War Crimes in Rotherham.



, , , , , , , , , ,


I sometimes wonder how those who believe in the liberal narrative regarding Islam (which holds it as an ‘unfairly maligned’ religion of peace) integrate mentally the events reported in the news.

How does a liberal protect his orthodoxy from the rational interpretation of ritual stonings, beheadings and terror attacks? And of what formidable substance does that firewall consist? Emotion? Stubbornness?

Well whatever it is, we will surely see it tested now.

Last week it was reported (I’m pleased to say on many front pages) that the number of girls raped by Muslims in the town of Rotherham may amount to more than 1400.

I’ll say that again.

Last week it was reported that the number of girls raped by Muslims in the town of Rotherham may amount to more than 1400 (one thousand four hundred).

Rotherham has a population of less than 250,000 in its metropolitan district. 1400 as a percentage of 250,000 is 0.56. That’s more than one person for every two hundred. If you live in Rotherham or a nearby region, you will have almost certainly seen a victim in public. You may have spoken to one. Your strangely quiet daughter or granddaughter might be an unreported case. Perhaps needless to add, almost all the victims involved are White British (Anglo-Saxon, Irish, Welsh etc…), and all the men responsible pray towards Makkah.

What are we supposed to call these acts? There are too many cases to call this a ‘spree’, or even a ‘wave’. Not all the gangs involved are connected to each other, so we can’t really call it a conspiracy either.

It is much too immoral for ‘terrorism’. One could reasonably make excuses (as many did) for Islamic violence during the Iraq war. We had invaded a Muslim country, and proud Muslims wanted to strike us back. They had no moral right to, but I can understand their reasoning. That the Rotherham crimes occurred over a period of many years, in times of both hot war and cold peace, suggests that something more longstanding is at issue.

The truth is that we are in a state of cultural war with Islam, and these rapes, like those in Oxford, are simply war crimes.

The Muslims hold us all in aggressive contempt. Our women however are considered especially worthless given that they wear knee length skirts and allow their hair to billow godlessly about their shoulders. They clearly have no pride or spiritual awareness, and so to deflower them by force is perfectly halal.

The men involved will have felt no prompt of conscience as they forced down the defences of their victims. And if such a thing could be made worse, perhaps it is with the thought that the girls were not only raped, but raped hatefully.

In all the commentary on this subject over the past week, only one article (by Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson) has come close to capturing the purple fury of the public mood:

“Men of Pakistani heritage treated white girls like toilet paper.” she raged “They picked children up from schools and care homes and trafficked them across northern cities for other men to join in the fun. They doused a 15-year-old in petrol and threatened to set her alight should she dare to report them. They menaced entire families and made young girls watch as they raped other children… No just God would stand for what they did. “

Hard attention has now fallen and will likely remain on the Rotherham police. They certainly merit it. How difficult could it have been to pursue the leads to their logical conclusion? A stifling atmosphere of political correctness (aided and sponsored by a spineless government and an occupied press) certainly goes some way in explaining it.

Only we who jump such barriers can say clearly what the remedy is to all this. Get them out. Get all of them out and think no extra thought about it. I don’t want to breathe the same oxygen. That we might be called cruel for advocating this policy means nothing to me. To defeat a devil, you must find the devil in yourself.

I could attempt here a few hundred words of horror-poetry speculating what it was like for those poor, undefended children. I won’t be so disrespectful. I will only say that our elite has allowed for the innocent to be made sore, all that it might preserve ideological comfort for itself. There is surely no more contemptible crime than that.


The ‘Asian’ Calumny.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The former BNP chairman Nick Griffin should in general feel thoroughly ashamed of himself. His career in politics was built on low-brow generalisation and blind hate rooted in abused science.

It is all the more surprising therefore to note that Griffin once made a very important point that reverberates all the way to the present day.

In a BBC Newsnight interview many years ago, Griffin notoriously took issue with Muslim criminality in the North of England. The Muslims were, Griffin claimed, chiefly responsible for the tensions which had then exploded into the Burnley Riots. When prompting Griffin to clarify his accusations, the interviewer (Jeremy Paxman) consistently reverted to the word ‘Asian’ instead of the religious signifier suggested by his subject.

Growing quickly tired of this, Griffin barked out what must be the only helpful and prophetic sentence in his long and fruitless career:

“Stop saying Asian. This isn’t an Asian thing, it’s a Muslim thing”.

This was in 2001. Long before grooming gangs began to be reported in the mainstream (and even fringe) press.

Griffin deserves credit for this clarification, if for nothing else.

Of course, given its congenital fear of accuracy, the BBC continues to use the word ‘Asian’ to describe the Pakistani Muslim gangs involved with Rotherham; a trickle of protest from Hindu and Sikh communities going largely unheard.

This is nothing short of scandalous. The Hindu and Sikh communities are natural allies in the struggle against Islam. They have departed lands long haunted by the same demonic ideas, and bring with them lessons of glittering value.

There are no Hindu, Sikh or Jain rape gangs currently operating on British streets. As a matter of fact, in some Northern towns Sikh girls in particular have fallen victim to the same grooming techniques as White girls.

Let the fruit of Rotherham be a coalition bound by links of iron. The isolation of Muslims in our society is the first step towards their excision.


The Power of Self-Belief.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


We could cease to exist at any moment. The game of bluff in Eastern Europe is getting older, less careful and more honest. Russia – it can no longer be denied – has invaded Europe. The scenario long dreamed of in spy novels and video-game fiction has become a banal reality.

How do you feel about that? I suppose, given the worst case scenario, we should be frozen in fear, unable to think or consider anything else. That doesn’t seem to be the mood I observe though.

Perhaps we are so shocked that Putin, the charismatic leader of a kindred state, would be so bold, so seemingly foolish to risk a terminal war with America, that we can’t bring ourselves to realise the truth.

The incredulity is natural. Why has Putin done this? Russia is much weaker (economically, militarily, politically) than the West. To be sure, if nuclear weapons were not a factor here, we could have reduced Moscow to rubble by now.

The truth is that Russia, for all its flabbiness and eccentricity, possesses something we have lost – self-belief.

Russia believes in itself. Europe does not. Russia fights for something it understands down to its bone marrow. Europe fights for reasons devised in a smoky room by unelected suits. The Russian people are by-and-large behind their government. The European people feel occupied by theirs.

Although I strongly oppose what he is trying to achieve there, I must concede that Putin’s success in Ukraine represents a triumph of the human over the mechanical; the spirit over the machine. He has faced down vastly more complicated forces by the virtue of his willpower alone. It is no wonder his reputation is gaining in dark glamour for every week that passes.


Notes on a Milestone.


, , , , , , , , , ,


Just a brief note to mark the passing of a milestone for this blog. WordPress informs me that I have now published over 200 articles. That figure surprised me a little. I had assumed the count was closer to 150. It’s obviously been a more productive year than I realised.

I began this site just over two and half years ago, largely on a whim. My first posts attracted an audience of about zero. I’ll always be grateful to Pamela Geller for changing that virtually overnight by kindly sharing my work on her website. Since then I’ve received additional support from GatesofVienna, BareNakedIslam, the English Defence League, LibertyGB, Enza Ferreri, New English Review, the Theo Dalrymple Forum and various other websites. I’m forever grateful to all.

The name I chose for this blog (if you’re interested) derives from a book I was reading at the time of its conception – ‘Revolt Against the Modern World’ by the esoteric philosopher Julius Evola. In that book, Evola (often regarded as a fascist sympathiser) attempts to make the case for a rollback of the industrial age and a return to ancient spirituality. Needless to say, I strongly disagreed with his sentiment and so a statement to the contrary – ‘Defend the Modern World’  – seemed quite logical for my mood and purposes.

The modern world I suggest we defend is under grave threat from many quarters. Islam is its most immediate and obvious adversary, but it isn’t the only one. There is a serious and very dangerous decline ongoing in the West. Morality, literacy and national awareness are all becoming fainter. Anti-Semitic and anti-American conspiracy theories are booming in their place.

A pushback is sorely needed against all this. Not a racist, or fanatically religious one. That would just substitute foreign problems with indigenous ones. Rather, we need a movement that can uphold liberal principles while making war on any element which threatens them. Everything I write is an effort to make that kind of movement more likely.


Beheaders Aren’t Britons.


, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Have you watched the video of James Foley’s death? I’ve only watched an edited version on YouTube. As in the original, it fades to black when the knife meets his throat. Prior to this Foley offered a (surely forced) verbal self-flagellation, climaxing with a statement of regret for being American. I’m told that in the full version (which I have no intention of viewing), the film ends with a shot of Foley’s decapitated corpse lying flat in the desert, his head resting on the small of his back.

Of course, by-itself, this episode doesn’t teach us anything new about Muslims, or about the motivating power of the Qur’an. Anyone who has even casually browsed the book will have noted a passage like the following:

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.” – 47:4

Some are calling Mr Foley unwise for having ventured into a desert filled with believers in such a text. I wouldn’t go that far. It is certainly something I would never do, and an intention I would discourage in friends. But there is an undeniably heroic quality to war journalism and – despite what his captors may have intended – Foley’s death has surely further dignified that profession.

This murder isn’t, I’m sad to say, a strictly American matter. While we in Britain had never heard of Foley before the news broke of his execution, we may have been unknowingly familiar with his murderer. In fact (altogether more chillingly), we may have rode the bus with him, sat next to him on the subway; we may have even shook the hand that slit Foley’s throat. His killer, you see, is ‘British’.

I’d like to use this occasion to take issue with something specific. Something broader than this isolated cruelty.

Having a British passport does not make you British. Being born in a Pakistanified hamlet of England does not make you English. To earn these historically illustrious definitions you must be part of the national community, speaks its language and concur with its moral standards. The butcher of Foley, as well as any other Muslim who has departed our shores for Jihad, checked their ‘British’ card at Heathrow.

No line (straight or crooked) can be drawn between these desert savages and Edward Gibbon. Don’t forget that to be called ‘British’ is in no way a small deal. This isn’t Luxembourg. Much of the modern age derives from British innovation. To make the definition of ‘British’ so cheap, to collapse its value to such an extent, betrays in one second a thousand years.


A Coalition to Save the World.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Islamic State is a grave threat to all humanity and must be killed off before it grows in power and size. To do this requires a re-evaluation of our historic policies in the Middle East and the swift construction of an emergency coalition of partners willing to fight ISIS forces.

In my opinion, the most effective coalition for this project would be a temporary alliance of Assad’s Syria, Kurdistan and the Iranian-backed Shia regions of Iraq.

Learned readers will at once spot that these partners are otherwise opposed to each other tooth and nail. Assad objects to the independence of Kurdish areas of Syria. The aspirations of independent-minded Kurds ordinarily clash with those of Shia Iraqi nationalists and their Iranian patron-regime. Assad’s brand of militant Arab nationalism meanwhile contrasts wildly with the Persian design of Shi’ite collectivism.

All of these points are accurate and all of them are irrelevant. This is a time too desperate for conventional reasoning, and it should not matter to the West whether the solution to ISIS leaves more parochial issues in its wake.

Our only interest is to strangle Islamic State, kill as many of its adherents as possible, and scorch its ideological earth lest it be replicated elsewhere.

The following deal could be offered to Assad:

If you (respecting the non-involvement of Israel and Lebanon) wage war on ISIS and other forms of Islamic militancy, the West will replace or repair the equipment you need to defend a secular state of Syria. By the same token, the existence of your regime will be secured.

The Kurds will need no such bribery and nor should the Shia of Iraq who by now take orders more from Tehran than Baghdad.

Of course, Zionists and supporters of Israel are right to be unnerved by a Western embrace of Assad, who remains a pathological anti-Semite and committed irredentist. But it must be stated to such people that Islamic State is potentially a far greater threat to the Jews of the Middle East than Syria could ever hope to be.

When ISIS disappears furthermore, the regional winners will not be Arab nationalists, but Kurdish secularists and Shia elements loyal to Iran. The Palestinians to all extents and purposes are irrelevant.

In any case, we must realise a moral responsibility to ourselves (in Europe) and to ancient the minorities in the Middle East. To fail to act now will make us villains of history.


Meritocracy: The Social Ideal.


, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The majority of posts on this blog are devoted to criticism; that is, they are deployed against things; namely philosophies, political parties/movements and religious behaviours of which I oppose.

But a reader might justly ask “So what are you for politically?”. So let’s address this briefly.

Broadly speaking I support any political movement that abides by the principle of meritocracy.

A meritocracy is a social system in which people are allowed to prove themselves; to be all they can be, with everyone given a fair shot at success. The government does not aid or hinder them. Those who succeed either work harder or are more talented than those who don’t.

Your race doesn’t help you (as it might in an ethno-nationalist society). Your disability or poverty won’t promote you (as they might in an egalitarian welfare state). Your sex won’t aid you (as it might in a feminist or Islamic state). Your class won’t limit you (as it might in a Caste-based social system). Showy virtue, or memorising the Qur’an won’t aid you either (as it might Iran). In a meritocracy, you are not helped or hindered by the point you start from.

In a pure meritocracy, everyone has a chance to make it. And if you blow it. Tough.

Now, clearly we do not yet live in a meritocratic world. In fact, no one country has ever achieved this ideal completely. The nearest approximation the world has seen was perhaps the Thatcher regime in the 1980s.

Margaret Thatcher (motivated by libertarian urges) foisted an ethic of self-reliance on a rickety country, broken by decades of socialism. Despite the economic dynamism unleashed by this initiative, it proved massively unpopular with the population and fuelled a renaissance on the far-left and far-right.

That consensus of seemingly contradictory extremism is telling. Racism and socialism are both reactions to (and are rooted in a fear of) meritocracy. The greater the level of meritocracy in a society, the more the extremes of political thinking will intensify and expose their true anxieties.

A racist imagines a utopia in which his skin colour (not his talent) exalts him above others, thus defying meritocratic laws. A socialist imagines a society where everyone is equally poor, and thus free of meritocracy altogether. Both of these ideologies are designed to cheat in the competition of life. To sneak an edge; to get a head-start; to trip the leaders of the pack…

Meritocracy (without embellishment or compromise) is the only political cause worth pursuing.


Islamic State and the Coming Terror Wave.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Those who believed Islamic State was a threat exclusive to the Middle East now have occasion to revise their opinions.

Intelligence agencies and government ministries across the West are warning of a direct threat to Europe and America from ISIS operatives. This morning it was also reported that photographs have been published on twitter featuring ISIS sympathisers standing beside American landmarks including the White House. While it is impossible to know whether these images are doctored, the ambition they portray is surely authentic.

An Islamic State is not a bear-trap, its cruelties barbed inward against its own population but leaving the external world at peace. The idea of a new Caliphate is to provide a united Islamic world, strengthened in numbers and wealth in order to project superpower onto those it has long defamed as ‘aggressors'; most notably Israel, the United States and Britain.

ISIS may already have the ability to launch strikes against our civil society. Its position next to the traditional transit route of Turkey gives it a portal to Europe, and its international recruits (and their paperwork) provide easy access to places like Australia and the United States.

Before the images mentioned above were published, David Blair, the Telegraph’s Middle East correspondent wrote the following:

“(With) the inflow of volunteers carrying European passports, including some from Britain, and with his control of territory and almost limitless resources, Baghdadi (The ‘Caliph’ of Islamic State) has a real opportunity to attempt to strike the West. Put simply, his goals are about to become clear. Either he will be content with suffocating his new domain, or he will lash out and seek to damage ours. There is every reason to suspect that he is capable of the latter. All that remains in question is his intent.”

While America therefore has sufficient reason to feel uneasy about ISIS, we in Europe should rightly be terrified. It would take very little planning for ISIS to launch a campaign of violence against this continent, and I strongly believe that is what is going to come about. As our militaries engage more directly against Islamic State targets in Northern Iraq, reprisals are almost certain to come, and quickly.

I don’t mean 9/11 style attacks. I mean something bigger and more professional. Unlike al-Qaeda, ISIS is a modern military with sophisticated lines of communication and countless foreign recruits at its command. There are ISIS contacts from Portsmouth to Paris, Malmo to Madrid. Be prepared for co-ordinated operations in many European capitals. London is particularly vulnerable given the large number of ‘Brits’ departing for Syria every week. Indeed, David Cameron has spoken today of the risk to British streets. Perhaps even our elites are waking up to what is coming.

Note that the initiators of the wave won’t all be Pakistani or Arabic men. There has been talk of black, Malaysian and White Norwegian fighters heading back and forth from the region, as well as countless females. This will be altogether new. Symptomatic of Islamism’s evolution from amateur to pro.

How should we feel then? Part of me dreads the coming terror wave. It will be chaotic and expensive in blood. Another part of me feels strangely excited. This is a time for heroes. We will all need to find the man in us (and yes, feminazi, I said MAN). Let battle be joined. We cannot co-exist with cave-men.


