Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Life In An Insane Society

One of my, er, “themes” is something like this: the modern, with-it libertarian needs to see our problems as more than an “us versus the State” thing. It’s not just the State. In fact, in many aspects, the behaviour of the State in Britain (and elsewhere) is not so much a driving force as a reflection of our society.

As individualists, we are sometimes loathe to personify “society” as having an existence of its own, so when I say “society” I of course mean, the attributes of millions of individuals. If I say, “our society is socially reserved”, I mean, “the people in our society are socially reserved”, and if I say, “our society is religious”, I mean, “the people in our society are religious”. But I don’t want to say either of those things. I want to say that our society is mad.

By which I mean, the people in our society are mad. Not all of them. But there are generally mad ideas now permeating our society. Here is a prime example-

A primary school teacher, whose record is spotless, who has committed no wrongdoing whatsoever, beloved by his pupils and his parents and admired by colleagues has been banned from working because he let children hug him.

This is mad.

Parents campaigned to overturn the decision, saying he was an excellent teacher who had been unfairly treated because he is a man.

Yet his appeal against dismissal was rejected by a panel of governors at Oliver’s Battery school in Winchester, Hampshire, and now the General Teaching Council (GTC) has banned him from classrooms indefinitely – even though it acknowledged that there was “no single serious episode” and that “no child has been seriously harmed”.

Now I shouldn’t need to say this, and it is a sign of societal madness that I have to; physical contact between adults and children is entirely normal and indeed essential. I was a child once. Hugging and being held and picked up and swung around for fun, and feeling adult arms around me if I was upset, and adult hands upon me to grab me away from doing something naughty, these were all part of childhood. Children need and respond to physical affection. They do so because they are animals, because human beings are animals, and body language is part of our genetic heritage. One of the most basic human interactions is the hug, which provides a sense of safety, and comfort, and well-being. Who cannot pity a child who is never hugged? What kind of a deranged society have we ended up in that denies basic human affection?

Although there was no suggestion of any sexual motive, he was dismissed from the school where he had worked for eight years.

And there is the problem. That, right there. Thanks to the campaigning of a ragbag of deranged feminists and femiservatives, we now make the assumption of some kind of sexual motive for any interaction between a man and a child. This is ludicrous.

Look, feminutters. There are a certain small proportion of people who have a fetish for children. Some of them will act upon that fetish, and some will do ghastly things. But it is a tiny minority. You cannot base a society on the presumption that it is the norm. To do so leads to madness.

Let me put it this way. There are a small proportion of people with a fetish for shoes. Some of them will do disturbing things in the presence of shoes. It does not follow that every man who touches a shoe is a shoe fetishist, and that men shouldn’t be allowed to work in shoe shops in case they creep off to the back room for a quick polish. You cannot start suspecting every man/shoe interaction of having a sexual undertone. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of men are not suppressing a lust for shoes, nor does every man has a shoe-lover inside him waiting to burst out if he gets too much shoe exposure. Most men simply have no sexual interest in shoes at all and the same is true of children.

But in fact, now, thanks to decades of remorseless campaigning, that is presumed regarding men and children. Every man is a suspect. Every man is guilty until proven innocent. As Richard Nixon said, “We are all paedophiles now”.

The case will fuel the debate around a shortage of men in British classrooms.

Around a quarter of primary schools – including Oliver’s Battery – now have no male teachers, and experts have warned that a lack of male role models may be putting boys off school at an early age.

And there’s the crux of the matter. We need to face up to the fact that a considerable proportion of feminutters, virtually the whole movement in fact, let’s be honest here, just want to drive men out of interacting with children. They want ownership of childhood. They want men to be providers, in terms of money, and to help when asked, but they otherwise want men out of the picture, particularly in that long-term female bastion, the education system. They would prefer that not a single man were in a position to teach children at all, particularly at the primary level, those crucial years when the first steps of indoctrination-via-education take place. This, ultimately, is a primary reason why the Paedohysteria is so useful to them. And so, the promotion of the idea that a sexual abnormality present in only a tiny proportion of the population- sexual interest in children- is widespread and epidemic, is put in place. And thus, we descend into madness.

This, boys and girls, is what tyranny looks like.

h/t The Anti-Feminist


  1. Roue le Jour says:

    The notion that women are better at child rearing, is, I think, mistaken. They are better at raising their own children, sure, but other people’s? Not so much.

    As you say, Ian, it can’t be emphasised enough that the state school system is run by left leaning, liberal arts women. Why on earth would any sensible, science educated bloke want to spend his working life in such a hellish environment? And if he doesn’t, how can we teach children anything important?

    This subject has been raised in Oz recently, where it was observed that private schools, you know, the ones with good results? Didn’t seem to have the same problem with male teachers that state schools have.

    Going back to the point about the State reflecting society, does it though? I would say the State has a number of objectives, and concentrates on those most palatable to the electorate. Where did the smoking ban come from? Were there demonstrations in the street demanding it? Countless letters to MPs? I think not.

    It’s curious to note that if a king banned smoking in the pub there would be an uproar, but if the State does it, it’s fine. It’s like smokers just accept the total lie that everybody else wants their filthy habit outlawed, when really most people don’t care much one way or the other, it was the bastard EU that instigated it.

  2. Roue le Jour says:

    Sigh. Closing italic after the ‘own’ anyone?

  3. John says:

    Along with black is white, up is down, war is peace, slavery is freedom, we can now add guilty unless proven innocent as another in a long line of things turned upside down in this corrupt evil leftist-captured world of ours.

  4. Ian B says:

    Fixed your tag, Roue :)

    Reading the post back, I never really justified the opening of it by the end of it. What I was trying to get at was that this kind of situation requires a generalised support within the society, particularly from the opinion forming classes. Only after the indoctrination of us all with a general suspicion of males does it become seen as tolerable, acceptable and then desirable. The Hysteria didn’t start in the State. It started in the Campaigners, transferred itself to the ideologically hegemonic classes, and then into State action.

    Likewise, the State itself did not instigate the process that led to the smoking ban.

    Why do people obey the State in this? We could say, because we are all sheeple, but it’s another ideological hegemony thing. Years of demonisation had reduced smokers to a sense of powerlessness and shame, such that most not only did not speak up against the ban, but almost said “we deserve it”. The key thing is the dissemination of memes, the “smokers are filthy” type stuff, and once everyone in general has accepted that, or at least a sufficient number, then the State itself is pushed into action to administer the coup de grace.

  5. JuliaM says:

    “…where it was observed that private schools, you know, the ones with good results? Didn’t seem to have the same problem with male teachers that state schools have.”

    Maybe they’re better at identifying and therefore not hiring those tiny minority in the first place? Rather than – as state schools do – looking at their diversity lists and saying ‘Ooooh, we haven’t got one of this size/shape/colour/inclination, we must hire him!’?

  6. Westerlyman says:

    Speaking as someone who started boarding school in 1968 and left in 1978 I can clearly identify at least 4 of my teachers who ‘liked’ boys. They were known by most of the pupils (and probably the staff too). They were mostly ignored or ridiculed. As a pupil I did not feel in any way threatened even when one of them tried to get close to me when I was 10 years old. He was a nice but rather pathetic man and I simply told him to leave me alone – and he did.

    I have never understood the hysteria or the claims of lasting psychological damage to children. Setting aside the psychopaths who are an even smaller subset I am sure that a very small number of people have been psychologically harmed but a far greater number have been harmed by the people telling them that they must have been permanently damaged. Telling people that they are victims is a far greater harm to society in my view. It breeds entirely the wrong kind of reaction. I have never had any doubt, even from a very young age, that how I react to these things was up to me.

  7. Ringmer says:

    A primary school teacher, whose record is spotless, who has committed no wrongdoing whatsoever, beloved by his pupils and his parents and admired by colleagues has been banned from working because he let children hug him.

    Best they shouldn’t watch ‘Être et avoir’ then, an awe inspiring film about a real teacher of children (as opposed to a theory-trained-state-sponsored-baby-sitter). On second thoughts, maybe they should be forced to watch it on endless loop whilst duct taped to a chair.

