All posts in category Spin (Propaganda)

Jesus a Lefty-Liberal, Guardian reader? Not likely

Dizzy thinks, but wrongly, about the political leanings of Jesus. He may have a point through the modern liberal Church of England.

Dizzy’s posting on Jesus being a lefty-liberal is wide of the mark. He says

Seriously, if Jesus was alive today (a man’s who’s existence at least is not I think in dispute) he would be a Guardian reader. Yet, he would of course be pilloried for believing that he was the Son of an unprovable God, no doubt ridiculed for being a bit mad (oh the irony given the average Guardian readers hatred of prejudice towards the mentally ill), and his core beliefs about non-violence, turning the other cheek, forgiveness and the like would be dismissed out of hand.

I realise this is the second post in as many days where the subject of faith has come up, but honestly, I just don’t comprehend the sheer hypocrisy of those on the so-called “Liberal Left” when they display so much hatred for a faith that is essentially in keeping with their values, all, so it seems because of the bit about God.

If a kid is brought up with the liberal moral teachings of Christianity but also believes in God is it really “evil”?

Apologies for labouring the point here, but politically speaking, if you look at the New Testament, the carpenter’s son from Nazareth known as Jesus was essentially preaching a message that today would be seen as incredibly left wing. He was a little man standing up against an Imperial oppressor, he was preaching the evils of capitalism, and extolling the virtues of the weak and meek over the the rich.

Pardon my blasphemy for those that have an issue with it, but: Jesus Christ! Is it not patently absurd that Guardian readers should hate something so in line with their own beliefs just because it’s not secular?

My reply (in three sections) was as follows.

You are correct if you follow the Rowan Williams School of theology. An alternative line is to quote Jesus on the important bits. Take Matthew 23:40. After saying the two greatest commandments are love of God and love of your neighbour as yourself. Jesus says “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments”. Jesus was establishing a principles-based religion. If the law conflicted with this, then it was the law that had to give. So if someone needed healing on the Sabbath, they should be healed, despite the Jewish law saying you should not work. In Matthew’s gospel, the holy men who went around proclaiming they are superior because they uphold the law better than others Jesus calls “hypocrites” and a “brood of vipers”, as they were more concerned with appearances than the substance of faith in God.

Another aspect is forgiveness of sins. Human beings are fallible, despite their best efforts. They can leave the past behind without guilt and get on with being good.

Jesus today would have strong words for New Labour. For them the solution to every problem is more laws, more complexity and wads of cash. Political appearances are more important than substance. Principles are transitory – remember the need to balance the budget over the course of the business cycle? It was first re-defined then ditched. What would he have to say of the science of climate change, with any none-believers labeled deniers (the modern-day equivalent of heretics?). Jesus would probably quote the first commandment of Moses about “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3)

In these respects, Jesus was a Pre-Hayekian, though more dogmatic, and less diplomatic in his language.

 Finally on the subject of Jesus was anything but someone who stood up to the Roman oppressors. For many Jews he was anything but the expected Messiah. They thought he would be like what Muhammad turned out a few hundred years later. A prophet-cum-military conqueror who would drive the Roman’s into the sea. In fact Jesus studiously avoided the direct conflict with the military occupation. About paying taxes he said “give to Caesar what it is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17)

 I realise that proper theologians will disagree with my analysis that Jesus was more a classical-liberal in the tradition of Adam Smith and Fredrich Hayek than a Socialist. But what is without doubt in the non-conformist tradition is that Jesus was against putting appearances over form, and that the Love of God and Love of one’s neighbour take precedence over religious traditions and rules. Furthermore, is the doctrine that we all sin, no matter how hard we try, but through the sacrifice of Jesus we are forgiven and can move on. This is hardly the attitudes of those politicians who claim to have all the answers, decry others are being always wrong (with ulterior motives), and never admit to their own falliability.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 27/12/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Christianity, Socialism, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 27/12/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/12/27/jesus-a-lefty-liberal-guardian-reader-not-likely/

The Berlin Wall, the DDR and New Labour

I remember twenty years ago watching as the people of the Socialist paradise surged across Checkpoint Charlie into the bright lights of the West, as the 28 year old Berlin Wall was breached. It was but part of a process that began with the Hungarians taking down the fence, and continued with the Velvet Revolution in Wencelas Square.
The fall of the Berlin Wall may not not have been the triumph of capitalism, but it was the collapse of communism. It represented the end of the era, started in 1917, that saw the deaths of  100 million people at the hands of their own governments in the name of a false utopia. The physical wall, that seemed so impenetrable, was felled with pickaxes and chains. The political system, buttressed by a vast system of informers and secret  police, seem to crumble away even more easily. But the we share some elements of  that repressive  regime share today in this country. In the DDR

1. Everyone had to carry ID cards and constantly present them when asked.
2. A “democratic” country where parliament held no power.
3. Where the official properganda differed from reality.
4. Where every aspect of life was tightly regulated.
5. Arbitary arrest and detention.
6. Endless form filling and checking on every aspect of people’s lives. And where that form filling served as a huge hinderance, but no useful purpose outside of the bureaucratic machine.

It is worthwhile to remember that a moderate socialist party contains elements of the authoritarian left of the Soviet bloc. Their instincts are that only government solutions are the valid, and that private initiative cannot be trusted. That the individual owes everything to the state, and errant views are by definition not just wrong but dangerous.

Whilst we remember died trying to escape the suffocation and those who were persecuted for the slightest protest, it is also worth a history lesson in how the mass of people lead dreary, impoverished lives, made worse by officialdom.

 

Thanks to John Redwood, who stimulated my thoughts.

 

 

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/11/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Human Rights, Socialism, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/11/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/11/09/the-berlin-wall-the-ddr-and-new-labour/

Labour Down to 120 seats in 2010?

Could Labour really be reduced to 120 seat’s at the next general election? Not impossible, but would hand the Conservatives a poison chalice

Jackie Ashley claims in the Guardian.

“Some Labour people may think I’m sounding too gloomy, but those who have been privy to recent private polling are a lot more than gloomy. This suggests that Labour could return to the Commons with just 120 MPs or thereabouts, taking the party back to 1930s territory. As ministers look for jobs to keep themselves going after politics, a Miliband move to Europe looks sensible.”

Most polling data based on even swing would give Labour over 200 seats, with the Conservatives getting a majority of 80 to 100. But  this result may be at the extreme end, but should not be unexpected. Compared with the Conservatives in 1997
1. Labour are polling lower in the polls.

2. There is greater de-seated resentment. Labour are not just out of touch, they have

3. Gordon Brown seems less capable than John Major at the job. Furthermore, he shows it. He is nervous, repetitive and cliché-ridden.

In 1997, many voted to punish the Tories. Next year it will be voting to punish Labour. It is not something a Conservative should revel in, as Labour has bred a deep distrust in politics in general (through their spinning and ignoring parliament) along with decimating the nation’s finances. So the Conservatives will have to rebuild trust whilst pushing through deeply unpopular policies.

A word of caution. Although ConservativeHome and Politicalbetting both recognize Jackie Ashley as being close to Labour and a reliable source, the comment is made in a long article on how the Europe question could damage the Conservatives. So maybe we could have a Lib-Dem government?

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/11/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Conservative Party, Gordon Brown, Labour in Opposition, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/11/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/11/09/labour-down-to-120-seats-in-2010/

Manure dumpers a product of Climate Change Extremism

The dumping of manure on Jeremy Clarkson’s lawn is another example of using intimidation is silence the critics. Just like those who vandalise 4×4 cars in Manchester, they are the product of taking an extreme line on Global Warming.

They are the outcome of a process of

1. The emission of greenhouse gases by humans will theoretically raise global temperatures by maybe 0.5 to 1.0 degrees this century. This seems to correlate with the temperature data of the past century, though it is not a complete explanation.

2. Bodies like the UNIPCC then assume that there will be a positive feedback loop. The computer models project with that small rise in temperatures will increase the water vapour in upper atmosphere. As this is over 95% of greenhouse gas, a small increase will lead to large rises in temperature. So the forecast churned out by those models is around 2 to 4 degrees.

3. The climatologists then assume that the data collected is unbiased, is accurate and the recent warming is a unique feature. Therefore the results have a high level of confidence and explanatory power.

4. This is then dressed up with appropriate political spin and certainty. They claim a scientific consensus. whilst denouncing those who reject it as having impure motives, or being deranged, or simply people beyond the pale.

5. The seriousness of the impending climate change enhanced by dire predictions of the consequences for the human race and for other species. Probable benefits of a slight warming and higher CO2 levels are never considered,

6. The UK government (along with others) responds by setting draconian reduction targets.

7. Environmental groups, like the Green Party, look at the most extreme predictions, then say it does not go far enough and want yet more draconian targets.

8. This gives the fanatical, morally self-righteous (e.g. Green Fist, Plane Stupid and Climate Rush) who want to commit puerile acts of vandalism and intimidation, dressed up as saving the planet.

9. The perpetrators of these acts then decide to take matters further, going beyond their remit. In this case of the 4×4 vandals, slashing car tyres, instead of just letting them down.

 

The extreme acts are as a consequence of the extreme case portrayed in the media. We need to pause, and consider the evidence. A more balanced view would be that the case is more nuanced, and that any further warming is likely is be small.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 19/09/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Eco-Fanatics, Global Warming, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 19/09/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/09/19/manure-dumpers-a-product-of-climate-change-extremism/

Lord Mandleson in Denial

This country now has a structural deficit £100bn, or around 7% of GDP. To tackle it effectively will require a clear vision, a steely determination to turn things around and the leadership ability to carry a significant proportion of the public with them.

It will not be tackled by those who created this problem by running large deficit through the boom years. Neither will it be resolved by those who see reality in terms of political point-scoring to influence the next opinion polls. Nor by someone who cannot even utter the word “cut”.

The longer we leave this situation, the more likely it is that any government will be forced to cut indiscriminately to save the economy from collapse, on the instructions of the IMF. A compassionate and caring government is like a compassionate and caring GP. They diagnose effectively, and tell you straight when you have a serious problem. They then recommend the best form of treatment, administered quickly before the ailment gets any worse.

 

Comments by Lord Mandleson can be found at playpolitical.com

The nature of the deficit from the BBC and Burning our Money

 

Comments by John Redwood, Ian Dale

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 14/09/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Government Spending, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 14/09/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/09/14/lord-mandleson-in-denial/

Child Poverty Bill – Another Labour Poison Pill?

Yesterday the government put forward the Child Poverty Bill, with mandatory targets for reducing poverty.  It is utter folly.

For those that really care about helping the poorest, meeting a particular target is not the way to go about it. It is fairly easy (and relatively cheap) to get a large number just below the poverty line to move just above it.  

 

However, people should consider the following.

 

1. The Measure is in relation to Median Income.

 It is not about actual living standards (how much you can buy with the income), but a relative measure compared with the median income. But at the same time the government’s environmental policies are lowering living standards – by pushing up fuel bills in the future and food bills (through the competition from bio-fuels). The poor (who spend larger proportions of their incomes on these items) are seeing their living standards fall, even though their “real” incomes might be rising and income inequality decreasing.

Further, if indirect taxes are increased (VAT, excise duties on alcohol and tobacco), then this will again fall disproportionately on the poor. Taxes will need to increase to reduce the deficit, and VAT is a good candidate.

 

2. Standard of life is more important than standard of living.

However, there is something much worse. The more government determines the income of people, the less control people have for influencing their own lives. In trying to eliminate material poverty, government will foster hopelessness. During the Euro-elections, Channel 4 did a survey of how people voted, concentrating on BNP voters. A distinguishing feature was that

 “Just 19 per cent of BNP voters are “confident that my family will have the opportunities to prosper in the years ahead”. This compares with 59 per cent of Labour voters, 47 per cent of Lib Dem and Green voters, and 42 per cent of Conservative voters.”

 

So a poison-pill policy directed at a future Tory government may help enlarge the disaffected underclass. Another example of Labour preparing for opposition.

 

 

More analysis can be found at https://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/giving-the-bnp-voters-a-message-of-hope/

And http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/who+voted+bnp+and+why/3200557

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 21/07/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Environment, Government Spending, Labour in Opposition, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 21/07/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/07/21/child-poverty-bill-another-labour-poison-pill/

Does the Prime Minister Tell Porkie Pies?

Douglas Carswell today accused the Prime Minister of telling lies. Here is the comment just posted.

 

 Interviewed by Nick Robinson today, the Prime Minister categorically said that “I have always told the truth”. On that point I think we should believe him.

Why? you might ask. What he says is clearly at odds with the facts.

The problem is that Gordon Brown (along with Peter Mandleson) have moulded New Labour around projecting a message and image. That message is not objective reality, but the image necessarty to win power and retain it. Couple this with Brown’s decade-long building of his own power base to become Prime Minister through scheming against every opponent. What results is someone like a communist who saw the imminent revolution in every newspaper paragraph, or an alcoholic in denial. They can only see what fits their reality. To see objective reality would cause his own self-destruction with a comment like

“We are in the worst economic mess since the second world war, and many of my actions as Chancellor have made this worse for Britain. As Prime Minister, despite trying to do my best, I have made mistakes that our children will be still paying for in their retirement. I have run out of ideas and energy on how to improve the situation, shall therefore be tendering my resignation with immediate effect.”

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 01/07/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Politicians, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 01/07/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/07/01/does-the-prime-minister-tell-porkie-pies/

A Labour Government Planning for Opposition 7 – Or being destroyed for the EU’s sake?

Daniel Hannan made an interesting in last week’s Sunday Telegraph. Could Peter Mandleson in his elevated role, be saving the government until October to enable the Lisbon Treaty to be ratified? Certainly he seems to have rallied both the cabinet and the PLP when they seemed to be distintigrating. Labour seems to be back on course feeding the agenda, rather than being battered by new revelations on expenses and resignations. However, there are two weaknesses to this arguement.

Firstly, if Labour had continued to disintegrate, then it would have further destroyed it’s own prospects in the forthcoming general election. Saving Gordon Brown’s Premiership helps the Labour Party, as a new leader would have to call an election soon afterwards. Labour will stage some sort of recovery, so the delay will save a few Labour seats.

Secondly, for Lord Mandleson, he has reached the pinicle of his power. If the government collapses, he will be cast out in the wilderness.

The interests of the Labour party and the European Federalists coincide at the present time. They are not in conflict as Hannan would suggest.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 26/06/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Labour in Opposition, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 26/06/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/06/26/a-labour-government-planning-for-opposition-7-or-being-destroyed-for-the-eus-sake/

A Labour Government Planning for Opposition 6 – The New Speaker

The election of John Bercow as speaker of the House of Commons was achieved with very little support from MPs of his own party. Whether you accept is was with 3 or 4 conservative votes (per Nadine Dorries) or might be at high as 20, it was still with a 10% or less the consrvative votes. Hopefully John Bercow can rise above this and become a strong and impartial speaker. But he has a mountain to climb, as his support could well be based upon a cynical attempt to make life difficult for a future Conservative Government. T o quote Fraser Nelson in the Spectator.

“History has been made, insofar as Mr Bercow is perhaps the first Speaker ever to be chosen on account of his unpopularity and lack of authority. And this is, in itself, a deeply revealing insight into the late-stage Labour game plan. A retreating army still has plenty of options, if it is imaginative enough. There are bridges to be burned, landmines to be laid, earth to be scorched. And Speaker Bercow is merely the most visible of the many shackles with which Labour hopes to burden a Tory government.”

Another example of a Labour Government planning for opposition?

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 26/06/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Labour in Opposition, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 26/06/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/06/26/a-labour-government-planning-for-opposition-6-the-new-speaker/

A Labour Government Planning for Opposition 5 – Regional Assemblies

John Redwood points to a small victory for the Conservatives in the Commons yesterday in a vote on Regional Assemblies.

It may be a small victory, but a failing government ploughs on. Why should they do this when the opinion polls would show little enthusiam for the idea of another body of bureaurats?

Might I suggest that the New Labour spin-doctors have re-grouped under Lord Mandleson. The brief now is to destroy the incoming conservative government, by crippling them with commitments and providing daily headlines about Consrevative cuts. In so doing, the most destructive part of the alternative reality of properganda spin is revealed.

UPDATE

Englishman’s Castle provided a blog about the death of the South-Western Regional Assembly. It shows the lack of purpose in having such entities. The fact that the Government is still promoting the assemblies when they serve no distinct and useful purpose either suggests that

EITHER

The government does not have a measure of their lack of purpose,

OR

They are keeping them, expensively, on life-support, so that it is the Tories who will lkill off  “a brilliant initiative in decentralisation”

Either way, it does not show a government serving the people.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 26/06/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Labour in Opposition, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 26/06/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/06/26/a-labour-government-planning-for-opposition-5-regional-assemblies/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »