The Ubiquitous “We”

So Health Zealots want unapproved food to be wrapped in disgusting, stinking, filthy packaging, just like tobacco. One day, the truth will be recognised. It is not that smokers are disgusting, filthy, stinking but the minds of Health Zealots which are disgusting, filthy, stinking.

So we look at this quote from Snowdon here:

Only a fool didn’t see this coming, and Schultz seems like just the kind of loathsome, illiberal, messianic health fascist to push it forward…

“We should not advertise, propagate or encourage the unnecessary ingestion of calories,” Schultz said at a press conference held on Monday to announce the winners of the 2017 Brain Prize. “There should be some way of regulating the desire to get more calories. We don’t need these calories.”

Steady on, Wolfram.

“Colourful wrapping of high energy foods of course makes you buy more of that stuff and once you have it in your fridge, it’s in front of you every time you open the fridge and ultimately you’re going to eat it and eat too much,” he added.

When I read that quote, the ‘disconnect’ struck me immediately. In the first para, it is “WE”, but in the second one it is “YOU”.

Does anyone believe that those two paras were ‘off the cuff’ remarks, and that the change from ‘we’ to ‘you’ was, sort of, accidental? If you do, then you are somewhat naive. Such statements are carefully contrived. Nothing is unintended. Note the absolute lack of the pronoun “I”.

And then other quotes appear which back up Schultz’s statement, even thought they might be ‘shaded’ somewhat.

Nothing is left to chance. All the quotes have been rehearsed and deliberated over. But the change from ‘We’ to ‘You’ in the Schultz quote is quite unusual in that it is so obvious.

“WE” (the clever) will control what you can be told and what you can see. “YOU” (the stupid) will stuff your faces with whatever is in your fridge.

The ubiquitous “WE” appears constantly from the lips of Arnott et al. Sometimes, depending upon the circumstances, the “WE” translates into “THERE IS”. Thus: “There is a worry that ….”. Erm, when did ‘worries’ have objective existence? Is there a moon of Saturn called ‘Worry’? No, that verbal trick is employed to avoid the use of the phrase, “WE are worried that ….”. In other words, the word ‘We’ is deliberately used to convey a sense of ‘everyone agrees that…’.

I have only once heard/seen the use of ‘we’ challenged. It was on a radio programme when a sweet voiced witch from TC claimed something about “OUR” children. It was a ‘call in’, and the other person said, “WHOSE children?” The sweet voiced witch asked if the caller had children. He refused to say. He again asked: “WHOSE children?”, whereupon the sweet voiced witch became hysterical. You see, she had no answer.

“We must” almost always means “You must”.

But there is a further interesting point to be made. Brexit clearly showed that ‘Experts’ are out of fashion. I think that this is of extreme importance. 52% of citizens of the UK were not impressed by ‘Expert’ opinion that Brexit would be disastrous.

I saw a brief announcement on TV (only a vague noise) that Parliament has said that any agreement with the EU has to go through Parliament. It could be this:

The House of Lords has demanded.

If you were Theresa May, what would you do? There is risk in everything, but it seems clear to me. She must invoke the irreversible Article 50 and then call a General Election. She cannot do it alone, which used to be the case. It used to be the case that the PM could, using his own power, call a general election. That is no longer true. For him to do so, Parliament must agree by a simple majority. It is hard to conceive that the Tory party would not be inclined to accept such a proposal at this time. LibDem is shattered and Labour is in chaos. It is an odds on bet that the Tories would be returned with a big majority. A Tory Government could then negotiate confidently and strongly with countries in the EU and almost, but not quite, ignore the EU apparatus.

It strikes me that the only time that the word ‘We’ should be used is when it is understood that ALL OF US gain or suffer as a population. Obviously, there would be losers – there always are. British MEPs will cease to exist, and all the UK MEPs will no longer have a job. But they will have a nice pension. Or will they? If a pension was in their ‘terms of employment’, then they have a case, but against whom? With what body did they have an agreement?

But the main thing is that we, The People, will be extracted from the disgusting, filthy, stinking, corrupt behemoth that is the EU.

It is also imperative that our taxes must fall. Never mind £300,000,000 going into the NHS. BOLLOCKS! The funding of the NHS is a separate thing altogether. The savings from not funding the disgusting, filthy, stinking, corrupt EU apparatus must be reduced taxation.

But my bet, as things stand, is that everything has been calculated.

We will have a General Election after Article 50 has been triggered.

And so it should be.


4 Responses to “The Ubiquitous “We””

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    I’ve often thought that PETA should arm its army with big colorful sticky decals of obese people with bedsores or hearts clogged with fat, etc etc and have them span out over supermarkets discreetly decorating all sorts of meat product and sugary-cereal packaging with them.

    After all, how could anyone object? They’d simply be doing what the government is already doing with cigarettes!

    – MJM

    • junican Says:

      I thought that PETA was an animal protection group? Oh, I see! Eating animal carcasses should be forbidden because the fat etc causes lung cancer, heart attacks, etc, especially in workers in butcheries.

  2. Yvonne Says:

    My understanding is that as from March 31st 2017 Article 50 will be subject to Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) and we’d need majority member states to agree otherwise we will be stuck in the EU.
    All these delay tactics are very worrying.

    • junican Says:

      Don’t worry. It is not possible for the EU to stop any Nation leaving the EU. It is not possible. Only a WAR could stop a Nation leaving. The thing about Article 50 is to enable an ‘ordered’ leaving – discussions about the ramifications and how to preserve some good parts and reject the bad parts.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: