Category: Oxford

The text of the Ezra Charter is published below. It is intended to remind all evangelicals as to the Biblical conduct of church while simutaneously providing the world around us with a standard by which to judge the good from the bad among evangelical churches !

The need for such a Charter arose following the transmission of a report on a leading French television channel about evangelicals in France today. The report was broadcast on France Télévision channel 2 on 25th September this year, 2025, and titled : “Evangelicals : a success not so angelic” (my translation).

It criticised the conduct of a mega church in the suburbs of Paris for being a worldly televised spectacle keen to attract followers and their money; it went on to interview a former young pastor who had left another evangelical church, disillusioned with what he had seen and done …

The findings of this report corroborated my own concerns about the state of the evangelical church in France, concerns arising from my personal experience of a number of groups and of various evangelical pastors and leaders. I published a post outlining my concerns on 10th December this year on my blog at http://www.esdras.page with a link to La Charte Esdras published the day before on that blog. The French post of 10th December calls on evangelicals to reflect and to repent in 2026 …

La Charte Esdras is pertinent for all evangelicals in my view. I therefore provide the English translation of the French text :

The Ezra Charter

A good practice code for Biblical Christian assemblies

The Ezra Charter provides a perspective and basic terms of reference for the proper conduct of Biblical Christian assemblies. lt therefore constitutes a reference for anyone to assess for themselves the behaviour of groups who call themselves Biblical Christians or Protestant Evangelicals.

Why the need for such a charter ? Because there are too many churches calling themselves Biblical Christians or Protestant Evangelicals which in reality have cultish, authoritarian tendencies.

The Bible provides us with the right perspective and the basic terms of reference via :

A. Jesus Christ

B. the apostles

C. the Bible

D. the Gospel

E. the Church

F. the disciple

G. the role of Government

 

A. Jesus Christ

1. Jesus turned up, preached and left : he left his audience free to follow after him or not
2. Jesus spoke spiritual truth for the glory of God ; Jesus Christ never deployed the devices of this sinful world, such as advertising or psychological manipulation
3. Jesus Christ submitted to the wrongful punishment of death on a cross : so Jesus shows us the narrow way, a way of spiritual death and resurrection, not at all the example of a politician or a demagogue
4. His teaching is summed up in the words : Love God and love others

B. the apostles

1.  the apostles preached eternal spiritual life in Jesus Christ : they never employed the philosophical thinking or techniques of manipulation characteristic of this sinful world here and now
2. They were commissioned to encourage everyone to obey Jesus Christ, not to recruit followers for themselves or members of a particular organisation
3. they were themselves disciples first and foremost, concerned to be examples of Christian teaching

C. the Bible

1. the teaching of the New Testament interprets the Bible for us, therefore all other approaches and paradigms are not Christian and Biblical
2. the Bible is the sole source of authority for the Biblical Christian faith : it exists to explain to us (i) God (ii) the human condition (iii) the relationship between God and human beings
3. the Bible provides the Word of God which feeds disciples on the spiritual life to be found in Jesus Christ
4. the final verses of the Bible warn us about the serious consequences for those who add to, or subtract from, the content of the Bible

D. the Gospel

1. the Gospel is the good news of the eternal new life in Jesus Christ which overturns and replaces the sinful life in Adam
2. the Gospel calls us to abandon the selfish thoughts and practices of this world, a world which manifests the oppressive influence of Evil and the exploitation of other people
3. the Gospel is the message of God’s spiritual love according to which the church is called to live

E. the Church

1. the church is called out by God to live according to the teaching of Jesus Christ and his example of love, not any other philosophy, thinking or practice
2. the church is the spiritual body of Jesus Christ who is its Head ; it is not an organisation or institution of this present world organised by men according to their own ideas or their own efforts
3. the church is provided with spiritual gifts and ministries for its spiritual construction and to equip it for the task entrusted to it by God, namely the destruction of Evil by means of preaching, fellowship, the Lords supper, prayer and good deeds
4. Its God given mandate is to encourage obedience to Jesus Christ, not recruit members to an organisation

F. the disciple

1. the disciple commits spiritually to obey Jesus Christ his Judge in the end, not anyone else : because of this commitment to Jesus Christ, the disciple attends church to share in mutual encouragement in the Christian faith
2. the disciple participates in church life in love and contributes according to their spiritual gift or ministry for the welfare of others, not for personal exaltation, not to show themselves important nor to rule over others
3. the life of sanctification by the Holy Spirit in accordance with the word of God in the Bible is a life which each person learns at their own pace
4. the good disciple of Jesus Christ is a responsible and law-abiding person

G. Government

1. Government is a minister of God to ensure the safety and wellbeing of everyone, be they believer or not
2. In France, the government is committed to respect the fundamental Rights of all, be they believer or not : private life, family life, liberty of opinion and meeting to express your views be they religious or otherwise
3. the government has the right and the duty to watch over public life in order to ensure everyone that the fundamental rights of all are respected

December 2025

the author of http://www.Esdras.page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The outcome of the 2024 General Election precipitated the current crisis on the Right of British politics: How can the Right now win the next General Election? That however is a tactical problem; the strategic issue is : What exactly does the Right stand for; what exactly should it seek to implement ?

On June 23^rd 2016, the British electorate told the world it wanted to be British, not European; it confirmed the Brexit Referendum result in a General Election after 3 years of Remain Establishment resistance to Brexit: the electorate gave Boris Johnson a decisive, unexpected 80 seat majority in the Commons on the strength of his promise to get Brexit done. The Right is duty bound to implement the logic of Brexit. The British Constitutional palimpsest must be restored to its original state: the alien overwriting of European innovation erased.

Membership of the European Convention on Human Rights and the associated Court at Strasbourg must end. Every constitutional reform since 1997 must be repealed. Devolution, the Supreme Court, and the piece-meal, fiddling with the House of Lords. Ditto the 1998 Human Rights Act. Ditto the 2010 Equality Act. All the associated Agencies created to embed the new culture in our administration of government must also be abolished.

The submission of the historic British (essentially English) Constitution to alien, ideologically inspired and unrealistic European innovation must end. Such submission was unconstitutional in the first place.

To achieve this, the Right must renew its faith in that tradition. It must alter the paradigm of debate and talk common sense. It needs the courage to wipe away Woke infiltration and to restore the vital Christian ethos. It must reject the constitutional disaster of the last 3 decades and grasp the four fundamentals of Faith, Family, Flag, and Freedom – liberty according to our heritage in Magna Carta and the constitutionally critical 1689 Declaration of Right.

The Church of England is a cornerstone institution in our historic constitution. It has a vital role to play. Its identity and function is to be the Church of our historic nation. But will it again believe in the God of the Bible, and desist from philosophical theology and atheistic woke culture? Will it restore the 1611 Authorised Version of the Bible and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer – the spiritual foundations for the 1689 Declaration of Right and subsequent landmark reign of William and Mary? Will it teach us to worship God as revealed in the Bible ? Will it stop appeasing the whims of fallen humanity?  

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me…

Family is the bedrock and building block of the nation. The Right must promote Family and condemn outright every law, agency or policy acting to destroy it. Parents must retain the final say concerning the welfare of their children. Responsibility and Duty must displace the mentality and priority of extremist individualism.

To do that we need to cultivate a Christian mentality in society, especially in our schools. Comparative theology and other religions may be appropriate studies at university; they have no place in schools. Take France. When Secretary of State for education in 2023, Gabriel Attal stated in the Assemblée Nationale that the purpose of French schools is to produce citizens of the Republic. Why should we be ashamed to give British children the benefit of their national heritage ? It is their birthright.  Christian culture and family values must determine the moral climate and practice of Britain to save it from prevalent degradation.

Moral truth must inform our laws and our culture.

So too must the Christian attitude of grace. A pre-eminent Christian ethos can establish the proper demarcation between what is the province of Society and State, and what belongs to the domain of individual private life.

Teleology is strategically vital. The Materialist teleology dictating the western worldview and ethics today is egocentric: its anarchic consequences are evident in increasing crime and unbridled greed. The teleology of the Christian paradigm, however, teaches that we shall answer to God. It engenders responsibility and accountability. It is civilising. In this paradigm the individual is expected to take responsibility for their life, and to be mindful of how their actions impact others.

Issues such as homosexuality or induced abortion, then, are not matters for criminal law. They are not matters for the State to Judge. They are matters for personal conscience and decision, as too are philosophical and religious beliefs.

Christianity provides society and government with a clear moral framework combined with a tolerant, open culture to encourage responsible attitudes. The individual will answer to God on the Day of Judgement. A society expressing the grace of a loving and moral God must take such an attitude while upholding a clear moral code for public policy.

I don’t believe in either abortion or homosexuality. Nor do I believe in Philosophy or any other religion. I believe wholeheartedly in Christianity: a gracious God calls us to obey and to take responsibility in our own lives.

As a minister of God, the State must conduct itself according to God’s rules and temperament, not according to the anarchic ambitions of the sinful heart. The State is duty bound to wield the sword of justice: victims and society must be protected and the criminal mentality punished – might is not right! Zero tolerance and tough sentences defend the victim and discipline the criminal. Good order is the foundation of all good things wrote Edmund Burke.

But Officialdom in Western society today holds an alien and unrealistic Creed. It exhibits a religious zeal to police individual conscience. Such was the mindset of James II. The Christian reign of William & Mary turned its back on that, setting England irrevocably on the path to tolerance and liberty. In the decades following, Frenchmen marvelled: Voltaire praised English liberty and Montesquieu cited England as an example of the healthy constitutional balance between legislature, executive and judiciary.

But in Britain today, these strategic, historic truths are censored. The 1689 Declaration of Right should be front and centre in our legal, historical and political understanding. But British universities and government have evidently buried this document as inconvenient and irrelevant.

The historic nature and identity of Britain is Protestant Christian: not Islamic, Atheist or anything else. That Christian tradition should be the norm. It should again mark out Britain as distinct from non-Christian nations. Tolerance and forgiveness; care for the vulnerable; compassion, not condemnation. Love your neighbour as yourself. Jesus Christ is our model.

The traditional British conception and practice of freedom predates all European Declarations of Rights. That tradition ensured our rights, not via a deified State condescension, but as an inheritance no government may destroy. Our rights originate in the repeated affirmation of Magna Carta in the 13^th century and the definitive affirmation of our national constitution by the Declaration of Right in 1689. That point had to be made explicit to the encroaching, domineering European Project in 1988 when Margaret Thatcher made her Bruges speech on the 300^th anniversary of the deliverance of England from a tyrannical, ideologically intolerant Executive.  In the face of ideological disruption, that speech asserted what really matters and what cannot be surrendered under any circumstances.

The Right-wing deals with the world as it really is; it eschews reform according to artificial, innovative, ideological imperatives. 1689 was an adjustment to guarantee traditional customs, religion and freedoms going forward. The Right reforms to conserve. So, the Right today must not only restore the historic British constitution but make it relevant going forward – relevant to a free people who, by definition, must consent and approve. Radical change is therefore urgent.

A wholly locally financed county and borough government would account correctly to its electorate. The Privy Council and its judicial committee are opaque and unaccountable: abolish them and transfer their duties to a dedicated Parliamentary committee. The House of Lords should be a streamlined, 300 seat chamber renewed by one third every 5 years from party lists according to the percentage of votes cast for each party in the previous General Election. In addition, Anglican Bishops would continue to sit ex officio but without voting rights.

The Executive should be constrained by defining its income constitutionally. Taxation should be simplified and limited to an income tax, a transaction tax, and a local levy to finance all local government spending. Rates capped at 10%. All government borrowing phased out over 10/20 years. A free and responsible people should dispose of their own income, and the State which serves them constrained constitutionally to prevent the ideological excesses we are all so familiar with.

A sovereign United Kingdom helped frame post-war Treaties on European Human Rights – treaties now highjacked by Ideologues to Political Ends. It was a freedom loving Britain which stood against Fascism, Nazism and Communism. The Common law and Westminster parliamentary model have proved an incalculable blessing to millions around the world. It was the British tradition of freedom and justice which the young people of Hong Kong were desperate to retain in 2019.

These are the terms and convictions on which the Right must now talk and act.

 

the substance of this post was submitted as an article to The Critic magazine on August 22nd 2025 but I have had no response. I publish an improved version here because of the significance of the content. I reassert the classic understanding of the foundations of the English-British Constitution which are being ignored in all current discussion; I make radical and ideologically coherent proposals about taxation; I propose a completely new idea for the reform of the House of Lords – a proposal which is virutally costless yet simple and democratic: that the composition of voting members of the House of Lords should reflect the proportions of the vote for each party in previous General Elections (Independent candidates treated together as a party for such purpose). Who knows, the Critic may yet be prepared to give this post the publicity it surely merits. 

GRC Friday 3rd October 2025

 

“Double or quits”: such are the terms French media used to report the surprise news of a confidence vote in the current French government. In the face of the Left-wing call for strikes on 10th September to protest against the proposed Budget for 2026, Prime Minister François Bayrou has just grabbed back the initiative: parliament will debate a motion of confidence in his government on Monday 8th September 2025, 2 days before the anticipated upheaval for the economy.

This deft move by the prime minister should bring France back from the brink of disaster – at least for now. Parliament does not normally meet again until October and the Left had decided to bring down both government and budget even before the new session starts. That is an indication of the insurrectionary mentality on the Left in France.

In the social and public order context of France today, however, such a move is to play with fire: the total meltdown of law and order, even open civil war.

Who is François Bayrou; what is the crisis; and what does this latest event say about the political state of France today?

François Bayrou is aged 74 and a longstanding senior figure in the Centre of French politics: he is leader of the Modem party and former minister for education. He was among the first to back Emmanuel Macron for president in the 2017 election. He recognised the rising star – one indication of his political nous. Modem support is essential to the Centrist coalition President Macron has relied on since 2022. Bayrou played that trump card in late 2024 to take the premiership from Macrons preferred candidate following the resignation of Michel Barnier. It took an extremely ambitious (or stupid !) politician to grab at the top prize when Michel Barnier had already failed to do the impossible: solve the budget crisis caused by Macron adding a Trillion euro to the State Debt, which today stands at 3.2 trillion …

Bayrou survived against the odds when he allowed the 2024 budget to repeat for 2025, the default device in France to ensure a Budget when parliament cannot agree one.

In July 2025 François Bayrou deliberately trailed his proposed Budget for 2026 which requires a 44 billion euro saving in the annual State deficit. The Left reacted predictably, ideologically and in total disregard for the reality of State finances today: they called for strikes before parliament could sit again, explicitly to bring down both government and the 2026 Budget proposal.

Since the unexpected announcement of a confidence vote last Monday, Left-wing media have wheeled out their economists to tell us that no budget crisis threatens the French State. Well, Bayrou gave a speech to a national conference of business leaders in Paris on Thursday 28th August and said this: in 2020 the annual interest alone on the accumulated public debt was 30 billion euros; in 2024 that had become 60 billion euros; in 2027, the year scheduled for presidential elections, the interest payments on the debt will become the biggest budget item of State spending, more than for Education or Pensions or “missions régaliennes” ie security both abroad and domestic – the highest spend in 2024 at 79 billion.

Macron meddles vociferously and militarily overseas: yet at home, France suffers increasing breakdown in law and order, including systematic attacks on the police by organised criminals and by political extremists.

The French people do not need war with Russia: they already have war zones at home because Emmanuel Macron has refused to confront crime correctly: he has continued the Establishment policy of pretending the problem does not exist and allowing the Socialist dominated Judiciary to consider the criminal before the victim. Macron, however, does need a war with Russia to divert attention from his failings at home; to promote his ambition to be President of Europe; to keep favour with the western plutocratic interests salivating at the prospect of carving up extensive Russian natural resources.

France is now in a position similar to that before the Revolution in 1789. So says an Op-ed in Le Journal du Dimanche on 24th August 2025. Not only are French State finances extremely vulnerable, the state of law and order in France today is desperate. Over the last year the emboldened, insurrectionary attitude of hooligans, of drugs gangs, and of Far Left militants has become blatant. That is hardly surprising when the President of France thinks only in soundbites and globalisation, and ignores the essential needs of the French people.

Bringing matters to a head in Parliament instead of on the streets, is a deft move by Bayrou. In fact it is absolutely necessary. If – as is likely – he fails to win the vote, he must resign.  The president is then faced with the choice of appointing a new government, or dissolving parliament. That choice is actually a ‘no brainer’ in the context of France today: he must dissolve parliament. Why ? To keep political activity within constitutional and institutional parameters – and off the streets. It is the logic of the Bayrou initiative. The situation requires a government based on a parliamentary majority. But Macron is so absorbed by his Agenda, he may well try to appoint another Prime Minister unacceptable to Left-wingers, and so allow the situation to spiral out of control…

But new elections in the autumn may well only delay the crisis, anyway. If the Left wins, they will likely make the Budget deficit worse, as well as continue to ignore the crisis in law and order and the problem of religious extremism. If the centre Right comes in, they will be faced with the same straight refusal of the Left to swallow any budget restraint, and so the unions will be on the streets again. If the Rassemblement National wins, the Left regards Revolution as perfectly legitimate.

All this is not helped by a media mentality which hypes to gain audience share (nb the ‘double or quits’ metaphor); which thinks according to the ideological stereotypes of our day; and which fails to take its share of the responsibility for the state of French politics today.

In short, catastrophe is coming …

 

France this weekend celebrates the violent overthrow of the Old Order characterised by unelected elites and class privilege. Her Constitution encapsulates the fundamental political principle espoused by all western democracies today: government of the people, by the people, for the people. Our western political system is predicated on government for the peoples interests, as the people see their interests …

Power no longer resides in a privileged elite with authority to serve its own interests at the expense of the interests of the people as a whole. Those interests include the right to access ideas and express their views in a peaceable and respectful manner, and to vote for the government and the policies they want implemented: and to have them implemented.

In broad and straightforward terms, that is what our western political culture means. But is this actually the case ?  Or are we subject to a privileged elite pursuing its own interests in defiance of the peoples true interests ?

Events of the last week suggest the latter.

Last week, the king of France went to visit the king of England. There was a lot of pomp and ceremony so characteristic of the old order of aristocratic privilege; and there was lots of message massaging from politicians and media . But there was little evidence of respect either for the expressly declared will of the people in Referenda on Europe or for  their interests and liberties.

The British media majored on the patently fallible and cosmetic Macron-Starmer accord on illegal migration from France to England; the substantial business of military co-operation against Russia was largely ignored, however.

That substantial business revolved around their obligations as vassals of the Washington Suzerain.  Macron and Starmer took an historic step to advance the western plutocracy’s interests in Ukraine and Russia, ignoring the true interests of the French and British people. So, France and the UK will now expand their military co-operation to Corps strength, ready to deploy in Ukraine which is not a member of either the EU or NATO.  Worse, they agreed to co-ordinate the deployment of their nuclear arms against Russia. As America is now focused on war in Asia, the Europeans are required to cover the European Sector.

As my last post on this website outlines, preparing for war against Russia is patent nonsense. Russia cannot even overwhelm Ukraine, and the Russians themselves are sick of the war, as western media keep telling us …

Russia, of course, has vast natural resources in a world increasingly aware that resources are limited. Before Russia was deemed by the western plutocracy to be an enemy, the people of Europe enjoyed the supply of relatively cheap Russian gas and petrol; now they don’t; and the German economy is stalling … However, it will recover when it starts manufacturing armaments for the much hyped war against Russia. A Peace time economy is gradually gearing for war – a war we don’t want and a war we don’t need. But the Plutocrats do.

With British media focus on illegal immigration – or tackling the criminals who traffic innocent migrants – the de facto realignment of the UK within the ambit of the EU is largely overlooked. The Brexit Vote is being buried just as the plutocrats wanted – see Boris Johnsons 2024 autobiography, page 254 “can’t you walk that thing back”.  Johnson was subsequently trashed out; his equally EU hostile successor Liz Truss was excised with surgical precision during a crisis of financial confidence. In came the bankers boy Rishi Sunak. His disinterest in Britains true interests ensured the success of Europhile Starmer. Starmer got the Trump treatment: the UKs part in the Western Plutocratic Dispensation was reiterated and the consequences for disobedience spelt out. Of that I have no doubt.

While Macron and Starmer were playing their parts in London, The Empress Ursula was dutifully playing her rôle in Rome. The Italian capital was host to yet another big business meeting to siphon off the finances of ordinary Europeans and boost big business profits reconstructing Ukraine. War or peace, mega money men always make money. Our Ursula was notably absent, however,  from the vote in the EU’s ‘Parliament’ over her refusal to reveal details about the €35 billion contract for the Pfizer vaccine.

The vote went well in her favour, telling us that true democracy in Europe is in a comatose state. The indictment against her is damning and follows the European Court of Justice ruling that her conduct in refusing to release information about Covid drug contracts was unjustified. Remember, Boris Johnson was ousted as Prime Minister for supposedly partying during lockdown, not for refusing to give critical information about the spending of vast sums of public money. Clearly parliamentary oversight is negligible in the European empire: the institutional norms of national democracies just don’t work there, especially when the motion of censure is initiated by the despicable eastern European “extreme Right”.

While all these political manoeuvres for war were going on in Europe, the US was conducting real military manoeuvres with its Asian allies off the Korean Peninsula. Specialist B52 bombers designed to deliver nuclear weapons were reported present. Can you imagine just how the Americans would feel – and how their trigger happy military would react – if Russia, China and North Korea carried out such menacing manoeuvres off Florida or California ? The world was brought to the brink of nuclear annihilation in 1962 because Russias Kruschev had the audacity to give the US government a dose of its own medicine. The Russians backed off from Cuba when the Americans cancelled their threat from Turkey – the actual cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The scenario is similar today and Russia is no longer even Soviet ... The western plutocrats men in the Pentagon are menacing Russia and China on all sides.

The answer to the crisis today is the same: back off !

Stop the hypocrisy; stop the propaganda; stop engineering consent from Western electorates to pursue the deceitful and dangerous ambitions of Western Plutocracy.

The true enemy is greed.

 

 

NATO general secretary Mark Rutte expects member states to boost their budget contribution to the NATO war machine from 2% to 5% of their GDP to meet the potential threat from Russia or China 5 years from now. 

Monday 9th June 2025 was a national holiday in France. The occasion commemorates Pentecost. The coming of the promised Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, and help us to obey the peace loving teaching of Jesus Christ.

But in Britain Pentecost was marked by a speech calling for sacrifice to the Wests new god – Material Man. Unlike the Christian God, this god is indeed the opiate of the gullible masses. Mark Rutte is peddling the lie that western liberties will henceforth depend on serious sacrifices.

Much more of our taxation must now go to building a bigger, better war machine to slay the Beast from the East. Blood of course will be offered up: our youth must be sacrificed on the altar of the new Religion: Rationalist Materialism.

The West of course is peace loving – we do not seek war. But we will not shirk our Duty. Duty to whom and for what, I ask ?

We must now make serious sacrifices to stave off a possible threat 5 years away … Rutte cites Statistics to prove that the forces of evil are spending more and more on weapons to destroy our way of life.  In 5 years time they could have superiority and they  might decide to attack us – look at Ukraine ! The signs are all there.

We are morally obliged to go to war to save Ukraine. That she is not a member of NATO or the EU is a mere technicality to be ignored. Yet the awesome technicality of Article 5 can be invoked: an attack on a member State serves as casus belli and justifies a military response …

In other words, we invoke strategic technicalities when it suits, not when it doesn’t. That is neither the spirit nor the practice of the Rule of Law and of a Rules based international order: but it is evidence of ideological and political manipulation of information.

Rutte asserts a dubious thesis and edits reality accordingly. Worse, he insults us by deploying the psychology of childrens stories. There is a big bad wolf and he is prowling around to get innocent little Red Riding Hood….

So what is the truth; what is the context ?

A local dispute between Russia and Ukraine is presented as a threat to world security. Ditto the local dispute between China and Taiwan which is none of our business. Taiwan is, however,  the business of Global Big Business, therefore serious American forces are deployed there, along with the threat of nuclear force against China …

Ukraine of course has been the target of western economic interests for some time. It has mineral and food resources which the West wants. So, rogue Russia must not get them. The Deal Trump recently blackmailed Zelensky into signing says it all. Zelensky has sold the resources of Ukraine to the Western Plutocracy. It is since then, that the lackies of the Western Plutocracy in European capitals and Brussels have become united in going onto an all-out war footing in order to enforce the Rights of Pax Americanas Big Business interests in Ukraine.

Russia has been marked as an enemy. Why ?  Because she opted out of vassalage to the West. She was considered a loyal vassal all the while she let western multinationals exploit her resources and her market. The West had no complaints during all those years they were buying cheap Russian oil and gas etc. Yes cheap. Germany grew rich on Russian resources sold cheaply to the West on the Wests terms.

So Why didn’t Russia attack the West then ? Why did Russia raise her worries at the Munich Security conference in 2007 – why didn’t the Woke West listen then ? Why did Russia wait 7 years before invading Ukraine in 2014 ? Why did the West continue to do business with Russia after the 2014 invasion of Ukraine ? Why didn’t the Woke West negotiate when Russia conducted military manoeuvres on the Ukrainian border in the 3 months before the 2022 invasion, simultaneously calling for an international treaty to guarantee the independance of Ukraine outside NATO and the EU ? Despite the patent precedent of the 2014 Russian invasion, the West refused negotiations. Why ?

The truth about the Western Plutocracy is manifest in Trumps claims on Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal. A conceited personality and mediocre negotiator, Trump simply said what the Western Plutocracy wants: control of the increasingly precious resources of this planet. The truth about western intentions and western tactics is revealed in the nature of the Trump-Zelensky Deal and those multi billion dollar trade agreements Trump made with Gulf states just recently.

Back in 1997, Soviet era American expert George F Kennan publicly questioned the continued existence of NATO in a world no longer threatened by Russia or China. That truth was evident in the chummy reception of Russia and China into the Global Big Business club during three decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Yet NATO WAS SUSTAINED and the American war machine maintained despite the fact that such war spending was making the Federal US Debt worse and worse. The explanation is simple: Big Money supplies the Credit and so Big Money calls the shots: Big Global Money hiding behind the facade of world liberty. The entire arrangement makes the innocent American people liable for the debt created by Big Moneys global war machine…

If there is war with Russia or China in the next few years it will be because the Western Kleptocracy has turned two local crises into global issues and built up a military threat to Russian and Chinese interests. Currently, the West is besieging Russia from eastern Europe and containing China within an arc of American military bases and war ships.

This policy of military confrontation to impose Western vassalage on Russia and China has already driven resource rich Russia into the arms of Totalitarian China. This stupid, warmongering attitude must be called out and cancelled .. before it all gets entirely out of hand …

Their lust for power and control of resources blinds the western plutocrats into believing that Russias resources will be up for grabs if the West weakens Russia in Ukraine. They believe that Russia can be dismembered and separated from China. And they can do it all in the name of Western Liberty, the Rule of Law and a Rules based Intermational Order…

Accordingly, they are selling us the lie that this is 1939 again. It is not !  This is akin to the madness displayed in 1914 …

 

 

 

 

Today the funeral of the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, took place. He was much respected.

But the Pope was as mortal as any of us, and undoubtedly just as fallible. We are all made in the image of God, but we are also subject to the dictates of our sinful nature since the Fall from Grace depicted in Genesis 3. Jesus Christ came to reverse that spiritual catastrophe,  to restore relationship and hope in God our Creator, our Sustainer, and our King. I take that as fact, and endeavour to live my life accordingly. I fail persistently, but I know that God exists, and I know his intervention of love, grace and fatherly correction in the here and now.

The life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me, wrote the apostle Paul to the Galatians. That is the Gospel message in its essence and that is the reality which the Christian is called to live out daily. Death is of the essence in the Christian life – death to self, and learning to live instead in the resurrection life of Christ accorded to those who trust in the gospel message and and turn their back on their corrupt Adamic nature.

It is by the faith God has granted to me and to every gospel believer that I say this; it is not of my natural, fallen, self which still gainsays God. To that fallen, Adamic life I must die, daily, to learn instead to live the new life in Christ. That is the ‘contract’, as it were, which I entered into definitively when I was baptised by full immersion in water. I forsook the Adamic nature with its selfish impulses, I forsook the anti God thinking and practices of this world, and I refused Satan the right to be God in my life. Henceforth I acknowledged that only Jesus Christ had the right to rule my life, and that one day I would be with him in eternity. Hallelujah !

Death in this life is merely a gateway to the eternal life in Christ which awaits those who belong to Jesus. But for those who live without Christ, there is permanent exclusion from the blessing and knowledge of God – an exclusion embracing eternal damnation. Such a terrifying prospect should make us flee to Christ to be saved !

You may wonder, of course, how I am able to speak in such Biblical terms about my life ?

Or to put that question in the terms which most people in western society today would phrase it:

Why are you such a religious fanatic ?

The answer to that is simple and Biblical. I started to take the Bible seriously in early 1979 – so seriously that I got on my knees before God on Maundy Thursday that year: I surrendered the rights to my life to God my Maker. Now, God already possessed those rights, but I now realised that I had to live on God’s terms, not my own: henceforth, neither I, nor the World system of Self, Self, Self, nor Satan its god, had any right to govern me. Jesus Christ had purchased that right when he took my condemnation upon himself at the cross. God alone has the right to order my life – and I would suggest yours too.  Consider the godless, worsening world today for the alternative without God.

Over 40 years ago, I read and I absorbed the words of Psalm 119.  Verse 11 was among those verses which I took to heart:

Thy word have I hid in mine heart that I might not sin against thee

Psalm 119 is rich in eternal spiritual truth which – when sown in a receptive heart – feeds that eternal spiritual life found in Jesus Christ alone.

The wellspring of my heart has been consciously channelled by God’s spiritual truth recorded in the Bible. I took to heart strategic passages of the Bible as vital truth and wisdom. In Psalm 119 alone we find key guidance like:

Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path – verse 105

the entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple – verse 130

There are several key, strategic Biblical scriptures which I imbibed as a young man in my twenties, and by which I have endeavoured to live, albeit at times not very successfully! But then I am a disciple – a learner. The worth of those scriptures is aptly described by Solomon in chapter 3 of the book of Proverbs in the Bible:

Happy is the man who findeth wisdom ….. length of days is in her right hand and in her left hand riches and honour. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life [ref Genesis 3 and Revelation 22] to them that lay hold upon her and happy is everyone that retaineth her

This world honours mere human beings – from concert singers and actors to sports personalities and political personalities. Such reverence often amounts to deification – in spiritual terms, it constitutes idolatry.

I thank God almighty that I discovered many years ago the vital need to live by the truth expressed in the Bible, such as:

the fear of man brings a snare but whosoever putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe

the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge but fools despise wisdom and instruction

This Biblical perspective and its paradigm explain why there is so much evil and disorder in this world. Only God our Maker should be God in our lives. To allow any person or any ideology such spiritual authority is to wander on the broad way to destruction. The path to life in Christ is narrow, and that narrow way is via the cross: that is death to Self ie stop obeying your own selfish instincts and instead obey Jesus Christ and God’s spiritual truth recorded in the Bible. It works !

 

 

In the western world, this time of year used to be about the coming of Jesus Christ into the world as a beacon of light and hope. Indeed, the Christmas Eve edition of the Ouest France featured a front page editorial about the nativity and its meaning. It was not a bad piece at all, but it was from a humanistic perspective: it therefore talked about justice for the underprivileged, for example. Fair enough.

But Jesus, bringing spiritual light into the world, God coming in flesh to restore us to relationship with God – no, of course not. Understandably. The Ouest France is a self declared humanist publication. Again fair enough.

Jesus Christ as God actually come in the flesh takes some swallowing for most people. Understandably. After all, the Bible tells us that to be converted you actually need God given faith. God must act in your life to enable you to believe: ie actually to accept as true and to live your life trusting in that truth.

God broke into history 2000 years ago. Since then, God has entered countless human hearts as the God who becomes flesh and dwells among us full of grace and truth. I give thanks that God deigned to make it Christmas in my life all those years ago.

Grace and truth. Grace and truth being predicated on the spiritual reality and presence of God. Objective truth. Real. Real to so many people over the centuries and in so many lives today.

A grace and a truth by which we may live and learn to live as Christ came and taught us. As a Christian I literally live and learn, not just intellectually, but in very real ways. Accommodating God’s truth in my life demands that I acknowledge where I am wrong, and that I then put right the wrong – invariably an attitude or habit. This is fundamental to all else; it informs all else; it determines how I view all else.

Being a disciple means learning to live as Christ requires. It means that my approach to life is one of adaption and appropriation. I adjust me, not my circumstances, and certainly not other people. I will answer to God for my life, and others must answer to God for themselves come the fearful Day of Judgment – and yes, that is real and I can say so because of God given faith, not my own natural, fallen sense of credibility.

I am keenly aware of the fact that human beings find it so difficult to change and adapt. Experience shows that normally we don’t. We continue to make the same mistakes regardless of the evidence or the harm it may do. Clear evidence of the sinful, Fallen nature of our humanity.

It’s why I need Christ and his teaching to remind me and show me the way. Otherwise I know how easily I can fail.

I pity those whose outlook has no such safeguard or point of external reference. They have no where else to look but inside themselves, or else to those belief systems in this world which grant us excuses to remain self centred.

The problem in todays western world is that the prevailing Religion is Materialism. Consumerism, selfism, atheism. They all have the same root: a purely Material and Godless conception of our existence.

God does not actually cease to exist, except in their perception. Their need of God does not cease to be there in their hearts – but they address that need by filling it with some aspect of the Material.

Instead of changing themselves and their outlook, they look everywhere else but to the real answer. Where there is blame, it with others or with “the system”. So, others must change, or the system must be changed. Everything else must change, but not the real root – ME and my wants and my ambitions and my material, man centred answer. Change the world, but not me…

Change the Rules. Change everybody else’s attitude. Get inside their heads and make them change. Not me.

So they go with human centred plans. They cancel out God, and they put MAN into the place where only God should be.

That’s the western world today. That’s the mindset ruling its intelligentsia. That’s the mindset ruling its governance in every area. That’s the mindset ruling academia, to the point of absurdity.

The really clever, clever people just don’t learn … And because they understand so much and know so much with their intellects, they fail to see the fundamental issue and the true key. It’s not intellectual power that makes you better able to see the answers to this lifes problems, or to make a superior judgement about politics and morality.

It’s your attitude and your perspective. If you are your own god, then you don’t need to change, others do – especially as you know so much better than they do, being blessed with a superior intellect. And if they don’t want to comply, then you are morally obliged to oblige them. To compel them through re-education and rules and laws, and sanctions for the recalcitrant. Even though your own mentality has and continues to show you to be so wrong about how you are looking at things.

So, it is no real surprise when the authorities at the University of Oxford refuse to face facts and see that what they are doing is making things worse, not better.

They set up a new election procedure to elect a Chancellor. Embarrassingly, they had to change it because they had originally insisted on invoking an article of their Materialist religion, Equality Diversity and Inclusion. They had not understood that so many other people see EDI as fundamentally religious and ideological: Dogma, Intolerance and Exclusion – DIE –  as I have tried to elaborate above.

Farce followed as their default psychology – Rule making – bound them into an untenable position when it comes to doing real things in the real world. They allowed 38 candidates on the ballot paper, many of whom had nothing to do with the University or had no aptitude for the post. One candidate expressed his interest in just one, questionable sentence …. Yet the Authorities excluded one highly experienced graduate of the University for the simple reason that his religion did not accord with the Materialism dominating Oxford today.  Even the sophisticated electorate of the Convocation of the University of Oxford could not be trusted with the option of electing a Monotheist believer… The control freakery of the mindset dominating Oxford today was demonstrably incapable of allowing even the remote possibility that Imran Khan might be elected. Complete outsiders and inappropriate chancers were on the ballot, but not a former Prime Minister …

But this entirely self generated and self inflicted farce did not teach the authorities at Oxford just how foolish is the dominating influence of their de facto religion.

Instead of reviewing and changing, they doubled down as if they were perfectly right and any criticism plainly wrong.

The Vice Chancellor went ahead with a new series of termly discussions on contemporary topics to be held in the symbolic inner sanctum  of the University, the Sheldonian Theatre. The Sheldonian Series is billed as a termly event that will model what free speech and the vibrant exchange of ideas should look like in a University.

The first was held on November 25th 2024. The official news report of that discussion highlighted one contribution as follows:

it would appear to be ‘a very careless moment for democracy,’ and that Trump’s election would empower authoritarian populists elsewhere, who will all say that they are anti-system not anti-Democracy – that they in fact represent the majority over a small elite, instead of the other way round…………… But this is America in 2024, and Anne-Marie suggests that the framing of the rights of minorities within the American constitution is now at risk. 

I am pretty safe in saying, I think, that the above reflects the moral, philosophical, political and psychological assumptions via which the Oxford Authorities view the world. It is an ideological and patently partisan stance which should have no place in a University. It reflects an ideological conception of democracy, not a realistic or practical one.

Trump was elected constitutionally, and convincingly. Yet something, they say, is seriously wrong with democracy ….

Yet again the University manifests its de facto religious stance.

That stance – also apparently spearheaded by the Vice Chancellor – saw the introduction of “EDI induction” for Freshers at 17 colleges of the University in October 2024. The perspective and paradigm of Oxfords unfortunate new religion are to be instilled in new students as a matter of course, now.

Students no longer go to Oxford simply to be educated for a degree in their chosen field of study. The University now arrogates the right to tell them how to conduct their thinking and behaviour. It assumes the right to propagate a particular worldview – a worldview criticised in the wider world as questionable, and a worldview which exposed problems in the way the University actually handled the election of a new Chancellor.

The University of Oxford now reinvents and redefines the relationship between university and student. It is a redefinition born out of an ideological view of the university function. As I have attempted to explain above, it is an ideological view which refuses to accept other views as valid and which instead seeks to propagate its own mentality as universally correct and uniquely legitimate. It manifests the traits of religious zeal.

It is all the more remarkable for being a Christless counterfeit of the simple Christian tenet, love thy neighbour as thyself. Five words needing no financial outlay nor new administration of true believers to propagate it.

What, I wonder, would be the reaction if I were to suggest that the University of Oxford should provide courses in Christianity – such courses to be endorsed by the University as the official moral reference for the behaviour of University staff and students ?

Outrage, I suspect. But this new religion may be introduced on the pretext that it is not a religion. Actually, atheism is a religion. It is a symptom of a Materialist view of life and is held just as tenaciously.

And then of course there is the new “partnership” with EIT – the Ellison Institute of Technology. On 3rd December 2024 the University announced this as ” A Grand Alliance” and stated:

Larry Ellison, Chairman of Oracle Corporation and Chief Technology Officer, said:

‘At EIT, our mission is to have a global impact by fundamentally reimagining the way science and technology translate into end-to-end solutions for humanity’s most challenging problems. This long-term, strategic partnership with the University of Oxford is at the heart of delivering on that goal. By collaborating on transformational, world-class research programmes harnessing new technology and compute capability we will together deliver positive impact on society at scale.‘

Man is now his own salvation. He can reimagine this world any way he wishes, and the Superman elite are entitled to foist the solutions offered by their man centred faith upon the rest of us.

MAY GOD HELP US !

see also my Page on Artificial Intelligence

The University of Oxford announced today that Lord William Hague has been elected as the new Chancellor of the University. CONGRATULATIONS to him.

My primary reason for this post, however, is to say a heartfelt THANK YOU to the 67 Oxonians who gave me their 1st preference vote. I am deeply grateful to them, and very conscious of the confidence they expressed in me and in the conception of the Chancellorship which I declared in my Statement of Interest [repeated below as an annexe]. I am truly heartened to know that there were 67 people – plus 6 lower preference voters – who agree the need for a more coherent and pertinent conception of the Chancellorship of our ancient alma mater in preference to the more narrow, piecemeal, sales role declared in the official ‘Job Description’.

Again, THANK YOU so much.

Secondly, I do sincerely congratulate William Hague. He is an immensely capable and experienced person who, I am sure, will serve the University with a commitment that comes from love and a sense of honour. He and I will disagree on much – though not quite all – and  I am sure that he will meet the expectations of the Academic Establishment far better than someone like me from right outside that Establishment. After all, I did stand for very good and heartfelt reasons.

I congratulate the University too on having the courage to attempt to update the nomination and election procedure for a Chancellor vacancy. They were right to put a 10 year limit on the appointment, and they were right to endeavour to open up the vote in order to achieve the widest consensus possible.

With regard to that consensus, however, lessons clearly need to be learned and improvements implemented to achieve registration of as many alumni as possible. That manifestly failed this time despite their clear intention to widen the vote and achieve as broad a consensus as possible by using an Alternative Vote mechanism. Given the use of such a mechanism and the identical results for the 2 top places in both rounds, a second round of voting was patently unnecessary. Why, then, was it done ?

The desire to open up the nomination process was also laudable, but hit practical problems in the event: as a result of suspicions about political correctness the process was changed. That resulted in nonsense and inappropriate candidates who should never have been on the ballot. In my view, the Chancellorship  should be reserved to a graduate of the University of Oxford. To do otherwise begs the question: for example, why should not the electorate be opened up too ? Can anyone who has not been a student at Oxford really have the experience and affection for this unique institution which the Chancellor of all people must surely exhibit ?

More also needs to be done to establish a level playing field for candidates. A cursory glance at the first round results demonstrates that those with the higher number of votes were all people with public profile. Indeed the profile of the five finalists suggests that fame played a critical part in gaining electors attention. Why did famous candidates resort to campaigning: this is not a political appointment – or is it ?

Personally I accept the result, despite the inequality regarding publicity.  But the University must surely take steps to answer the legitimate questions regarding the election this time – and implement vital changes for next time. It is not satisfactory that the intended broad consensus results in a new Chancellor with less than 10% of total alumni actually registered to vote.

Annexe

The University of Oxford is about to elect a new Chancellor. First round voting resulted in a shortlist of 5 candidates – all titled British Establishment figures, compatible with the liberal/progressive culture of the University.

I was pleased that the University decided to bring the process of electing the Chancellor into the 21st century. Pleased, too, that the University sought to enable the widest possible participation of alumni by introducing online voting with a proportional representation system to achieve the broadest possible consent. But why were some 90% of Oxford graduates not registered to vote ?

There are other significant questions to be asked, too.  Why did it take 9 months to appoint a new Chancellor; what inspired the Rule changes; and why did 2024 Final year students participate ?

Answer:  the prevalent culture in the University of Oxford.

A good example of this cultural influence was the choice of speaker for the 2022 Romanes Lecture, Micheal Martin, then Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

In his Romanes lecture, Martin clearly expected all normal, civilised people to agree with his perspective and paradigm. Anyone who does not agree must be stupid and in need of education; otherwise they are incorrigible bigots. Or –  as the current Vice Chancellor said in her October 2024 Oration – they are people who

” divide us into same-looking and same-thinking tribes, whether by selfish design or accidental algorithm “.

At Oxford, then, it is black or white, and there are absolutely no shades of intermediate grey ranging between the extremes of complete black and total white. In fact it’s so black and white, that the Vice Chancellor wants to ensure that all new students at Oxford are properly versed in this new Doctrine. In her recent Oration, she informs us:

” based on a successful pilot of EDI inductions for incoming undergraduates and graduates, we are rolling out an EDI induction for all freshers at 17 colleges this week. Based on findings from a collaborative research project, we know that 62% of the British public believe that EDI is a good thing, with only 12% saying it’s bad.”

It appears, then, that Oxford is to have an official religion, one apparently endorsed by popular opinion according to a particular piece of research selected to prove the point. Clearly the former Christian ethos of the University has been updated to become a Christ-less version of the Christian teaching, ” love your neighbour as yourself “. That simple, comprehensive formula comprising 5 simple words now gives way to a plethora of rituals and mantras designed to elaborate and reinforce the Creed of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.

This Christ-less, superfluous and perverse revision of love your neighbour as yourself got Oxford into political trouble in the Spring. As a result,  the University was shamed into changing the rules for electing the next Chancellor.

The effect of the Rule change, however, was to emasculate the election committee and destroy its vital, essential role: to screen out inappropriate candidates.

Result ?

38 approved candidates in the first round ballot, many totally inappropriate. One Statement of Interest said merely: “If I got selected I will work with honesty and welfare of the university and development of students and university.” That was it !

The University was embarrassed into taking such a senseless step because in the real world, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion – EDI – is seen as Dogma, Intolerance and Exclusion – DIE. Outside academia, there is actually another point of view, with another paradigm. Brexit and the recent re-election of Donald Trump as President of the United States next year demonstrate this uncomfortable reality.

But for the liberal-progressive western intelligentsia Trump’s decisive win does not compute with mental sanity. Surely all decent, sensible people recognise the axiomatic wisdom of the liberal agenda – only idiots and bigots disagree !

In the real world, however, most people do not share the narrow, ideological, religious mindset prevalent in academia.

Is it not time academia woke up to the world beyond, and started allowing for other perspectives and other paradigms. Is not the impartial examination and assessment of  different perspectives and paradigms a distinct characteristic of the academic – and what marks it out from every other type of activity ?

Oxford’s assumption of a doctrinaire sense of moral rectitude not only gives rise to disdain for any other way of thinking. It has also manifestly led it to neglect the vital importance of reliable and routine procedure based on what the situation requires – not what EDI demands.

The 2024 changes to the Statutes and Regulations concerning this election indicate that the University was either unprepared or unwilling [or both !] to proceed immediately the 82 year old Lord Patten announced his forthcoming retirement last February. So, the incoming Chancellor will not be elected until 9 months after, in late November 2024 – months after Lord Patten’s actual departure.

But perhaps that was deliberate.

Why ?

So that the vice Chancellor’s novel, doctrinaire and superfluous EDI/DIE project mentioned above could be  installed as a fait accompli in the meantime ?

Perhaps so that 2024 finalists could vote, too ?  Note the indecent haste with which final year undergraduates were enabled to enlist on the electoral roll before August 18th – before their degrees had even been conferred.  A special Graduation ceremony was organised for October 1st expressly to enable them to vote in the first round ballot week commencing 28th October. That exceptional step was taken to meet the technical requirement of the explicit election Rule which excludes current students. The spirit of that  Rule was entirely cast aside !

To the ideologically minded, of course, Rules are merely weapons in their armoury…

If we are so concerned to maximise the electorate, and so keen to pursue Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, then surely the entire electorate of the United Kingdom should be enfranchised to elect the Chancellor for one of the kingdom’s ancient, prestigious universities ? After all, it’s their heritage to which they contribute so much.

What will the new Chancellor “advise” ?

As a voter, I’ll write to the 5 candidates and ask !