Lifestyle - Blog

The Authentic Illusion of Salvation

A moment of religious devotion can feel like a direct encounter with the divine — but the experience may have deeply human origins.

There are few experiences in human life more convincing than religious conversion.

In the moment it happens, it feels absolute.

The new believer does not merely adopt a belief; he experiences what appears to be a profound transformation of reality itself. The world suddenly becomes charged with meaning. Events seem purposeful. Personal history acquires a narrative arc. Even suffering can appear reinterpreted as part of a divine plan.

To the convert, the conclusion feels unavoidable: God has revealed Himself.

I know this experience from the inside. For several years I believed, with complete sincerity, that God had personally intervened in my life. The sense of transformation was overwhelming. At the time it felt impossible to doubt that something supernatural had occurred.

The experience is often accompanied by powerful emotions: relief, gratitude, awe, sometimes tears. The convert may describe feeling “known,” “forgiven,” or “reborn.” For many, this moment becomes the central turning point of their life story.

From the inside, the experience feels like the discovery of truth. God exists. Faith becomes certainty (Hebrews 11:1).

From the outside, however, something more complex is happening.

A psychological ignition

Modern psychology offers a more prosaic explanation for the intensity of conversion.

Many conversions occur at moments of emotional vulnerability: crisis, guilt, loneliness, addiction, grief, or identity confusion. In such moments the mind becomes unusually receptive to radical reinterpretations of reality.

These states create a powerful readiness for cognitive re-organisation. The mind searches urgently for a coherent narrative capable of resolving internal tension.

Religious frameworks are uniquely suited to provide such narratives. They offer a ready-made interpretation of suffering, a clear moral structure and the promise of forgiveness and life beyond the grave.

When the new believer accepts this framework, the psychological relief can be immense. The sense of personal chaos suddenly resolves into a meaningful story.

The experience feels supernatural.

In reality, it may simply be the human mind discovering an interpretation that temporarily stabilises itself.

The sociological amplifier

But psychology alone does not explain the power of conversion.

The social environment plays an equally decisive role.

Conversion rarely happens in isolation. It usually occurs within communities already organised around the expectation of transformation. Worship services, testimonies, music, prayer and communal affirmation together create a powerful emotional ecosystem.

When a convert stands before such a community and declares a new faith, the response is immediate: approval, celebration, belonging.

The individual does not simply gain a belief.
He gains a new identity and a new tribe.

Human beings are exquisitely sensitive to social reinforcement. Once a community confirms that a person has been “saved,” the psychological commitment deepens rapidly. Doubt becomes socially costly. Certainty becomes a badge of belonging.

Belief, in this sense, is stabilised not only internally but collectively.

The sincerity paradox

None of this means that conversion experiences are insincere.

Quite the opposite.

At the moment of conversion, the belief is usually completely genuine. The emotional intensity is real. The sense of transformation is real. The feeling of encountering God is real.

But sincerity does not guarantee accuracy.

Human beings are capable of deeply authentic experiences that nevertheless rest upon mistaken interpretations of reality.

Religious conversion may be one of the most powerful examples of this phenomenon.

Human beings are capable of deeply authentic experiences that nevertheless rest upon mistaken interpretations of reality.

The problem of competing revelations

One further observation complicates the picture.

If religious conversion truly revealed a universal divine reality, we might expect converts around the world to converge toward the same understanding of God.

Instead, the opposite happens.

Christians experience conversions that confirm Christianity.
Muslims experience conversions that confirm Islam.
Hindus encounter Krishna.
Pentecostals encounter the Holy Spirit.
Catholics encounter the Virgin Mary.

Each experience feels equally convincing to the person undergoing it.

The simplest explanation is not that all these mutually contradictory revelations are true.

It is that the human mind is capable of generating profoundly convincing experiences within whatever symbolic framework it inhabits.

The quiet aftermath

For some people, the story ends with lifelong faith.

For others, something else happens.

Years later, the convert begins to recognise the psychological and sociological forces that once felt invisible. The experience that once seemed supernatural begins to look more recognisably human.

This realisation can be unsettling.

Because it means confronting a difficult possibility:

The God who once felt unquestionably real may have been a projection created by the deepest needs of the human mind.

And yet the experience itself — the hope, the meaning, the transformation — was never fake.

It was simply human.

“The gods we worship write their names on our faces.”
— C. G. Jung

Gay Fathers: Why Gay Men Build Straight Families

The Closet Has A Wedding Ring: How Gay Men Became Fathers

A few weeks ago, in a bar in Berlin, I mentioned to a man I had just met that I am the father of four. He paused briefly, then smiled and said, “Me too.”

Neither of us was surprised.

Among gay men of my generation, this quiet moment of recognition is more common than most people realise. Many of us built heterosexual families before we ever spoke openly about our sexuality. The pattern is well known in private and rarely examined in public.

The easy explanations tend to fall into two unsatisfactory camps. Either the men are portrayed as victims of their era, pushed helplessly into lives they never chose, or they are depicted as fundamentally deceptive, as though their marriages were nothing more than elaborate shams.

Reality, as usual, is more complicated and more human than either of these caricatures allows.

Orientation and Behaviour: A Necessary Distinction

One of the most important starting points is a simple but often overlooked distinction: sexual orientation and lived behaviour do not always align neatly. Sexual behaviour is fluid; sexual orientation is not.

For many heterosexual people, desire and life path coincide without much friction. For a significant number of gay men, particularly in earlier decades, the relationship between the two was more complex.

This does not mean orientation is infinitely fluid. It means only that human beings are capable of living in ways that do not perfectly mirror their inner erotic life.

Across much of the twentieth century, many men who experienced primary attraction to other men nonetheless married women and fathered children. Some did so consciously, some half-consciously, some in genuine hope that marriage might settle their inner restlessness.

What matters, and what is sometimes too quickly forgotten in contemporary discussion, is this: whatever the social context, these were still adult decisions. Social expectations may shape the landscape in which choices are made, but they do not erase personal responsibility for the lives we build within it.

The Social Script Was Narrow — But Not Irresistible

It would be historically naïve to ignore the strength of the social script that shaped male adulthood for much of the last century. Respectable manhood was closely associated with marriage, fatherhood, and visible domestic stability. Homosexuality, by contrast, was widely stigmatised, pathologised, or criminalised in many Western countries well into living memory. In West Germany, we had Paragraph 175 until 1994, and in Britain, the legal age of consent between two males was lowered to 16, in line with the heterosexual age of consent, in 2001.

These realities formed the background conditions in which many men made their life decisions.

But background conditions are not the same thing as compulsion. Men were not automatons. Some resisted the script. Some lived quietly single. Some formed discreet same-sex lives. Others chose marriage.

The more honest account is therefore not that gay men were forced into heterosexual families, but that many judged — rightly or wrongly — that marriage offered a workable path to belonging, stability and ordinary social life.

For some, it did.

For others, the costs emerged only slowly.

The Psychology of the Split Life

To understand how these marriages functioned — sometimes for decades — we have to move beyond the crude language of denial and look more carefully at the psychological mechanisms involved.

Human beings are remarkably adept at compartmentalisation. It is entirely possible to build a life in which emotional loyalty, domestic commitment, and parental devotion coexist alongside an erotic life that remains partially or wholly unintegrated.

Many men in mixed-orientation marriages reported something like the following internal arrangement: their affection, duty and daily life were invested sincerely in the family they built, while their erotic imagination operated in a more private register. The two spheres were kept separate, sometimes consciously, often simply by force of habit and circumstance.

There was also a long-standing cultural belief — now largely discredited but once widely accepted — that marriage might in some cases “settle” or redirect same-sex desire. It is easy to dismiss this idea now, but it was taken seriously by doctors, clergy and families well into the late twentieth century.

Some men entered marriage in good faith under that assumption. Others entered it with more ambivalence. Still others, candidly, avoided asking themselves too many questions.

Again, the human picture is mixed.

The Body, the Role and the Marriage

Another uncomfortable but important reality is that physiological sexual functioning does not always map perfectly onto deep erotic orientation.

Many predominantly gay men have been capable of heterosexual intercourse, particularly within the structured expectations of marriage. This fact has sometimes been misread as evidence of bisexuality where none primarily existed.

The more accurate conclusion is simply that human sexual response is adaptable within certain limits. Performance, affection, novelty and relational context can all play a role.

But adaptability has its limits. Over time, for many men, the gap between role and desire became harder to ignore or sustain.

And this is where the story turns from sociology to ethics.

The Cost That Must Be Named

Any honest discussion of gay fathers in heterosexual marriages must include a truth that is sometimes softened in retrospective accounts.

In many families, when the underlying reality eventually surfaced — whether gradually, painfully, or suddenly — wives and children experienced real hurt, confusion, and sometimes profound disruption.

Not in every case. Some families navigated the transition with dignity and mutual care. Some marriages had long since evolved into affectionate partnerships rather than romantic unions.

But in many others, the moment of disclosure felt, understandably, like a huge rupture. Trust could be shaken. Family narratives had to be rewritten. Children, depending on their age and temperament, sometimes struggled to make sense of what had changed and what had not.

To acknowledge this is not to indulge in self-reproach, nor to erase the genuine love many fathers felt — and continue to feel — for their families. It is simply to recognise that complex life structures often carry complex human costs.

Responsibility, in adulthood, includes the willingness to look at those costs squarely.

“Nothing in life is as important as you think it is while you are thinking about it.”
— Daniel Kahneman

A Generational Pattern. Not an Excuse.

There is no doubt that the pattern of gay men building heterosexual families was more common in earlier decades than it is today. Social visibility, legal change, and cultural openness have altered the landscape significantly.

But it would be a mistake to frame this too simply as a story of past oppression versus present freedom. Human lives remain complicated. Even today, in many parts of the world — and in some families much closer to home — similar tensions still exist.

Nor is it especially helpful to imagine that earlier generations were uniquely constrained while younger men are uniquely liberated. Every generation navigates its own pressures, blind spots, and compromises.

The more useful observation is simply this: life choices are always made within a cultural frame, and those frames do change over time. What once appeared the obvious path for many men no longer appears so.

Understanding that shift helps explain the pattern. It does not absolve individuals of the consequences of their choices.

A More Adult Conversation

What is needed now is neither romanticisation nor condemnation, but maturity.

Gay fathers from heterosexual marriages are not rare anomalies. They are part of a recognisable historical pattern in Western societies across much of the twentieth century. Their lives typically contained real commitment, real affection, and, often, real internal tension.

The marriages were not necessarily fraudulent. Nor were they always sustainable in the long term. Both things can be true at once.

If there is any value in revisiting these stories today, it lies in the clarity they offer about the complicated relationship between identity, behaviour, social expectation, and personal responsibility.

Human beings do not always live in perfect alignment with their inner lives. Sometimes they adapt. Sometimes they delay difficult recognitions. Sometimes they choose stability over authenticity, at least for a time.

And sometimes the reckoning comes later.

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”
— Søren Kierkegaard

Closing Reflection

That brief exchange in the Berlin bar — “I have four children.” “Me too.” — was not a confession and not an excuse. It was simply recognition between two men shaped, in part, by similar cultural weather.

Many of us built families in good faith. Many loved our wives and children deeply, even where the erotic centre of gravity lay elsewhere. And many, later in life, had to integrate truths that earlier decades made easier to postpone.

The task now is not to rewrite the past into something neater than it was, nor to retreat into defensiveness or regret. It is to understand the full human picture: the agency, the context, the love that was real, and the pain that, in some families, was also real.

Grown-up lives rarely resolve into simple narratives. This is one of them.

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”
— Oscar Wilde

Spain Governs Immigration. Britain and Germany Perform It.

Living Between Spain, Britain, and Germany

As a British citizen who has lived in Germany for fifteen years and who also has a home in Spain, I find myself moving between different moral climates when it comes to immigration. All three countries depend on migration. All three speak about it constantly. Yet they govern it with very different degrees of conviction.

Spain’s decision to regularise around half a million undocumented migrants has been widely described as bold. What strikes me more is that it feels principled. It reflects a style of leadership associated with Pedro Sánchez. Whether one agrees with him or not, he governs from a recognisable ethical framework. That framework informs domestic policy and foreign stances alike, including Spain’s willingness to articulate an independent position on Gaza. Immigration policy flows from that same seriousness. The law is being aligned with reality rather than used to perform toughness.

Germany approaches integration through procedure and moral discipline. This reflects a political culture now shaped by Friedrich Merz, a self-described capitalist whose flexibility seems to run in one direction only. Long-standing commitments are suddenly negotiable when it comes to rearmament, national debt, welfare retrenchment, or deportation rhetoric, provided wealth hierarchies remain untouched. The result is a system that demands compliance from the vulnerable while offering constant reassurance to capital. Integration becomes conditional, slow, emotionally distant, even hostile.

Britain’s problem is different but no less corrosive. Under Keir Starmer, the country is led by someone who claims a socialist inheritance but governs as a weathervane. Immigration policy shifts according to polling rather than principle. Positions harden according to headlines. The message to migrants is clear: you are needed, resented, and rhetorically punished all at the same time.

Spain, by contrast, currently shows a confidence that much of Europe lacks. It does not deny that immigration produces pressure. Housing shortages and exploitation are real. But regularisation is treated as governance, not surrender. Integration is understood as something that happens socially before it is certified administratively.

My own perspective here is sharpened by marriage. I am British, resident in Germany, and married to an Indonesian. After a year of marriage, my husband still has no residency or work permit in Germany. He is merely tolerated. In the UK, we cannot apply at all because I no longer live and work there. In Spain, later this year, he would have both residency and the right to work. Sitting together at Luca’s Café in Torremolinos, the contrast is impossible to ignore. Spain does not interrogate our presence. It respects us and welcomes us.

This difference is not accidental. It reflects political leadership. Confidence integrates better than fear. And at the moment, Spain is one of the few Western countries still willing to govern from that truth.

“Hospitality is not a gesture of kindness. It is a measure of political confidence.”
— Jacques Derrida

The Bells of Decline Are Already Ringing

Every organisation has a bell curve.

From the smallest start-up in Berlin… to the United States of America.
From a school, a church, a university department, a political party to an empire.

It’s always the same arc:

1. Growth (energy, hunger, imagination)
2. Peak (confidence, dominance, self-belief)
3. Decline (bureaucracy, complacency, fear, decay)

This is not cynicism. It’s recognising a pattern of reality.

The question most leaders avoid

Be brutally honest: where is your organisation right now on the curve?
And when did you last hear your senior team ask that question out loud?

Because the bell curve isn’t a risk. It’s a default trajectory. It is what happens when success turns into comfort, comfort turns into protectionism, and protectionism turns into denial.

So what will you do? Ignore it and die quietly? Be honest about it and decline anyway? Or be honest about it and start building renewal structures now—before the slide becomes irreversible?

And there’s a sharper option leaders rarely admit exists: leave. Sometimes the most rational decision is to step off a sinking ship and stop lending it your competence.

History suggests the curve can’t be stopped.
And right now we’re watching it at scale—a global shift in momentum from West to East.

But I do think decline can be slowed. Here are my ideas:

1) Limit oligarchy. Increase real democracy.

When power concentrates, reality gets filtered. Bad news stops travelling upward. Loyalty becomes more valuable than truth. A leadership class forms that primarily exists to keep itself in place.

That’s not a theory. It’s the story of countless organisations—and empires.

When decision-making is captured by an inner circle, the mission becomes secondary. The organisation starts protecting status rather than producing value.

Democracy inside an organisation doesn’t mean chaos. It means distributed intelligence: people closest to customers, systems, classrooms or frontline work have meaningful influence over what must change.

2) Build for the next generation, not the next quarter.

Short-termism is a slow form of self-harm.

A company can hit its numbers while hollowing itself out: talent loss, declining product quality, decaying trust, shrinking learning capacity. The spreadsheet looks fine—until it doesn’t.

And there’s a more subtle failure inside that: leaders often build for their own peer generation, when they should be studying the people 10–20 years younger. That’s where the next expectations, habits, technologies, and cultural defaults are forming, long before they show up in your revenue chart.

What feels “risky” to today’s leadership often feels obvious to the next cohort.
And what feels “obvious” to today’s leadership can look obsolete almost overnight.

This is why so many organisations are blindsided by disruption: they optimise for the present, then act shocked when the future arrives.

If your planning horizon is shorter than your product lifecycle or your employees’ careers, you’re not sowing. You’re only maintaining and harvesting.

3) Hold ethical values steady (don’t drift in panic).

Organisations rarely collapse because of one mistake. They collapse because of moral improvisation.

In a crisis, values become “flexible.”
In growth, values become “optional.”
At the peak, values become “PR.”

Trust doesn’t usually die in a scandal. It dies in a thousand rationalisations.

Ethical steadiness isn’t virtue-signalling. It’s strategic. Trust is a form of capital, and once it’s spent, it is brutally slow to rebuild.

4) Respect history, but don’t worship it.

Tradition can be wisdom. Or it can be a velvet coffin.

The most dangerous sentence in any institution is:
“But this is how we’ve always done it.”

That phrase has probably been spoken in every declining empire, every decaying school system, every complacent corporation, and every institution that mistakes inertia for stability.

Keep the lessons of history—but don’t let history become your excuse for refusing change.

5) Reward truth-tellers, not loyalists.

Cultures fail when honesty becomes career suicide.

When an organisation punishes uncomfortable truth, it trains people to produce comforting noise. Metrics get gamed. Problems get rebranded. Rot gets managed instead of removed.

If your culture doesn’t actively protect dissenters, you don’t have “alignment.” You have fear.

One of the clearest predictors of decline is a leadership team that only hears what it wants to hear and then mistakes that for reality.

6) Break the organisation on purpose (real renewal, not cosmetic change).

Here’s the missing lever most leaders refuse to pull:

Healthy organisations schedule their own disruption.
Unhealthy ones wait until disruption happens to them.

This is deeper than “innovation.” It’s constitutional design:

- sunset clauses on programmes and teams
- rotation of leadership roles
- independent internal “red teams” tasked with challenging assumptions
- simplification by cutting products, meetings, layers and rules
- and, when needed, radical reinvention of mission, structures, and incentives—not just a new logo

There’s a famous story about Steve Jobs in a meeting, sweeping clutter off a table and saying, in effect: start again—what actually matters? Whether or not the anecdote is perfectly literal, the point is real:

Most organisations don’t fail because they lack intelligence.
They fail because they can’t bear to delete what once made them successful.

“How did you go bankrupt?”
“Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”
— Ernest Hemingway

The Electric Car Story We Should All Be Talking About

Electric cars are sold to us as the clean, ethical future: the simple solution to petrol, emissions, and climate collapse. No exhaust pipe. No fumes. No guilt. Drive electric and you’re doing your part.

But the longer I listen to the certainty around EVs — the smug finality, the “case closed” tone — the more I suspect we haven’t solved the problem at all. We’ve simply moved it.

Because “zero emissions” is only true in one narrow sense: electric cars don’t emit at the tailpipe. That matters for city air quality, and it’s not trivial. But climate impact isn’t just about what comes out of the back of the vehicle. It’s about the whole chain: extraction, manufacturing, electricity generation, and end-of-life disposal.

And yes: in many cases, electric cars really are better on the climate. A major life-cycle analysis has estimated that battery electric cars sold in Europe today can produce dramatically lower overall greenhouse-gas emissions than comparable petrol cars. That’s a real advantage, and it’s worth acknowledging.

But “better than petrol” doesn’t automatically mean “clean.” It doesn’t mean “ethical.” And it certainly doesn’t mean “no victims.”

The modern electric car runs on more than electricity. It runs on minerals — and minerals have to be ripped out of the earth. The new fuel of the “green future” isn’t oil alone: it’s lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and more. And the extraction doesn’t happen in glossy European showrooms. It happens in places where ecosystems are fragile, water is scarce, and the people who live nearby often have far less power to resist the pressure.

Chile is frequently held up as a symbol of this new reality. In the Atacama region, concerns have been raised for years about lithium extraction and water stress in an already arid landscape. And while “displacement” doesn’t always mean literal bulldozers and forced removals, communities can still be displaced in practice, when resources shrink, livelihoods collapse and the land becomes harder to inhabit. You don’t always need an eviction notice to be pushed off your own future.

Then comes the question nobody wants to picture too clearly: what happens when millions of EV batteries die?

Batteries degrade. Capacity drops. Replacement costs bite. Cars are written off. And suddenly we’re not looking at a futuristic revolution, we’re looking at a looming waste problem. We are manufacturing the next century’s landfill with a smile on our faces, because it feels cleaner today.

Yes, recycling exists. Yes, there are second-life uses for some batteries. Yes, policymakers talk about circular economies. But the scale is the issue. Recycling infrastructure doesn’t magically appear just because consumers feel virtuous. It requires systems, enforcement, investment, and time — and at the moment, the global EV rollout is moving faster than the uncomfortable questions that should be travelling alongside it.

So why does this side of the story still feel strangely muted?

Partly because it’s complex, and complex stories don’t trend. But partly because the car industry is not politically neutral. The automobile sector has been one of the most powerful lobbying forces shaping transport policy, regulation, and public messaging for decades. That doesn’t require a secret conspiracy. It only requires something much more ordinary — influence, money, access, timing, and the gentle steering of what gets taken seriously.

This is the deeper danger: the electric car has become a moral symbol. Question it and you’re treated as pro-oil. Doubt it and you’re dismissed as anti-progress. But this isn’t how ethical responsibility works. A solution isn’t automatically good because it comes wrapped in green language.

Electric cars may reduce emissions. But they don’t end extraction. They don’t end harm.

We’re not transitioning from dirty to clean. We’re transitioning from visible pollution to invisible supply chains, from smoke in our cities to disruption in deserts we’ll never visit.

So yes: electrification may be part of the future. But only if we stop treating it like a miracle and start treating it like what it really is: a trade-off. A compromise. A human project, built inside a world of scarcity, power and competing interests.

If we want an energy transition worthy of the name, we need more than new engines. We need transparency, better public transport, enforceable standards, serious recycling systems and the courage to count the human cost, not as an inconvenient footnote, but as part of the moral equation.

“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”
— Aldo Leopold

When God Comes Back: A Note of Caution for Gen Z (from an Ex-Pastor)

On 11 January 2026, Sky News ran a piece with a headline that would have sounded unlikely a decade ago: “How did Gen Z become the most religious generation alive?”

The article reports an uptick in religious belief and church attendance among young adults, with social media playing a surprising role in how faith is “discovered” and spread: short-form religious content on TikTok and Instagram, influencers speaking openly about God, and churches receiving enquiries from young people who first encountered religion online.

Sky’s piece includes voices from Christian influencers who say they’re seeing a noticeable rise in young people asking how to get involved, and it references YouGov data suggesting a marked shift: among 18–25s, monthly church attendance rising from 7% (2018) to 23% (2024), and belief in a higher power rising from 28% to 49% across the same period.

Even the sceptics appear in the report—young atheists who say this doesn’t match what they see online, or who wonder whether the change is temporary and pandemic-shaped.

So: something is happening. And if we care about society, about meaning, about the moral atmosphere we all breathe, we should pay attention.

Why this makes sense (even if you’re not religious)

I teach university students. I write about social meaning. And I have to admit: the trend itself is not mysterious to me.

When a society loses confidence in its shared story, people don’t become “purely rational.” They become hungry.

For a long time, the West lived off inherited moral capital: ideas of human dignity, restraint, compassion, truth-telling, fidelity, responsibility—values that were once anchored in a Christian metaphysics, then carried forward as if they could survive on sentiment alone.

But sentiment doesn’t sustain a civilisation.

What we increasingly offer young people instead is:

- Ethical drift: everything negotiable, nothing binding
- Performative role models: influence without character, aesthetics without responsibility
- Thin narratives: “be yourself,” “live your truth,” “manifest your future” — slogans that collapse under suffering
- A destabilised world: economic fragility, housing impossibility, ecological anxiety, war returning as background noise

Under those conditions, it is almost inevitable that many will reach for something older and firmer than the modern self. Something that says:

- this is real
- this is right
- this is wrong
- your life is not an accident
- your suffering is not meaningless
- there is a way through

And in the Western world, that “something” is most readily available in Christianity.

Which churches will benefit most

If Gen Z is turning toward Christianity for meaning and stability, we should be honest about where the gravitational pull will land.

It will not primarily be the churches that sound like ritual, bored faces and committees.

It will be the churches that sound like conviction.

The kinds of churches most likely to grow are the ones that offer:

- non-negotiable truth (not “your personal journey,” but The Answer)
- a strong identity (“this is who we are; this is how we live”)
- high emotional impact (music, lighting, atmosphere, collective intensity)
- clarity about enemies (the world, the devil, “compromise,” secular decadence)
- belonging that feels immediate and total

The Sky News article points to the rise of Christian content on TikTok and influencer culture around faith.

That ecosystem naturally rewards certainty, compression, drama, and transformation narratives—all things charismatic and fundamentalist Christianity has always been good at packaging.

If you want a religion that fits social media, you will end up with the kind of religion that performs well on social media.

