Unsurprisingly, it turns out that the supposedly "right-wing" media in the UK has been infiltrated by malign and conspiratorial forces.
To wit, a vicious gang of far-left radical extremists™ who are attempting to destroy conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, theocratic and even any vaguely centre-leaning politics from the inside.
Rod Liddle murmurs:
Hey man, it was only meant to be a bit of a laugh. I've always had a soft spot for Old Labour.
I mean, all this time, I never intended to pander to Tories at all, let alone UKIP or BNP.
I mean, what I'm saying now is not that different from what us lefties were all saying a few decades back!
You know, when working men were working people, um, men, and socialists were socialists.
Richard Littlejohn laments:
This has really backfired.
All I ever wanted to do was to make some idiotic and risibly pathetic caricature of right-wing politics, in order to absolute and comprehensively discredit any political position to the right of Pol Pot.
But somehow, to my horror, and against all my best unreconstructed-Soviet intentions, people just lapped it up.
I mean, by now, I'm just trapped in some fantasy semantic Matrix I've built for myself, with no hope of getting out of it. Jean-Paul Sartre, anyone?
Yes, it's got to the point where I don't even know if there's a distinction between truth and reality.
I mean, is this war against ISIS actually happening at all? How would we know? Who decides?
Yes, it's all in Jacques Baudrillard, you know.
Katy Hopkins smirks:
Those silly comments about the migrant ships were not intended to be anti-immigrant in character, so much as to represent an impromptu spontaneous outbreak of radical hard-environmentalist, sub-Foremanesque "theatre of the deed."
Well, you would think people would be clever enough to know that it was actually the scandalous environmental impact of sea-borne gas guzzlers that winds me up, wouldn't you; and not the immigrants themselves!
Those poor sods who, scientifically speaking, were merely the helpless pawns of objective trends of historical destiny far beyond the capacity of any mere human individual to resist.
But maybe it's just possible that the foolish, uneducated rabble out there just don't understand their objective interest.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time in history, would it?
No, not the Russian Revolution and the Leninists, you silly boy. I was thinking someone a bit more authentically radical.
Kim Jong-Il, maybe.
That's enough nonsense for now.
Still, I will just say in passing that I have heard on the grapevine that Peter Hitchen's renowned and widely-acclaimed transformation from student Trot to establishment Daily Mail journalist is a vast oversimplification of the truth ;)
Yet, I thought I should ask a couple of scholars, because as is well enough known:
Not a single idea in this world can have any claim to the remotest plausibility or validity or value whatsoever, unless it has the seal of approval from an appropriate authority.
First of all, I lectured, um, spoke with Professor John Gray of the London School of Economics.
Now, how many times do I have to tell you people that the whole left/right political spectrum nonsense is outdated and not relevant to the current political climate?
I mean, what if I were to tell you that Polly Toynbee's writings on disability and abortion were those of a paid Vatican shill?
Or that David Aronovitch's Iraq war journalism was some epic pomo irony pastiches that were actually intended as a wrecking project to discredit Blair and ruin his vicious, unjustifiable imperialist escapades in the Midde Least?
Of course, I'm not saying I would indeed actually tell you such a thing.
But maybe we'll leave it there for now, and you can draw your own conclusions.
I mean, Andrew Marr says I am the closest thing to a "window-smashing French intellectual" the UK will ever have, so I don't think I should be too clear or explicit about this one.
Somewhat confuddled, I made a sinisterly unannounced approach to Professor Richard Dawkins in an achingly non-Parisian, Anglo-Saxon café he currently frequents.
He was not best pleased.
Oh, now dear God! You damned fool!
Now, don't you encroach upon my little hermitage! This space is sacred to me!
Yes, it is my own personal paradise of intellectual meditation and communion with the greats who have gone before, and whose footsteps we must inevitably follow in fear and trembling, indeed in sacred awe!
Why, you scared the blessed life out of me! What the hell were you thinking of, you cheeky devil?
I was rather dismissive at this:
Richard, your insinuation that my behaviour is creepy is your interpretation, not mine.
Think what your poor brothers in the Chicago school of economics have to put up with, when they get their houses burned down by cocaine-ridden, beer-bottle-flinging London Trots, merely for discussing the social sciences in a purely value-free and neutral manner™.
At the sound of these most congenial modernist mantras and spiritual shibboleths, Professor Dawkins was overcome by a Divine rhapsody, and re-immersed himself in his notebook. I took a brief glance over his shoulder.
Well, you heard it here first!
Apparently, his next monograph will be called:
How to Stop Whining, Backward Sophists and Bigoted, Reactionary Quibblers from Getting in the Way of Progress,
With their Idiotic, Indefensible and Dangerous Superstitions,
And How to Comprehensively and Uncompromisingly Defend the Honour of The Human Project and of the Unchallenged Supremacy of Reason,
By Any Means Necessary.
Hm. It looks like Professor Gray was right not only about UK journalism, but about the UK academic sphere again.
It seems they are both truly 'neither left nor right!'