« One Giant Embarrassment | Main | Buffy and the Enablers of the NCSE »

September 13, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mmmm yes, it's normally the other way round, but that's the one thing in recent times that we did first and then the US copied: elect a religious moron as leader and see what happens. Something for us all to be proud of. :-(

Credit where credit is due, though - I'd say Tony has kept his idiocy at admirably low levels, considering the freakish beliefs his wife espouses all the time.

In a democracy the people are the boss, according to the sactimonious Blair. Yes, and, if he had published this level of idiotic drivel BEFORE the general election of 1997, what are the chances that he would have ever been elected? The shining faith-based qualities demonstrated by Blair throughout his premiership were..? I'll go for duplicity, dishonesty, arrogance, selfishness....

Blair is a tosser, and I'm pleased to say I never voted for him.

A couple of points:

First, Tony Blair is a piece of shit.

Second, I suspect his sudden plunge into the world of faith politicking has various motives. In part, it's probably a carefully chosen ploy to give him a new "identity" rather than being continually associated with that unfortunate business of illegally demolishing and entire country.

Maybe also so that people can explain his pathetic poodling up to Bush as being a result of his "faith" rather than as a result of being a weak-minded quisling opposed to the will and interests of the people.

But also, I suspect he is smart enough to have grasped that he has done something truly evil in invading Iraq and wishes somehow to atone for his sins. (Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he doesn't feel a thing and is just a rat in a suit.)

But more relevant to this post, indeed, this is typical religious slipperiness, coupled with politician-like obfuscation.

First, he conflates individualistic or materialistic philosophy with pursuit of maximum short-term profit, which he then conflates with pleasure.

The danger is clear: that pursuit of pleasure becomes an end in itself. (Well, why should we pursue pleasure? For the principle of it?)

He then presents faith as the antithesis of the pursuit of maximum short-term profit (i.e. materialism/pleasure/individualism/non-community-mindedness), and that faith can lead us to a proper sense of duty to others, responsibility for the world around us. (This still unconvicted war criminal is a fine one to be lecturing us on this subject.)

Then he suddenly leaps to fascism, then leaps on to his strange admission that public opinion should be managed. Then suddenly he's claiming faith is the antithesis of relativism and amorality.

So "faith" makes us community-minded, but not in a fascist way, or in a democratic way, but in a kind of.....um.......faithful way, I guess. And if only we had all listened to the Holy Pedophile, there wouldn't have been any financial crisis.

After the experience of fascism, Soviet Communism or viewing life in North Korea or the cultural revolution in China, it is easier for us to grasp the dangers of a too-powerful state.

He left out the British Empire.

After the experience of fascism, Soviet Communism or viewing life in North Korea or the cultural revolution in China, it is easier for us to grasp the dangers of a too-powerful state.

From the authoritarian arse-hole that dragged us into a ridiculous war by lieing to parliment, covered up war crimes, practically created the survielence state, and advocated giving the police the power to hold people for 40 days with niether charge nor trial? What a hypocritical prick.

And this twit was Prime Minister?
Unfortunately yes. Embarrassing, isn't it?

Tony Blair's public statements since handing over the UK premiership and becoming a holy roman all seem to be much the same: let's have more faith. It's as if he so desperately wants the "Tony Blair Faith Foundation" to be seen as some kind of earnest authority, when to me it just sounds like the name of a pop group.

His parroting of Pope Benny's ridiculous "encyclical" confirms that he can't have thought anything through - anyone who seriously tries to lay the blame for global warming at the feet of atheists is plainly not thinking straight.

“Yet, at a deeper level…”? What does that even mean?

"My previous points were shallow" just doesn't have the same ring?

"And this twit was Prime Minister?"

Yes, isn't that just hilarious ?
To think that someone with those points of view could actualy be elected ?
Unfortunately history has shown that it happened before and probably will happen more often. As long as people use faith instead of thinking for themselves this will happen again and again. What can you do ? ;)

"But at least Blair admits that the only thing politicians have to do is manage public opinion, not actually, you know, listen to it in any way. Otherwise known as spin."

I enjoyed your article but I think you need to have a bit more critical thinking about spin.

So spin is basically a derogatory word used for the more cynical side of PR. It was a term that was used primarily by the opposition and right wing press to bash the government at every opportunity. In some instances, it was probably well deserved.

(I'll just point out, I became very disillusioned with Blair and the government, particularly when he revealed how faith had played a part in his decision making about Iraq. Shocked is probably an understatement. I'm no fan here.)

BUT... you need to get real. Spin is a direct consequence of being under such an intense media spotlight. Nowadays, politicians have to justify their actions to the nth degree as they're scrutinised to an almost ridiculous level. Accountability is a good thing providing it's done responsibly, but most of the time the accusations that get thrown around are no better than playground taunts and puerile political point scoring. I see spin as the equivalent of a bullied kid lying to his tormentors to avoid getting a bashing - it's essentially a defense mechanism.

By definition, politicians are real people like you or I (there are of course, some notable exceptions!), and you need to imagine stepping into their shoes for a week so appreciate how pressured their lives must be. The media likes to treat them as celebrities rather than people who might actually want to make a difference to the country, and enjoy building them up to knock them down later to generate revenue from juicy headlines.

Do me a favour... just imagine if there was a team of people, that every time you messed up at work, it was their sole mission to make sure that 61 million people got to hear about it in the worst way possible.

I think you might consider trying to put it in a positive light too.

Andy spin is only a response to scrutiny when you're trying to claim Iraq has WMD's and can deploy them within 45 mins.

Sure. There's spin and then there's utter outright lying to the public to justify a war that has no justification.

I should have been more clear that I was referring to the former which has some justification. The latter has none at all and shouldn't even be called spin. That's basically just lying.

Yet, at a deeper level, the case against a purely individualistic or materialistic philosophy has to be made. Young people today have access to technology, to opportunity, to experiences good and bad on a scale my generation never knew

And these changes are what led to the recent financial crisis, an completely unprecedented event, right? I mean, it's not like we've ever seen a financial bubble before, is it?

And this twit was Prime Minister?

We're really very sorry about that. All I can say in defence is that the alternatives on offer weren't exactly great either.

Please, will somebody drag this fucker to The Hague in chains already? I'm sick of listening to him bleat.

The Tony Blair who wrote this article and the Tony Blair who was Prime Minister are two entirely different people. This is a complete repudiation of his government's actions when he was Prime Minister. The article simply invites fisking with responses drawn from the various pieces of legislation they passed, plus the Iraq war. He certainly never espoused views like this while in office.

Frankly, I don't believe Religious Nut Blair. I suspect it's either a ploy (as a previous commenter suggested) to dissociate himself from Prime Minister Blair, or that he's actually gone mad.

Gone mad? This is the guy who called Gordon Brown "a safe pair of hands"!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site