Thursday, November 19, 2009

Churchill beats Jesus as ‘most wanted Twitterer from history’


Cranmer simply cannot be bothered with Twitter: it is nothing but a cacophony of inane flashes of gossip and damp squibs of naught; ephemeral bleats of gossamer and fatuous cock and bull; characterless whisperings of vanity, idle trivia, airy utterings, colourless rumours and hollow streams of consciousness which seeks to reduce everything to the superficial sound-bite of a Sun headline.

It is so perfectly postmodern.

Prospect Magazine has done a poll amongst the Twitterati, asking them which historic character they would have chosen to follow had the technology been around at the time.

Sir Winston Churchill came out on top.

Twits clearly think that his sublime utterances and depths of thought can be condensed into 140 characters.

The poll tested the views of the 11 per cent of British people who use Twitter — an estimated 5.5m people — and compared them to the rest of the country, revealing that while they have a strong liberal bias in their politics, their heroes are conservative (as defined by Prospect). Churchill topped the list (34%), while Jesus (30%) and Darwin (28%) came second and third.

(Cranmer would like to clarify that an examination of the extent to which Jesus and Darwin were 'conservative' would require a thesis, and it is noteworthy that even Churchill ratted an re-ratted).

According to Prospect editor David Goodhart: “Churchill and Jesus both specialised in brief, memorable phrases — so both ‘we will fight them on the beaches’ and ‘blessed are the meek’ are messages perfect for the Twitter generation. Jesus was obviously born to tweet.”

He'd have managed better
If he'd had it planned
So why'd he choose such a backward time
In such a strange land?
If he'd come today he could have reached a whole nation
Israel in 4BC
Had no mass communication...

Churchill was most popular among potential Conservative voters, men, the over-35s, and the English. Jesus, meanwhile, came first among Labour voters and Scots. But the two are a statistical dead-heat with Liberal Democrats, women and the under 35s.

Famous female figures like Elizabeth I (17%) and Joan of Arc (8%) were less popular, and women were much more likely to follow female figures.

The poll revealed that most people would much rather follow someone inspiring than evil — with Jesus, Martin Luther King (24%) and John F Kennedy (23%) comfortably outscoring Adolf Hitler (14%) and Jack the Ripper (13%). Hitler, however, holds a special fascination for men and the under 35s.

Young people were also much more likely to want to follow ‘difficult’ writers and thinkers than their parents: under 35s were more likely to follow Shakespeare — perhaps because his dialogue would be easier to understand if reduced to 140 characters. Noted wit Oscar Wilde was most popular among those who were frequent Twitter users.

The Top 20 people Twitterers want to follow:

Winston Churchill 34%
Jesus 30%
Charles Darwin 28%
Martin Luther King 24%
Leonardo Da Vinci 23%
William Shakespeare 20%
John F Kennedy 20%
Queen Elizabeth I 17%
Princess Diana 16%
Oscar Wilde 16%
Mahatma Gandhi 15%
Adolf Hitler 14%
Jack the Ripper 13%
Marilyn Monroe 12%
Eve (as in Adam and Eve) 11%
Che Guevara 10%
Joan of Arc 8%
Marie Antoinette 5%

Frankly, as far as Cranmer is concerned, the lower down one comes on this list, the greater the compliment.

64 Comments:

Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

It beats me as to why that evolutionary fascist, Darwin (whose theory inspired Hitler), received 28% of the votes.

19 November 2009 at 09:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

I mean just look at what that ex-athiest, Prof. Anthony Flew, said in a recent interview:

Anthony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.

19 November 2009 at 09:43  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Charles Darwin?! Charles Darwin above Luther King, Shakespeare, Ghandi, Wilde ... !!!

Is there another side to this man that I don't know about?

19 November 2009 at 09:44  
Anonymous Dick the Prick said...

Your Grace

I too believe twitter to be an utter waste of time and as such will have another cup of tea and maybe a ciggy - just had a lovely bacon butty etc etc ad nauseous infinitum.

