I don’t know if readers have ever met and talked to a person who is ‘in your face’. I should imagine that most readers have. By ‘in your face’ I mean determined to aggressively use body language to push their own ideas. Such body language need not be overt, even though it is aggressive.  It might be a combination of pointing fingers, raised eyebrows, loud voice, or whatever. The main idea of ‘in your face’ is that the aggression is aimed at YOU. Saying, “Get out of my face!” may inhibit the aggressor for a time, but he will be back.

Why? Because there are people who have that nature. It is built into their genes. Your ‘personality’ is genetic. But, you, as a conscious being, can alter your personality as you get older. You have control of yourself, if you wish to have that control. That is, with practice, you can change your genetic personality. If you determine so, with practice, you can recognise that you were a bully as a child, and alter your behaviour so as not to be a bully as you get older.

One can only use personal experience to a limited extent, but I remember a lad who was an awful bully in the playground at school when I was a child. He really was nasty, although the violence was always implied, and not real. I met him again, many years later, and he had changed completely. He was placid, understanding and relaxed. A completely different person. I am not talking about being in middle age. At the time, both of us would have been in our early twenties.

People have different personalities. For example, not all females are feminazis. I do not mean that male and female should not be perfectly equal, but it is a matter of fact that, generally speaking, a job which requires physical strength will most likely be occupied by a male. That is true even at a very simplistic level.

Has the reader ever picked up a house brick? They are heavy and not easily manipulated into the right position in a wall. Physical strength in the hands is needed to do so quickly and easily. It would make no sense for a woman without such strength to do that job. She would be inefficient. But that does not mean that there are not females who could do that job.

My point is that innate biased propensities are real. That is, that the idea that there should be just as many female bricklayers as male bricklayers defies logic.


In the same way, there MUST BE a ‘class’ of person who gravitates towards politics. In this essay, the word ‘class’ does not mean financial or background status.

A person who gravitates towards politics as a ‘calling’ must have a certain personality. Perhaps the word ‘calling’ has some bearing. I opine that many such persons must have a vaguely ‘bully’ attitude. I cannot see any other explanation for the ‘bullying’ of smokers.

What this ‘bullying’ attitude means is that there is a certain amount of MALEVOLENCE involved. Who other than people who have a genetic predisposition to ‘make a difference’ (aka bully) would want to use force, such as tax rises, to get their way? There is a MALEVOLENCE involved.

I think that people who stand for election as politicians have some sort of quirk in their personalities which drives them to be ‘malevolent’. They cannot help themselves. When a ban of anything is proposed, they wet their knickers, including males. The personality malevolence is sated – for a while – by creating a law which bullies people.

Some politicians and ‘experts’ are more malevolent than others, of course. But there seems to be a trait, in that ALL politicians and experts are malevolent to a greater or lesser extent. The mere fact that those persons become candidates for election betrays malevolence. “I will become the boss, and you will do as I say”. That is what being elected means. We have seen it again, and again, and again, and again. Very few MPs reject bullying taxes and bans. They cannot help themselves. Bullying is in their genes, which is why they became politicians – to bully and ‘make a difference’.

There is a malevolence in any organisation which seeks to exert control. But does that apply to everyone? Does that apply to ‘charities’? Well yes it does. Soppy music and videos of decrepit mules are malevolent because they seek to remove responsibility for those decrepit mules from the owners of the mules to you and I. And bullying tactics are used. Abject begging is just as malevolent bullying as is tobacco taxes.

It would be well for us all if any such signs of malevolence were highlighted, and, in some cases, ridiculed. But, most of all, POWER must be denied them. For example, the antagonism to ecigs in the USA, a clear example of malevolence, must be overturned. What better way is there to do it other than accusing the opponents of malevolence?

Bullies have no other objective than control. They want to be King. And most politicians have that desire.

What can be done? Well, nothing until MPs recognise that they are not there to ‘make a difference’. They are there for one simple reason – to stop bullying. It is not difficult.


6 Responses to “Malevolence”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Very true Junican and we smokers have huge malevolence shown towards us. Treated as social lepers and overtaxed. This year i have lost the ability to purchase my favourite cigarette brand because of PP. Not surprising many of us are switching our orders to abroad is it ?

    • junican Says:

      It is getting to a point where your ‘favourite blend’ exists, but you cannot get it. That is what TC is doing deliberately – standardising everything to their advantage.

      • Timothy Goodacre Says:

        Yes creeping homogenisatuon Junican to the point where you lose interest in the product. Happy Christmas and thank you for your excellent writing in 2016.

      • junican Says:

        Well thank you Tim! And best wishes to you also.

  2. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Very interesting Junican! I think you’ve hit on something there: Malevolent Politicians as their natural form.

    The question is whether they can be domesticated.

    – MJM

    • junican Says:

      Well, Yes, MjM – that is my whole point. Anyone who ‘wants to make a difference’ can only do so malevolently. The critical thing is ‘make a difference’. The word ‘make’ implies force.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: