The Saturday video, with script below.



What happens when a culture rejects its underlying principles? When any structure loses its foundations it crumbles and falls. Western civilisation is rejecting its foundations and we are beginning to see the results.

The West was built on Christian principles. Not everyone consistently held to biblical principles, but our history, our laws, our way of living together all emerged from Christianity. Progressives think they are all grown up and don’t need Christianity, yet we find they don’t have a viable structure to replace Christianity, and the chaos is beginning to emerge. Continue reading “TRUE EQUALITY”



In the British sit com Dad’s Army Private Fraser, the gloomy Scottish undertaker, has a catch phrase, ‘We’re doomed’.

‘We’re doomed I tell ye. We’re all doomed’

It is easy to despair and think that we are doomed and that progressives have taken over the Western world.

Our media is painfully politically correct and relentlessly pushes a progressive agenda. If politicians utter a word out of line they are quickly brought to heel by a braying Twitter mob. When students demand safe spaces and trigger warnings and university authorities hasten to appease them it’s apparent our universities have become havens of progressivism.

Does this mean that progressivism has won the day? Not necessarily. If you succeed in shutting down public debate it could mean that you have won. It could also mean that you are well on the way to losing. Continue reading “ARE WE DOOMED?”


How we think shapes what we think and what we think shapes what we do. The profound cultural changes which have occurred in the West are to a significant extent shaped by the gradual emergence of post-modern deconstruction as the predominant way of thinking being taught and practiced throughout education and the media. In this video we explore the effects of deconstruction.

The very idea of truth in itself has been rejected, leaving only language power plays which are supposedly the tools of oppression. Free speech is shut down, marriage and the family are seen as oppresive structures, individual responsibility is denigrated and the Christian faith which built Western civilisation is shoved into a corner of the public square as an excentric private hobby. Until we become aware of the weapons being used against traditional cultural virtues and practices we will never be able to counter them.


Why are liberals so opposed to biblical Christianity whilst so accommodating towards Islam? After all Christianity is foundational for many traditional liberal beliefs whilst Islam is utterly opposed to them. The real difference is that Islam is useful to the modern liberal agenda whilst biblical Christianity is an obstacle to its implementation.

freedom go to hell

For today’s liberal the great problem with biblical Christianity is that it is traditionally liberal. In the doctrine of the Image of God Christianity espouses the equal value in the eyes of God of every human being regardless of origin or background. Likewise in arguing for a Day of Judgement before God Christianity argues that there are absolute moral values and that we are all personally responsible agents. Equality and individual responsibility were once guiding lights to be followed by liberals, for today’s liberals in a world of quotas and corporate sin they have long disappeared.

Words change their meanings, sometimes to such an extent that they mean the opposite of what they originally meant. The original fundamentalists, the writers of ‘The Fundamentals’ were men such as BB Warfield and James Orr, theologians of stature who were amongst the intellectual leaders of the Protestantism of their day. Today a fundamentalist is either a snake handler from Tennessee or a bloke with a beard and a suicide vest, basically someone who picks up their Bible, whatever that may be, and puts down his brain.

So it is with the word ‘Liberal’. Once a proponent of the maximum individual and social freedom possible it now denotes someone who is intolerant of other’s views, who demands conformity, who restricts free speech, who desires ever more state control and who seeks to outlaw anything with which he disagrees.

One of the commonplace progressive or liberal memes is that ISIS is un-Islamic. It would be much more accurate to say that today’s liberals are ill-liberal. Traditional liberalism amongst today’s liberals is as dead as Lenin, a mummified corpse preserved in a mausoleum and viewed as a relic of a distant past.

Probably the majority of those posing as liberals today would unite in declaring that criticism of Islam is racist or Islamophobic. Any criticism of the behaviour or beliefs of those perceived as a minority must, according to our liberal elites and their followers, have its roots in the psychology of the critic. Basically the liberal responds to concerns about Islam with the attitude, ‘The problem isn’t with them it’s with you’.


In this way liberals tend to favour denunciation over argument. At one time liberals thought about issues and argued cogently, today liberals respond to ideological clues with Pavlovian eagerness.

The assertion, no matter how illogical, that the USA is irredeemably racist is impossible to argue against because it is not concerned with verifiable fact. For today’s liberals this not an argument to be debated, it is a denunciation which rejects discussion and casts any opposing it as part of the problem; it is an ideological assertion demanding that all fall into line in agreement or fall outside the boundaries of acceptable belief.

Today’s Liberals are ever ready to forgive ill-liberalism whenever it emerges from a favoured grouping. Thus female genital mutilation, which if practised by in the Western Isles or suburban Surrey would arouse roof lifting howls of protest, is forgiven as a ‘cultural practice’ and opposition to it falls under suspicion of Western cultural imperialism.


Where Islam forms the majority liberals are silent as to their behaviour. Liberals campaign incessantly for homosexual rights and feminism, except when it concerns Islamic countries where homosexuals are not fêted on the media and given knighthoods but are considered perverted criminals who can be jailed or sentenced to death, and where women are covered from head to toe and have to walk behind men. Homosexuals, feminists and Muslims are not actual concerns of today’s liberals, they are a means to an end, tools to be exploited.

Muslims are of no real concern to liberals, what they are concerned with is Islam. Muslims are merely the latest ‘victims’ liberals choose to manipulate for their own purposes.

The only thing that concerns liberals about Islam is that, in the West at least, Muslims are a minority group. As such they can be used to sow mistrust in ‘the system’. Muslims can quickly cow the supposedly powerful, consider how Western leaders grovelled over the Danish cartoons and whenever there is a Muslim atrocity are quick to assert Islam is a religion of peace. It is not the vulnerability of Muslims which attracts liberals, it is the power of Islam to challenge the system.

Islam may be sexist, intolerant and bigoted, but liberals who demand resignations at the hint of a sexist joke are silent. The importance to liberals is not the act, it is the ideology. Islam and liberals share a totalitarian mindset. The ultimate aim of both is to replace the existing Western Christian and Enlightenment cultural consensus; liberals with their own liberal progressive utopia, Islam with their own Muslim, sharia based, society. For today’s liberals the operating maxim is ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’.

Islam will dominate world

Biblical Christianity, which is truly liberal in according to every individual maximum value and personal responsibility, and in proclaiming unvarying moral standards, stands in the way of modern totalitarian liberalism and in its view has to be either crushed or co-opted.

Today’s liberal cannot be expected to be distressed or do anything concerning Islamic ill-liberalism. What we confront today is not liberalism as we knew it, it is a progressive jihad which has stolen the terminology whilst rejecting the content of liberalism.


Some time ago this blog mentioned the case of Molly Norris. Forgotten about her? Don’t be embarrassed, nearly everyone else has. No doubt she would be glad if everyone actually did forget about her. Unfortunately those who want to murder her have long memories. She is the cartoonist who drew a cartoon proposing that there should be an ‘Everyone Draw Mohammed Day’.

Way back in 2010, the cartoon series South Park created an episode depicting Mohammed. As we all know from the Danish cartoons incident that’s a big no-no for the religion of peace. The reaction from the Mohammedans was all too predictable.

Even before the episode could be aired the creators of South Park received death threats. As a result Comedy Central, the show’s network, as always a centre of cutting edge comedy willing to bravely challenge the establishment, blurred the depictions of Mohammed and bleeped out any references to the prophet. To this day, the episode has not been broadcast in several countries.

Enter Molly Norris, who is/was a cartoonist then living in Seattle. She rightly thought Comedy Central’s supine capitulation to fundamentalist threats was shameful. As a cartoonist her recourse was the fairly obvious one, she drew a cartoon advertising ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day’, to be held on 20th May 2010.

Norris probably expected a Spartacus moment when her progressive friends would step up with their Mohammed cartoons and say, ‘I am Molly Norris’. Her cartoon simply asked ‘Do your part to both water down the pool of targets and, oh yeah, defend a little something our country is famous for … the first amendment.’ The cartoon was not actually Norris creating an event. It was a cartoon from a fictional group called Citizens Against Humour advertising a fictional event.

Naturally those who value freedom of speech responded, the post went viral on Facebook and the idea took hold. Soon people were trying to organise actual ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day’ events. Alarmed by the overwhelming response Norris tried to disassociate herself from the event. Little good that did her.

It may be difficult for those of us living in countries retaining a tradition of free speech to credit but the Lahore High Court in Pakistan actually solemnly ruled that the event would cause damage to the religious beliefs of millions Pakistani Facebook users. Apparently Islam is particularly susceptible to damage by humour. So the Pakistani government in all its majesty and power temporarily blocked Facebook and other internet sites for all of Pakistan.

At this point the radical American-Yemeni imam Anwar al-Awlaki called for the death of Norris and any others involved in the event. The religion of peace clearly knows how to deal with infidels who own pens.

That was 2010, what about more recently? The March 2013 edition of Inspire magazine — an al-Qaida production —released a ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive for Crimes Against Islam’ list captioned ‘Yes We Can: A Bullet A Day Keeps the Infidel Away’. The roll of honour included Sir Salman Rushdie (Still there despite all the years), Pastor Terry Jones (Always inclusive Mohammedans recognise the place of delusional nonentities), and Molly Norris.

Inspire isn’t only available in the wastelands of Waziristan with a print run of thirteen. It is circulated in the West, and with serious consequences. In April 2013, it was revealed that the two Boston bombers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, learned how to make pressure cooker bombs from reading Inspire. This magazine lives up to its name and  succesfully inspires people living in the West to take up armed jihad and slaughter those who do not bow the knee to Mohammed.

Yet no one was outraged on behalf of Molly Norris. There was no outcry, no pop concerts to raise awareness, no comedy extravaganzas with cutting edge celebrities poking fun at fundamentalist Islam, total silence from Hollywood stars usually ever ready to campaign for the rights of the downtrodden. The ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, the organisations created to boldly stand up for the right of freedom of expression have been strangely mute on the subject of Norris.

Our journalists who boast of boldly speaking truth to power should have been crying out, “How dare you call for the death of a young woman journalist for simply drawing a cartoon and then use our tradition of freedom of speech to distribute your hate filled magazines telling our youth to murder her!” Instead they ignored their fellow journalist.

Norris is apparently a progressive-leaning individual, where are her trendy friends standing up for her rights? She has learned we are not all Spartacus. The political, cultural and media elites, along with the self-appointed defenders of our rights have washed their hands of her.

Did you notice I wrote Norris ‘is/was … living in Seattle’? That was because there’s no information available on her current activities. According to her former employer Seattle Weekly Norris has changed her name and gone into hiding after the FBI confirmed that the threats on her life were all too credible.

Why don’t more people, especially amongst the supposedly freedom loving progressive media industry, care about her defence and well-being? Why aren’t more people angry about the fact that a talented woman who simply drew a cartoon has been forced to go underground in fear of her life?

Which is the bigger scandal: That a bunch of humourless Islamists still want to murder someone for drawing a little cartoon three years ago? Or that there are so many journalists, supposedly seekers after the truth, who won’t even acknowledge one of their own when they hold up a cartoon pointing out the intolerance of Islam?

2014 begins with Molly Norris still in hiding, still fearing for her life. How many more years until she is free to be herself?


The pervasiveness in public thought, and even the introduction into law, of the concept that giving offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation is always to be forbidden is more than just one of those things to which Daily Mail readers respond with groans of ‘Political correctness gone mad’. The idea that being found to be offensive is a criminal offence is a direct attack on Christianity.


It is difficult to imagine a way in which the proclamation of the gospel cannot be offensive to some. The offer of salvation holds out both a salvation to something and also a salvation from something. If we call people to repentance and a new and radically altered life then we inevitably condemn an ungodly lifestyle. If someone is told that adultery, fornication, homosexuality, idolatry or anything in which they indulge or condone is a symptom of a disordered lifestyle and is actually sinful then they are liable to be offended.

Such is the nature of the state’s intimidatory stance that in the last three months three street preachers have been detained by the police in the UK.  Retired Los Angeles County Sheriff Tony Miano was arrested outside the Wimbledon tennis courts in July after a passer-by told the police he had made homophobic remarks when in fact he was reading from I Thessalonians.

On 4th September street preacher Rob Hughes was arrested by Basildon police in Essex on the grounds that he ‘caused harassment, alarm or distress’. Hughes denied the accusations and was eventually released without charge, but only after being held in custody in a police station for seven and a half hours.

In Scotland we have our share of intimidation. Recently Josh Williamson was detained by police on two occasions for breach of the peace whilst preaching on the High Street in Perth. The police at the time seemed curiously deaf to the nearby buskers plying their trade. Only the message of the Prince of Peace was considered to be breaching the peace.

Josh Williamson Breaching the Peace
Josh Williamson
Breaching the Peace

Williamson said afterwards, ‘One policeman told me that the content of what I was saying was the issue. I asked them to clarify, but they wouldn’t. People were making abusive comments to me and swearing in public, that is breaking the law, but instead they went straight to the street preacher. I think it is a form of discrimination and I think that comes back to the content. It becomes dangerous when police say it’s due to content, you get into a position where you wonder what part of speaking from the Gospel is illegal.’

These are only the most recent incidents of street preachers being harassed by police on the grounds that they have given offence. This practice has been occurring for several years now. In 2010 Shawn Holes was fined £1000 for homophobic offences when preaching in Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow. Ironically the motto of Glasgow originally read, ‘Lord, let Glasgow flourish through the preaching of Thy Word and the praising of Thy name’.

Our supposedly triumphant secularists should listen to the warning bells when ‘offensive’ speech is criminalised. Here in Western Europe we have entered a post-Christian society. This does not mean we have a society which has emerged into the broad sunlit uplands of liberty, free from supposedly restrictive Christian moral and ethical dogma. Rather it means that we have entered a polytheistic culture surprising akin to that of the Roman empire where any belief system was tolerated no matter what, as long as that system acknowledged the state as supreme.

The early Christians were persecuted not because they preached Jesus, but because they taught Jesus is Lord. That was seen as a political act and the state could not tolerate a rival authority.

How long before our humanistic fellow citizens begin regretting their stance when the state turns upon them and their cherished ideals? How long before their dearly held convictions become unfashionable?

It couldn’t happen here? How many liberals in 1913 Germany, the most educated nation in Europe, could have predicted what their country would be like a quarter of a century later? How many Russian progressives agitating for total freedom in 1900 found themselves slave labour in the gulag a quarter of a century later? When we abandon that which has given us freedom of expression, the Christian faith, we abandon the basis of freedom.

That we have freedom at all is largely down to the political radicalism of the Reformers and the Puritans whose empowering of the common people ushered in an era of expansion, discovery and free thought. Where else but in the Christian based West were the foundations of democracy and political freedom laid?

Not in Islam. Not in communism. Not in fascism. Not in the ghastly French Revolution so beloved of progressives. Not amongst the noble savages of romantic idealism. Not in the polytheistic culture of the West today.

So a few ranting street preachers are harassed by the police, so what? So a great deal.