Category: Sociology

Examing key aspects of sociology.

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

Is It Time For A Peaceful Revolution?

The return of Donald Trump is not merely a political event. It is a moral diagnostic.

It tells us something deeply unsettling about the state of our world: that values, principles, and ethics have slipped from the centre of public life. They have been displaced largely by financial gain, grievance politics, racialised fear, and the steady erosion of democratic norms.

This is not an American problem alone. It is a global one.

Trump is not the cause of this collapse; he is its most conspicuous symptom, like a mirror held up to societies that have quietly traded moral seriousness for spectacle, responsibility for outrage and truth for tribal loyalty.

The Disappearance of Principle

Where are the people of principle?

Where are the politicians who speak honestly about limits, responsibility, and restraint, rather than promising everything while meaning nothing? Where are the leaders willing to say “this is wrong” even when doing so costs them popularity, office, or power?

And where, more troubling still, are the faith communities — Christian, Jewish, Muslim, secular humanist — when democracy is undermined and human dignity reduced to a slogan?

Too often, there is silence.
Or worse: rationalisation.

Ethics in a ‘Post-God’ World

We increasingly describe ourselves as living in a “post-God” world. Whatever one’s beliefs, this framing carries an uncomfortable implication.

If there is no higher authority to appeal to, no divine judgement, no metaphysical reckoning, then responsibility does not disappear. It intensifies.

In such a world, ethics cannot be outsourced to tradition, scripture or institutions. They must be embodied in individuals.

We are fully and finally accountable for what we tolerate, excuse, and normalise.

The collapse of shared ethical frameworks does not free us. It leaves us more exposed.

When Systems Fail

When political systems fail, when institutions rot from within, when law bends to power and truth bends to profit, waiting politely is no longer a virtue.

Peaceful resistance is not extremism.
Civic courage is not disorder.
Refusing to normalise injustice is not naïveté.

History does not judge societies kindly for their patience in the face of moral collapse.

The GDR: Proof That Change Is Possible

I live in the former German Democratic Republic.

Within my own lifetime, I have seen proof that enormous social change is not only possible, but inevitable, when large numbers of ordinary people rise up peacefully and say: Enough.

No tanks.
No violence.
Just people.

The fall of the GDR was not engineered by heroes or generals. It was brought about by teachers, factory workers, church groups, writers, engineers: people who withdrew their consent from a system that no longer deserved it.

That lesson should haunt us and teach us.

Have We Gone Mad?

As a warning light on the dashboard of history, young Germans are once again being asked whether they are prepared to fight for their country.

After everything Europe has lived through: after the ruins, the camps, the mass graves, the promises of Nie wieder — have we learned nothing?

The question should not be how to prepare the next generation for war, but how we allowed ourselves to drift back towards the conditions that make war imaginable again.

Democracy Belongs to the Ordinary

Democracy does not belong to elites.
It does not belong to parties, platforms, or billionaires.

It belongs to writers.
Teachers.
Lawyers.
Nurses and doctors.
Construction workers.
Refuse collectors.

It belongs to all of us.

When democratic systems disintegrate, it is not because “the people” failed. It is because too many people were persuaded that their voice no longer mattered.

Silence Is Not Neutral

Some of us are old enough to know where silence, blame-shifting, and passivity lead.

Writing from exile as Europe collapsed around him, Stefan Zweig issued a warning that has lost none of its force:

“The greatest danger threatening humanity today is not fanaticism itself, but the silent toleration of fanaticism.”

Zweig understood that history is not undone by villains alone, but by the quiet compliance of the reasonable.

So Where Is the Line?

If Zweig was right, then the question is no longer whether we see what is happening.

The question is this:

Where do you draw the line?
What responsibility do professionals, educators, faith communities, and citizens have when institutions fail?
What does peaceful resistance look like now?

Enough silence.
Enough normalisation.
Enough waiting.

History does not move only through great men. It moves when ordinary people decide that they will no longer cooperate with the unacceptable.

The moment is not coming.

It is already here.

“Truth to tell, we are all criminals if we remain silent.”

—Stefan Zweig

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

Dialogue or Destruction: Why Peace Has Only One Road Left

A Century That Should Have Known Better

Some days it feels as if the twenty-first century has learned nothing from the horrors that preceded it. We live in an age where the map of human suffering is once again studded with names we should never have to say in the same sentence: Gaza and southern Israel, Ukraine, Yemen, Sudan, Myanmar, Ethiopia – and now even Thailand and Vietnam finding themselves drawn back, in different ways, into cycles of unrest they thought they had escaped.

The tragedies differ in their causes, but they share one characteristic: they are morally unacceptable in a world that has the knowledge, the wealth, and the historical memory to do better.
War may once have been considered an inevitability of human conflict. But wars of aggression – and the atrocities committed in their shadows – cannot be squared with a species that claims to be moral, rational, or enlightened.

The sorrow is not only in the scale of destruction, but in its banality. Innocent men, women and children, whose only mistake was being born in the wrong place, are suffering because powerful individuals with guns, money, or ideology choose violence over the one thing that has ever worked: talking.

The Human Duality: Building Mars Rockets While Bombing Cities

It is one of the oldest and saddest paradoxes of the human condition:
We are capable of extraordinary intelligence and astonishing stupidity at the very same time.

In the same decade that we are preparing missions to Mars, mapping the human genome, and coordinating global relief efforts after earthquakes and floods, we are also manufacturing weapons so sophisticated and so profitable that entire economies depend on them.

Take the UK: a country with billions for advanced weapons systems but somehow “no money” for freezing pensioners, collapsing hospitals, or universal, high-quality education. This is not a mystery of economics; it is a reflection of politics, psychology, and a global weapons industry whose profits dwarf the budgets of most ministries of health. And while this grotesque misallocation of resources goes largely unexamined, public attention is successfully diverted towards the performative jingoism of Nigel Farage and his circle, obsessing over small boats as if they posed a greater threat than the industrial machinery of war.

Sociologically, all this reveals something darker:
that collective fear is more powerful than collective compassion,
and that democracies and dictatorships alike are willing to pour unimaginable sums into tools of destruction, even as their own citizens queue at food banks.

When you look at the sheer size of the arms economy – involving states, private firms, lobbyists, intelligence networks, and geopolitical strategists – it is no surprise that conspiracy theories flourish. One begins to wonder, not whether secret cabals exist, but whether the structural incentives of money, power, and fear create something that behaves exactly like a conspiracy: an unaccountable machine that profits from perpetual insecurity.

Yet even here, there is a deeper sadness:
This is all human-made. It could all be human-unmade.

The Only Road Left: Global Responsibility and Relentless Dialogue

Ending war and the suffering it unleashes is not a task for Washington or Moscow or Beijing alone. It is not a “European problem” or a “Middle Eastern problem” or an “African problem.”

It is a human problem.

And humans, whether in India, New Zealand, Switzerland, Brazil, Nigeria, or Japan, share equal responsibility for the world we are shaping.

The world is too interconnected – economically, technologically, environmentally – for the myth of “regional conflicts” to survive. A war in Ukraine destabilises global grain markets. A war in Gaza destabilises entire alliances. A war in the Sahel or Sudan creates refugee flows that reshape the politics of Europe within months.

And yet, our political rhetoric remains stuck in the nineteenth century: great powers posturing like drunken emperors, minor powers waiting for permission to act, populations encouraged to choose a side rather than choose a future.

Into this steps Donald Trump, who postures as a dealmaker but speaks as a man who has never studied history, diplomacy, or the complexity of human suffering. His racist, West-centric, emotionally stunted theatrics are not only unhelpful — they actively block the one thing that has ever stopped wars:

serious, sustained, structured dialogue.

China said this nearly two years ago, and they were right:
There is no military solution to these conflicts.
There is no future in “victory” defined as someone else’s obliteration.

If the stakes were framed differently —
If it were your grandmother being raped,
your daughter being shot,
your son sent to die in a trench,
would anyone still think that pride, posturing, or “teaching the enemy a lesson” was worth it?

Dialogue is not weakness.
Dialogue is not appeasement.
Dialogue is not naïve.

Dialogue is the only alternative to extinction-level stupidity.

What we need is a global determination — from governments, from civil society, from the international institutions we mock until we suddenly need them — to bring leaders and peoples into conversation with each other before the next atrocity, the next drone strike, the next unmarked grave.

We do not need more weapons.
We need more courage — the courage to talk to our enemies.

Because the only road that has ever led out of hell is the one people walked together, however awkwardly, toward a table, a room, a conversation.

Dialogue is not one option among many.
Dialogue is the only road left.

“If you want peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”  -Desmond Tutu

 

From Village Carpenter to Global Force: The Strange Success of Christianity

It remains one of the strangest facts of history.

A thirty-something artisan from a provincial backwater, speaking Aramaic in a corner of the Roman Empire, is now at the centre of the world’s most geographically widespread religion. Two thousand years later, his story is still believed – not just by the desperate and uneducated, but by surgeons, software engineers, lawyers, professors and prime ministers.

We can debate for ever whether the miracles happened, whether the tomb was empty, whether God exists at all. But even if you bracket all that out, a hard question stays on the table:

How did this particular faith story become so portable, so durable, and so attractive to intelligent people for so long?

And – just as interesting – why does Christianity grow in some places today and haemorrhage members in others?

I want to suggest that the answer has less to do with miracles, and more to do with four things:

    • its portability
    • its God of love
    • its dual appeal to heart and reason
    • and the way it behaves sociologically – either as a movement or as an institution.

Christianity’s Secret Weapon: Portability

Most ancient religions came bundled with a package deal: one god, one people, one place, one language.

You worshipped the gods of your tribe, your city, your land. The temple was in that city, the sacrifices at that altar, the prayers in that tongue. This is how religion normally works.

Christianity broke that model.

From the very beginning it said, in effect:

“You don’t need to be Jewish. You don’t need to move to Jerusalem. You don’t need to learn a sacred language. This is for everyone.”

No temple to travel to.
No hierarchical clergy or priesthood – every believer is a priest
No sacred script only the initiated can read.

Just a set of compelling and memorable stories and teachings about Jesus and a small travelling community who claimed that his life, death and (as they saw it) resurrection had changed what it meant to be human.

That made Christianity absurdly portable:

    • It moved from Aramaic into Greek.
    • Then into Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Gothic.
    • It made the jump into the philosophical worlds of Plato and Stoicism, and then into the legal and administrative world of Rome.
    • Today it sits comfortably in English, Swahili, Korean, Portuguese and Tagalog without asking anyone to “become Jewish” first.

If you strip Christianity back to its core, the essentials are strangely easy to translate:

    • love
    • forgiveness
    • dignity
    • care for the poor
    • hope beyond death
    • justice
    • meaning
    • transformation

No sacred mountain. No exclusive caste. No single holy language.

Just a story and a way of life that can, at least in theory, be picked up anywhere.

Whenever Christianity has leaned into this radical portability – no guarantees, no bureaucracy, just small communities trying to live this story in their own culture – it has tended to spread.

Whenever it has wrapped itself in state power, fixed liturgies, heavy buildings and highly controlled hierarchies, after some initial growth, it has tended to stall and then decline.

We can see that empirically now.

A Shockingly Different God

Portability explains how Christianity can move.
It doesn’t yet explain why anyone would actually want it.

Here I think we come to the most explosive claim at the heart of Christian faith:

God loves you. Personally.

We are used to that sentence now. In the ancient world, it was dynamite. All humans are looking for existential meaning and personal acceptance.

The gods of Rome were powerful, but capricious.
The gods of Greek myth were brilliant, but aloof.
The philosophers spoke of a Logos or a First Principle – interesting, but hardly something you would sing hymns to.

Then along come the Christians, saying:
the ultimate reality behind the universe is not raw power, not blind fate, not an impersonal force, but self-giving love – and that this love is somehow focused on you.

Not just: “There is a god.”
But: “You are known and wanted.”

Add to that some other, equally disruptive ideas:

    • that slaves have dignity,
    • that women and children matter,
    • that the poor, the stranger, the sick, the disabled are not disposable but precious,
    • that every human being, without exception, bears the image of God.

In an empire that threw away unwanted babies, left the sick to die in the street, and treated most people as economically useful units at best, this was not just comforting. It was revolutionary.

You didn’t have to believe in miracles to find this vision of the world compelling. Many still don’t.

Heart and Mind in the Same Story

There is another piece to the puzzle. Christianity did something that very few religions manage to sustain over centuries:

It offered a credible home for both the heart and the mind.

On the heart side, it speaks to:

    • forgiveness for real guilt
    • a path to change when you hate the person you’ve become
    • a community that will (at least in theory) walk with you
    • the intuition that love and justice somehow matter more than success
    • the fear of death and the longing that death is not the end

On the mind side, it offers:

    • a universe that is ordered and intelligible rather than random
    • a moral framework that is more than “my preference vs. yours”
    • a coherent story of how humans can be capable of both beauty and horror
    • a God-concept that can be, and has been, taken seriously by some of the most demanding intellects in history

Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Bonhoeffer – whatever you make of their conclusions, these are not gullible people. They were not seduced by a cosy fairy tale. They found in Christianity a way of thinking that was at least big enough to wrestle with reality.

That combination – emotional depth and intellectual seriousness – is rare. It goes some way to explaining why, in every generation, some doctors, lawyers, scientists and philosophers still end up in church despite knowing all the reasons not to.

When Christianity Behaves Like a Religion, It Shrinks

The really uncomfortable part, especially if you belong to an established church, is what happens next.

Over time, the portable, story-driven movement becomes something else:

    • It builds buildings.
    • It develops liturgy and rules.
    • It trains a professional clergy.
    • It negotiates with states and empires.
    • It learns to sit quite comfortably next to imperial power, feudal systems, colonial projects and nationalist dreams – sometimes as their chaplain.

Some of this is inevitable. Human beings organise. Communities need structure. Not every bishop is a villain.

But the sociological pattern is striking:

    • In much of Europe, the old state-linked churches – Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed – are in steep numerical decline.
    • They are rich in buildings, history and liturgy; poor in young adults, fresh converts and living energy.
    • Many of their most enthusiastic members quietly slip away to small, lay-led, often charismatic communities – or out of the Christian story altogether.

You don’t need supernatural explanations for this.
It is what tends to happen when a movement becomes an institution and then an arm of the state.

The religion that once prided itself on having “no temple, no priesthood, no sacred language” has sometimes become exactly the kind of religion Jesus himself spent so much time arguing with.

And people vote with their feet.

When Christianity Behaves Like a Movement, It Spreads

The picture is very different whenever Christianity sheds the imperial clothing and goes back to something closer to its original form.

We see this in:

    • house-church networks under communism
    • base communities in Latin America
    • Pentecostal and independent churches in parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America
    • small experimental communities in post-Christian cities in Europe.

What these movements tend to have in common is not a particular theology but a form:

    • they are locally led,
    • often meeting in homes, schools or rented halls rather than cathedrals,
    • heavily relational,
    • high on participation and experience,
    • able to translate the message into local culture without waiting for permission from a distant headquarters.

They may or may not be “charismatic” in the technical sense. Many are. Some aren’t. But they are recognisable cousins of that first generation of Jesus-followers who met in houses, shared meals, argued, prayed, fell out, reconciled and tried to work out what this story meant in Corinth, or Antioch, or Rome.

Where Christianity looks like that, it is often growing – sometimes quietly, sometimes explosively.

Where Christianity looks like a bureaucratic service provider for people who need weddings, funerals and a vague sense of national identity, it is often dying.

Again, you don’t need to believe in God to see the pattern. It’s written in the attendance figures.

So Why This One Story?

None of this “proves” that Christianity is true. That’s a different discussion.

But it does, I think, make sense of why this particular faith story has had such reach:

    • It told an outrageous story of love in a world ruled by fear.
    • It insisted that the most important truths about human life could be carried in a portable story, not locked in a temple or a tribe.
    • It managed, at its best moments, to give both the heart and the mind something serious to work with.
    • And it has a built-in tendency to break out of its own institutions and reinvent itself as a movement again whenever those institutions become too heavy.

An Aramaic-speaking artisan from a nowhere village should have vanished into the long list of forgotten preachers.

Instead, people all over the world are still arguing about him, still praying to him, still walking away from him in anger, still quietly coming back.

You can explain that purely in sociological and psychological terms, if you like. Or you can, if you are so inclined, wonder whether the “God of love” at the centre of the story has something to do with its refusal to die.

Either way, it is hard to deny that the story is still on the move – and that it travels lightest when it remembers where it began.

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”  – G. K. Chesterton

Why Populists Thrive in a Connected World

Why Has Globalisation Increased Division Instead of Unity?

Globalisation should have been our great humanising force. For the first time in history, large numbers of people can travel freely, study abroad, work internationally, and encounter cultures that would once have remained distant and unknown. We have access to films, music, literature, foods, and languages from every continent. On paper, this should have produced an age of empathy. A century in which the old barriers of race, nationality, and religion dissolved into shared humanity.

Yet the opposite has happened. As the world has opened up, political identity has hardened. Populist nationalism has surged: Donald Trump in the United States, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, and similar strongman figures elsewhere. Racism, religious extremism, conspiracy thinking, and tribal rhetoric are resurgent. The more connected the world becomes, the more threatened people seem to feel.

This contradiction is not new. It is the old story of the Tower of Babel. Human beings build upward toward unity, creativity, and common purpose—yet something in us fractures, resists, and disperses. Even if we don’t read that story religiously, it is psychologically precise. The closer we come to real integration, the more fear arises: fear of loss of identity, loss of control, loss of status.

Globalisation has consistently been experienced not as shared enrichment but as competition. The immigrant is framed not as a neighbour, but as a rival. Cultural diversity is discussed not as dialogue, but as dilution. Political rhetoric encourages the idea that “our” way of life is being erased. The result is defensive nationalism and, increasingly, violence.

This is not inevitable. The problem is not globalisation itself, but the absence of global solidarity to accompany global interdependence. We have integrated our economies, but not our ethics. We have connected our markets, but not our imaginations.

So the question is: How do we reverse the tide? How do we turn globalisation into a force for peace, dignity, and cooperation rather than division and resentment?

Here are three foundations:

1. Global Education that Teaches Perspective, Not Propaganda
International exchange programs cannot simply be tourism or language practice; they must cultivate the ability to see oneself from the outside. To understand how one’s culture appears to others, how history shapes identity, and how dignity must be mutual. Education that only reinforces national narratives will always produce suspicion, not solidarity.

2. Freedom of the Press, Protected by Law, Not Politics
Real democracy depends on the ability to critique power. When the press becomes the instrument of governments, oligarchs, or corporations, societies fracture along invented fears. The crisis at the BBC this week is not a local scandal—it is a warning. If journalism cannot report freely, citizens cannot think freely. And if citizens cannot think freely, they cannot live together freely.

3. Cross-Border Economic Cooperation That Shares, Not Extracts
The problem is not diversity—it is inequality. When globalisation enriches a few and impoverishes many, resentment is inevitable. But when globalisation supports fair wages, sustainable industry, ecological responsibility, and shared growth, it strengthens stability rather than fear.

In short: global interconnectedness must be matched with global empathy.

We already live in one shared world. The question is whether we will learn to behave as if that is true.

Unity is not naïve. It is the only realistic future we have.

“We may have different religions, different languages, different colored skin, but we all belong to one human race.”

–Kofi Annan

The Blueberry Paradox: Why We Keep Destroying the Systems That Could Save Us

On my last day in Spain, I sat at a small café, watching three men take down decorations from the town’s recent festival. The bunting had hung across the square for days, colouring the white-washed walls with celebration. Now the tourists had gone home, and these men — quiet, anonymous, methodical — were returning the square to its ordinary face.

Their work is unremarkable. No one applauds. Yet without people like them, the whole “beautiful tourist city” collapses.
Without them, the photos don’t look charming.
Without them, the streets feel neglected.
Without them, the illusion breaks.

I found myself thinking about fishermen at dawn, hotel cleaners before breakfast, bin collectors at 4am. The quiet labour that keeps the world turning — labour that rarely receives dignity, respect, or fair pay.

Then I looked at my arm.
At the blueberries.

Yes — I have blueberries tattooed on my forearm. And no, it’s not whimsical. Or perhaps it is, but in the way truth sometimes hides inside whimsy.

The blueberries remind me that I cannot enjoy anything alone.
Not even my breakfast.

To eat a blueberry, I depend on soil, weather, farmers, packers, transport workers, supermarket staff, the climate not collapsing this particular year. My pleasure is communal, whether I acknowledge it or not.

Upside down, from a distance, the blueberries form a heart-shape. I didn’t plan that. But perhaps the body speaks before the mind is ready to believe.

The tattoo is a reminder:
You are held. Your life is made by many lives. You are not independent.

And so here’s the question that came to me in that Spanish square:

If we know we are interdependent, why do we build societies that pretend we aren’t?

Why do we reward the illusion of the “self-made individual” while the world is built by the unseen hands of others?

Why does the fisherman earn less than the financier?
The cleaner less than the consultant?
The bin collector less than the politician?

It is not rational.
It is not moral.
It is not even economically coherent.

It is, however, familiar.

And this — whether people like to admit it or not — is where Marx enters the conversation.

Marx’s Point Was Never “Everyone Should Be the Same”

Marx’s central claim was beautifully simple:
Human labour creates value.
So the people who create value should benefit from it.

That’s it.
That’s the hinge.

Marx wasn’t calling for laziness, or enforced sameness, or the death of creativity. He was pointing out that societies become obscene when those who create the conditions for life (food, sanitation, infrastructure, care) are treated as disposable.

He believed in dignity through shared labour.
In contribution as meaning.
In justice as the redistribution of the wealth that labour creates.

Which is why, though he rejected religion, Marx comes surprisingly close to Jesus.

Jesus also preached the reversal of hierarchy:

“The last shall be first, and the first last.”

Not metaphorically — economically, socially, relationally.

Both men looked at society and said:

This is upside down.
We can live differently.

Both pointed to community over competition, relationship over possession, need over greed, dignity over dominance.

And yet —
we have not built the world either of them imagined.

Not once.
Not anywhere.
Not for long.

So the question is no longer Was Marx right?
Or Was Jesus right?

The question is:

What stops us from building the just society both of them saw so clearly?

The Answer Is Not Economic. It’s Psychological.

We call it capitalism vs. communism
but the real struggle is fear vs. trust.

We hoard because we are afraid there won’t be enough.
We compete because we are afraid of being overlooked, replaced, forgotten.
We dominate because we are afraid of being powerless.
We cling to hierarchy because we are afraid of being ordinary.

Fear is the water we swim in.
Fear is the undecorated square after the festival is taken down.
Fear is the silence in the early morning before the day begins.

Marx underestimated fear.
Jesus named it, but was killed for it.

And every system we have built has collapsed for the same reason:

We would prefer to be safe than to be equal.

The Failure Was Never Marx’s. It Was Ours.

We say “communism failed” as if ideology collapsed of its own weight.
But ideas don’t fail.
Systems don’t fail.

People fail.

We fail because we want justice until justice requires something of us.
We want equality until equality asks for our privilege.
We want community until community interrupts our autonomy.

We want the kingdom of God
without the cross.

We want Marx’s dignity of labour
without surrendering status.

So we keep building worlds in which:

  • the blueberry appears magically on the table

  • the labourer remains invisible

  • and we pretend we did this alone.

The Blueberries Again

I look at my arm.
The tattoo.
The accidental heart.

A reminder that interdependence isn’t an ideal —
it’s already true.

We just live as if it isn’t.

The question is not whether a just society is possible.
We already rely on one.
Every day.
Every meal.
Every building.
Every service.
Every breath of shared infrastructure.

The question is simply:

When will we live as though we know it?

And perhaps the first step toward a better society
is simply learning to say:

Thank you.
To the fisherman.
To the street worker.
To the invisible hands.
To the ones who keep the world turning
so that the rest of us can pretend we did it ourselves.

The mirror we all hold

“For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”
— 1 Corinthians 13:12

 In the Bible’s finest chapter on love, we find the core of what all human beings seek: to know the truth and to be loved unconditionally. Some are forced to abandon the search by war, famine, or disaster. Others numb it with money, power, routine, or religion. But painters, composers, writers, and prisoners ache until the search is done. Life may be a poor player strutting its hour upon the stage, yet it remains a miraculous gift. In my own search, this is what I have learned:

Our reality is socially constructed. It is not simply out there, an objective truth. It is shaped through interaction, language, and shared meaning. What we take as natural or real is the result of human processes. We create culture, institutions, and practices until they appear objective, unquestionable. Society is a human product, and humans are also a product of society.

So, God is not dead; she was never alive. Human beings are distinguished by language, and only with language could we invent the search for truth and love and confront our fear of death. We created narratives to explain, console, and control — each shaped by its ethnicity. When those narratives masquerade as religion, they breed arrogance and division, and evil flourishes in the shadows they cast.

In postmodern times, these grand stories have been dismantled, leaving behind fragments of wisdom, still priceless, still relevant. With their collapse comes the dissolution of absolute truth, the perfect mirror. We are left with fractured mirrors that blur and distort. We will never see face to face. We will never fully know.

Yet one certainty remains: we are constellations of atoms, stardust reassembled by chance and time, hurtling around our sun on a rock at 67,000 mph. DNA coils like ancient runes in every cell, issuing silent instructions: become, live, persist. From this choreography comes breath, thought, memory: a mother’s laughter, longing for distant places, a lover’s hand in the dark. We invent gods and heroes, build cathedrals and poems, grieve, and love. All this from fragile molecules wrapped in skin. Just chemistry. An echo of evolution. And yet: is it not a miracle that matter dreams at all?

As animals without God, we are capable of both the sublime and the grotesque, like a spider whose web can dazzle, yet devour. Both poles dwell in every heart. When misaligned in childhood, they consume more than they weave. Our destruction harms others as much as ourselves. Only when such misalignment is brought into the light, described and objectified, can disaster be averted. There is no cure, but it can be managed.

And yes, we need others. The fool thinks he can do it alone, with drugs or double lives. But we are social creatures, destined to create and to destroy together. We are the same story, written in different ink, linked like islands beneath the ocean. We need one another to hold up the mirrors in which we might glimpse truth — and love.

Love is the fiction we live and die for. Our need for sex and closeness becomes sonnet and story, until the invention feels more real than the words that birthed it. Yet in that fiction, light is found. And only in that light do the mirrors reflect enough to end our search.

The arts are our vehicle for this search. Education is archaic. It is preserved that way by an oligarchy masquerading as democracy to secure the success of its offspring. Were curricula ever to be revised, the arts must not be replaced by AI or science, but contextualised by them. Only then might humanity move toward security and enlightenment, instead of decline and crime.

I’d be very interested in your comments.