And that is where my caution begins.

My stake in this: I used to be one of them

I am not writing this as an anti-Christian hit piece.

I am writing this as someone who once stood inside that world—as a pastor, not merely a visitor. I believed. I preached. I led people. I sold my house and car and moved abroad with my family. I was part of the machinery that makes a high-commitment church feel like home and destiny at the same time.

I no longer believe in God.

And because I know what these churches can do—both the beauty and the damage—I want to say something directly to any Gen Z reader who is moving toward Christianity because the world feels hollow and unstable.

You are not foolish for wanting meaning.

You are not stupid for wanting a moral anchor.

But you may be walking, without realising it, into a system designed to take more from you than it gives.

So let me offer a warning, not against faith as such, but against a particular style of faith that is increasingly likely to catch you.

Four warnings before you hand over your life

1) It offers “ultimate truth” — but it cannot prove it

Fundamentalist Christianity sells certainty.

It tells you the world has a secret structure and it possesses the key: virgin births, miracles, demons, healings, resurrections, prayers that alter reality. It gives you a total explanation and calls that “faith.”

But human beings will believe almost anything if it fits the narrative they are offered—especially when the narrative arrives wrapped in community, music, belonging, and moral purpose.

That is not an insult to believers. It is an observation about humans.

A strong story can feel true even when it isn’t.

And the stronger the story, the more it demands you interpret everything through it: your sexuality, your friendships, your doubts, your pain, your ambitions, your money, your family.

Once you interpret reality through a sacred script, the script becomes self-sealing. Evidence against it becomes “temptation” or “attack” or “pride.”

That isn’t truth. That is a closed system.

2) It trains you to call the selflessness “love” — but salvation is still about you

There is a reason Nietzsche was so ferocious about Christianity.

Christianity can produce remarkable acts of compassion—real kindness, real service. Many Christians are genuinely good people.

But at the structural level the religion often contains a hidden centre of gravity: your soul, your salvation, your standing before God, your purity, your afterlife.

Even love can become instrumental:

- I love you because I must be Christlike
- I witness to you because your conversion validates my worldview
- I “forgive” you because it keeps me clean
- I help you because it stores treasure somewhere else

When salvation is the central preoccupation, the self never truly exits the stage.

You may feel you are becoming “more loving,” but you may also be becoming more morally anxious, more self-monitoring, more dependent on approval, more afraid of your own doubt.

3) The sacrifices will not deliver what is promised

High-commitment Christianity often sells a paradox:

Give up the world and you will gain joy.

And sometimes, at first, it works. Early conversion can feel like oxygen: clarity, unconditional love, a new tribe, a new identity, a new sense of direction. In a lonely world, that is powerful.

But over time the bargain changes.

You will be asked to sacrifice things that are not merely “sinful,” but simply human:

- parts of your identity that don’t fit the template
- questions you’re not allowed to keep asking
- desires you must rename as temptation
- relationships that become “unequally yoked”
- your own inner authority

And here’s the trap: the moral standard is often impossible.

You will be told to be holy, pure, humble, grateful, surrendered, joyful, obedient, servant-hearted, faithful, prayerful, disciplined, generous, forgiving, and to treat doubt as rebellion.

That produces one of two outcomes:

1. you become a performer: outward righteousness, inward fracture
2. you become perpetually guilty: never enough, never clean, never sure

Neither is freedom.

4) You may be entering a soft prison you won’t easily leave

This is the warning I most want to underline.

A church can become a total social world:

- your friends
- your dating pool
- your weekends
- your music
- your language
- your moral framework
- your sense of being “safe”

And once that happens, leaving is not like changing a hobby. It is like exiting a country.

The gravitational pull is real:

- leaders frame departure as betrayal
- friends become wary, then distant
- doubts must be hidden or confessed
- your identity becomes fused with the group
- your fear of “backsliding” keeps you inside

Even if nothing “cultic” is happening, the system can still function like a sect: high belonging, high cost, high control.

And if your life later falls apart, as lives sometimes do, the love you thought was unconditional can become conditional very quickly.

I have lived that.

When my own life imploded, many of the people who had once spoken the language of grace stepped back. Disappeared. Some rewrote history. Some behaved as if I had never existed. It was as though my entire Christian life was deleted overnight.

And the cruelty of that is specific: because Christianity is often sold as the cure for rejection. You think you are finally safe.

Then you discover you were safe only while you were useful, coherent, and compliant.

A closing word to Gen Z: don’t outsource your hunger

If you are drawn toward Christianity because the world feels unstable, I understand.

The moral void is real.

The longing for meaning is not childish. It is the most adult thing about you.

But please, before you hand over your identity, time, sexuality, money, and inner authority to a high-commitment religious system—pause.

Ask:

- Does this community make me more honest, or merely more certain?
- Does it strengthen my conscience, or replace it?
- Does it widen my compassion, or narrow my world?
- Can I doubt here without being punished?
- If I leave, will love remain?
- What is the cost of belonging—and who benefits?

If you still choose faith, choose it with open eyes.

And if what you are really seeking is meaning, moral seriousness, and community, remember: religion does not own those things. Human beings do.

We built religion to carry them. We can also build other vessels.

The point is not to mock your hunger.

The point is to protect you from people who know exactly how to use it.

“I might believe in the Redeemer if his disciples looked more redeemed.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche

The Trump Presidency: A Legacy of Lawlessness, Chaos and Global Instability

The return of Donald Trump to the White House was sold as a revival of American strength and clarity. Instead, it has produced a presidency defined by lawlessness abroad, institutional corrosion at home, economic volatility and moral collapse at the top.

From the unlawful military assault on a sovereign nation to the degradation of public discourse and democratic norms, Trump’s tenure increasingly resembles not leadership, but deranged instability — driven less by coherent strategy than by impulse, grievance and personal spectacle.

1. The Unlawful Attack on Venezuela: A Crime Against Sovereignty

In January 2026, Trump authorised a U.S. military operation in Venezuela resulting in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who were flown to New York to face charges. Trump openly stated that the United States would “run the country” during a transition and signalled willingness to deploy ground troops if necessary.

International law experts were unequivocal: the operation violated the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against a sovereign state absent self-defence or explicit UN Security Council authorisation. Venezuela was not at warwith the United States. No imminent threat was demonstrated. Congress was not meaningfully consulted.

This was not law enforcement. It was executive force projection without legal basis — the kind of unilateral action the post-1945 international order was designed to prevent. Trump is considering similar illegal aggression in Colombia and Greenland.

2. Failed Peace in Palestine, Ukraine, and Beyond

Trump’s claim to be a “peacemaker” collapses under scrutiny.

In Gaza, he floated proposals involving U.S. control of territory and the relocation of civilian populations — ideas widely condemned as unlawful, destabilising, and ethically indefensible.

In Ukraine, his approach has leaned toward freezing conflict on terms favourable to Russian territorial gains, weakening Ukrainian sovereignty while undermining the principle that borders cannot be changed by force.

In both cases, Trump has confused domination with diplomacy, mistaking coercion and spectacle for peacebuilding.

3. Character Matters: A President Unfit for the World Stage

Before economics, before diplomacy, before markets, one must confront a more basic question:

Is this man fit to exercise power at all?

Trump is:

- Twice impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives
- Convicted on 34 felony counts in a New York criminal court
- Found civilly liable for sexual abuse by a jury
- A man with a long public record of racist rhetoric, including attacks on judges, migrants, foreign leaders, and entire nations
- Someone who displays proud incuriosity, routinely dismissing expert briefings, intelligence assessments, and scientific consensus

Beyond legality lies a deeper problem: Trump lacks the intellectual and rhetorical equipment required of a statesman on the world stage.

His speech is repetitive, grievance-driven, factually loose and emotionally reactive. He substitutes insult for argument, volume for substance, and loyalty tests for reasoning. Complex geopolitical realities are reduced to slogans. Allies are treated as stupid inferiors. Democratic institutions are treated as obstacles to his dictatorship.

This is not merely a stylistic issue. Language is how power is exercised, alliances are sustained, and crises are defused. A leader unable or unwilling to speak with precision, restraint and moral seriousness inevitably degrades the office itself.

The chaos of the Trump presidency is not accidental. It is character made policy.

4. Isolation of the United States Abroad

Under Trump, the United States has shifted from coalition-builder to disruptor.

Long-standing allies describe Washington as unpredictable and transactional. NATO cohesion has been strained. European leaders increasingly speak of “strategic autonomy” — diplomatic language for no longer trusting the United States to act responsibly.

International institutions once anchored by U.S. leadership are now treated with open hostility or contempt. The result is not strength, but diminished influence and accelerated fragmentation of global norms.

5. Damage to International Markets and Global Stability

Trump’s foreign policy volatility has produced tangible economic consequences.

The Venezuela intervention rattled energy markets and increased geopolitical risk premiums. Unpredictable rhetoric on trade, sanctions, and conflict has made long-term investment planning harder — not just abroad, but at home.

Meanwhile, China flourishes with BYD overtaking Tesla as just one indicator.

Markets dislike uncertainty. Trump manufactures it.

6. The Myth of Economic Mastery

Trump continues to claim unparalleled economic success. The data tells a more restrained story:

- GDP growth has been moderate, not exceptional
- Unemployment has risen relative to prior post-pandemic lows
- Stock market gains largely reflect global cycles rather than presidential policy
- Wage growth continues to struggle against persistent inflation

Outside healthcare and a few protected sectors, job quality remains uneven, household debt is rising, and borrowing costs remain high.

This is not an economic renaissance. It is fragile performance sustained by volatility and lies on ‘Truth’ Social.

Conclusion: Not Statesmanship, But Spectacle

Trump is still treated by parts of the media and political class as a “serious statesman.” This is perhaps the most dangerous illusion of all.

A man repeatedly found to have violated the law, to have abused power and to have debased public discourse does not become presidential through repetition or normalization. Power does not cleanse character; it exposes it.

If any American voice should frame this moment, let it be that of Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, a general, and a president who understood the cost of reckless leadership:

“When peace has been lost, when confidence in the persistence of orderly government has gone, cities are sacked, institutions fail, and men perish.”

Trump’s presidency will not be remembered as a defence of America — but as a warning of what happens when spectacle replaces judgment, and character is dismissed as irrelevant.

Meaning Before Language

At the start of the New Year, I began growing mung bean sprouts on the kitchen counter. Nothing ambitious: a glass jar, a handful of dry beans, water, patience. It was partly practical — a small attempt to eat better — and partly seasonal, a gesture of beginning again.

But as so often happens, attention did the rest.

Each morning and evening I rinsed the beans, drained the water, and tilted the jar back into place. Within a day, change began. Roots appeared. Pale shoots followed. By the third day, the jar was quietly alive with direction and momentum. Nothing dramatic. Nothing expressive. Just steady response.

Watching this simple process unfold gave rise to a set of thoughts that have stayed with me.

There is something quietly reassuring in discovering that:

- order doesn’t require intention
- meaning can emerge from conditions
- responsiveness is not the same as consciousness

A seed doesn’t care —
but it is exquisitely attuned.

That distinction matters far beyond botany.

A mung bean has no brain, no awareness, no sense of purpose. It does not want to grow. It does not know that it is growing. And yet, when the conditions are right — moisture, warmth, oxygen — it responds. Enzymes activate, stored energy is released, cells divide, and a process begins that looks uncannily like purpose.

But it isn’t.

What the seed demonstrates is something both humbling and quietly radical: meaning can arise from structure rather than intention. Order can appear without a planner. Direction can emerge without desire. Life can move forward without knowing why.

“Life is not obliged to make sense to us.”
— Richard Dawkins

We tend to assume the opposite about ourselves.

Much of modern human anxiety is rooted in the belief that meaning must be consciously created: unless we are constantly choosing, narrating, justifying, our lives risk becoming meaningless. We speak as if significance must always be meant by someone, preferably articulated, preferably defensible.

And yet, much of what shapes us most deeply happens long before we have words for it.

Which brings us to language.

There is a quiet assumption, widely shared and rarely examined, that meaning only exists where language exists. I certainly absorbed this idea early on: that without words, symbols, and narratives there could be no meaning, only blind mechanism. Animals, plants, seeds may be somehow alive, but they are not conscious of their existence because they do not have language. But is this assumption true under closer attention? Language does not so much create meaning as name it. Long before we describe a situation as safe or threatening, nourishing or hostile, our bodies are already responding. Long before a child can articulate belonging or neglect, those conditions are shaping who they become. Meaning, in this sense, precedes language. Language arrives later, not as the origin of significance, but as its echo.

Taken seriously, this idea does not just reshape education or psychology; it also presses uncomfortably on our concepts of religion.

If meaning precedes language, then religion becomes structurally vulnerable in a way it rarely acknowledges. Religious systems depend on language to define, order, and sanctify a reality that was already unfolding long before it was named. Just as the seed germinates without reference to our metaphors, doctrines, or reverence, the world generates complexity, order, and awe without requiring theological narration. Religion, in this light, does not create meaning but gathers around it — stabilising, preserving, and sometimes claiming ownership of what would otherwise continue unbothered. The danger is not that religion is false, but that it mistakes itself for the source rather than the afterimage of meaning: a linguistic architecture built around processes that do not need to be spoken in order to be real.

“There are no facts, only interpretations.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche

Seen this way, the seed is not a lower form of life waiting for consciousness to redeem it. It is a reminder that attunement comes before articulation.

This has implications for how we think about human agency. To say that meaning can emerge from conditions is not to deny responsibility or choice. It is to relocate them. Agency is not constant control; it is responsiveness within constraints. The skill is not to will meaning into existence, but to recognise what kinds of environments allow growth — in ourselves and in others.

And this is where education enters the picture.

Much of contemporary schooling still reflects a modernist inheritance: knowledge divided into discrete subjects, timetabled and assessed in isolation. Biology here. Chemistry there. Physics somewhere else. Meaning nowhere in particular.

We teach biology largely as a catalogue of facts — cell structures, taxonomies, cycles, pathways — accurate, necessary, and often lifeless. Rarely do we teach it as the study of responsive systems. We talk about genes, but not environments. About mechanisms, but not emergence. Students learn that a seed needs water, warmth, and oxygen, yet miss the astonishing implication: life does not need a mind in order to organise itself.

By separating biology from physics and chemistry, we also reinforce a subtle illusion — that life is something apart from the rest of reality, rather than a continuation of it. As if metabolism were not chemistry in motion. As if growth were not physics slowed down and shaped by constraint. As if living systems did not obey the same laws as rivers and stars, only at a different scale.

A more truthful curriculum would dissolve these boundaries.

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
— Werner Heisenberg

Imagine teaching “life” as a conversation between disciplines:
chemistry becoming organised,
physics learning to linger,
energy flowing through matter long enough to notice itself.

In such a curriculum, a sprouting seed would not be a marginal example but a foundational one. Students would be invited to ask not only what happens, but what it reveals: that responsiveness predates consciousness, that attunement is older than intention, that meaning does not need to be imposed in order to arise.

The ethical consequences would follow naturally. Instead of moralising failure, students might ask better questions: What conditions were missing? What environments are we creating? What do we reward, nourish, neglect?

Education, at its best, does not manufacture outcomes.
It creates conditions.

A seed doesn’t care.
But it responds.

So do children.
So do communities.
And, more often than we like to admit, so do we.

Perhaps part of the task of education — and of adult life — is to relearn this modest, hopeful truth: that meaning does not always need to be pursued or declared. Sometimes it only needs the right conditions in which to emerge.

“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
— Albert Einstein

Love, Bureaucracy, and the Borders of Europe

How a perfectly legal couple spends years fighting a system that claims to protect the family

I have always loved Europe.
I still do.

The peace, the democracy, the rule of law — these are extraordinary privileges, and I’m grateful every day to live in a part of the world that, compared to most of the planet, is safe, stable and humane.

But loving a thing does not mean lying about it.
And the deeper my own journey into the European immigration system has taken me, the more convinced I have become that something fundamental is broken — not just in Germany, not just in Britain, but across almost the entire continent.

This is not an anti-German story.
It is a story about what it feels like to do everything legally, responsibly, respectfully — and still find yourself treated as if love were a loophole, marriage an inconvenience, and foreign spouses a threat to be contained.

It is a story that could happen in almost any European capital.

It just happened to us in Berlin.

How Love Became a Test of Endurance

A few years ago, I fell in love with a remarkable man in Indonesia.
Our relationship grew quickly and deeply, and we knew we wanted to build a life together in Europe rather than in Indonesia. We planned to marry anyway, so we assumed — naively, as it turns out — that marriage and legitimacy would make the process of living together straightforward.

We were wrong.
Painfully, spectacularly wrong.

Wedding Bells, Bureaucratic Walls

Because our marriage would not be legally valid in Indonesia, we had to marry in Europe.
What we imagined would be a simple civil ceremony became a six-month odyssey through paperwork, translations, apostilles, appointments, contradictory guidance, and requirements that bordered on the absurd.

Still — we got married.
We thought the hardest part was behind us.

But marriage, we learned, is not a ticket to a shared life.
It is merely the beginning of a long, labyrinthine process designed, it seems, to test whether your relationship can outlast bureaucracy.

The Rule No One Tells You: “Apply in Jakarta, or Don’t Come at All”

Once married, we were informed of something almost nobody tells you in advance:

If you marry an Indonesian and want to live together in Europe, your Indonesian spouse must apply for a family-reunification visa from Jakarta — and only from Jakarta.

Not from Berlin.
Not from any European consulate closer to their home island.
Not from Europe on a tourist visa (which would be logical, humane, and in line with every legal principle about protecting marriage).

Jakarta.
Or nothing.

The waiting list?
One year.
We have the screenshot.

And that’s just the waiting list for you to submit your application — not the processing time afterwards.

Imagine telling any married couple in Europe:

“Congratulations on your marriage.
You will now be forcibly separated for at least 12 months.”

That is the system.
That is the norm.

One Document Wrong? Start All Over Again.

When our turn finally came, the embassy did not approve one of the documents uploaded during the online process. They asked us to delete it — and, indeed, there is a little trash-can icon on the website.

Except the icon doesn’t work.
It never has.

After weeks of emails, calls, and technical back-and-forth, the embassy’s final advice was:

“Delete your entire application and start again.”

Which, in plain language, means:

“Restart the one-year waiting list.”

It is breathtaking to realise that the legal rights of marriage can be instantly overruled by a broken trash-can icon.

Geography as a Financial Weapon

If you are Indonesian and live on Sumatra, you must pay to fly twice to Jakarta — once for biometrics, and once to collect the visa. These costs are enormous relative to Indonesian salaries.

For many families, this is simply impossible.

This is what “legal migration” looks like in practice.

The 90/180 Trap: A Long-Distance Marriage by Law

Some couples try an alternative: the Schengen visitor visa.
But that route comes with its own cruelty:

Your spouse can visit for 90 days maximum
but must then leave for another 90 days minimum

Meaning:

You may live together for three months, then be forcibly separated for six.
Three on, six off. Three on, six off. Indefinitely.

Assuming, of course, you can afford the flights between Jakarta and Europe.
Most cannot.

The Berlin Immigration Office: A Fortress Without Doors

If the embassy maze is surreal, the immigration office in Berlin is its European twin.

You cannot phone them.
You cannot email them.
You cannot speak to a human being unless you already have an appointment — and you cannot get an appointment without submitting a webform that may sit unanswered for two months.

If you attempt to enter the building to ask for help, security guards turn you away.
“No appointment, no entry.”

It is Kafka with fluorescent lighting.

When Your Appointment Arrives… It’s Too Late

In our case, by the time Berlin offered my husband an appointment, his visitor visa had expired.
They could not — or would not — offer an earlier date.

He was legally in the country.
He had proof of marriage.
He had every document required.

But the system, moving at its own glacial pace, simply shrugged.

The Catch-22: Work to Stay, But You Can’t Work Until You Stay

Here is the cruelest irony:

To obtain residency, the European spouse must prove sufficient income to support both partners.

But the foreign spouse cannot work unless they already have residency.

So if the European partner earns too little, the spouse receives only a six-month Fiktionsbescheinigung — a kind of temporary suspension of deportation, halfway between permission and limbo.

With that document:

You cannot work
You cannot earn
You cannot contribute
Therefore you cannot raise household income
Therefore you do not qualify for residency

This is not immigration policy.
It is a bureaucratic cul-de-sac.

And Then You Realise: If It’s This Hard for Us… What About Them?

We are educated, organised, legally married, European-based, English-speaking, German-speaking, online-competent, and persistent.

And still we nearly drowned in the system.

What must this system feel like for asylum seekers?
For people fleeing war or persecution?
For couples separated across borders with children in tow?
For those without money, stability, documents, or perfect German?

Oh yes, and in case you’re wondering, I did contemplate moving back to the UK and applied for residency for my English-speaking husband there. Our application was declined.

The system does not merely fail people.
It dehumanises them.

A Quiet Exception: The Spain Nobody Talks About

There is one place in Europe where the logic is different: Spain.

Spain has a little-known rule — almost never advertised — called arraigo social.

If you remain in Spain for two years, stay out of trouble, and integrate into community life, you can obtain legal residency.

No endless separation.
No forced poverty.
No trapdoors disguised as requirements.
No broken webforms or locked doors.

If you are married and have property there, the chances are even better.

Whatever critics say, this is a system that treats people — even undocumented ones — as human beings capable of building a life.

It is the closest thing Europe has to a humane immigration philosophy.

What This Story Is Really About

This is not a rant.
Nor is it an attack on Germany, which continues to offer extraordinary opportunities to millions of people, myself included.

It is a plea.
A testimony.
A reminder that behind every “case number” is a love story, a family, a life.

Europe prides itself on protecting marriage – see ECHR, Article 8 §§1–2.
Courts across the continent insist that “bureaucratic inefficiency is not a legitimate reason to separate spouses.”

But in practice?
The systems built to uphold those principles routinely violate them.

If Europe wants to protect its values — its humanism, its dignity, its rule of law — the immigration system is where it must begin.

Not with walls.
Not with suspicion.
But with the simple recognition that married couples should not have to fight this hard to live under the same roof.

“Bureaucracy is the death of all human action.” — Max Weber

A Perfectly Absurd Christmas Story

The other evening, in the spirit of seasonal escapism, we were watching Man vs Baby—a piece of festive fluff involving slapstick chaos, an unruly infant, and, inevitably, a primary-school nativity play.

At some point, my husband—who grew up in Indonesia and is unfamiliar with Christian traditions—turned to me and asked, quite innocently, what the story was actually about.

So I explained.

A teenage girl called Mary, who was also a virgin, gives birth to a baby. This baby is God. He is born in a stable because there is no room for him in the local accommodation. A star appears in the sky, guiding three wise men and a group of shepherds to come and worship this baby and bring him gifts. This child will later be executed, rise from the dead, ascend into heaven, and now sits—still in a human body—on the throne of the universe, exercising ultimate authority over all of existence for all eternity.

My husband listened politely. He nodded. He asked no follow-up questions.

But as I heard my own voice recounting this story, I had a sudden, almost comic moment of estrangement. Detached from carols, candlelight, stained glass, and nostalgia, the narrative sounded astonishingly absurd.

And yet.

It is also undeniably beautiful.

As a story, it has extraordinary power. Told aloud. Set to music. Painted. Sculpted. Recreated each December in glowing wooden cribs in living rooms, churches, town squares, and shopping malls. It is gentle. It centres on vulnerability rather than force. A baby rather than a king. Straw rather than marble. Hope for the world arriving quietly, unnoticed and poor.

I once believed it all.

Not only as a child, but later for about fifteen years of my adult life, when I was a Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian. I genuinely thought this story, set in the Middle East two millennia ago, explained everything: meaning, love, suffering, death, and the ultimate destiny of the world. I didn’t experience it as absurd at all. It felt profound, coherent, and necessary.

But with distance, the story didn’t simply become implausible; it became troubling. Not because it is poetic or mysterious, but because of what has been built upon it. The same “cute” story about a baby has been used to justify division, exclusion, cruelty, war, and extraordinary human suffering. Not by accident, but repeatedly, systematically, and often with great confidence and moral certainty.

That, for me, is the real tragedy—not that the story is implausible, but that it has been weaponised.

And yet, here we are again.

Lights are going up. Schools are rehearsing their nativity plays. People are travelling, eating too much, falling out, making up, missing those who are no longer here and trying, in their imperfect ways, to be a little kinder.

So this is not a call to cancel Christmas. Nor is it an attack on those who still believe the story literally. It’s simply an honest moment of reflection: a recognition that something can be both moving and absurd; beautiful and dangerous; comforting and deeply problematic.

In any case, beliefs aside, I want to take this opportunity to wish you—whoever you are, wherever you are—a genuinely restful and enjoyable Christmas and New Year break. May there be moments of warmth, laughter, good food, and quiet. And for 2026, I wish all of us what really matters: peace, goodwill, good health, and a little more humility about the stories we tell ourselves—and each other.

Happy Christmas.

“Christmas is not a time nor a season, but a state of mind.”
— Calvin Coolidge