The Sex Cartel: Puritanism and Prudery as Price-fixing Among Prostitutes

“There would seem to be, indeed, but small respect among women for virginity per se. They are against the woman who has got rid of hers outside marriage, not because they think she has lost anything intrinsically valuable, but because she has made a bad bargain… and hence one against the general advantage and well-being of the sex. In other words, it is a guild resentment that they feel, not a moral resentment.”

HL Mencken, In Defence of Women 1922

“Why is the woman of the streets who spends her sex earnings upon her lover scorned universally?… These women are selling below the market, or scabbing on the job.”

RB Tobias & Mary Marcy, Women as Sex Vendors 1918

In my previous post, I discussed the curious paradox whereby prostitutes and other promiscuous women are invariably condemned by moralists as sinful and immoral despite the fact that they provide pleasure to, in some cases, literally thousands of men. Therefore, according to the tenets of utilitarianism, they are literally giving ‘the greatest happiness to the greatest number’ as Bentham advocated and ought therefore to be lauded as the highest paradigm of moral virtue right up alongside Mother Theresa, who, although she dedicated her life to heeling, feeding and caring for the sick, poor and destitute, never went as far as actually sucking their cocks.

Why then are prostitutes invariably condemned and castigated as immoral?

Broadening the scope of our discussion, we might also ask why so many other sexual behaviours – from homosexuality and masturbation to pornography and sex with household appliances – have been similarly condemned as immoral despite the lack of a discernible victim.

In this post, I attempt to provide an explanation. The answer, I propose, is to be sought, not so much in arcane theorizing of moral philosophers, nor in the endless hypocritical moralizing of moralists and other assorted ‘professional damned fools’ but rather in the dismal science of economics.

Thus, far from being rooted in morality or ethics, the phenomenon is rooted, like so much else in life, in base economic self-interest – or, more particularly, the base economic self-interest of women.

___________

The entire process of conventional courtship is predicated on prostitution – from the social expectation that the man pay for dinner on the first date, to the legal obligation that he continue to support his ex-wife, through alimony and maintenance, for anything up to ten or twenty years after he has belatedly rid himself of her. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a prostitute as ‘a person who engages in sexual intercourse for payment’. That’s not the definition of a prostitute. That’s the definition of a woman! The distinguishing feature of prostitutes isn’t that they have sex for money – it’s that they provide such excellent value for money.

To understand this phenomenon, one must first register a second curious paradox – namely, that the self-same women who liberally and routinely denounce other women as ‘whores’ and ‘sluts’ on account of the latter’s perceived promiscuity themselves qualify as ‘prostitutes’ by the ordinary dictionary definition of this word.

In The Manipulated Man, her masterpiece of unmitigated misogyny (which I have reviewed here), prominent anti-feminist polemicist Esther Vilar puts it like this:

By the age of twelve at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes. Or, to put it another way they have planned a future for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make use of their vagina at certain given intervals.”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a prostitute as ‘a person who engages in sexual intercourse for payment’.

That’s not the definition of a prostitute. That’s the definition of a woman!

The distinguishing feature of prostitutes isn’t that they have sex for money – it’s that they provide such excellent value for money.

After all, who can seriously doubt that thirty quid for a bargain basement blowjob in an alleyway or Soho flat provides better value than conventional courtship? Marriage is simply a bad bargain.

If you want sex, pay a hooker. If you want companionship, buy a dog. Marriage is not so much ‘disguised prostitution’ as flagrant extortion. Frankly, in the long-run, one is likely to get better value for money in a Soho clip-joint.

___________

Yet, whereas marriage is a raw deal for men, it is, for precisely the same reason, a very good deal for women. The more that men are obliged to pay out in exorbitant divorce settlements and maintenance demands, the more women receive in these same divorce packages. In short, courtship is a zero-sum game – and women are always the winners.

It is therefore no surprise that, as the feminists incessantly remind us, men earn more money than women. After all, why would any woman take the trouble to earn money when she has the far easier option of stealing it in the divorce courts instead? Moreover, there is no fear of punishment. Far from the courts punishing the wrongdoers, the family courts are actually accessories and enablers, who actively aid and abet the theft.

