I have just heard that Oriel College in this University has capitulated to the Stormtroopers and resolved to take down the statue of Rhodes.
I wonder if they will also remove the accompanying chronogram.
The Good News: H E Cardinal Allen is, for the time being, apparently safe. (He would have been Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chancellor if the Armada had succeeded, and he also adorns the same Oxford facade; he was among the Learned and Catholic who had to flee Oxford under Bl**dy B*ss.).
18 June 2020
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I dunno, isn't this an English thing, to run mad and try to destroy the past? It's not as though it didn't happen before, beginning in the last years of Edward VI (although the pillagers had a lost to distract them in that short time), continuing through the reign of Bl**dy B*ss and returning and reaching a climax under the supervision of William Dowsing in 1643 and 44; cf.:
Sometimes you really get on my nerves with your historical myopia and your poverty of imagination.
These people who are intent on destroying everything you love, England itself, are not "Stormtroopers."
They have had zero power in 75 years. All that's left of them is their ghosts.
These current day savages are Marxists. Maoist Red Guards. A toxic mix of resentful Third World aliens posing as "British" and self-loathing demonic natives who, like all Marxists and Maoists, want to purify the land of its entire past.
Why do you not stand up for your nation, your people, your ethnos?
With the continuance of actual English people, your beloved Ordinariate is just a Titanic.
Why can you not see this?
Trahison des clercs? Dans notre situation actuelle, les évêques sont les principaux traîtres!
As Mr. Orwell correctly observed, Who controls the past controls the future
What we in the west are witnessing is the birth of a new world order which has been prepared for us by our betters for quite a long time and those in the new world order wielding power are instruments of God's infinite justice.
Of course, our church, in the revolution within the form of Catholicism, already has pulled down our the statues of Tradition (Our Peters no longer in the chains of Tradition, Mass, Sacraments, Theology) and replaced them with the paper mâché idols of modernism or didn't anyone notice when Paul Vi went to bow and scrape before the United Nations and told it that it was the hope of mankind or haven't men listened to his spiritual son (Paul is his model) Francis trying to teach that men and women living n Adultery are living in Grace and talking about climate change and environmentalism and not being the judge of sodomy?
There is not one Prelate or Priest whose puissant possession of Tradition is such that it could be used as a brake against our Inertia Into Indifferentism nor can we rationally hope for a Pope faithful enough to try and break the teeth of the sodomite serpent which dominates and threatens our Hierarchy.
The poor dears, they live in fear.
When I heard the news this morning I began rubbing my hands in anticipation of a nascent campaign to have St. John Henry Newman put in Rhodes' place. Alas, being merely a St John's lady (how long will our Eric Gill statue of John the Baptist survive, one wonders?) - I had no idea he is already on the southern face of the building, so there goes that! (And LMVIICICCILIID is a bit laborious, I concur).
I've been surprised though that the earnestly-dreadlocked had no time to protest that Rhodes, high up in his barley-sugar-columned and shell-canopied niche, is ostentatiously and (to my mind, very deliberately) mimicking and overshadowing Our Lady opposite him in Laud's south porch of the University Church. Maybe the protesters haven't thought very much about what and why they are protesting?
At least the contemporary iconoclasts didn't resort to taking pot-shots at the offending statue this time...
Sorry, I meant "without the continuance".
It was late at night and I am in a rage over the same kind of attacks on my people and nation over here in America.
As if 8 years of the reign of Odoacer (2008-2016) was not insult enough, now I see men whose ancestors built this country literally kneeling in self-humiliation to the most dysfunctional demographic, who cannot even maintain a simple city or stop killing one another for sport. And the churches here are utterly worthless.
I hope the Rhodes Scholarship also goes away. Clearly it's not needed.
I find it most interesting to note the very different attitudes that an individual can have to the toppling and/or drowning of a particular statue, depending on whether it depicts a slave owner, an Iraqi dictator, a British imperial governor or an Andean goddess of fertility.
Almost without exception, everyone I know has been avidly consuming news media on the internet, and getting stoked up with rage about the injustice of it all.
It's easy to forget that the much-derided "media studies" started in the interwar period as part of English literature -- a practical study of how language is used in advertising, the newspapers and on the wireless, to help one to detect and be on one's guard against emotive or windy language, cheap sentiment, and vulgar rhetorical appeals. For example see the works of Denys Thompson (1907-1988). The political critique and the idea that "the only thing you can say about the official version of events is that it is wrong" came later, I suppose with Chomsky.
What is the point of a university education if it cannot provide the intellectual tools, either to be sceptical of attempts to manipulate you, or to be curious about tendentious references to historical events, in some cases very long ago, and the relevance they have to the concerns of the present day. From memory: 'Denis Thatcher', in the Dear Bill letters (early 1980s), complained that the Irish were always "jumping up and down, howling for the death of King James or of some mediaeval pope". The satire was spot-on: it was always rather convenient to assume that the Irish were irrational, and that enquiry into the rhyme/ reason for their anger was thus a fool's errand.
Now that the undergraduates, and indeed some dons, are jumping up and down, howling for the death of long-dead public figures memorialised by statues, the task of trying to understand how they got into that frame of mind is an urgent one.
How long before the dedications to saints, the commemorations of episcopal founders, and the college chapels are under attack, political and physical.
I have very little time for Richard Dawkins (to put it mildy), but at least he has the decency to admit to qualms of conscience about his fellowship of a college founded by a bishop.
Dear Mr. Arthurs. When the very Rev Jessie Jackson led hundreds of protesters onto the campus of Stanford University in Berkley California, in the 1980s, they were chanting Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ has got to go To graduate from Stanford (The putative Harvard of the west) all students had to take and pass Western Civ which was demanding in that the student had to read, understand, and explain, what is essentially the great books.
As the expression goes, the protesters were pushing against open doors, and so Western Civ immediately went and was replaced by Multiculturalism.
When the "elites" think the history of subsaharan Africa is as consequential and legit as Western Civilisation, the pit is dug and awaits the students who parents spend scads of dough so there progeny can be propagandised and lied to
Thank you, “OreamnosAmericanus”, for correcting and thereby clarifying the penultimate sentence of your earlier message. But a further clarification would be helpful. To whom exactly are you referring when you use the term “Third World aliens”? Of course fear and distrust of ‘those who are not from around here - those who are different from us’ is nothing new. Just read Luke 10:25-37. I guess the majority of people commenting on Father Hunwicke’s blog would think of themselves as Christians and would therefore accept not only the broad definition in this passage of ‘neighbour’ (clearly intended to include “aliens” outside one’s own “ethnos”), but also the exhortation in verse 27 to “love… your neighbour as yourself”. And we saw an enactment of the Parable of the Good Samaritan last weekend in the actions of Patrick Hutchinson during the demonstrations in London. We should surely, to quote Luke 10 again, “go and do likewise”, whatever the provenance and skin colour of the individual who needs help.
Terry Loane, everything you wrote after your third sentence makes it clear that any response of mine to you would be pointless.
May the Lord reward you for your fidelity to the Gospel. Your comments in this thread are a light in the darkness.
Sir Richard Southern of happy memory, a (?the) most distinguished President of St John's since Laid, once pointed out to a friend of mine that Gill's statue of St John the Baptist is very donnish. No fiery admonition to repent. Instead, he strokes his beard diffidently as if so say: 'I say, would you mind awfully if I were to suggest that you, er, think, maybe even think rather seriously, about the possibility of er, shall we say, er, repenting just a little'.
Thank you for your reply “OreamnosAmericanus”, but I was disappointed – and indeed puzzled – by your decision not to clarify what you meant by "Third World aliens". And why were you so concerned by the fourth and subsequent sentences in my message of 20 June? All I did was to offer some thoughts on the Parable of the Good Samaritan – hardly a surprising thing to do when writing a comment on a Catholic priest’s blog.
If I were ever asked to clarify something I had written, I would always be happy to do so, even if I thought that the person seeking clarification might have very different views from my own. Apart from anything else it would be a way of reflecting on and refining my own thinking. I would recommend this approach to anyone who writes online.
But if you are unwilling (or perhaps unable?) to answer my straightforward question then we will, I suppose, have to form our own judgements as to what you meant by "Third World aliens".
That should, of course, be 'Laud', not 'Laid'. Autocorrect strikes again!
Can anyone in Oxford in the 1960s confirm that the governing body of Wadham responded to the threat of 'direct action' from the undergraduates in 1968 by pointing out the war records (commandos, experts in chemical warfare, marksmen, etc) of many of the fellows, including the chaplain?
Did you know, Father Hunwicke, that "OreamnosAmericanus", who commented on your 18 June post, "Trahison des clercs", is the same person as " DrAndroSF" who wrote several comments on your blog between 2015 and 2019? He (and I believe it is a 'he') has merely changed his ‘nom de Blogger’, possibly to avoid identification following your use of your blog on 29 May last year to "deplore" his use of language when commenting on your blog. (To see evidence of his change of name simply click this link and read through the comments: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2019/04/fifty-happy-years.html).
Thus "OreamnosAmericanus", who refused to explain last week what he meant by “Third World aliens” is the same person who similarly refused to explain last year what he meant by "savages from the Third World", a term he used (initially unchallenged) on several occasion when commentating on your blog between 2015 and 2019. "OreamnosAmericanus" is the same person whose comments on blogs other than yours have included:
"We need to see them [by which he means “blacks”, to whom he referred in the previous sentence] as the alien, hostile and incompatible group that they are…"
"BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!…….Uh, but, why? Particularly? To whom and for why?"
I am sure you will agree with me that there is now a need for you again to repudiate such language, perhaps this time identifying the perpetrator explicitly. Many of your readers may, unlike me, be unaware of your rebuttal last year of the language used by "DrAndroSF"/"OreamnosAmericanus". It would be unfortunate if they were to come to the conclusion that you feel no need to challenge the use of language like "Third World aliens" in blog comments from someone who has a long history of using terms much used by the Ku Klux Klan and other racists.
Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.
Post a Comment