Onward Christian Soldiers


Listening to R4 this morning and a programme about Jewish humour [not Muslim humour?  Wonder why] and the presenter came up with a joke…the punchline of which was ‘Why would I tell you I’m Jewish when I’m surrounded by all these well armed Christians?’ 

The presenter no doubt rather smugly thought she was being very right-on, edgy and telling it as it is….except of course that’s just not what is happening in modern day Europe as Jews are once again being murdered, attacked and forced to flee this supposedly liberal bastion of human rights, progressive values and cultural diversity.  As the Muslims move in to Europe there is often, all too often, a corresponding move out of Jews.  Coincidence?  I think not.

One day, maybe, we will hear a BBC presenter telling a joke with the punchline ‘Why would I tell you I’m Jewish when I’m surrounded by all these well armed Muslims?’   Don’t hold your breath.

Read this from Harry’s Place….ironically by a ‘liberal’ Muslim……

Who gave us post truth, conspiracy culture and the alt-right?

Some years ago, a friend sent me a shocking article. It said hundreds of British girls were being systematically gang-raped by Muslim gangs. It claimed this was being covered-up.

I’ve never had time for conspiracy theories, especially when they look as hateful as those in the article. So I checked the links and sources in the piece. I found an American racist-far-right website and from there, saw the original source was a similarly unpleasant website in the UK.

I did a brief search for corroboration from reputable mainstream sources. I found none. So I wrote a curt reply to my friend: “I’d appreciate it if you didn’t send me made-up crap from neo-Nazi websites”.

Some months later, I read the seminal exposé of the (mainly) ethnic-Pakistani grooming gang phenomenon by Andrew Norfolk in The Sunday Times.

I was stunned and horrified – not just that these vile crimes were indeed happening and endemic, but that they really were being ignored and “covered-up” by public authorities and the mainstream media.

Some on the left in the West see certain ideas and even some easily verifiable truths, as plain dangerous, much like the totalitarian communists of yesteryear. Dangerous to public order. Dangerous to the ‘common good’.

Whilst this section of the left has always existed, it now seems to have become more ‘mainstream’. It seethes and obsesses within carefully-policed ideological echo-chambers. It dominates in universities, trade unions and the public sector.  And whereas it was once mainly prevalent in fringe far-left outfits, it has now effectively co-opted the Labour party through its membership and leadership.

Anyone who has ever tried to engage with this section of the left will know that it doesn’t ‘do debate’ with conservatives on issues like immigration, multiculturalism and identity politics. For it, “the debate is settled”. Opposing views are intrinsically wicked. Such ideas are to be ignored. Muted. Blocked. Banned. Disrupted. Drowned out with fog-horns.

Whilst the overall number of individuals espousing this groundless sense of moral certainty is relatively small, its effect on political discourse has been disproportionately large given that its champions are focused, organised and operate in the relatively influential sectors mentioned above.

As a result, much of the mainstream media and even world leaders have either adopted its illiberal approach and anti-intellectual language or else avoided language that might provoke its ire.

Today, we’re seeing Western governments implement increasingly restrictive ‘hate-speech’ laws to suppress ideas and comments considered dangerous to the common good. Merkel is leading the charge, seeking to block what she considers to be ‘hate speech’ from social media in Germany.

Throughout the West, we see politically inconvenient truths partially censored or unreported. Or else they’re rephrased and altered in order to appear virtuous.

Post truth  – Framing ‘truth’ in emotional, ‘ideologically-virtuous’ terms rather than the complex and sometimes unwelcome reality real truth takes.

Didn’t the left invent it? Hasn’t it done this for decades?

It may not be pleasant or kind when the Daily Mail or Sun show pictures of grown men being admitted to the UK as ‘child refugees’. But what’s the alternative? Should such information be kept from the public? Won’t doing so give a monopoly on that truth to the extremists? Doesn’t a monopoly on inconvenient truths by extremists empower them more? Haven’t we learned anything from the grooming scandal?

No one’s suggesting it’s easy to engage with people whose views you dislike, especially over issues that you’d rather were different in reality. But ask yourselves this:

“How’s our current strategy been working out for us?”

Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Onward Christian Soldiers

  1. chrisH says:

    It really is about time that the Liberal left and their salesforce began to feel the fear of taking the on Christians(who are far more mumerous than the hounded Jews, and who owe the Jews everything for Jesus Himself).
    In language that they will soon be made to understand, I see it as “cultural appropriation”-the BBC have NO right to speak on Christians in any way other than they do with Islam.
    Ditto the Godless shops who`ve been spouting off re ” Christmas” since early October.
    Islams camel isn`t easily co-opted to let the BBC and the shops have a free pass at Muhammad.
    Why then have we got so used to our donkey getting whipped to death just so they can sell more shit, mock our Saviour and trash a few hundred years of Judeo-Christian culture?
    We need to run them off our reservations and sanctuaries, let them sup with the Quakers and Greenpeace…but piss off out of our churches and our culture will ya?
    I mean-if we can`t wear sombreros or Indian feathers-why do we let them pimp off US for three months of the year, as they mock us in a way that Islam(to be fair) won`t allow the same faithless wonders to get away with.
    Bit more “muscular Christianity from the Church Militant please”!


  2. JimS says:

    What do you make of this? Bursting The Bubble

    “Bobby Friction has started to realise that his day-to-day online activities are not only being monitored but in some senses manipulated. How often he interacts with specific friends, pages or sites sculpts and filters everything and everyone he comes into contact with online. Since the Brexit vote and the US election these bubbles have become a really big issue – with talk of fake news, post-truth politics and online communities increasingly divided.
    When, like Bobby, you decide you’ve had enough of living in a social media bubble, what can you do to change things? Is it possible for an ordinary person a user of social media to beat the system or is it only technology nerds who can do it? And really – is there any benefit to breaking out of the bubble?”


  3. Philip_2 says:

    The BBC mock Christianity as it the bedrock of our western civilisation. The family. The mother, The father, the child are all under attack and (good christian) parents ridiculed and condemned by the left (who largely had an unhappy childhood). Many of Blair’s government ‘team’ were adopted and were happily (mostly unhappily) adopted and often had a ‘private’ education (as this is still the case in law, (School admissions laws means that adopted children must come first). It is a charitable act and seems to bring out the best (or worst) in politicians who then condemn (or forget) they were privately educated. Most of the front bench of Labour have been privately educated for the simple, reason that they (possibly) feel inferior and feel an affinity with muddled incoherent comrades.

    But they mock charity at their own peril. For charity has been effectively abolished by the ‘left’ under Gordon Brown (and Ed Balls) and nationalised into something else. The Christian ethic behind Charitable ‘good works’ (for the good of all) has been abolished and it is now just a tax haven for the politicians who often sit as head of a charity (whilst in opposition) and ask for money from central government for more money to massage the ‘victims’ they have found. These victims are characters they can move around from one charity to the next or simply abandon them when central funding runs out. Gordon Browns ‘quangoes’ (designed to spend their lives in opposition to ‘Tory cuts’ were designed for just that), over 20,000 were created to ‘support’ any victim they had yet to create.

    Many of the BLAIR and BROWN charities still exist on a lot less funds than they received under Peter Mendleson (then head of Department of Trade and Industry) with millions of pounds of public money being poured into ‘favoured’ political policies (under newly set up charities). All headed by a Labour Peer or ex Labour MP. Many of them are still there on what is still ‘exorbitant’ (£600,000+) salaries and expense accounts. The Charity Commission cannot remove these charities unless they commit a crime (i.e. raising funds for ISIS) but tax evasion is NOT a crime, and not all charities are set up for tax evasion, but many are just that. The NATIONAL LOTTERY is one such charity (yes really) and the funds used to promote EU appeals at the EU court of human rights for the daft ’equal rights’ (for homosexuals) regulations we still endure is still on record.

    When you take Christianity ‘out of charity’ and ridicule the concept of charity, mock the family, trivialise the importance of raising polite and conscientious children – who are taught to care for the old and infirm. Ridicule everything Christians stand for, their stupid books and beliefs, their independence from the state (more often than not), the ‘papacy’ (as they call it) and add in every religion (including ISLAM) as ‘equal’ and if not ‘better’ then we have what we have at the moment.