Marrying money is both quicker and easier than earning it for yourself. Thus, just as slaveholders had a vested interest in defending the institution of slavery, women in general, and wives in particular, have a vested interest in defending the institution of marriage.

However, in doing so, they are faced with a difficulty, namely that no rational man would ever voluntarily choose to get married any more than he would choose to voluntarily enslave himself. It is, as we have seen, simply a bad bargain. Some combination of prostitutes, promiscuity, pornography and perversion is always preferable.

Since women have a vesting interest in defending and promoting the institution of marriage, women also therefore have a vested interest in discouraging these alternative outlets for male sexual desire that threaten the institution of marriage by offering, on the whole, a better deal for men. This then is where sexual morality comes in.

___________

“Just as any monopoly tends to oppose the appearance of low-priced substitutes that could undermine its market control, women will oppose various alternative outlets for male sexual gratification”

The key factor uniting pornography, promiscuity, prostitution, perversion, masturbation, homosexuality, sex with corpses, with animals, with inflatable dolls, with household appliances and all other such fun and healthy activities that are universally condemned by moralists, feminists, politicians, assorted do-gooders and other professional damned fools despite the lack of any discernible victim is that each represents a threat to the monopoly over the provision of men’s sexual pleasure jealously guarded by ‘respectable’ women.

These respectable women, to maintain their monopoly, therefore seek to stigmatize, or even, where possible, criminalize these normal, healthy and natural alternative outlets for male sexual gratification.

Take, for example, pornography. Not only are the performers, producers and consumers of pornography widely stigmatized (as ‘whores’ and ‘perverts’ respectively), but also, in virtually all times and places, pornography is heavily regulated and restricted, if not wholly illegal and an unholy alliance of religious fundamentalists and radical feminists endlessly campaign for still further restrictions.

Thus, in Britain so-called ‘hardcore’ pornography (i.e. featuring real sex between actors) was only legalized in 2000, when the pressures of European integration and the internet had made this change unavoidable. In recent retrograde measures, governments have even tightened restrictions on the porn, even criminalizing mere possession of certain varieties of so-called extreme pornography.

Why is this? Simply because pornography represents a threat to women’s marriage prospects by offering men an alternative outlet for sexual gratification that provides better value for money than marriage.

Baumeister and Twenge explain the basic economic logic in their article ‘Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality’ published in the journal Review of General Psychology in 2002:

Just as any monopoly tends to oppose the appearance of low-priced substitutes that could undermine its market control, women will oppose various alternative outlets for male sexual gratification[1]

This is because “pornography and other forms of sexual entertainment… offer men sexual stimulation” and, in doing so, “could undermine women’s negotiating position” in their relations with men.[2]

In short, women oppose pornography because they recognise that porn offers manifestly better value for money than does marriage and conventional courtship.

After all, a magazine full of beautiful women expertly sucking and fucking and who remain, on the pages of the magazine, young and beautiful forever is surely better value for money than just a single real-life wife or girlfriend, who grows older and uglier with each passing year and is legally obligated to fuck you only during the divorce proceedings.

In short, a picture of a naked woman in a magazine is usually better value than the real thing. As WC Fields observed, women are like elephants, nice to look at – but I wouldn’t want to own one’.

___________

“A rational economic strategy that many monopolies or cartels have pursued is to try to increase the price of their assets by artificially restricting the supply. With sex, this would entail having the women put pressure on each other to exercise sexual restraint and hold out for a high price (such as a commitment to marriage) before engaging in sex.”

But if, as we have seen, all women are in some sense prostitutes, then why are prostitutes themselves subject to stigma and moral opprobrium? A pornographic magazine, dvd or inflatable doll can indeed be viewed (per Baumeister and Twenge above) as a ‘low priced substitute’ for a real woman. However, the same cannot be said of prostitutes themselves, since most of the latter (rent-boys and transsexuals apart) are themselves women.

Key to understanding the stigma and moral opprobrium attaching to prostitutes and other promiscuous women is the concept of a price-fixing cartel.