Russell Brand’s Childish Utopianism.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


How far a society has degenerated can be gauged by looking at those it chooses to venerate. The country which in loftier times boasted of John Stuart Mill, Thomas Carlyle and Charles Dickens in its pulpit of social commentary, now has markedly lesser standards, and this descent corresponds necessarily to a decline in popular acuity.

That one of the most popular political thinkers of our day is a comedian should itself communicate the point. More disquieting still is the light load carried by the man in question. 

Once a lowly television presenter, Brand, 39, now communicates daily on his YouTube channel in the manner of an Eastern prophet. He calls this broadcast the ‘Trews’ (a portmanteau of Truth and News). At their peak, episodes can reach an audience of over 500,000 people. The other day I took to watching a few of these myself and so here are some thoughts.

Politically, Brand’s point of orientation seems to be an extreme form of universalism. He repeatedly calls nation-states ‘meaningless concepts’ and ‘arbitrary lines on a map’. All cultures are apparently equal to him, including those which violently condemn this very worldview. Immigration is never a crisis meanwhile, but simply a means the rich use to distract the poor from the imperatives of class warfare.

These are old ideas indeed, many of them soaked in old blood.

From Stalin’s nation-destroying grip on Eastern-Europe, through Mao’s war on China’s ancient diversity, universalism has been roundly discredited by every possible moral measure. ‘Cultural equality’ meanwhile is a plague of illogic directly responsible for the tensions of the modern world.

On economic affairs, Brand’s anti-corporatism is absolute. No enterprise can be successful without simultaneously ‘oppressing’ or ‘keeping down’ other elements. He communicates a kind of ‘socialism without the details’, knocking the system whilst refusing to endorse a specific party or movement and often calling into question the very notion of voting.

Of course, wherever there is Leftism of this potency, one will also find hypocrisy, and Brand provides no exception to this rule. span>

In a video boldly examining the ‘hidden’ agenda behind television commercials, Brand mocks the inclusion of Native Americans in Coca Cola’s notorious multi-lingual Star-Spangled Banner ad. “Don’t take the piss.” he barks “You stole their fucking country.”

But what is that strange word he uses here – ‘country’? It seems to me a euphemism for ‘nation’, something which – as Brand has already informed us – is nothing more than a ‘construct’ of the mind. By the same stroke then, no ill truly befell the Native Americans, and if the notion of a ‘border’ has always been a nefarious restriction on human liberty, Sitting Bull was simply being xenophobic in resisting the path of the Yankees.

Brand repeats the same mistake on the subject of Israel. During the Gaza war, Brand consistently sided with the distinctly un-universalistic claims of Palestinian nationalism; a tendency of thought quite obsessed with ‘borders’ and the ownership of land.

But this freewheeling hypocrisy is part of the warp and weft of utopian thinking. And utopian Brand decidedly is. In the course of his pontifications, he has gone so far as to call for ‘revolution’. He doesn’t explain exactly for what end this rebellion would be, but perhaps he doesn’t need to.  

A more sensible British comic, Robert Webb, bravely took issue with Russell’s childish incitement in the New Statesman. In a letter addressed to Brand, Webb wrote the following:

“I understand your ache for the luminous, for a connection beyond yourself. Russell, we all feel like that. Some find it in music or literature, some in the wonders of science and others in religion. But it isn’t available any more in revolution. We tried that again and again, and we know that it ends in death camps, gulags, repression and murder. In brief, and I say this with the greatest respect, please read some fucking Orwell.”

A drug addict for most of his youth, Brand ascribes his newfound sobriety to the positive influence of Transcendental Meditation – a dippy, new-age excuse for light-headedness that became a hot product in Hollywood during the 1980s.

Perhaps political sobriety is a more difficult concept to master. Give him time.


Atheism is a False Hope (a dialogue).


, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Dramatis Personae : A – a fictional interrogator: DTMW – Myself.

A: “Is there a God?”

DTMW: “Possibly.”

A: “The God of conventional religion?”

DTMW: “No.”

A: “So you’re an atheist in that regard?”

DTMW: “Not really. Atheism has become a positive concept. While once it was simply an absence of belief, it is now a very politicised label and suggests a specific worldview built around materialism, liberalism and a forced veneration of science. The New Atheists I find especially dangerous. They do not understand the function religion plays in the maintenance of a civil society, and what would necessarily occur were it removed.”

