. Therefore, The wages of sin (plural subject) are death (singular predicate). But who am I to fuss about ancient usage?

    • Yes, it would be much easier for Libertarianism to be the order of the day if “most people were innately good and orderly”. But as we have always and always and always said – and we even printed a badge in the early 80s when everybody wore badges that said things on them…

      “Liberty is the _Mother_ , and NOT the _daughter_ of order.”

      • AND “trousers” “are”, but “a trouser” “is”.

        AND, do you know of the rather exciting English transitive verb, the infinitive of which is “To Trouser” (something)?

        My 10-y-old son now uses it often: “Daddy, can I please trouser this?”

  7. AND, if you are GramscoFabiaNazis, like what we have here these days, and IF you set out to destroy a more-or-less-capitalist, minimal-statist civilisation, then the template you use is the Fabian one of 1884. And you then get, deliberately and on purpose, “masses” of people that behave like the ones we have all around us now.

    It’s all deliberately done, and the GramscoFabiaNazis even wrote about how it would be. And so, it is, and it’s turning out as they say.

    They wanted it to happen. they are fucking bastards, and if I can ruin them, then I will.

    • Beatrice Webb was a frigid anorexic vegetarian. This is why they’re always trying to stop us fucking and eating.

      • That’s a good point, I had forgotten about her problems. But didn’t all the other Fabians love to fuck each other’s wives and daughters, and often their own daughters too? I thought that was part of the initiation rituals, or you couldn’t join the Righteous who would afterwards “control” the masses and “lead them towards the good?

  8. marklibertarian

    Desmond raises very important points. In a libertarian system your actions will have their natural economic consequences as was the case in the past before there was a welfare state. There will be natural economic restrictions on human activities. You won’t need a priest or a politician to tell you how to live. I would suggest that a libertarian society would be a largely socially conservative society because when you remove the welfare state people will have to fall back on family, church, community, etc, as used to be the case. Living a wild or “libertine” lifestyle will not be an option for most people, unless you have money, and the old way of doing things will come back.

    Let’s take an example of a socially conservative view – that people should become married in order to have children and that getting pregnant outside of wedlock is a shameful thing and that sex outside marriage is wrong. Why did people used to hold these views? Ultimately it was not because they believed that God commanded it or because a priest told them, but for economic reasons. Before the welfare state if you got pregnant and the father had vanished then you would probably end up impoverished. It all comes back to economics in the end. But today if a teenager has a baby she will be given a house and an income by the state (paid for by me) and will not need to work. There is no need for any social shame, no need for a family or charity.

    So, if you believe in marriage, you will probably want to abolish the welfare state which has done more to undermine it than anything else – this is a libertarian aim. If you want to undermine family and tradition and church and such things then you will probably want to expand the State into these areas – a cultural Marxist aim.

    Or take drugs. Libertarians want to decriminalise them but that does not mean that we think it is a good idea for people to take drugs. Getting hooked on crack cocaine or methamphetamine is very stupid and you will suffer; you will probably die young. But there will be no tax-funded rehabilitation centres, and in a fully private system you will be unlikely to get medical insurance. So you better have the cash to pay for your hospitalisation or maybe you can find a charity or church to help you. But I will not be paying for you. Drug abuse will lead to real suffering for you – a “natural” outcome.

    Or if your idea of weekend fun takes place in a toilet cubicle at the back of the nightclub then go ahead. You should be free to indulge in whatever sexual activity pleases you, no matter how depraved. But you better have the money to pay for the Harley Street consultation, because the State will not be taking £500 from me to pay for your STD treatments.

    Etc.

    So I would suggest that there is much to like in libertarianism if you are a social conservative. Indeed the “socially conservative” groups will prosper in a libertarian society. When we remove the State it will become apparent which “ways of living” are superior and which will lead to impoverishment or a shortened life.

    • “when you remove the welfare state people will have to fall back on family,”

      It’s as if the ‘daddy state’ seeks to undermine the sovereignty of all the institutions it is in direct competition with, namely the nuclear family, community, church, charities, friendly societies and private associations. Along with welfare, this creates more state dependency which is the ultimate goal of any bureaucracy or system of control.

    • “In a libertarian system your actions will have their natural economic consequences…”

      Because the welfare state is the only one that can offer health/employment insurance?

      What are you on about? Anyone with any sense would take insurance out to cover their potential misfortune(s) to the best of their ability to maintain at least a minimal standard of living. And anyone who is really keen on a libertine lifestyle without the funds can flout property laws to the best of their ability to fund it until they are caught. The rest of us just won’t fund it as the welfare state does now.

      Marriage? Marriage all but disappears under a libertarian system. It becomes a (set of) contractual agreement(s) between two, or more, consenting adults. Anyone wanting the spiritual nonsense is welcome but that has no legal standing and is absolutely none of the business of the state except insofar as those contracts are concerned.

      “But you better have the money to pay for the Harley Street consultation, because the State will not be taking £500 from me to pay for your STD treatments.”

      Indeed, but their insurance will pay for it. And each time they need to use it the charge will probably rise due to the risky behaviour. Seems fine to me.

      This is the pro-conservative nonsense that I hate about many libertarians, they somehow think that all of the benefits of modern life will disappear under a libertarian system and this will lead to a return to classical conservative values, as if that’s a good thing. People will do what they want, consequences for some will be harsh but the vast majority, who either never or only occasionally require the social safety net, will be much as they are now. Some who are comfortable in the welfare state will have to get busy but the lack of stupid regulations will enable them to start their own small business using whatever skills they have. Unfortunately there will be some who have no way to manage and for those we can have genuine charity – if we decide that’s what we wish to do with our personal resources.

      • marklibertarian

        I suppose my view could be better expressed by saying that there will be a market-based restriction on activities. Of course the sensible people will insure themselves, but some people will be too stupid or lazy or immoral to make those provisions.

        And even in a free and efficient market there will be some risks that no one will be willing to insure. I doubt that crack addicts will be able to obtain any kind of health insurance so they will either have to have the money for pay-as-you-go or rely on charity. But the problem with charity is that I am not obliged to help you, and I may attach conditions to any assistance. Junkies may have to pretend to have found God and put up with having exorcisms performed on them . . .

        The cost of medical treatment should fall once the special privileges for the professions are stripped away though.

  9. Desmond Obongo

    I think there is definitely a good deal of overlap, but on other things I am not so sure. It is almost impossible for parents to stop their children from being exposed to swearing, sex and other adult things. Of course one can put filters on the computer &c. but unless you live a sheltered life it is almost impossible to avoid this. I remember as a primary school child discussing various filthy things with my peers which now fill me with some measure of shock, especially as I don’t think this would have been the case in previous generations. How can parents fight large corporations in a libertarian society?

    Furthermore, what do libertarians think about women working? Ultimately this is an unholy alliance between feminists and business to destroy the married family. But how would this work in a libertarian society?

  10. marklibertarian

    “what do libertarians think about women working”

    The question is not what libertarians think about women working, but rather what is the likely outcome within society and the economy when the State is removed.

    In my libertarian world all of these things are absent:

    – Employment legislation, including “anti-discrimination” laws, equal pay laws, and state-enforced maternity pay. These things would all be a matter of free private contract, to be negotiated between employer and employee, and no business of the State.
    – Tax subsidised or tax-funded nurseries and schools.
    – Tax funding of any quango, campaigning group or charity – which would include feminist organisations, abortion services, equality commissions and the like.
    – Legal aid.
    – Welfare, including council houses, housing benefit, child benefit.
    – The BBC.

    So, what would such a society look like? Probably closer to the kind of thing that you like than the kind of thing that the progressives and cultural Marxists like.

    • James Deckard says: “I once owned a pristine copy of the infamous Schoolboy/Rupert Bear edition of Oz magazine handed down by a favourite uncle. It was turfed out by a girlfriend when she was clearing up (clearing out) once. I searched for it for ages and interrogated her on and off for a week before she finally admitted to disposing of ‘that dirty old porno’. She knew nothing of the famous obscenity trial and seemed less than interested in its significance.

      “Oz Magazine was a trendy hipster student magazine of its time. However, the student Lefties of today would be in full voice demanding its prosecution/banning…”

  11. Concerned Briton

    Sean Gabb quote:

    “What I shall most remember of tonight’s debate is the decidedly totalitarian state of mind in the audience. Do forgive me for what may be taken as a personal and unflattering reflection. But you may clothe your thoughts in soft and caring words about ‘changing the culture’ and ‘educating men about women.’ This does not hide the fact that many of you believe you have the right to interfere in the choices of consenting adults, and to make them think and live as you desire. You have no such right. No one has argued that the models who pose for The Sun are compelled to take their clothes off. Nor has it been shown that anyone is forced to buy The Sun. These things being so, you have no right to interfere.”

    That is a good block of text there Sean.

    The article was both funny and tragic to read. Funny in that I can imagine the exact scenario and “debate” you were present in, and tragic that I also imagine what it is like in “modern” “academia” institutes and what passes as being a “debate”.

    To have a ‘debate’, I think you need a populace or demographic that has the capacity to think for itself and be open to the suggestions of others.

    Otherwise, the “debate” is not a debate at all, it is just another platform for the usual suspects to “hammer” their foes and push through their social agendas – and for the brainless “students” to feel all warm and fuzzy about their unthinking compliance to “goodness”.

    I weep for the future of this country when so much of the population has been supplanted like pods from ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’. They are plugged into the “hive mind” and similarly shriek when exposed for being what they are.

    Good for you for slogging away with these dullards anyway. They need to be challenged, for if there was nobody to boo and hiss at, there would be even less balance on the scales.

  12. Personally, I think there should be more pictures of half-naked women on page 3. The Sun and the Daily Mail are my favorite British newspapers.

  13. I tend to agree: there aren’t enough page-3-type pictures of delightful young women without some of their clothes, and always seemimg blissfully excited and happy.
    Enlargement of this press sector would also be a one-stone-solution to a two-bird-problem, viz:
    Unemployment queues among young women would be shortened in proportion to the number of paid opportunities to model. Some would even hit the jackpot early and become the WAGs of foot-ballists, by spending quality time with them in “clubs”. Many more others would be able then to marry the very best plasterers, brickies and contract-joiners – which is I believe what the majority of them have done over the past 40 years: the footballer-catching-thing is modern – and thus get to reliably llive in big houses and have nice cars.

    The final, strategic benefit is it will totally enrage the PuritaNazis.

  14. “Those societies which most approximate what libertarians want, such as the antebellum USA [….] with extremely strong [….] obscenity laws….”
    Until a couple of years ago you could buy English newspapers in Florida (they’ve stopped printing them now). It always used to amuse me that the ‘Page 3′ girls in the US edition all wore bikini tops. I’ve always wondered how they did that (and no, it’s not airbrushed in)

    As for brainwashed students, about fifteen years ago I took a group of fashion & design students from Brighton University on a tour of Scottish woollen mills or garment factories (I am a coach operator). My wife came along for the ride, and in one of the places students were invited to ask questions. My wife was full of questions about how the garments were made – the only thing the students wanted to know was “Why do you have all women working here – don’t you have an equal opportunities policy?”
    (I might be wrong, but I think that was where they made ‘the trousers of sin’.)

    The Fabian Society; all I know about them is that they take their name from Fabius Maximus Cunctator – ‘Fabius the delayer’, named for his patience in long-term strategies. So they are really ‘The patient society’.
    What did they do in 1884?

  15. Thaddeus Russell -“A Renegade’s History of the United States.” Great book! Surelythe libertarian view on women working is that it’s entirely their business.

  16. Women have always worked. My Great Aunt (b. 1906) worked her entire working life at Imperial Tobacco in Liverpool and rose to middle management. She was known for terrifying subordinates, all five feet of fury of her. And, my mother (b. 1934) worked her whole life until retirement except for two short periods when my sister and I were born.

    The idea of women *not* working was again a Victorian era fetish, based on the “two spheres” ideology of the upper classes (who were nonetheless happy to employ female maids, cooks etc). Hence the introduction of legislation to stop women working in mines, etc. Woman was meant to be the domestic goddess; hence by the early 20th centuries newspapers were proudly trumpeting the decline in women working.