DtP

19 November 2009 at 10:11  
Anonymous Dick the Prick said...

Hang on one cotton picking minute - Adolf bloody Hitler!?! Adolf bloody Hitler - 'just forming another ghetto, procuring gas, invading Belgium' - uuurrggghhh - give me strength Lord.

19 November 2009 at 10:14  
Blogger scott said...

While I disagree with the comment on Twitter (as I find it useful to find blog people and follow political news - indeed I found your Grace's blog indirectly through Twitter!) I do bemoan the news that certain people are on the list (such as Hitler!).

As well as this, I am surprised (given the demograph of who I follow) that Jesus actually polled this high! Also, it is just popular people that we currently hold in esteem and this list would probably not be true if we had these people. Consider that Stephen Fry has a vast amount of followers etc. Jesus and Churchill would just be too busy to tweet!

19 November 2009 at 10:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rebel Saint, you need to get out a bit more , from your bible bashing cocoon.

19 November 2009 at 10:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How come D. Singh isn't high on the list. I would enjoy his twittering .

19 November 2009 at 10:43  
Blogger I am Stan said...

D.Singh on twitter!..God help us.

19 November 2009 at 10:52  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

With this clapped out government bereft of ideas, I am surprised that they didn't show how post-modern they were and drafted the speech from the Throne as a single tweet.

'A tweet drafted by a bunch of twats'

If the Prince of Wales had been substituting for the Queen it could then have been a tweet drafted by a bunch of twats and given by a twit.

19 November 2009 at 11:37  
Blogger DocRichard said...

while [twitterers] have a strong liberal bias in their politics, their heroes are conservative. ...Jesus (30%) ...came second .

Jesus? A "conservative"? Bishop, if you read the Gospels, you will find that Jesus was in ideological conflict with the religious conservatives of the day, who manipulated the occupying military power into a ordering Him to be nailed to a cross.

19 November 2009 at 11:42  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

His Grace's literary expression is enviable. The first paragraph of this post is a knock out. Your
command of the English language is exemplary.I am not overly interested in politics or religion but am drawn to this site because of your masterful and elegant use of language.I remain your humble and awe struck servant.

19 November 2009 at 11:54  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr DocRichard,

His Grace agrees, and has clarified. The 'conservative' tag was as perceived by the magazine.

19 November 2009 at 11:55  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Suppose we can draw comfort from some of the people who aren't on their - Muhammad for example.

Actually I think we can draw comfort from the fact that it's all completely irrelevant, and I've just wasted some time commenting on it. Maybe I should be on twitter after all!

19 November 2009 at 12:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

My persecution continues unabated on this blog…

‘How come D. Singh isn't high on the list. I would enjoy his twittering .’ and

‘D.Singh on twitter!..God help us.’

Oh Your Grace, there is no rest for the

19 November 2009 at 13:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

For the righteous

19 November 2009 at 13:13  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

Presumably you'd want to check with Guevara to make sure you were not next on the list of the media's favourite mass political murderer.

19 November 2009 at 13:17  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

Mr Singh, the righteous do not consider the use of piano wire for unspeakable acts!

19 November 2009 at 13:18  
Blogger Christopher Evans said...

D.Singh

Some of what you say is fairly relevant and can be informative, but you are starting to get on my tits though. With regards to Twitter, it's just another example of herd mentality. The best description of it is 'Group Think' which can be read on Wikipedia. Here is a piece cut out:

"Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimise conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analysing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group.[1] During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight."

D.Singh

I think a term used on here before to describe you is that sometimes - "Less is more", but I have a feeling this will not penetrate your urges.

19 November 2009 at 13:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Sydneysider
Well that was an ‘error’. It was a slip of the fingers , you see and the cat walked over the keyboard – I mean it was, well like the formulation of evolutionary theory, chance, you see, it just happened.

Surely you can forgive me?

19 November 2009 at 13:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look I was being perfectly serious about D. Singh Twittering, so I am not having a go at anyone. Am I the only one who agrees with everything he says ?

19 November 2009 at 13:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How come no one has made the link with twitter and the 4th chapter of revelation and the 5th chapter of Daniel, which can clearly shows that twitter was show to be the devil's work and would, along with the EU as the second roman empire, herald the second coming of the Messiah.

Whilst I am at it I am going to quote from some random book , which is off topic, smear anyone who does not agree with me as a stalin, hitler, or pol pot and say that you are a socialist just like them.

Also if I disagree with you I shall reply with some random or off topic response.

Who am i?

19 November 2009 at 13:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Anon

I apologise.

19 November 2009 at 13:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Oh no!

I've got a stalker - and I'm not as famous as Kylie Minogue.

19 November 2009 at 13:42  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Twitter, endless twalking by twits for twits. Just another vehicle for the masses to turn their brains to jelly worshiping celebrity culture.

Personally I am not a fan, and I don't really think this list means anything.

Given the mentality of vast swathes of those that populate the internet I would imagine some of the choices were selected for shock value.

16 year old boy, "Oh look at me, i'm so alternative and bad I chose Hitler that makes me cool".

19 November 2009 at 13:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps D.Singh has never heard of irony and sarcasm ?

19 November 2009 at 14:12  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Depends, if there is a paragraph in the bible that uses it and he can quote to deflect any questions then he probably does.

If not then it probably isn't real anyway.

19 November 2009 at 14:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Now look here chaps just a few days ago Tory Boys Never Grew Up described me as Goebbels, just the other day the socialists thought I was His Grace, and only a few days ago almost an entire thread was turned into a thread about ‘D. Singh’.

I would love to have a blog of mine own. But I can’t for reasons that I am afraid to state.

I am sure even sometimes His Grace is irritated by me.

But banish ‘D. Singh’ then thou banishes all jocularity and hilarity – not to mention ‘novel’ attacks against socialism. The reason why the socialists are annoyed is because I have read their books, studied their methods and use their tactics.

As Gen. Patton once said:

‘Rommel, you illegitimate son; I‘ve read your book! I’ve studied your tactics!’

(I’ve forgotten which battle)

19 November 2009 at 14:23  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr D. Singh,

One would think that oxonian physics would leave you little time for so much trivial interjection.

19 November 2009 at 14:30  
Anonymous non mouse said...

In my long gone younger days, one of 'the flatmates' twittered. She was small, blonde, bitchy - indeed often nasty, and she twittered. For this reason, a herd of galloping horses will never drag me near Twitter ... [and I like horses]! Your Grace has confirmed my instinctive reaction for me. Thank you.

Actually, D. Singh - maybe some of your critics share a characteristic or so with the aforesaid female!!

19 November 2009 at 14:40  
Blogger I am Stan said...

@D,Singh-But banish ‘D. Singh’ then thou banishes all jocularity and hilarity.

That depends on ones sense of humour!

One mans hilarity is anothers ¨trivial interjection¨...no offence.

Come now honesty D.Singh..why do you not have your own blog to ...er.. blog on.

19 November 2009 at 14:57  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

D. Singh

Don't play the martyr - you deserve some of the rap you get, for example you complete inhability to understand the left, except through the narrow frame of reference that any one from the left is a 'socialist', which in your book equals mass murderers such as stalin and pol pot, which is a one sided view. Are all people of the right Hitlers then ??

HOW DO YOU THINK PEOPLE WILL REACT ?!?

19 November 2009 at 15:11  
Anonymous Hadron collider said...

Well twitter is a waste of time.

19 November 2009 at 15:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Madam,

Please, I've been ticked of by His Grace.

19 November 2009 at 15:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no mouse- so you actually agree with D Singh's views? Do you want to be in the next cell to him then ?

19 November 2009 at 15:29  
Anonymous Terrified of Tonbridge said...

Your Grace,

Buried amongst the massed ranks of the Twitterati there may be twats twittering for nefarious purposes. Secret messages, hidden code, and tweet by tweet planning for things that go off with a loud bang. A new Quango is sorely needed to analyse and decipher all this twittering, establish tweeting correlation to find out what the blighters are up to and scupper their Twitterrorism. Otherwise we will never be able to sleep soundly in our beds.

19 November 2009 at 15:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Bag Lady

‘Are all people of the right Hitlers then ??’

No, no madam.

Hitler was a socialist (national).

19 November 2009 at 15:57  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

D Singh's post at 15.57 sums up by point(s) perfectly.

19 November 2009 at 16:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sya fellas why don't you help Bag Lady out? It was National Socialism.

We love him in the States!

Stella

19 November 2009 at 17:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yo gracie
we hoid you kicked d Singhs ass ya whacked im?

Eddie New york

19 November 2009 at 17:35  
Blogger Christopher Evans said...

D.Singh

You will need therapy if you do not get a grip soon. It will consume your life.

Your Grace, on the subject of Twitter, I fully understand what you mean but, here comes the but, I am a twitter user myself and I hardly ever twit, but I follow many twits and twats alike.

It does have a fantastic ability to enable one to follow the herd without actually following the herd, if you know what I mean.

Can I suggest to His Grace that following certain twits and twats can expand the scope of one's grasp of what is going on out there at large. I challenge His Grace to register an account and build up a list of people and groups to follow - then Download the TweetDeck and enjoy a stream of tweets that can vary from utter crap to useful and enlightening information. If you never post a tweet ever, I believe that you will enjoy, and I think you will probably gain more followers than you care to shake a tweet at.

It is not so much about the 140 character tweets but more about the links where they take you. A good first to follow for His Grace would be Ruthie over at the Times who informs when her blog gets updated and some occasional tittle tattle also - like the birth of seven kittens on Halloween!

19 November 2009 at 19:14  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Christopher Evans,

His Grace thanks you for your advice, but he cannot conceive of anyone being interested if he had kittens.

19 November 2009 at 19:23  
Blogger Christopher Evans said...

Ah but you grossly underestimate the ferocity of appetite for such information Your Grace, not to mention the power of suggestion coupled with the ability to paralise the critical faculty - all proven, tried and tested methods of washing the brain, or spreading the gospel (same thing at the end of the day).

19 November 2009 at 19:36  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Christopher Evans,

To put you out of your misery, it appears that 'Cranmer' has already been taken as a Twitter identity, and His Grace can be no other.

19 November 2009 at 19:41  
Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

Your Grace,

Whilst I agree upon the triviality of Twitter in essence, can it not serve as a means of simply reaching out to a wider audience? A method of engaging the reader yet to discover your blog amidst the mass of political discernment banding around the internet?

The way in which Iain Dale has embraced Twitter has allowed him to publicise the brilliant work he does via the medium of social networking. These things can serve a purpose if utilised effectively, I feel.

19 November 2009 at 20:04  
Blogger Christopher Evans said...

I seem to recall a certain Ayatollah who was less fussy. But let not such trivialities stand in the way of progress, I never reveal my identity, and I am known as FABVirgil on Twitter. I am a serial observer, and that is as far as I wish things to go.

19 November 2009 at 20:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

He defeated you all, didn’t he?

You hit him below the belt didn’t you?

D Singh is dead.

Who will help us carry this son of England upon our shoulders?

English Viking can you build a long-boat?

Mr Petram, Mr Sydneysider and Mackenzie will you say the prayers at his funeral pyre?

Lord Lavendon, a guard of honour?

Come let us upon the shore push out the boat into the cold North Sea.

There, turning and turning in the widening gyre - his falcon will not hear his call - the ceremony of innocence is drowned by those who know not.

But gentlemen beyond these shores - know that a man must die if he is to be resurrected.

19 November 2009 at 20:22  
Anonymous Mr x said...

I am sure D Singh will be popping out of the woodwork soon

19 November 2009 at 21:39  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Twitter ye not...

19 November 2009 at 23:40  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

I would like to have followed Jack the Ripper on Twitter..

"Have just eviscerated another prozzie. Must go home for tea"

On second thoughts. Nobody is that interesting. Oscar Wilde did not sit in his dining room being witty at his wife..

"Another slice of chicken? The tragedy of chicken is that it is stuffed and then sliced. The tragedy of stuffing is that it always plays second fiddle, which in an orchestra is enviable, but on blue china is..

"Oscar, just say if you want more chicken and stop pissing about.."

You see?

20 November 2009 at 00:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bag lady was one of the assassins. It was her beauty that beguiled him. Like Delilah she charmed; whilst possessing a serpent’s heart.

20 November 2009 at 10:08  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Wrinkled Weasel.

Good show, I actually laughed out load reading that.

20 November 2009 at 10:28  
Anonymous Haldron Collider said...

Anon at 20.22 and 10.08, cut it be that you are D. Singh? Your writing styles are similar.

20 November 2009 at 10:57  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Certainly seems plausible.

From the garbled nonsese it looks like he believes he has died and will be brought back to life or something equally nutty.

20 November 2009 at 11:49  
Anonymous Ron Todd said...

At least Churchill was a real person.

21 November 2009 at 12:10  
Anonymous len said...

Tacitus

The first Roman historian to mention Christ is Tacitus, who wrote his last significant work, the Annals, around A.D. 115. In this treatise, Tacitus describes the great fire of Rome during the reign of Nero and the emperor's subsequent persecution of the Christians there. He states:

"Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called 'Christians'....Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15:44).

21 November 2009 at 15:31  
Anonymous USpace said...

.
Twitter is a kick; although it does distract me from visiting some of my favorite blogs as much as I did. Unless of course their posts are being Tweeted, which many top blogs are.

This is a great post I just had to tweet, and will Re-Tweet, to my followers:

Cranmer - Churchill beats Jesus as ‘most wanted Twitterer from history’ http://bit.ly/7ObywE

absurd thought -
your Supreme God says
STOP ALL THIS TWEETING

it will only educate
way too many tweeple
.

23 November 2009 at 06:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

" He'd have managed better
If he'd had it planned
So why'd he choose such a backward time
In such a strange land?
If he'd come today he could have reached a whole nation
Israel in 4BC
Had no mass communication... "

These words can (just) be fitted to the tune to 'Eve of Destruction'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwYNWYaS3bI&feature=related

How apt.

DP

23 November 2009 at 20:33  
Anonymous St Bruno said...

Don't do twitter, but might if my great grand father James was twittering. Could get some good help from him about family history. Bugger the rich and famous toffs, and shites, family come first.

Anyway D.Singh, are you one of the Singhs from Uganda.

23 November 2009 at 21:10  
Blogger D. Singh said...

No.

The ancient monarchy of Narnia.

23 November 2009 at 21:14  
Anonymous St Bruno said...

Pray, what does that mean?
I suppose you are a Jedi as well?

23 November 2009 at 21:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Sir,

I am Christian who wishes to become a child so that he can enter the Kingdom.

24 November 2009 at 07:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

It beats me as to why that evolutionary fascist, Darwin (whose theory inspired Hitler), received 28% of the votes.

Your Grace,

I mean just look at what that ex-athiest, Prof. Anthony Flew, said in a recent interview:

Anthony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.

YOUR GRACE!

It hit me this morning like a silver bullet between the eyes!

Dawkins is not attacking religion and Flew is not ‘defending’ religion!

Satan has been doing a merry dance around all of us!

Let’s look at one of Flew’s statements in more detail:

‘The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.’

Dawkins is attacking that which Christians and Atheists would be prepared to die in defence of!

REASON!

The very ability of a man to think!

If this analysis is correct - the our enlightenment has begun!

25 November 2009 at 08:20  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Oh be quiet and give it a rest you silly man, your logic is just psychotic.

You wouldn't know reason if it invited you round for afternoon tea.

25 November 2009 at 10:34  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older