Social Engineering

A few days ago I read on the Devil’s Kitchen:
 
Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a more multicultural country, a former Government adviser has revealed.
 
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right’s nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
 
I think the main thing I drew from this is that New Labour really have been engaging, or attempting to engage, in social engineering. And if they’ve been doing it with immigration to produce a more multicultural country, then they’ve most likely been doing it with the smoking ban as well.
 
For the pub smoking ban has always seemed to me to be an attempt to destroy a traditional British culture – a relaxed, boozy culture of beer and cigarettes. I’ve always felt that any MP who voted for the smoking ban was someone who was either indifferent to or actively hated traditional pub culture. 
 
For in order to create a brand new ‘multi-cultural society’ it is arguably necessary to dismantle the pre-existing culture, in much the same way that acres of back-to-back housing has to be demolished to make way for concrete high-rise housing in the 1950s and 60s. 
 
So, was the smoking ban something that was necessitated by public health concerns, or was it motivated just as much by a desire to destroy traditional British culture, and ‘radically change the country’? Since the alleged public health concern always rested upon the flimsiest of reasons, perhaps this alternative explanation merits consideration.
 
If it was an attempt to change the culture, it would appear to have been a thoroughly botched job. It was one which simply destroyed the old culture, and left smokers stranded outside their pubs in the open air. Was that really intended? Not a great success really. When post-war governments set out to destroy the hated back-to-back housing in the 1950s, they at least had an idea of of the high-rise housing the displaced population were to move to. But in the case of the smoking ban, the government made no attempt to provide an alternative ‘smoke-free’ culture to which smokers might wish to belong, and happily forego their cigarettes to enjoy. All we have, after the smoking ban, is a vandalised cultural institution, that has not been replaced by anything better. They demolished the old culture, but put nothing in its place.
 
But then, since this Labour government seems now to wish to set about attacking drinkers as much as it set about attacking smokers, perhaps the truth is that the Labour government didn’t give a damn about the pubs at all. First the smokers would be driven from them, and then the drinkers. Perhaps the Labour party, in its desire to ‘radically change the country’, is quite happy to see the entire pub industry close down. Perhaps it has all been part and parcel of a much wider assault on British culture, which includes setting children against their parents, and making every adult into a paedophile.
 
It might make some sort of mad sense if this Labour party were firmly locked in power, and had years or decades in which to carry through this sort of cultural revolution. But next year Labour are almost certain to be voted out of office. And in  large part they’ll be voted out by the traditional British working classes whose culture they have so grievously assaulted, and who once made up their core vote, and who are quite likely to never forgive them for what they have done. There seems to be a strong case for arguing that the Labour party will not be re-elected to government for another generation, after these serial acts of cultural vandalsim.
 
But perhaps the Labour party is not bothered about committing political suicide, because they know that David Cameron’s Conservative party will simply continue where they left off, and carry on with Labour’s wholesale destruction of British culture. After all, the Tory party shows no sign that they will act to amend the smoking ban in any way whatsoever. What is there to say that the Tories won’t continue and intensify Labour’s war on smokers and drinkers and fat people? Have they said they won’t?
 
Perhaps it is that Labour and Conservative and Lib Dem are just individual flavours of a single party – the established political class – which has come into existence over the past 50 years or so, and which has its own internal consensus upon which all are tacitly agreed. It’s a consensus that seems to be in favour of the EU. And of global warming. And of multiculturalism. And of who knows what else. Perhaps David Cameron also believes in ‘engineering a more multicultural society’, and ‘radically changing the country’? Perhaps it has been deemed necessary to entirely shatter British culture in order to facilitate an easy transition to a new European culture?
 
Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps. I’m speculating. Who knows what the truth is? But if the ill-thought-through smoking ban is the prime example of such social engineering in operation, then very much more of it can only bring disaster. People will revolt in the polling booths, when they’ve simply had enough. Not only will the Labour party be destroyed, but so also will the Conservative party. The political settlement of the past 60 years, and the political class that grew out of it, will be shattered, and new parties will arise from the rubble to take their place. 
 
But then maybe David Cameron, when he takes office next year, will announce a referendum on Europe for the British people. And maybe he’ll declare that he’s become newly sceptical about global warming. And he’ll repeal not just the hunting ban, but also the smoking ban as well, and a great deal of Labour’s totalitarian legislation. But apart from the hunting ban, it doesn’t look very likely right now that he’ll do any of these.
 

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Social Engineering

  1. Anonymous says:

    I don’t have a great deal of confidence in Cameron myself, I keep wondering if he’s Blair Mk2 (all style no substance) or Gordo Mk2 (desperately wanting to be PM but not having a clue what to do with it)
    He might turn out ok, but I doubt it.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Smoking ban sources.
    These smoking bans will probably go down in history as one of the greatest marketing scams ever by having drug companies using tax exempt political action committees calling themselves “charities”.
    Here’s the beginning of the ban movement in the USA.
    http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912
    Here are the instructions from Johnson and Johnsons’ (makers of cessation products) RWJ Foundation for their tax exempt political action committees. (charities?) Note on page seven the “inside-out” provision, banning smoking on patios AFTER business owners spend thousands to build them for their smoking customers, clearly showing that they have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN for local issues or businesses.
    Also note on the last page, they are instructed to keep returning every year until ALL exemptions, are gone.
    http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf

  3. tayles_100 says:

    I sometimes wonder whether the Conservative Party would be what it is today if New Labour had never happened. Probably not. Malcontents on the Left have always been there, pressing for change, grinding their axes noisily. But if no one in power had ever taken them seriously, they would have remained on the margin of society.
    Slowly, however, they gained influence. New Labour has been their most significant achievement but their effect was detectable much earlier. I first noticed it in the early 1990s, when social commentators appeared to make a concerted effort to kick against Thatcherism. They’d been doing so for years, of course, but with the end of the Cold War and a period of prosperity, the conditions were right for their message to come across as respectable. There were no more gulags to remind us of what the alternatives to the free market looked like. Our tendency to take things for granted the moment we achieve them made us forget that our wealth and security was built on hard-won freedoms and respect for others. We could afford to sneer at the staus quo and indulge the grievances of others, taking up their plight as a mark of our own decency.
    The question of authority soon came under scrutiny, too. Where did those who judge us and educate us, who esteem or belittle us, who bestow or withhold reward, get their authority? Were their values and judgments legitimate, or did they merely reflect their own interests? Those who felt let down by ‘the system’ decided the latter answer was closer to the truth. These malcontents decided to destroy the traditional model of Britain, from which they felt excluded. Mistaking their personal dissatisfactions for those of society as a whole, they projected their grievances onto the wider world, then looked around them and saw only selfishness and corruption. Their solution was to reach into other people’s lives and force them to think, act and feel differently. More than this, they wanted to punish those they perceived as enjoying undeserved happiness and success.
    Soon, we started feeling guilty about all those victim groups whose cause had been championed by the malcontents: women, homosexuals, ethnic groups, the poor, animals and so on. In a fit of repentance, a kind of Nietzschean transvaluation of values took place, whereby the defining qualities of those at the bottom of the society are hailed as superior to those of more privileged groups. We could all affect slum speech, dress like paupers, urinate in the street and so on, and feel that we were being ‘authentic’ and egalitarian. Tony Blair’s Cool Britannia was more than a Brave New World; it was a kick in the face of traditional values.
    Through constant hectoring, it became accepted that our entire history was a sorry tale of oppression and exploitation: further evidence of our unjust social order. Anything that was faintly redolent of this old order – our traditions, heritage and practices – should be stigmatised and crushed. Patriotism was redefined as racism. The St George’s cross became a symbol of bigotry and hubris. Ambition and excellence came to be seen as a fig leaf for greed and elitism. The very processes whereby people make their own judgments and accommodations were regarded as a breeding ground for prejudice and inequality. Even pubs – those blissful refuges from the inquiring eye of government – came to be seen as underground cells, where the old practices were allowed to continue, uncorrected by the progressive ideology of the malcontents. Smoking, as the most conspicuous symbol of the pub-goers self-determination, had to be banned.
    As Roger Scruton puts it: “Smoking belongs with those old and settled habits – like calling women ‘ladies’, getting drunk on Friday nights with your mates, staying married nevertheless, and having babies in wedlock – that reflect the values of a society shaped by the clear division of sexual roles. It is a symbol of the old order, as portrayed by Hollywood and Ealing Studios in the post-war years, and its very innocence gives it the aspect of discarded and parental things.” Which is one of the reasons it had to go.

  4. Frank Davis says:

    Tony Blair’s Cool Britannia was more than a Brave New World; it was a kick in the face of traditional values.
    The old order was the Christian order. Traditional values were, I would suggest, Christian values. They were absolute and unquestionable values, laid down by God. But with the decline of Christian belief, they became ‘traditional’ values , or ‘conventional’ values, and we moved into a realm in which values were what anyone wanted them to be, and my values as a burglar were just as good as your values as a houseowner. Morality was an arbitrary social construct, and one morality was as good as any other morality. Conventional or traditional values simply represented the tyranny of one set of values over all others.
    The problem here might not lie with the discontented Left, so much as with a deepening moral crisis that has been developing for centuries as Christian certainties gave way to sceptical doubt and uncertainty. We have abandoned one moral code, without replacing it with another.

  5. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Smoking ban sources.
    Thanks for that. I couldn’t open the CIA_Fundamentals.pdf, however. The file was reported as being corrupted.

  6. Anonymous says:

    From Junican.
    I have been thinking very carefully about the smoking ban. In the back of my mind, there was an idea which would not go away – although I could not actually identify the idea.
    We PETS (People who Enjoy Tobacco) have examined the statistics ad inf in order to show that the enjoyment of tobacco is harmless to others and that we accept personal responsibility for any harm that we do to ourselves. As regards the ‘Save our Pubs and Clubs’ campaign, we say that is reasonable for pubs and clubs to decide for themselves whether to be ‘smoking pubs and clubs’ or not. I think that that is our view in general.
    There has, however, been a problem in identifying precisely what is the PRINCIPLE upon which we can rely to dispute the smoking ban.
    The PRINCIPLE of which I speak crystallised itself in my mind this evening.
    The principle is THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY.
    I cannot remember, historically, how this right came to be acknowledged. Suffice to say that it became understood that free-born Englishmen had the right to assemble peacefully without any interference whatsoever from the state. the word ‘whatsoever’ is quite important in the principle as is the word ‘peacefully’.
    I believe that the smoking ban breaches our RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY. It is not acceptable that the state can dictate in what circumstances we can reasonably assemble peacefully.
    If follows from this principle that parliament has no right to pass laws which infringe upon our RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY. Many people believe that Parliament can make any decisions that it wants, but that is not true. It would certainly not be true, for example, that Parliament could legitimise the wholesale slaughter of one’s neighbours if they just happened to be Jewish.
    The RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY is a critical right. It is fundamental to our civilisation.
    It is hard to see how our ancient RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY can be re-established. It may well be that there needs to be some other even more fundamental assault on our RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY to be enacted by Parliament (perhaps in connection with terrorists) before the people say, “Enough is enough!”
    It is always possible, I suppose, that some individual could go to court and and contest the smoking ban, not on the grounds of human rights but upon the rights of free assembly. Let us say, for example, a society called ‘The Tobacco Appreciation Society’ wished to assemble in a room in a pub in order to sample different tobaccos and the publican is quite willing to allow this meeting. Why should the state be able to forbid such a meeting? Would it not be wonderful if a wealthy person took it upon himself to mount such a challenge?
    In the meantime, all that we poor people can do is keep banging on about our right to assemble peacefully as and when and where we wish.

  7. Frank Davis says:

    Good point. I’ve lost track of the number of rights we’ve lost over the past few years.
    It reminds me of how private clubs are included in the ban. Clubs which are not open to the general public.
    And all in the name of Health, which is used to trump every single other right, and to systematically destroy an entire culture.

  8. CA says:

    I don’t smoke, but over hear in New Zealand they are trying to ban smoking outside in public, which I think is simply breach of freedom. Whilst at the same time their is no similar stigmatisation of the use illegal drugs – rank hypocrisy.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.