The Guardian Class

I was listening to The Great American Vaping Panic on Spiked!. I was particularly interested in what documentary maker Martin Durkin had to say, and ended up transcribing much of what he had to say about what he sees as a new regulating class, a guardian class, who think it’s their job to find new things to regulate.

So this is a filleted version of the conversation that three people were having, and isn’t meant to cast any aspersions on what the other two had to say:

8:10: “There is a certain group in society who will always want to find – the regulating class, if you like -, who will always want to find a problem. There will always want to find something that gives them an excuse to intervene, to regulate, to study, to analyse, to pass another law. And they will find it whichever which way. It doesn’t matter to them if the scare is irrational. It’s got to be there and it’s got to demand, it’s got to legitimise more funding, more legislation, and so on. You kind of just know that it’s coming. No sooner had they got rid of smoking, which took years and years of bashing and bashing and bashing, you just know that they’re going to find a problem with whatever comes next. Apples are good for you. Apples are bad for your teeth. Apples are good for you. Whichever which way, there has got to be a problem for these people. There has got to be a problem. And it doesn’t matter what the science says. That’s the sad thing. We here and we’re chasing our tails trying to point out the absurdity of pronouncements on global warming or on vaping. But it matters not to them: they don’t give a stuff.”

12:10 : “…You will usually find that the same people who will get on the anti-vaping bandwagon will also believe in global warming, they will also be Remainers, they will also think mass tourism is bad. There’s a whole cluster of beliefs, a suite of ideas, a worldview that goes with that university-educated, largely publicly-funded class, where they will want to intervene. They will want to regulate. And it doesn’t matter if there are ridiculous unintended consequences. It doesn’t matter if the science isn’t really there to justify it. It doesn’t matter if the risk isn’t real. There’s got to be the threat of the risk. There got to be some justification. Because they know that’s in their interest. They are the class that studies, that analyses, that researches, that draws up the legislation, that draws up the ideas, that implements them, and so on.  It is their – it’s my old Marxist past talking here -, it’s in their class interest to do this. So they will follow it through with irrational vehemence.”

20:50 : “They’re part of the same class. People who go into the media are part of the university-educated new class. They club together on all sorts of these issues, and so they will tend to along on this as with everything else. I must say Good on the Scots for selling them piss (?). Every time you see someone hitting back at this awful regulating blob – university-educated, smug, new class – you just want to kiss them. If I see someone smoking tabs I just want to kiss them. When they say that we’re not allowed to use certain words, I just think I want to call girls ‘birds’ and talk about ‘tits’.”

27:50 : “You can see it in the Deplorables, in the election of Trump, and you can see it in the rejection of all the Brexit stuff as well. With Brexit the experts were lined up, and they said, with the power of economic science behind them, that it was going to be this, that, and the other. But people are seeing through it. You can see with Brexit that people don’t give a stuff. All of the health scares: people don’t give a damn. GM food: do you remember GM food was all going to turn us into bananas, because it would effect our genes. All of that stuff was absolutely huge, but luckily the vast majority of especially working class people, real people in the private commercial sector of the economy really don’t give a damn. They’re not buying it. And that’s the really encouraging thing recently. And you’re right, they’re not going to get out in the street and have a placard saying ‘Oh No It’s Not True’. But there’s a massive passive resistance to it, and a willingness to give the blob  – that group that we’ve been talking about – a bloody nose.”

31:40 : “It’s demonstrative of the intolerance of a certain class…. If you go to a building site and you have a sneaky gasper, none of the builders will say ‘How Dare You Smoke’. It’s going to be some university-educated leftie member of the new class who gets a bee in his bonnet about that. If you’re trailer trash in America, people don’t give a stuff. It’s if you’re somewhere where there are global warmers about. That’s the intolerant class. They’re the ones who will really scream if you use the wrong word. They’ll absolutely throw things at you if you say that you voted Brexit, or whatever it is. There is that intolerant, university-educated, left-leaning, statist, middle class perspective of that regulating class. They are vicious. They’re intolerant. They’re single-minded. And it stems from a lack of respect of the freedom of others. The whole class is based on regulating us, so it can’t ever concede that actually people should be left to their own devices, work it out themselves, make their own choices. decide if something might be risky or not risky. They cannot be left to their own devices. They have to be shepherded by them, the guardian class…”

About Frank Davis

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

6 Responses to The Guardian Class

  1. Fredrik Eich says:

    “And it stems from a lack of respect of the freedom of others”
    I am not sure if I agree with that statement. Informed public opinion values scientific ‘consensus’. So it follows that if you control the scientific literature you control what people think. We have seen this process at work with smoking and health, where primary evidence is suppressed and secondary evidence is written by selecting researchers that are only too willing to endlessly repeat the same flawed experiments that support the policy objectives of governments and other interested parties.

    Ask your self these questions.

    1) Why is it that mortality and morbidity estimates for smoking and health are calculated from studies from the eighties such as the CPS II study? The CPS II study is non randomised and by it’s very design is likely to exclude healthy people from the results and be prone to detection bias. But there is no need to use any study such as that one because countries such as the UK hold records of the smoking status and disease status of pretty much all their citizens, in the case of the UK some 60,000,000 records. Why use non-randomised samples when you could just use the whole data set? Why not publish the numbers?

    2) Why does the International Agency for Research on Cancer give historical data for 89 countries for pretty much every cancer classification (including eye cancer) apart from non-melanoma skin cancer. If you know that the majority of these cancers a squamous and you know that a lot of lung cancer is also squamous (same cancer different site) then you would probably like to compare the two to see if there is a possible common cause. But this is not possible as only lung cancer is published.

    3) Why does the wikipedia article on “the stoke belt” lead the reader to believe that the excess of lung cancer in the South East of the United States due to a high density of African Americans and a diet high in fatty foods such as “fried chicken” when it is known that there is an excess of lung cancer among white people too in the stroke belt. This outrageous piece of racism goes unnoticed by inform public opinion because public opinion does is relying on flawed evidence such as this.

    4) Why is the wikipedia article on lung cancer guarded by people financed from a fund provided jointly by the UK and US governments?

    I think what I am saying is that it is not the fault of informed public opinion that they don’t know what they are talking about , they just have a naive faith in the scientific process as did I before I got interested in the subject of smoking and health. Unfortunately, the world is the way it is and I can’t see how much can be done about it. Its a pity.

  2. waltc says:

    Brilliant quotes. Eager to watch the whole thing later. Meanwhile about the CPS studies Fredrik cites, I have a review of it with more positive (for us) results. Also Frank–for Audrey’s HUD lawsuit, I put together a list with links to sources of over 70 published studies busting the canon that ties secondhand smoke to …everything it’s been tied to. There were more but those fulfilled what she wanted. Got it as a pdf. I’ll e it to you if you like but is your address at googlemail or freeserve or both . Let me know.

    21) ” Selection, follow-up, and analysis in the American Cancer Society prospective studies” Garfinkel, National Cancer Inst Monograph 1985: 67:49-52 PubMed – NCBI

    No increased risk of lung cancer from exposure at work or other environments after either 5 years (RR 0.89) or 25 years (RR 0.93)

  3. Pingback: Them and Us | Frank Davis

  4. beobrigitte says:

    If you’re trailer trash in America, people don’t give a stuff.
    Isn’t it interesting that university-educated leftie members of the new class have no problem calling people less fortunate than themselves this?
    Also, far smaller homes called “tiny houses” are hip with this new class.

    Weird world we live in.

No need to log in

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

You are commenting using your 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.