St. Benedict (d. 543 Monte Cassino, Italy) is not just a Patron Saint of Europe, his Rule and the monasteries/abbeys he founded formed Western Europe which became Christendom-the never-surpassed pinnacle of human civilisation.
Today is St. Benedict’s feast day in the Novus Ordo calendar.
St. Benedict, pray for Europe and for the souls of Europeans, and we will pray for men and women to answer their call to the Benedictine religious life. Amen.
“The Enlightenment, like a vast Chinese Wall, separates Europe’s contemporary inhabitants from the man who made their culture possible. Cut off from their roots and disillusioned by one failed utopian experiment after another, European Man has contracted a spiritual disease whose clearest manifestation is his inability to reproduce.” (italics added) “Benedict’s Rule” by E. Michael Jones
The European Union (EU) is not Europe. That might be obvious to some, but the revolutionaries have managed to conflate the two for most people. Therefore, those who hate the EU are supposed to hate Europe and Europeans. Sadly, as with the liturgical revolutionaries, traditionalists have let them take over the language so that we cannot argue our point without a preamble about what words mean. So for the avoidance of doubt, I despise the EU because it is a post-Enlightenment anti-Catholic tyranny but I love Europe, especially the echoes of Christendom that one experiences occasionally on trips there.
Catholics can take a special pride in Europe/Christendom because our religious forebears built it out of the rubble of the collapsed Roman Empire. The standard narrative has been that the barbarians from the east (e.g. Vandals, Goths, Visigoths, Huns, Alans) destroyed the infrastructure as they conquered creating the Dark Ages. However, we must acknowledge that from the Seventh Century Europe was under constant attack by muslims and that muslim piracy severely restricted the Mediterranean to Christian trade until the Battle of Lepanto (1571).
St. Benedict Patron Saint of Europe
Whatever the cause(s), as the Western Empire crumbled, the economy faltered and wealth dissipated, leaving the population living hand-to-mouth. Here is a description of the age by Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 590-604) who lived a century after St. Benedict and wrote his biography:
“What is there to please us in this world? Everywhere we see sorrow and lamentation. The cities and towns are destroyed, the fields are laid waste, and the land returns to solitude. No peasant is left to till the fields; there are few inhabitants left in the cities and yet even these scanty remnants of humanity are still subject to ceaseless sufferings…Some are led away captive, others are mutilated and still more slain before our eyes. What is there then to please us in this world? If we still love such a world as this, it is plain we love not pleasure but misery.” (italics added) Quotation taken from “Benedict’s Rule” by E. Michael Jones
Politics were dominated by the new militaristic invaders. In Britain, this conflict was personified by the mythical King Arthur, who fought (ultimately unsuccessfully) to defend his happy, prosperous kingdom (Camelot) against the evil Angles, Saxons and Jutes. About this time, in AD 480 St. Benedict was born in Nursia* (now Norcia) in Umbria. He was sent to Rome to study but left because of the city’s hedonism. He spent some time with a priest in Enfide, 35 miles east of Rome, but fled to a cave in the hills round Subiaco, where he lived in seclusion for three years. His reputation as a holy man encouraged some monks to ask him to be their abbot. He refused, saying they would not care for his discipline, but they prevailed upon him and he accepted. St. Benedict was right – the monks tried to poison him, but he made the sign of the cross over his wine goblet and it shattered. He returned to his cave at Subiaco.
St. Benedict’s holy charisma still attracted followers and so he organised them into twelve communities of twelve monks living along the valley. This time a jealous parish priest tried to poison his bread, but his pet raven carried it away. Around AD 529, St. Benedict moved to Monte Cassino where he built a monastery over the ruins of a temple of Apollo. This is where he wrote and applied his Rule, based on earlier rules of monastic life. The Rule of St. Benedict became ubiquitous for monastic living over the next millennium and it is the principles enshrined in the Rule that created Christendom and made it the peak of human civilisation.
* Précis of St. Benedict’s biography taken from the Benedictine Yearbook 2016
A Catholic Revolution from the Bottom Up
St. Benedict was a revolutionary, but in a Catholic way. Earlier sons of the empire like St. Augustine bemoaned the Gothic invasions and said, ‘something must be done’ to stop them. But St. Benedict acknowledged that the Western Empire was either going or had gone, even in Italy [Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in AD 410 and again by the Ostrogoths under Totila in AD 546]. Therefore, St. Benedict didn’t waste any effort repairing the irreparable, but worked out a means of salvation, not on his own but in community. Neither the state nor private enterprise were reliable providers of goods and services, and for that reason every monastery had to be fully self-sustaining. Behind the relative safety of monastery walls the monks had a water supply and the food they produced themselves. They became proficient in all the artisanal crafts necessary to sustain a life of prayer and work (ora et labora as the Benedictine motto says). For example, they produced their own cloth for habits, other garments and liturgical vestments. They were proficient in metalwork – from horseshoes and ploughs to sacred vessels for Mass. They were their own stonemasons and of course, they were the copiers of and depositories for Christian and Classical literature.
The Catholic Economy
St. Benedict knew that idle hands tempted the devil and that young men especially needed to engage in hard physical labour. In addition, he had spent time as an anchorite and intuited that periods of contemplation followed by physical effort, which allowed the subconscious to process the transcendent, promoted spiritual development. As a result, manual labour became a noble activity, in contradistinction to Classical and barbarian cultures which regarded it as the preserve of slaves and peasants. This put monks right with God, who told Adam, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth…” (Gen 3:19). The elevation of labour remains intrinsic to the Catholic conception of the economy, which can be summarised as:
Economy (Y) = f(Nature) + f(Labour) + f(Exchange) f(.) means “is a function of”
Notice there is no “f(Capital)” because capital is merely stored labour.
Also, f(Exchange) is present because how economic exchanges are mediated (e.g. via money in markets) is not neutral to the transaction. Astoundingly, although the concept of exchange is the definition of economic activity, usurers’ models (whether capitalistic or communistic) theorise it away, as they must to avoid identification.
Outside the monastery, the warlords expropriated the labour of the remaining peasants by stealing their food and goods, leaving them destitute. Whereas, the community’s wealth stayed with the community (episodes of banditry excepted – the Lombards sacked Monte Cassino in AD 580) where it was used to create further wealth. It wasn’t the greed of abbots that made monasteries rich, it was the righteous exploitation of God’s bounty. The wealth of monasteries were a rebuke to the predatory habits of secular rulers because every village would have been as prosperous as a monastery if all the products of labour (wealth) were not siphoned off, just as they are today under capitalism.
People know a good thing when they see it, and St. Benedict’s Rule and his Order began to spread from Monte Cassino throughout the former Empire and beyond into Germania. The monasteries proliferated and they radiated order – economic and moral. Order is from God and disorder or chaos is from the devil. The development of a moral order was the Church’s attempt to put limits on the behaviour of the barbarian princes; the powerful do not need morality to protect them. Slowly over the centuries, the wealth of the monasteries was reinvested in the surrounding economies and commerce grew until Europe emerged from the “Benedictine centuries” into the Middle Ages. Here is how Bl. Cardinal Newman described the monasteries’ contribution to the creation of Europe:
“St Benedict found the world, physical and social, in ruins and his mission was to restore it in the way not of science, but of nature, not as if setting about to do it, not professing to do it by any set time, or by any rare specific, or by any serious strokes, but so quietly, patiently, gradually, that often till the work was done, it was not known to be doing.” Quoted in Jones
So peacefully and gently accomplished was the work of the Benedictines that their contribution has been expunged from the folk memory of Europeans. We have been fed the Whig version of history, which says all monasteries were centres of depravity and luxury. This was the lie they told our ancestors when they could no longer restrain their greed for the land and chattels that the monks had held in trust for up to one thousand years. Once the Whigs got the land, the peasants were rack-rented or ejected to make way for sheep. Anglophone history books are long the tales of Henry VIII’s brave stand against the Pope (Clement VII) and are largely silent on the newly destitute families who died like flies along the roads of “merrie” England. Everyone else became easy prey for the usurers, recently legitimised by the Act Against Usury (1545), which of course the Church always has and always will condemn as immoral (see the current Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church para.341; Vatican.va).
The Preferential Option for the Poor
The network of monasteries was a welfare system before there was even a state to expropriate its prestige. The monasteries were benevolent landlords and all tenants were able to generate a surplus to hold against the exigencies of life. A Catholic father had very little trouble providing for his family, and many did even better than that. Here is how Jones describes the economy of Christendom:
“The small Christian community was centered on the Eucharist, but in addition to moral living it also demanded almsgiving and those alms, once given, were returned to the less fortunate with the Church and bishop administering the funds, thus strengthening the bonds of community even further. Doctrine and praxis reinforced each other, and the fruit was community:”
Modern day economists are quick to decry the guilds system as an anti-consumer conspiracy, but they were a way to ensure that a working man’s life was not curtailed by sharp practices. In his seminal book, Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism (1934), Amintore Fanfani describes the pre-capitalist economy that shows how it descended directly from the community spirit of the Benedictines:
“Whereas the pre-capitalist sought to equate wages rather to the needs of the worker than to his output, the capitalist, on the contrary, tends to base them rather on the worker’s output than on his needs.”
What’s more, unlike the large number of men currently languishing on Europe’s welfare programmes, there was appropriate policing of those who sought to be a charge on the public purse, i.e. discrimination between the deserving and undeserving poor. As St. Paul wrote,
“For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: if any man will not work, neither let him eat.” (2 Thess 3:10)
Convincing the Germans
The revolution was top-down as well as bottom-up and here too the Benedictines brought order out of chaos. The Teutonic tribes were largely nomadic and pagan, although the Goths had embraced Arianism. If they had continued their rootless ways, plundering and murdering, the Empire would have broken up into a series of failed states. Without courageous and inspired Benedictines to convert the Teutonic tribes to Catholicism, Christendom would not have created the civilisation it came to be and risen to defend itself against the later Asiatic invaders, e.g. Huns and Ottomans. Then all the wisdom, beauty and wealth of Europe which the Enlightenment claimed as its own and expropriated to itself in the name of its creed, i.e. science, would not have existed.
When rulers have no fellow-feeling (or solidarity in Catholic Social Teaching parlance) for the ruled, the country will always underachieve. This is why so many third world peoples have remained impoverished – because rulers steal the natural wealth (the resource curse) – the rulers regard the ruled as objects, not subjects of labour as Church teaching demands. Europe would have been as unproductive as Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia are today had Catholicism remained the people’s religion and the elites remained pagan.
Thanks to the zeal and courage of the Benedictine monks the elites too were Catholicised, in whole or at least in part. When Vikings spread-eagled monks and stole the monasteries’ gold they were being good Vikings. Similarly, when the Ottomans impaled prisoners and made sex slaves of Christian women, they were being good muslims. But, when a king or knight killed prisoners or harried a surrendered town, we condemn them as bad Catholics.
In Benedict’s Rule, Jones acknowledges the importance of the monks capturing the barbarians for Christ and His Church:
“Once it [Benedict’s Rule] fired the imagination of the Anglo-Saxon monks in general and St Boniface in particular, it brought order and classical coherence to the chaotic existence of the Germanic tribes on both sides of the Rhine, as well as the formation of the new centres of culture in Ireland, Northumbria, and ultimately the Carolingian empire. It was this development which prompted Newman to call the six hundred years following the collapse of the Roman Empire, ‘the Benedictine centuries.’”
So successful were the Benedictines at proselytising that these earthly rulers acknowledged the Social Kingship of Christ and the spiritual superiority of His Vicar on earth that their monarchs accepted the crown from the hands of a bishop.
“The precedent which Boniface established with Pepin [crowning him King of the Franks in AD 754] was continued by his heir Charlemagne, whose reign defined the terms of medieval culture for centuries to come. That that primitive culture transcended its still recent barbarian roots was in large measure due to Benedict’s Rule of monastic life which turned Frankish eyes favourably toward Rome and the classical culture which Rome had absorbed and transfigured.” C. Dawson quoted in Jones.
Ruling by the laws of Christ and His Church allowed Europe to prosper materially, intellectually and morally. This was a sea-change as Dawson explains:
“The Carolingian legislation in itself marks the emergence of the new social consciousness of Western Christendom. Hitherto the legislation of the Western kingdom had been of the nature of a Christian appendix to the old barbarian tribal codes. Now, for the first time, a complete break was made with the past, and Christendom enacted its own laws, which covered the whole field of social activity in Church and state, and referred all things to a single standard of the Christian ethos. This was inspired neither by Germanic nor Roman precedent.”
Thomas Hobbes Was Wrong
Hobbes the political philosopher carried the anti-Catholic virus of the Whigs and played his part as a transmitter of that virus. In Leviathan (1651) he claimed that “…the papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof…” But it is a fact that the Catholic Church used some of the rubble of the Empire to build from the foundations up, Christendom and Europe. St. Benedict’s Rule created economic and moral order where there was a howling wilderness of barbarian rapine. The pope in Rome rightly was acknowledged by emperors and kings alike as the principal power in Christendom because his Benedictines oversaw its construction.
The EU as a uniter of Europe is an affront to St. Benedict, who worked peacefully and gently and used only volunteers. The EU claims to unite Europe, but uses brutalist top-down methods, see Greece, Ireland and Italy. The heir to St. Benedict would never demand abortion for all.
Vote for Brexit if you are in the UK, and oppose the EU if you are not.
Visit a Benedictine monastery for a weekend retreat or just to hear a sung Office. If you can make it, Vigils/Matins of Sunday (sometimes said on Saturday evenings) are particularly good. You will hear the Te Deum most of the year (not Lent or Advent).
St. Benedict’s feast day is July 11th, although Benedictine monasteries still celebrate his birthday on March 21st. This July 11th, go to Mass and pray to St. Benedict that Europe’s people can recover their faith and their wits and demand leaders worthy of St. Benedict’s Rule.
Listen to the Te Deum, in which one can perceive the glory of St. Benedict’s legacy.
On June 23rd 2016 Britons have an opportunity to vote to leave the European Union (EU), i.e. Brexit. Catholics can vote “leave” with a clear conscience, knowing that traditional Catholic Social Teaching is on their side.
Catholic Social Teaching: Pre- and Post-Vatican II
Those Catholics who have embraced the novelties of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) are likely to be Remainians. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales doesn’t have an official position on its website, but a search for “Brexit” brings up a short resolution of April 15, 2016 which indirectly supports Remain, and an article by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor that is explicitly Remain (“Let’s vote in to renew the EU”). The Remain view is promoted in my diocese, as I am sure it is elsewhere in parishes across the UK, because the post-Vatican II version of Catholic Social Teaching predominates in all seminaries. Thus, to the extent local parishes have covered the topic, whether in newsletters or lectures/meetings Catholics are told the official Church position is Remain.
Just as traditional Liturgical and Theological principles and vocabulary were inverted to manufacture the Novus Ordo Mass, the Remainians abuse the principles and vocabulary of Catholic Social Teaching to justify their position. I will show that the application of actual meanings to the principles and vocabulary of Catholic Social Teaching leads one to reject (and despise the anti-Catholic) EU.
The Problem With Catholic Social Teaching…
…is that it only started in 1891. The Church has, as per her founder’s instructions, always had special care for the poor and marginalised. However, modern Catholic Social Teaching is dated from Leo XIII’s encyclical, Rerum Novarum (1891), “On the Condition of Workers”. Although he was succeeded in turn by Pope St Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, only Pius XI wrote an explicit Social Teaching encyclical, Quadagesimo Anno (1931), “In the 40th Year”, updating Rerum Novarum. The Second Vatican Council itself and all the Vatican II popes, bar Pope John Paul I (Pope St John XXIII, Bl. Pope Paul VI, Pope St John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis), have between them produced a profusion of documents on Catholic Social Teaching and thus in terms of weight of paper, the Vatican II interpretation vastly outweighs the traditional interpretation. But, truth is truth and the Church only teaches truth.
Principle 1 Subsidiarity
Subsidiarity means that all decisions are to be made by those who are most directly affected by the results of those decisions. The EU claims Subsidiarity is one of its principles, but it is in practice the embodiment of anti-subsidiarity or Authoritarianism. From its founding in 1951 as the European Coal and Steel Community, it has arrogated to itself more and more spheres of “competence”, and the remoteness of the EU from the effects of its rules on Europe’s citizens has made life miserable for too many. The top-down imposition of Common Policies on the 28 disparate countries of Europe makes a mockery of Subsidiarity.
It has been said that supranational bodies, like the EU, are good because they “dilute” nationalism. However, this argument falls on supernatural and natural grounds. Supernaturally, there is only one organisation ordained by God and protected by the Holy Ghost and that is His Church. History is replete with examples of those who would love to bestride the world as does the Church. But any attempts can only be diabolically inspired and sooner or later project evil.
Following World War I, when the New World Order started to become visible, Pope Benedict XV had this to say in 1920 about secular authorities with global ambitions:
“The advent of a Universal Republic [the New World Order], which is longed for by all the worst elements of disorder, and confidently expected by them, is an idea which is ripe for execution. From this Republic, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and community of possessions, would be banished all national distinctions, nor in it would the authority of a father over his children, or of the public power over the citizens, or of God over human society, be any longer acknowledged. If these ideas are put into practice there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard-of terror.”
Without the protection of the Holy Ghost, there is no a priori reason why a supranational entity should be any less prone to concupiscence than a national one. In fact, the contrary is true, as asserted by Friedrich Hayek in Road to Serfdom (1944). He noted that power attracts psychopaths and the more power a position affords, the greater the psychopathy of the holder. This is the principle behind Subsidiarity, i.e. centres of power should only be a large as they need to be to mitigate man’s concupiscence.
Principle 2 Solidarity
Catholic Solidarity is a concern for one’s fellow humans that starts from the bottom-up. We learn solidarity at home, amongst our family and then our extended family. From there we show concern for our neighbours and then work colleagues and those in similar trades, perhaps by being involved in organisations. So also we want the best for our county, for our countrymen and for all the world’s people. But, the bonds of affection for and the duty of care I owe to my family are more intense and more expansive than those I owe to my countrymen. Or else I would fail in my duty of care to my children. Catholic Social Teaching is explicit – care of children is primarily invested in their father.
The EU has appropriated “solidarity” but its implementation is by way of Collectivism, i.e. top-down and coercive – exactly the opposite of Catholic Social Teaching’s bottom-up and voluntary understanding of solidarity. The Borg-like EU has absorbed 28 countries and 500+ million people (by buying their venal politicians) and demands that we immediately express family-like solidarity for much looser bonds. This false premise is being shredded by nature’s law, and the more disparate the citizens who are bound by coercive pseudo-solidarity, the more violent will be the break-up. Solidarity with Turks and Turkish mores? Cannot be done without martial law.
Principle 3 Distributism
Catholic Social Teaching holds that a man has on-going and long-term responsibilities to himself and his family. For this reason he is entitled to own property and have savings. Ideally, every worker would own a just share in the enterprise from which he earns a living. In the UK this is known as the “John Lewis economy” because the John Lewis Partnership is owned by all those who work for it. As G.K. Chesterton said, “The problem with capitalism* is not that there are too many capitalists, but that there are too few.” Once again, Collectivists have taken Catholic teaching and perverted it by claiming that under socialism everybody is an owner of the means of production. But the consequences of this diabolical perversion of Distributism are that nobody owns anything and the economy founders.
*Capitalism is an uncatholic economic system, because it 1) puts profit before people and 2) legitimises usury.
Large enterprises with a lot of capital at risk hate competition, which erodes any super-normal profits they earn. One way of preventing entrepreneurs from ever trying to compete is to load small firms with disproportionate rules and regulations. These overheads act as a strong discouragement to starting a business and as a drag on nascent enterprises. This is the reason all international businesses hail the EU. They know eurocrats love to expand their spheres of influence by creating new regimes supposedly for consumers’ benefit, but in reality for incumbent protection. Therefore, the EU prevents workers from obtaining their just share of economic equity.
Catholic Social Teaching says that the needs of immigrants have to be balanced against the needs of the local population. Immigration should not be a tool for exploitation of labour, wherever located. In other words, immigrants cannot be offered work on adverse terms, but neither are native workers to be exploited by an influx of labourers. In the short-term wages are driven below the living wage that the Church says is every worker’s right. In the long-term immigration can cause local workers to despair of their futures, especially if as is the case with the EU, there is free movement between regions of a very low standard of living to those of developed nations. Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Caritas in Veritate (para.25) how debilitating high immigration could be:
“…uncertainty over working conditions caused by mobility and deregulation [of labour], when it becomes endemic, tends to create new forms of psychological instability, giving rise to difficulty in forging coherent life-plans, including that of marriage. This leads to situations of human decline, to say nothing of the waste of social resources. In comparison with the casualties of industrial society in the past, unemployment today provokes new forms of economic marginalization, and the current crisis can only make this situation worse. Being out of work or dependent on public or private assistance for a prolonged period undermines the freedom and creativity of the person and his family and social relationships, causing great psychological and spiritual suffering. I would like to remind everyone, especially governments engaged in boosting the world’s economic and social assets, that the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human person in his or her integrity: ‘Man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life.’”
In summary, the EU and its Remainians use the language of Catholic Social Teaching, but they do so in a way that is exactly analogous to how their ideological antecedents justified changes to doctrine and liturgy following Vatican II.
Europeans should study St Benedict, whose feast day is July 11th, and remember the glories of Christendom, which he and his monks (and St Scholastica’s nuns) created from the bottom-up using only prayer and hard work. St Benedict pray for us.
So I say to all Vatican II interpreters of Catholic Social Teaching…
Alexis Jay’s recently published report, [An] Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997-2013 provides details of the thousands* of young girls abused by men in Rotherham, a town in the north of England. The inquiry may have had a cut-off date but as the executive summary says, “The abuse is not confined to the past but continues to this day.”
*The report says, “[O]ur conservative estimate is that there were more than 1400 victims in the period covered by the inquiry…”
The perpetrators were almost exclusively Pakistani muslims (though some other muslim ethnicities were accused) and the girls were almost exclusively white British. The media, to the extent it covered the story, tried desperately to find non-Pakistani penetrators and non-white British penatratees, but the normative facts of the case remained, i.e. Pakistani men committed depraved sexual acts of gang rape on female white children. And they were children – from ages 11 to 16, drugged and gang raped and then sold on for more gang raping and drugging.
If Pakistani men did the drugging and gang raping, why do I indict Britain? Because of the British establishment’s actions when confronted by the horror.
• These crimes first reached my awareness in 2007 through the British National Party, a.k.a. BNP. Because the BNP is an ethno-nationalist organisation, the claims by the party’s spokesmen and the testimonies of the parents of victims – readily available on the BNP’s website – were dismissed as race hate-mongering lies.
• The police pathologised the victims who reported their gang raping; accusing them of being drug addicts, as “out of control” and essentially gagging for it.
• The Jay Report mentions two cases of fathers who went to the houses where their daughters were being drugged and gang raped and were themselves arrested by the police.
• The media and authorities have used politically correct language to ameliorate the abuse, referring to it as grooming. The children were not groomed, they were drugged almost immediately upon meeting an abuser, and then gang raped. The high off the drugs and the pain and shame of the gang rape created a pathology similar to the army’s Monarch mind control programme; details of which are available on the web. Dismiss MK-Ultra as conspiracy if you wish, but Rotherham shows how a dialectic of depravity works.
• The Report and the media refer to the perpetrators as “Pakistani-heritage”. What need of “heritage”? These men are Pakastanis, some born in Britain, others arrived here at various ages from Pakistan. What’s British about them?
• Rotherham’s MP from 1994-2012, Denis McShane, (who was jailed in 2013 for fraud) admitted doing nothing because, “I think there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat.”
• Despite the horrors revealed, the Rotherham establishment goes unpunished by the courts and the people. After McShane resigned to face fraud charges, the voters elected Sarah Champion, another Labour MP, with an increased vote share. Champion is currently odds-on to retain her seat in May.
• When the UKIP candidate, Jane Collins MEP, sought to launch her campaign in February by having party leader, Nigel Farage MEP come to her HQ, the police allowed a paid mob to blockade the shop and advised Farage not to speak as they “couldn’t guarantee his safety.” Collins had threatened to clean house in Rotherham, including any police complicit in the abuse scandal.
• No one in the Rotherham establishment has been punished; indeed several have gone on to highly paid posts in the quangocracy as if they were competent and blameless.
There was a conspiracy of silence because the powers-that-be suppress any and all malign effects of their multiculturalist ideology, by smearing those who raise their voices against it.
It is clear that thousands of pre-pubescent white girls were, and are, sacrificed to the gods of multiculturalism. The propaganda must not be interrupted by reality, no matter the cost. One would expect the establishment to close ranks, but the 2012 by-election was the perfect opportunity for the voters to send a signal. Sadly the signal they sent was, “Mmmeh!” Champion is odds-on to retain her seat in May.
Compare and contrast Rotherham with another multicultural news item in nearby, Thirsk. A group called Animal Aid secretly filmed the operations at a halal slaughterhouse called Bowood Yorkshire Lamb. Contrary to regulations, the animals were pushed, punched, kicked, killed with blunt knives, killed in the sight of one another, not given sufficient time to bleed out before being moved and painted on post mortem.
The events were a graphic illustration of the “otherness” of muslim practice, but unlike Rotherham, the establishment couldn’t have been more vocal in its condemnation. For example:
• The operatives involved were immediately sacked or suspended.
• The RSPCA described the footage as “absolutely shocking” and called for halal slaughter to be banned.
• The British Veterinary Association “has long believed that slaughter without stunning unnecessarily compromises animal welfare before death and as such we call for an end to its practice.”
• The Food Standards Agency said “There is no excuse for treating animals in the way shown on the video and we are therefore investigating the footage with a view to prosecution.”
• Here is an extract from a statement on the video from Animal Aid’s website: “Animal Aid recognises that, given the existence of strong anti-Muslim sentiment amongst a section of the British population, there is a risk that some people will use the release of our new halal slaughterhouse footage to stir up hatred rather than to advance the cause of animal protection. As an organisation opposed to racism and bigotry, that would be an outcome we would detest. However, withholding release of the footage would be a betrayal of our key mission: to expose and combat animal cruelty…”
Following the exposé, there have been calls for an end to all un-stunned slaughter. The furore is a reaction to the identical un-stunned slaughter of ISIS prisoners in Syria, Iraq and now Libya. It is an obvious displacement of horror at the behaviour of ISIS and others, about which we can do nothing, onto a local issue where we can make a stand. The hypocrisy is stunning.
So, the moral order in post-modern Britain ranks as follows:
– Animal rights
– The multicultural utopia narrative
– Wee girls’ physical safety and mental health
And that is why Britain is morally bankrupt.