Charles Mallett, thank you for joining me in the trenches.
Thank you very much for having me.
It's, it's great. Well, just to be saying before
we started recording, it's lovely to have the chance to
talk again after quite a period of time.
Something I think about quite often is what is society going
to think about us 100 years from now?
They're going to look back at this, this era, the 2020 era,
and are they going to, are they going to think you bunch of
idiots? It is a very, very good question
and it that that is something I spend a lot of time considering
not not that way round, but the the other way round.
What were people actually thinking 100 years ago or 200
years ago? I think we we are infested by a
version of history, either macro or micro, which suggests that
people only really did or thought.
One thing and. The idea that there was any
counter narrative or opposition thought is like it is today,
always treated as something other and, and, and that cannot,
you know, cannot simply be the case.
That we in the sort of early 21st century are the first
people to consider that dissent is appropriate and that all we
see around us is not quite right.
That has been going on forever. But of course, as we know,
history is written by the victors.
And so this thread and and you know, your what you've been
doing over the years with your podcast, you you've absolutely
picked away at some of this. But the thread that we are
clinging to one end of now runs the whole way back through
history. But the difficulty, of course,
is interrogating it. How on earth do you really find
out what people did think? Because those ideas then, just
as they are now were repressed and, and even what people wrote
down either would have been, you know, one of very sort of local
level, just in their journals or memoirs or, or kept to a family
level. And of course, you know, this
was well before the Internet. I'm not, I'm not suggesting that
the Internet is the only way that material gets around the
place, but but it, but once something's out there nowadays
it is a bit more difficult to, to put the lid on it.
Whereas previously I think the not so much the way in which
stuff was just disappeared, but but the way that it was overlaid
by the correct version of events was was remarkable.
I'm trying to find a Segway into our main talking point, which
the Church of England. But I think there is a type of
Segway occurring here, which is when you go against
institutions, historically you always get cast at.
Yes. I mean, in fact, I would say the
the Segway is, is even more direct.
We think we understand the history of it doesn't really
matter whether it's the Church of England or or any faith or
any organization. But but of course the version
that we receive is the version that they want us to receive.
So the idea now that the Church of England, although it's
current iteration is relatively modern, it it, it suggests that
actually it does hark back to the earlier centuries of the
first Millennium. And we don't know we weren't
there. We can't, we can't make that
judgement. But, but, but exactly like you
say that the church, whether it's the Church of England or
any other religious organization has, you know, the, the way in
which it treats people either within or without.
I mean, it is, is absolutely stark.
And I think again to, to Segway, I think what I and those that
have investigated any of this have found so completely
extraordinary is, is actually what does fit within the Church
camp now. Because I, I would say anybody
with faith, Christian faith, who may either peripherally or in a
more involved sense be a part of the Church of England would be
absolutely amazed to find out what what the Church does
encompass by virtue of certainly its investments.
But the sorts of connections that it has across the world are
on the face of it, utterly contrary to the, to the, the
sort of central tenets of Christianity.
It's very, very peculiar. And if you do challenge or
question that as as again the approved version of history
suggests, the the end for you is not going to be a good one.
Just for very quick context, I was looking up the the history
of the Church of England because a lot of people don't actually
know but you could technically say it started around the 1st to
the 4th century technically but officially with with King Henry
the Eighth who wanted to get divorced.
Exactly what I mean, what a what a completely bizarre premise for
the the foundation of a body that has persisted until now and
and become incredibly powerful, even even though it might not
seem it. I mean, I think this is again,
slightly discordant. Is that the, you know, for most
people, the Church of England is sort of, you know, a smattering
of old ladies turning up on a Sunday, dwindling congregations,
not really much influence. But in actual fact that that's,
that's the perhaps the public view of it, that there's much
more that goes on beneath the surface.
And, and that's the bit I think that people are detached from
and, and, and don't don't really understand.
But yes, I mean, I think you're absolutely right.
I think also, just for added context, the Church of England
is not just a church that is in England.
It is an incredibly powerful branch of the church.
I mean it, I think it's the head of Anglican International
basically. And the King James Bible, I, I
think, comes from the Church of England.
Yeah, absolutely. That, that is absolutely the
case. And I think there's a bit more.
Sorry. It's as though there's been some
sort of divine intervention. You'll notice that my Lantern
behind me has started to flame slightly more than it was meant
to. Let me just let me just turn
that down. It must be.
It must be switching to Catholicism, you know, Redolent
of the Vatican. Hang on a SEC.
Right? There we go.
Sorry about that. Bloody hell.
Now I was just saying that the Church of England is, is very,
very powerful actually. Oh yeah, yeah, it is.
The fact that you say it's dwindling.
Well, this is maybe this is what I mean, that the, the, it was
about the Anglican Communion. Yeah, the, the the Church of
England does have dwindling congregations.
It's not across the board actually that that's, that is
misrepresentative. I think some of the some of the
urban churches, metropolitan congregations are absolutely
swelling, but but so are those of other churches, other
organisations as well. I think really what I mean,
talking about the dwindling congregations, the, it's not so
much the influence of the church, but the part the church
played in the lives of the community at large.
And I think if, if, if one went back 50 years, 100 years,
certainly there would have been a more uniform relationship with
the church, whether you were in the rural environment or the
urban environment, The, the percentage of people that would
go to church And therefore the place that the church had in
that community was more significant, or at least more
generally significant, I think than it is now.
But, but then the other thing that you quite rightly point out
is that the whilst Church of England is sort of notionally
the focal point of the wider Anglican Communion.
So churches that are in other parts of the world, mostly
former British territories and colonies, their relationship
with the Church of England has become much more tempestuous
over the last few years. And, and good is, is really the
way to view that, I would think because they are calling into
question some of the policies, some of the stances, some of the
behaviours and the failings that the Church of England has
demonstrated in the UK over, well, certainly decades.
It's completely peculiar. So it's not it shouldn't be a
surprise that the that the wider Anglican Communion doesn't
perceive the Church of England to be as significant as it would
like to think that it is. Let's unpack that that that
internal strife a little bit. Well, quite where it comes from,
it is very hard to say. But I think again, we go back to
the, the history of it. And this, you know, this may
rankle with, with people who are churchgoers or who, who have
faith. And I, I absolutely don't mean
it to come across like this. But I think the way one must
perceive it is that the, the church, as with so many
organisations, has the ability to be used as a control
mechanism. And if you look at the
incredible battles, as it were, either sort of real or virtual
academic or, or whatever that have been fought over the OR, or
at least between the various faiths and religions, it it
seems quite clear that that is a very, very important part of
what it does. And therefore, you know, you
referred to Henry the Eighth and, and all that, but, but so
we've got the, the, the part of the church that as I say, that
that is visible. So the, the sort of the clerical
body, the congregations, the church buildings, all of that.
But then, but then the bit that's not really talked about
is the enormous amount of land that it controls, but also the
huge amount of funding that it sits on top of, or funds rather,
that it has amassed over time. And so the question is, you
know, how has that come about and to what end?
And I think this brings one to the central point, which is how
does one really view the church? And for me, increasingly so.
And as I say, this isn't, this is absolutely not with a view to
calling into question anybody's faith, because I, I think that's
a, that's a separate issue. And that's, that should be a
personal thing. And it's not really for the
church to tell you how you should believe and what your
relationship with God should be. But the, the, the church, in
actual fact, in many ways could be regarded as similar in, in
its conduct to say that the Pharmaceutical industry, I think
the scales have fallen from people's eyes when it concerns
the Pharmaceutical industry. If you think about the
Pharmaceutical industry now, it, it's patently obvious that if,
if it worked in that their products made people well, it
would bring about its own demise, that that would be the
end of it. So it it doesn't want well
people, it needs unwell people, which means it needs to produce
products that are going to keep people in a consistent state of
unwellness. And and similarly the Church now
if if the world was peaceful, harmonious, happy, all the
things that the Church. You know, at its centre sort of
preaches about and therefore that people felt that they had
less need to go to church to, to join in order to pursue these
outcomes. Then it would it would defeat
part of its purpose, certainly. And and, and I think when 1
looks at the the way that it profits financially from the
negative sides of life, you know, we can go into the detail
of this in a bit, but but it would, you know, it would really
it would really undermine its its position.
And again, I think, I think that's not really thought about,
but ultimately as a either a control mechanism or as an
entity, I think it should be, it should really be considered more
in corporate terms or in a corporate sense than than
anything else. What is the point of the Church
then? Well, exactly.
And, and that's the, that is, that's not a, you know, not a
daft question. It's not a facetious question
either, because I think this is exactly what the church has got
itself into such an enormous muddle about over the last few
years. But again, it's the, it's the
sort of, you know, horse and cart thing which bit is, is
driving which, and how has this actually come about?
But you know, just some of the issues that when I looked into
the investment policies, which, I mean, you know, I can go into
a bit of detail, but, but, but they, you know, the, let's put
it this way, the most recent report says that the church sits
on £10.4 billion. Now that that's on the face of
it, that that's a significant amount of money, OK, if you're
only going to be returning, say 4 to 5% yielding rather from
that every year than actually what you do have at your
disposal is not perhaps as much as people might think, but it
necessarily is. But then again, what do you do
with that and how are you actually investing it?
And are you investing it in such a way that should be bringing
about the things that you are talking about?
So you know the the sanctity of the human form, for example,
what's the church's policy? On things like transgenderism.
Or on female genital mutilation or this, that.
And the other, I mean, are, are their investment policies
consistent with their messages and indeed things like affirming
human life. We've, to give a very good
example, just recently we've had the the assisted dying bill
being pushed, I mean, another iteration of the assisted dying
bill being pushed through the Houses of Parliament.
Now it's extremely controversial by any metric, but not.
Least because it. Basically enables people to have
social pressure push on, put on them to go to a doctor to say
right, finish me off and and for the doctor not to be checking in
in the proper sense of the word, as in as in preventing, you
know, providing an obstacle to that process.
And so the church put out a statement about this in which it
it called it affirming. I think it was the affirmation
of life. Was that their statement?
And they wrote words to the effect of, you know, we, we
don't believe that that that this is the right way to go.
We don't believe that people should be sort of in control of
ending their own lives like this and that it should not be.
I wrote it. Down.
In fact, it should not be that something that somebody else
could do. No one ought to be permitted
actively to end another person's life.
That that, that was the phrase they used.
That sounds good. It sounds good, doesn't it?
Yeah. And then you think, right, Well,
if that's the case, then they would regard conflict on a on a
military scale as not right, because that is absolutely all
about actively ending other. People's lives and yet their
investment policies are such that they may invest in the
production of military grade weapons.
Now those will only be used to actively end another's life.
So it's it's absolutely enormous contradiction and and and
exactly the same with say transgenderism wherein affirming
the the form that we are created.
In. At the same time, they they
celebrate the mutilation of the body in an apparent effort to to
become quite what somebody else. And, and in fact, you know, they
go further with with transgenderism.
They have a specific clause, in fact, about people.
Who are wanting to become? Confirmed into the Church of
England concerning trans people. I I thought I'd quote this
because I think this is interesting.
They so so they say the Church of England welcomes and
encourages the unconditional affirmation of trans people
equally with all people within the Body of Christ and rejoices
in the diversity of that body into which all Christians have
been baptised by 1 Spirit. It's it's amazing on many
levels. I think this actually I I quoted
in an article about what I saw as being incredible
contradictions between criticism of or adherence to what's
described as female genital mutilation, circumcision and
then transgender surgery and and the conflicted positions that
not just the church, but the medical establishment.
Has on this. I'm I'm interrupting, but why?
What would be their reason? Exactly what what would be their
reason? This is, I think for people, you
know, going back to people who are or consider themselves to be
part of the Church of England who do go to church, who believe
that there should be a, a strong relationship between the faith
that they hold and what they see when they go to church as a
congregant in, in terms of their participation.
And and this, I don't see how this fits with it Also, you
know, and this is across the board when it comes to anything
concerning sort of transgenderism.
If they're using the phrase equally with all people, well,
it's we're straight back to Animal Farm.
I mean, what? Why are you making these people
more equal? In which case, why can't you
just not put it like that? And and yet this is.
You know, this is across the board.
It's it, it just goes on and on and on.
And, and again, you know, another sort of area of
contradiction, not not too far distant perhaps from the
transgender thing is the is the same sex, same sex marriage.
And you know, again, they've they've twisted themselves up
about exactly this and what they should do and what they should
say. And it's been inconsistent, hard
to follow and controversial. And now the situation is that
they will bless same sex couples.
But so then you think, right? Well, is that consistent?
I mean, what what's the, what's the biggest issue here?
If people are wanting to get married in a church, then is the
first step to consider whether or not they hold the values of
that organization and therefore a belief in the things that that
church says it believes in? So you think, OK, well.
Well, maybe that's the the path that that they would go down,
but but in actual fact that's not the case because whilst if
you're a same sex couple. You may not get married in the
Church of England. If you belong to another faith
altogether, you can be married in a church, you can be married
in a church if you don't have any faith at all.
So you don't, there's no, there's no requirement to to say
that you actually believe in God or Jesus or or any, you know,
any aspect regarding divinity. And then to quote it is also
possible and and actually this would be an interesting one,
bearing in mind what's just happened with the Supreme Court
decision on on sex, meaning biological sex.
But but they say the Church of England says that a.
Man or woman who has been issued with a gender recognition
certificate may marry someone of the opposite sex in the Church
of England Church. So.
That's. So there we are.
It, it it's, I mean, how, how do you make sense of that?
And, and you know, to, to quote, well, misquote probably, but,
but Brian Gerrish, who his consistent message on UK column
is, is that, you know, all of this is entirely intentional.
The the confusion is entirely intentional.
Actually, just to quote somebody else who I've now interviewed a
couple of times for, for UK column, obviously in some sense
has nothing to do with it, but in others everything to do with
it's Julian Rose, who who's a massive and passionate advocate
of of all things concerning the land and and how to sort of
create food properly and indeed relationships and communities
properly. And, and he will, he would say.
You know, if, if you don't understand, it's not you not
understanding. It's they don't know what
they're talking about. They are talking complete and
utter nonsense. They have lost, They have
absolutely lost their way. And I think for church leaders,
if that's what we're going to call.
Them although we can come on to exactly where Justin Welby fits
in with that but but. But church leaders much like any
other leaders. Have have just lost their way.
I mean, I I saw yesterday a clip of Keir Starmer and Angela
Rayner waddling along at some Pride event, holding up little
sort of. Placards with, with the
transgender sort of from the transgender flag, the, the
colours, the baby blue and the baby pink and the, and the white
and you know, why, why would they do that?
Why are they actually doing that?
And, and what does it mean? Why, if we're talking about
surgically removing people's genitals, why are the colours
that were chosen for that flag not just baby blue and baby
pink, but actually said by the artist who created the flag said
to be baby pink and baby blue? Why?
Why are we representing babies when we're talking about
removing genitalia? And why is the Church of England
engaging with any of that in the first place?
That that's a rhetorical question, I think.
But, but I mean, you know, this is just it's, it's one of the.
The very, very, very many contradictions.
And so there, so there are, there are two sides of it.
I mean, there, there there's absolute overlap.
But the, but you know, on the one side, the, the leadership
aspect. And then how that pertains to
the, the actual power of the Church of England, which, which
in effect is as an institutional investor.
But, but there is such great crossover.
So, so really that should be, let's say that's a safeguarding
thing. The, the, the word safeguarding,
which I'm afraid to say I have absolute contempt for because
it's yet another instance in which a process has been created
in order to, to take over from simply common sense or, or
decency. And, and now rather than just
using common sense or, or knowing that something's wrong,
the treatment of somebody is wrong, you stop yourself from
thinking and it all becomes about safeguarding.
It's just ticking a list and, and following a process.
And then you know, and, and, and you know, obviously it, it
fails. I mean it's.
This is not exclusive to the Church of England, but again,
reprehensible that an organization such as the church,
a body of faith should be failing children, vulnerable
people in that in that way. And then therefore to go to the
leadership, you know, for Justin Welby to sit there and say that,
well, you know, the trouble was the the problem was so big that
I just, you know, I just couldn't do anything about it.
Yeah, I mean. How, how can somebody sit there
and say that as the, you know, the, the supposedly the, the
head of well, the Church of England, certainly, but but the
sort of, you know, the primate of the, of the Anglican
Communion. I mean it's.
It's it's you make a very good, you make a very good point
there, Charles. There's a difference in sitting
in the living room with a cup of tea and discussing universalism
and saying, well, you know, should the church accept trance
or should it reject whatever? And then actively being in
church leadership and taking banners and walking through the
streets. The very big difference.
There is, but there, there absolutely is.
And, and yeah, as we well know, this is, this is political and,
and, and not, not just is it political, but it's, it's
social. I mean it, it's a, it is a
deliberate tool of social destabilisation and destruction.
And it's not new. You look at this is exactly what
was happening in in Nazi Germany before Hitler sort of rose to
greater and greater power. But if you look at the.
You know, this again, it's always talked about now it's
still look at any any website concerning either well, the the
beginnings of the what's described as the Holocaust or
indeed, are you are you talking about the Wamar Republic?
I'm talk. Yeah, well, I'm talking about
the book burning. I'm talking about the idea and
pornography. Yeah, absolutely.
But but this goes back to the to Magnus Hirschfeld and his
Institute of Sexology and the idea that that changing, you
know, interfering with biology and changing people's gender was
in some way a sensible thing to do.
And you know, I mean, how on earth could could the Church,
you know, which should be all about preserving the sanctity of
the human? Form consider such thing, but
but but again, you know, I mean I mentioned it obliquely
earlier. It's the same.
With, I mean, if you're just being technical about it, why is
it the church would have a policy against what's called
female genital mutilation, but then not have any issue with
circumcision? Because in neither case is there
consent that the that the participants are by and large
far too young to consent. So why is it OK to in effect,
interfere with a young boy but not a young girl?
And then when it concerns transgenderism, it it's, you
know, it's different again, it's, it's, it's very, it's
very, very hard to follow. And I would say in some sense is
intentionally hard to follow. But of course, the problem is
that this, this comes from somewhere.
And it, what it means is that a lot of other people get caught
up in it. So I'm not at all accusing the
say, you know, middle to lower management tiers of the Church
of England. Of carrying the can for this one
but but then but you see some some will some absolutely will
think it is part of their mission to to to push this stuff
out and again we go back to the you know the dreadful tyranny of
2020 which incidentally for anyone following the figures the
Church of England's. Fund the, the, what the Church
Commissioners manage jumped by £1 billion during the year 2020.
I mean, you know that, that, that is, that is pretty
staggering. So we all, you know, there's a
big talk about sort of corporate capture and, and the massive
transfer of wealth from the port of the rich and blah, blah.
You know, who stopped and thought how much money the
Church of England was making in 2020?
Not very many people, I don't think.
And yet, and yet, there we are. So yes, I mean, you know this
obviously we we could go on and on, but I think but but it.
But it really is, it's the, it's the contradictions and it's,
it's the, and it, and it's the, the sort of enmeshment with the
general direction that society is going in.
And I think, I think that's the bit that people should really be
interrogating because. The.
Church should absolutely be doing what is right not is what
seems not what seems progressive or to be the spirit of the age
or you know, the the church should be completely consistent
and that and that has that has absolutely not happened at all.
And it should. It should be a part, not part,
of the political zeitgeist. Yeah, it, it should, yeah,
absolutely. But but you know, it should be
the, the things that have not been spoken out about are, are
totally phenomenal. And sorry, I, I realise I, I
derailed myself a moment ago because we started talking about
safeguarding, which again, could could be several chapters of a
podcast on on its own. But what I was going to say was
that safeguarding is, you know, obviously a very broad topic as
it's called. I mean slightly.
I disapprove of even calling it safeguarding, but.
But, but again, to, to have this big thing about safeguarding in
churches and yet for there to be an investment policy, an ethical
investment policy, which permits the church investing in
pornography. And actually this bit is, is so
good. Again, I'm I'm going to read it
out. So the church does restrict its
investments in that it may not invest in a company that does XY
or Z if the threshold is over a certain percentage.
So if it if it's under that threshold, then absolutely they
can invest in it. And where it concerns
pornography, they can have a holding in a business which
deals with the production or distribution of pornography, the
staging of live sex shows or the ownership of sex shops.
What? Yeah, that and that that is
absolutely written down in black and white in the in the
investment policy, the the restrictions section of the
investment policy. So, so this is this is the
thing, you know, why on earth would that be the case when when
the world goes in that direction?
And again, OK, this has obviously been going on for a
long time that that sort of industry.
But nonetheless, why would the church, in terms of investing,
if it's going to have an ethical investment advisory committee to
in advising that the national investment bodies, why would
there be any grey area? Why would they simply not review
things on an absolutely black and white basis in that?
Because if they. Yeah, go on.
Yeah, yeah, No, no, no, sorry, I'm interrupting.
Go on. No, no, I mean, if, if there's
any hint that a company is doing something that's considered
outside of Christian values, then you simply blacklist it.
You just, you just don't invest in it.
And yet here we are doing that at the same time as talking
about safeguarding vulnerable people.
Sorry, I jumped in midway there because you were asking about
pornography and a conversation I had some years ago did create a
bit of a grey area with us. If you look at, for example, art
history, particularly the art that has been funded for
centuries by the church, is that considered pornography at the
time? I mean, we look at, we look at
paintings now and they're beautiful.
I think you're being very, very conciliatory.
I, I see what you mean. And, and it, it, it absolutely
raises an interesting point, But I would say there's a, there's a
very distinct difference between the, the art that you're
describing, first of all, because that is concerning
church buildings primarily and the telling of stories.
And therefore, yes, you're right, much art was commissioned
by churches. I think it also shouldn't be
forgotten that that a lot of art was.
Effectively, the other way round was that the powerful families
involved with the church would Commission the art to get it
into the church for their own glorification.
And I think that is that is something that we should come
back to because I think this does pay play a part and and
also the theme of sort of indulgences and and absolution.
I think we should come back to that.
But no, I'm, I'm afraid to say we're talking about something
totally different, you know, pornography.
We're, we're not, we're not talking about, you know.
The the the sort of the appreciation of the human form
in its natural state. This isn't this.
This is absolutely a difference and and I think it's, it is far
too well known that there is a a pathway between people becoming
involved in pornography in on on some scale and that going
further and further and further into.
A. Place where people should not be
going. So no, I mean, OK.
And again, we, we come back to the idea of consent.
Yes, if that is genuinely, absolutely, genuinely what
people want to do for a living and they they do not believe
they're coming to harm and they are not apparently coming to
harm. OK, but, but nonetheless, I
think the question still remains, does it actually accord
with Christian values? And and I think not.
I think on a, on a very, very basic level, I think to to, you
know, let's take the 10 commandments.
I mean, I, I think one would have trouble justifying
pornography, certainly the staging of live sex shows.
I think that's. That would be a bit of a
stretch. Well, I, I would say the
distinction is quite, is quite clear what 1 is the creation of
images, imagery, performance or whatever for carnal pleasure and
the other one is for appreciation of the human form.
Yeah, beauty. Exactly.
And and of course, well, David specifically because of, as I
say, the, the storytelling aspect.
You know, David, he's not just some random bloke.
He is David who knocked Goliath down and, and therefore he is as
a, as an emblem, he, he's, he's phenomenally powerful and you
know, and yet no one, you know, how often do we really talk
about that or him? Not much.
So yes, I, I, I think, I think there is absolutely a, a
distinction to be to be made, but.
But then again, you know, I mean what?
That's such a good point because, OK, I can't think of
anything off the top of my head now, but the celebration of the
human form with, with, you know, Michelangelo's David, certainly.
That is a man in in, in peak physical condition.
And yet now, you know, we, we do still see sculptures, you know,
across across the land, across the world.
But but look at the proportion of sculpture that is produced
now with people who are very, very far away from being in the
peak of condition. And and so it's not, it's not
just to say, oh, well, you know, gosh, you can't discriminate.
You know, we're not all the same.
But but actually the bigger picture is that people who are
not in prime condition have in some way been been abused either
by the food system or the medication system or the
lifestyle that they are able to, to lead.
So, so actually what you're doing in representing somebody
who is, you know, out of shape. And again, people might find
this a bit hard to listen to, but but that is, that is in
effect a celebration of something that I, I don't
believe should be celebrated. And that's not me just having a
pop at people that that don't look like David, because lots of
people don't look like David. I mean, OK, we should, we should
strive to, but we should. And, and again, you know, why
not? And, and so where is again,
where's, where's the church on this?
Where is the church on food, on lifestyle, on all of this sort
of thing? And you know, look at look at
what they did in 2020. They shut their doors before
they were told to and they hung up those LGBTQ flags.
I saw at least down here, some Anglican churches put those,
those flags up and told people to win more.
In fact, who was that one person?
Was was it the Pope who said that Jesus would have got
vaccinated? Gosh, I, I, I had a fear we were
going to come on to that. I, I'm not sure what the Pope
said. Justin Welby, Absolutely.
Did say talk about. The Pope?
Well. Again, it's a big, old, big old
topic, but but they to stick to the Church of England, Yes,
Welby said. I forget his exact words but but
yes, words to the effect of Jesus would have got the jab
and. That that was.
I forget whether it was followed by or or preceded by, but they
the church also put out an absolutely horrific video of a
number of bishops, but but other sort of clerics advocating
exactly the same thing. And it was it was staggering on
on so many levels. I think primarily the because
even if you don't stir the murky waters of of pharmaceutical sort
of vaccination success or or otherwise, but simply on the
matter of choice. And what on earth are they
thinking of doing by suggesting that that choice is removed and
that you must do this in exactly the same way that was that was
done in 2020 when the churches were closed.
There was no choice. And yes, OK, you could say that
for the. For the for the parish.
Priest who was genuinely fearful for their life.
Maybe it's too much to ask them to go into church to run
services, but but actually, is that the case?
My feeling on it is if that is what they thought, that's
precisely why they should have stepped up.
They should have been the first people into the church to say
come into church. And otherwise there was no
compulsion, no compulsion on anybody to go into church or
indeed anywhere else. If you didn't want to go to the
village shop because you thought it was too dangerous, you didn't
have to. And yet the answer was, well,
let's shut the village shop, let's shut the church.
And for the church to to have remained not just silent on the
matter of choice, but to have actively promoted the the sort
of pandemic scam was, was beyond reprehensible, especially as
they were in the in the process of making a billion pounds of
it. So there's an interesting
dichotomy here. There was a combination of moral
inaction on social issues, as you've pointed out, and there
was an immoral action on financial investments.
Yes. I mean, I, I, I think so.
And this is, you know, the financial investment thing is,
is just, it's completely fascinating because the other
bit that we haven't taught was too, too, well, many bits, But,
but back then, a lot of what the church was invested in, Can you
believe it was tinkering around with human embryos and that
they, they were, they, they list.
Yeah. So so stem cells and and much
else besides production of organoids.
Really, really bizarre and and highly, highly questionable
forms of science, if that if that's what one wants to call
it. And again, so I get back to the
investment policy, you know, on the one hand, why would you even
consider it? Because it's, it's so highly
controversial, but not only did they consider it, but they
actively invested in it. You know, their top 20 holdings
back in 2020 or 2021, nearly half of them were involved in
stem cells. And, and I again, I wrote down
what, what Illumina wrote, Illumina being one of the
businesses that the church was invested in at the time.
And Illumina on their website state that the embryos that they
used to research or to recover stem cells from were embryos
that were no longer needed, That that was the phrase that they
used on their website. And the Church of England was
invested in them. So it's, it's perfectly
staggering. Now the, the portfolio has
shifted very much dramatically towards AI, everything to do
with AI. So they're, they're
predominantly involved in the production of semiconductors,
which are totally necessary for the upscaling of, of AI.
And, and of course, you know, the, the, the contradiction is,
is immediate. I mean, you're OK, you, you've
produced an excellent show recently on, on AI.
So anyone who's listened to that will have a much better
understanding of what it actually is.
It, it is not intelligent, but nonetheless, what it does do is
strip away reason and accountability from human
beings. In effect, it takes away if
you're alive, doesn't need to be involved.
No, it, it, it absolutely does not.
And I would say should not be involved.
And yet it is actively promoting it.
But the, but you see, this is the thing that so the
contradiction is they, they say that the reason they are in the
room that in a statement back in 2018, they said that the reason
they're in the room with big tech is so that they can
influence what these companies do.
Well, how's that going? Because you'd think if they had
been able to convert or, or, you know, to change the path that a
particular company was on, if it was pursuing A questionable
thing, they would have made it clear that they had done that,
that they'd achieved that success.
There's, there's been no such message.
They, they haven't said anything.
So they've, they've made absolutely no ground on that.
And also, whilst you know, to, to your eye £10 billion might
seem a lot to, to those guys, it's peanuts.
The, you know, Amazon's turnover last year was £515 billion.
So, so what's, what's some pipsqueak with 10 billion really
going to be doing? And, and, and you know, for
England Amazon with whom the church is deeply embedded or in
bed with that they Amazon now control much of the government.
Software or or. You know, sort of tech platforms
through Amazon Web Services, they're they're moving into
warfare. And and yet the church is still
insisting that that that a company may easily or may well
be able to follow. It's sort of it's ethical knows
rather than pursuing or at least that that that doing that would
still be in the long term interest of their shareholders.
I mean, where's the example? It's it's.
Totally, totally extraordinary. Perhaps the answer lies in that
book that's sitting behind you. Well, I think some of it does.
I, I would say it, it absolutely does.
If you can't quite see all of it, it's it's Agenda 21, which
was written by Martin Edwards back in 2013, republished by UK
column recently. And if you haven't read it, I
would absolutely recommend that you do.
And I think the most important thing about it is, is to trace
it back, you know, as far as it it can possibly go.
And let's just put this out there in in the mid 1940s, just
as the United Nations was was getting going what a post war,
the First United Nations Security Council meetings were
held at Church House in London. That is something I think that
that is not much known. And and the reason that's
significant is because that post war period is certainly in the
United Kingdom, if not many parts of the world that had
taken part in the Second World War used the emergency of the
Second World War as a springboard into the most
amazingly radical transformations of so many parts
of our lives. So the most obvious ones in the
United Kingdom, our education, which was totally overhauled and
changed, the creation of the National Health Service, which
was bitterly resisted at the time, but of course now we're
supposed to consider it as a national treasure.
The Agriculture Act of 1947, that that that changed
absolutely everything in our relationship with food now.
And that's effectively why we are where we are.
Exactly the same thing with the mines, the the railways, I mean,
you know, all these things. And it was also the same year
that the Church Commissioners as they currently are, were set up
the, the Church Commissioners measure of 1947 set the previous
well, the governors of the Queen Anne's Bounty and the
Ecclesiastical Commission together and enabled them to
carry on doing what they're doing now.
So, so yes, it absolutely bears relation to to Agenda 21 and,
and going back to the idea of a one world government.
And, you know, that which is why I specifically make reference of
the UN Security Council and, and indeed the United Nations using
Church House. I mean, how, how absolutely
extraordinary to think they then went on to use land that was
bought for them by Rockefeller. Yeah.
But that's quite scary because what it's suggesting, Charles,
is that there is, I would presume, an infiltration in the
church. I, I, I think there is.
I mean, I think, I think we, you know, in some sense 1 needs to
be a bit careful in considering how any of this does actually
work out. Because I, I'm a great believer
in looking for the simplest possible explanation.
And I think to, to overcomplicate is, is a bit of a
fool's errand, not least because it's very hard to pin down the,
the detail. But if we're to take, let's take
Justin Welby, recently described by a clergyman.
I was talking to you last week as radioactive, which I thought
was a, a very fitting description.
And, and also I should point out that even though he's, he's
retired fully from the church, he's not just retired as
Archbishop Canterbury, he's he's completely retired.
He is still living in Lambeth Palace, which I think is quite
remarkable and, and something of an abuse, but but that's
slightly by the by. But the point is with, with
Welby, he has worked in finance and I mean, you know, you, you
couldn't make it up. But the, the extraction of
fossil fuels. I mean, he was in the oil
industry and, and was involved in some probably peripherally at
least involved in some very, you know, untoward goings on in
Nigeria certainly and, and other places.
But so the, the point I'm trying to make is that actually you
only knew very few people to start shaping policy at the head
of an organization for it to, to trickle down, to rundown and to
be pushed out to the lower levels without really having to
convince people of its rights or wrongs.
And I think let's say climate change is an absolutely perfect
example of that. If, if Justin Welby says, right,
well, everybody accepts that the climate's changing and that
humans are responsible, we're definitely going to do something
about it. So we'll all go net 0 and then
you and then you look at what that actually means.
What it means is that congregations are going to have
to foot the bill for churches not using electricity in the way
that they currently use it for not using oil or gas fired
heating or or any of that kind of thing.
At the same time as the church commissioners are still able to
invest in thermal coal and the production of oil.
So again, hypocrisy upon sort of controversy, but but the point
is that this doesn't need to come from any more than than
sort of one source. OK, in, in, in this instance,
perhaps two. Say you've got the the head of
the church itself, which is Welby and, and his entourage,
the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
But then you've also got the, the church Commissioners and the
investment bodies. So it doesn't, it, it really
doesn't dig a lot. And you're and, and, and I know
this, you know, for a fact having having interrogated to a
certain extent, those in my area, church officials in my
area as to just to, you know, what do they know about any of
this? Where does this stuff come from?
And they're not told, they don't know it just it comes down.
And, and because the church command structure is similar in
some senses to a military command structure, it, it works
very well. You know, once something comes
down to a diocesan Bishop and then goes down through the
various benefits. It's, it is, it is not difficult
to see how this stuff gets either pushed out or ignored or
concentrated on or, or whatever it is.
And of course it goes hand in hand with, you know, I've just
talked about education having changed radically since the
Second World War. Goes absolutely hand in hand
with that because there are still a lot of Church of England
schools. And you've got that sort of
triangular relationship between the churches, the schools, and
therefore the children across to the parents and then back up to
the church, of course, the parents of congregation
congregants at at the church. So to to create the sense that
such and such a thing is right or that we need to do this and
use the church as a medium is actually very, very easy to to
achieve now because of the architecture that's been in
place for such a long time. But this seems like it's a story
of human history. I mean, can it actually behind
art? Well, no, you're, you're totally
right. It is, it is.
I mean, you know, we're sort of back to where we started because
this is absolutely. And that that's why, you know,
and again, I, I don't mean this to dismiss people who go to
church and do actually achieve good things because that, you
know, we've talked a lot about the bad.
And of course there are still churches and clergy who are
completely on the right track and, and looking out for their
congregations and churches that do form the backbones of
communities. But but I would say by and
large, that's now the exception. But yes, I mean, the, the
problem is that because the, the church may be used as a control
mechanism and we shouldn't forget, of course, that it is
intrinsically intertwined, not just with the, the monarchy in
the United Kingdom, but also with the state.
And you know, there, there was a, a bill, Lord Scribben put in
a, a bill to disestablish the church a couple of years ago,
which private members bill. OK, it fell away.
But, but I mean, who knows, maybe that would come back
again. But no, I mean, I think like all
these things, the only way to change the outcome, to change
the course of the Church of England is, is, is grassroots,
is that is absolutely at the lowest levels.
And so I think it was, you know, we can all think of whether they
were hairdressers or shopkeepers or gym owners or whatever,
people who just who stuck their heads above the parapet in 2020
and just said, no, I'm not going along with that.
And, and, and it and it for, for those with their eye on it.
There were some churches that that did that.
They said no, we are, we are not going to go along with this.
We are going to do what is right, what we believe is right
and what fits with Christian values.
And so it is for them to, to do that, to be supported by
congregations in doing that, in realising that that is the right
thing to do. And, and it, it has to be sort
of pushed back up the chain. But to, to get to the point
where we have a, a body of bishops, Archbishop of
Canterbury that are, that are going to be doing anything
dramatically different from what they're doing now.
I, I, I can't, I'm afraid to say I cannot see what on earth
would, would bring that about. I really can't.
There is a sense though, that a silver lining is quite apparent.
And and I I'm looking at, at, at all these what, what did you
call them? Obstacles.
Let's, let's say obstacles and apply the stoic way of thinking
and go, well, OK, it allows us to re establish what these
things mean. Again, like I asked you earlier,
what is the point of the church? What is the point of the
congregation in an event like 2020, what should the church be
doing? A kind of it kind of forces
these these philosophical questions to come back into into
the zeitgeist. It does it, it absolutely does,
but it but in that in that case, I think it's beholden upon those
that are in the office of whether it be parish priest or,
or, you know, Dean or Bishop or whatever, to take it upon
themselves to, to do what they feel is going to be appropriate
for for their community, for their for their congregation.
Rather than considering how what they're doing fits with the
church narrative on all the things that we've been talking
about. I think.
I think they need to. To see that.
In, in getting it right, it does actually require distancing
oneself from it. But no, I mean, I, I totally
agree. I think, I think, I think they
should at the, at that level, beer, absolutely beer silver
lining. And I think, you know, I would
hope that in, in certain places, people are feeling that that is
achievable. I think I think the problem is,
much like in wider society, the number of people who just take
absolutely as read that you know there is a climate emergency and
that changing gender is OK and normal and you know that AI is
somehow inevitable and useful. That they they are in an
overwhelming majority simply because they haven't stopped to
think about it. It's not that they can't realise
the issues with it, it's just that they haven't been put in a
position where they need to. And for the church, I mean,
crikey, what? You know, you talk about an
opportunity for the church to actually step forward as a, as a
leader. And, and this again, is, is
precisely where I think it's gone so wrong.
You know this. We we've talked about this a
little bit, just. Earlier, now that, that, you
know, concerning AI, why is the church not absolutely jumping up
and down and saying no and OK, I'm, I'm, I, I don't want to
contradict myself because obviously I've been talking
about choice, but, but I mean no, as in no, it's not
inevitable. No, think about it, choose, you
know, choose wisely. So I would say yes.
I mean, the, the silver lining is this is this is an amazing
opportunity for the Church of England either as a a corporate
body or at the church level, you know, individual church level
to, to actually stick their neck out and, and make a real
difference. Yeah.
I mean, basically what they should be doing is reaffirming
what their values and their principles are and say this is
what we believe and we will stand by this.
Yes, well, but, but, but this, this is the trouble.
I mean, you know, if you, if you read through all the various
documents, they do push out on this and I've quoted a few of
them today. This is where we get in such a
muddle. And it and it, you know, this
is, I'm afraid this is absolutely no different on, on
say, or different from say, government policy or legislation
or whatever. It doesn't matter what it is.
They write one thing and then promptly do another, sometimes
trying to justify it with the very words that would appear.
It's contradicted. So yes, I mean that, that this
seems to be, well, you know, it seems to be the spirit of the
age. But then actually it, it has
probably ever been thus. So they speak with a forked
tongue, I'm afraid. I think they do.
I mean, OK, we, we could get into the, the bigger in some
ways, the bigger issue. I mean, it's probably not for
now, but but the whole coming back to, well, actually, what do
these people believe? You know, look at what he's said
and done. Does Justin Wellby really
believe in God? It's, you know, it's a, it's a,
it's a question worth asking because I think that's, you
know, again, we've talked about the relationship between,
between faith and religion and, and I'm the first to say that, I
mean, I will go to church, but I will not be told what I should
or shouldn't believe by anyone else in that church.
That's a decision for me, I believe.
But then what exactly are these people believing?
I mean, why do people go into the church?
Is it really at its core based on their belief in God?
I, I don't know. And actually adding to that,
that is where the change will come from the individuals and
what they believe. Yeah, it is, it absolutely it
is. But it's, it's still about, it's
still about actions. And, and that's why, you know,
that's why I go back to, I think the significant detail that that
rural, OK, we are talking mostly about rural, but that rural
congregations have diminished to quite such an extent because it
just means that the, the overlay of sort of all the different
tiers of society or not, not tiers, but, but, but all the
different things that people do in life, You know, the, the
church now has very little connectivity with, with anything
else. And that's, that is, that is a
big, big change. So even if people do do that,
and even if there is change, what, what, what effect is that
going to have? I mean, I don't know, I don't
mean to be pessimistic, but but it's just that you can see how
that would, that would affect great greater change in, say, a
metropolitan environment where there's a really, really big and
engaged in an active church congregation.
You can see how they would get stuff done by sheer dint of
their belief and, and indeed the action that it drives them to
because they are a significant part of that community.
But in in places where the church, because the numbers are
so small, is, is only really a a fringe player in the community,
one wonders quite what the future does hold.
All right. Well, as we come in for the
final lap, what's the moral of the story?
Yes, I mean, I think the moral of the story as a as a
congregant is to, is to hold true to your beliefs and to
speak out. And I think to it doesn't have
to be confrontational. But but I think, you know, if
you do participate and you go to church, or indeed you want to, I
think you shouldn't be. Backwards in in coming forwards,
you should absolutely make your make your views known, mostly
because people won't have considered it.
I mean, if you've sort of been interested by what we've been
talking about during this podcast, then I think bring
these bring these issues up because they they are great
talking points. And I, and I would absolutely
wager that not only will the people around you in the church
have not known them or thought about them, but I would
absolutely bet that the priest will also be completely unaware
that that this is the case. And it's, it's, you know, it is
that kindling of passion by delivering a small amount of
information that I think has got to be the, the, the way to go.
As for the, the, the other end of the scale or the top upper
end of the, the hierarchy, challenge them.
I think I absolutely do think these people need to be
challenged. They're not, they're not immune
from it. They're they're not, you know,
we, we talk about sort of ivory towers or whatever.
They are accessible. They, they do write back.
I know that for a fact. And, and they, they also must be
dealt with. These things need to be
considered. They can't ignore it forever.
And, and you know, let's face it, they do still talk about
some of the big issues and they do get some things right.
I mean, I'm, I, I don't mean to, to say that just because these
things are being done so badly, because there are so many
contradictions that, that the whole thing that absolutely
everything they do is completely rotten and wrong.
I think that would be, that would be a mistake, although in
certain instances it is that is quite a hard position to hold.
But but yeah, so I mean, I think the moral of the story is like,
like with everything, like all these things we talk about is
just is, is do what you can, what, what what's within your
gift to be able to do well, you can absolutely definitely go to
a church and engage with people and talk about these things and
make the church make yourself relevant within the church and
make the church relevant within society.
It needs to be relevant for the right reasons.
It's, it's such a, you know, it's a funny topic because for a
lot of people now they've, they've just sort of had it with
Church of England. Just think, well, you know, I
don't, I don't really care. I think, I think I, I would take
the opposite view. I think, I think people
absolutely should care. And this, you know, this fits in
with, with the series of podcasts that you're running.
I mean, OK, we're talking about the Church of England today, but
it doesn't really matter what the issue is.
People, if they want to see change, they do need to engage
with it. And, and, and I think that's
the, that's the big thing. And that, and that's, that is
really, you know, you're the battle of ideas.
The, the whole, the whole basis of the germ warfare podcast is,
is to deal with all this because otherwise, what's the point?
Otherwise, you know, what do we do?
We just sort of learn this stuff and just don't do anything with
it. The whole point of learning
stuff is you do do something with it.
And I think that's where you know that that's where people
have gone so far wrong. First of all, people don't know
things anymore. I mean education in this.
Well, when I say this kind of in the UK.
One large state education is it is terrible and, and it's, it is
indoctrination. I mean, that is so
overwhelmingly obvious now, but to do, you know, to be on the,
on the end of this sort of stuff and to listen to it and to, to
engage with it is, is immensely powerful.
So to, you know, really harness that and, and you know, this is
what you do and it's, it's, it's fantastic.
Go to ukcolumn.org and you will see much more of this kind of
thing. In actual fact, the website, the
the UK column website does have a number of really good articles
and about about not just Church of England, but about all
matters pertaining to faith. And also, you know, we've talked
a bit about the relationship with the state.
The the Dissidents Guide to the Constitution series, podcast
series is really, really good because I think understanding
more about what the state should or shouldn't be doing is is, you
know, again, so, so, so big. But yes, ukcolumn.org.
On that note, Charles Madden, thank you for joining me in the
trenches. Thank you very much, Joe.