    Its called the BBC and they don’t believe in charity. They believe in the Orwellian STATE. The EU state, the one-party-state. That is a secular state where nobody has any notion of what charity was. And then the charitable donations start to dry up and they have to resort to campaigns and TV adverts to add funds to increasing numbers of ‘victims’. Many of these ‘new’ style charities are in fact run and administered by central governments as NGO’s of which ex civil service and ex BBC types rule along with ex Labour Mp’s. The main thing they all have in common is an over reliance on STATE cash donations and a contempt for public interference as to where and how the money is spent.

    I for one will not donate to any charity that has any links to the Labour government, the BBC or any of the international sounding bodies that do not understand the concept of Christian charity. That reduces the number down to handful. It’s not what you have but what you believe in that matters and I do not believe that the BBC has any right to claim that Children-in-need’ is a charity when Terry Wogan (when he was alive) was paid very handsomely for something that should have been freely given. In the same way that they (BBC or others) ask us for money, they pocket with the expenses and have presentation fees. So beware the word charity when they mock Christianity as the do. Islam is not very good with charity but they give a lot of money to the BBC (via charity).

    Charity is not what it was. I leave you with this charity appeal (from 2014).


    • Scroblene says:

      Excellent points and well made, Philip-2.

      I kept humming the Genesis ditty ‘Jesus he loves me’, after taking in your facts and reading the link!


    • NCBBC says:

      Very informative post. Thank you


    • chrisH says:

      Great post Philip.
      Jesus told us all the basic rules re charity-it`s a private thing, publicly looks like nothing at all.
      An example would be Simon Cowell giving money to support the IDF vets a few years back…nu fuss, just did it and I now have respect for him, despite his shows and image.
      Harry and Paul gave us the concept of “cheridee” instead-brilliant and stems from Geldof 84/5( Bangladesh in 1971 was an honourable precursor, but in no way responsible for Live Aid and its grotesque ballooning into all we see today).
      Without the Judeo-Christian roots and knowledge-of COURSE the culture confuses and dissembles, fiddles and lies-a lot of good livings there, and the chance to puff yourself up as being “good”( see Jo Cox and HER career path).
      Sport, entertainment and charity-what a mix, and as gar from G-d as you`ll ever get.
      Which is why the only channels we get today are Satans Stations in lycra waving a bucket at your kiddies groins.


      • Up2snuff says:

        Exactly, chrisH.

        Charity as business. Business as charity. The more I remember David Cameron the more I remember his ‘five minute ideas’ and soundbites on them. That guy had no depth and has left no legacy, beyond Same Sex Marriage and the EU Referendum.

        On that latter one: hooray!

        Thanks, Dave.

        Do you remember, chrisH, that David Cameron was also fully signed up to the Blair/Brown/Mandelson/Campbell charity programme. I cannot now remember when he pushed that charity sector ‘five minute ideas’ and soundbite out, but he definitely did. Not sure that Osborne followed it up, though, with the Labour layers of cash that the Unholy Quartet laid out from 1997-2010.


    • Up2snuff says:

      Yes, Philip_2, good points and an excellent partner piece to that highlighted by Alan, taken from Harry’s Place.


  4. NCBBC says:

    ChrisH wrote: Jesus told us all the basic rules re charity-it`s a private thing, publicly looks like nothing at all.

    And so they have their rewards- on earth. The award for hypocrisy.


    • Up2snuff says:

      NCBBC, not sure what point you are making there. May have to explain that to me.


      • NCBBC says:

        Apologies for not seeing your post.

        Those who give to charity in a public manner have already gained their reward on earth. A good Christian does good without making a show of it, if possible, even to the recipient of the act of compassion. Only God will see the act, and judge according to the sincerity, and motives of the individual.

        The parable of the goats and sheep, is also appropriate.


  5. Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate says:

    Christianity is centred around the words of Jesus, who was a pacifist (turn the other cheek etc). At its heart it is a pacifist religion. The problems with Christianity was associated with its adoption by the Roman Empire and the various state level churches, the Roman Catholic Church and so forth. Protestantism helped to bring the religion back to the people and away from the church. There are still issues with Christianity, but at its core, the central Jesus “message” is pacifism.

    Now Islam was founded by Muhammad, during the time that Muhammad got violent and became a warlord, eventually fighting to gain control of Medina, then Mecca and then the Arabian Peninsula. It was soon used to justify the rapid and violent conquer of the middle-east, north Africa and Persia and elsewhere. At heart Islam is warlike. It preaches absolute surrender and submission. It preaches, with Allah’s help, the absolute destruction of the infidels (non believers). This is in the Quran. It says the infidel cities may be destroyed “now” or much later, but they will eventually be destroyed, because it is Allah’s Will that all shall submit and believe in Allah and his prophet, Muhammad. The Quran says the only hope for the infidel is surrender and submission. Only then, as a Muslim, can they expect to see the all powerful mercy of Allah. It preaches fear. It says only the Muslim that truly fears the wrath of Allah, will obey Allah and His prophet Muhammad.


    • Up2snuff says:

      Another good post on here by BobotC.

      It’s also important to remember that Muhammad had had exposure to both Judaism and Christianity. You can see a careful ‘incorporation of ideas’ or adoption of texts or parts of texts, most probably to deceive and to make conquest of territories that were under Jewish and/or Christian merchant control or Christianity itself as religio-political empire.


      • Andrew Caplan says:

        Dare I quote Nick Griffin:

        “The Koran is a manual for the takeover of other countries”.

        Others have said the same thing.


    • Andrew Caplan says:

      “There are still issues with Christianity, but at its core, the central Jesus “message” is pacifism.”

      This atheist agrees entirely.


      • Up2snuff says:

        It is essential, AC, but it is not really the core.

        Is not the core, for sure, ‘Mankind has offended God; God offers a new Covenant in place of the Mosaic (given to Moses) one and this is forgiveness of sins and peace with God through the perfect, incorruptible sacrifice of the Lamb of God.’ ?

        The pacifism comes from The Sacrifice, The Teacher and Forthcoming King, identified by a prophet, John the Baptist, who was recognised as such by all the people at the time, Jews & Gentiles alike. Jesus then, as The Teacher but also as The Forthcoming King, sets out his future Kingdom manifesto in what is called the Beatitudes (Beautiful Attitudes) found in Matthews Gospel in chapters 5 to 7. Some of these have been referred to on here, B-BBC, at times and even in this Thread.

        While the Kingdom is a small k kingdom, its representatives are enjoined to be pacifists by their not yet present King. This is a hard teaching and hard to take in a balanced way.

        It is not surprising that Matthew then records back then: ‘And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.’


        • Andrew Caplan says:

          I don’t mean to be rude but, to me, this is just convoluted archaic religious jargon and gobbledygook.

          “While the Kingdom is a small k kingdom, its representatives are enjoined to be pacifists by their not yet present King.” Sorry, Up2snuff, but I just can’t be bothered with this stuff. I had years of it at Sunday School – theories and slogans which nobody was able to explain in plain English.

          To me, Christianity stands for something simple but essentially decent, which has somehow survived the constant meddling by self serving, self appointed authorities over the last 2,000 years.

          The basic messages are good ones but I don’t honestly care where precisely they came from, how they got here, or who delivered them originally. IMO, Jesus was probably just a historical figure who had a few good, civilised ideas and a talent for promoting them. Nothing more.


          • Up2snuff says:

            I understand that, Andrew. Just wanted to straighten things out a bit for any other readers. And no need to apologise. Am not offended. Robust and reasoned debate is good.

            Being an atheist takes a lot of faith, just as believing the true Christian message also takes faith.

            Problem seems to be that there is evidence for the life changing power of the Christian message, doctrine and faith on personal level that, especially when replicated more widely in society, it brings clear benefits. That is often hinted at or deliberately highlighted by contributors in many past Threads on B-BBC and this Thread is no exception. Christian Britain. That faith has had a clear effect on our society.

            In addition, we now have the evidence of fifty years or so of de-Christianising the UK. Have there been benefits? The evidence tends to weigh against that. Our dear old BBC often highlights the results without an analysis of the cause.

            Corruption in football. Depression & worsening mental health. Sexting. Violence in prisons. Racism. Increasingly suicidal children. Trolling & bullying. Hate crimes. Obesity crisis. Loneliness of elderly people. Substance abuse. Alcohol abuse. Homelessness. Food poverty. Teenage pregnancy. Parliamentary expenses scandal. PPI mis-selling. Rampant greed.

            That’s a list that could probably be lengthened. They just came to mind as I tried to sort some BBC news items from the past ten years into a rough date order. Sadly, most would have been covered by the BBC this year! Repeating their coverage of last year, the year before and … . You get the picture.

            I am not saying that those problems did not exist at all when Christianity had a greater influence & hold on Britain. The Salvation Army, for example, was founded in part to deal with those problems but also their root cause.

            The evidence, to me, seems to be clear: we have moved away from clear Christian belief and doctrine. Now we are facing the consequences.


            • Andrew Caplan says:

              “The evidence, to me, seems to be clear: we have moved away from clear Christian belief and doctrine. Now we are facing the consequences.”

              I agree that we have lost something of value and failed to find an appropriate replacement. We certainly seem to be living in an age of decline and the cynical MSM must share some of the blame.

              I honestly don’t know what the answer is. I certainly don’t think people will be returning to Christianity in significant numbers. Partly because it requires a degree a self discipline which we appear to have lost.

              Good to be able to discuss this frankly and openly. As you have probably gathered, my experience of religion is not particularly favourable. Perhaps I am unlucky or, alternatively, any religion is just not for me.


              • Grant says:

                This atheist believes that, generally, Christianity is a force for good and Islam a force for evil, simple as that !


              • Up2snuff says:

                Could be said that atheism is a religion just as Christianity is a theism itself.

                Old joke.



                Just couldn’t resist the urge.


            • Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate says:

              “The evidence, to me, seems to be clear: we have moved away from clear Christian belief and doctrine. Now we are facing the consequences.”

              As you mentioned with my comment, so I shall mention with your comment – it is a little more complex. I think there are historical examples of Christian societies that have in many ways been “not nice”.

              In Britain I believe Margaret Thatcher is quoted as saying there is no such thing as society. I think one of the issues in todays Britain is the atomisation of society, the move from a civil society (which Christianity was a major component) into a mass society (a result of the break up of civil institutions that connected families, neighbours, local communities together).

              The mass society is ideal for large corporations (now multi-nationals) whose motive is profit, who can now play with the “market”, target sections of the “market” with goods including “crap” to sell us, cheap stuff for the “poor” expensive stuff for the less poor and so forth. The media are corporations with a profit motive also.

              People and corporations are not just after profit they are also after power. One means of gaining power in democratic liberal countries is through propaganda … which begins to take us towards the subject matter of the BBC, lefties, politics, etc.

              Somewhere in all this are us, the people, trying to make sense of it all, in the atomised society. Many become vulnerable to certain virulent ideologies that promise a new friendly inclusive society. You can be a brother. You can be a sister. And together comrades and brothers of the “oppressed” … the revolution is coming etc. Islam in Britain has taken the “oppressed” propaganda route, to link up with the left, and to grow its membership (immigration and conversion).


              • Andrew Caplan says:

                “In Britain I believe Margaret Thatcher is quoted as saying there is no such thing as society.”

                In full:

                “I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”

                As I read this, she was saying that there is no such thing as a single monolithic structure onto which people can offload their responsibilities.


                • Alicia Sinclair says:

                  The BBC and the liberal elite have these stock lazy phrases.
                  Like “We`ve had enough of experts” or “£350 for the NHS”.
                  Like Ari Up and Siouxsie Sioux creating the punk rock movement.
                  Thatcher said no such thing, context is all.
                  Or else you`ve got a pretext.
                  Which is all that this liblab trope is.


                  • Up2snuff says:

                    AS, ‘populism’ is now a very, very bad thing according to the tone that BBC personnel accord it on Radio 4.

                    I wonder if popularity ratings for Radio and TV programmes will now be abandoned by the BBC?


              • Up2snuff says:


                ” “The evidence, to me, seems to be clear: we have moved away from clear Christian belief and doctrine. Now we are facing the consequences.”

                As you mentioned with my comment, so I shall mention with your comment – it is a little more complex. I think there are historical examples of Christian societies that have in many ways been “not nice”. ”

                I could not agree more! I wince at the thought of what Puritans in Britain did to churches and to Roman Catholic priests once Cromwell was in charge. And reading A Pilgrim’s Progress as a child, I was made aware of the privations that the author faced for his faith. I could probably come up with a long list of other horrors before heading off around the world.

                Christian ‘denominations’ have done bad things. Individual Christians, in bad moments or perhaps not true Christians in the first place, have done bad things.

                The rest of your analysis, I need to ponder some more. You are right: society has dramatically changed. I would put the start of it nearly twenty years before Thatcher became PM. But I still maintain the Christianising benefits in a society. As evidence, I would cite The Netherlands. They are a very liberal society but have still retained a strong Christian ethos, although theirs is coming in to conflict with Islam as well. Despite liberal attitudes to sex and drugs and alcohol, the negative effects are seen there much less, if I recall correctly, in their statistics compared to ours in the UK.

                If I am wrong on that or out of date on that, then I hope you or another B-BBC contributor will correct me.


  6. Grandpa1940 says:

    As I wrote upon my own small site a couple of years back:-

    As of the date when the Rotherham Child Betrayal Report was first published, many millions of words have been published on this story of the complete betrayal of a generation of young, female, WHITE children who have lived, or rather existed, in towns and cities where Pakistani Muslim men, mainly from the Pashtun tribal regions of Kashmir, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have systematically raped, beaten, sexually exploited them, under cover of a self-satisfied horde of politicians, social workers and, worst of all; Police, who did absolutely nothing to rescue these girls from this hell-hole of a life. When the girls told their parents, and the parents complained, the Police told them that their daughters were just part of a bunch of white ‘slappers’, who deserved everything they got; and this was the opinion of the social bunch and the politicians as well!

    It has taken one fearless woman, Professor Alexis Jay, to rip the veil, or should that be the niqab, from the slime which was the truth behind the Muslim peril which existed, and indeed still exists, just one small step away from the ever-so-righteous Muslims who parade in and out of the Rotherham, Rochdale, and Manchester mosques, as well as those in Luton and in many other towns and cities across this land which once spoke of itself as a free Country.

    But we were warned that this sort of thing was happening; the gang-rapes, the fearsome brutality, the organised exploitation of White schoolgirls who had the great misfortune to be sent to a Council ‘Care Home’. We were warned ten years ago! But the problem was that, because the person who first made those warnings was not politically acceptable; was not accepted as being trustworthy, was in fact accused of criminal behaviour for uttering that very warning, his words and his warnings were rejected and ignored.

    Who was that man?

    His name was Nick Griffin


    • Andrew Caplan says:

      Ann Cryer, former MP, is often credited with being the first to highlight abuse in Keighley but I think I am right in saying that Nick Griffin, for all his faults, was first.

      As you say, he was ignored.


      • Alicia Sinclair says:

        And the BBC got him tried in court for saying these things, as captured on their undercover cameras.
        Stasi tactics that got Griffin off the 2005 election trail, conveniently enough for Blair,Dyke etc from 2003-5.
        Now THAT needs a revisit.


    • NCBBC says:

      This horrendous crime was a “war crime”, committed by the Establishment against their own young children. In the rank of war crimes, this stands as quite unique, as it has no parallel in history anywhere any time.

      As Putin rightly says, that a society that is unable, and unwilling to defend its young children, is not worth defending.


  7. Up2snuff says:

    There seems to be a consensus here among atheists and Christians (and the uncertain? as well as those of other faiths?) that a Christian heritage has brought desirable benefits to our society.

    The next question has to be ‘In view of the fact that Britain is de-Christianising and those benefits are being lost, what will halt and reverse that de-Christianising? The gloomy answer has to be ‘Nothing, at least – nothing short of a spiritual revival’.


  8. NCBBC says:

    MILO at Michigan State University: Reclaiming Constantinople