By offering sex to men for a cheaper price than that demanded by respectable women, prostitutes and other promiscuous women threaten to undercut the prices other women are able to demand.

In short, if the town whore gives blow-jobs for twenty quid while Miss Prim and Proper in the house next door demands an engagement ring, a wedding ring, a marriage certificate and the promise of a cushy divorce settlement a few years’ hence, then obviously anybody with half a brain knows where to go when they want a blowjob and Miss Prim and Proper is likely to be left curiously bereft of suitors.

The basic economic logic is explained thus by Baumeister and Vohs in their paper ‘Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions’, published in 2004 in Personality and Social Psychology Review:

A rational economic strategy that many monopolies or cartels have pursued is to try to increase the price of their assets by artificially restricting the supply. With sex, this would entail having the women put pressure on each other to exercise sexual restraint and hold out for a high price (such as a commitment to marriage) before engaging in sex.”[3]

However, as every first-year economics student knows, a price-fixing cartel is inherently unstable. There is always the ever-present threat that some party to the cartel (or an outsider to the agreement) will renege on the agreement by undercutting her competitors and reaping the resultant windfall as customers flock to receive the lower-priced goods or service. This can only be prevented by the existence of coercive apparatus designed to deter defection.

This is where sexual morality comes in.

In short, women have therefore sought to discourage other women from undercutting them through a quasi-moral censure, and sometimes criminalization, of those women generous enough, enterprising enough and brave enough to risk such censure by offering sexual services at a more reasonable price.

On this view, sexual morality essentially functions, in economic terms, as a form of collusion or price-fixing. As Baumseister and Vohs explain in their article on ‘Sexual Economics’ published in Personality and Social Psychology Review in 2004:

“The so-called “cheap” woman (the common use of this economic term does not strike us as accidental), who dispenses sexual favors more freely than the going rate, undermines the bargaining position of all other women in the community, and they become faced with the dilemma of either lowering their own expectations of what men will give them in exchange for sex or running the risk that their male suitors will abandon them in favor of other women who offer a better deal.”[4]

This is what I refer to as: ‘The Sex Cartel’ or ‘Price-Fixing among Prostitutes’.

___________

On this view, women’s prejudice against prostitutes is analogous to the animosity felt by trade unionists towards strikebreakers during industrial actions.

After all, on the face of it, one would not expect a strikebreaker or scab to be morally condemned. After all, a so-called ‘scab’ or strikebreaker is simply a person willing to perform the same level of work for less remuneration or in worse working conditions than other workers who are currently striking for better pay or conditions. This willingness to do the same work while receiving less in return would, in any other circumstances, be considered a mark of generosity and hence a source of praise rather than condemnation.

Yet, in working-class communities, the strikebreaker is universally scorned and despised. Indeed, his violent victimization, and even murder, is not only commonplace, but even perversely celebrated in at least one well-known English folk song that remains widely performed to this day.

Why then is the scab universally hated and despised? Simply because, in his otherwise commendable willingness to work in return for a little less than his fellow workers, the scab threatens to drive down the wages which the latter are capable of commanding.

And despite its hallowed place in socialist mythos, a trade union (or ‘labor union’ in American English) is, in essence, an anti-competitive monopolistic worker’s cartel, seeking to fix the price of labour to the advantage of its own members. Like all cartels, it is inherently unstable and vulnerable to being undercut by workers willing to work for less. This is why trade unions invariably resort to intimidation (e.g. picket lines) to deter the latter.

The same rational self-interest, therefore, explains women’s hatred of whores. As leading early twentieth century American socialist Mary Marcy observed of prostitutes in the passage quoted at the beginning of this post: “These women are selling below the market, or scabbing on the job”.

This is why TheAntiFeminist has characterised feminism as “The Sexual Trade Union”, representing the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of ageing and/or unattractive women.
___________

However, whereas the striking miner or manual labourer sometimes wins our sympathy simply because he occupies, as socialists have rightly observed, a relatively disadvantaged position in society as a whole, the same cannot be said of wives and women.

Although, as feminists never tire of pointing out, men earn more money than women (not least because they work longer hours, in more dangerous and unpleasant working conditions and for a greater proportion of their adult lives), women are known to be wealthier than men and dominate almost every area of consumer spending. According to researchers in the marketing industry, women control around 80% of household spending.[5]

A more appropriate analogy is therefore perhaps that provided by Baumeister and Vohs themselves. These authors view women’s attempt at artificial price-fixing as analogous to“other rational economic strategies, such as OPEC’s efforts to drive up the world price of oil by inducing member nations to restrict their production.”[6]

The appropriateness of this analogy is underscored by the fact that the exact same analogy was adopted by Warren Farrell, the father of the modern Men’s Rights Movement, a decade or so previously in his seminal The Myth of Male Power (which I have reviewed here). Here, Farrell observed:

In the Middle East, female sex and beauty are to Middle Eastern men what oil and gas are to Americans: the shorter the supply the higher the price. The more women ‘gave’ away sex for free, or for a small price, the more the value of every woman’s prize would be undermined”.[7]

___________

This then explains the prevalence of prejudice against prostitutes and promiscuity, and why this prejudice is especially prevalent among women. Only by slut-shaming whores and other promiscuous women can The Sex Cartel’s monopoly ever be maintained.

In contrast, men’s interests are diametrically opposed to the Sex Cartel. Consistent with this theory, men are found to be more tolerant, liberal and permissive in respect of virtually all aspects of sexual morality.

Thus, one study from the late-Eighties found that the vast majority of women, but only a minority of men, were wholly opposed to prostitution in all circumstances, whereas, in contrast, three times as many men as women saw nothing wrong with the sex trade.[8] Likewise, more women than men report that they are opposed to pornography.[9]

Of course, feminists typically explain so-called ‘sexual double-standards’ as some sort of male patriarchal plot to oppress women. In fact, however, women seem to be more censorious of promiscuity on the part of other women than are men. Thus, ‘sexual double-standards’, to the extent they exist at all, are largely promoted, and enforced, by women themselves. Thus, one recent meta-analysis found significantly greater support for ‘sexual double-standards’ among women than among men.[10]

Men, in contrast, have little incentive for slut-shaming. On the contrary, men actually generally rather enjoy the company of promiscuous women – for obvious reasons.[11]

There is, as far as I am aware, only one exception to the general principle that men are more tolerant and permissive on issues of sexual morality than are women. This is in respect of attitudes towards homosexuality. Here, strangely, women seem to be more permissive than men.[12]

However, opposition to homosexuality can still be explained compatibly with Sex Cartel Theory. Warren Farrell suggests in The Myth of Male Power (which I have reviewed here):

Homophobia reflected an unconscious societal fear that homosexuality was a better deal than heterosexuality for the individual. Homophobia was like OPEC calling nations wimps if they bought oil from a more reasonably priced source. It was the society’s way of giving men no option but to pay full price for sex”.[13]

___________

The Sex Cartel’s efforts to de-legitimize the sex trade involve the stigmatization, not only of prostitutes, but also of their clients. Indeed, these days the patrons of prostitutes seem to get an even worse press than do prostitutes themselves. On the one hand, they are castigated for exploiting women. On the other, they are also derided for being exploited by women and having to pay for what (it is implied) ‘real’ men should have no business having to pay for.[14]

In addition to moral sanction, the force of the criminal law is sometimes co-opted. Thus, around the world, prostitution is frequently wholly prohibited, and, if not, is almost always heavily regulated and restricted, such that both prostitutes and their patrons find themselves subject to the full force of the criminal law for partaking in a victimless and mutually-consensual commercial transaction.

Again, the current trend in law-enforcement is to target the customers rather than the prostitutes themselves (i.e. men rather than women) – a policy that manages to be both inefficient and unjust and is roughly comparable to prosecuting occasional pot smokers while letting drug-dealers off scot-free.

___________

Every woman, from the Whore to the Housewife, the Prostitute to the Prude, the Puritan to the Princess, is each, in her own way, forever a Whore at Heart.So, ironically, for all their fanatical feminist flag-waving and sanctimonious puritanical moral posturing, the real reason women hate prostitutes is precisely because women are prostitutes. Like any other class of commercial trader, they just don’t like the competition.

In reality, however, prostitution per se is never wholly criminalized or prohibited. If it were, then virtually every woman in the country would be behind bars – and so would virtually every man.

After all, as perceptive observers (end even a few feminists) have long recognised, one way or another, all women are prostitutes, according to the ordinary dictionary definition of this word.

Indeed, the entire process of conventional courtship in Western society is predicated on prostitution – from the social expectation that the man pay for dinner on the first date, to the legal obligation that he continue to support his ex-wife, through alimony and maintenance, for anything up to ten or twenty years after he has belatedly rid himself of her.

All the world is a red-light district. And all the men and women merely tricks, suckers, johns, punters, hookers and whores – plus perhaps an occasional pimp. Every woman, from the Whore to the Housewife, the Prostitute to the Prude, the Puritan to the Princess, is each, in her own way, forever a Whore at Heart.

So, ironically, for all their fanatical feminist flag-waving and sanctimonious puritanical moral posturing about saving women from sexual slavery and exploitation, the real reason women hate prostitutes is precisely because women are prostitutes. Like any other class of commercial trader, they just don’t like the competition.
_____________

[1] Baumseister RF & Twenge JM (2002) ‘Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality’, Review of General Psychology 6(2): 166-203 at p172.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Baumeister RF & Vohs KD (2004) ‘Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions’, Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(4) pp339-363 at p344.

[4] Ibid, at p358

[5] See Kanner, B., Pocketbook Power: How to Reach the Hearts and Minds of Today’s Most Coveted Consumer – Women: p5; Barletta, M., Marketing to Women: How to understand reach and increase your share of the world’s largest market segment: p6.

[6] Baumeister RF & Vohs KD (2004) ‘Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions’, Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(4) pp339-363 at p357

[7] Farrell, W, The Myth of Male Power (reviewed here) (New York Berkley 1994) at p67.

[8] Klassen, AD, Williams, CJ, & Levitt, EE (1989). Sex and morality in the U.S.: An empirical enquiry under the auspices of the Kinsey Institute Middletown: Wesleyan University Press: cited in Baumseister RF & Twenge JM (2002) ‘Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality’ at p190. More precisely, 69% of women were wholly opposed to pornography in all circumstances, as compared to only 45% of men, whereas 17% of men versus only 6% of men saw nothing wrong with prostitution.

[9] For example, Lottes, I, Weinberg, M & Weller, I (1993) ‘Reactions to pornography on a college campus: For or against?’ Sex Roles 29(1-2): 69-89.

[10] Oliver MB and Hyde JS (1993) ‘Gender Differences in Sexuality: A Meta-Analysis’ Pyschological Bulletin l14(1): 29-51

[11] Though it is true that men may not wish to marry a promiscuous women. Here, concerns of paternity certainty are paramount.

[12] Harek G (1988) Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences Journal of Sex Research 25(4); Lamar, L & Kite, M. (1998) Sex Differences in Attitudes toward Gay Men and Lesbians: A Multidimensional Perspective The Journal of Sex Research 35(2): 189-196; Kite, M. & Whitney, B. (1996) Sex Differences in Attitudes Toward Homosexual Persons, Behaviors, and Civil Rights A Meta-Analysis Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22(4): 336-35;Lim VK (2002) Gender differences and attitudes towards homosexuality Journal of Homosexuality 43(1):85-97.

[13] Farrell, W, The Myth of Male Power (reviewed here) (New York Berkley 1994) at p87.

[14] These two claims are, of course, wildly contradictory. Moreover, it is notable that, while men who pay for prostitutes are routinely ridiculed for ‘having to pay for it’, the same stigma does not attach to the man who takes his girlfriend out to dates at expensive restaurants, buys her jewellery or, worse still, pays the ultimate price by subjecting himself to marriage – yet the latter surely incurs a steeper financial penalty in the long-run.

Advertisements

In Praise of Prostitutes and Promiscuity – A Utilitarian Perspective

Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone somewhere may be happy

HL Mencken, Aphorisms

Prostitutes are like public toilets. On the one hand, they provide a useful service to the public. On the other, one always somehow feels in danger of catching a disease when inside one.

VEL – The Contemporary Heretic

Sex is one of the most wholesome, spiritual and natural things money can buy. And like all games, it becomes more interesting when played for money.

Sebastian Horsley, The Brothel-Creeper

I have never been able to understand why whores and prostitutes have invariably maligned as sinful and immoral.

Given that the Oxford English Dictionary defines the word nice as meaning giving pleasure or satisfaction, then surely the nice girl is not the girl who, as  the current usage of this phrase typically connotes, refuses to perform oral copulation on the first date, but rather the girl who willingly does so with multiple partners on every night of the week. After all, it is the latter girl who surely gives considerably more ‘pleasure and satisfaction’ than the former.

According to the precepts of utilitarianism, the theory of normative ethics championed by such eminent luminaries as Bentham, Mill and, most recently, Peter Singer, the moral worth of an action is to be determined by the extent to which it contributes to the overall happiness of mankind. On this view, the ultimate determinant of the morality of a given behaviour is the extent to which it promotes (to adopt Bentham’s memorable formulation) ‘the Greatest Happiness to the Greatest Number’.

Well, surely, this is precisely what whores and other indiscriminately promiscuous women do. Prostitutes, for example, over the course of their careers, can give pleasure and happiness to literally thousands of men.

Some crack-whores suck a couple of dozen dicks a day minimum. That’s what I call giving the greatest happiness to the greatest number. If that’s not maximising utility, I don’t know what the hell is!

(Much is made of the scourge of drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine on lives, families, communities as well as society as a whole. But, on the plus side, they do help drive down the cost of a blowjob – Good news for the consumer!)

In utilitarian terms, therefore, rather than condemned as immoral for their behaviour, whores ought to be lauded as the highest paradigm of moral virtue – right up alongside Mother Teresa.

After all, Mother Teresa might have selflessly dedicated her entire live to helping, healing, feeding and caring for the poor and destitute– but she never sucked their cocks, did she?

GOD IS A GIT – and other sobering reflections on the nature of god

In my previous post (A Suicide Note in the Form of a Blog Post), I reached the conclusion that life is terribly tedious and hence, in general terms, one is better off dead. Having resolved upon this firm conclusion, but not, as yet, having actually committed suicide, the only appropriate topic to address in my follow up post is to consider the question as to why this is the case.

I have come to the conclusion that only one explanation is possible. God is to blame and it is all his fault. In short, God is a bastard. There is simply no other explanation compatible all the facts.

__________

This conclusion – sometimes termed “misotheism” or, less commonly, “antitheism” – is not mere polemical provocation or ‘Christian-baiting’. On the contrary, it is the logical and inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the nature of the universe and of the human condition for which God is ultimately responsible.

After all, if God is all-powerful and benevolent, why would He create a world full of misery and pain? Why would He create a world of war, famine and disease?

Why, moreover, would he instil us with lusts and desire which can never be satisfied and then deem any attempt to satisfy them as a form of carnal sin worthy of eternal damnation no less?

There is only one possible explanation – God is a sadist. A being who delights in torturing and tormenting beings weaker, frailer and less powerful than Himself. In short, a bully and a bastard.

__________

In the interests of balance, let us consider the only remotely plausible alternative.

Perhaps God is not a sadist. Perhaps he is instead merely a scientist, rigorously maintaining a scientific objectivity and detachment. Perhaps he merely disinterestedly observes our suffering with no more compassion or spite towards us than the vivisectionist has towards the laboratory rats whom he disinterestedly injects with all manner of deadly diseases in the hope of winning a Nobel Prize.

But this explanation will not do. After all, if God is omnipotent and all-knowing, what then would be the object of his research other than mere amusement? What of value could he find out from our sordid lives and from the tortures he inflicts upon us if he already knows everything?

No, the conclusion is inescapable. God is a bastard

___________

The typical recourse of apologists for divine brutality – the theological equivalent of holocaust-denial – is to appeal to the concept of Free Will.

