mrs proudie
Uncategorized

The Rev’d Dr Jasper Wright-Onn preaches his inaugural sermon at St Platitude-upon-Twaddle

Goodness! One is subjected to so much nonsense these days, don’t you agree dear friends? Crank up the electrical magic lantern on any given night and the anti-Christian bile pours forth. How about this insidious piece of snipery from a Channel 4 creature name Guru-Mirthless, to wit, that “Christianity is not fundamental to Europe”. Clearly his mission was to belittle the poor Magyar being interviewed, questioning Hungary’s reluctance to bow down before the crescent and asking if there was any difference between Christian and Muslim culture? Where does one begin with that? The ignorance is breath-taking, but then Mr. Mirthless is a PPE graduate of Oxford.

Mr. Slope has been devouring every word relating to the case of Mr. Kelvin Spacedout, an American thespian who once did a short stint at the Barchester Palace of Varieties in an avant-garde all-lesbian revival of ‘She Would if She could’ as ‘best boy’, a job title relating to the technical production side of things I believe, though Mr. Slope has an alternative slant on that. Poor Mr. Spacedout took a tumble, landing on top of a 14-year-old Ganymede who happened to be reclining on an adjacent chaise longue. Mr. Slope says it could happen to anyone. All this occurred years ago, but the hitherto Ganymede is now sprouting chin hair and is desperate to bolster a flagging career by playing the victim card, seeking the spotlight by other means. Anyway, it seems the newspapers have already decided to hang, draw and quarter the hapless trouper – another case of ‘guilty by headline’. The courts must decide, not the mob, nor, indeed, the Grub Street hacks who feed it.

At Signora Neroni’s Guy Fawkes Night Pickled Pumpkin and Parkin soirée on Sunday evening, I was introduced to that intrepid lady explorer Dame Freygrant Starkers, whose escapades along the Straits of Hormuz with only wet-wipes and a tin of Bath Olivers to ward off the Tuareg have kept us all agog for years. She told me the handsome Saudi Crown Prince has been clearing out his Augean Stables, arresting rival princes and businessmen on his pathway to the throne. She greatly admires his plans to modernise the country, taking it from the 7th to the 10th century at a stroke (or several hundred strokes, if one gets in his way), and was keen to acknowledge that already Saudi women have been allowed to drive… admittedly only herds of oxen, but it is a start.

I can honestly say I have never had the inclination to take a short walk in the Hindu Kush or engage with anything out of Africa, but now it seems if you wait long enough, these things will come to you.

Thank you Mr. Blair, our cup now overflows.

Comrade Corbyn, Peoples’ Friend and Popeye Impersonator, has been reading the Paradise Papers with a glint in his eye. I fear this has nothing to do with John Milton and rather more with Milton Friedman – or, rather, those people wealthy enough to invest their doubloons in offshore-accounts. Why, even the dear Queen has been squirrelling it away in the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Handelsbank (International Branch Grand Cayman) and the Hohenzollern Investment Corporation. The Dear Comrade declares such activities to be deeply unpatriotic, which is a bit rich coming from a man with an aversion to poppies and a penchant for hammer-and-sickle engraved bicycle clips. Why, the man doesn’t even know the words of the National Anthem.

Apropos the above, did you know the German Imperial Anthem, ‘Heil dir im Siegerkranz’, was sung to the same tune as ours?

Moving on…

The other day I accompanied my Lord the Bishop and the Archdeacon to morning service at St. Platitude-upon-Twaddle (Gothic Revival but with Romanesque flourishes and 14th century squint – on reflection, a perfect description of the Archdeacon!) to hear the newly-installed incumbent, Dr. Jasper Wright-Onn, preach his inaugural sermon. We should have twigged what we were in for when the choir rose to sing ‘Onward Christian Social Workers’ to the tune of ‘Oadby’, but what followed turned the Archdeacon’s face a violent shade of purple, so much so that he stood up and interrupted. At this point I though he was going to do a Jenny Geddes – fortunately the pews were too heavy to hurl.

“You, sir! Yes, you! Stop this codswallop immediately!” he cried, “The 39 Articles are not part of some glossy throw-away-once-read Sunday supplement, they are the very essence of Anglicanism. What you are preaching is sheer heresy! I am here to tell you that our Lord was transfigured, NOT transgendered; St. Paul did NOT say, ‘If it feels good, do it’; nor does Matthew 5:9 read, ‘Blessed are the Greenpeacemakers…’ To your text, sir, to your text!”

We really must get out less.

I have sent a parcel of freshly-baked hobnobs and a tin of Earl Grey to poor Pretty Patel, who seems to have crossed the line in the sand with regard to ministerial guidelines. Her real crime, of course, was talking with those whom the Foreign Office Camel Corps don’t like. Government does seem to champion the wrong sorts on a regular basis, but then Mrs. May’s lot are hardly a government in any real sense, more like second-rate middle managers trying to reverse an overwhelming take-over bid and floundering. At least they are not fourth-rate, like the alternative.

Speaking of the fourth-rate and over-promoted, I see Miliband Minor, now thankfully out of short trousers and no longer carrying a banana in his pack-up (though where he put it is ripe for speculation – maybe he’s just pleased to see us?), is working for the Dark Lord Soros: it must be sheer Mordor (couldn’t resist that one – apologies!). Young Milibeast says Brexit was a ‘humiliation’ for Britain and the referendum result ‘an affront to democracy’, so he wants the whole thing doing again in true Euro-style. Where do these types come from, and why the Dickens do we put up with them? As for humiliating Britain, why, just send for the clowns, otherwise known as Corbynov’s front bench – Stalinists, Trotskyites, dusky love-maidens, white-van-man haters and New Labour trimmers – a veritable House of Horrors.

However, it is interesting, is it not, that the Hungarians have publicly named Guy Verhuffenpuff as another creature of Soros, actively promoting the open-borders agenda? No surprise there, perhaps.

With our borders poorly guarded, electronic surveillance almost universal, and politically correct, selective policing, we are in a sorry state. Reading through the Goncourt Journal I was struck by this, an entry describing a visit made by the author to Victor Hugo during the Siege of Paris: ‘“Yes,” said Hugo, “the Empire did nothing to provide a defence against foreigners; everything it did was designed to provide a defence against the population.”’ Some things never change, do they?

Well, my dears, I think I have prattled on long enough and I must post this flapdoodlery to His Grace in good time. So, as the whaling-fleet of determination harpoons the Moby Dick of negativity and the Sydney Carton of ‘Leave’ steals the bobbins of red tape from the Madame Defarge of Berlin, I bid you adieu until next week.

Wear your poppies with pride.

  • Father David

    Remember – Popeye always WON against Bluto!

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Someone should remove your canonicals…

      • Father David

        I never thought that you, of all people, would be in favour of folk choosing which gender they would like to adopt.

    • Manfarang

      More like J. Wellington Wimpy. Remember Wimpy, a British Institution in decline.

      • Father David

        I think you may be confused with the Tory Party and the current Cabinet of chaos.

        • Manfarang

          Shadow Cabinet not so great either. Nationalisation is no panacea.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    Most odd – the typo in paragraph 3 “(or several hundred strokes, if he gets in his way)” should read …’if one gets in his way’ and does on the version I sent to His Grace…something got lost in transmission?

    • Ray Sunshine

      I thought it was a typo for “if he gets his way” …

    • Indeed it did, Mrs P, indeed it did. For some reason, ‘in’ never registered to the ashes (two or three times..), so the carbonised brain cells read it as “if one gets his way”, which seemed a little odd, so a slight edit was ventured, quite erroneously, for which literary vandalism humble apologies are due and hereby offered.

    • Indeed it did, Mrs P, indeed it did. For some reason, ‘in’ never
      registered to the ashes (two or three times..), so the carbonised brain
      cells read it as “if one gets his way”, which seemed a little odd, so a
      slight edit was ventured, quite erroneously, for which literary
      vandalism humble apologies are due and hereby offered.

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        And duly accepted of course! No matter, it just struck me as odd.

  • bluedog

    The emergence of Dame Freygant Starkers is a welcome addition to your posts Mrs P, and one awaits further news of her exploits with scarcely restrained excitement. One envisages a sultry fusion of the personae of Lady Hester Stanhope and Lady Ottoline Morrell. Possibly best to avoid any association with the rather less interesting Dorothea Bate, and her brother Master Bate.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Yes, Dame Fraygrant has the look of Margaret Rutherford and the libido of Molly Parkin…

      • bluedog

        Good Lord.

  • Chefofsinners

    Of course Matthew 5:9 says “Blessed are the Pacemakers.” – a group famous for their songs about left wing TV presenters, such as “Ferry Cross the Murthy” and “You’ll Never Wark Alone”.
    It seems our government has got itself into a Priti Pickle over Israel again. Balfour would be baffled, but I believe our very own Elvis Wesley has a message for them in his song “Don’t you step on my few saved Jews”.
    Little surprise to find that Milliband Minor is a Man of Soros. As for the Hymnody of the Hun, “Siegerkranz” means “victor’s crown”. Fitting that the term has been dropped, given that it’s now five hundred years and one week since the Germans did anything for the rest of us. This weekend, let us remember the fallen, and renew our determination to defend those things for which they gave their all.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      I am in tears of laughter…

      • Chefofsinners

        Likewise, Mrs Proudie. I especially enjoyed the Archdeacon’s 14th century squint. Give me tunnel vision rather than television any day. Lord have Murthy.

        • Manfarang

          14th century squint? Are you sure the Archdeacon doesn’t have epiretinal membranes?

          • Chefofsinners

            Yes, they come in handy on Remembranes Sunday.

          • Manfarang

            That’s no way to talk about the AMD division .

    • Royinsouthwest

      The Germans, especially the Prussians, did help us at Waterloo.

  • Martin

    Madam

    I think you should take care, Ganymede has been reputed to threaten those who offend her with the law.

  • Inspector General

    Mrs Proudie. Krishnan Guru Murphy has his own entry in the “Inspector General’s Bumper Book of Suspicious Types Domiciled within the Kingdom”. The Inspector will read an extract…

    {Pushes Spectacles Back Up Nose}

    “Despite his Irish connection, Guru Murphy has been unable to assimilate to British culture due to his unfortunate superior education and the more-than-likely association he keeps, as the vernacular would have it, in hanging about with the wrong crowd when off duty. To wit, those Bolshevik scoundrels who run the BBC News and Current affairs propaganda unit.”

    • Anton

      What on earth makes you think that Oxford provides a superior education?

      • Inspector General

        He went to Oxford? Poor sod…

      • carl jacobs

        Morse.

        • Anton

          Show some Remorse.

          • carl jacobs

            OK. I shall morseify the flesh.

          • Anton

            There’s another TV series based on a detective in Cambridge, you know:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grantchester_(TV_series)

          • carl jacobs

            As a matter of fact … My wife and I finished watching season 2 of Grantchester just last night. Herewith my comments.

            1. It initially reminded me of the Dr Blake Mysteries. Good characters with mediocre mysteries.

            2. It’s annoying to watch modern attitudes projected back 60+ years just to make the main character attractive to modern audiences.

            3. The series got progressively more weird as it went along and I started to think the writers were driving their characters out of character.

            4. The whole Amanda story line just dragged on and on and on. Why do Brits love the tragic hero who never gets the girl?

            5. The best chacacter by far was the homosexual priest. Mostly because he wasn’t driven out of character to serve some ideological point.

            6. Do you think a clergyman could just once give a good response to a challenge to his faith instead of sitting there looking stumped? I kept shouting at the TV “No! Say this!”

            7. The whole reveal of Sydney’s WWII secret was a huge disappointment. I didn’t believe for a second that would have happened.

            We would have to pay for season 3, and we both decided we would wait for it to drop to “Free” status.

            Was it Morse? In my judgment, not even close.

          • Anton

            Never watched either; sorry!

          • carl jacobs

            You’ ve never watched “Inspector Morse”? And you call yourself civilized…

          • Anton

            Setting aside the fact it is set in Oxford not Cambridge, the watching of TV is a barbarous waste of time. I have a large screen on which I regularly watch DVDs but no TV aerial or license.

          • carl jacobs

            Then you should watch “Lewis”. It’s a reasonably good Morse spin-off in which Lewis (Morse’s DS and “every common man” representative) has become a DCI and is paired with Cambridge-educated DS Hathaway who studied for the Priesthood but became a cop instead. You won’t really understand “Lewis” unless you watch Morse. There are interesting parallels and reversals between the two main characters from the first series to the second.

          • Inspector General

            ADVERTISEMENT

            Carl. The Inspector has returned home with the most wonderful product. Jack Daniels Tennessee Straight Rye Whiskey. Would you please pass on one’s gratitude to the Jack Daniels Board as you live nearby, and also the most excellent President Trump. Communicant’s be advised that when taken neat, this water of life slips down just as easily as its poor plain cousin, water.

          • Dominic Stockford

            It is oddly and strangely pleasant, is it not?

          • Inspector General

            Yes.Yes it is, and will appeal to the curious and adventurous…

          • Anton

            OK in cocktails. Neat, I’ll stick to the single malts from north of the border.

          • carl jacobs

            Here, you should try this:

            http://stillhouse.com/goods

          • Inspector General

            Most interesting. One is taken by the design and colour of the container. Childhood memories of paraffin being kept in similar…

          • Pubcrawler

            Ah yes, Pink Paraffin. I was always disappointed to see that it never was.

          • Inspector General

            Pink is a dreadful colour. Wouldn’t surprise an Inspector to find nearly all the country agrees…

          • Pubcrawler

            It has been appropriated by some unsavoury sorts, certainly.

          • carl jacobs

            I know. Cool, isn’t it.

          • Looks like something you’d find in the garden shed.

          • carl jacobs

            Fitting, since whiskey generally tastes like … (what do Brits call it?) … umm … White Spirits. That’s it.

          • That’s the one.

          • Sarky

            Try a ‘jack honey’ with coke. It will change your life.

          • Inspector General

            That’s a good bottle of to have around during flu time. Introduced to the stuff a couple of years back by a friend who’s type 1 diabetic and thus unable to follow his own worthy advice…

          • Manfarang

            Wot no moonshine?

    • Ray Sunshine

      You have a back up nose, Inspector? You really do take every precaution, don’t you! Without wishing to pry, may I ask where you keep it when it’s not in use?

      • Inspector General

        Next to the grindstone, sir.

    • Dreadnaught

      You must have enormous nostrils Iggy.

      • Inspector General

        Big enough to fill a pram, old son. Rats have expressed envy…

  • Anton

    Were this country to divert its benefits budget to its Armed Forces, particularly those involved with border patrols, then we should be in a much better situation.

    • Manfarang

      In Crossmaglen?

      • Anton

        After 29th March 2019, very possibly.

        • Manfarang

          All heading south.

          • Anton

            Like your comments.

          • Manfarang

            From the warmer regions.

  • Her real crime was talking with those whom the Foreign Office Camel Corps don’t like

    There was also the small matter of Pretty Petal misleading the Prime Minister. Speaking of whom, any Foreign Office dislike of Israel is surely swamped by the tidal wave of Prime Ministerial unctuousness, as featured in Brother Nathanael’s video, Balfour Debunked. Good to hear the present Lord Balfour defending his forebear’s reputation: ‘I’m sure Arthur would say this is unacceptable, you know, that there has got to be more help for the Palestinians.’

    • Anton

      Here are the significant errors in Brother Nathanael’s 275-second video:

      1. The Balfour Declaration was stated to be subject to maintenance of the “civil and religious rights” of the non-Jewish population. Yes indeed; and their religious rights *were* maintained, as no measures against Islam were taken in Mandatory Palestine, while their civil rights were likely better under the British than under the Ottomans. Notice that the Balfour Declaration did not promise them political rights. They were not self-governing under the Ottomans, and that situation continued under the British Mandate.

      2. Balfour’s administration did indeed enact the Aliens Act of 1905 to prevent uncontrolled migration of large numbers of Jews, fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe, to Britain, which before then had no restrictions on who might migrate to Britain. Nathanael’s reasoning from this fact to the Balfour Declaration is opaque. In fact there were both political and religious reasons for the Balfour Declaration. The political reasons were as follows. If Britain won, it would wish to occupy Palestine as a buffer zone in order to protect its interests in the Suez Canal. The British were also aware that a pipeline from the Mesopotamian oilfields to the Mediterranean would be an important strategic asset; this pipeline was built after the war, and it terminated at Haifa. Britain also wanted diplomatic pretexts to keep the French, who had their own forces in the Middle East, out of Palestine. A reason for occupying Palestine that did not appear purely selfish would suit the British, who acordingly invited Jewish leaders to make a proposal. Britain was also aware of influential Jews – including financiers – inside its enemy, Germany, and inside its allies, the USA and Russia (the latter in the throes of revolution). The relative weightings of these political factors in influencing the Declaration is unknowable, and no historian who claims to be able to rank them should be taken seriously. Religious reasons for the Declaration are that many members of Lloyd George’s War Cabinet had evangelical backgrounds, and would have heard the covenant with Abraham in Bible study again and again – a covenant in which his descendants were promised Canaan (roughly Palestine) forever, a promise which in Genesis runs exclusively through Isaac and Jacob/Israel. Moreover, it is scarcely plausible that a British Cabinet with a different religious background would have made such a statement; certainly not the previous Cabinet under Asquith and Lord Grey, which had fallen 11 months earlier.

      3. “The Balfour Declaration had no legal force”. it was always a statement of policy by Britain that London supported a homeland for Jews in Palestine; it was never a legal document. (If Nathanael refers to “legal force”, what set of laws does he mean?) For what it is worth, the British Mandate for Palestine, which included identical wording to the Balfour Declaration, was put in place by unanimous vote of the League of Nations in 1922. As for whether Britain ever intended a Jewish State, the answer is contended, but is reasonably clear: Yes, but under London as part of the British Empire. In 1917 the British never foresaw the end of their empire.

      4. Britain supposedly made a “promise of independence for Arab tribes especially in Palestine” as part of a deal in which Arabs would rise up against their Turkish overlords. Nathanael’s phrase “especially in Palestine” is outright false. A region which includes Palestine was excluded from the deal, in the correspondence between the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Henry McMahon, and Hussein bin Ali, the Arab ruler of the Hejaz (under the Turks) wherein Mecca and Medina lie; see McMahon’s letter to Hussein dated 24th October 1915. Years later, Arabs dissatisfied with what was happening in Mandatory Palestine sought to dispute the meaning of McMahon’s words, but those words were clearly understood at the time by Hussein to exclude Palestine, or else he would have protested ardently against the British Mandate as a violation of Britain’s word. Hussein never did protest, and his son promptly made a cordial agreement with the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann.

      5. “Palestinians are the indigenous peoples of Palestine”. How long ago? You can prove anything by stopping at a date of your own choosing. Between the wars a Palestinian was simply a resident of Palestine and the “Palestine Post” was a *Jewish* newspaper! In 1977 Zuheir Mohsen, a Palestinian Arab who led one faction of the PLO, stated that “for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity, because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons” (Interview in the Dutch newspaper Trouw, 31st March 1977).

      6. Israel is “hell-bent on genocide”? It could wipe out the Arabs of Palestine in a few days if it wanted. It doesn’t. As for being hell-bent on genocide, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, stated shortly before hostilities broke out between Arabs and Jews in Mandatory Palestine months before the British left that any hostilities against them would be “a war of extermination, a momentous massacre” (Akhbar al-Yom, Egypt, 11th October 1947), while Jamal Husseini, the Palestinian Arab leader, told the UN Security Council during the fighting: “The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight” (16th April 1948).

      • @ Anton—Thank you. Regarding ‘Nathanael’s reasoning from this fact to the Balfour Declaration is opaque’, he says at 1:50 that ‘Balfour’s letter was more about his loathing of Jews.’ The 1905 Aliens Act aimed to prevent Jews settling in Britain, and Balfour hoped and prayed that the establishment of a Jewish homeland would encourage Jews already here to leave, an emigration which he believed would be ‘to the advantage of the civilisation’ of Britain [PDF, p38].

        The ‘religious reasons’ for the Declaration may have been influenced by the notorious Scofield Bible, compiled by the eponymous ‘lawyer, politician and shyster’. The Bro takes Zionist Christians to task in his videos Are Jews The Chosen People? and Exposing Zionist Christians, both of which, by some miracle, are still available on YouTube.

        • Anton

          Yes, I heard what Nathanael said about Arthur Balfour, but Nathanael’s logic makes no sense. If Balfour hated Jews then, having excluded many of them from Britain in 1905 by the requirement in the Aliens Act that a man (not specifically seeking asylum) should be able to “show that he has in his possession or is in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents (if any)”, Balfour could subsequently have taken a “job done” attitude and need not have helped the Jews in 1917, need he? I have offered, above, political and religious arguments for the Declaration that are more plausible.

          I shan’t listen to Nathanael on the Bible and Zionism. Here follows why the Bible supports Zionism – with or without Scofield’s notes, which had mainly an American vogue. Evangelicals of a century ago in Britain would have heard almost exclusively the King James Bible. If you disagree with the following exposition of scripture (whether because of Nathanael’s comments or for any other reason), please say why in your own words and I’ll debate it in good faith.

          In Genesis 17:8 God confirmed a covenant to Abraham: The whole land of Canaan where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your seed. In this covenant, God commanded faith in Abraham and his descendants, but God did not link that command to the gift of Canaan, although He did say that any uncircumcised descendants of Abraham would be cut off from the blessings of this covenant (Genesis 17:13-14). Interestingly, even secular Jews have kept up the tradition of circumcision.

          This promise runs specifically through Abraham’s son Isaac with his wife Sarah, and Isaac’s son Jacob (Israel): Your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you, and I will surely bless him… and make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac (Genesis 1&:19-21). The covenant is repeated to Isaac (in Genesis 26) and his son Jacob/Israel (in Genesis 28). In summary (Psalm 105:8-11): He remembers his covenant forever… the covenant he made with Abraham, the oath he swore to Isaac; he confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant: “To you I will give the land of Canaan, as the portion you will inherit.”

          What exactly does God mean by saying that he gives the descendants of Jacob/Israel the land? Who owns it? In Leviticus 25:23 (for example) God states that the land is his – he created it – and that the Israelites would be tenants. He is capable of exiling them from it, moreover. It is clearest to say that God has reserved this land indefinitely for the Israelites.

          Christians understand why the Jews were not permitted any collective presence in Canaan for 1800 years: rejection of God’s Son. But God will always keep his word given in his covenants; exile is still the exception to the divine rule of Jewish occupation, regardless of durations. That is why, extraordinarily among peoples deprived of self-jurisdiction and land for so long, the Jews have kept their cultural identity.

          What happened to the covenants at Jesus’ crucifixion? First, a new covenant opened. Individual salvation would now depend on faith in Jesus, both for Jew and gentile. The Mosaic covenant came to an end at the Crucifixion, because it was fulfilled. That is why Hebrews 8 calls it ‘obsolete.’ But the covenant with Abraham remains in place. Many Christians have taken the simplistic view that the ‘Old Testament is superseded by the New.’ But the Old Testament must be examined covenant by covenant. The first covenant is with Noah, promising no second Flood and that the seasons would go on as long as the earth exists (Genesis 9:11), and this covenant is universally understood to continue after the Crucifixion. The Abrahamic covenant is the same. Whether it is widened and given new spiritual interpretation in Christ, whether Christians inherit these promises ‘spiritually,’ is not the important point here. The question is whether the Jews are disinherited of them. Clearly they are not, for this covenant must still mean at least what Abraham was told – descendants by blood – or else God would have been deceiving Abraham and breaking the covenant between them. So Canaan is still reserved for the Jews.

          The New Testament confirms this explicitly. Romans 11:28-29, written after the Crucifixion, speaks to Christians about the Jews, saying that as far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account, but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Paul is speaking here about Jews who reject the gospel, so the definition of Jewishness that he is using in this context is not one that is conditional on faith.

          Quod erat demonstrandum.

          • @ Anton—Balfour could subsequently have taken a ‘job done’ attitude and need not have helped the Jews in 1917

            Balfour wasn’t helping the Jews. He was helping the British by trying to get rid of the Jews. Impossible though it is for us to grasp in these days of betrayal by Church and State, Balfour’s loyalty was to his kith and kin, the native British. I think you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that Balfour was motivated by Scripture.

            I’m sorry but not surprised that you refuse to listen to Brother Nathanael. Having one’s eyes opened to the truth is often an unpleasant experience, even more so when deeply held religious beliefs are also in play.

          • Anton

            You say Nathanael is telling the truth and my analysis of scripture is not. you therefore consider yourself competent to judge. Tell me, then, what is wrong with my analysis.

          • @ Anton—For all I know, your analysis is flawless. My response, then, to your flawless analysis is that a promise made to Jews by their deity does not alter the fact that their descendants, having slaughtered millions of Christians in Russia and Ukraine, have now turned their attention, this time rather more subtly, to eradicating Christianity from Europe by importing fast breeder Muslims, and that Christians would do well to get their heads out of the Bible and defend their religion.

          • Anton

            Of the politicians who have led European nations during the era of ridiculously high Muslim immigration, the proportion of them who are Jews is small. Europeans have only themselves to blame. You and I probably have the same view of what should be done with Tony Blair.

            I debunked the proportion of the politbureau who were Jews in early Soviet Russia many threads ago.

          • @ Anton—Kindly debunk the following:

            Slezkine, The Jewish Century, quoting A Lunacharsky: ‘The Jews played such an outstanding role in our revolutionary movement that, when the revolution triumphed and established a state, a significant number of Jews entered the institutions of the state. They earned this right with their loyal and selfless service to the revolution.’

            On page 103 of The Jewish Century, Slezkine refers to Jews as ‘Stalin’s willing executioners’.

            Solzhenitsyn, Two Hundred Years Together, chapter 18, quoting I M Bikerman: ‘The Russian sees the Jew as judge and hangman; he sees Jews at every turn, not only among the communists, but among people like himself, everywhere doing the bidding of Soviet power.’

            Sever Plocker, Stalin’s Jews: ‘We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags…An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda”, the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.’

          • Anton

            Jews were certainly involved with an alternative to Tsarism given that the Russian Orthodox church was fomenting the pogroms. What else do you expect? As for the Soviet leaders:

            Trotsky – Jew, murdered.

            Lenin – his mother was born to a man who repudiated his Judaism for Orthodox Christianity. Other ancestors gentile.

            Stalin – gentile.

          • Anton

            I never said that the Balfour Declaration was motivated by scripture alone. I was explicit above that there were political factors too, which I gave first and consider at least as important. Also, Arthur Balfour was only one of the dozen or so men in Lloyd George’s War Cabinet who signed off on it.

            When he was PM, Balfour enacted the Aliens Act 1905 for exactly the same reason that we should have immigration controls in place today: swamping by one minority. Which minority it was is not particularly significant, and Balfour seems not to have been the strong anti-semite that you suggest:

            http://www.balfourproject.org/the-other-arthur-balfour-protector-of-the-jews/

  • A reassurance for you Mrs P.:

    Stat crux dum volvitur orbis. (The Cross is steady while the world turns)

  • Norman Yardy

    Dear Mrs Proudie,A wonderful collection of serious and useful bits and bobs. I most particularly liked your passage about Rev. Wright-Onn and his grace the Bishop. Well done for his robust attack on the shameless liberalisation of Christianity.

  • Dominic Stockford

    We will be singing three verses of the National Anthem tomorrow.

    • Father David

      Odd, I always thought that there were six verses of the National Anthem. Surely you will be singing the verses about frustrating the “knavish tricks” of the enemies of ERII and the one about crushing the “Rebellious Scots”?

      • Anton

        Dominic’s words imply that there are more than three verses.

        • Father David

          And not a single mention of the country – unless, of course, you include the verse which mentions Scotland; although they already have “Flower of Scotland”. which is not a patch on “Land of my Fathers”

          • CliveM

            Its not a patch on “Donald where’s yer troosers “!

          • Father David

            Presumably, you are referring here to that well known man of Scottish decent – Donald Trump?

          • Anton

            Now there I agree.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    G.K.Chesterton was very perceptive, although the way in which he expressed his perceptions might sometimes be rather obscure. An amusing essay of his The Sultan contains the following paragraph

    There is an obvious and amusing proof of this in a recent life of Rhodes. The writer admits with proper Imperial gloom the fact that Africa is still chiefly inhabited by Africans. He suggests Rhodes in the South confronting savages and Kitchener in the North facing Turks, Arabs, and Soudanese, and then he quotes this remark of Cecil Rhodes: “It is inevitable fate that all this should be changed; and I should like to be the agent of fate.” That was Cecil Rhodes’s one small genuine idea; and it is an Oriental idea.

    Concerning the Channel 4 creature, the inspector tells us that

    “Despite his Irish connection, Guru Murphy has been unable to assimilate to British culture due to his unfortunate superior education . . .”

    I wonder why it is that so few people are able to see what is obvious to me whenever I peer out of the cave, that the descendants of the likes of that writer above all admit

    with proper post-Imperial gloom the fact that England is still chiefly inhabited by English folk.

    Such an attitude must have appeared particularly perverse to those friendly folks from the West Indies who came here regarding this as “the Mother Country”.

    • Manfarang

      The Cape to Cairo railway has yet to be completed.

  • not a machine

    Most enjoyable Mrs Proudie I think we are just getting our bearings a little?

  • Ray Spring

    I am reading Karl Marx, Capital. 1150 pages, so buy the Penguin edition and enjoy a slow read. Christmas Present? It provides a brilliant observation of life in England during Victorian Times, plus the Industrial Revolution.
    My other book, borrowed from the Library, is ‘Last Days in Babylon’ Marina Benjamin. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2007. 300 pages. It is about the Jews of Baghdad, once a third of the population of that City. Now only a handful. Can we just stop trying to ‘help’ people? It could have helpful side-effects.

    • Anton

      Marx was a second-rate economist wannabe philosopher who claimed to love everybody but was incapable of loving anybody. Engels, by way of contrast, seems to me to have been a fine man, and his Condition of the Working Class in England is deeply moving and simply documents the horrors of early factory life combined with new industrial slum in a so-called Christian country. (I don’t believe that term can apply anywhere until Christ returns.)

  • IanCad

    You present a quandary Mrs. P. Perhaps I am not alone. Having praised to the highest your last report, to not comment on later dispatches could be construed by you as disapproval or, even worse, indifference. An impression I am most anxious to allay.
    In last week’s treasure chest lay a sparkling, sharp gem: To the tune of “Oadby.”
    Delicious! Take Heart! Not all have cast aside the hearty singing of the traditional hymns that have given comfort and hope to generations of believers who seek to understand the ways of God.
    Yesterday at our little service in Exeter the sermon was complemented by the lusty singing of the following three hymns; No. 538, “Guide Me O Thou Great Jehovah.” No. 422, “Marching To Zion.” And finished up with what is, IMO, the greatest of all hymns; No. 348, “The Church Has One Foundation.” All accompanied by a first-rate organist. Quite set me up for the week it did!

    • Anton

      “The Church’s One Foundation” is a cracker!

      • IanCad

        Anton, You raise a point of staggering import, and one that must be resolved. Denominations have fractured over lesser controversies.
        Is it The “Church’s” One Foundation? Or, The Church “Has” One Foundation?
        At the Secondary Modern I attended it most definitely was “Has.” Our church hymnal retains the same wording; yet I see where the commoner phrasing is rendered “Church’s.” To my ear that doesn’t quite have the resonance and firmness that Samuel Stone’s original lyrics imparted. This issue must be settled. My schedule today simply does not permit of such distractions beyond just the briefest examination of the subject and I would be most grateful if some learned correspondent on this august forum would step in to explain quite how this magnificent hymn became so corrupted.

        • Anton

          According to Wikipedia the original is “The church’s one foundation”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church%27s_One_Foundation

          but hymns aren’t scripture and I see no reason why it should not be changed (including presumably the next line) to make an equally good alternative.

          • layreader

            Compare…
            ‘The Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord’, and
            ‘The Church has one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord.’
            Which of these is grammatically correct? The one with one main verb, and not two.

          • IanCad

            A small correction if I may; The words of the second version are incorrect. It should be rendered thus:
            ‘The Church has one foundation, ‘Tis Jesus Christ her Lord.’
            Hopefully calming the grammar purists.

  • TropicalAnglican

    A slight diversion — Hillary Clinton has actually won the Wonder Woman Award. It’s true, it’s not fake news, it’s in the Daily Mail:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5022723/Hillary-Clinton-goes-crutches-none-70-birthday.html

    President Trump was swiftly apprised of the news. However, in the rush, a small error was made, resulting in Trump sending forth the following flurry of tweets:

    Trump tweet #1: I hear Hillary Clinton has won the Wondering Woman Award. Congratulations!

    Trump tweet #2: She’s still wondering how she lost! Sad!

    Trump tweet #3: She should change the title of her book from ‘What Happened’ to ‘I Wonder What Happened’!

    Trump tweet #4: Answer: Wonderful Trump Happened!

    P.S. Bonus tweet (unrelated to above, but which has already soared way past a quarter of a million likes): “Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me ‘old,’ when I would NEVER call him ‘short and fat?’ Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend – and maybe someday that will happen!”