I’ll Remain a Proud Social Pariah

Author Naomi Klein (No Logo) talking recently (35:00 minutes in) about stopping smoking:

“I used to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, and I didn’t stop smoking because I suddenly realised it was bad for me. I knew it was bad for me. I stopped when my government passed enough laws that I was turned into a social pariah. I live in a cold climate, and I had been banished from restaurants and bars and I was shivering outside… because we had regulatory answers to the epidemic of cancer, and I decided, well, this really isn’t worth it any more and I’m freezing alone outside smoking and I don’t want to do that anymore. So yeah we can make those changes, but we need regulations that make it easier for people to do that.”

I’ve had the exact same experience, of course. I also was turned into a social pariah. I too was shivering outside. But that’s as far as our two experiences overlap.

For while she decided to do what was being demanded of her, and stop smoking, cease to be a pariah and stay warm, I refused to give in to the bullying bastards, carried on smoking out in the cold, and have remained a social pariah for the past 12 years.

I think Naomi Klein just gave in to the bullies. And I don’t think there’s anything admirable about that. I think it’s just plain weak. I admire people who will stand up to bullies, not give in to them.

But the way she describes it, it was an enlightened government that enacted regulations that “made it easier for people” to do what government asked. She regards the government as benignly helping her to make the right choice. I regard the same government as tyrannical.

And now, with the “climate crisis” she wants government to be equally benign, and “make it easier for people” to make the right choices about carbon dioxide emissions.

That’s the difference between the authoritarian Left and the libertarian Right. The Left regards government as essentially benign (and so we need more of it). And the Right regards government as essentially tyrannical (and we need as little as possible of it)

It reminds me of a friend of mine who, shortly before the UK smoking ban came into force on 1 July 2007, told me that he was looking forward to the ban, because he hoped it would make him stop smoking. I was appalled that he wanted the government to help give him the strength to do something he couldn’t do himself. He too wanted the government to “make it easier for people” like him to stop smoking. It marked the point at which our friendship began to cool. (I might add that he never did stop smoking, despite the assistance of the benign British government in making him a social pariah, and exiling him to the outdoors.)

I’m never going to do what he and Naomi Klein did. I’m never going to come knocking at the door, saying that I’ve stopped smoking, and asking to be let back in. I’m going to carry on being a pariah. And I’m going to be proud to be a social pariah. For now I don’t want to belong to their bullying bastard world anyway.

The Thunberg Regime

I ought to be interested in the debate about Boris’ Brexit Deal in Parliament today, but I’m not, perhaps because:

Remain supporters have hatched a plan to ensure Boris Johnson will be forced to ask for a Brexit extension even if his deal passes in the Commons today.

Sir Oliver Letwin, the former Tory minister, has tabled an amendment to the Brexit deal that would require the Prime Minister to request an extension as an “insurance policy” in case the necessary legislation to enact the deal had not been passed by Oct 31.

We’re going to remain in the EU because the Remainers will keep asking for (and getting) one extension after another, indefinitely into the future.

My prediction for 31 October: the EU will have granted Britain a two-year extension of remaining in the EU. Maybe they’ll even give us a 100-year extension. Why not?

And we won’t have an election until the next fixed term parliamentary election on 5 May 2022.

Or will we have one then? Pretty much every MP in Parliament dreads the next election, because most Remainer MPs will lose their seats. The next election will see the death of the Conservative party, and the Labour party, and the Lib Dems too. And it’ll see the rise of the new Brexit party, and perhaps also an anti-Brexit party as well. And they will define British politics for the foreseeable future.

Unless… the last act of this Remainer parliament will be to extend the fixed term period between UK elections from 5 years to 100 years. Or 200 years. Or 500 years. Why not? We’ll still be a “parliamentary democracy”. It’s just that elections will only happen every 500 years.

I wouldn’t put it past them to do this. After all, they think that They Know Better than the British people what’s good for them. These are, for the most part, the very same people who voted for the UK smoking ban in 2006, and in doing so told Britain’s 13 million smokers that We Know Better Than You Do What’s Good For You.

These globalists want the whole world to become one vast administrative state, run by Experts Who Know Better Than You Do What’s Good For You. It will be just like the Soviet Union, but on a global scale. Trotsky would be delighted.

This is also what the Climate Alarmists want, of course. In the face of the mounting Climate Crisis/Catastrophe, Spaceship Earth is going to need to have a single captain, just like Captain Kirk of Star Trek, making decisions for the whole world. You can’t have one country reducing carbon dioxide emissions, while other countries are increasing them: all countries are going to have reduce emissions to zero in 12 years. (Or is it 11 now? We’re almost in the Final Countdown)

Who’s going to be the World Leader? Most likely Greta Thunberg. She will be 28 years old by then.

In the coming Thunberg regime, it will be illegal to light any fires at all anywhere, ever. People will be shot dead for smoking, not because smoking is “unhealthy”, but because cigarettes add deadly carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Unable to heat their homes, or cook, or travel anywhere, millions of people will die during the Thunberg regime. The global population will fall from 7 billion to 1 million. Which is round about what the Greens want.

But then, with carbon dioxide having been scrubbed out of the atmosphere, the unexpected will happen: a new Ice Age will start.

And that will be the end of the Thunberg regime, and of the global administrative state, as the whole world becomes covered in snow and ice, except for a thin strip at the equator. In this depopulated world, smoking won’t be banned because it’s unhealthy, or because it causes global warming, but because the little remaining agricultural land will be needed to grow food, not luxuries like tobacco. When one reason for banning smoking lapses, another one will be found.

The Rapid Appearance of Extinction Rebellion

Extinction Rebellion (XR) is a surprisingly new organisation. It seems to have originated in the UK in May 2018, barely 18 months ago:

Extinction Rebellion was established in the United Kingdom in May 2018 with about one hundred academics signing a call to action in support in October 2018, and launched at the end of October by Roger Hallam, Gail Bradbrook, Simon Bramwell, and other activists from the campaign group Rising Up!…

Extinction Rebellion wants to rally support worldwide around a common sense of urgency to tackle climate breakdown.

Some of its full-time members are paid. A year after its formation by a bunch of university academics, it acquired a Youth Wing. And now hundreds of XR activists are being arrested in London:

Extinction Rebellion arrests soar to over 1,000 in four days of protests.

Here’s Nigel Farage talking very civilly to one of them a few days ago:

What are they all about? They think we face extinction as a result of CO2-induced climate change, and we have to take drastic action to prevent it.

But it seems it’s actually much more than CO2 that they’re worried about, according to one of their co-founders:

The co-founder of Extinction Rebellion writes that the climate protest “isn’t about the climate” and is actually about toppling European civilisation and ending the idea that heterosexuality is “normal.”

Wait, what?

In a lengthy article for Medium entitled ‘Extinction Rebellion isn’t about the Climate’, Stuart Basden reveals the true goals of the far-left environmentalist action group.

Basden asserts that whatever climate problems exist can’t be fixed and that the movement should instead be focused on tearing down the entire system of western capitalism

So they’re neo-Marxists of some sort. Or watermelons: Green on the outside, Red on the inside. Who would have guessed?

In the lengthy article, whose title is “Extinction Rebellion isn’t about the Climate“, the real problems are seen as White Supremacy, Patriarchy, Eurocentrism, Hetero-sexism, and Class Hierarchy.

According to Wikipedia, however, it is in fact about climate, and its stated aims are:

1) Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2) Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2025.
3) Government must create, and be led by the decisions of, a citizens’ assembly on climate and ecological justice.

And its “principles” include “a shared vision of change”, “momentum-driven organising”, “creating a culture that is healthy, resilient, and adaptable”, in the face of our current “toxic system”.

It uses words that are oddly familiar: “shared”, “achieve”, “challenge”, “change”, “collectively”, “planning”, “organise.” As soon as people use words like this, you know they’re Marxists of some kind. The same words have been in use for 100 years or more.

In short, the whole thing is pretty vague, and it would seem that already, within 18 months of its formation, its founders are at loggerheads with each other.

But clearly they really are highly organised, and highly effective. And they’ve already reached New York.

Whatever next? If something like this can spring up in 18 months, then soon they’ll be springing up in 18 weeks, or 18 days, or 18 hours.

The Shapers of Political Identity

In my youth I spent most of my life outside England. I lived in Barbados, in Eritrea, in Libya, in Gambia, and in several cities in Brazil. If not a man of the world, I was at least a boy of the world. By the age of 18 I’d crossed the Atlantic ocean several times by ship, and a dozen or more times by plane.

