In last week’s Takimag, our disturbed doctor points out different examples of what he calls “juridico-political idiocies” in England and France.

The basis of our law is that a man is not to be punished unless he has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and not for what he might do in the future. The system of parole upends this principle completely and is unjust in two directions.

In the March issue of New Criterion, our book critic doctor reviews a tome about murders in London during the Second World War, especially during the dark days of the Blitz.

Please note that this essay is behind a paywall at this time.

When I was growing up in the wake of the war—no need to say which war—the bomb sites in London and the air-raid shelters in the parks in which we played made it perfectly plain to me that the mythology of a nation united in stoicism was as strong in Britain as that of a nation united in resistance was in France.

In the March edition of New English Review, Theodore Dalrymple recounts his bad luck with trains in the Milton Keynes area of England, the death of an acquaintance in a train derailment, and the still extant pluckiness of the average Brit.

I have twice been on the London underground when someone jumped in front of the train, once when I was travelling on it, and once when I was waiting for it. In these circumstances, humanity divides into two. One half is prurient and tries to get a closer view of what happened, forgetting for a time whatever was the reason for their journey. The other half starts immediately to grumble and complain.

In the February issue of The Critic, our doubtful doctor calls into question some of Britain’s Labour government’s recent problematic decisions.

The word mandate in this context has the connotation of popularity and enthusiasm, when the government had 34 per cent of the votes cast, and 20 per cent of the votes of the electorate as a whole. This is a mandate only in a technical or legalistic sense.

In the February issue of the distinguished New Criterion, our bookish doctor reviews a French radiologist’s book, who happens to be a self-confessed admirer of Dalrymple’s work.

Please note that this essay is behind a paywall at this time.

Although I have been writing for publication for more than forty years, it always pleases (and surprises) me when someone writes to tell me that he or she has read something that I have written. It is reassuring to know that I have not been merely sending messages in a bottle over the ocean from a remote island, never to arrive at any destination.

In his Takimag column, Dr. Dalrymple tells his faithful readers about some of his health issues, one particularly unpleasant incident involving the swallowing of a pill, and handling life’s everyday inconveniences.

Genuine skepticism is not a normal state of mind, whereas dogmatism is, and if people cannot agree over so simple a matter as what is the cause of an unpleasant bodily sensation, and what to do about it, it is scarcely any wonder that the realm of politics is one of ceaseless conflict.

Over at The Epoch Times, our favorite doctor welcomes the beginning of the end of the odious DEI system thanks, in no small part, to President Trump.

The dismantling and prohibition of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) departments in federal institutions is a welcome step in the reduction of the bureaucratic dictatorship under which people in most countries, including the USA, now live.

In the February edition of New English Review, our philosophical doctor considers the concept of necessity, analyzes Engels’ perspective, and even quotes from the Bard’s King Lear on the topic.

It is, perhaps, salutary to ask yourself whether what you buy, what you consume, and what you do are really necessary. But the answer is rather complicated and can seldom be given simply in the affirmative or in the negative. Necessary for whom or for what? What, in fact, is necessity?

In this week’s Takimag, our dubious doctor sets his sights on some more bizarre, intellectually worthless, and absurd nonsense emanating from the darkest recesses of Western academia.

One of the characteristics of the present age, no doubt a consequence of the expansion of tertiary education beyond the capacity of people to benefit from it, is the prevalence of intellection without intellect.

…

This is surely a case of fascists calling fascists fascist.