"Dad, Dad you've made it onto Urban Dictionary!" said the kids.
"Oh good. Nice, I hope?"
"Er, not exactly," they sniggered. "Have a look."
And what I saw was - well, if you're strong of stomach have a look for yourself at the two definitions of "Delingpole".
"Gosh," I said. "However did they know?"
No not really. I suppose actually I'm quite flattered by the attention. But the thing I'd like to know is this: why on earth did they bother?
I mean, if I were Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Barack Obama or George Soros or Al Gore I could understand the hate. Here are men with real power to change people's lives - almost invariably for the worse. Me, I'm just a blogger. A fairly outspoken blogger, admittedly. But it's not like I'm going to nuke Israel any time soon; or destroy the US economy; or use my massive wealth to collapse the markets and engineer a sinister New World Order of one world government; or make millions of dollars from "Climate Change" hysteria - the biggest and most expensive scam in history.
That question I asked earlier, though, it was purely rhetorical.
I know exactly why it was that those two individuals took the trouble to post on Urban Dictionary derogatory remarks about my personality and my wedding equipment; just as I know why it was that a member of that tireless global warming activist body the British Antarctic Survey felt compelled to play some dirty tricks with my website address; and why it was that Sir Paul Nurse - a left-leaning scientist associate of George Soros - was given carte blanche by the BBC to make a hatchet job documentary, completely misrepresenting what Climate "Skeptics" like myself believe about "global warming"; and why so many of the trolling comments below my blogs focus on autobiographical irrelevances like my depression or the fact that unlike my Oxford chum David Cameron (whatever became of him, I wonder) I never gained access to the legendary drinking society the Bullingdon.
It's because I'm right wing. And therefore evil.
Several you reading this, I know, suffer from a similar handicap. Not the "being evil" bit, necessarily. But the "being assumed to be evil for no other reason than that you're not on the political left", part.
And you're probably as puzzled as I am. Why is it evil to want people to be allowed to keep more of the money they earn and enjoy more freedom? And why is good to believe that the government's job is to take more and more taxpayers' money, borrow still more, and squander it buying stuff that nobody wants for people who don't deserve it?
When you put it like that it's a no brainer. And this I think is what answers my question.
The problem with the ideology of the left - and I include all its variations from socialism, Marxism and Fabianism to its most virulent modern forms eco-fascism and communitarianism - is that it has no rational basis. It is based on raw emotion, abstract theory not empiricism. Wherever it has been tried - Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union; Castro's Cuba; Mao's China; Pol Pot's Cambodia; Hitler's Germany; Obama's America - it has failed utterly, making people poorer, unhappier and very often more dead. So what's the only thing you can do when you have no evidence to support your argument, when indeed the facts of life and history are entirely against you?
You can't play fair, so you play dirty.