    Women as workers play a variety of roles in history from the fishwife to the market trader to the factory worker to the secretary to the bar wench. Nothing abnormal about it.

    • Women who have photogenic bodies and looks ought to be allowed to flaunt their stuff without interference or iron-fisted disapproval of the Neo-Puritans (and also Muslims). Keep them babes employed!

  17. “The idea of women *not* working was again a Victorian era fetish,…”
    And Hitler’s. The Fuhrer decided that a woman’s place was in the home, and thus, in contrast to the Americans with their pragmatic attitude, refused to send women into the factories, until he was desperate that is.
    Same thing with the Jews; Nazi ideology demanded the Jews be at best kicked out of the country. They obviously didn’t realise that by doing so they were depriving themselves of their brightest minds, once again to the benefit of the USA.
    It always amuses me to thank that the Enigma and Lorenz codes were cracked in some part at least by a bunch of misfits, homosexuals and Jews who would probably have been gassed had they been in Nazi Germany. Great strategy, Adolf.

    • The British state in 1940 inspanned women into the workforce faster than any other nation in history up to that time. Indeed, it had been rather slyly gearing up for “war production” as early as 1938. For example, the Board of directors of Hawker “ordered” on its own account the tooling and materials for 1,000 Hurricanes well before receiving an official Air Ministry order-number for the same batch of planes. So they will also have been “pre-ordering” the labour for same. That implies that Rolls-Royce must have been “in the loop” also, for the engines.

      Perhaps some “strong messages” were in fact being sent by “Munich” and the previous activities of the strutting, roman-saluting, moustachioed-leftist Fuhrer.

  18. Hugo-
    It was quite lucky really for us. The Nazi hatred of “Jewish Physics” made sure that it was the Allies that got the atom bomb, not the Nazis. Imagine if they’d had some to drop on London.

  19. Nick diPerna

    “He suggested that men should be educated into masturbating over pictures of old and ugly women, rather than women who look like Miss Zissman.”

    Why not apply the same rule to successful women, forcing them to date homeless or low-income men as a way of combating their hypergamous behaviour?

    • That’s brilliant, Nick. The War Secretariat has already set up a “Task Force For The Future” (for the Children) to execute this programme, which will of course be “voluntary”, since the relevant ladies will “see that compliance is in their own interest”.

  20. Perhaps unlike most people, I am rather old, having been born on 4th August 1914.

    I witnessed the arrival of “page three” in, oh, er, I’d say about 1971 when I was 57, and it seems I will live to witness its demise, rather as I did for the rise and fall of the Berlin Wall (1961-1989).

    I notice, reviewing the online archives that are still available, that breasts started off rather small and chiselled, sort of “A” cups or “B” if you got lucky on any given day. They then went through a “golden age” from around 1983-1989 while the Soviet Empire was in the process of cracking and crumbling (at which point The Wall fell) reaching their greatest glory (the breasts, that is) at that kind of time.

    And then they progressively shrank to today’s semi-meagre proportions, mirroring rather tragically the ongoing and strategically-driven eclipse of Western (classical-liberal) Cultural Hegemony.

    Can anybody comment on whether there may be any correlation here, between exhibited page-3-girls’ bust sizes (A-F etc, _not_ just the inch thingy) and the ascendancy or otherwise of the FabiaNazi/Communist tendency in civil society?

    • Concerned Briton

      Lol! Perhaps the link is that we have an enlargement of tits running the country in this day and age, leaving a ‘deficit’ to be featured on Page 3?

    • The first batch of models were born under Labour austerity, and thus suffered poor nutrition and reduced boobage. By the eighties, we were seeing models born after the Cripps era, in rising prosperity and thus better nourished boobage; Sam Fox is about the same age as me, born in the 1960s and the beneficiary of the relative luxury of the 1970s with “supermarkets” and other non-State controlled nourishment provision enterprises.

      I have not kept an eye on Page 3 for many years, but I presume that since the average bra in Britain is now 34DD, if their breasts are reducing again it is part of a feeble and futile effort to comform to puritanismist demands for a body shape indicative of living on nothing but handwoven nut loaf and negative-calorie salad, rather than the “empty calories” that produce abundant boobishness.

      So yes, there is not only correlation but causation.