Thereafter I traveled much less, largely because by the age of 18 I felt I’d done more than enough travelling. But all the same I visited more or less every country in Europe west of the Rhine. I even worked in Paris for a little while. And I seriously thought about buying a house in Spain.

And now, aged over 70, I travel even less. I’ve hardly been outside Herefordshire in England for the past 10 years. I always want to be home by nightfall. In part that’s because I don’t like travelling, but now it’s also because as a smoker I’m no longer welcome anywhere in England, aside from a few pub gardens in summer, and one or two ‘safe houses’.

Soon I’ll probably cease to even venture outside the little town in Herefordshire where I live, and then outside my little flat.

And in this long process I’ve gradually shifted from being a globalist to a localist. I used once to identify with all the places I’d ever lived (or even visited), but now I identify with England. And, more particularly, with one small area of England. I become more and more English every day.

And I think that, in Britain today, the difference between Remainers and Leavers is that Remainers are globalists who identify not with Britain, but with Europe (and even the whole World). And the Leavers are those who identify with Britain. (Really the names should be swapped: I wish to remain in Britain, and not leave for Europe. Or, better still, we should call the Remainers Europeans, and the Leavers Britons.)

I think that whether you’re a European Remainer or a British Leaver comes down to how your personal identity has been shaped or forged. If you’re fairly rich and you’ve been all over the world, you’ll likely be a European Remainer. And if you’ve lived most of your life in Britain, you’ll very likely be a British Leaver.

The same applies everywhere else. You will identify strongly with somewhere if you have lived there all your life. And you won’t identify with that place if you have spent much of your life living somewhere else.

And the current political division in Britain is between the European Remainers in the cosmopolitan cities of Britain, and the British Leavers in the countryside around those cities. For the cities of Britain are very largely filled with people from all over the world, who are relatively unlikely to strongly identify with being British. And the country around the cities is filled with people who are well rooted in the land, and are likely to strongly identify with it. Hence the map shown at right, probably from the Daily Mail.

At present it’s still only a small elite jet-set who are rich enough to travel the world, and as globalists to identify with the whole world. Most people seldom leave their native countries, and will identify with their native country, or even some small part of it. And the result is that, in Britain, native localists will tend to outnumber elite globalists. The same will be true everywhere else.

But the globalist elites have much louder voices than the natives. They own all the newspapers, and populate the mainstream media. The elite globalists make up almost the entire political class. So we now have a globalist jet-setting EU political elite in command of countries filled with local natives.

However, largely thanks to the internet (and mobile phones), local natives are beginning to get their voices heard. Public discourse is increasingly no longer shaped and defined by a small elite in broadcast media. What’s called “national populism” is simply the rising voice of native populations, not just in Britain, but also in France and Italy and Hungary, and every other country in Europe. In the USA, Donald Trump, a native of Brooklyn/Queens in New York City, has become the spokesman for the American natives living in (and identifying with) the fly-over country between the big, cosmopolitan, globalist cities on the eastern and western seaboards.

The global elites who’ve been running the world for the past 50 or more years are now in retreat before a rising tide of native localists. And they’re unlikely to be able to stem the tide, because they’re completely outnumbered, and they can no longer control the public discourse in the way they used to.

I don’t know whether Britain will leave the EU on 31 October (I strongly suspect it won’t), but I think that it will leave sometime soon regardless. And most of the other countries in the EU will follow it. The EU superstate is set to either disintegrate, or to return to being the EEC that preceded it, which was made up of sovereign states.

This leaves one question unanswered: If native localists always outnumber globalists, how do superstates like the EU ever come into being? The answer to this is most probably that superstates come into being during wars, when small nation states need allies, and band together with others to form big battalions. The EEC took shape during the Cold War between West and East, and only became the modern imperial EU after the demise of the Soviet Union. The Cold War held Europe together. And with the end of that war there’s nothing left to hold it together.

The Strange Resurgence of Climate Change

Hanoi Jane is back in town:

Appearing Monday on CNN, actress and left-wing activist Jane Fonda said she is prepared to “get arrested every Friday” in the wake of her arrest on Capitol Hill during a climate change protest last week and floated the idea of bringing governments to “a halt” if they don’t fight so-called global warming.

Asked what had triggered her to act, she said:

I can tell you exactly. It was Labor Day weekend and I was reading Naomi Klein’s new book called On Fire: The Burning Case for a Green New Deal, and I was hearing Greta Thunberg, the Swedish climate striker, and it really hit me how urgent this issue is and that I wasn’t doing enough. I drive an electric day, I recycle, I’ve gotten rid of plastics, but that’s a good starting place, that’s not a good finishing place. This is a collective crisis that required collective action, so I decided to use my celebrity to try to raise the sense of urgency, and I moved to Washington and I’m going to get arrested every Friday.

She added:

…The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Crisis told us last year we only have 12 years left. Now it’s 11 years left. We have 11 years left to try to turn this fossile fuel disaster around so that we don’t completely pass the tipping point and it becomes untenable to govern, untenable to have a stable economy, or any kind of human rights or anything. There’s just going to be one disaster on top of another…

I thought it was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But maybe they’ve changed their name. They might even be the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Catastrophe by now.

I think Jane Fonda is a serial attention seeker. For her it’s all about Me, Me, Me, and Me. And she’s probably envious of Greta Thunberg becoming a global superstar overnight. That’s what it’s all about: stardom.

I thought it was pretty much dead. So I’m still very surprised that Climate Change has been resuscitated as a Big Issue, and there are now Extinction Rebellion marchers getting arrested in hundreds in London. All apparently generated by one little Swedish girl with pigtails.

But that’s the way it’s done these days: you use children as battering rams. The Revolution will not be led by beardos like Marx or Lenin or Trotsky, but by finger-wagging children, who are actually ventriloquists’ dummies.

It’s not as if the climate scientists have come up with anything new. It’s just a new Public Relations stunt that’s brought the focus back on climate change.

It’s not that I mind. My attention has been on climate change for the past 18+ months, as I’ve slowly been constructing a global simulation model of heat flow in the Earth. It all seemed a bit irrelevant for most of that time. But now, thanks to St Greta (and St Jane) it’s all becoming highly topical again.

And just yesterday I managed to reproduce, in rough outline, the last ice age, between the Eemian interglacial that started 130,000 years ago, and our current Holocene interglacial that started 12,000 or so years ago. I started dropping snow at a steady rate at the end of the Eemian at latitude 57.5º N (Scotland), and watched the snow depth rise to about 250 metres, and then gradually fall again as the temperature of the surface rocks beneath the snow gradually rose.

Air temperatures drop very sharply (60º K) when the snow lands, because snow reflects 80% of sunlight back into space, instead of heating the ground and the air. And as the snow thins and fragments and turns to slush, I reduce the amount of sunlight reflected in order to raise air temperature, and melt the last of the thinning snow.

Yesterday’s model also included variations in solar radiation due to variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles).

In the graph above the present day is marked with a vertical red line, marked 0. I was rather gratified to see that the snow melted away completely when our current Holocene period started, producing a 5,000+ year long interglacial. The model also produced a surprising shorter interglacial about 50,000 years earlier (marked with a “?”), when one didn’t actually happen. In between, there was always snow rising and falling , with depths anything between 25 m and 250 m: it was a genuine 100,000 (1e5) year long ice age.

In my model the Holocene only lasts about 5,000 years. In reality it’s lasted over twice as long as that already. So I guess the real world is a bit warmer than my model world. Here’s a graph showing how temperatures and Milankovitch cycles varied over the past 250,000 years.

My model also predicts another interglacial period about 15,000 years in the future. So if we can get through the next 15,000 years, we’ll be all right for another 10,000 years. Perhaps this is why some climate scientists predict that our current interglacial could last another 30,000 years?

But I think it’ll only last that long if we can prevent the next glacial episode from starting, by somehow raising the Earth’s temperature. This is why I’ve become a big fan of CO2-driven global warming. I think we need more of it, not less. If the Gretas and the Janes ever manage to get their Zero Carbon world, I think it’ll precipitate the immediate start of a new ice age. And that will be far, far worse than the global warming they fret about.

But my model is a very simple model, and very far from complete. And I’m sure it’ll throw up more surprises yet.

Was Dame Sally a Whistleblower?

I still haven’t got over outgoing UK Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies’ manifesto:

At a glance | Prof Dame Sally Davies’ review of obesity crisis

Key proposals:

Ban eating or drinking anything but plain water on all urban public transport

Extend sugar tax on drinks to cover milkshake and flavoured coffees

Consider new taxes on all unhealthy foods, if action is not taken to cut their sugar content. Alternatively, put snacks in plain packaging, as has happened for cigarettes

Overhaul VAT so all unhealthy fare is consistently covered, and healthy foods exempt

Place a calorie cap on all meals sold in cafes and restaurants

End any advertising or marketing of unhealthy products at sports or concerts. Only sell low calorie food as such events

There’s a whole mindset here. She thinks there’s an obesity crisis. And her proposal is to put the British people on a diet of bread and water, thereby preventing them from eating “unhealthy” foods – which seem to be foods which either a) are snacks, b) contain calories, c) are in the least bit tasty. Most of it is to be done with taxation, which will make everything except bread and water extremely expensive. So when you visit a restaurant, the menu will be:

One small piece of cold, tasteless, low-calorie “bread”.

One small glass of water.

You won’t need to order it. It’ll be on the table already. And you’ll be expected to eat it inside 10 minutes.

Will it solve the obesity crisis? Of course it will. It’s been done before. For she’s really proposing to convert Britain into Belsen. There was no obesity crisis in Belsen. (A thought: Perhaps that’s what the Nazis were trying to do – solve Germany’s 1930 obesity crisis with an anorexia counter-crisis?)

But why is it a crisis if there are lots of fat people waddling around? Is it because they get stuck in doorways, or block passages? Is it because they each occupy two or three seats on buses and planes? Is it because they are continually dropping dead of over-exertion as they try to climb staircases? Is it because they eat everything in sight? What, in short, is the real problem here?

Perhaps I’m being a bit slow, but I simply can’t see what the problem is, never mind what the crisis is.

I suspect the real crisis is an aesthetic crisis: Obesity doesn’t look good. Dame Sally Davies is primarily (perhaps even solely) concerned with appearances. What she calls “healthy” is what I would simply call “pretty” or “beautiful”. She wants the world to be filled with slim, wiry people without an ounce of superfluous fat on their bodies.

But  don’t aesthetic tastes change all the time? Isn’t there always Taste Change happening, much like Climate Change. What if we all start admiring Rubens’ nudes again? Look at these magnificent creatures:

In the remote past, the Great Mothers were truly colossal. The great mother was the Ideal Woman of the Paleolithic. Why? Probably because she could survive a famine that her emaciated sisters could not, simply by living off her own fat. Back then women weren’t trying to keep as thin as possible, but as fat as possible. And if you were a man looking for a wife, you’d be courting the fattest women you possibly could.

One can see tastes changing just by watching movies over the past century. The great beauties of 1919 are not the same as the great beauties of 2019. Would Clara Bow have become a movie star a century later? Probably not. Tastes are always changing.

I suspect Dame Sally Davies’ obesity crisis is an aesthetic crisis. It’s the sort of crisis that happens when women start wearing miniskirts or men start growing their hair long. Hers is a shocked sensibility rather than a medical diagnosis.

But there’s another puzzle with Dame Sally’s manfesto. Why did she publish it when she was leaving the office of Chief Medical Officer? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to have published it before she took office?

The answer is that it was a review that she was asked to conduct:

The Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, has commissioned Dame Sally to produce a report by September, with a series of recommendations for the government.

She said experts on nutrition, science and public health and representatives from the food and drink industry would all be asked to contribute their ideas.

So these are not her ideas: they’re the ideas of “experts on nutrition, science and public health”. And she has perhaps done us a great service in warning us of what these unaccountable “experts” are planning for us. She’s a whistleblower showing us just how crazy these people have really become.

Mechanics, Chemists, and Moralists

It’s a strange world where anyone has any interest whatsoever in who is the UK’s Chief Medical Officer. But these days it’s a role which seems to be somewhere between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Governor of Wormwood Scrubs prison. These bastards have a lot of power.

The new one is called Professor Christopher Whitty CB FRCP FFPH FMedSci (born April 1966), and is a British physician and epidemiologist:

His early career was as an NHS doctor, at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and as an epidemiologist and clinician in Africa and Asia working on infectious diseases, in particular malaria.

All sorts of nasty people have come out of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. And epidemiologists have had whole books derisively written about them by people like John Brignell.

So far, so bad.

However, malaria is a real parasitic (infectious?) disease. There are real epidemics of malaria. I wonder if Whitty, like the authors of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, believes that there is a tobacco epidemic. I also wonder whether he thinks there’s an obesity epidemic or an obesity crisis. If he believes either, he’ll be yet another ideologue in the line of Sally Davies, Liam Donaldson, and George Godber. We’ll find out soon enough. I’m not optimistic.

I think all professions get swept by fads and fashions. In music it was all big bands in the 1930s and 40s and much of the 50s, and then it became rock groups in the 60s and 70s and 80s, and now (as far as I can see) it seems to be sickly sweet boy bands.

It’s the same with medicine. In my childhood in the 1950s, doctors were Mechanics. Most of them had served in one war or other, and they were good at patching up people who had been riddled with machine gun bullets. They would take your temperature and listen to your chest attentively with stethoscopes, and look for bullet holes. And then they’d recommend a week or two in bed, which was all they’d ever been able to offer the soldiers in their care.

Then, in the 1960s, doctors became Chemists. Everything could be cured with a tablet of some sort, and doctors started dishing out tablets to everyone. This change was perhaps a consequence of the discovery of DNA – the Chemical of Life – in the 1950s. We humans were all just chemical processes, and we required chemical cures. This was around the time when the pharmaceutical industry really took off. And a great many doctors became, in effect, salesmen of giant pharma companies. Some 95% of the world’s drug addicts are the creation of the Chemists and their vast array of drugs.

But then, in about 1990, the Moralists took over the medical profession. The moralists brought with them Lifestyle Medicine (another name for morality). If you got sick, it was your own fault – for smoking, drinking, eating, and screwing. The moralists preached Preventive Medicine. They believed that people brought their maladies upon themselves. They believed that if they could only reform their patients’ behaviour, they would stop coming. The Fairy Godmother of this new movement was Gro Harlem Brundtland, who combined the roles of doctor, politician, and director of the WHO. She also happened to be a climate alarmist. And she had a morbid fear of mobile phones.

To some extent, all these various movements coexist in the medical profession. The hospitals are full of Mechanics, and family doctor’s surgeries are filled with Chemists, and the upper echelons of the WHO and BMA and RCP are full of finger-wagging Moralists.

Seen this way, the reigning medical paradigm changes every 30 years or so. And so we should expect the Moralists to soon be superseded by whatever next medical fashion will emerge.

It may be that the medical profession is always learning from its successive disastrous mistakes, and each new paradigm is a reaction to some previous catastrophe. The Mechanics were in many ways a reaction to their predecessors, the Eugenicists (who wanted to exterminate everybody). But the Mechanics were useless in the peaceful post-war world, in which people were afflicted more by anxiety than by armaments. So in came the Chemists with their arsenal of psychotropic drugs. And when 30 years later we’d all become drug addicts, the Moralists arrived to tell us that we Only Had Only Ourselves To Blame for our misfortunes.

So what was the new catastrophe that the Moralists caused, and which their successors must struggle to rectify?

They are the authors of our modern pandemonium. They are frightened of everything. They exaggerate every threat. They see epidemics where there are none. And they’ve scared the wits out of everybody.

The wartime Mechanics didn’t need to manufacture phantom terrors: they lived through the reality of it every day. They weren’t trying to extend human longevity to 90+ years: they were just trying to help a man with an arm and a leg blown off to survive for another week or two.

By comparison, all our modern threats are phantoms. Smoking, Tobacco smoke. Alcohol. Drug addiction. Obesity. Meat. Sugar. Salt. They’ve all been conjured out of thin air. They’re all imaginary menaces. And while the Moralists have been fighting these imaginary enemies, the real ones have probably been creeping up on us unnoticed.

It’ll probably take another real global epidemic (of Ebola or something) to drive out the Moralists. There’s going to be no blaming the patients for their own ills when they arrive in their droves with blood dripping out of every orifice.

Either that, or there’ll be a complete loss of confidence in our current moralistic, bullying, scaremongering medical profession.

The sooner they’re gone, the better.

…