A squadron of mosquitoes invades a nudist colony. The insects find this a new experience. Thus far they have struggled for sustenance by feeding on people who clothe themselves. Now their cups of haemoglobin runneth over. This is a bloody banquet. Body upon body of bare flesh flashes an open invitation. Every mosquito can drink to its heart’s content. There is more than enough for everyone.

The mosquitoes dive into the fleshpots of the new world. Some drink more than others. Some capitalise on the excess and begin marketing a whole range of products from the surplus blood. Others take their good fortune for granted. They become lazy and reckless. They no longer risk carrying out nightly raids on slumbering flesh for a quick prick and sip, but loll around and live on bloodsucking handouts paid for by the hardworking mosquitoes. A group of younger mosquitoes give themselves over to a life of intoxication as they begin sucking blood solely from alcoholics and drug addicts in the nudist colony.

The mosquitoes have elected a few representatives to govern them. The overseers believe in maximum freedom. There is, after all, plenty for everyone and no reason why anyone should starve. Despite this, a new political party of mosquitoes called Marxitoes begin feverishly discussing what they see as the malarial economic decline of the new Mosquitoland.

Meanwhile, immigrant and refugee mosquitoes hear of the mosquito paradise and brave mosquito nets and insect repellents to fly to this new country. The agitators, however, are zipping around spraying the air with buzzwords such as ‘inequality’ and ‘redistribution of blood’. Mosquito paradise isn’t good enough. They begin campaigning for a mosquito utopia, Mosquitopia.

One of the chief agitators is Arch-Mosquito of Canterbury ‘Proboscis Just-in’ Welby. On the very same day the British Social Attitudes survey trumpets the passing away of his Church of England (it died of yellow fever, being too cowardly to confront the culture), Welby is humming his one-note tune based on My Favourite Things from The Sound of Muzak. But poor Welby, unlike Sister Maria, has only one favourite thing he can talk about – it isn’t ‘raindrops on roses’ or ‘whiskers on kittens’, it isn’t even the gospel, it is ‘inequality, inequality, inequality’.

Welby begins by scaring the hell out of the mosquitoes in the nudist colony. ‘We stand at a moment of significant economic uncertainty,’ he declares in the high-pitched whine of an anopheles mosquito. ‘Britain’s economic model is broken and produces widespread inequality . . . What we are seeing is a profound state of economic injustice.’

The swarm of mosquito agitators from the Left-wing Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) wave their probosces (mosquito pricks) and chorus in unison with the Arch-Prick of Canterbury in a 122-page report called Time for Change: A New Vision for the British Economy.

‘The British economic model needs fundamental reform. It is no longer generating rising earnings for a majority of the population, and young people today are set to be poorer than their parents . . . the economy we have today is creating neither prosperity nor justice,’ the report states. Fiddlesticks! It calls the current British economic model an ‘economic muddle’ and offers a ‘new vision for the economy in 2030,’ an ‘inclusive economy which distributes economic rewards fairly’. The report is replete with wild exaggerations. ‘The UK is the most geographically unbalanced economy in Europe.’ Okay, next? ‘The UK economy distributes rewards very unequally.’ Pish posh!

On the contrary, the nudist colony has abundant opportunities for everyone. Jobs are being created at an unprecedented rate. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, income inequality remains highest in London, but there have been big falls since the recession. The gap between rich and poor is smaller than a decade ago. Inequality in Britain is lower than France, Italy, Canada or Australia, says the World Bank. Britain’s headline employment rate has grown to 74.9 per cent, a record high since comparable data was first compiled in 1971, according to the Office for National Statistics. The average household income was £26,300, up in a year by £600, for the financial year ending in 2016.

The ghost of John Maynard Keynes haunts the economic model proposed by the IPPR. Keynes is the most frequently cited economist in the report. Keynes is Welby’s patron saint. ‘Another Keynes is needed,’ Welby wrote in Dethroning Mammon, his 2017 Lent book. Keynes called himself an ‘immoralist’ and ‘repudiated entirely customary morals, conventions and traditional wisdom’. Naturally, his disciple Welby, apart from his social justice warrior mumbo-jumbo, makes no attempt to link morality to prosperity.

‘Why are so many people so poor when others are so rich?’ asks Welby. ‘Yo Archie, would you like to repeat your question to economist Aparna Mathur? You might not like her answer, because though a number of economists have given similar answers, you and your fellow Lefties would still like to blame structures rather than encourage individuals to take personal responsibility, isn’t that so, Your Arch-Mosquito-ness?’

‘The biggest reason for income inequality is single parenthood,’ writes Mathur, who is not your average Western, white, male, cisgender, Christian. She cites extensive research by Robert I Lerman and W Bradford Wilcox in For Richer, For Poorer: How Family Structures Economic Success in America. ‘The nation’s retreat from marriage is linked to growing family inequality, male joblessness, and economic stagnation,’ they observe.

Between 1980 and 2012, median family income rose 30 per cent for married parent families in the US. For unmarried parents, family incomes rose only 14 per cent. Between 1980 and 2008, about 51 per cent of the decline in men’s employment rates in the US was associated with the retreat from marriage. ‘These findings are striking not only because they affect current levels of income and income inequality, but because these effects persist across generations,’ writes Mathur.

Surely this is common sense? Why does the Archbishop choose to ignore the facts that our choices and attitudes towards marriage critically influence income inequality and economic mobility, when marriage should be a ‘good’ with which he, as a Christian prelate, should be deeply concerned? It would be facile to claim that a society built on marriage and family is the only factor. But it is such a major factor that one has to be morally blind or ideologically bankrupt to ignore the cause and effect between the breakdown of the family and the prosperity that comes from a society built on the bedrock of marriage.

There are other virtues such as thrift and hard work that contribute to prosperity. Orthodox Jewish talk-show host Ben Shapiro repeatedly quotes a credo from the left-leaning Brookings Institute. There are three things you should do if you don’t want to be permanently poor: ‘Graduate high school, get a job, and don’t get pregnant before you are married.’

The nudist colony has great suckings. Never in history have so many people enjoyed so much prosperity. Don’t let the Arch-Prick of Canterbury and his swarm of fellow-Marxitoes tell you otherwise.


  1. Is Welby an appointed prelate or an unelected politician? From the leftist tripe he spouts he could be ex-officio chaplain to the cloaked-communist Corbynista party.

    • How the hell did he pass the job interview?
      Most organisations only recruit people that they view as beneficial to the outfit.

        • Remember what Welby was “hired” for. His task was to mediate the differences in the Anglican Communion, bring it together under the Canterbury umbrella, and therefore make the Church of England great again.

          He has failed because he was biased and not a neutral mediator. And even ‘neutral’ would have failed because when it comes to the Church and biblical morality, only the Word of God can be the prime authority — no compromises are allowed.
          At least Welby has been consistent in promoting what the majority of English people want from the CofE — PC secular values (not that this would bring them to worship in a church). But Welby clearly does not care what God wants.

  2. One friend of mine within the Anglican Ministry refers to Mr Justin Welby as a Lettuce, and he says that there are too many lettuces in Western society due to the feminising affect of equality of opportunity between the sexes, which has led to more male joblessness and less maleness all round. It has also led to the collapse of our birth rate. I wonder what needs to be done?

    • I buy that. More wimps around today and more men who embrace wimpery as an ideal. Read Tony Colvin’s The Noise of Battle for a sobering retrospective on the non-wimps who once constituted the nation’s finest (courageous, tenacious, masculine but still compassionate in the doing rather than the saying) and whose loss and departure has affected both the gene pool and the prevailing public narrative.

      • As Rev Jules says, the collapse of marriage has a lot to do with this. It has robbed young men of their aspiration to become breadwinners and fathers. Monogamous marriage tames young men. It’s a contract that requires them to domesticise with one woman only and in return gives them status and function. It lifts young men out of their natural instincts. Without it they either become feral again (at the bottom of society) or they become rudderless, purposeless wimps.

      • Radio 4’s “The Archers” are currently featuring a male homosexual “couple” who want a child by a surrogate – no criticism in the script, just “great news” etc. so what’s the BBC’s agenda there? On the latest BBC1 “Casualty”, an old lesbian couple were featured, snogging and fondling each other. One “died” but – miraculously revived after 5 minutes – apparently only lesbians are deserving of such largess. I phoned the BBC complaints line (03700 100 222) and asked why it couldn’t have been a normal couple or even a pair of old friends. I have accused the BBC of promoting sexual perversions and making such acts “acceptable”, wholesome and desirable, which they are obviously not. What’s happening?

        • What’s happening is that the BBC, probably sponsored by the government, now use drama to disseminate cultural marxist propaganda of the third wave kind. They think that will defeat prejudice by normalising it. BBC apparatchiks often spout the view that their programming reflects society but in fact it reflects what they think society should be and uses tedious, clichéd, lecturing themes to do so. It’s counter productive. The more they and the government ram this stuff down the public’s throats, as though the various minorities are in fact the majority, the more prejudice and resentment it creates. They also completely miss the point that the changes have been so forced and rapid that they undermine belief in establishment credibility because there are many people old enough to remember “how it was”. There is no sensitivity to the personal adjustment required. For example if I am to accept that everything the establishment taught me to believe in my youth was bunkum then why should I believe that now is any different and the establishment suddenly has a monopoly on truth as a result of “enlightenment” brought about by powerful minority pressure groups and lobbying?

        • Cultural Marxism, with its weapons of relativistic moral philosophy and fascist political correctness, has become a virulent toxic enemy of both political freedom and Christianity. It has been a gradual ‘frog in the pot” phenomena in most western nations. It now uses pansexualism to bully its way in to the mainstream media and wherever else it can get a foothold. Here is what Professor J. Budziszewski prophetically wrote (“The Revenge of Conscience,” First Thngs) nearly 20 years ago:

          “Things are getting worse very quickly now. The list of what we are required to approve is growing ever longer. Consider just the domain of sexual practice. First we were to approve sex before marriage, then without marriage, now against marriage. First with one, then with a series, now with a crowd. First with the other sex, then with the same. First between adults, then between children, then between adults and children. The last item has not been added yet, but will be soon: you can tell from the change in language, just as you can tell the approach of winter from the change in the color of leaves.
          As any sin passes through its stages from temptation, to toleration, to approval, its name is first euphemized, then avoided, then forgotten. A colleague tells me that some of his fellow legal scholars call child molestation “intergenerational intimacy”: that’s euphemism. A good-hearted editor tried to talk me out of using the term “sodomy”:
          that’s avoidance. My students don’t know the word “fornication” at all: that’s forgetfulness.”

  3. I have said this before and I will say it again (probably many times) – Welby can only be understood once you remember that he is the establishment’s man in the CoE, not the other way around.

    Also, although of course there are very many good men in the CoE and nothing is beyond redemption, it is fundamentally not a church the way in which Christ intended. It exists to serve the state; the clue is in the name. Indeed it came into being in order to serve not even the legitimate secular objectives of the state but the personal debauchery of the person who at that time personified the state.

    • “[The CoE] exists to serve the state; the clue is in the name. Indeed it came into being in order to serve not even the legitimate secular objectives of the state but the personal debauchery of the person who at that time personified the state.”

      That’s only half-true. Henry VIII was concerned merely to make himself, rather the Pope, head of the church in England. As a reformer of the church, he was half-hearted and decidedly inconsistent, except when it came to dissolving the monasteries, which was a somewhat separate issue.

      The real founders of the CoE were authentically devout, to the extent of going to the stake for their beliefs. I doubt Welby would trouble to cross the road to benefit his religious beliefs; in fact, I strongly doubt he even has any. Instead, he responds to the disappearing English Anglican congregation by sounding off like the immortal Right Reverend Dr Spacely-Trellis, Bishop of Bevindon. The aptness of the comparison (and Michael Wharton’s prescience) would be lost on Welby.

    • Those results still demonstrate a clear advantage for either married couples or two-parent families. Single-parent families still fare significantly worse.

    • They do not isolate the age.

      Two-parents-with-a-child might be on average a decade older than “just married” – or two full decades older than “unattached”.

  4. So we have a church organisation that over the years believes less in scripture and indeed in God. It openly courts people who are not Christian or have obscure interpretation of the bible (usually through the prism of Marxism – ie. the oppressed and poor). So Antonio Gramsci’s idea has prevailed with this institution (and many others).

    What I find interesting is that Leftists are so dedicated to their cause they are willing to work towards taking jobs in organisations they don’t agree with. The level of dedication occasionally amazes me.

    You would not find a conservative deliberately joining organisations which are against their own views with the aim of changing them. A conservative prefers to hear the opposing views and challenge them openly. It’s another clue who is the more tolerant and liberal.

    • “It’s another clue who is the more tolerant and liberal”

      As my dear old dad used to say, “there nowt so illiberal as a liberal”

      • Yes, we can also add rigid, inflexible, and judgmental. What is the opposite of what ‘liberal’ meant a century ago.

    • > The level of dedication occasionally amazes me which you do not find in conservatives.

      No surprise here – according to psychological research, the clearest marker of conservative political preference is a low disgust threshold. On the contrary, disgust is an unknown feeling to a liberally-minded person.

  5. There are three things you should do if you don’t want to be permanently poor: ‘Graduate high school, get a job, and don’t get pregnant before you are married.’

    Sound advice, however In Britain ‘progressive’ politics have taken the hard edges off poor life decisions making it easier to ignore that advice. The comprehensive school system ignores those not interested in academic work pushing those of a vocational persuasion to truancy and failure to continue further education (ie. sixth form/college).

    The welfare state means people are less likely to take a job. IF they don’t like it people are quick to fall back on the dole and benefits. And as for getting pregnant before marriage (or even a stable cohabiting relationship) there is child benefits and the increased chance of social housing.

    With those safety nets from the state, it is no surprise that people (including bishops) are against marriage and the family.

    • In the welfare system single women with multiple children get extra benefits so there is a state sponsored incentive for the societal problems such upbringing causes. A vicious circle. “Equal” when it suits and “vulnerable” when it suits leading to imbalance and privilege. All because the natural family has been undermined and Ken Loach’s 1966 exposé became a blueprint instead. Reg is now the homeless one pursued for child support and an obese Cathy is living in a council house with more benefits than Reg gets working and pregnant with her sixth child from an absent father.

    • As a psychologist doing social security evaluations, I once evaluated a malingerer who was trying to fool the state into thinking he was incapacitated by depression. His philosophy was this: “I know that money can’t buy me happiness, but it sure makes my misery easier to live with!” I almost gave him what he wanted. : )

  6. I wonder why Welby joined the C of E? He’s obviously a Marxist and an atheist. I’m sure he feels that Jesus was a jolly good chap and all that. But it’s blindingly obvious that the man is a complete stranger to the mysteries of divinity and faith. I suppose he thinks the New Testament is a kind of early draft of a Labour manifesto. I believe he’s a sort of entryist Socialist apparatchik, part of that “long march through the institutions”, which is doing so much to destroy our country and our culture.

    • “I suppose he thinks the New Testament is a kind of early draft of a Labour manifesto.” Burst out laughing. Brilliant!

    • See my post regarding the Left joining organisations that shouldn’t interest them but do so just to bring them down.

      You don’t see libertarians joining the TUC or Christian conservatives joining the British Humanist Association.

    • “To ‘assume’ is to make an ‘ass’ of ‘u’ and ‘me’…”, as the old folk proverb goes.

      Voltaire said common sense was not really common, and G.K. Chesterton said that compulsory education is set up so that the common people are to be deprived of their common sense.

      • Common sense tells me that if the earth were flat, then I would be able to see to the ends of it with a good enough telescope from a high tower. No can do. The existence of a near horizon counters the idea of a flat earth. Common sense proclaims it an error.

  7. It’s often said, and it’s correct too, that single parent families are more likely to be a drain on the economy. The single parent, usually a mother, relies on the state as husband to provide for her. It’s less common to hear of the effect of singleness on men. Having the responsibility of a wife and family has an effect on a man that makes him (usually) want to go out and be economically productive. Put another way, it’s much easier to be lazy when you’ve got nobody to think about but yourself. I think we understate the effect of the loss of marriage on our economy. Will politicians ever understand that? Most won’t, as it much easier to blame the better-off hard-working people than tell the idle ones that their economic inactivity is part of their own problem. Of course, the latest perverse twist to this tale is that we are told we need mass immigration to provide people to be economically productive on our behalf

    • “We” don’t need mass immigration. The corporations do, since they still need to make money and don’t much care about the destruction of the nuclear family in the (predominantly working-class, English) general population.

      • Especially when the mass migration is into an internal market place controlled by the corporations that will make profit from the larger client base while socialising the debt incurred by their otherwise unnecessary presence.

    • It’s also true that despite the feminists constantly whining that life is unfair, women the world over are making their way to the British legal system because it is the most inequitable in the world, in favour of women.
      Despite this inequality there is never a peep from the social justice warriors thus proving that they are not in favour of equality at all.

      The government is of course complicit in all of this and in the case of single families looks to the father to bail out the mother with demands so ridiculous that many men have found suicide a preferable option.

      It’s supposed to be a case of what’s in the child’s best interests, but our courts have misinterpreted this as what is in the mothers best interest as being in the child’s best interest.

      When the law is so one sided it should come as no surprise that the vast majority of divorce cases are initiated by women. After all they have absolutely nothing to lose.

      • The government … looks to the father to bail out the mother


        You mean fathers have no individual responsibility for their children? It doesn’t matter who initiates a divorce, men remain responsible for the children they father.

        • I don’t believe that is what Flake meant at all. But on seeing some of the grotesque stories of men being denied any but the most restricted access to their children while at the same time ordered to support a wife with a ridiculous proportion of their income – often leaving them unable to pay for their own needs – it is not unfair to suggest the system as currently working is not fit for purpose.

          • I’m sure that many men get a raw deal from divorce and lack of access to their children but any system of industrial divorce, which is what we have, is bound to be arbitrary. The law is intended to the keep the system as simple and consistent as possible and assumes that children are generally better off raised by their mother who will need financial support and a roof to put over their head. Since it is not the state’s job to assume financial responsiblity for the breakdown of marriage, the natural person to bear it is the father. Maybe this is often tough but people know what the deal is when they get married and that half of all modern marriages end in divorce.

          • Well with the feminist’s screeching cries ringing around the world that women are equal in every way to men I find your argument sexist in the extreme. Are women equal to men or are they delicate, helpless flowers that need a strong man – a breadwinner some might call them – to provide for them while they stay at home raising the kids? Can’t have it both ways.

            Just to note…. the sexist thing is firmly tongue in cheek.

            Your reply does raise an interesting point though. In today’s enlightened times (I almost put scare/sarcasm quotes around enlightened there) why is the mother, almost by default, considered to be the parent with whom the kids will be placed and why is it the man who, again almost by default, who should be the one to pay for the lion’s share of the upkeep?

          • I’ve never met a woman yet who was a delicate, helpless flower when she didn’t need to be, if that answers your question.

        • Please bear in mind that under normal circumstances (that is, apart from extreme cases like rape or slavery) the decision to have a child is entirely in the control of the mother. This is exactly what women fought for, and achieved. The father may go along with the mother’s decision, or she may choose to comply with his wishes against her own, but it is still her decision to make. In my view, that measure of control equates to the same measure of responsibility.

          • the decision to have a child is entirely in the control of the mother

            In fact, entirely under the control of central Government ideology.

            Including the radically violent pro-death dogma you just quoted.

        • No real man would mind paying for the upkeep of his children but when he also has to pay the mother to baby sit them while (usually) trying to deny him access to share the burden and enjoy their company, can you blame many men for attempting to avoid payment. He is still a father but no longer a husband and she will have got her cut at the divorce so why should he still have to pay her through extortionate child payments.

          • If the mother doesn’t “babysit” the children – by which I suppose you mean take the lead in bringing them up and providing continuity in their lives and basic education – who will do it? What the state does via these maintenance settlements is try to ensure that a stable home is provided for the children despite the divorce. In an ideal world, all divorces would be amicable and fathers would continue to have unrestricted access and there’d be no need for a divorce in the first place. But divorce is not like that; it’s disruptive and because both sides cannot be guaranteed a fair deal, the state has to pick winners and losers. The designated winners, although they might not see single motherhood in that light, are mothers. If men don’t like it, they should stick the marriage out. There’s far too much whining, some of it encouraged, on this site about the supposed plight of men who are often the authors of their own misfortune. Nothing excuses a father from meeting his financial obligations to his children no matter how bad relations are with his ex-wife.

  8. Welby deflects to hide his abject failure and huge deterioration in the numbers of his flock

    We are so rich everyone aspires to be a social worker, even the police

  9. We have to remember that single parents who live on benefits (which not all do, of course) are behaving entirely logically. If a person is faced with the option of a low paid job on £18k, or alternatively not working on £22k of benefits, we can hardly criticise them for choosing the benefits.

    The blame lies with the state for offering this grotesque disincentive to paid work.

    • And not only the purely economic equation, but take into account that the low paid job will be repetitive, possibly dirty and generally unrewarding.

Comments are closed.