Despite its philosophical pretensions, this line of defence is nothing new. On the contrary, theological apologetics simply co-opts standard plea entered by all tyrants and dictators when they are each eventually and belatedly put on trial for their atrocities. Invariably and with utter predictability, they claim that they were not responsible – “It may have been done in my name,” they say, “but I was unaware of it.

In effect, they turn state’s evidence and implicate instead their unfortunate underlings and lackeys – those previously most loyal to them – a move characteristic of the lowest of criminals, of those criminals despised even by other criminals: the informer or rat.

Yet, for all its underhandedness, hypocrisy and sheer ruthlessness, even this line of defence is destined to failure.  As the sign on President Harry Truman‘s desk famously read during his term as commander-in-chief – “The Buck Stops Here”. What applies to a President applies doubly to dictators and a thousand times over to the divine dictator himself.

After all, even, for the sake of argument, casting from our minds the fact that the concept of the concept of ‘free will’ has now been all but disproved by recent advances in neuroscience, quite apart from being a rather ill-defined and problematic concept in the first place, this line of defence still falls woefully short.

It was, after all, God who gave us free-will. An all-powerful, all-knowing and omnipotent god could hardly claim to be ignorant of the obvious consequences of this criminally reckless act. He is thus vicariously liable.

Besides, how are we to explain disease? How can one absolve his divine majesty of responsibility for forms of suffering inflicted by bacteria and viruses?

Attributing Free Will to dictators, sexual perverts and serial killers is one thing. Perhaps one can even go further and attribute Free Will to lions, eagles and other animal predators responsible for inflicting all sorts of cruelties on the prey whom they hunt and eat.

But disease? How can we absolve the divine dictator of responsibility for the cruelties and agonies inflicted by illness. Is one obliged to attribute Free Will and consciousness to the HIV virus?

___________

Yet, unlike Saddam Hussain and Slobadan Milosovitch and even Hitler himself, however, God is the greatest and most ruthless of all dictators. For only God, through his omnipotence, can claim vicarious liability for all the atrocities of every other dictator combined.

On top of this, add disease, natural disasters, earthquakes, terrorist atrocities, accidents and, above all, Acts of God. The Divine Dictator is a clearly tyrant and despot of unparalleled proportions.

__________

Take, for example, the Second Commandment – Thou shall worship no other God

Has there ever been any clearer prescription for a totalitarian dictatorship and one-party state, lacking in the sort of checks and balances, and separation of powers, not to mention effective opposition, all of which are, of course, widely recognised as essential for healthy and legitimate constitutional government?

Punishment in hell, on the other hand, clearly contravenes the provisions of any number of international human rights treaties, not to mention constitutional provisions. After all, burning in hell for all eternity is surely cruel and unusual punishment by anybody’s standards.

__________

Indeed, in many respects, God is like other more humble and lesser dictators. Like them, He demands to be worshipped and to have songs sung in his praise:

“Hail Hitler!”

“Praise be to the Lord God!”

There’s not that much difference between the two when you look at it like that.

Replace ‘Our father’ with ‘Mein furher’ and the average church service is virtually indistinguishable from a Nuremberg rally!

__________

So, yes, god exists. The atheists are mistaken. What other explanation can there be for our suffering and endless torments?

God exists and so did Stalin. There is no point in trying to wish them away.

But neither are they to be worshipped by anyone save a whining masochist or cowardly sycophant.

__________

Perhaps, after all, we should not be surprised that God is as He is. After all, we are told by God Himself that “God created Man in his own image”.  Is it thus any wonder that he is as much of a bastard as the rest of us?

Besides, what condition could be more boring than omnipotence? Being all-powerful must take all the fun and amusement out of life.

With omnipotence, there is no challenge, no aspiration, nothing to strive towards, no way to better oneself – in short, nothing to live for.

How then can he choose to amuse himself other than to create a world with whole races of pitiful creatures to torture and toy with? Like the spoilt child who pulls the legs off spiders.

After all, what child could be more spoilt than one blessed with immortality and omnipotence?

Lord Acton told us that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Who then could be more corrupt than the all-powerful God Almighty himself?