Speaking at the Lambeth Conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury reinforced his credentials – Marxist ones, that is.
His Grace views the world as a battleground for two implacable enemies. Given his occupation, you probably think the clash he sees in his mind’s eye is one between good and evil, or God and Satan if you’d rather.
You have another think coming. For the good archbishop doesn’t think in theological terms. The conceptual framework of his worldview is solidly Marxist.
Yes, good and evil are still the warring parties, but they are embodied in the poor and the rich. Every war the Archbishop declares, be it on climate change, mistreatment of refugees or oppression, is class war at base.
Perhaps ‘think’ is too generous a word, based as it is on the assumption that thought precedes speech. Yet His Grace treats this assumption with the contempt it doesn’t deserve:
“To be silent on the climate emergency and its implications for the economy, to be silent on the unethical treatment of migrants or on war and oppression, on the abuse of human rights, on persecution is to be one of the oppressors.”
This little statement goes beyond category error. It’s more like category demolition.
Leaving aside his acceptance of the subversive climate hoax on faith, lumping it together with “war”, “oppression” and “the abuse of human rights” shows that His Grace’s mouth is disengaged from his brain.
Following his logic, it’s “climate change, better called the climate crisis or better still the climate emergency” that’s directly responsible for, say, Putin’s bandit raid on the Ukraine, with war, oppression and abuse of human rights aplenty.
And when the climate was warmer than it is now, in the first century BC, was it hot weather that fuelled Caesar’s conquests? I don’t think he showed a lot of respect for the Gauls’ human rights. Must have been too hot for that sort of thing.
Not only does His Grace diagnose the world’s malignant disease, but he also has no doubts whatsoever about its aetiology. It is “the result of the wealthier countries having declared war on God’s creation, unknowingly, unthinkingly starting from the 19th century.”
Is the Archbishop nostalgic about windmills, hoes and horse-driven ploughs? If so, he must also miss high infant and natal mortality, life expectancy half of today’s, intolerable pain caused by dental and surgical procedures, regular murderous famines and whatnot.
The Industrial Revolution, which he sees as “war on God’s creation” made life infinitely better for the apex of that creation, man. Scientific and technological progress isn’t without its downsides, but describing it in such crude binary terms wouldn’t be out of place at a meeting of a clandestine Marxist cell.
“The symptoms of that war now are that the wealthy dump refuse in the oceans,” continued His Grace. And the poor don’t? It’s the underdeveloped nations that are by far the worst ecological abusers.
Asia, for example, is responsible for emitting 81 per cent of ocean plastics, compared to Europe’s 0.6 per cent and North America’s 4.5. Never mind. When a Marxist talks, facts run for cover.
Nor do poor countries take close to heart the Archbishop’s entreaty to cut carbon emissions. But hold on for a moment: climate emergency or no, the poor shouldn’t be told to cut down on their hydrocarbons. That’s assuming I can follow the rattling runaway train of His Grace’s thought:
“They [the rich] tell the poor not to use carbon-generating fuels and they say to the world, too often, not by their word but by their actions ‘we will keep our wealth and you, the poor, must discover new paths’.”
That’s not even apples and oranges. It’s apples and bicycles. For ‘the rich’, a group implicitly anathematised by the Archbishop, are cutting their economic throats by buying into the climate hoax, today’s surrogate religion.
Just yesterday Biden’s administration undertook to cut carbon emissions 40 per cent by 2050. Britain’s targets are even more ambitious, which is to say suicidal.
Does that qualify as actions or words? The former, I daresay. What’s definitely just words, empty ones at that, is vague, almost apologetic suggestions that perhaps third-world countries should also cut their emissions, if only by a smidgen.
And shouldn’t we be allowed to hold on to our wealth, what little is left of it? Jesus, after all, only said that man shouldn’t live by bread alone, not that he should live by no bread at all.
Having declared war on the rich who oppress, pollute and abuse, His Grace lamented that many churches, including his own, are cheek by jowl with state power. That reduces their crusading potential: “The history of the churches is too often tragically not one of challenging unjust structures.”
How can the Church of England, for example, fight the good fight when it’s “embedded in establishment”? Eh… well, yes. That’s why it’s called ‘established’, which is to say state, Church. And that’s why both the Church and the state have the same head, the Queen.
If His Grace is campaigning for disestablishment, he’ll find some sympathy in these quarters. But, he hastened to reassure the Conference, he isn’t. He isn’t really campaigning for anything much.
Archbishop Welby is simply making Marxist noises with woke overtones that have more to do with semiotics than semantics. That’s what passes for thought these days, and that problem is much worse than anything His Grace finds so vexing.