    “no child has been seriously harmed”. Oh, the subliminal joy of it – there was harm caused by hugging an adult male, but the effects can be undone, presumably repeated application of an oestrogenic teaching presence.

  8. NickM says:

    What newspapers do feminists tend to read? Guardian, Indy? Not the Express for example which is suspect #1 for riling-up peadostyria. Yes, there are some feminists (it’s a broad church) who are batshit mental man-hating harridans but like men who like kids they are a small minority. Checkout AROOO that Cats in his infinite wisdom saw fit to stick on our blogroll. I agree with you entirely apart from what you say is the cause. I honestly can’t see feminism behind this. It’s just another moral panic like Victorians wetting themselves over masturbation or reefer madness. If there is a root-cause (and that’s a big “if”) it is state control. A couple of years back a new school was build without a playground. All the time the kids were there would be “directed time”. It’s that mentality which has nothing to do with feminism. It is exactly the same mentality which expects paid professionals to do everything. It’s what I was getting at in my post on caning. It’s one of the reasons why I never went into teaching. I’d just want to teach maths and physics and not impart morals (what are parents, churches, the Scouts whatever for?) or be a “role-model” or whatever nonsenses teachers are now expected to do. Thing is everything these days is so formalised. That’s the issue not feminism. And if I were to be deeply cynical I reckon the likes of The Express have demonised peadophilia because they can’t get away with having a crack at the puffs any more in much the same way it’s the Gypsies in the firing line because they can’t have a go at the wogs.

    You hint at something that has bothered me for some time. It appears to me there is an industry out there. Is being sexually abused as a child the worst thing that can happen to someone? I doubt it (I have a vivid imagination – mainly focussing on politicians). But dear gods they say it is and perhaps that makes it so. It strikes me that is the worst thing you could ever say to a kid who has been raped or similar. I mean it’s extinguishing the light at the end of the tunnel.

  9. CountingCats says:

    It would be nice if we could claim this as an example of institutional homophobia being embeded into society, but I guess androphobia would be more accurate.

    The thing is, this is an example of the contempt for men we also see in Islam. Both belief systems assume that men are unable to control themselves, but Islam deals with the perceived problem by imposing insulting controls on women, and androphobia does it by imposing controls on men.

    Regardless, they are both hateful in their insulting expectations of all males.

  10. Tosh says:

    Having taught, albeit at college level, the unspoken rule is you never touch a student. Tempting though it might have been to give some of the dullards a slap round the head to help inform them they are a waste of oxygen who wouldn’t get a job even if their mother was an employer, you didn’t do it.

    But I think FWIW that hugging an emotional if not utterly Emo 17 year old is infinitely more creepy than hugging a distraught seven year old. I didn’t ever want to hug the ‘woe-is-me’ teens who needed consolation but had I been in an infants school I think a hug for a child is entirely okay at times.

    Children kept out of reach are future adults who grow up to keep the world out of reach.

  11. Lynne says:

    I’ve said this before, and no doubt I will say it again, but femiloons are a serious embarassment to my gender. They don’t speak for me, think for me nor represent me. As for teachers, the worst one I ever encountered was female. She was a sarcastic and vindictive bitch full of her own self worth and incompetent to boot. The one that had the most influence on me in primary school and helped more than a third of his class (above the national average) pass the 11 plus, was male. He also taught us basic French to give us a grounding before we hit secondary education. This was above and beyond the primary curriculum. His lessons, whatever the subject, were never boring. He made learning fun and interesting and even engaged the not so bright pupils to bring out their potential. He was a damn good teacher.

    Mr. Pebworth, wherever you are, I salute you.

  12. P T Barnum says:

    I have to agree with Mr Cats on this one. The roots of this lie not in feminism, but in Freud’s fraud, whereby his professional cowardice translated his middle class patients’ experiences of forced incest into a universal theory of childhood sexuality. Between his notion of every child inherently seeking to seduce adults and Victorian notions of sublime innocence, a muddy world of abuse, enticement, attraction and danger was born which has reverberated down the decades since and left us with a fear of children’s bodies and an automatic association between adult touching and sexual desire.

    But I do agree with the original article in one key respect. The influence of feminism, with its dogma of men as perpetrators and women as victims, has blindsided the world to the fact that sexual exploitation of children is an equal opportunity offence, and many women have passed under the radar of ‘that’s just impossible’, until modern technology has made it all too obvious.

  13. NickM says:

    There is one born every minute. But not me. I am not Cats. He’s glad of it too. You are almost exactly right about Freud. His work (to a first approximation) is meaningless. An ex of mine (and Eng Lit Student grad student) studied Freud. She studied Freud so as to apply his stuff to literary characters. I have to forgive myself here. She didn’t believe fictional characters could be subject to psychoanalysis so she looked into the authors. Whatever. I have been thinking of writing a novel (really!) and Lord knows what the Freud Squad would make of that. It will be emotional mind.

  14. john in cheshire says:

    When will the pendulum begin to swing back towards normality. Not for a long time, in my opinion; the madness has yet to reach its logical conclusion. Despite my belief that men and women make good, bad and indifferent teachers, I think that men should begin to reassert themselves, and stress their belief in themselves; maybe with a Union of Men Teachers (if the women can have their own union, then why not men?). I probably preferred men teachers for maths and the sciences, if truth be told. But my contact with men teachers recently leaves me with the impression that (with a few exceptions) they are self-censoring. And that is wrong.

  15. Ian B says:

    Nick and PT Barnum, I can’t think of a reply that won’t be article length, so at some point I guess I will have to write an article :) The development of the Satanic Panic into the Paedohysteria is not a simple story that can be summarised in a paragraph.

    Meanwhile, here’s a fairly good starting point.

  16. Timeformen says:

    Time to start telling the truth:

  17. No, NickM, I Still Don't Love YOU! says:

    NickM, you really need to get that obsession about me checked out, you stupid wanker. Before you speak for me, or any other feminist you need to rinse your brush in water first. FYI, I think children should be hugged if warranted, desired, necessary, etc. I work with loads of children and I hug them all the time, and I also tell them things that they never hear at home, i.e. I tell them when they are full of themselves, often, a shock to a lot of their wee little systems since most of them, especially the little boys (actually it doesn’t really start until they are around 11) think they are special little snowflakes. I love children, not that I need to tell you that, and I do agree with Ian about hysterical idiots overreacting when it comes to their little special snowflake. However, I would not choose this case for my sympathy because my priority is not injustices aimed at men. My priority is when injustices are aimed at females, which is a big deal because we live in a male loving world. As a female looking out for other females, it is not my job to come to the rescue of some man when there are scores of women who need their voices heard. For the record the main and only issue I have with male teachers has nothing to do with them touching children, although when/if they do so inappropriately, I will be more than happy to pull the level, it has to do with what is happening in the states right now. Now that the economy has tanked, males are applying for teaching positions, jobs they were not previously interested in, but are turning to as a last resort and are being favored over female teachers who trained to become teachers. I know two schools specifically, since the non-profit that I am on the board, has to evaluate grant proposals, where there are male principals, males who were doing other jobs but once desperate turn to their little male buddies at the school district who hooked them up as a principal, and in turn the male principals are hooking up males in teaching positions. All the while bringing those new male teachers in at higher pay than the new female teachers. That is what I am seeing. I am seeing females getting pushed out of the limited teaching spots, or not brought in at all (after university) over males. And of course, there is always some lame justification as to why the male principals selected the male teachers, even though there were like 200 female candidates, 15 male candidates, 5 open positions, and 4 of those positions were placed with males. That’s discrimination. So, before you put words in my mouth, Nicky ol’ boy, do some homework, because I don’t give a damn if little Neville’s teacher is hugging him or not. I care about my sister not getting a job that she trained for because some bloke who failed in the private sector ran over to teaching as a last resort, and got favored over the females applying.

    Nevertheless, Nicky, you got my attention this time, and I know it totally goes against how one is taught to handle obsess crazies, but consider it an early Guy Fawkes Day present.

  18. Ian B says:

    The above rant really illustrates the difference between people who desire equality, and feminists. Whereas an equalist is as appalled by bad treatment of women as by bad treatment of men, the feminist is only interested in her own class. It is thus entirely impossible for the feminist to see the world as it really is; she is like a white in the Deep South in the 1960s, desperately clinging to their own privilege and incapable of comprehending what the uppity niggers are whining about, and justifying their position with bizarre conspiracy theories.

    This is a clear case of a mad injustice, and yet it just doesn’t matter, because the victim isn’t a woman. And does this feminist care about the enormous gender disparity in teaching? No, she doesn’t, because it is men suffering it, not women.

    Pathetic. I mean, truly, utterly, pathetic.

  19. EKG says:

    Ian, you racist ass, the term is Uppity Negro, not uppity nigger. Nice opportunity to use nigger though. Does your tongue feel better now?

    I have to worry about my class, because we are NOT equal yet. DUH!. When/if we become equal then it would be sexist of me to focus on one class over the other. However, men are still the ruling class. If you have a problem with me focusing on the female class, then it is because you are worried that we may become equal one day. In other words, you don’t want to be equal, you want males to have power over females.

    Also, I agreed with your point. However, since you want to be nasty about it. No one would worry about your stupid male teacher hugging kids if stupid men, mostly, there are far more men perverts than women, stopped molesting children. MEN and their perversions created this panic state.

    Nevertheless, it is useless to talk to you lot.

  20. Mr Ecks says:

    Ian B is correct in his opinions. Feminist freaks may not have jumped out of the cupboard in the case of this teacher but they created, wound up and set in motion the mechanisms that have destroyed this unfortunate man.
    The rant by the female creature above shows the poisoned feminist mind.
    As the time is coming to settle accounts with the state and the left in general, let it be time also to settle accounts with the rotten offspring of the left, feministas and eco-freaks.

  21. Ian B says:

    Nevertheless, it is useless to talk to you lot.

    And yet, here you are.

  22. Ian B says:

    Feminist freaks may not have jumped out of the cupboard in the case

    Well, let’s look at it this way. The article says there are now no male teachers at the school. We can conclude from that that when the nonoffences took place, Pullinger was either the only male teacher, or one of very few who have since left. We can thus reasonably conclude that the other teachers who reported his nonoffences were female. We are then left to speculate as to the likelihood of said women not being steeped in feminist inspired motivations.

    One can just imagine the reaction the likes of AROOO would have if the solitary female teacher in a male-dominated environment were similarly forced out by a poisonous, groundless whispering campaign. She would no doubt take that as proof of persecution by the patriarchy. She would probably also speak loudly about the chilling effect on other women in similar male dominated environments.

    But, as a feminist, AROOO, as she says, doesn’t have to think about that. Despite the man’s innocence, despite the parents’ testimonials to his positive effect on their children, despite the institutional discrimination, in AROOO’s world he’s just a

    “stupid male teacher”

  23. P T Barnum says:

    Apologies to NickM for confusing him with a feline.

    Oh, and nepotism is not a male-only practice, EKG. Wafting one’s hand at one set of injustices as being less worthy of care than another set of injustices gouges very deep holes between those who would otherwise be natural allies if it were not for those who maintain the ‘specialness’ of some groups over others. Ever thought you were fighting the wrong enemy?

  24. Sunfish says:

    Wasn’t I married to you once, EKG?

  25. Roue le Jour says:


    I have a slightly different perspective on the smoking ban. When I first came to Thailand in ’02 there wasn’t one, and now it’s exactly the same as the UK. There was no apparent pressure for it, and it is widely assumed here among the expat community to have been introduced at the behest of the US. Remember this is a relatively poor country with no welfare state. Smoking is hardly a top priority.

  26. Ian B says:

    Roue, funnily enough this evening I was in a very good Vietnamese restaurant trying to explain some of this to my sister and her husband as part of the conversation. (Anyone who happens to be in Northampton and needs food, try Dang’s on Wellingborough Road, highly recommended). As usual, I was wishing I could get it all condensed down to something that can be described in 30 seconds, but failed.

    The Campaigners are a primarily Anglosphere phenomenon, and the reason for that is that they grew out of the waves of religious revivalism that swept across the Anglosphere from the eighteenth century onward, as hinted above in the article. The Temperance Movement (alcohol, drugs, tobacco) is one of the core Campaigner movements. Angolsphere governments have been under their thumb to various degrees for a very long time.

    Britain and then America have been the world superpowers for two centuries- Britain handed the baton to America as our Empire disappeared etc. Thus, this Anglospheric influence carries with it the will of The Campaigners as articulated by governments bent to their will; effectively our governments are the vehicles for Campaigner ideology (which is derived itself from a mixture of the great 18C philosophies of Romanticism, Revival Puritanism and, to an ever more minor degree, Liberalism). Intergovernmental mechanisms are used to spread these philosophies worldwide. America is at this stage the primary driver, with Britain playing Robin to their Batman.

    To use the example of smoking bans, this Campaigner Movement is a primarily American Campaigner Movement. It has been spread worldwide by the use of internationalist bureaucratic bodies and Campaigner activity. Thailand, like so many other countries, has been persuaded, cajoled and pressurised into joining in by this anglospheric (particularly American) hegemonic activity.

    I keep on about this, because it is clear to me that most libertarians and anti-transnationalists have got things entirely the wrong way around. They believe that transnationalism is imposing authoritarianism upon us from outside sources, and in order to be free, we must disengage. This is fundamentally wrong. It is us using these bodies to impose these ideas upon everybody else. The EU and the UN and so on simply reflect our own poo back at us. The best reason for leaving the EU and the UN would be to save the rest of the world from us, not to save ourselves from them.

    People have really got to grasp this in order to understand what is happening. The reason that the Anglo nations are the epicentre of this madness is that it is our invention and our problem. And, the reason that the Campaigners are so negative about “the west”, their own countries specifically, is not because they want to commit cultural suicide. It is because they believe that we are destined by God to build that “shining city on a hill” that will make the whole world how it should be. We are the pilgrims, who by purifying our own selves will guide humanity to perfection.

    And on a more practical note, they’ve also learned that local prohibitions fail and global ones, however stupid, succeed. Local (American) Prohibition of alcohol failed. Global Prohibition of narcotics succeeded. They know that they have to coordinate the whole world to make a “reform” stick.

    Hence, “at the behest of the US”. There is a lot of that. Thailand is obligated to follow Campaigner dogma in New York and London.

    I must repeat this, because it is so important. We are the problem. It’s us not them.

  27. CountingCats says:

    Selectively using the language of rights to the advantage of a preferred group, while demonstrating indifference to the lack of rights of another group, or indifference to any tyranny demonstrated by the preferred group, has been described by a wonderful neologism – demopathy.

    Demopaths are people who use democratic language and invoke human rights only when it serves their interests, and not when it calls for self-criticism or self-restraint. Demopaths demand stringent levels of human “rights” but do not apply these basic standards for the “other” to their own behavior.

    To EKG here, and her friends, their site is close to a textbook example in their denigration and pejorative stereotyping of men.

  28. Roue le Jour says:

    You are convincing me, Ian, although I’ve always accepted that if the PM announced some relaxation of the drug laws Hilary would be on his mobile before he sat down. But the thing I’ve never been clear about is Holland and now Portugal. Too small to bother with? That’s something I’d like to know, just to complete the picture.

  29. NickM says:

    “Global Prohibition of narcotics succeeded”

    By what metric? Apart from the billions (trillions?) pointlessly wasted there is a state in Mexico (forget the name) where regularly the monthly death-toll is greater than Iraq at the height of the insurgency. It has succeeded by failing which of course means more resources are needed so as a job creation scheme you can call it a success. A Raymond Chandler novel set during prohibition I once read had cops working as bouncers at a speakeasy in LA. I doubt Chandler was entirely inventing. It’s brilliant. Cops are trained to deal with people kicking-off and they also know the other cops on the prowl so they’ll prowl past the gaff. Not least because they were on the take as well. That’s why I like Phil Marlowe so much – he’s the only honest man in Southern California.

    I don’t take drugs and this is because it’s against the law but not for the reason the government thinks. Not because of Nancy Reagan or Grange Hill. It’s because I would have no idea what the fuck I was buying. In my salad days you could buy resin and that was fun and mellow. It’s now all skunk which is seriously psychoactive. That’s the war on drugs for you. But are we surprised? We shouldn’t be. Skunk is traded now because it’s bigger bang for buck. Before prohibition America was a nation of beer drinkers. During that they became whiskey drinkers. Same reason – bigger bang for buck. Nobody in their right mind was gonna run beer from Canada in the ’20s. But herein lies the rub. Prohibition makes the situation worse which of course means it has to be enforced more which only makes it even more worse and you see how it goes.

    It is one of the reasons I support Gary Johnson. Alas, it’s probs one of the reasons he hasn’t a hope in Hell. Instead we have Michelle “HPV vaccines are the work of the Devil” Bachmann and that loon Perry. I’m not a fan of Obama but Christ almighty the Republicans have formed a circular shooting party have they not.

  30. Ian B says:

    Nick, succeeded in remaining in place. I thought it’s a foregone conclusion that such policies don’t succeed in the sense of achieving their supposed goals.

    From what I can find, Johnson has a pretty standard progressivist view of legalising, taxing and regulating only marijuana, but otherwise supports the war on drugs.

  31. JuliaM says:

    And back on the subject of ‘paedo panics’, there’s the strange entrance policies of Wheelgate Adventure Park

  32. Sam Duncan says:

    The fact that narcotic prohibition has lasted is interesting. I think it’s because narcotics gained widespread popularity after prohibition, rather than before. With alcohol, the effects of prohibition – gangsterism, dangerous reductions in quality of the product – were obvious to everyone, widely felt, and very obviously caused by the ban itself. With narcotics, although prohibition has, as always, failed on its own terms – consumption has increased – it has limited that increase to a relatively small section of the population, so the “side effects” are either considered irrelevant by most people to their lives, or assumed by a population that has never known a free market in such goods to be inherent to the trade… and, therfore, things from which the public must be protected by prohibition.

  33. Ian B says:

    I certainly agree that that is a factor Sam, but I do think internationalist uniformity is very important. Any kind of restrictive system is under constant threat if the people living under it can see some other country where people are not restricted and they are fine, or better off. Americans were constantly aware that people in most of the rest of the world were happily still enjoying beer, wine, spirits etc, and their societies weren’t collapsing as a consequence. WHen there is nowhere else to act as an example, it is much easier to maintain a bad system.

    That I think to a large degree was what did for Communism. Because it never achieved global hegemony, the mere existence of non-Communist nations who were clearly doing rather better than the Communist ones, was a major factor in bringing it down. It’s hard to maintain a system of nationalised commodities when your population are lusting for American blue jeans.

    Which is why this time around the Campaigners are determinedly internationalist, with a strategy of globalised moral hegemony. That’s really the level we need to be fighting them at. By the time they’ve passed the latest edict down to the implementers in our notionally national governments, it is usually too late.

  34. Matt says:

    Dear Sir.
    Please give regard to the difference between LOATHE and LOATH.

    Thank you very much.

  35. APL says:

    NNMISLY: ” .. males are applying for teaching positions, jobs they were not previously interested in, but are turning to as a last resort and are being favored over female teachers who trained to become teachers.”

    Given the decline in US teaching standards over the last thirty years, perhaps we are about to see the trend reversed.


  36. NickM says:

    What did for Communism can, I think, be seen by the example of the remaining Communist states. It was never total except where it was and that’s where it still is. East Germans knew the grass was greener on the other side. Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Russians ditto. The only way Communism is long-term viable is to run it like North Korea which is totalitarianism plus ultra. The PRC isn’t exactly Communist and hasn’t been for quite some time. Fascist would be a fairer summation.

  37. Tim Newman says:

    When I first came to Thailand in ‘02 there wasn’t one, and now it’s exactly the same as the UK.

    Really? Not in Phuket it isn’t!

  38. Roue le Jour says:

    Tim, I am well aware it isn’t enforced uniformly. ;)

  39. Tim Newman says:

    I didn’t even know it was law. Then again, I can never figure out what the law is in Thailand, they seem to make it up as they go along.

  40. Paul Marks says:

    Good post Ian.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: