Prodnose Priests

Last October I said:

A couple of years back I realised that middle-class snobbery is what drives so much social and political campaigning these days. Probably the best example is the campaign to reduce sugar in people’s diets – for their own good, of course. It is always fizzy drinks and sugary snacks that get cited, never fancy desserts.

Who is trending on Twitter this week, leading the charge in campaigning for the government to introduce new laws aimed at restricting certain foodstuffs in the name of tackling obesity?

I’m sure the lower classes, who are forever blamed for putting a burden on the NHS with their delinquent lifestyles, are delighted to have former Etonian and Oxford graduate Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall telling them how to live. Naturally, multi-millionaire Jamie Oliver is four-square behind him:

Albeit looking rather porky himself. Maybe he should do a little less meddling in other people’s lives and hit the gym? And speaking of Jamie Oliver:

Mr Oliver told BBC Breakfast that he does not ban junk food in his home, but that it is only eaten by his children as a “treat”.

Ah, so he’s free to feed his own fucking brats whatever shit they demand, but the choices of other parents ought to be reigned in by the government.

I’ve said this before, these dickheads would be a lot better off going to church. There they can do all the moral posturing they like, and receive assurances of their virtue from someone who is paid to deliver them. People are fond of saying that religion has declined in Britain, but I disagree: all it’s done is take other forms. The prodnosery, meddling, hand-wringing, and moral sneering at those considered less virtuous is alive and well, it’s just the clothes worn by the high priests are different.

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

26 thoughts on “Prodnose Priests

  1. I go to Church – regularly.

    It’s not others at Church who are called to repent or change or called to action – it’s you. “How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
    The prodnoses are so self virtuous that they wouldn’t recognise their behaviour is hypocritical.

  2. The prodnoses are so self virtuous that they wouldn’t recognise their behaviour is hypocritical.

    Good point.

  3. Before I “reign in” my high horse…
    These guys are chefs, not nutritionists. They have as much right to prescribe the national diet as I have.

  4. “These guys are chefs, not nutritionists….”

    I think you’ll find that they’re television presenters, mostly.

  5. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is, for my money, the most irritating person on British television, bar none. That punchable face, the dreadful vicar-voice – it’s the complete package. Even Gary Lineker and Jamie Oliver pale by comparison.

    Which is a considerable achievement, tho’ not perhaps the one his parents were aiming for when they sent him to Eton.

  6. I’m married to a priest, and recently spent two years living in a theological college in Cambridge while the Rev. Vara trained. Most priests (certainly the younger ones) are to the left of the Guardian, and would go in for a bit of discreet virtue-signalling around the likes of Tate & Lyle. Being “preachy” or expressing a view that someone had done something wrong, however, would be anathema to them. There really are very few of the old prodnose types around any more. That function has passed elsewhere: to the government, quangos, and groups on social media.

  7. I would love to know the BMI of these people. This is something very wrong with fat people campaigning against obesity.

  8. A pedant writes: The only qualification you want to be seeing in relation to nutrition in the U.K. is “Dietician”. That shrivelled coprophiliac old walnut that looked like a deflated Paul McCartney “Dr.” Gillian McKeith and her ilk all self identify as nutritionists, means fuck all.

  9. Yet another reason why the State should not be involved in providing healthcare. I don’t want to be forced to pay for other people’s poor decisions, but if I am, then I have a vested interest in forcing those people to make *good* decisions. This is a responsibility for which I have no desire.

    But individual responsibility would weaken the power of the State, and the Left won’t be happy (if even then!) until it has secured everything within the State, nothing outside the State, and nothing against the State.

  10. On trainee priests: ” Being “preachy” or expressing a view that someone had done something wrong, however, would be anathema to them.”
    Then WTF are they for, then? One would presume being preachy was an essential core activity of professional preachers. It’s not as if you get celibate prostitutes, is it? At least they still understand what they’re for.

  11. The po-faced religion used to be Christianity.

    It is now socialism.

    All the leftists in the Seminary need to be invited to a sitdown dinner — on St Bartholomew’s Day–and then shedloads of thugs and bat-weilders crash in, beat the shite out of the womi “priests” and throw them in the gutter. To mark the end of their Church careers.

    What is needed is quasi-religious Military Orders again like the Templers etc.

    Perhaps an order of Soldier/Engineer Monks. Trained to carry out vast engineering projects for the glory of God as well as wielding military power against our twin foes– socialismo and that other peaceful creed whose name somehow escapes me at this moment.

    Jean Parisot de Valette–one of the few worthwhile Frenchmen. A select group.

  12. “Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall”

    Sure, that’s a real name.

    C’mon, pull the other one.

  13. It would be interesting if someone measured percentage body fat properly on a large sample of people, calibrated that against their health record, and compared to BMI.
    I have seen no evidence (perhaps someone can point to some ) either as to what percentage body fat is ideal for health (as against athleticism), nor that this ideal corresponds with a BMI of 22.5. Given that human beings are three dimensional not two dimensional, I would be amazed if the BMI is much of an indicator since it uses the square of height, rather than the cube.

  14. @Dave on May 10, 2018 at 1:13 pm
    “I think you’ll find that they’re television presenters, mostly.”

    +1

    Oliver, et al “creations” are always:

    “Take a tasty piece of xxxxx, marinade in garlic & olive oil; blah blah, sprinkle with more garlic & olive oil; cook and baste with garlic & olive oil. Serve with a healthy side salad drenched with garlic & olive oil”

    Oil has more calories/g than sugar. All that garlic – may as well start with tin of value dog-food.

    We need to rid Gov’t of Claire Perry, Wollaston, Hammond, Gove and the rest of the nanny state disciples.

    A good start would be abolishing PHE (£5Bn pa) and similar.

  15. I’ll take them seriously when they want to tax Camembert to oblivion and back the same way they want to tax hamburgers.

    Until then, they can “run up a shutter” as they say in the North East of England.

  16. @Tim Newman

    Feedback:

    Forwarded link and unread excerpt. Reply:

    I didn’t go to the link as any good point this author wants to make is destroyed by calling anyone’s children “fucking brats”. That’s a disgusting thing to write.

    Why does he think that’s either ok or that it advanced his case?

    I agree, no expletives – they destroy credibility.

  17. PCar,

    My writing isn’t for everyone, and profanity is as much a rhetorical device as any. I suspect your correspondence is less upset by the profanity than the idea I’m dismissive about somebody’s children as opposed to believing the entre world should be reorganised for the benefit of their little snowflakes.

  18. @Tim Newman

    The chap I quoted is probably more anti-snowflake and anti RoP, EU, LGBxyz appeasement and more pro free market than you.

    Profanities have no place in well articulated articles for a wide audience. Use of them demonstrates a lack of courteous vocabulary.

    You don’t normally use profanities, which is admirable – were you having a bad day and the BBC prodnoses was the last straw?

    Cheers,

    P

  19. You don’t normally use profanities, which is admirable – were you having a bad day and the BBC prodnoses was the last straw?

    Not necessarily, but there might be some truth in that. However, I did consider that phrase somewhat carefully and stuck with it for the following reasons.

    Aside from the snobbery, I believe a lot of what drives this illiberal desire to ban anything and everything is overbearing, middle-class women looking to protect their children from the world. Not a day goes by without somebody posting some stupid campaign on Facebook looking to ban something or other that is harmful to “the children”, and the reason why the Tories are so keen to ban, regulate and nanny is because they have the overwhelming support of middle class mothers (spend a few hours on Mumsnet if you don’t believe me). I’ve written before about how children tend to run the households these days, and how many mothers don’t want to raise functional adults but instead want a “special friend” who will give them unconditional love. Many would have been better off buying a dog. The desire to protect their precious little snowflakes from the world outside is simply an extension of this, and has serious implications for the country because these people vote in their millions. What’s perhaps more worrying is their husbands seem to be buying into this crap as well: I was frankly amazed to see your correspondent is male, he sounds for all the world like a hand-wringing woman on Mumsnet (“Why does he think that’s ok?” is the sort of thing a Millennial writes on Twitter when someone is guilty of wrongthink)

    But here’s the thing: unbeknown to these mothers, and perhaps your correspondent, unless they’re relatives or close friends most men think other people’s children are unsufferable brats. At best, men tolerate other people’s kids but if they’re a complete stranger’s they’d rather have no contact with them whatsoever, yet here we are seeing society reorganised and our own pleasures and conveniences curtailed for their sake! I believe we’d be a lot better off if these hand-wringing middle-class killjoys would understand their precious little snowflakes are insufferable brats in the eyes of everyone else. It is that point I was trying to get across by being utterly contemptuous of Jamie Oliver’s kids.

  20. I’ve had a few discussions about “the priest class” with a very smart American lesbian (who I’m not going to name).

    TV is the church today. Over the 60s and 70s, its adoption led to the gradual demise of the church as a source of public narrative, both in the UK and across the Atlantic. For some time, TV was doing jobs like straight news reporting and general entertainment, but after a while, around the early 90s, the busybodies started to use TV for their own ends. I think things like Live Aid had a huge influence, the idea of TV as a tool of social change rather than just news reporting or entertainment.

    Look at how much news is basically propaganda for social justice warriors now. It’s not really news reporting.

    The good news is that TV is dying. I believe social media is yielding a higher level of discourse that these sorts of people can’t compete with. Unlike TV or radio or newspapers, you don’t need to be pals with someone or in the right sort of places to get a pulpit (Jamie Oliver and Hugh F-W both worked in the strongly New Labour restaurant, The River Cafe). Anyone can write a thing.

  21. “But here’s the thing: unbeknown to these mothers, and perhaps your correspondent, unless they’re relatives or close friends most men think other people’s children are unsufferable brats. At best, men tolerate other people’s kids but if they’re a complete stranger’s they’d rather have no contact with them whatsoever”

    No-one likes to say this, but it’s true. It’s why you only start getting male teachers once kids reach about the age of 10 or 11.

  22. @Tim N

    and perhaps your correspondent, unless they’re relatives or close friends most men think other people’s children are unsufferable brats

    Yes, he dislikes children. His rictus smile when any in his house is obvious, but that is OT.

    He didn’t object to anti-prodnose, but to your expletives especially F word.

    That was complaint. Your diversion to “mums” is just that – diversion.

    Using F word lowers you to Left “standards”. You’re an intelligent, articulate, insightful chap – no need for offensive expletives.

  23. Perhaps if we banned Port and Champagne (and Truffles and Foi Gras) at Oxford?

    And Eton Mess at Eton?!

    And Puddings and other Sweets at Celebrity Chef restaurants?!?!

    Oh, and alcohol (well, maybe 1 unit per evening………

    ………….if the guest blows zero on a breathalyser!)!!!!!

  24. Anon on May 10, 2018 at 2:52 pm said:
    “I would love to know the BMI of these people. This is something very wrong with fat people campaigning against obesity.”

    Quite some time ago a heart specialist did a study and found that his “overweight” to (slightly) “obese” patients were far more likely to survive a heart attack than people of “normal” or below “normal” BMI.

    Recently I’ve read in the news that people who are overweight are more likely to survive various illnesses.

    So it would appear that “overweight” to slightly “obese” is healthier than “normal” weight.

    Hardly surprising when you consider the fact that the “overweight” and “obese” thresholds were arbitrarily lowered a few years back based on nothing but the general consensus that we should be lighter than we are.

    Yes, the “obese” are the most likely to die from various things, but the “obese” span a vast range of weights, and the dangerous weights are WAY above the threshold of “obese”!

  25. Pat on May 10, 2018 at 8:11 pm said:
    “It would be interesting if someone measured percentage body fat properly on a large sample of people, calibrated that against their health record, and compared to BMI.”
    “I have seen no evidence (perhaps someone can point to some ) either as to what percentage body fat is ideal for health (as against athleticism), nor that this ideal corresponds with a BMI of 22.5. Given that human beings are three dimensional not two dimensional, I would be amazed if the BMI is much of an indicator since it uses the square of height, rather than the cube.”

    I read somewhere once that:

    1) BMI is only a rough and ready calculation from the days of slide rules and log tables because the full equation involved things like cube roots.

    2) It can only be used for an adult POPULATION.

    3) It shouldn’t be used for individuals – it was meant to measure the average BMI of a population to compare countries not individuals.

Comments are closed.