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.