Robert Sharp

Pupil Barrister

Page 278 of 328

Stalinist Santa?

Tis now the season to be jolly, so I have posted something festive over at The Sharpener: Would you let this man into your home?
It concerns the politics of Father Christmas, who by my analysis is a dangerous Stalinist. If you think he is of a different political hue, then please do visit The Sharpener and set me straight.

Update

Now reproduced in full, below.

There’s a crude and simple way to distinguish, should you care to, your right from your left. Waistlines.

I’ve been reading Paul’s polemic, which states that Left-wingers are fatter than Right-wingers. It occurs to me that Father Christmas is a well-known fat bastard, famous for (among other things) scoffing mince-pies and slurping sherry that is not his own, at fire-places up and down this land. He would definitely be a ‘Lefty’ by Paul’s criteria.
This hypothesis is certainly backed up by other facts too. He wears red tunic, long time favourite colour of the revolutionary left. And of course he is interested in the systemised redistribution of presents, in apparent disregard of market forces.
Don’t let that beard and Norwegian charm fool you. This guy is no hippie. He is a dangerous authoritarian. If you do not conform to his insidious conception of ‘nice’ you risk being classified ‘naughty’ and denied basic presents. Everyone is kept under surveillance, parents are turned into informants on their own children and Santa catalogues the good deeds and the bad. What is more, he can only deliver his presents if he keeps a comprehensive computerised database of names and chimney locations. It is only a matter of time before this information is shared with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, and before you know it a cheeky request on a Christmas list from five years ago could see you lose all profits from your tooth harvest.
Its not as if the system fosters any kind of equality anyway. We all know that although Santa’s ‘presents for all populism might appear to treat each case on its merits, but when the service is applied on the ground we find evidence of blatant institutional racism. It is a well-known fact that Father Christmas is less likely to visit children from Muslim, Hindu and Sikh families. Yes yes, we’ve all heard the excuse about a lack of available chimneys, but I notice that Santa will gladly slip in through the French windows for middle-class atheist families. He is also happy to pocket the filthy shill from Coca-cola Company for corporate sponsorship, but do you see the elves getting a pay-rise? No, the fat bastard Father Christmas is a Lefty in name only.
Time was when young people would have cared about the questionable ethics of their largest benefactor. But not this generation. Oh no. The ‘me’ generation too busy talking about X-boxes and X-factor to even consider whether Santa’s seal-skin boots were bought Fair Trade or not. They see the presents dangled in front of their eyes, and once again they fall for his patter. They will let him into their bedrooms, and there is nothing the parents can do about it. Only when Santa has sledged off into the night sky will the parents be called to sort out the misery in his wake. Once again, the cumbersome, centralised, present giving system will not have supplied batteries for the presents, and decent, hard-working parents will be called in to pick-up the tab.

If you have a complaint about this blog…

The dirtector of the Press Complaints Commission, Tim Toulmin, thinks blogs need a ‘voluntary code of conduct’. (h/t John Band)
We already have one. Call it society, culture, or just good manners if you will, we are governed by the same code of conduct as the rest of society.
Although Blogistan (or The Blogosphere if your prefer) may look intimidating to anyone involved with organised media… we are, in fact, a collection of individuals. We have no more power than we do as individuals, and (unlike companies, charities and associations) we have no more legal protection than we do as individuals. We do not need to be regulated any more than we do as individuals.

But unless there was a voluntary code of conduct there would be no form of redress for people angered at content.

There is a form of redress, Mr Toulmin. My comments box is open, and I respectfully invite you to redress yourself there. My readers shall consider your point-of-view, and if they agree with you over me, then I shall probably lose credibility with one or both of them.
If you find yourself strangely under-satiated, then you could try the libel court, or perhaps arrest me for incitement to something-or-other. If that doesn’t work, then I haven’t actually done anything legally wrong. I am sorry, but you therefore do not deserve redress. I shall continue to wave a metaphorical wanker sign at you, from accross the proverbial street, and there is nothing you can do about it.
WANK, Germany
Continue reading

Charity mugging, Christmas style

A correspondent writes:

Have you been afflicted by this new innovation, of charities sending you a pack of five to ten Christmas cards, and expecting you to make a donation?
Some are worse than others in the gifts-for-money stakes. From one particular charity I have had the umbrella, slippers, a bag a blanket and today the Christmas cards. I am also awash with labels telling me who I am and where I live.
The card phenonemon seems to be shooting other charities in the foot – I honestly have had five today from Feed My People, five yesterday from Water and Food for Africa, a few weeks back five of one size from some diabetes charity, and the next day five of the same designs, slightly larger, from the same charity!

How come no-one ever sends me this swag!?

Digested

A couple of my posts from the past year have made it into the 2007 blog digest, edited by Justin McKeating of Chicken Yoghurt fame.

“A brilliant collection” – Boris Johnson
“the only book I’ve ever read that covers mint sauce and the war in Iraq. Genius.” – Emma Kennedy

My two posts are ‘Encountering the Submerged’, and ‘Why Are We Wasting Our Time With This Shit?’. Both were written and posted fairly spontaneously in response to things that actually happened, which rather blows my Heisenblogged thesis out the water.

Who cares whether Jesus was divine?

The Daily Dish dedicates some time to tell us ‘All About Mormons’, courtesy of some South Park clips. The first clip suggests that Joseph Smith pretty much made up the Book of Mormon and claimed divine intervention, while the second clip reminds us that this doesn’t really matter:

Maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to Thank for all that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now, is loving your family, being nice, and helping people … you’ve got a lot of growing up to do buddy. Suck my balls.

It is odd that Sullivan makes no analogy with other Christianities, or other religions, which also carry absurdities. I’ve always thought that men claiming to have spoken to a burning bush are probably pretty high on something, but not God. And if someone goes wandering about the wilderness these days, and then claims to hear voices, we declare them to be psychotic, not prophets. And some passages of the Gospels which deal with sightings of the ressurrected Jesus (for example, Mark 16:12 or Luke 24:16) stretch credibility. Time and again, disciples do not recognise Jesus when he appears. Could that perhaps be because it was a different guy, claiming to be the crucified preacher!? I find it hard to believe that Sullivan did not take these glaring issues into account: I guess he simply decided against making that particular point in that particular post.
This is odd, however, since Andrew has been writing a lot about his faith recently, and I should have thought he would want to explicitly align himself with the sentiments expressed by the liitle boy in the South Park clip. Biblical inconsistencies do not, or should not matter to other strains of Christian either, because it is Jesus’ ethical teachings that should be of paramount importance. These persist even if there is no causal connection between God and the Holy Bible. They persist despite the falsity of the Virgin Birth. They persist despite the hoax of the Resurrection. Tony Benn is fond of quoting Malcolm Muggeridge, thus: Jesus was not the Labour MP for Galilee North. I say that is a shame, because Jesus is a great politician! “Pay a bit of tax“, “Be nice to the kids“, “Don’t let money rule your life” and, of course “get pissed at weddings“. Universal policies by which we can all interact with our neighbours. His ethical pronouncements stand us in good stead, even the evidence for his divinity is unconvincing.
It seems to me this is the difference between the fundamentalists, and the ‘private faith’ which Andrew Sullivan has been discussing in the past few months: faith is what you believe when no one’s watching. Only this latter group can embark, as Sullivan has done, on a reinterpretation of the texts that would (say) make homosexuality permissible. Meanwhile, the fundamentalists pursue the red herring of Intelligent Design, or concern themselves with what two or more people do in the privacy of their bedroom.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