A: “Which is…”

DTMW: “It protects society from the full consequences of scientific truth. We’ve gotten too used to the idea that the ‘truth will set us free’ – that truth, being a positive value, can only have a positive effect. We forget that it can be beneficial or harmful only depending on its interpretation. Human beings are not naturally good, I’m afraid. Hobbes had this almost correct, except that religion and not government is the most effective Leviathan. Without it, the less evolved among the world population would feel they had no reason to stay within moral boundaries. Without the fear of hellfire, morality becomes a matter of consent. That’s all well and good for intelligent people with their evolved sense of empathy and social nuance. But most people are not intelligent.

And even among the intelligent, atheism allows for an icy, almost mathematical form of ethics that can be used to rationalise just about anything. Abortion, murder in all by name, can very easily be made logical by atheist thinking, but less so by the slightly fuzzy sentimentalism of the religious mind. That fuzzy sentimentalism, even if ridiculed by the petri dish and microscope, protects us from a lot of evil ‘common-sense’. The ‘New Atheists’ are greasing the wheels towards a very cold and dangerous void, the eventual filling of which they shan’t themselves be around to influence.

A: “Richard Dawkins says we can be good without God.”

DTMW: “As well he might. He is the product of a charmed life and first-class education. He belongs the upper-middle class and has never truly experienced hardship of the kind the poor must contend with. Solace of an earthly, material kind was at his side come what may. When the poor are faced with a reality that is horrid in every rational interpretation, they must look beyond reality for comfort. Peace between the classes depends in no small way on this function of religion. The concept of a human ‘equality’ before God; of a levelling after death; of a divine reward measured to match the hardship endured in life – all of these concepts prevent the fires of revolution bursting into life. There is a good reason that Communists went for the churches with as much venom as the banks and corporations.”

A: “What about Islam?”

DTMW: “Not all religions are equal. Some are more moral than others. It’s important to remember that a living religion is more than its foundational text. It is the product of elaborations and philosophies inspired by that text over hundreds of years. This is why Judaism and Christianity evolve and Islam doesn’t. The Qur’an, unlike the Bible, is a book that cannot be re-interpreted without fear of death.

A: “So you’d rather the Arabs and Persians and others converted to Christianity?”

DTMW: “I think that would be transformative. A Christianised Islamic world would solve so many of the worlds anxieties that it is difficult to describe how highly I favour the idea. I also expect the second generation growing up in a forcibly Christianised Pakistan (say) would be thankful to those who dominated and converted their elders. Islam makes life hell. Even Islamists are desperate to escape the fruits of their own labours. They are too proud to admit otherwise of course.”

A: “Are atheists evil?”

DTMW: “No. But many are certainly elitist. Elitism hides behind atheism rather well. You might say ‘No, I don’t hate poor White Americans; I just enjoy ridiculing their belief in Noah’s Ark. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that I went to University and they didn’t.’ I’m not convinced by that sort of thing I’m afraid.

As both Nietzsche and the Nazis understood, Christianity has always opposed elitism and made it politically impossible. This is the case today in America. The anti-intellectual instinct of Southern Baptism for example is something I sympathise with. The elite of America would love nothing more than to re-order society based on IQ or erudition. Christianity demands that other qualities are taken into account; unscientific qualities – like modesty, friendliness and warmth.

On a social level, mass atheism (as opposed to scattered, disorganised disbelief) would open Pandora’s Box. Many sleeping ideologies would awaken and moral values would be re-examined. It isn’t enough to say that ‘reason’ would take the place of religion. Whose reason? Can you not make a reasonable case for unreasonable things?

A: “Do you prefer Catholic or Protestant culture?”

DTMW: “My father is a retired C-of-E minister and so Protestantism is more familiar to me. I don’t like the hierarchicalism of the Catholic church, but I like the aesthetics of Catholic communion. Protestantism is more earthly. The West would fare well with either.

A: “Should children be raised with religion?”

DTMW: “I couldn’t be insincere in that regard, so instead I would make them understand that this is historically a Christian culture and that Islam, Hinduism and the like, are foreign to it. We reserve the right to uphold traditions and to maintain a unifying sense of identity. A religious core strengthens a nation by giving it a point of focus. It is terribly short-sighted to recommend the removal of religion from public life entirely.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 175 other followers