What Do Mosques Represent?


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


I’ll start this post with a confession: I rather like Mosques. Some, though by no means all, are grandly dignified, even beautiful. Indeed, architecturally considered, they can be counted as one of the very few artistic triumphs in all the Islamic World’s long, unproductive history.

They have also been much imitated, including in the West. The Royal Pavilion in Brighton, England clearly aims for an Islamic style, as do many of the older churches and cathedrals of Europe (though how appropriate that is, I don’t attempt to measure).

The geometric artwork of a Mosque interior can be equally splendid and betray a real talent in the designers. This art has likewise influenced the infidel world and its style can be seen today in the pattern-work of house furniture, carpets, curtains and dresses.

Some of the Mosques of the East, and in particular those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, are so impressive that they seem wholly out of place inside the undeveloped surrounds of their location (a good example being the ‘Mosque of the Prophet’ in Medina, Saudi Arabia). One has to wonder why such people cannot build libraries and houses with the same dedication and care. Surely if they did so, the Islamic World would be an exhibition of unrivalled majesty. I suppose it’s a matter of priorities…

Of course, what a Mosque looks like and what it represents are very separate and distinct things to consider. A mosque may appear the pleasant product of human creativity, but its symbolism (for those outside the faith) is decidedly more sinister.

Mosques, whatever their spiritual significance within Islam, are a boast; a sign of advancing cultural and religious conquest. The spear-like minarets that dwarf the church spires and tower blocks of infidel cities announce the permanence of Islam in that region. The long reach of the Muezzin call to prayer, drifting every day across distant neighbourhoods, articulates the scale of Muslim ambition; a world faith; a faith to subsume the world entirely.

The call to prayer is not merely a call for Muslims to attend prayers. This is very important to understand. Rather, this musical plea is for all people to come to Islam itself. It is hostile, spiritual propaganda of the grandest kind.

And an increasing number of people are aware of this. When the Swiss People’s Party petitioned the national government to ban the construction of minarets in that country, they were promptly dismissed by conservatives as crackpot. What, sceptics wondered, is the point of banning minarets alone, and leaving the mosques standing? The answer supplied by SPP members was that minarets, through their size and appearance, are ‘aggressive'; that in dwarfing the surrounding areas they are making a statement of ‘supremacy’.

While mysterious to some, this makes perfect sense to me. As the President of Turkey eloquently (and proudly) put it – minarets are the ‘bayonets’ of Islamic conquest.

Despite mass Muslim immigration into Britain being a relatively recent phenomenon (beginning around 1950 and only accelerating to contemporary proportions in the 1970s) the number of Mosques in Britain is already bewildering. There are over 1500 (one thousand five hundred) such buildings in Britain as of 2015, most of which are clustered in specific areas, giving those regions an increasingly foreign character.

There are 383 Mosques in the City of London alone, a figure that is rising rapidly all the time. While there are still more standing Churches in the city, it is fair to speculate that the number of active Mosques (that is to say, Mosques which attract large and faithful congregations) already surpasses the number of active Churches.

There are 59 Mosques in Leicester, with the growth of the local Muslim population there causing a correlating decrease in the number of Christian institutions (churches in Leicester are closing at a higher rate than the national average). A similar picture can be painted of Bradford (80 Mosques), Birmingham (161 Mosques) and Sheffield (33 Mosques).

Tensions are an inevitable result of this. A great deal of British culture is being paved over (against the wishes of the majority) with something hostile, different and unattractive. News reports this week of a pig’s head being left at the doors of a Mosque is far from unusual. Nor are bomb threats, arson attempts and other forms of law-breaking.

I won’t ever endorse or apologize for that kind of stunt (the juvenile actions described benefit no one), but I do urge the government to understand the great offence these buildings cause to Christian and minority communities. We know what they stand for. Jews know what they stand for. Hindus know what they stand for. And our voice of intolerance (yes, we are right to be intolerant of this) must eventually be heard.


Europe and the Boats.


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


The sinking in the Mediterranean of a boat carrying 700 migrants dominates the headlines today, with sources in the region predicting that most have drowned.

I don’t think anyone, whatever their political convictions can fail to be saddened by an event like this. Loss of life on such a scale is simply heartbreaking. Were we Africans ourselves, living lives of unendurable poverty, we too would take any opportunity  we could think of to get a better deal for our families.

The blame for the incident must thus lie squarely on the liberal policies of the EU and on the shoulders of those who uphold them. It was they who made our continent seem like a prize any African and his wife could successfully pursue (even though it shouldn’t be). It is they who refuse to safely escort all migrants back to Africa when they arrive at the shores of Italy or Malta. And it is they who fail to crack down on the human smuggling gangs who operate freely on African and European streets.

The demographic explosion in Africa is going to make this issue predominant in our political discourse for the foreseeable future. Europe will have to make very tough and internationally unpopular decisions if it is to protect itself from inundation and cultural blackout.

A majority of the migrants attempting to sneak into Europe are Muslim, though there are also Christians among them. This co-habitation has often proven difficult and on occasion, tragi-comic: Just a week ago, it was reported that a group of Muslim Africans, after their own dinghy began to leak, threw the Christians overboard after they prayed to Jesus for help.

Needless to say, we have more than enough Muslim degenerates in our midst already and these Islamic migrants should be promptly returned to Africa. There is growing evidence to suggest this mass export of humans is being sponsored by Islamist groups in North Africa in order to destabilise Europe. If this is true, those Islamist groups should be pursued by Western and allied militaries.

And in general, our governments should make it clear that we are economically unable (and therefore politically unwilling) to rehome the population of Africa. The longer our governments take to do so, the more lives they actively put at risk.


Counter-Jihad is Not a Crusade.


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


I was walking through an underpass the other day when I noticed some bright yellow graffiti on the sloping wall above me. It was an unidentifiable but medieval-looking shield, above which the ferocious statement (in English) ‘Death to Islam!’ was scrawled in capital letters.

Walking on, I wondered whether the shield was some sort of Crusader symbol, or perhaps a coat of arms connected to the Reconquista (I am still in Spain). The former is not unusual in counter-jihad society, where veneration of the Knights Templar and Teutonic Order has long been popular.

I don’t personally venerate the Crusaders. They were brutal anti-Semites and religious fanatics. They killed without mercy or planning, and the mission with which they charged themselves was little different to the Jihadism of today.

And the crusader worship so prevalent in Counter-Jihad circles seems to me generally wide of the mark. I don’t want a war with Islam. I want Islam out of the West and a segregation of cultures enforced by a large, well-organised transnational military. I don’t much care if Indonesians or Sudanese people want to practise their faith. I don’t think that’s part of the West’s concern.

Whilst an entity like ISIS, which has declared war on the civilised world, must be vanquished from the air as soon as possible, the existence of the Islamic religion itself is not something we can do much about. ‘Death to Islam’ consequently has no meaning for me, unless it is followed with the limiting clause “…in the West.”

One of the greatest myths in modern political discourse holds that Islam (and Muslims) are ‘weak’. Designed to manipulate opinion, the idea is typically advanced alongside the observation that the West is strong, thus making for an asymmetry of power conducive to a view of Muslims as the ‘underdog’.

We don’t have to place much stress on the imagination to bunk that concept. Simply think of the political, economic and military capabilities of 1.6 Billion people acting for a common goal. Think of a civilisation which together controls 70% of the world’s oil supply. Think of the combined might of the Turkish, Egyptian, Iranian, Algerian, Moroccan, Saudi, Pakistani and Indonesian militaries. Think of the disruption that would be caused if the Muslims of Europe and India violently turned on their host societies.

No, Muslims are not weak, and nor is the Muslim world. It is formidably powerful and a condition of total war between Islam and the West would plunge both coalitions into bloody oblivion.

This is why, in reversing the Islamic conquest of Europe, we have to be careful not to redevelop a crusader mind-set. We would be fools to try to defeat the Muslim world entirely. Even if it were possible, we’d gain little from doing so.

