Government Of Vandals

I was exploring yesterday the idea that there was a government culture, a mainstream media culture, a medical culture, and in fact a culture or subculture inside every institution or company. And these subcultures were always changing. As new individual people with their own values and beliefs joined them, or people left them, the cultural balance was always subtly changing. I mentioned my own tiny influence, exerted for less than a year, on the internal subculture of Westminster City Council, as I quite consciously and deliberately subverted its dress codes.

I was also noting what seemed to have been a change in government culture from being reactive to being proactive. More and more, governments are not merely reacting to events, but driving events themselves. If in democracies the people command the government, recently we’ve moved much more towards a condition where the government commands the people. We have governments actively pursuing a whole range of different agendas – antismoking, anti-alcohol, anti-obesity, environmental, climate change, EU, and so on.

It’s almost as if – if you’re someone with some political agenda – you no longer bother to create a political party or movement which will attract votes, but you instead become a government employee, and use your small influence within government to change its internal culture – much in the way I did within Westminster City Council. Only you’re not trying to change dress codes, but attitudes to tobacco, alcohol, obesity, climate change, religion, and even the entire ethos of government. And once you’re inside government, you can then hire new employees who share your own values and beliefs, and thereby continue to change the culture of government, perhaps over a period of many decades.

And I increasingly believe that something like this is what has actually happened, in some cases deliberately, and in other cases quite naturally. And the net effect is that the government – and the mainstream media, and medical profession, and any other profession you care to mention – have all gradually changed into being entities quite different from what they were 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, and have become in some cases the polar opposite of what they once were. And if I were, perchance, to somehow become an employee of Westminster City Council in 2017, I would find it had a completely different culture from its culture in 1970, even though it probably still occupies the same building.

And the new culture of government seems to be: The people don’t tell us what to do – we tell them. And so the various federal or state bodies governing HUD residences in NYC have decided that smoking should be banned within  them. What the people living in them might want is irrelevant –  government knows best.

Nothing exemplified this attitude better than Angela Merkel’s decision to invite a million Syrian migrant/refugees to Germany. There was no consultation of the German people. She made the decision herself. Or she made the decision from within the norms of the reigning culture inside the government of which she was head. She knew best what was good for Germany, and a million refugees was just the ticket. Although from my point of view, it looked like one of the most destructive – even vandalistic – things she could have possibly done to Germany.

It’s as if we all now endure the government of vandals, who are intent upon destroying every cultural institution they can. Everything is under attack. The sovereign nation state is under attack. Christianity is under attack. Industry is under attack. White people are under attack. Males are under attack. Marriage is under attack. Language is under attack. Tobacco and alcohol are under attack. There is a full scale assault under way against every cultural norm or value. And in almost every case it is being conducted with the support and encouragement and financing of one supra-governmental or governmental or state-funded body or other.

We now have governments versus the people, rather than governments representing the people.

And when the people get the chance, as they occasionally do, to exert democratic force upon government, it is increasingly to counter or negate the actions of government. And so the Brexit vote in the UK. And the election of Donald Trump in the USA in the face of a media hurricane of abuse. And quite likely the failure of the Italian referendum, and the election of a far-right Austrian government later today. Everywhere people are turning against governments that no longer even pretend to represent the people, but who wish to destroy or replace or otherwise nullify the people. We have, throughout the Western world, almost a state of civil war between government and people.

In the USA, president-elect Donald Trump now has the opportunity to start to change the culture of government. He’s already rumoured to have sweeping change in mind for the environmentally-activist EPA and NASA. He could suppress the cultures that have grown up inside these government-funded institutions. Whether he actually will or not remains to be seen.

But everywhere people are waking up to the discovery that government is not their friend, but instead their enemy, and now consists of an army of vandals devoted to the complete destruction of everything they hold dear, whether it be the country of their birth, the plate of pizza on their table, or the cigarette between their lips.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Government Of Vandals

  1. Rose says:

    And the net effect is that the government – and the mainstream media, and medical profession, and any other profession you care to mention – have all gradually changed into being entities quite different from what they were 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, and have become in some cases the polar opposite of what they once were

    1971
    “A fundamental principle” of the American Cancer Society, said the Society’s public information vice president, Irving Rimer, has always been that “smokers are people and most of them are very nice people and very responsible people”
    https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/docs/#id=fffb0215

    “Nevertheless, the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) was not the most obvious body to produce a report on the link between smoking and lung cancer, and it had already turned down the opportunity once. In November 1956, Francis Avery Jones, a gastroenterologist from the Central Middlesex Hospital with whom Doll had originally worked, wrote to the president of the College, Lord Brain, urging that the College put out a statement on the effect of smoking on health, “with particular reference to the rising generation.” Brain—a shy, reserved man—took a month to reply, only to turn the proposal down. The reasons for his refusal were, in their dislike of giving public advice,..”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894742/

    • Frank Davis says:

      The reasons for his refusal were, in their dislike of giving public advice, typical of the profession’s attitude at the time.

      That’s a very good example of cultural change inside the medical profession. Now the buggers can’t stop giving public advice. Not only that, but by 2005 people like the BMA’s Sir Charles George weren’t just giving public advice, but were also demanding that the government make the ‘advice’ into law in the form of a public smoking ban.

      • Rose says:

        “The cost of sloth, gluttony, alcoholic intemperance, reckless driving, sexual frenzy, and smoking have now become a national, not an individual, responsibility, all justified as individual freedom,” asserts Dr. John Knowles, the influential president of the Rockefeller Foundation. But one man’s or woman’s freedom in health is now another man’s shackle in taxes and insurance premiums.” Knowles sternly warns that “the cost of individual irresponsibility in health has become prohibitive”

        (Conference on Future Directions in Health Care: The Dimensions of Medicine, Sponsored by Blue Cross Association, Rockefeller Foundation, and University of California (San Francisco) Health Policy Program, New York, Dec. 1975)

        Blaming The Victim, A New Prominence For An Old Ideology
        http://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/0303critic/030312brown/brown5.htm
        Rockefeller Medicine Men

        Meanwhile In Britain (and the Rockefeller Foundation had had a School of Public Health in London since 1926 – LSHTM)

        “Here is Dr Jerry Morris of the Social Medicine Unit, speaking on the radio in the 1950s:

        “We are dealing with a different social situation. The nineteenth century epidemics, bred in poverty and malnutrition, arose from the failures of the social system. But coronary thrombosis with its origins apparently in high living standardsseems to be arising from what we regard as successes of the social systemIt is becoming clear that in the modification of personal behaviour, of diet, smoking, physical exercise and the rest, which look like providing at any rate part of the answer, the responsibility of the individual for his own health will be far greater than formerly. It will not be possible to impose from without (as drains were built) the new norms of behaviour better serving the needs of middle and old age. They will only come about in a new kind of partnership between community and individual.”

        “The 1964 Cohen Report on health education exemplified the new approach. It argued that the old local-information-giving approach was ineffective and that what was needed was a greater degree of central publicity, using habit-changing campaigns and social surveys, as well as strengthening the new profession of health educators. The models came from American social psychology.

        The new breed of educators was to be trained in journalism, publicity, the behavioural sciences and teaching methods. Training people would involve both imparting knowledge and inculcating self-discipline, a telling new phrase. The new health educator was to be a salesman, persuading people to take appropriate action. Just knowing about the risks of cigarette smoking was not enough: Cohen called tobacco advertising ‘propaganda’ and it had to be countered in the same way.”
        http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/smoking-and-the-sea-change-in-public-health-1945-2007

  2. smokingscot says:

    Austria turns out to be a damp squib. The chap who lost – rightly – criticises Farage for interfering and for talking utter bollocks (we know exactly what he means, recall Obama on Brexit).

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/dec/04/italian-referendum-and-austrian-presidential-election-live

    And the weather didn’t help, it never got above 3 degrees C with a keen wind – and that deters voters, especially aged people – who are more likely to want to retain the Austria they knew.

    http://www.accuweather.com/en/at/vienna/31868/weather-forecast/31868

    • jaxthefirst says:

      Interesting to note that in (BBC) reporting of the Austrian elections the ex-Green winning candidate was cited to have won “by a clear margin,” despite the vote being split 54% to 46% (at the time of reporting – some results were still due), whereas our Referendum result – at 52% to 48% is cited as “the very narrowest of margins!” It seems that, these days, the difference between a “clear” and “narrow” margin is a mere 2%!

      • nisakiman says:

        It seems that, these days, the difference between a “clear” and “narrow” margin is a mere 2%!

        No, Jax, the difference between a clear and a narrow margin is dependent on whether the vote was won by the ‘progressive’ Left (clear margin) or the conservative Right (narrow margin, almost certainly gained by spreading lies among the uneducated).

        • waltc says:

          Ha! Perfect.

        • smokingscot says:

          A belated bit of trivia. His lower teeth are a dead giveaway, so checked and indeed the winner does smoke.

          “Van der Bellen will be Austria’s second-oldest head of state at the time of his election. But despite this, he has many young supporters who organised dance raves to support him.

          His age, combined with a heavy smoking habit, has raised questions about his health. In late August, Van der Bellen was forced to dispel cancer rumours by releasing his medical records to prove that he had “wonderful lungs”.

          But he said he had no intention of giving up smoking.

          “I once quit for four months … but why should I torture myself at my age?” he asked.”

          http://www.france24.com/en/20161204-left-leaning-professor-van-der-bellen-austria-president

          Somehow that information makes me feel a whole lot happier. Hofer – by the by – doesn’t.

  3. waltc says:

    Another nail-on-the-head essay, Frank. Here’s a ripe example of government engineering as exposed front page of the NY Post. Started by Bloomberg, continued by DeBlasio, in the name of both fitness and the “fight” against global warming, the NYC govt purposely causes traffic nightmares and pedestrian fatalities. And since I live on a major avenue in Manhattan, i can attest to the nightmare

    http://nypost.com/2016/12/02/new-york-citys-traffic-is-intentionally-horrible/?contact-form-id=widget-text-4&contact-form-sent=10580845&_wpnonce=bd91279ae6#contact-form-widget-text-4

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s