We’re publishing an original piece today by Dr David McGrogan, Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School, in defence of the handshake. As far as Prof. McGrogan is concerned, we cannot hope to return to normal life unless we start shaking each other’s hands again. Here is an extract:
The handshake is alive and well and living in Paris – not to mention London, New York, and Stockton-on-Tees. Prohibition never eliminates a practice, as any fool can tell you; it just drives it into the weeds. And handshaking is no different. People are still doing it. And now it has a subversive edge. When somebody offers you their hand these days, it is no longer just the meaningless ritual of yesteryear – it sends some important messages, which are all the more profound for the fact that they are not consciously sent or received. Human communication is not just verbal, but physical, and one only has to think for a second to realise that our physical ways of communicating – kissing, hugging, shaking hands – are often the most significant. What words are there that can surpass a simple hug from a loved one at a time of crisis? Or a first kiss? Or a handshake on the playground after a fight?
The first unconscious message sent by the post-2020 handshake is simply stated: you and your fellow hand-shaker are simpatico. The mask-wearing, the social distancing, the fear-mongering – maybe you’ll go along with it if you must, but deep down inside, you hate it. And with that furtive handshake, both of you now know that you’re in the same club. The wheat has been separated from the chaff.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“I am no Leftist, but if Left-wing politics ever had a value, it is surely that it gestured towards increased material prosperity for the poor. ”
Well some would argue that it was just a “gesture” used as a smokescreen for some other cabal to seize power and money. Has this “gesture” succeeded anywhere?
It depends on what exactly you mean by ‘Left-wing’ and what you mean by ‘succeeded’.
The Nordic countries have generally been regarded as quite ‘Left-wing’ over many years, and they have certainly succeeded in many ways.
I think it’s simplistic to think “Right-wing good, Left-wing bad”, or vice versa.
Overall the average standard of living and wealth per capita of the Nords is rather low. They would rank amongst the poorest US states. Most of their wealth is from the hated raw materials and hydrocarbons (oh no) and trade with Germany.
Well the writer is referring to “left wing” in the sense of looking to redistribute wealth. The Nordic countries do have a somewhat redistributive taxation system that funds a social safety net, though I don’t know the extent to which this redistributes wealth. I suspect not that much, given that they seem to have higher quality human capital, on average, than many countries. How long they can sustain that in the face of importing lower quality human capital remains to be seen.
If by “right wing” we mean small state, emphasis on the individual not the collective, and “left wing” means the opposite, then yes I would see that simplistically as good and bad.
I agree with Brett Weinstein that there is an optimum balance between right-wing and left-wing policies. When the pendulum has swung too far to the right, it’s time to vote for left-wing policies, and when the pendulum has swing too far to the left, it’s time to vote for right-wing policies.
It’s clear to me that in the last few years the pendulum has swung far too far towards left-wing authoritarianism.
Can you give examples of times when the “pendulum has swung too far to the right” and of “left wing” policies you would vote for?
I don’t really want to spend time on that old argument, I’ll just mention one example: There was terrible poverty in Britain until Labour’s left wing policies from 1945 onwards which were continued by subsequent Conservative governments.
What is “terrible poverty” and how was it alleviated by “Labour’s left wing policies”? Which specific policies?
Wasn’t the NHS a flagship “left wing” policy of the 45 Labour government?
I think we’re being lied to about what things were like before the NHS, based both on my father’s – born in 1930 – experiences with heart problems and Eric Sykes’ autobiography.
OK, only 2 examples, but that beats state propaganda!
Quite possibly, but in any case even if the NHS was an improvement on what was there before, that doesn’t mean it was the best way forward, and it certainly isn’t now.
I didn’t mention the NHS. The biggest cause of ill-health is poverty.
I know you didn’t mention the NHS. I did. What is “poverty” and what policies did the ’45 Labour government put in place to alleviate it?
Marxism was meant to address the crushing poverty and absolutely miserable standards of living of working class people after industrialization had occurred. This means it was supposed to address a real problem in order to deliver real solution. As opposed to this, our modern day “lefties” no longer aspire to help anyone, rather, the exact opposite: Subsistence agriculture without machinery isn’t really jolly guys jumping around in woods and singing silly songs, it’s back-breaking labour from dawn till dusk for everyone old enough to be physically able to do it and this for maintaining a poor existence fraught with peril. Famines stopped to be a regular occurence in Europe only aftert synthetic nitrogen-fertilizier became available¹.
¹ Developed by German scientists and engineers during the first world war for both production of ammunition and explosives and keeping the German agriculture going despite being cut off from overseas supplies of saltpeter. To no one’s thanks, as usual.
“Marxism was meant to address the crushing poverty and absolutely miserable standards of living of working class people after industrialization had occurred.”
One could argue that was just a pretext. Once “crushing poverty” had been eliminated, the left didn’t have that pretext any more so as you say they no longer aspire to help anyone (though they purport to aspire to help all sorts of “victim” groups.
People can argue about all kinds of stuff. But that’s not relevant for the point of the author which was about the intent behind Marxist ideology vs the intent behind the post-Marxist ideology adhered to by Tim Davie and his band of very unmerry nonmen etc.
The author uses the word “value” with reference to the left. I think if the “intent” was sincere then his point may stand, but if the “intent” was insincere then it doesn’t.
The point of the author is – using an extremely simplified example – about the difference between I promise I’ll give £1000 to you and I promise I’ll take £1000 from you. This difference exists regardless of both my actual intentions and actions. Marxism used to promise paradise on earth (it’s really an utopian ideology). Post-Marxism doesn’t. It promises to take away whatever someone has for the benefit of abstract entities considered to be more imporant than mere people (eg, the planet). The latter is the polar opposite to the former.
Yes but the new save the planet ideology promises you will not lose your standard of living by the switch to renewables. ——-This is clearly FALSE. We only have to remember the words of Maurice Strong when he said “The current lifestyles and consumption patters of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable”. ——So Marxism maybe promised to raise up living standards. But the current green orthodoxy seeks to lower them, using irrational fear of a climate crisis as the excuse.
The Left don’t want the more prosperity for the poor but less for the rich. There is no redistribution, just a dragging down of everyone except the chose few.
That is usually/always the result, yes. I think some people actually do believe that the policies they support lead to a “fairer” society (whatever that is). The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
The picture appears to be one from the show.
It is revolting.
Sounds like a good opportunity for post-Brexit UK to improve our trade with other parts of the world, at the expense of the EU. It’s to swerve baffling legislation like this is a good reason we left.
Another reason I won’t pay the BBC tithe. Useless organisation.Just more human hate.
Does this thesis apply to Lineker the Black Jew who makes > £ 1 million p.a, and the other BBC elites who cash in >£200 K p.a.? Should the BBC elites not return their largesse and ‘remain poor to save poor little Gaia?’ Maybe Attencrapough can do a St Francis?
News flash: you could fit the globe’s entire population, with each person in a 6 foot x 8 foot area, in Brewster county Texas. Rougly the size of 4 x the Sussex counties…..yeah. Overcrowding et al my arse.
Perhaps Robin Hood should steal from the poor in order to subsidise the Sheriff of Nottingham’s new windmill
Great analogy
People who do not understand how energy works (probably 90% of the population) might think that all that is required to “save the planet” is to replace coal oil and gas with wind and sun and everything will tick along just as before. ———–NOPE. Think again. The most important commodity is energy. Price and availability of energy is directly correlated with prosperity. When you remove cheap abundant energy and replace it with expensive unreliable energy there is only one outcome——Impoverishment.
If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.
Just do the right thing, boycott the BBC and don’t pay the TV tax. By watching this crud, you are encouraging it.