I was listening yesterday to the historian David Starkey talking to Brendan O’Neill, and during it Starkey said (circa 22 minutes in) that the British PC elite “regard the people with complete contempt,” particularly the old, the working class, and northerners.
It’s not just Britain. The globalist elites everywhere hold their peoples in complete contempt. In the USA there’s contempt for Donald Trump and Trump supporters. In France, Emmanuel Macron regards the French people with complete contempt. And Angela Merkel regards the German people with equal contempt.
And of course Tobacco Control, which is a global PC elite project, regards smokers everywhere with complete and utter contempt.
After all, it requires complete contempt for smokers to have driven them from the bars and cafes they once inhabited, without a single care for what became of them. It also requires complete contempt for them to hide tobacco packets from them behind closed doors, and cover them with sneering, insulting messages.
Perhaps contempt for smokers is really just one expression of a wider contempt for almost everybody.
From whence does this boundless contempt arise?
David Starkey thought that it was an ancient contempt. He thought it was the same contempt of Virginia Woolf and the Bloomsbury group for the ordinary people of England 100 years ago.
It’s also the contempt by Remainers for the stupid, ignorant people who voted for Brexit.
And it’s the contempt by climate alarmists for stupid, ignorant, climate sceptics or “denialists”.
For the past year or so I’ve been thinking a lot about climate alarmism and scepticism. And I’ve done what I usually do when I think about this sort of thing: I’ve been building my own simple climate simulation model. For I can’t see how I can have an opinion about climate in the absence of a model. In fact I can’t see how anyone can have an opinion about climate in the absence of a model. Or if they do have an opinion it has to be a secondhand opinion that derives from trusting (or distrusting) somebody else’s model – most likely climate scientists’ models.
If someone says that 13 plus 22 is equal to 37, I have no way of checking for myself the truth or falsehood of this assertion if I don’t know how to add. Same with climate science: I have no way of checking whether global warming might be happening if I don’t have my own climate model. In both cases, the honest thing to say is: “I don’t know.” But instead of doing this, most people seem to come down firmly on one side or other. Why? Perhaps they don’t wish to seem ignorant or uneducated?
The plain fact of the matter is that, in the great screaming public argument about climate change, nobody has a model. Everybody is ignorant (and that includes me, because my computer simulation model is incomplete, and will probably never be complete). And even the climate scientists are ignorant. I have a big book by a climate scientist, Raymond Pierrehumbert, called Principles of Planetary Climate, in which he openly and honestly admits to not understanding lots of things. So the simple truth of the matter is that absolutely everybody is ignorant about climate science, including the climate scientists. So why are we having this completely batshit crazy public debate about the climate?
And the same applies to tobacco and smoking. Nobody has a clue whether it’s dangerous or not, and that includes all the doctors and medical researchers. So why the global alarm about smoking? Why all these batshit crazy smoking bans everywhere?
Same also with Remainers and Leavers. None of them have a clue what they’re talking about.
The correct attitude, in all these matters, is perhaps to say: “I don’t know. And I don’t think anyone else knows either.”