I Have Lived In Your Future…

Yesterday I wrote of the healthists that

They are, quite simply, the latest bunch of tyrants bent on enslaving humanity for their own ends. They want to make people do what they want them to do, rather than freely choose for themselves. They are not the first, of course, and they won’t be the last.

Today I came across something that someone said which echoed what I wrote.

“They want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. “

It was Czech President Vaclav Klaus who said it, but he wasn’t actually talking about healthists. He was actually talking about global warming alarmists. Here’s the full quote:

Global warming alarmists “want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore …what is in danger is freedom, not the climate”

I don’t think he’s wrong about the alarmists. I think they are indeed out to change people’s behaviour, their values and preferences, their way of life. But so also are the healthists. We’re facing a two-pronged attack on our values.

In fact, if you add in the EU, we’re facing a three-pronged attack. And, who knows, there may be a few more prongs I haven’t noticed.

I tend to concentrate on smoking and smoking bans, because that’s what matters most to me. But I’ve repeatedly noted the parallels between the anti-smoking healthists and the global warming alarmists. I’ve paid less attention to the EU, except to note that it’s equally anti-smoking and climate alarmist.

And perhaps they’re all connected, and in toto they represent the removal of individual freedom and democracy and the imposition of state power upon individual life. And, 20 years after that fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we are now seeing the equal and opposite disintegration of the West, and the emergence of something like an EU Soviet Union in its place – all without a shot being fired. After all, plenty of people already refer to the EU as the EUSSR. And perhaps they’re right. All I know about the EU from my own studies is that it’s pretty thoroughly undemocratic.

If they all are connected, then it will never be possible to defeat the antismokers without also defeating the global warmists and the EU enthusiasts, because they would all be different regiments in the same army.

And in fact, we may already have been utterly and comprehensively defeated, and they have won, and the reason why all our political parties are more or less identical is because all our politicians have long since conceded defeat, and thrown in their lot with the victors, and are at best trying to secure the best possible terms at the armistice talks.

If so, then the people with the best idea of what our future will be like are those people, like Vaclav Klaus, who spent most of their life in Eastern Bloc countries. Perhaps a few of my German readers spent some of their lives in the former East Germany, and would like to tell us what it will be like.

From what I know of it, life was pretty dull and drab, and nothing worked very well. State planning regularly ensured shortages or gluts of goods (although mostly shortages). The shops were mostly empty. The population was kept under close surveillance by the Stasi, and anti-communist elements were regularly rounded up and detained. Everybody spied on everybody, and you had to watch what you said.

If that’s the future, then smoking bans will multiply unstoppably, and tobacco will become illegal. The same will happen with alcohol shortly afterwards. Meat and fresh vegetables and luxury foods will vanish from the shops. As will music and fashionable clothes and shoes. Cars will largely vanish from the roads. Everyone will walk or cycle everywhere. Nobody will have any holidays abroad, and in fact such travel will be forbidden. You’ll probably need a travel permit to go further than about 50 miles from where you live. Public services – buses and trains – will work far worse than they already do. And there’ll be regular power cuts, as the power stations are replaced with non-functioning windmills. If there are already too many rules and regulations about everything, there will be ten times more of them.

Most of the institutions will probably be kept in place to preserve an air of normality. The Queen will be succeeded by Prince Charles, and he’ll spend his time opening wind farms and starting bicycle races. There’ll still be a parliament, but you’ll get the same Party in power whoever you vote for, or even if you don’t vote. And there’ll still be the BBC, and Gardeners’ Question Time will be very popular with people who are trying to grow turnips. The Archers will remain the same, but will feature everyday life in bicycling and turnip-growing Ambridge.

And all the socialists will be delighted. “At last!” they’ll say, “We will have a rationally planned and egalitarian society.” But for most people it will mean a catastrophic decline in their standards of living. Death rates will rise dramatically. Life will become much harder for everybody. But everybody will share equally in the shortages, as disparities of wealth are eradicated. Except it won’t really be egalitarian. You’ll live much better if you have Party connections. Top party members will have access to as many cigarettes and bottles of good whisky as they like.

And most private conversations, conducted by candlelight, will consist of reminiscences of what it used to be like. “Do you remember when you could buy chocolates? All sorts of different sorts!”

Well, that’s what I imagine. But what do I know?

Or perhaps it will be a great success? A bit like the smoking ban is a great success. Or will those who have been there before prove to have been right?

“I have lived in your future ….and it doesn’t work” (Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky on the EU)

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to I Have Lived In Your Future…

  1. These idiots won’t change anything. Human nature is more or less fixed – thank God (or Nature).

  2. Reinhold says:

    “Perhaps a few of my German readers spent some of their lives in the former East Germany, and would like to tell us what it will be like.”

    It may be hard to find people from former Eastern Germany who can explain their experiences here, Frank. Because they learned Russian in school, not English.

  3. Brigitte says:

    When the wall along the DDR border was built, my father’s family (from near Helmstedt) was split in half. One ?cousin’s house was right by this border, so I guess my father was luckier than most people as he had an opportunity to get a glimpse of his family occasionally.
    On one occasion I was allowed to go with my father and uncle. We went into a forest and walked for a while until we reached a high level platform. After I had climbed the ladder and stood on this platform I saw first a barbed wire fence, then something that looked like an untended field; overgrown with wild flowers and grass. Behind it was what looked like a freshly ploughed field and behind that there was a wall with manned watch towers approx every 50 meters away distance between them. And behind that one could see the second floor windows of an old house; my father’s relative’s house.
    The overgrown field was no-man’s land; the freshly ploughed field was the mine field and the watchtowers were manned with DDR soldiers pointing their rifles at us. My uncle told me that under no circumstances am I to make a sudden, abrupt move, as the soldiers would not hesitate to shoot.

    Are there any plans to create a border around the EU to keep people in?????

  4. Mesmer says:

    Spot on, Frank.

    I’m around your age and I always thought how odd it was that I lived in a time when there were no major conflicts (at least as it pertained to me.)

    Reading the paper this morning, here in Canada, I see an article about scientists saying that it isn’t enough to set aside space for wildlife to protect biodiversity but we have to start looking at how many people there are using the worlds resources.

    We’re back to the eugenecists!

    The smoking ban, the attack on alcohol, the attack on Christianity – all designed to prevent people from meeting in an atmosphere conducive to debate and discussion.

    I sit here, smug in the knowledge that I am so much more aware than the sheeple, yet I am just beginning to see what is happening – and I spend half my waking hours thinking about it. How can one expect the average Joe to see it? Especially when you realize that they’ve been educated not to think but to be part of the collective – and for many of them, are functionally illiterate to boot.


  5. Gary K. says:

    “We’re back to the eugenecists!”

    They insist that we quit smoking.
    But; if we quit smoking, eventually we will have a 60% increase in our death rate from the 19 ‘smoking caused’ diseases!!!!!

    There are 94 million ever-smokers(USA) and 134 million never-smokers.
    Here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm
    the CDC table shows that there are 1,303,000 annual deaths from the 19 ‘smoking caused’ diseases.
    It shows that about 393,000 deaths occur to ever-smokers and 910,200 to never-smokers.

    393,000 annual deaths per 94 million ever-smokers is a death rate of 42/10,000.
    910,200 deaths per 136 million never-smokers is a death rate of 67/10,000.

    67 is 60% higher than 42.
    It is hard to believe, but; if a never-smoker would start smoking, eventually their death rate from the 19 ‘smoking caused’ diseases would be REDUCED by 37%!!!!

    • Frank J says:

      Yes but are they not trying to conditioned the sheeple to believe that the 910,200 never smoker deaths are, probably, caused by we smokers with our filthy SHS? ergo, eradicating tobacco would save all 1,303,000?

  6. Tim says:

    Here for example is just one AGW “expert” who is currently under investigation in the US and who may be stripped of all his scientific credentials for his role in promoting pure propaganda and lies as truth.

    His claim to fame is taking photographs of polar bears on icebergs, the same bears which can swim 60 miles in cold icy waters and have been doing so for millenia and using it to hype the AGW Fraud, to help popularize the AGW Myth.

    Now, it’s being investigated, that he wasn’t quite so honest in his depictions and claims after all but had an agenda behind what he hyped.


    Now, how long it will be before the anti-smoking and SHS Fraud hysteria propagandists start finding themselves in the same position, hard to know. But eventually the science community needs to clear out the sh*te and go back to actual science and get out of the eugenics and hate-campaign business for their own self benefit, receiving of grant monies and aggrandizement of a prejudice.

  7. Junican says:

    I have been intrigued by your figures before, Gary. But there is something that perplexes me…
    ASH ET AL constantly emphasize PREMATURE death. Do the figures you quote take prematurity into account? Or does that not matter? I’m too lazy to think it out!

    • Brigitte says:

      There is a piece of ASH et al type of research which works out the number of years of premature death caused by ‘disease’ e.g. heart problems (smokers do get a good mention) by averaging the number of years lived of on heart problems deceased people minus the number of years lived by the average population, or just simply use the arbitrary average age of 65.

      Unless I did not read this “paper” thoroughly enough:
      So, we have then: N1 (= number of people deceased due to heart problems)
      N1Y (= number of years lived by N1)
      N2 (= number of random, non heart problem dead people )
      N2Y (= number of years lived by N2)
      N1YA (= average number of years lived by N1)
      N2YA (= average number of years lived by N2; by which N2YA can be
      substituted with an average number of e.g. 65 should the
      epidemiologist run out of fingers)

      this provides: NY2A – NY1A = years of premature death.

      If one cares to continue reading this “paper”, a small sentence can be found which states that there is a problem with this equation; N2YA might contain inaccurate information as one or more of these people MIGHT have died at some later point from heart problems or even cancer, thus not living to what was assumed their life expectancy if they had survived the very thing that killed them in the first place.

      (I hope I find the link to this marvel of epidemiology research again; I know it was posted in “Netzwerk Rauchen” Forum.)

  8. Gary K. says:

    A smoker’s pre-mature death claim is a ‘Red Herring’ statement!
    All deaths are pre-mature; since, if the people had not died, they would have lived longer.

    The question is just how much longer?

    Here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_09.pdf
    “Table A. Expectation of life by age, race, and sex: United States, 2004′

    we fing some interesting data.
    At birth the life expectancy is 77.8 years.
    But; at age 78 it is not zero, it is about 9.5 years.
    A death at age 100 is still pre-mature; because, there are still 2.6 years of expected life.

    Using such a table is how,I think, the antis figure out smokers ‘years of potential/productive life lost'(YPLL).

    The CDC table above shows that the 393,000 smokers deaths from those 19 diseases cause about 5.1 million YPLL.

    That is 13.2 YPLL per person and gives an average age at death of 73.

    Never-smokers average age of death from those 19 ‘smoking caused’ diseases is also about 73!!
    Getting that number is rather round-about and I’m to tired to get into it, maybe tomorrow.

  9. timbone says:

    It does not surprise me that Czech President Vaclav Klaus is not afraid to speak common sense. It is the ‘national temerament’. After all, in 1968, Alexander Dubcek innitiated the famous Prague Spring, a more democratic communism, allowing more freedom to the artist and journalist. Of course, as we all know, the Russian tanks moved in that same year and he was arrested. I don’t know what tanks the EU will use on Klaus. There is a frightening comparison however.

  10. Junican says:

    Only in the detail is it possible to refute the claims of ASH ET AL. Ash promulgate statements which are unscientific in that they promote a possibility of ’cause and effect’ which is not supported by experiment or observation.

    Death statistics show that there are comparatively few people who die before the age of 80 ish. (Those who die before 80 ish are counterbalanced by those who die after 80 ish) Only if it can be shown scientifically that smoking actually caused the biological changes in a person which actually caused that person to become deceased can smoking as a cause of death be verified.

    It is important to stop there. It is up to ASH ET AL to prove that smoking causes deaths. We do not have to prove that smoking does not cause deaths.

    For f*cks sake! We do not have the funds to contest ASH’s assertions. Why is it that the Tobacco Companies have been so tardy in contesting these assertions? Is it because they have fallen into the clutches of lawyers?

    IDIOTS! At least, they seem to be waking up, even if it is a bit late.

    We who enjoy tobacco do so because we wish to do so. If we wish to do so, then MPs, the DoH, the Chemical Industry, ASH, CRUK, Brake, etc have no right even to TRY to influence our choices. We are adults, and perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves. If there are dangers in our chosen way of life, by all means say so, but do not force us to change our ways.

    Somehow, we must become pro-active – that is, we must not wait for the latest attack from ASH ET AL. We must take the battle to them.

    My opinion, for what it is worth, is that we need a ‘grass roots’ movement. That does not mean some sort of ‘national organisation’. It means small groups throughout England who are determined to resist. In due course, these groups can come together, but, in the first instance, they must be individual groups (in order to avoid propaganda attacks from ASH ET AL).

    Bolton Smokers Club is a tentative beginning. Who knows where it might lead? How about Bolton Drinkers Club? The way things are going, such a club may become necessary. Why wait?

  11. Anonymous says:

    I enjoy reading your blog, you are a lot more insightful than other right wing blogs.
    But, like those, you have some weird ideas about what “socialism” or a “socialist”
    actually is.

    I’m your age and have been a socialist from my teens, to me a socialist is someone
    who wants to CHANGE SOCIETY , especially its mode of production , to suit the
    interests of the vast majority of people , instead of just the ruling elites.

    These characters you call “socialists” are anything but that…… they are doing the
    exact opposite, they are trying to CHANGE PEOPLE , to fit into an unnatural
    capitalist society, with all its absurdities.

    I’m surprised you aren’t more “left wing” in view of your Idle theory.
    The only way we can have more Idle time is to fully automate all production (although
    capitalism is already doing that for us) therefore what we really need is production
    for human need, instead of for, the world market and corporate profit.
    With production for NEED, it is obvious that the waste of resources and destruction
    of the enviroment would be greatly reduced.

    Where I think you get the idea from that these fascists are “socialist” is because
    many decades ago they probably were on the left, but realised that changing the
    capitalist mode of production is far, far, harder than changing peoples behaviour.
    So they abandoned socialism (which was fashionable at the time) and took the line
    of least resistance instead. – The Labour party and the BBC is full of ex-“communists”.

    • Brigitte says:

      …..have been a socialist from my teens, to me a socialist is someone
      who wants to CHANGE SOCIETY , especially its mode of production , to suit the
      interests of the vast majority of people , instead of just the ruling elites.

      This, I’m afraid, fits the former DDR socialist-communist model and brings me back to Frank’s question about what life in the DDR was like.

      Visiting the place in the early 1980s was quite an interesting experience. The first thing that struck me was that the people I visited didn’t bother to go to work the next day. No-one cared. I was told that in Summer, on a nice day, not many people go to work.
      (Isn’t it a little counterproductive to leave a potentially good harvest to rot in the field?)
      If you wanted a car (usually a “Trabant”) you were put on a 7 – 10 year waiting list. End of.
      There was no such thing as throwing away furniture or electrical appliances for the sake of fashion. People fixed these until it could no longer be fixed and even then they were taken apart for the parts to be used otherwise or sold.
      The ruling elite in the DDR had access to all of life’s little comforts.

      ‘Changing Society to suit the interest of the vast majority of people’ can be a little problematic, especially when I am being told what the interest of the majority of people wants when not being asked to pass my vote.
      Isn’t this what anti-tobacco (soon anti-alcohol; anti-BMI->30; etc etc) is (are) about?

    • Frank Davis says:

      to me a socialist is someone who wants to CHANGE SOCIETY

      I don’t think I’ve ever wanted to change society. Improve it a bit, maybe. I’ve never regarded myself as a socialist. But neither as conservative either.

      I’m surprised you aren’t more “left wing” in view of your Idle theory.

      I used to think of myself as left wing, in a mild sort of way. Definitely not right wing. I regarded myself as left wing because I wanted a more equal society. The smoking ban kicked me to the right. I don’t think I’ll ever be conservative.

      I don’t think Idle Theory is particularly left or right wing. It is rather egalitarian in a restricted way. But it also approves of profit, markets. It makes a clear distinction between wants and needs (and has nothing against either)..

  12. Junican says:

    Thinking about tyrants, perhaps we should think about tyrants of the past. The Romans, for example, did not generally interfere with their subjects. But there was one thing that they would not tolerate, and that was any threat to their power. Any such threats were put down without mercy. And so it has been throughout the ages.

    We note that Tobacco Control, Alcohol Control and Climate Control have gained immense power via pseudo science and semi-tyrannical political power. The difference in this case is that the object of the power is precisely to alter the behaviour of the subject people. We see, as we should expect, no tolerance of threats to their power. Lies, pseudo-science, threats and ad homs are all simply tools to be used to protect their power.

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.