Experts Versus Politicians

In the late 1800s, a movement arose, basically a religious abhorrence of the effects of alcohol, which culminated in the prohibition of the production and distribution of alcohol. This movement was financially assisted by various Charitable Foundations, such as the Rockefeller Empire. It was successful in that politicians at the time sided with the ‘religions’ and the ‘charities’. But why did the ‘charities’ support the ‘religions’ with money? We know now that it was eugenics which drove the ‘Charities’. If we disregard the colour prejudice of the eugenics of the time, we could reasonably applaud the aim of those Charities to improve the lot of mankind by removing temptation to be naughty, as per getting pissed.

But the protagonists of Prohibition had no power. Politicians had the power. But even then, politics was corrupt. It is true that it cannot be otherwise because politics cannot be scientific and must always be emotional. A politician who proposed some sort of law which inconvenienced a very large number of people would very quickly find himself voted out of office, no matter how sensible his proposal or how TRUE the facts behind his proposal were.

Thus, politicians operate on a difference ‘wavelength’. They have to weigh up the popularity of their proposals. Popularity means votes for them; unpopularity means votes against them.


What we have seen, over the past couple of decades, has been the re-emergence of precisely the same combination of ‘Religion’ (the Church of Health) and Money. What has been different is the approach. In the Prohibition of the early 1900s, the approach was to ban production and distribution; today, it is to ban the ‘use of’. True, the Zealots are in no rush. They are happy to ban the ‘use of’ a little at a time. First, ‘enclosed places’, then cars and then open places like parks. All the while, the product itself, though legal, is attacked by PP and such. Further, public perception of smokers as disgusting, filthy, stinking outsiders is encouraged.

The ethics of politics is entirely dependent upon getting re-elected. The loss of power is absolute disaster. Thus, whatever is seen to be advantageous is approved and whatever is seen to be disadvantageous is disapproved. The Health Zealots, the EUGENICISTS, have known that this is true for a hundred years, and so have taken their time to produce the circumstances in which the ‘majority’ view the ‘fragrance’ of tobacco as ‘a stink’.

And they have won. Few politicians dare question the new ‘truth’, regardless of facts. But because politicians dare not question the new ‘truth’, the new ‘truth’ becomes more and more silly. Thus, we find:

Brighton City Council (USA) has banned e-cigs wherever tobacco smoking is banned.

Brighton City Council is political. It must therefore see this regulation as ‘vote winning’. Perhaps it is, but it may be that people will start to see the stupidity of banning the use of a product which counters the propagandised dangers of the enjoyment of tobacco. For there is the rub. The Zealots do not want people to be able to drink alcohol-free wine or eat sugar-free doughnuts. They want to abolish wine and doughnuts altogether.


But it cannot last. It is impossible. The reason is that the Zealots MUST continue to demonise more and more activities and products. They have no option. As they do so, they make more and more enemies among the population. Eventually, politicians see that they will not get votes from the people by continuing to persecute them.

When that happens, ALL the prohibitions fall. And then the whole process begins again.


Fortunately, due to the internet, the time taken for things to come to a head has been much shortened. Rather than a hundred years, or fifty years, opinions can change within only a few years. Thus we see the emergence of UKIP as a force to be reckoned with only in the last few months. These days, opinions can change dramatically in a short period of time. Politicians who are LibLabCon must be shitting themselves. Thus we see that their attacks on UKIP are based solely upon the propaganda which they wish to most useful to them, which is to portray UKIP as being racist. Frankly, I don’t think that even the BNP was racist as such – it is about culture, and not colour.


I see the immediate future as a continuation of more and more inhibitions of the freedom of the people to make their own choices. Politicians will go along with that provided that they see votes in it. And they will permit, and even fund, those perceptions until they cease to  be popular. As has always been the case, politicians will immediately change their minds when it turns out that they have been backing the wrong horse.

I quite like what is going on at the moment. Sad to say that, politically, it is a good thing that e-cigs are under so much surveillance and ignominy that a City in the USA feels it necessary to ban them. The reason that I am happy about it is that such exaggerations are necessary to ‘bring it on’. Only in that way can it be seen politicians are, in some cases, self-serving, and in other cases misled.

Thinking only of England, the Full Smoking Ban is persecution. It persecutes publicans worse than ‘criminal’ smokers who dare to light a fag in a pub.

I fail to understand why pubcos and publicans have not fought against the Full Smoking Ban. Remember that politicians have no idea other than what will get them re-elected. When anti-smoker laws become an encumbrance to  re-election, such laws will be dropped like a stone.

But only then will it be possible to clean out the filthy, stinking, disgusting shit being emitted from the arseholes of academia. That cleaning is probably more important than anything else.





%d bloggers like this: