Guy might slip in a brief mention of his fascinating and brilliant new book on fugitive Nazi war criminals Hunting Evil (in which he reveals, inter alia, that 95 per cent of the extravagant claims made by supposed Nazi-hunting kingpin Simon Wiesenthal were a figment of the old fraud’s imagination). I’ll probably let slip at some point that I’m the author of the fabulously exciting Dick Coward World War II adventures Coward On The Beach and Coward At The Bridge. Mainly though what we’ll be discussing is the enduring appeal of the Nazis.

In the publishing world Nazi Germany is nicknamed “the gift that keeps on giving” because it outsells books on pretty much any other subject, save possibly cats and golf. (That’s why when the great humorist Alan Coren wanted to write the biggest bestseller ever, he jokily called it Golfing For Cats and put a fluttering swastika on the front).

Like many people, Guy and I are almost unhealthily fascinated with the Nazis, for many of the obvious reasons: they had some of the most lurid bad guys (Hitler; Himmler; Goering…), they had the most iconic weaponry (the flak 88, the Tiger tank, the panzerfaust, the Stuka…), they had the best uniforms (some of them designed by Hugo Boss), and, of course, they were responsible for the Holocaust and the war that led to the deaths of around 60 million – making them some of the most revoltingly evil people ever to stalk the earth. (And like it or not, evil is a fascinating subject).

What this doesn’t, of course, mean is that Guy and I happen to sympathise with the Nazis’ policies. Au contraire. Guy and I are both libertarian right wingers – almost outrageously pro-Israel and philo-Semitic; fanatically opposed to anything that looks like Big Government; passionate about liberty (and meat-eating, and fox-hunting) – which means we stand for pretty much everything that Hitler and the Nazis hated.

One of the things that liberal-lefties love to do whenever they want to close down a political argument with people on the right is to accuse their opponents of being “fascists” or “Nazis”. Utter balderdash. The red in the Nazi flag is the red of communism – that’s how closely linked the two ideological movements are. The only reason we think of Nazism as being ‘right-wing’ today is because Stalin very successfully tarred it as such. Orwell understood this game as long ago as the 1940s when he wrote “the word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ’something not desirable’” [thanks David Gillies]. And if this truth wasn’t obvious before, it has certainly been made so by the publication of Jonah Goldberg’s thorough demolition of the “Nazis were right wingers” myth Liberal Fascism.

Who are the modern Nazis? Certainly not right wing libertarians such as Walters and myself. Look instead, I should say, to the modern Green movement: the fanaticism; its pagan deification of Nature; the denial of any scientific evidence that doesn’t suit its cause; its persecution of heretics; the suppression of free speech; its all-encompassing dedication to one obsessive Weltanschauung.

Or look at Islamism.

Whoever today’s Nazis are they are most definitely not Conservatives of any hue. This is plain fact and it simply cannot be rubbed in the faces of libtards, green lunatics, Islamists, and other fascistic psychos often enough. As I’m sure Guy and I will take great pleasure in reiterating if and when we have the pleasure of your company at 12pm Wednesday at the Cheltenham Literary Festival.

Before you answer, have a look at Bullyonline – a web site devoted to the dozens of children who have died, or nearly died, as a result of bullying by their peers. Here is 13-year old Salvation Army girl Kelly Yeomans, who took a fatal overdose. There is Alistair Hunter, 12, who hanged himself after being spat on by bullies who used to urinate in his sports bag.

Perhaps some of the children on that heartbreaking list died as a result of racist abuse; or possibly, as a result of those nearly-but-not-quite-as-heinous modern crimes, “homophobia” or “disablism”. The majority, though, did not.

They were teased for the same reasons children have been teased since time immemorial: because they had a weakness which could be exploited.

In my case, my crime was to have big, blubbery lips. Never once did it occur to me that this might have been quite a sexy, Jaggeresque quality: all I could ever think of was how vile and ugly I looked and how dearly I wished that my lips were “normal.”

Why did I wish this? Because the bullies who repeatedly called me “Blubber Lips” spoke the phrase with such hatred, venom and disgust that I knew they must be right.

Did I suffer any more or less than a child bullied for the colour of their skin or for being a complete spaz at sports? I don’t know. And here’s the thing: nor do YOU know. Nor, in fact, does ANYONE know.

This is precisely what is wrong with treating “racist” bullying as more heinous than any other form of bullying. It is based on a completely unprovable assumption which you can only make with confidence if you’re either a self-hating (what other kind is there?) white liberal or a card-carrying member of the minority grievance industry.

Reading the case of the 15-year old boy taken to court for repeatedly calling a female classmate “wog”, “coon”, “gorilla” and “golliwog”, I don’t think any of us could be in any doubt that the bully was a thoroughly nasty piece of work. I’m glad the poor girl has finally been freed of her tormentor. But I still don’t understand what this case was doing in Lincoln magistrate’s court – rather than being dealt with, as all such cases should, within the school system.

Or rather I do, all too well. It has to do with the dreaded “r” word. If racism had not been involved, there is no way a 15-year old boy would have faced criminal prosecution. The disgusting and morally purblind double standards here are wholly characteristic of New Labour and its politically correct decision to “privilege” (as your typical Libtard would say) certain types of crime over others.

Kill someone because they’re black or gay and you face a stiffer sentence than you would if you killed them, say, because you didn’t like their poncy, upper-class accent.

New Labour would call this social justice.

Orwell called it Thought Crime.