Leftist and Rightist

I become more and more suspicious of the use of the words ‘Left’ and ‘Right’. There were lots of similar expressions which meant something, like ‘left wing’, ‘on the left’, ‘left of centre’, but as far as I know, the word ‘Leftist’ is rather new. But ‘new-ish’ or not, it seems to be everywhere. [The same goes for ‘Rightist’]

But it is all getting so confusing that I now do not know whether I am a ‘Rightist’ or a ‘Leftist’, or a ‘Centre-ist’ or any other ‘-ist’.

The meaning of words and expressions keep changing. ‘Wen ah wer a lad’, Capitalists were the rich people who owned the factories and took the lion’s share of the value of a person’s labour. Labourers had to fight, via strikes, pickets, etc, to get a reasonable wage and decent working conditions. The Tory Party was the party of the Capitalists while Labour was the party of the Workers. Now, there seems to be very little difference between them – many Labour leaders seem to be the product of elite public schools while the Tory leaders all seem to have come out of Eton.

But my purpose tonight is not to indulge in politics as such. I was watching a video earlier (H/T whoever brought it to my attention):

‘Sargon of Akkad’ is the pen name of the author. He takes the piss something awful out of the three precious ladies pictured above. All three of them weep buckets of tears over the election of Trump.

But are they ‘Leftists’? If they wanted to continue the Democratic Party’s hold on the Presidency, ought they not to be described as conservatives (small c)? They  all despise people whom they call ‘bigots’, ‘racists’, ‘misogynists’, etc,  but does not their hatred also place them in the same position – bigots, and very likely, hypocrites?

The first woman in particular looked into the camera and said (to people who voted for Trump), “You are stupid, stupid, stupid”. But where was she coming from? From the Leftist or the Rightist viewpoint? She seemed to see the American people as either pro gay or anti gay. Did it not occur to her that the vast majority of Americans do not give a shit either way? That what they were concerned about was their way of life? Their work and their livelihoods? Did it not occur to them that many Americans have watched Europe being invaded by jihadies, raping and killing with abandon, and crying out, “God is Great” as they did so? Is that God the same God which Americans pray to?

I have also been reading about the ‘Alt-right’. ‘Alt’ stands for ‘Alternative’. Milo whats-his-name is an example. That group of thinkers seem to have accepted that they are ‘on the right’, or ‘Rightists’ if you prefer. Their ‘alternativeness’ comes from the fact that they are unapologetic and very intelligent. For example, they see capitalism as the reason for the economic wealth of the West. SOMEONE had to have the money to invest in great enterprises, and be willing the do so. ‘The King in his counting-house’ was old hat. The rise of the middle classes came from the need for Capitalism to be serviced in a myriad of ways, such as clothing for seamen – loads and loads of small enterprises which supported the huge enterprises. Also, Christianity played a large part in tandem with Capitalism. The ideals of kindness, forgiveness and self-sacrifice were what bound society together. Sure, there were charlatans and rogues, but, on the whole, Christianity kept those tendencies in check.

But are they actually Rightists or Leftists? Or are they Centre-ists? Or ‘Upists’ or ‘downists’, or forwardists of backwardists’?

You see, the climate change wallahs are in something of a cleft stick, which they must know about. I could make this statement:

“I believe that the only way that the world can be saved from burning up is for the poorest people in the world to stay poor”

Why would I say that? Because, if they cease to be poor, then they would start to consume. The better off they became, the more that they would consume, and that would cause global warming to get worse. They would want central heating (or air conditioning), cars, yachts, freezers, etc, which all need electricity. They would want to fly to exotic places, as climatologists do, for holidays. All those things use oil, and would cause further global warming. Windfarms are no use for powering aircraft.

So the only way to stop global warming would be to go back to medieval times, and use horses and carts. But wait! More and more horses and carts would be required as the population increases incrementally. So population growth needs to be stopped so that the need for horses (and cows, etc) plateaus. The atmosphere must have been awfully warm when there were billions of buffaloes roaming around the plains of America – all farting like mad.

When you think about it, climatologists and epidemiologists contribute NOTHING AT ALL to the welfare of The People. By the time that they have finished their counting, the situation has changed. If ‘proper’ science was permitted  and funded to investigate atomic power, then it is possible that we could all have our own small atomic power stations in our homes. I say ‘it is possible’ and nothing more. I work on the idea that there was a time when locomotive steam engines were considered to be extremely dangerous.

I remember once writing a post about using the Earth’s heat to boil water to drive electricity producing plants. It was just a giggle, to be honest. But I wonder if ‘proper’ scientists could work out a way to use volcanoes to do precisely that? How deep is the magma below Mount Vesuvius?

Climatologists and epidemiologists DO have a role to play. That role is to provide information and nothing else. Their role is similar to National Statistics. It is not for them to make political or economic decisions, or to have a political agenda.

And that is where things have gone terribly wrong. People like Richard Doll somehow got their hands on the levers of power. Their calculations suddenly became the equivalent of vast wealth, able to launch such things as ‘The Tobacco Control Industry’ and ‘The Climate Control Industry’. Further, they have become oracles of the future, which Governments fear. In this world at the moment, the Australian Government is the most fearful of all.

Will it all break down? Brexit has paved the way a little, but the election of Trump is even more so. If he has any sense, then he will decree that ALL general taxes go to the GENERAL good. Thus, tobacco product taxes go into the pot of money available to provide for general public services, just like any other tax. No more taxing smokers to pay for their own persecution. If you tax smokers, then you recognise their existence and value. If you do not accept their value, then you do not tax them.

There is the huge ethical problem which Tobacco Control has. knowingly, exploited and which Government has deliberately ignored. You do not knowingly defame some behaviour and at the same time tax it. If you defame it, you ban it. If you do not ban it, then you do not especially tax it because you defame it. Contradiction.

But we smokers must remember what happened to us and how we were ‘exiled to the outdoors’ and punished by taxes. We must not forget. We must refuse to cooperate or engage with our persecutors in every way possible. Refuse to obey unless forced to do so. Do not willingly obey. It isn’t just in respect of smoking. It is in respect of everything that Government tries to trick us into compliance. Refuse to comply. Brexit was a refusal to comply, as was the election of Trump.

I hope that PM May and Pres Elect Trump realise that.

 

6 Responses to “Leftist and Rightist”

  1. Darryl Says:

    “I remember once writing a post about using the Earth’s heat to boil water to drive electricity producing plants. It was just a giggle, to be honest.”

    It’s no longer a giggle Junican, the idea is being looked at very seriously by proper scientists.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Australia

    “In this world at the moment, the Australian Government is the most fearful of all.”

    Too bloody right they’re fearful, the last federal election saw a significant number of minor parties and independents elected to the senate who don’t believe that humans are affecting the climate. The major party pollies don’t know which way to turn, poor buggers. They’re stuck between following the globalist line on one side and an increasingly skeptical public on the other.

    To me Left and Right have become meaningless labels, I think it’s time to get new ones. These days I look at issues through the prism of Freedom v Control.

    • junican Says:

      An interesting link, D. I noticed on the first diagram that, at 5 kilometres depth, in some places in Oz, temperatures are in the region of ‘greater than’ 235 degrees centigrade. That is hot rock and not hot magma (not fluid). I dare say that there are technical problems about accessing that heat and using it to boil water. But why is there such secrecy about such things?
      Why do these climatologists shout a lot without offering solutions? ‘Reducing carbon footprint’ is not a solution since it does not supply energy needs.
      I give up.

      • Darryl Says:

        “But why is there such secrecy about such things?”

        Good question. There’s a hidden agenda behind this climate change stuff I think. If the greens are fair dinkum they should be shouting from the roof tops about this hot rocks stuff but all we hear from them is windmills and solar panels which will never replace coal.
        Same goes for sea water desalination plants. The greens here are dead against them. There was a guy at a Uni in W.A. a few years ago who came up with an idea for water desalination using the sun for evaporation, no electricity required, but so far no one is interested in building it. You’d think the greens would be all for turning the deserts green but they aren’t. There’s an agenda.

      • junican Says:

        I totally agree that there is an agenda. Damned if I know what it could possibly be though.

  2. garyk30 Says:

    Left/ right are terms that go back to the French Revolution and indicate which side of the room folks with different beliefs sat on.

    These days there seems to be no clear meaning of what the terms should or do mean, except as a slur on the other side.

    The alt-right seem to take great delight in being non pc and driving the pc types to being blathering idiots.

    I do not feel that most of them actually espouse most of what they say; but, they do seem to be having a great time being provocative.

    Sounds like fun.

    • junican Says:

      Exactly, Gary. The idea is to push open ‘The Overton Window’ by pushing back against ‘the argument/science is settled’.
      Does smoking cause LC? Maybe, but the argument is NOT settled. Closing ‘the Overton Window’ excludes debate about whether or not smoking causes LC. No further discussion is permitted. To reverse the situation, and to open the Window, doubts about the ‘science’ have to be promulgated. Of course, the first thing needs to be to stop describing epidemiology as ‘science’. Climate ‘science’ is just another form of epidemiology. They are ‘statistics’ aka counting. The Global Warm-ists have to prove that a change from, say, 100 parts per million, to 300 parts per million matters. Alternatively, is it possible to ‘prove’ that the difference is negligible and of no importance?

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: