Tobacco CONTROL tactics. ( HOW TOBACCO CONTROL DECEIVES. (See sidebar).

“SMOKERS BLACK LUNG” IS A FRAUD. See this post by Frank Davis:





Insidiously Penetrating The Conscience


We Brits have been nurtured down the centuries to have a ‘conscience’. The vast majority of us are ‘programmed (in a nice sense)’ to not only avoid harming our neighbours but also to help them if the encounter serious problems. Part of that is undoubtedly due to Christianity. “Love thy neighbour as thyself”.

But it also applies in every circumstance that you can describe. Strangers rush to help a person who collapses in the street. They call an ambulance if necessary. It is ingrained in our way of life.

I have only realise in the last few days, somewhat laboriously, that TobCON has been messing about with our ‘consciences’ for years and years without us knowing it. For example, if I am walking along the street with a cig in my hand, and I spy a woman and child heading towards me on the same side of the street, I become ‘conscious’ of the fact that I am smoking ‘in the presence of a child’.

Now, that awareness cannot have come from my inbuilt conscience since I have been smoking ‘in the presence of children’ for most of my life. I have three daughters. None of them have come to any harm. No, that awareness must have been implanted in my conscience. By constant repetition about ‘harm to children’, a doubt about my behaviour has been implanted, not only into my conscious mind, but also into my conscience.

What is the difference between the ‘conscious’ and the ‘conscience’? I think the answer is that the ‘conscience’ is emotional, which would explain why we cannot control it. Emotions just ‘happen’ – they cannot be controlled. People who vomit at the sight of blood do so because they have no control at that moment.

We have paid loads of attention to the junk science which has emanated from TobCON, but hardly any of us have really noticed the insidious invasion of our consciences.

THE INVASION HAS BEEN DELIBERATE! But most of us, including vapers, have been bewitched by ‘the science’ of smoking, vaping, HnB, nicotine patches, nicotine gum, inhalers, etc. Do they work?

Irrelevant. The whole point of most of the propaganda has been to invade our consciences. Make us feel bad about harming others, even if that is just smoking in the street ‘in the presence of’ a child 50 yards away.

Perhaps that is why TobCON is struggling so much with ecigs and other variants. Smokers who have switched know that the dangers are massively reduced, therefore their consciences are much relieved. They feel much better about themselves. Perhaps they might even feel that they are immortal, which should pleasure them enormously. But they will still suffer the problems of old age eventually, even if they are immortal.

The lesson to be learnt is that the ‘penetration of our consciences’ has been deliberate and planned, but kept very secret as an objective. It far surpasses the effect of smoking bans.

What can we do? Funnily enough, it is probably best to describe the perpetrators as ‘disgusting, filthy, stinking turds’. That is reasonably true. They have implanted in countless millions of minds their own self-disgust. I cannot help but think that people like Arnott MUST know that they are wallowing in the excrement of the WHO.

A Conservative Canvasser Calls….


I don’t know why a canvasser called today – elections are not due until May 2019. She asked me if I would complete a survey which she had in her hands. Perhaps they are getting organised very early.

I told her that I was not interested in the Tories because I am a persecuted smoker; that I am sick to death of being ripped off by excessive taxes and banned, banned, banned. She told be that she used to smoke but stopped when she had to have an operation and did not want to be desperate for a smoke while in hospital. “Your decision”, I said, “And that is what it is all about”. I told her that there was never any need for the total ban in pubs etc since rooms could be allocated for smokers. She said that the bans were to protect non-smokers. Protect them from what? Doll’s Doctors Study showed that it takes 30 years or more for smoking to have an effect. SHS danger was a fraud. And then she said that it was not the Tories who introduced the bans. True, it it was Blair, but Cameron took the demonisation and persecution a step further with PP. She said that you could still smoke at home. For how long?

But the conversation was quite amicable, which would not have been the case with an anti-smoking zealot (unless she was such a zealot but was hiding it. Ex-smokers are sometimes the worst of zealots).

Will that conversation make any difference at all? Probably not, but the more people who concentrate upon the theft of excessive taxes, the discrimination, the criminalisation, the demonisation, the more likely it is that the penny will drop; that there are millions of angry smokers whose votes are there for the taking.

But there is a problem. Not all smokers are angry, which is a shame. They should be angry. Many (most?) don’t quite realise that the smoking ban was fully intended to dispirit them – to diminish them in their own minds; to make them feel like outcasts.

There was a cigarette advert on TV many years ago for Strand cigs. It depicted a smoker standing under a lamppost and smoking a Strand cig. The caption was, “You are never alone with a Strand”. It was reported that the advert was a massive failure, although I do not know what ‘massive failure’ means. Perhaps the advert actually diminished sales because smokers did not want to be associated with ‘being alone’.

And yet we stand outside pubs, often alone, having been diminished in our own minds.

I fight against that every time I step outside. I make a point of taking my cig and lighter out of my pocket before I step outside, and showing everyone that I do not give a shit. I just obey the law. We cannot actually do anything about the pub smoking ban because publicans did not ‘fight, fight and fight again’ against being criminalised for ‘allowing’ smoking. The vast majority of publicans did not realise that ‘allowing’ included ‘forcing not to’. They were obliged to force smokers not to smoke indoors under penalty of potentially vast fines.

I was reading something today about how Waitrose has decided to rename ‘Gentlemans Relish’ after complaints that the name was sexist. A commenter asked why was it that ‘Woman’s Hour’ and the magazine ‘Woman’s Own’ were not sexist. Why did Waitrose capitulate so easily? What were they afraid of? Or was it that they took advantage of the ‘free’, apparently ‘negative’, publicity?

And is that what all the fuss about iQos is? Is that also ‘free negative’ publicity, which can be turned to commercial advantage? The more that iQos is talked about, the more publicity is generated, and the greater the sales. No wonder that Tobcom share prices rose quite substantially after the FDA announced its crackdown on ecig flavours.

I do not own a iQos. I understand that they work by heating a wad of tobacco without burning it. The machine heats the wad of tobacco when a button is pressed. Once the button is released, the heating stops.

Let us suppose that the wad of tobacco contains a quarter of the tobacco in a cig, but it lasts just as long as a full cig because it does not burn down. A tobcon can charge just as much for ‘heets’, including taxes, as it charges for a packet of cigs, even though there is only a quarter of the amount of tobacco. Government loses out because it can only charge duty on the amount of tobacco in the ‘heets’.  In the UK, duty is charged not only on the amount of tobacco in a cig, but in addition, a charge per cig. But there are no cigs involved in ‘heets’. How then can ‘heets’ be taxed without raising massively the duty on rolling tobacco as well? Further, there is the question of deterring smokers from taking up a much less harmful alternative than inhaling smoke.

Who can blame tobcoms for promoting iQos and equivalents? They will survive and go from strength to strength. No wonder that TobCON is in hysterics, since its whole ‘raison d’etre’ is to destroy tobcoms and release tobacco plantations for the growing of cabbages to feed Africa.

The ‘Resistance’ can only be negative at this time. Obey the law but circumvent it where possible, if you can. Above all, if you can, avoid buying cigs at full price in the UK. Just do what you personally can do. Non-smokers must realise that their taxes MUST rise if smokers stop paying the ridiculous duties.

So it comes down to ‘passive resistance’. Tell canvassers that you are a smoker and detest the persecution. UKIP came close to representing smokers, until they chickened out. I do not know why – some 10,000,000 voters are not a target to be easily ignored.

All is not lost. I had occasion to attend Bolton Hospital as a visitor for a couple of days this week. There are ‘No Smoking’ notices all over the place, but no one ‘patrolled’ the area outside but within the grounds of the hospital. There were big bins here and there with lot of cig ends on the top. The fact is that the hospital is just paying lip-service to the ban on smoking.

How many MPs are just paying lip-service to the persecution of smokers? How many, in their hearts, KNOW that they have been persecuting smokers for years and years?

So, if you get the chance, tell canvassers that you are a smoker and resent massively being being demonised and ripped off and that their parties mean nothing to you. Make the enjoyment of tobacco the MAIN thing.

Is The Border Problem Between North and South Ireland Insoluble?


PM May is pushing for an extension of Brexit date ‘for a few months’. She specifically stated that the reason concerns the above. There is uproar in the Tory Party. Needless to say, she did not explain on TV why an extension would make any difference.

I have a feeling that the problem has nothing to do with trade, but is entirely concerned with the movement of people. It would make some sense for the ‘people movement’ border problem to be put on one side so that a comprehensive deal could be agreed, excluding that thorny problem. We would still not have left the EU, but trade etc have been dealt with.

The assumption has been that there can be no ‘picking and choosing’ what EU principles can be taken up and what principles can be disregarded. The EU bosses have said so again and again. Perhaps that is the reason that Macron, President of France, said that UK citizens may need visas to visit France.

As I understand it, the Schengen agreement was that citizens of the 26 nations which agreed it. The UK and Ireland opted out. It is all a bit messy, as you can see from this:

But it is not clear. Most of those countries do no even require passports, never mind visas. You can board a train in Spain and travel to Germany without having to show a passport. However, that seems too simple. I suspect that what it means is that you have to show identification (a passport) at the start of your journey, but not again. Otherwise, what would stop a UK national boarding such a train? Or an illegal immigrant?

I don’t know why precisely the UK and Ireland opted out. Perhaps it was because it would be too easy for a boat at sea to pick up illegals. We are never told these things. But because we are never told these things, we automatically assume that ‘illegals’ can enter Southern Ireland and make their way to the UK, without hindrance, via the unprotected Northern Ireland border.

The problem therefore seems to be about trust between the opted-out Rep of Ireland and the opted-out UK. There has never been a problem with French, Spanish, German people visiting the UK or working here, and vice versa.

Who or what created the problem?

It is entirely possible that it was the EU itself which created the problem. It looked at the landmass of Europe and likened it to the landmass of the USA. Sure, Hawaii is separated as are some other states, but Hawaii is a long way from the USA and is unlikely to house terrorists just waiting to grab a boat and paddle to the USA mainland. But the EU was blind to the history of Europe, its different cultures and antagonisms. After the civil war in the USA, the USA settled into a system of Federal matters and State matters. The idea of ‘smuggling tobacco products’ across State lines would have been thought to be ridiculous, since some States were tobacco producers and some were not. Only massive taxes in some States have distorted the Market. For example, our now deceased friend, Harleyrider, said that lorries carrying huge quantities of leaves shed loads of leaves on the wayside, but no one could be bothered collecting them because tobacco products were so cheap.

The Irish boarder question is a ‘gordian knot’. It cannot be unravelled. The word ‘backstop’ is entirely the wrong word. In my opinion, the answer lies in cutting the know out altogether. That can only be achieved by bilateral agreements between the Rep of Ireland and the UK.

The EU has nothing to do with it.

The Corruption of the UN/WHO/FCTC


You cannot see the corruption. It is invisible. You can only infer it. It seems the Netherlands has just decided to ‘catch up on’ its nanny state status. It has been trailing behind for years and years. According to:

the health minister there is going potty:

That could soon change. I mentioned on Monday that the Dutch health minister, Paul Blokhuis, wants to fast-track plain packaging through the Dutch parliament. He also wants to introduce minimum pricing so that the price of a crate of beer doubles from €10 to €20. He wants to emulate the UK’s food degradation programme and he wants to copy Chile’s ban on the use of recognisable characters on food packaging.

As if that weren’t enough, he wants to ban smoking on terraces, stop supermarkets selling cigarettes and include e-cigarettes in both the country’s smoking ban and the plain packs legislation.

And he can do most of this without the need for primary legislation. Plain packaging is scheduled to be passed before the month is out. By this time next year, the Netherlands could jump from the bottom end of the Nanny State Index to the top.”

Now, it just so happens that the Netherlands is ‘pencilled in’ to host a WHO/FCTC jamboree in the near future. I am sure that readers will be aware that those jamborees, like holding the Olympic Games, are worth a lot of money.  Not that the WHO or FCTC bring in the same sort of money, but several million €s is not to be sneezed at. So why not write a few regulations to ensure that the money is forthcoming?

The inference is supported by what happened in Russia. Did not Putin introduce some heavy-handed regulations in much the same circumstances – some time before a WHO event was scheduled for Moscow? And did not something similar happen in Afghanistan (or Azerbaijan or somewhere similar)? My recollections are somewhat vague…

I’m just sniffing around, but the more that you sniff, the stronger the stink becomes. But you can’t find the turds which are emitting the stink. Which people in the hierarchy of the UN/WHO/FCTC are the turds? Surely the people in the UN etc cannot all be turds?

But it is weird how political turds are happy to reveal themselves. In the Netherlands, it is one, Mr Blokhuis:

Mr Blokhuis is from the Christian Union. They came eighth in the election with just 3.4 per cent of the vote. They only won five of the 150 seats available but since nobody wanted to deal with Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom, and the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy couldn’t get on with the Greens, the Socialists or the Labour party, they somehow got into government.”

One can only surmise that such people douse themselves in gallons of perfume to disguise the stink. There again, it is quite possible for the other turds not to be able to sense the stink.

That is where people like Trump score. He may have his own sewerage problems, but he can smell ‘the swamp’ from miles away. I understand that he has taken the UN in hand to some extent by refusing to finance more that 25% of ‘peacekeeping’.

We in the UK could do with such a character, but our political system does not allow ‘an outsider’ to gain control. Whoever replaces PM May will never even think of extending ‘austerity’ to the UN and all its vastly expensive turds. For we must not forget that the UN itself does NOTHING. It is a leach on the body politic, or rather, the body taxpayer.

Would it not be wonderful if ‘The Taxpayers Alliance’ suddenly received vast funding to investigate things like contributions to the UN, and especially the FCTC, which is almost completely funded by the UK (other than ‘black (market)’ funding)? But that would only be possible with total UK Gov support.

Our attention is constantly being distracted by nonsense like ‘Pizzagate 2’. It cannot be other than deliberate.

The answer? IGNORE THE PIZZAGATES! Do not talk about them. Such regulations as might be imposed are totally irrelevant to what is important.

It follows that I must chastise myself, and I do. But I have no idea where to start to take apart UK conspiracies with the UN, WHO, FCTC. But what is certain is that massive defunding of those organisations would bring the stinking turds out into the open.

Pizzagate 2


There is a conspiracy theory going viral that the Government intends to regulate pizza toppings so as to keep the total calorie content at or below 928 calories. Clearly, this must be nonsense. The three of us, here a home, ordered in pizzas for our evening meal for a change and to save daughter N the chore of cooking since she had had a very busy day. And delicious they were. I don’t know what pizzas she ordered. There was garlic bread and a pizza with pepperoni and other stuff. Since she shared them out between us, there is no easy way for any one of us to know how many calories we had consumed. But we also had the garlic bread, so our total meal each included that as well. I must admit that there was an ample plateful each. In fact, herself left a bit. Even so, since none of know how many calories we consumed, it may well be that, even after an ample plateful, we might still under-nourished. Perhaps an equally ample bowl of ice-cream would have made up the difference, plus a glass or two of wine.

The only other possibility, other than that the story is absolute nonsense, is that, once again, the Government is being made a fool of. Let’s face it, the sugar tax was always a joke, and everyone knew it. Lucosade fell for it and have lost masses of business by changing their formula rather than increasing the price or absorbing the tax for a while. Coca Cola have rejected the interference out of hand.

Politicians seem to be such simple souls, do you not think? Do they not realise that pizza toppings are another example of ‘thin end of wedge’? If they agree, then they have no defence at all against further demands.

But let is think a bit more about pizzas. What sizes do they come in? I don’t know, but I would guess 6″, 9″, 12″ approx. So the regulations will have to differentiate between sizes. Will the differentiation between sizes be per ounce or per inch of diameter?

And so it goes on, starting with vast exaggerations of SHS danger of tobacco, and eventually culminating in soylent green for the masses.

I can’t help but feel that, eventually, the whole question of freedom of the individual (including the sale of goods which are in demand) will come before our Supreme Court. It will be a massively important question of whether or not Parliament can do anything it wants ‘in the public interest’, for it is in that phrase that that denial of personal freedom resides. That phrase is so unspecific that it is not a ‘feature’ of our constitution. It has been invented.

Is it in ‘the public interest’ that pizza toppings should be regulated?

I my view, ‘the public interest’ should apply to EVERYONE, rich and poor, and if the regulation in question hits only the poor or the poor hardest, then it is not ‘in the public interest’.

On that basis, smoking bans could be justified, but massive rises in taxation could not. On that basis, VAT would not be ‘in the public interest’ since it taxes the poorest and the richest to the same extent.

Perhaps some time in the foreseeable future, our Supreme Court (aka Constitutional Court) will overturn masses of legislation, especially EU directives, which penalise and persecute classes of citizens.


The Use of Language


Pat Nurse drew attention to how we should not accept TobCON’s use of words. For example, the word ‘Stoptober’ means nothing to anyone who chances upon it without previous knowledge of some sort of campaign.

I fully agree with Pat.

But it is hard to reject those words. EG, the use of ‘quit’ to mean ‘stop’. As best I can recall, the American word ‘quit’ meant ‘leave’. You might ‘quit'(leave) a building, ‘quit'(leave) a game of poker. But it did not mean just ‘stop’.

But what is far, far worse is the practice of TobCON (and others more recently) of creating ephemeral ‘objects’ which do not actually exist. “There is a worry that….” is a favourite. There is no such thing as ‘a worry’ without a worrier. ‘Worries’ are not things. At best, they are ‘states of mind’. which apply only to individuals. TobCON is a globalist monopoly. It cannot have ‘worries’, but it can crush all dissent.

TobCON is ‘a thing’. It has no feelings, no intelligence, no affinity. It continues to exist ONLY by being fed money. Without money, the whole edifice of the FCTC would collapse.

And which idiotic group of people are sustaining the FCTC with money? You have guessed – it is the UK taxpayers far more than any other group. But taxpayers themselves are not the idiots. Ministers of the Crown are the idiots. It is they who do not regard a few million pounds as important.

There are many more examples of misused words. ‘Regulation’ is one. To ‘regulate’ does not mean ‘to ban’. Strictly speaking, ‘regulate’ means ‘make rules’, such as in a game. The idea of ‘regulation’ is provide a ‘level playing field’ when necessary. It DOES NOT mean ‘forbid’.

It might be useful to provide a lexicon of TobCON ‘ephemeral objects’.

Should We Defenders of Freedom Give Up?


I read Frank Davis’s blog every day:

Frank persists and persists and persists. Quite a lot of my favourite ‘smoker sites’ have either gone quiet or post very intermittently. Funnily enough, I had Dr Siegal’s site as a ‘smoker site’; not because he defended smokers (he was a fervent anti-smoking zealot), but because he had at least some empathy with smokers. He stoutly defended THR, especially ecigs. I don’t know what happened to him because he has posted nothing for a couple of months. Perhaps he has ceased to be immortal by virtue of some non-communicable, smoking-related disease. I do not know.

I too have asked myself if there is any point in going on. But I still have in my memory the recollection of a small booklet. I cannot remember what it was about (it may have been about ‘preaching the gospel), but the important thing was ‘keep on keeping on’ in adversity. ‘Keep on keeping on’ regardless of the forces arraigned against you. Another way to put it is ‘fight, fight against the dying of the light’.

For, once principled good people start to dictate, unprincipled people quickly jump on the bandwagon to make money. I am not quite sure what category ex PM Tony Blair falls into. Logically, it must be the first, since, on the face of it, he had nothing to gain personally from starting the smoking bans. It was he who permitted the smoking bans to be introduced. He set the precedent in 2007.

If it was in my power, whenever Blair pronounces in public about Brexit or whatever, I would stand up and ask, “But what decided you to start the persecution of smokers in 2007?”

That question is very, very important because there was no real public demand for such bans at the time. ASH surveys were clearly fraudulent. Why? Because they were surveying the general public, most of whom do not go to pubs. Would the bans produce votes for Labour? Very, very doubtful.

What was missing at the time was the idea that the smoking ban was persecution, not only of smokers but of publicans etc. The ban produced pain and suffering, especially for the owners and staff of pubs which closed down. The owners not only lost their means of earning a living, but also the capital which they had invested.

So we must ‘keep on keeping on’. I sympathise with Pat Nurse, who stopped posting on her blog because she feared ‘repercussions’ on her journalist career. Pat did more physically than most of us by actually parading with placards.

It is important to ‘keep on keeping on’. For example, Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ is the holy bible of TobCON. On the face of it, that study showed that smokers were 15 times more likely to die from LC, as compared with non-smokers. Is that not damning?

Perhaps it is, but to pour cold water on that idea, suppose that only 1 non-smoker dies from LC and 15 smokers die from LC, but those numbers apply to 1 in 10,000 deaths and 15 in 10,000 deaths? Of what importance, in that scenario is smoking? The ratio may be damning, but the incidence is trivial.

I want to go back again to Doll’s Study, but I have not had time. The famous statistician, Fisher, debunked the study, but it is still the holy bible.

I shall ‘keep on keeping on’ because it is the only way, even if no one takes a blind bit of notice.

Freedom is freedom.

Internecine Strife


A very short post tonight – I have been very busy and am knackered.

It is immensely pleasing to see over one hundred academics tearing into Duncan Selbie, CEO of Public Health England. They protest about PHE’s collaboration with ‘The Drinks Industry’ via the organisation called ‘Drinkaware’. They demand the same sort of ‘divorce’ which was written into the FCTC Treaty (which was not actually a treaty) – liaising with Tobcoms was ‘treason’, in the eyes of the Zealots. Although death as  a penalty was out of their hands, they did the next best thing – ostracised and ruined the traitors.

But in this case, they are out on a limb. They are taking an immense risk which they may, in their hubris, have overlooked. They are not indispensable. Not one single one of them.

And to talk about ‘non-cooperation’ is inviting ‘non-cooperation’ from PHE. There may be ‘A Board’, which is choka with Zealots, but, if Selbie is actually in control, with the approval of Ministers, I could see such ‘A Board’ being replaced post-haste. Out go the Zealots to be replaced by realists. PHE did it with ecigs. Further, I can see lots of the academics losing their grants, and a winding down of ‘alcohol studies’.

Would that the same applied to ‘tobacco studies’. It will happen eventually.

Is A Small Government Party Majority Bad For Government?


In the not far distant past, small Government Party majorities of MPs were, I think, rare. I am talking about majorities of 100 or so. When the Tories were in the ascendant, they had a good majority, and when Labour were in the ascendant, they too had a good majority.

You would think that having a good majority would lead to highly preferential treatment of Government favourites, but that did not seem to happen. If it did, it was behind the scenes.

By and large, Governments, whether Tory or Labour, with good majorities, sought to make sensible decisions which benefited the nation as a whole, even if their rhetoric suggested otherwise. For example, as a consequence of WW2, the greatest priory was to repair the damage inflicted by German bombing, and to get the economy off wartime production and back to producing goods and services to make life better for everyone. Most economists dismiss nationalisation as ‘a bad thing’, but who is to say that it was not the best way to maximise production at the time? Think of privately owned small coal mines. How could they afford the massive investment needed to raise productivity by mechanising the processes? Government could prioritise such investment, via the National Coal Board. Fuel was the lifeblood of the economy.

What about the railways? By their nature (linking different parts of the country), they tended to be ‘national’. Again, ‘benefits of scale’ could improve them. I used trains quite a lot in the 1960s/70s, and they seemed to be reliable and inexpensive. They were pretty basic, but at least the service was reliable. Buses were never nationalised, but were run by Local Authorities, which was much the same. Again, they were pretty basic, but they were reliable. The ‘No 50 express from Warrington to Bolton’, always turned up at the right time, more or less.

On my recent trip from where I live to Wigan, I checked the bus timetables. The estimated time from Atherton to Wigan was 40 min. The train took 15 min.

At the time, immediately post WW2, nationalisation of national interests was the best option.

‘The Post’ had always been a national entity. That is not surprising since it was always ‘national’. How could a local postal distribution in England deliver a letter to an address in Scotland without the ‘Royal Mail’? It is interesting to note that even in Roman times, there was a ‘mail service’. Families in Italy could send ‘postcards’ (slim slats of wood with a message imprinted upon them) to soldiers serving in England. Remnants have been found.

The problem with a tiny majority, even worse, a majority which needs minor party support, is that only trivial matters, which tend to have cross-party support, can be done, and it is in the nature of Government that ‘something must be done’. Something must be SEEN to be being done. That is how Cameron came to approve ‘plain packaging of cig packets’. He has been described, in retrospect, as a ‘dilettante’, which I think is true. Oh, he was an expert at the dispatch box, but he did nothing which was not trivial. When the shit hit the fan (his failure to get a deal from the EU pre-Brexit) and The People voted for Brexit, he fled.

So here we are with PM May trying to please everyone with her Brexit terms, and happy to give away £30 billion to please the EU aristocrats.

WE LEFT THE EU THE MOMENT THAT THE PEOPLE DECIDED. That decision over-road any previous treaties.

Pick things up from there.

Mission Creep In The FCTC


VGIF (Velvet Glove, Iron Fist by Chris Snowdon) has an interesting article about the machinations of COP 8:

One thing that struck me, amongst many others, is that the FCTC has now set up another subsidiary called:

the Global Strategy to Accelerate Tobacco Control – to ‘reinforce government policies and accelerate global action for more effective implementation of the tobacco control treaty’.

Oh, and there is already another subsidiary called: the Framework Control Alliance. Oh, and there is another shindig just starting in Geneva called MOP 1, which ‘aims to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products’. I have no doubt that the word ‘illicit’ means ANY trade in tobacco products, other than that which is controlled by ‘The Mob’.

Do we see a pattern emerging? What is the difference between TobCON and The Mafia? The rake-off for TobCON from the ‘licit’ sale of tobacco products is massive. See what the COP 8 cost:

US$ 577 per minute ($1,906,000 for 55 hr of meetings). I should imagine that most delegates will also have their own grants as well.

Oh, and the IPCC has just published its undoubtedly massively costly list of ‘wish-thinks’ to take us all back to medieval times. It was published with massive publicity, including a glowing report on the BBC. “Scientists have …..”. For some reason that eludes me, the list of ‘wish-thinks’ needed a dozen or more tailors’ dummies on a podium to make it seem to be important. The report is here:

Here is a quote:

“The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.”

What does that mean? It is that there is no way that it is possible to hit that target of 45% reduction by 2030! Are cities to be raised to the ground? Is land to be returned to 90% coverage by forests? Are the deserts to be made to bloom? In climate timescales, it is only five minutes ago that England had a population of some 5,000,000 and was 90% forest. Oh, an it was round about then that the medieval warm period and the little ice age took place.

There is something like the moon landings about the whole FCTC, IPCC, EU, UN ‘project’. The impetus to ‘go to the moon’ was to see if it could be done. That is what it was all about. Actually going to the moon revealed little that was not already known.

I am venturing out on a limb here because I am ignorant, but I read Feynman’s ‘Lectures on  Physics’ (I have a copy on my computer somewhere). He reckoned that light was not reflected from objects like the moon but absorbed, which caused the material on the surface of the object to emit light in its turn. Thus a green leaf absorbs ALL the sunlight which strikes its surface, but only emits green light in response. I suppose that the leaf might also emit infra red and ultra violet, but I do not know. I would imagine (but do not know) that moonlight has been analysed to death, which analysis would reveal the nature of substances on the moon’s surface. I’m not saying that it was not worth collecting samples of moon rocks, but I would expect that they would merely confirm what was already know.

The UN and all its subsidiaries are way, way out of date. They are monopolies which exist only because there is no competition, and because they are very remunerative. To make it even better, none of the well-rewarded ‘experts’ have to do any actual work at all! They can make it all up, if they wish.

Is that not one of the wonderful things about Brexit? The UK will no longer be obliged to pay for the EU ‘delegates’ to the UN, and its servile, UN-directed ‘health and sustainability’ departments.

But do the likes of PM Tessa May et al have the strength of character to call a halt to the whole charade? I doubt that they would even know where to start. The President of the USA gave a hint, in fact, several hints. He withdrew from the International, UN court on the grounds that it has no authority over US citizens; he withdrew from the ‘Paris Accord on Climate Change’ on the grounds that it gave countries like China an advantage economically; he decided that the US would pay no more than 25% of the UN Peace-keeping force.

So why has the UK not declared that it will pay no more than 25%, if that, to support the FCTC org? Why not no more than 10%? Why does the UK contribute the vast majority of funding for the FCTC with only a handful of other countries contributing?

It seems to me that such contributions constitute ‘illicit’ transfers of taxpayers funds because the are funding ‘Mafia-like’ operations. Trump has already called for the UN to reform itself, to no avail. I can fully understand his thinking. For example, why should a ‘General Assembly’, consisting mostly of impoverished, small nations, dictate the actions of the USA?  Much the same applies to the EU Parliament.

Trump has decided that he is having none of it. The USA will not be dictated to by impoverished tyrannies.

So why is the UK not doing the same? Is it that PM Tessa May et al do not know? I doubt it. I think that their thinking revolves around votes. Let me put it this way. Suppose that out of 1000 people, 800 do not give a shit about the UN and its works. Suppose that the other 200 are, to a greater or lesser extent, supporter of the UN. Which group are likely to vote in favour or against the Gov in elections because of the UN?

Better to ignore the UN until the shit actually hits the fan?