Sunday 20 November 2016

This is only the start of a religious war

"A world is collapsing before our eyes," tweeted the French ambassador to the USA, Gerard Araud, as it became clear Trump had won. He deleted it later but he was right, of course. As I watched, I suddenly felt sure that the election of Trump, with all his grave faults, was a last-minute victory for common sense in America and Europe.
But, if I hadn't thought that then, the reaction of his opponents in the USA and in Europe would have convinced me. One or two of the craziest American 'liberals' talk of resistance (armed?) or of killing Trump. 

The New York Times ran a piece by Californian Daniel Duane who said of his fellow Californians, "nearly everyone I know would vote yes tomorrow if we could secede" from the United States. These are the people who are horrified by Confederate flags.

The mainstream liberals compare the result to September 11 and routinely compare the President elect to Hitler or Mussolini. The liberal papers print misleading nonsense and untruths, while complaining about fake (conservative) news, which Twitter is trying to suppress by blocking Breitbart writers etc. 

Liberal tears were enjoyable, but now the power of the liberal American establishment begins to frighten me.
Trump and his first appointments are extremely Philo-Semitic and supportive of Israel, intend scrapping the accommodation with Iran (which saddens me) and yet are accused of being Anti-Semites, without any rational grounds.
Gerard Baker in the Spectator said that condemnation of Trump’s victory was taken up like the call of the muezzin from the media’s minarets.
"Much of New York City stumbled around in the fog of mourning. The principal of the school to which a colleague sends his child sent a note to parents explaining how the school would lead their children through their grief. ‘And now when we most want to weep and mourn, we must come to work and be a source of both solace and inspiration to all our young students,’ it said." 
Janet Daley, who is terrified by Donald Trump and badly wanted Hillary to win, gives a mild example of what I am talking about.

"Sometimes large political patterns can be illuminated most effectively by small incidents. Last week, Robert Ivy, the chief executive of the American Institute of Architects, issued a statement on the election of Donald Trump which he clearly thought unobjectionable. While acknowledging that the election process had been “contentious”, Mr Ivy stated that his organisation was “committed to working with President-elect Trump to address the issues the country faces, particularly strengthening the nation’s infrastructure”. He pointed out that candidate Trump had called for committing at least $500 billion to infrastructure spending over five years, and that the AIA stood “ready to work with him… to ensure that investments in schools, hospitals and other public infrastructure continue to be a major priority”.
So this was a nice mix, you might think, of professional self-interest on the part of the architects’ lobby and political pressure on Mr Trump to follow through on his campaign promises. And given that the commitment to spending on public infrastructure was pretty much the only Trump policy that was supported by Democrats – harking back as it does to Franklin Roosevelt’s programme of public works – shouldn’t this announcement have passed without controversy?
Well, forget that. What actually happened was that the sky fell in. The American architectural profession rose up as one to denounce Mr Ivy. There were public resignations from the AIA itself and the editorial board of The Architect’s Newspaper condemned the shameful, conciliatory tone of his statement. There was rending of garments across the academic architectural establishment from the Yale School of Architecture, which decried the AIA’s “cowardly position”, to the Art Institute of Chicago, which created the inevitable hashtag #NotMyAIA.
In the end, believe it or not, Mr Ivy had to issue an apology video in which he atoned for his transgression, standing alongside the AIA president Russ Davidson, who promised that in future the organisation would 'advocate vigorously for our sustainability agenda, including the impacts of climate change'. Good grief. Presumably this Maoist public self-mortification will earn Mr Ivy only a conditional reprieve, since he must now be regarded as under permanent suspicion of impure thoughts."

It would be funny, except it's not.

Ruth Sherlock, also in the Daily Telegraph, considers that Trump's first appointments, by opposing abortion and homosexual marriage, are far right. In the Daily Telegraph, the only conservative British quality paper, legendarily read by retired army officers of reactionary bent. 

The Catholic Church is in Miss Sherlock's view a far right organisation and most other churches too.

This is only the start of a religious war, the religion in question being (misnamed) 'liberalism'.

Maurice Cowling put it best:

"Secularisation so far from involving liberation from religion, has involved merely liberation from Christianity and the establishment in its place of a modern religion whose advocates so much assume its truth that they do not understand that it is a religion to which they are committed."


  1. I was thinking of them today as frustrated, enraged Puritans.
    Mark Griffith

    1. That's their cultural lineage.

  2. Great commentary. Keep it coming! Also, check out my article at

  3. Oh the drama, my goodness. I did not want Trump to win but am resigned to it and most of the people I know. There is not widespread weeping in the streets. Some liberals I know grudgingly admire Trump for winning -- he spent less money than many candidates do and broke a lot of established rules. The stock market is doing great. Let's not have whining and let's also not have right-wing people accusing everyone else of whining.

  4. It is quite obvious to me that the doctrine of the liberal elite is simply global imperialism, And this must be achieved at any cost, regardless of the consequences. The strategy they have adopted to achieve this is quite remarkable, from the dumbing down of the masses via the educational system, news media brainwashing and hollywood ra ra crap from the brainwashing, brand, comms viewpoint. This is simply to cover the underlying tactical strategy, which is the subversive tactics to destabilise other countries via economic sanctions, perceived military and financial support only to find that the key assets have been bought/taken over by US corporations. This is where the real power lies. This is the controller of the master puppet and the puppet states. So no this is not the start of a religious war, it is religion being used by the corporations as just another tool to help them achieve their objective. And the roots of Religion in the western world is fear. And if you can successfully install fear into the ends of your subjects, you must give them hope. The formulation of the EU ( we must have consolidation and globalisation to compete against China and the threat of Russia) - ( and directed by US global policy puppet masters) is viewed by many as a smokescreen to allow US corporations to take over assets of each member state via TTIP, ( after all they have to grow, the economy, shareholders lives depend on it) its called globalisation. The war is not religion, religion is not evil, the people that are blinded by religion, know not what they do, its a blind faith. The people that know exactly what they doing are the corporations and they are clearly the evil perpetrators. The major corporations are all in cahoots with each other and they all have the governments, banks and the legal systems in their pocket. Hopefully, now, what they do not have is the people, who despite the dumbing down, are now realising ( brexit, trump) exactly what going on....The war against the Establishment.

  5. Exactly what I have been saying for weeks: the disgraceful and hysterical reactions of the establishment are what prove, more that anything else and beyond any shadow of doubt that both Brexit and Trump were utterly inevitable and necessary. These reactions also prove that the progressive left establishment who think they own the moral high ground as if by divine right are no more capable of compromise or mending their ways than was Charles I when Cromwell said "In the Bowls of Christ I beseech thee, think that you might be wrong!" Their reactions demonstrate that their religious devotion to their secular faith is as blind, dogmatic and absolute as was Charles I's faith in his Divine Right of Kings.