Let us stress instead the benefits of a peaceful separation of Islam and the West. A peace that would allow for both cultures to develop as they wish.


Climatic Agnosticism.


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


Since I’ve never touched upon before, I’d like to briefly share my views on what many consider to be the greatest issue of our era: ‘global warming’- interchangeably known as ‘climate change’.

Despite being interested in the subject (as we all should be), I’ve been deterred from getting into this debate for several reasons, but first among them is the irrational fury, cult-like dedication and inflexibility of the warring parties.

In a sense, Global Warming is for the Political Left what demography and Islamisation is for the Right – a potential so dire and of such far-reaching disruption that it relegates all other issues to irrelevance.

After all, what are human trifles compared against the end of the world? What is there to gain by politics if our children cannot live to enjoy the results? And so on…

The position I would (perhaps wrongly) imagine most of my audience to occupy would be that of climate scepticism. This is a blog that offers opinions on other matters in tune with the conservative worldview, and conservatives have a very emphatic line on global warming – it isn’t happening; the only reason the climate movement exists is to resurrect in green clothes policies that failed wearing red.

The Left-Liberal position meanwhile is a mirroring confidence to outright denial. To them, the climate argument is not only persuasive, it is conclusive and should be taken as fact.

Neither view is consistent enough, friendly enough, softly-spoken enough to escape the suspicion of ulterior motives. And true to this, a substantial majority of activists (for and against) have political or economic interests to advance.

Anti-global warming theorists are usually sponsored by the oil industry. Pro-Global warming activists are usually employed by pressures groups, money-hungry ‘charities’ or in receipt of lucrative government research grants.

The closer you get to the climate change debate, the more the stench of money overwhelms you.

My own view? I don’t think political movements as big as this can be based purely on fabricated evidence. There must be something going on, and it mustn’t be to our common advantage.

That said, those who maintain we are on the brink of apocalyptic climate change, a change in the weather system so drastic that we will no longer be able to go about our lives, is not backed up with any substantial evidence at all.

It is important to remember that climatology, for all its certainty, is a science in its tender infancy. It should not be considered to possess the same predictive power as physics or biology. It is still developing and this means that it may be wholly wrong in its current outlook.

We must continue to test the predictions of the global warming theorists. If their predictions come about, action must follow. If not, then difficult questions must be answered by those profiting by making them.


Europe: 2050 AD.


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


The respected polling and research company Pew released the results of a very interesting study last week. Using a model of demographic projection based upon current trends, the authors have approximated the religious make-up of every country in the world in the year 2050.

Here (in no particular order) are some of the key facts.

In 2050…

– The Muslim population of Britain will make up 11.3% of the general population.

– In the Netherlands, Muslims will make up 9.4% of the GP.

– In Italy, Muslims will make up 9.5% of the GP.

– In Germany, Muslims will make up 10% of the GP.

– In France, Muslims will make up 10.9% of GP.

– In Sweden, Muslims will make up (and I found this staggering) 12.4% of the GP.

In the other countries of Western Europe, the percentage hovers somewhere between 4% and 10%. Eastern Europe is predicted to remain largely homogenous.

How do you feel about those numbers? I’m very interested in your responses.

Of course, as to whether this landmark study will serve to bolster our position or else infuse it with a new caution depends entirely on the pre-existing bias of its interpreters. Many of the most important questions raised by it are heavily subject to distortion by value. (Exactly how many Muslims is ‘too many’? – Are the swelling number of Hindus similarly problematic? – and so on).

From my perspective the figures are only mildly surprising. The figure for France, I will admit, is lower than I had presumed, while the figures for Sweden and Britain are much higher. Overall, the problem has very slightly changed its pattern of emphasis, but not altered significantly in its potential.

I suppose that all we can do with a study of this kind is to project our imaginations forward and try to judge the future. In attempting to do so, I think I mourn for Sweden more than anywhere else. The destiny I imagine is so out of kilter with Sweden’s history, with its character and with all its ancestors worked for that it seems freakishly unfair. This never needed to happen. There is nothing natural or inevitable about a Nordic country having a Muslim minority. Geographically and geo-politically, Sweden is blessed with isolation from most of the troublespots of the world. The fact it has been so altered is the result of traitorous policies that must one day be answered for.

Some might (and will) say that 12.4% of a population is not large enough to exert an effect on the majority, but I fear such people are simply wrong. African-Americans, the most influential cultural group in the US are only 13.2% of its national population. American Jews, another powerful element in the country’s national life, are 3%. 12.4% is a perfectly sufficient foothold for cultural transformation.

I have a feeling that even the parts of Europe that remain free from Muslim settlement will be negatively altered in character by all this. Gone will be that funny, cheese-eating euro-liberalism we used to mock so affectionately before the conquest found its feet. It’s replacement will be banal, repetitive, proletarian hate.

What the Pew organisation has forewarned us of is not quite the ‘end of the world’, but it is the end of the one we value and have sought, in vain it now seems, to protect.


The Question of Kosovo.


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


Although considered by Western Powers to be ‘resolved’, the military conflict between Serbs and Albanians over the territory of Kosovo continues with great intensity at every sub-political level. On internet forums in particular, poetically restrained and level-headed comments like the following are uploaded almost every day:

“Fucking Anal-banian goat-herding Turks! Get the fuck out of Europe, you filthy Muslim mongols! We should fucking genocide you.” – “Serbian monkey filth, bending over and taking Russian Slavic dick. How does Putin’s cock taste, fucking bitches.” – “Albanian Pakistani Arab goat monkey Turk swine! Don’t act fucking Italian, Turkish filth!” – “Funny Slavs called us Turks! Slavs were Turkish slaves! That’s why they are called SLAVS! You are lower than sand monkeys, Slavic Serbo-degenerate peasants.”

And so on…

Needless to say, these crazed ejaculations are degrading to their authors and wholly unbefitting of European affairs.

How did this happen? How did two neighbourly European countries become charged with an enthusiasm for genocide?

The answer is the Islamic religion and the chaos caused by its introduction onto a Christian continent.

The Ottoman Empire’s European domain was maintained in the same way that it was created, with the sword and the heavy-hands of the state. In occupied Albania, proud, inassimilable Europeans were treated like second-class citizens in their own countries, and only converted subjects were entreated with privilege and the favour of the authorities. After many patriotic residents, repulsed by the Islamising trend, fled to the safety of Western European countries, the orthodoxies of Islam slowly became the norm in Albanian society, with the nation all but Islamised in two centuries of occupation.

From that moment on, Albania has been a geopolitical oddity on the European continent; an oddity whose accommodation has proven beyond the wiles of various European statesmen. It is undoubtedly true that Albania is a European country, and DNA tests on the general population have confirmed that is native to the land. But what is more difficult to decide is whether Albania is a part of the European cultural community.

This confusion would lie dormant for many centuries, eventually only coming to the fore as a result of tensions with the Serbs.

Serbian nationalists claim Kosovo as a hallowed territory in their national history. It was the sight of a destructive battle ‘The Battle of Kosovo’ in 1389 in which Serbian troops sought to repel an Ottoman invasion. Since that date, the territory has been romantically evoked by Serbian nationalists in poetry, music and literature.

When the territory eventually was secured by the Ottomans (after the Battle described above), the region was overwhelmingly Serbian. By the fall of the Ottomans in the 19th century however, the region was markedly more cosmopolitan, with Muslim Albanians now comprising a large proportion of its inhabitants.

This miserable time for Serbia was later horribly exacerbated by the long dictatorships of the Nazis and Soviets. After the fall of the latter, the region of Kosovo once again became a matter of racial dispute.

The Serbs, seeking to carve out a new state along the lines of their historic homeland naturally wanted to reverse the injustices of the Ottoman period. The Albanians, having benefited immensely from their centuries of favour with the Muslim authorities, naturally wished for the region to remain Albanian. When the conflict became bestial and corpses piled up in the forests, the US intervened on the side of the Albanians, leading to the quasi-independent state of Kosovo.

The trend for Counter-Jihadis, for obvious reasons, has been to back the Serbs and I don’t see any reason to depart from this consensus. The state of Kosovo is as illegitimate as any other entity created by force during a period of imperialism. When the Nazis carved out lebensraum from occupied Poland, throwing out the rightful inhabitants and transplanting the towns and villages with foreigners, this was understood by every fair-minded observer to be a wrong in need of righting. The Ottomans, given their treatment of the Armenians and Slavs, should be considered a fascist empire alike that of the Germans. Their Islamist project in the Balkans was designed to gain a synthetic foothold in Europe, from which to launch a later conquest. We must reject this with a united voice and a common energy.


Maajid Nawaz’s Striptease Should Surprise Nobody.


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


For many years now, the Pakistani Muslim commentator Maajid Nawaz has been advanced in the media as a model of Islamic reform. Once a crazed Islamist and member of the terroristic faction Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Nawaz suddenly lurched into ‘moderation’ in 2007, having become ‘disillusioned’ with both the means and ends of the Islamist project. His confessional ‘Radical: My Journey Out of Islamic Extremism’ was roundly commended by the Liberal media, and Nawaz is now a paid-up candidate for the Liberal Democrat Party.

Given this reputation, one can imagine the surprise in Liberal circles when yesterdays news broke and was promptly shared around the internet. In case you haven’t heard, a video has been released showing Nawaz – now a self-described ‘Feminist’- enjoying a striptease, during which he violates conventions by groping the woman performing the tease, eventually following her out of the booth to continue the harassment.

Getting a strip-tease is nothing illegal, but it’s fair to say that real ‘feminists’ are not altogether keen on the practice. We are thus prompted to wonder whether this was merely an aberration or in fact a revealing reversion to religious type. My guess is the latter.

Despite his warm words and political gestures in favour of civilisation, Nawaz remains a believing Sunni Muslim. Since his religion anti-sexual, he shuns access to the tact and subtlety that come as the reward of a modern imagination. He is sexually unpredictable for this reason. You cannot shake off the neurosis of faith by changing political direction.

Toxic beliefs, whether or not they are watered down, always find a way of exposing themselves. Moderate Muslims are useless to the counter-jihad cause, for latent within them are all the evils they claim to have overcome. 

To call yourself a Muslim, moderate, liberal or orthodox, you must believe certain things. Prime among them is faith in the divine authorship of the Qur’an and its infallibility. This means you stand by passages describing women as secondary to men. There is no way around that. The passages are very clear and cannot be explained away as poetry or metaphor. To be a Muslim, you also have to believe that the conduct of the Prophet is noble, moral and worth emulating. This includes numerous practices deemed to be immoral and unlawful in modern Western society.

The source of Muslim dysfunction is therefore innate in the system of belief itself, in its articles of faith and the conduct of its holy figures.

While Ex-Muslims have the potential to be our best friends,’moderate’ Muslims like Nawaz fail to recognise the source of the problem and must be rejected for that reason.


4 Things Britain Can Learn from Spain.


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


I’ve been working in Northern Spain for more than 4 months now. I shall be returning to England very shortly and so in the past weeks I’ve been thinking about how this country compares to my own. There are many things the UK gets right that Spain gets wrong, but to list these would be impolite to my hosts. Here instead are four things Spain does that Britain should do too…

1. Build Real Cities.

One of the greatest failures of modern British planning is the way the capital city has been allowed to dwarf the rest of the country economically, culturally and politically. The 2nd city of Britain is a glorified housing estate. The 3rd city (Manchester) is merely a scaled down version of London. Below that, most English cities are simply large towns.

Compare this to Spain, where at least 5 cities – Bilbao, Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia and Seville – qualify as ‘major’. This gives Spain a wonderful balance, something sorely lacking the UK.

2. Cook Real Food.

British cuisine is an international punchline. To deny this only makes the laughter more emphatic. Spanish cuisine is simple, yet wonderfully varied. Let’s add more seafood to our diet. It extends your lifespan and is immeasurably more delicious than chips.

3. Don’t Fight High-Speed Railways.

There is currently a very silly controversy raging in Britain regarding the construction of a high-speed rail link between Birmingham and London. While I don’t know of many reasons why a Londoner would wish to go to Birmingham, high speed trains are an essential part of a modern national infrastructure. Don’t fight the future. It always wins.

4. Lift the 5pm Shutters.

There is no reason for society to shut down at 5pm. It is depressing, anti-social and economically destructive. If you want young Brits to stop getting drunk in parks, put pressure on businesses to stay open longer. In Spain, the happy part of the day begins when ours finishes.


Making Britain Safe for Apostasy.


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


Imagine being a Muslim atheist in Britain. Though it sounds self-contradictory, there must be thousands of such people living alongside us in every corner of this country, typically in a condition of self-hatred and misery.

Try to empathise with them even a little and you can readily appreciate their plight. Imagine what it’s like to be trapped in a culture of stupidity that will kill you if you try to leave. Imagine being forced to suppress your own rationality and to oppose those you agree with. Imagine suffering the swelling hatred of the native majority and feeling the hot persecution of those who should rightly be your friends. Imagine the prospect of having to sever ties with your family, friends and ethnic origins just to embrace the modern way of life.

I feel immense sympathy for these people. They didn’t ask to be born into a degraded life. It was their own random misfortune.

What can we do to better facilitate their liberation? There is no riskless panacea or faultless manifesto to employ, but we must do something, or we risk abandoning our ideals completely and becoming simple xenophobes. 

As far as I can see, there are three core motivations that inspire Muslim atheists resident in the West to remain linked to their faith of birth. Other motivations (and there are many others) are usually children or siblings of these.

1. Distrust of the Islamophobic Community / racial pride.

2. Family ties.

3. Retribution.

Let’s deal with them in order.

If you were a Western Muslim atheist wishing to leave Islam, you might be deterred from doing so by the thought that Islamophobes are vulgar, racist and stupid. Despite your atheism, you might be averse to giving such idiots ‘what they want’. Islam, for good or ill, is watermarked in your ethnic identity and cannot be cleanly excised. In short, you would rather be a proud Turk or Arab, than a shy, quivering uncle tom.

I can fully appreciate this. Though far from the majority, there are obviously racists in the EDL, in SION and in other like-minded organisations; the kind of people who don’t have any religious opinions at all, but merely an active dislike of Turks, Arabs and Pakistanis. What proud Muslim atheist would want to shake those hands? – Would want to go from being a first-rate Pakistani or Turk to being a second-rate Westerner?

The solution to this is to place a heavy emphasis on the corrosive effects Islam has had on the ethnic cultures now dominated by it. Explain to the Pakistani that Pakistan was once peaceful and Buddhist; to the Arab that the Arab world was once an illustrious collection of ancient glories; to the Iranian that Iran was once the Persian Empire, and so on. Remind them that everyone on earth is too good for Islam. It degrades anyone who embraces it and depresses their natural talents.

Secondly, the Muslim atheist is understandably averse to severing ties with his family, who in most cases remain wedded to the Islamic faith.

The solution to this is naturally more difficult. How can we offer a replacement kinship for such people? As daunting as it seems, we can but try. It is often remarked upon that Counter-Jihad has become something of a sub-culture in recent years. Our enemies make much beef of this, claiming it as evidence for our collective delusion. But on the contrary, this pleasant fraternal atmosphere can help greatly to accommodate those who remain addicted to the communal warmth of religion and traditional culture. Try to make use of that.

The last deterrent factor is by far the most important. According to the Hadith (a religious authority in Islam second only to the Qur’an), the penalty for leaving Islam is death. The apostate is to be killed without mercy or regard for secular law.

This can be dealt with via politics. We must lobby and petition the government to ensure apostates are supplied with police protection and given special consideration in  housing and work. No apostate, having abandoned Islam, should be left to the mercy (or lack of it) of their community. They should be helped to move elsewhere with restraining orders placed on those relatives who seem likely and willing to fulfil the religious sentence. While this sounds over-the-top and beyond the rightful expectations of national charity, it is in fact the same protection we supply to beaten wives, witnesses to murder and any other citizen proven to be vulnerable to extrajudicial homicide. Why should apostates be treated any differently?

People of my viewpoint are often accused of being racist. Though it is a tedious and unwarranted slur, it is worth combating. The best way to do this is to look past the imposed surface of a Muslim and offer a hand of friendship to the person beneath it.


The New Atheism: A Clarification.


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


I wrote a post last week that seemed (and was) hostile to the school of thought labelled as ‘New Atheist’ – more explicitly, the works of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens.

Specifically, I criticised these personalities for repeatedly lying about Hitler’s religious convictions – for claiming, as they do, that the Fuhrer was a believing Catholic, when his real views were closer to rational unbelief.

I don’t want to write the same article twice, so if you’re interested in my argument, please scroll down to ‘Hitler Was an Atheist’ in last week’s bunch. On this occasion, I’d like to clear up my position in regard to the ‘New Atheism; and atheism in general, lest my previous words have failed to communicate my true opinion.

I’ll start by restating that I am the son of a Church of England minister, and (as it goes for most vicar’s sons) the experience has often led me to an extreme and reactive rationalism, inspired by (among other figures) Nietzsche and Sartre, the traditional heroes of the thinking Western adolescent.

At the time of my enrolling in University, I was so convinced by atheism that I rarely thought about it. As far as I was concerned, the debate was dead, and all that remained to do was for the rising generation to destroy any legacy of Christian thought; to liberate the West from its dusty idols, arbitrary loyalties and primitive moral worldview.

Since then, I’ve not gone back on my view of the cosmos, the historicity of religious texts, or the facticity of evolution. But what I have done is read more about the human animal and the role that religion plays in sustaining him, in reminding him of things he might otherwise forget.

I remember at college coming up with what I considered to be a bold new scientific theory: the idea that there is an ‘optimal IQ range’, below which the human behaves in a destructive or abusive fashion to others, and above which the human being malfunctions, seeks to destroy himself or otherwise rebels against natural law. The ‘theory’ (if it can be so dignified) was drawn from the observation that high-IQ people tend to neglect the fundamental practices of nature, most notably the need to reproduce, to avoid suicidal thinking, and to maintain connections with the rhythms of their fellow man.

In retrospect this seems slightly daffy. There are clearly benefits to high intelligence and not just for the individual possessed by it. But that said, I still believe there is something vital in the wisdom of the less able, in their commitment to the essentials of life.

This very week it was reported that by 2070, the number of Muslims will overtake the number of Christians to make Islam the largest religion on Earth. This has to do with three synergetic factors. First, Muslims still believe in reproduction. Secondly, Europeans and Latin Americans no longer reproduce at the required pace and quantity. And thirdly, Europeans are becoming more disjointed and secularised, leading to a collapse of the only cultural coalition large enough to compete with the spread of Islam.

This has less to do with theology than with natural priorities. Religion, though it may on occasion go against science and progress, nevertheless tethers the human mind to very important primal truths. To sever the European from his traditions is to sever him from the destiny those traditions were laying out for him.

According to Richard Lynn, Japan is the most intelligent country on Earth, yet it is turning into a high-tech nursing home. Sweden is similarly dying. Norway is dying. Germany is dying. Italy is dying. Even China is dying.

And that last example is an especially illustrative one. China has been forcedly atheist for over fifty years. In that period of skyscraper building, the birth rate has steadily but surely declined. This has been helped by – but cannot be wholly explained by – the ‘one-child policy’ that (in any case) accompanies the confident atheism of Communism.

Outside of reproductive issues, the abandonment of Christianity by Europeans has another global effect. The more impressionable and cultureless races, most notably the booming population of Africa may be increasingly drawn to confident religions like Islam and turn away from the tired out, apologetic religion of their former colonial masters. The wonderful civilising effect of European Christianity may vanish and plunge great swathes of the world into barbaric darkness.

To repeat my general position – none of these concerns imply religion is true or science false. All I recommend is to consider the void that comes after religion and weigh its benefits against those of history.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 254 other followers