“Rule by Exception”

“Rule by Exception” has always existed. It translates into identifying a group of people who are ‘exceptional’ – ‘different’. Mostly, such people are left alone. But, for some reason or other in the human psyche, those ‘different’ people come to be regarded as a threat. I read something today which referenced the Salem witch hunts in the USA. We in the UK had the same experience around the same time.

There is a sort of inversion of ‘nothing is more important than preserving the life of a child’ in ‘Rule by Exception’. You could translate it into ‘nothing is less important than the lives of adults’. That idea is a sign of the times in the sense that children rely entirely upon their parents and not upon The State. Imagine a situation, especially in Scotland, with its ‘named person’ control over children, where EVERY family was disfuntional. How many Social Services personnel would be required to look after ONE child?

What we are seeing, especially in Scotland, is NOT the expectation of the need for Social Services to look after ALL the children. What we are seeing is spying and witch-hunting. Thus, it is not about actually feeding, clothing, washing, comforting, teaching, small children at all. It is about finding those parents who are witches and throwing them into the magistrate stocks, to be pelted with bad eggs via the MSM.


It is hard to know how this “Rule by Exception” can be combatted. It always seems to happen between wars. When war occurs, everyone becomes equal, somehow, no matter how rich and influential, or poor and insignificant, individuals might be. “We will never surrender” is far more important to rich people than it is to poor people. The Elite come and go, but the peasants survive.

Demonisation, aka denormalisation, is as widespread today as it was in Pol Pot’s day, or Stalin’s day. Only what is ‘abnormal’ changes.

But what is really, really odd is that the people who are orchestrating and conducting the ‘denormalisation’ and ‘demonisation’ are the supposedly cleverest people in our society. I am talking about academics.

Why does Government sanctify academics? Is Glantz as wealthy as Gates? If Glantz is so clever, why is he not wealthier than Gates? SANCTIFY is the right word since the ‘proofs’ supplied by academics, especially epidemiological proofs, are almost always worthless. Viz – Global Warming.


The ‘proofs’ do not exist, as the McTear Case showed. There is no ‘proof’ at all, whatsoever, that smoking causes lung cancer or anything else. It is far more likely that, in the 1940s/1950s/1960s that Sulphuric Acid in the atmosphere from atmospheric pollution was the cause of the rise of LC, and not 30 years of smoking tobacco. In other words, short term exposure to Sulphuric Acid in the atmosphere, which you inhale with every breath that you take, vastly outweighs the occasional puff on a cig.

Despite the anti-smoking laws, and the reduction in smoking over the last several decades, LC is still a major cause of death. It has gone down as regards males, but has increeased as regards females.


The ‘Authorities’ can continue the witch hunt against smokers if they wish to, always remembering that it is the academics who have created the witch hunt.

So what is the main thing that has gone wrong? In my opinion, it is the takeover of the Health Dept in Governement by Zealots. That is the only thing that makes sense.

How else can you explain the chaos in the NHS?


3 Responses to ““Rule by Exception””

  1. garyk30 Says:

    ‘For the children’ is a hazard to society.

    There is no ‘risk free level’ in what sort of adults that the children will become.
    Some will become rapists and some will become murderers.

    Those that proclaim the specialness of children may well be killed by one of them in the future.

    If smoking must be eradicated, having children should also be banned.

    For the good of society, of course.

    • junican Says:

      Very true, but that is not the point. The point is the ‘health’ of kids. The Zealots see a generation of kids who are just like the kids of savages – perfectly healthy at birth. But those kids would have died often were it not for the excellence of post-birth care in the healthy, wealthy West. The Zealots see the difference between savages and Westerners as the effect of tobacco. Savages, despite their child mortality, are more worthy’ because they do not smoke.

      The whole thing is becoming hilarious.

  2. Bones Says:

    Playing devil’s advocate: is it possible that women’s lung cancer has gone up because it is still generally women that do most housework and therefore use more aerosol cleaning sprays? Certain jobs are recognised as being at higher risk too, mostly those in contact with chemical solvents. Of course, like ‘global warming’ the permutations are infinite. Life is not risk free.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: