Coming To The Boil

Nobody noticed them for a long time. They could be found in cities everywhere, usually outside, and standing on their own. And then quite suddenly they became intolerable, and they came under physical attack.

Smokers? No, I wasn’t thinking of smokers (although I very easily could have been).

I was thinking of statues. All of a sudden, statues everywhere are coming under threat, and under physical attack. It started with the statue of Robert E Lee in Charlottesville, but rapidly spread to other statues. It won’t be long before it comes to Britain. And people are already asking questions like:

Karl Marx must fall ahead of Admiral Nelson, surely?

I came across a headline this morning that didn’t seem to have any text beneath it. It asked a strange question, but provided no answer:

Why are so many cyclists aggressive towards pedestrians?

Why indeed?

Add to this the rise of antisemitism. The Antisemitism Barometer:

36% of British adults believe at least one antisemitic stereotype

1 in 3 British Jews have considered leaving Britain in the past two years due to antisemitism

39% of British Jews conceal their Judaism in public

And then of course there are the antismoking campaigns, which I’ve often compared to antisemitism.

There seems to be a growing intolerance of more or less everything. Statues. Pedestrians (and maybe cyclists as well). Jews. Smokers.

People seem to get along together perfectly well for a long time, but then they all seem to fall out with each other. And gradually push comes to shove, in a sort of chain reaction.

Everyone gets caught up in it, in some way or other.

It seems to be at its worst in the USA, where Donald Trump seems to have become the arch-villain for half the country, with lots of people calling for him to be assassinated or impeached, and talk radio hosts like Michael Savage and Alex Jones foreseeing civil war if anything like that happens.

But it’s really no better in Europe, where tensions are mounting just as high under a vast influx of migrants and a succession of terrorist attacks in Paris, London, and most recently Barcelona.

The whole world seems to be slowly coming to the boil. There’s the sense that if war doesn’t break out between one country and another, it will break out on the streets between pedestrians and cyclists, or smokers and antismokers, or maybe even between the statues of Karl Marx and Horatio Nelson that peacefully co-existed in London for about a century.

Is it being deliberately whipped up? Or is it happening of its own accord?

My own sense, for what it’s worth, is that the authorities have lost control, and events are now proceeding under their own momentum. Who knows where it will end?

 

About Frank Davis

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

20 Responses to Coming To The Boil

  1. waltc says:

    The media has a lot to do with much of it–at least the smokerphobia and political divide. This article struck me as apt:

    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-fascism-delusion/20242#.WaEPp9T3arW

    • garyk30 says:

      Were the Nazis actually racist?
      Bigoted for sure; but, the Jews are Caucasian and not a Race.

      There were Blacks in Germany at the time; but, they were not treated worse than they were in many Western countries.

      • Joe L. says:

        You are witnessing the creation of newspeak unfold before your very eyes, Gary.

        Progressives have commandeered some of the most emotionally-charged words (Nazi, fascist, racist, bigot, xenophobe, etc.) and are liberally applying them to all movements/groups of people they deem anti-Progressive. The uneducated Progressive sheep (the same ones who believe everything Al Gore says about CO2, the ones who believe marijuana is a miracle drug while simultaneously believing tobacco causes every disease known to man) pick up on these buzz words and parrot them further.

        The words themselves are becoming devoid of their original meanings and are all becoming synonymous with “Anti-Progressive” / “Anti-Globalist” in order to channel the negative emotions associated with all these words towards their opponents.

        • nisakiman says:

          “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
          Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
          “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
          “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
          “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
          “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

          Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

          Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll

      • waltc says:

        As someone below comments, all terms are now conflated and “Nazi” now stands for anything you want it to, as does “Fascist” which apparently stands for anything except actual fascism.

        And, yes, absolutely, Jews are no more a “race” than are Catholics and it beats me why they”re classically referred to as a race. I once had a character say in a novel that “as soon as you start to think of Jews as a race, the next thing, you’re trying to run tnem off the planet. ”

        I wasn’t aware that there were Blacks in Germany at the time but in any case, like Slavs and Gypsies, they were non-Aryan and subject to official discrimination. And I seem to recall reading that half-blacks were sterilized.

  2. waltc says:

    I also think more people are more unhappy in their own lives and need someone to blame it on or vent their frustration on, in some cases going for the scapegoat the media points them to, but in any case setting up an Us/Them universe.

    In NYC, there’s definitely a bicycle/pedestrian and bicycle/driver war. And just as the city favors nonsmokers to the detriment (zero sum game) of smokers, it also dotes on bikers. It gives them a full lane on traffic-jammed thoroughfares, causing even more traffic jams and frustrating drivers (tho oddly, part of the purpose is to promote “clean air” with bicycles, more stalled cars do the exact opposite) though it’s also been speculated, in print, that an actual purpose WAS to frustrate drivers as a way to force them onto piblic transport. Then, too, It gives them half-blocks of rent-a-bike stands on residential side streets, again taking up a lane and dismaying residents whose houses those ugly things are in front of. And then there’s the clash with pedestrians, since the bikers respect neither traffic lights nor one-way street signs, zoom through lights and around corners the wrong way, and nontheless also ride on the sidewalks.

    However, I’ve observed that this is also a class war since most of the bikers are not the health-conscious middle-class youth the whole program is ostensibly aimed at but the apparently illegal immigrant messengers and delivery boys who seem to take pleasure in plowing into crowds at crossways and scaring the shit out old ladies to whom they gleefully give the finger.

    • Well analyzed Walt! I think you may have seen it already, but if not… you’ll see “The Plan” for reducing auto usage laid out quite nicely (heh, or wickedly) by a radical nutcase from the mid-1970s at: https://assortedtopics.quora.com/Free-Peoples-Transit There’s no “speculation” involved: similar to the situation with the Antismokers you have different people with different motivations involved, but some of them are most definitely quite Antidriver in their motives.

      My stand nowadays is that well-enforced bicycle lanes, complemented by well-enforced-but-permitted low speed sidewalk bicycling (with pedestrian right-of-way being part of the enforcement) should be the main thrust, with a small but reasonable supportive network of quiet one way streets converted to “bicycle/pedestrian/residential-parking-only” streets in urban commuter areas.

      Bicyclists have actually made HUGE strides over the years. When I was in college (all boys Catholic school) we had a “sister” all-girls school situated about a mile and a half away with a shuttle bus running back and forth. and a relatively quiet network of semi-suburban-feeling curving city streets in between: an absolutely ideal bicycling situation. BUT… this was in the early 1970s: in my four years of college I only knew of ONE person who biked back and forth between the two campuses — a rather wacky physics professor! Adults (or even college students!) just did NOT bicycle for transportation back then.

      Have you ever seen a bicycle cop rolling around? Probably many times, right? But when my group tried to propose the idea to Philly city officials in the mid-70s we were LAUGHED at: they thought we were kidding and made a joke about British “Bobbies” riding around with little ding-a-ling bells instead of sirens!

      I’m still a dedicated cyclist, and still quite pro-bicycle, but I’m no longer a “social engineer” laying plots like an Antismoker for negative reinforcements to shape everyone’s behavior to my own peculiar visions.

      – MJM

      • waltc says:

        My stand nowadays is that well-enforced bicycle lanes, complemented by well-enforced-but-permitted low speed sidewalk bicycling (with pedestrian right-of-way being part of the enforcement) should be the main thrust, with a small but reasonable supportive network of quiet one way streets converted to “bicycle/pedestrian/residential-parking-only” streets in urban commuter areas.”

        None of this works in NYC. Your bike lanes create horrendous jams. There ARE no quiet side streets in Manhattan and even if there were you’d simply jam the alternate streets. Cyclists on sidewalks jeopardize pedestrians, don’t slow down and the majority are angry illegals who, as it is, follow no rules. Sorry, Michael, but ride your bike in Central and other parks.

        About a year before she died, the writer Nora Ephron was asked, in a NY Times interview, “What scares you most?” and her answer was “Bicycle messengers.”

        • waltc says:

          Hah. Just googled it to check my memory. The question to,Ephron was “What’s the worst thing about New York?” Check her answer

        • And actually, I would support a law AGAINST bicycle messengers. I did a brief messaging stint in lower/mid Manhattan one summer during high school, and we did it by foot and mass transit. “Bicycle Messengering” hadn’t been “invented” yet. People will have to pay more for things, because it won’t be nearly as efficient, but if enough people feel strongly enough about it and are willing to pay the money then they should vote for it (basically by voting for candidates supporting the idea.

          In terms of how bike lanes work in NYC, I’ve got no idea. They seem to work fine here in Philly, but our streets are less crowded for the most part. As for sidewalk riding, note my strictures on it: It needs to have firm guidelines dealing with pedestrian density and speed, with ticketing used as an enforcement.

          Removing bicycles to any great extent, even just the “no messengers” suggestion, has the blowback of “unintended side effects” though. The movement of people and packages will stay the same: but they’ll move over to jamming more cars and more people into mass transit. You might end up finding that the solution is worse than the problem. Or maybe not: as noted above, I’m not that familiar with NYC in the bicycle era.

          – MJM

  3. C.F. Apollyon says:


    People seem to get along together perfectly well for a long time, but then they all seem to fall out with each other. And gradually push comes to shove, in a sort of chain reaction.

    My father used to say there was no such thing as “a mean drunk” … they’re always mean, it just takes the liquor to bring it out in them. So…thinking opportunistically, there are going to be many opportunities for opportunists in times of change. What I am thinking about here is nothing new, it’s just new to those who participate in the whatever that is transpiring. Kinda like a new fireman/firewoman/firefighterperson that has been trained, never actually fought a fire. They’ve just been sitting waiting for that first call to come.

    Everyone has their agenda(s), plan(s), purpose(s) and reason(s)…the stars have aligned and the scene is set…now the wheels just need to start turning and engage eachother.
    Let’s see what happens when agendas conflict…

    ^Zombie Kid Likes Turtles^


    There’s always that wildcard or “free-radical” lurking in the unknown/unseen. It typically downplayed or marked as being impertinent since the odds favor it’s irrelevance. So we tell ourselves. Ironic that our modeling not only requires the wildcard…it demands it, and our models depend on it. Afterall, all cards are “wild” until we receive our own hand and turn them over. It just so happens that the deck contains some sets, but that is also by design. Even removing The Joker(s) from the deck does not mean that “the wildcard aspect” of the game has been removed. Wildcards can be assigned. One-Eyed Jacks and Suicide Kings are popular, but I’ll digress here.

    I think one of the saving graces that we of the developed world have going for us, is these walls that we’ve built. There’s nowhere to run. Kinda like a sailor who is a complete asshole to all of his fellow sailors while on-shore because he has options/places to run. But when they set sail? Suddenly…he’s trapped with, and dependent upon, all of these people that he despised and tormented. When I was younger, my dad talked extensively about “shipboard justice and protocols” from his time in The USMC, but I’ll digress here too.

    ^Vini Vici – Namaste^


    I’m just wondering about this “chain reaction” state that implies…what…a “chain non-reaction” state that exists prior to? That implies balance. Which cannot be so. Otherwise, the chain reaction would never have been possible.
    Q: What have we forgotten?
    A: Time.
    That means we’ve forgotten everything else.
    So yeah, why static models and modeling fail us.
    They omit everything else.
    Speaking of which…I’ll omit myself here and digress all the way.

    Lot’s to think about.

    Thanks for the read. :-)

    ^REZZ – LIVID^

  4. Clicky says:

  5. slugbop007 says:

    I just read this blurb from Livestrong.com. I wonder who sponsors them?

    Livestrong.com Cancer Chronic and excess consumption of beer is linked to several types of cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. Specifically, it may increase your risk of developing mouth, throat, colon, breast, liver and larynx cancer. However, the risk of cancer is identical to that posed by consumption of other types of alcohol, such as liquor, wine and malt alcohol beverages. Risk of mouth, larynx and throat cancer may be increased by tobacco use–alcohol may act as a solvent that increases the absorption of harmful chemicals in tobacco.

    Well, it looks like everything may cause cancer. Or might not.

    slugbop007

    • beobrigitte says:

      Soooooo….. alcohol causes cancer?
      Why do I fail to take any health scares seriously? Because by now they are seen for what they are: idiotic.
      Fear mongering has gone too far, people want to be in charge of their own lives again. Taxpayers keep the system afloat.
      The additional tax paid (e.g. by smokers) should only be used for smokers’.

    • Joe L. says:

      Risk of mouth, larynx and throat cancer may be increased by tobacco use–alcohol may act as a solvent that increases the absorption of harmful chemicals in tobacco.

      Ha! Alcohol and tobacco are the Lennon and McCartney of cancer–they’re even better together!

      Why stop there? I can only imagine the amount of carcinogenic chemical reactions that occur in your mouth if you smoke a cigarette and drink a beer while eating a burger and French fries! You should just voluntarily undergo a round of chemotherapy after that, to be safe.

      Seriously, though, I can’t believe Livestrong.com still exists. It was founded by Lance Armstrong, the famous (now infamous) cyclist who was diagnosed with testicular cancer that spread to his lungs and brain. He beat the cancers and was regarded as a hero.

      Then, a few years later, it was revealed that he was a fraud who was doping with steroids, human growth hormones and God knows what else. He was stripped of all seven of his Tour de France titles, and it is speculated that the steroids and hormones may have played a role in his developing testicular cancer in the first place*. This is not a man that anyone should trust with advice about “health.”

      *Isn’t it strange how the science regarding smoking and cancer is “settled,” yet there’s barely any research whatsoever regarding hormones, viruses and other potential causes of cancer that aren’t puritanically-opposed behaviors.

      • Some other Tom says:

        Not only that – remember when damn near everyone was parading around with those ridiculous yellow rubber bracelets that said “livestrong”? Overnight they popped up. – much like these shitty fidget spinners, or Pokémon go. Another odd craze that the sheep can’t get enough of.

  6. slugbop007 says:

    Here is a link to the many ways to maximize human happiness, one of Sam Harris’s favourite subjects. https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&q=how+to+best+maximize+human+happiness&oq=how+to+best+maximize+human+happiness&gs_l=psy-ab.3…1014.9489.0.10098.42.40.2.0.0.0.235.4949.0j34j1.35.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..5.28.3781…0j0i131k1j0i3k1j33i22i29i30k1j0i13k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.hIbPJfoPVJo

    slugbop007

  7. Manfred says:

    Imperial Conference 1937

    Michael Joseph Savage (PM New Zealand) criticised appeasement at the conference, saying “Is your policy peace at any price; if it is so I cannot accept it”. Anthony Eden replied “No, not at any price, but peace at almost any price”, to which Savage replied: “You can pay too high a price even for peace”.

    ‘British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, in front of #10 Downing Street, London, after his arrival home from the notorious Munich Conference of 1938’

    My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is “peace for our time.” Go home and get a nice quiet sleep

    The chaos of Cultural Marxism fits nicely with infantile narcissism and impoverished education, hall marks of the ideology of the Left and its infinite insecurity. Regulation and genocide are their historical tools. With the inexhaustible self-interest of crony capitalism, war seems inevitable. A multi-dimensional cultural war is clearly in play now. It appears that the tragedy of war is required to generally purge the insanity of the moment and particularly, to deconstruct the totalitarian bureaucratic administration of an eco-Marxist UN, much as it did the League of Nations?

  8. Pingback: Losing Freedoms | Frank Davis

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.