THE CLUB’S AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

06/09/2011

THE CLUB IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO DETEST THE SMOKING BAN. WE DO NOT AGREE THAT SECOND HAND TOBACCO SMOKE IS DANGEROUS.

WE WANT THE LAW TO BE AMENDED SO THAT PUBLICANS AND OTHERS CAN PROVIDE FACILITIES FOR THEIR SMOKING CUSTOMERS. WE WANT AN END TO THE PERSECUTION OF PEOPLE WHO ENJOY TOBACCO.

WHY NOT GROW YOUR OWN CIGARETTE TOBACCO? IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL. SEE SIDEBAR FOR EASY-TO-FOLLOW GUIDE! OR GO DIRECTLY TO THE SITE:

https://growingandcuringtobacco.wordpress.com/

TOBACCO GROWING DIARY 2012 (SEE SIDEBAR).

TOBACCO GROWING DIARY 2013 (SEE SIDEBAR).

THE McTEAR v IMPERIAL TOBACCO (2005) CASE – SEE SIDEBAR.

DOLL AND HILL ‘HOSPITAL STUDY’ (SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER) (1950) – SEE SIDEBAR.

DOLL AND HILL ‘DOCTORS STUDY’ (1951 – 2001) – SEE SIDEBAR.

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

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

http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/the-black-lung-lie/

NB. BECAUSE OF SPAM, COMMENT ON POSTS WILL CLOSE AFTER SEVEN DAYS. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON OLDER POSTS ON MY LATEST POST (simply reference to the title and date of the older post).

 

 

Advertisements

Using Taxation as a Weapon

20/09/2017

Import duties have always been used as a weapon. Around the time of James 1st, citizens of England were not permitted to grow tobacco plants in order to protect the colonies in America from competition. Not long after that, when the American colonies rebelled, the King slapped a duty on tobacco from America to hurt the colonists. But note that he did not ban the import altogether. I suppose that the political situation was much the same as it is today. It was the powerless poorer sort who bore the brunt of the duties and not the better sort.

I believe that alcohol duties started with a duty on port from Portugal when England was in dispute with Portugal. Again, the idea was not to ban imports but to damage Portugal. Again, the better sort could afford the taxes but the poorer people struggled.

Not a lot has changed, has it?

Except that the duties are not aimed at hurting a foreign power or rebellious colonists. They are aimed fair and square at autonomous, adult citizens who just happen to enjoy tobacco and alcohol. Indeed, the Zealots of minimum pricing actually BRAG that the increase in prices will hurt the poorest most. The ‘alcohol epidemic’ is most ‘problematical’ amongst the poorest, so hit them hard.

We all know (or should do) what statistical sleight of hand is involved in ‘creating’ an alcohol epidemic amongst the poorest people. It is easy. If a person is in receipt of £200 per week and spends £50 on cigs and booze, he is spending 25% of his income on fripperies. His wife and children starve. If another person is in receipt of £1000 per week, and spends £50 per week on cigs and booze, he is spending 5% of his income on fripperies. That is OK. That is not ‘an epidemic’. Both are smoking and drinking as much as each other, but one is a deplorable addict, whereas the other is well-balanced.

You might say that hitting America and Portugal, in the circumstances, was justifiable, even though the wealthy people hardly felt the cost, but does that apply to self-inflicted wounds? I am talking about the wounds inflicted upon the poorer sort by the wealthier, better sort – like MPs. Or EU Aristocrats, or UN Dictators.

You might reasonably ask why the EU has turned into a monster. The short answer is that there has never been any reason that it should not. It was not built with an ethical sense. It is a machine. That was fine when it existed to stop European wars by spreading resources around equitably via ‘free’ trade amongst member states. Germany was industrial and France was agricultural. In effect, they could ‘barter’ goods very efficiently. Remember that ‘added value’ occurs at the the margins. More farm produce from France at the same price and more machinery from Germany at the same price. That is ‘added value’.

I do not know when duties were internalised. I do not know, for example, why there is duty on petrol, apart from the fact that the oil to make petrol is imported. Perhaps the duty on petrol is actually a duty on imported oil. Perhaps it exists benefit the UK Gov at the expense of the Oil Sheiks. Well, not actually at their expense, but taking advantage of the cheapness of the raw material.

We see all the time politicians taking advantage of the powerlessness of ordinary people. And that is how ‘duty’ has morphed into a weapon against THE PEOPLE. We cannot fight against it since almost all politicians do not understand. They do not understand, and perhaps, do not want to understand. They prefer to defer to ‘experts’.

There is a ‘new-think’ which is arising. It is that ‘advisers’ have their own biases. They are human beings, and thus are subject to their own interests. No matter how objective they might think themselves to be, the fact is that they cannot avoid personal bias.

How does this show itself? I suppose that you could take Hilary Clinton’s view of people who voted for Trump as ‘deplorables’ as evidence. It never occurred to her that it might be she who was ‘deplorable’.

I am wondering when politicians will realise that using taxation as a weapon is, quite simply, UNETHICAL as regards the adult population. The amusing thing is that such unethical taxation hardly affects ‘children’ at all. They have no money. So what did New York do? It invented the ‘child’ who was 20 years old. Such ‘children’ could not buy alcohol or cigs. They were too young. At a stroke, NY ‘corrected’ the ethics. NY could do whatever it liked with ‘the children’, because they were ‘children’, even if they were 20 years old. Parents were excluded, or, even worse, made responsible for treating their children as ‘children’ as newly defined.

Trump might be very imperfect both as a human being and as a President. Was Obama perfect? Was Bill Clinton? What human being, including the Pope, is perfect?

What is important in human relations with each other is that we get along. I know that is simplistic, but it is absolutely true. It was Hayek who pointed out that individuals interact in millions of ways every day. There is no way that The State cannot control those millions of interactions. Every attempt to do so has resulted in failure.

The disfiguration of tobacco packets with pictures of unproven smoking harms is especially unethical. And that is what surprises me about Tobcoms’ response. They went to court in Oz on the grounds of intellectual property rather than accuracy of the evidence that the pics were true. Does smoking really cause teeth to rot?

There is no excuse for using taxation as a weapon. There never has been, and it must stop. It is cruel and vindictive and selective. What we have been seeing in recent years is indirect persecution. Publicans should have been given the option of being smoking or non-smoking. Staff need not all to have been non-smokers. The minute effect of SHS over a lifetime should have been recognised and highlighted so as to assuage the worries of the ‘I don’t feel so well’ hypochondriacs.

There is no excuse. The only way back for the Zealots is to repent their sins. Arnott will  be persona non grata until she repents. No person will associate with a anyone who was involved in any way with Tobacco Control, not even ‘innocent’ staff members of ‘smoking cessation’ shops, selling Big Pharma patches etc.

I think that we should equate TC with shit. It is comparable with sewage. For several decades, TC has not encouraged anything pleasurable at all. Not one slightest thing. It has always acted to describe smoking in terms of shitting – disgusting, stinking, filthy shit.

We smokers are a 20% minority and therefore open to persecution. But we can defy. The easiest way is not to buy stuff in this country. Damn it! I drove to Hull and boarded a ship crossing the North Sea. It cost me only £50 for the crossing. I dined in the snack bar very cheap. In Bruge, I enjoyed a nice day seeing the sights and reminiscing about the last time I went there around 1957. I also bought 20 sleeves around half price.

It is even easier to fly to, say, Prague and get stuff even cheaper. You need only go for a weekend, very cheap off season.

But that is only avoiding the real problem which is persecution.

Perhaps the persecution of academics will come about some day.

Why Has Government, and Politicians in General, No Concept of Human Autonomy?

19/09/2017

I am a human being. I have a right to 100% personal autonomy. I can do what I like with my own body. It is mine, and no one else’s.

MjM drew my attention to this report:

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/finland-has-committed-to-eradicating-smokers–killing-yourself-with-cigarettes-is-now-insanely-inconvenient-and-expensive-2017-1

Do you see the immediate insanity in that headline alone? It is not insane to kill yourself. Many a ship’s Captain ‘went down with his ship’. If he did not ‘go down’, he was the last off. It is called ‘self-sacrifice’ aka ‘letting yourself be killed’ aka ‘suicide’. You have 100% control over your own body, and you cannot ethically be denied that right by anyone or anything, especially disembodied Government.

There is a motorway around half a mile from my house, if that. If I was in a state of utter despair, I might walk to the bridge and throw myself over the parapet. If the fall did not kill me, the traffic most certainly would. There would be mayhem – cop cars, ambulances, crashes, etc. The cost would be massive. So should pedestrians be barred from crossing the bridge to save those putative costs? For that is what the Finland Gov is doing in effect. It intends to charge tobacco retailers a fee, with the intention of shutting them down, thus denying smokers access to tobacco products, and thus, putatively, denying them their rights over their own bodies.

This attitude in Gov is now so widespread that it is not surprising that Finland has ‘jumped the shark’. It is endemic in the EU. ‘Remainers’ do not understand. For their own short-term self-interests NOW, they would sacrifice their autonomous rights as individuals in the future.

Putting yourself into a dangerous situation is not at all uncommon. Heavens! It is NORMAL!!! When you are sitting in an aircraft at takeoff, you have put yourself in a situation where you could cause massive costs if the aircraft crashed before leaving the ground, or even more so later.

You have the 100% right to take risks with your own body, regardless of the possible costs to taxpayers.

I think that the Finland Gov must be extremely stupid since there is a much better way for putative taxpayer costs to be recouped, which would be some sort of insurance which would be levied on tobacco products. Why has TobCON not gone along that path? Giggle – because it would not be funded by such a scheme – hospitals would, and that cannot be permitted. States in the USA have already stolen the Master Settlement monies to buttress their budgets.

What we are seeing, throughout the world, is a denial of ‘autonomous human rights’. You might like to read this about ‘harm reduction’:

What is Tobacco Harm Reduction?

You have an ‘autonomous human right’ to inject heroin if you wish to. ‘Harm Reduction’ would say, “Take care. Use a clean needle. Recognise that you are putting yourself in great danger. Do not be ashamed. Visit your doctor and ask for advice”. And stuff like that.

The antithesis of ‘Harm Reduction’ is a ‘War on Drugs’. It is massively expensive and achieves nothing. Humans have been hooked on drugs since the first human being tasted an orange and said, “Yum. Yum”. Indeed, is it not true that the Zealots are referring to sugar as ‘a drug’? Round and round we go.

But Politicians are blind to these things. They are notorious for thinking HERE AND NOW. Was it Harold Wilson who said ‘a week is a long time in politics’?

Why did Cameron agree to PP? Will we ever know? He was pictured enjoying a fag and is reported to have said that he has started smoking again (if he ever stopped). Why has it not been mandated that every cig packet should contain an insert, just like packets of pills have, describing the type of tobacco, its nicotine content and tar content, and its addictiveness and likely carcinogenic properties?

How is it that the Zealot have been empowered to remove all the information that matters and replace it with medical porn?

The Finland proposal is a consequence of sloppy thinking. Sloppy thinking is how wars start. Sloppy thinking was what caused Hitler et al to think that they were invincible and could conquer the world. Sloppy thinking has caused the EU to think that its ‘gravy train’ is important. As Hayek said, the idea that Gov can control billions of small interactions between individuals is nonsense. It cannot be done.

I used to enjoy going to the pub nine times per week. That may seem excessive, until you realise that I went there because it amused me. That is all. Not for a second did I see it as anything else. When the smoking ban came in, the amusement diminished very rapidly. Now, I go only three times per week, and I drink far fewer pints than I used to. Not because of the cost, but because  the pub is not as amusing as it used to be. I now prefer drinking red wine at home. Essentially, I have removed myself from ‘polite, non-smoking society’, except that there is no such society, and there never has been.

Brexit is the forerunner of a vast revolution. BRITAIN LEADS THE WAY! We do not need vast bureaucracies. What is critical is that we do not pay billions of pounds to support that bureaucracy. It must die from starvation.

Boris Johnson has just said that we must not pay the EU billions for us to trade with those countries, unless they pay billions to trade with the UK. Quid pro quo. We would be better off spending that money on the NHS. Only the EU bureaucracy stands in the way of ‘free trade’.

According to Junker, France, Germany and Italy want to become ‘one nation’. I suppose that the opinions of the rest of the 27 do not count. But what Junker says that those Nations want is far from the reality. It is ‘EU’ think.

The more that Government is centralised, the more that ‘Human Autonomy’ ceases to exist, and become ‘communal’. That is, YOU MUST OBEY.

 

Would The Total Destruction of the Tobacco Industry Make the World a Better Place?

17/09/2017

There is no doubt in my mind that the WHO is bent upon the total destruction of the tobacco industry. Once again, after a decade or so, the idea that tobacco plantations could be replaced by food crops has reared its head.

I forget his name, but a previous WHO boss said exactly the same thing. I saw a video of him saying so. And he had a grin on his face.

I am sure that he knew that the best land for tobacco cultivation is not particularly suitable for the growing of potatoes, lettuce and wheat, but he pretended that it was not so. I mean, in a propaganda sense. He did not mention the suitability of the land.

The above is indicative of the REAL purpose of the FCTC and its continuing persistence as an activity. 

Why was it even an activity? It was a Treaty, but, somehow, became a A THREAT to any nation which did not comply.

It has always been clear that the captured WHO was hell-bent on destroying the Tobacco Industry completely and totally. All the salami slicing had but one end – the destruction of TC.

Is it any wonder that ‘life-saving’ products, such as snus, ecigs and HNB are being demonised? How on earth did the EU get to ban snus everywhere except Sweden? Snus is a way to absorb nicotine without the combustion of tobacco. Why ban it?

We must not think that corruption is confined to the EU alone. It is everywhere.

I do most ardently wish that Trump would ‘drain the swamp’, but it is a tall order. Perhaps he could drain a small swamp for a start. Perhaps that could be Tobacco Control. I say that because it does not involve the ‘military/industrial’ complex. TobCON is a cloud of vapour in itself. It needs lawmakers to criminalise people for its justification.

The decriminalisation of smokers is urgently required. It is a simple matter of ‘freedom’. It is just as important, or more so, than the decriminalisation of druggies.

The only people who could get a reversal of ‘No smoking in pubs’ would be publicans. But their organisation is cowardly. It ran away when the smoking ban was proposed. I do not mean after the ban was introduced – I mean its silence and attitude of self-preservation before the ban. It is still running away, and it will continue to do so as reductions in alcohol content of beers, wines and spirits is mandated by the ‘New Prohibitionists’.

The Tobacco Industry will live and change. What is most important is that the QUALITY of tobacco must be protected. The Zealots are doing their best to create a situation where no one knows what the quality of tobacco in cigs, cigars, pipe tobacco is. Nor are we allowed to know the nicotine content, or the tar, or anything other than fake health pics.

I have always been amazed that TobComs did not take legal action to contest the requirement to cover their cig packets with fake pics.

‘Would the world be wonderfully perfect and equal without Tobcoms?

I smiled as I wrote that sentence.

Reverse “Laissez Faire”

15/09/2017

Most of us will know the meaning of ‘laissez faire’. It means ‘let it happen’. In economics, it means let industry (of all sorts) conduct its business with the least possible interference by Gov. Of course, there were many iniquities which resulted from LF, such as children being expected to work long hours in factories. My mother started work at the age of 14, part-time, in the cotton industry. The cliche of child chimney sweeps is well known. I have no doubt that children are still working in most third world countries.

It took many, many years for such work to be outlawed, and it still isn’t totally today. 13 year olds can have a paper-round. “If you are 13 years or older and are interested in doing a paper round in Essex: then please fill in the form below or call us on…”

I suggest that LF also applies the other way round.

We all know (I suppose) that all EU Directives are written in stone. Does anyone know of a EU Directive which has been reversed? Or even changed in any way? What seems to happen is that New Directives build upon old ones and create even more restrictions of one sort or another.

The UK will break free from the EU in due course, but does anyone expect EU Directives to be reversed or EU laws repealed? I think that almost all Brexiteers expect that to be so, but I shall be surprised it that happens. It would be too much like hard work for politicians, for a start, and there would be no reward in the sense of ‘doing something’. Plus, ‘Remainers’ would create merry-hell. So we can expect little to change as far as regulations are concerned. Too much trouble, whether such reversals are worthy or not.

That is what I mean by ‘Reverse Laissez Faire’. ‘Laissez Faire’ because reversing Directives is too much trouble and produces no plaudits.

But what is the use of Brexit if EU Directives are allowed to stand? ‘Reverse Laissez Faire’ must be tackled as soon as possible. The planning to reverse EU Directives must start NOW.

It would be nice if our Gov started NOW to reverse Tobacco Control influence, but don’t hold your breath. The FCTC is not only written in stone, it is written in granite. The only light (and it is a small light) at the end of the tunnel, is that the USA has not ratified the FCTC. Perhaps the USA saw the FCTC as not sufficiently prohibitionist. There again, since the UN relies ABSOLUTELY upon USA contributions for revenue, it may well be that the USA regards itself as some sort of King – not subject to the laws which The King enacts.

It is an amusing idea that Russia and China could, if they wished, swamp USA contributions to the UN and take over. Maybe then, the USA would ratify the FCTC.

I may be wrong. It is quite possible that Boris Johnson (Foreign Sec) and David Davies (Chief Negotiator of Brexit) have already mapped out a plan to restore our fishery rights around our shores, and have, even now, a couple of rowing boats ready to enforce exclusion of EU fishing boats. Perhaps ‘rowing boats’ is a bit exaggerated. Perhaps megaphones could be attached to off-shore windmills.

What is quite likely is that every type of Zealot will shout even louder, and our Gov will cave in again and again. Why else did Cameron agree to PP? He did not approve initially, but capitulated eventually. Now, he is smoking again (if he ever actually ‘quitted’).

If he did quit, then I can bet a pound to a penny that his first drag on a cig was WONDERFUL. I experienced exactly that after ‘quitting’ for 12 months. That first drag, after 12 months of abstinence, was WONDERFUL BEYOND COMPARE. Yes, it made me a bit dizzy momentarily, but there was an overwhelming feeling of well-being.

I think that most of us go through our days with the idea of ‘duty’ in mind. There are things that we MUST do. It is our duty. We must work and earn. Most of us make a modest earning, enough to live on, but some make prodigious earnings, such as Rockefeller, Bloomberg, Gates, etc. Did they enjoy making their billions? Or were they driven? When they stopped needing that pleasure, did they achieve pleasure by using their billions to make other people behave like them? To stop enjoying  the pleasures of the flesh?

It is perhaps good news that, with some determination, ‘Reverse Laissez Faire’ can be easily overcome. Control of our fisheries would be an easy start. Our fishing industry would be revitalised.

Finally, I do not see the EU as as a devil, although it has become so. It could have been worthy, had not Zealots tried to push amalgamation too quickly. Those Zealots are neo-communists. They want totalitarian control. They DO NOT WANT competition. They LIKE uniformity. And who can blame them? WE gave them permission to do so decades ago.

A gradual amalgamation of European States to form a sort of European USA was possible, but should not have been rushed. Encouragement, in the form of philosophical reasoning, is great, but it must include a very long period of time to avoid antagonisms. The USA is not by any means perfect, even after centuries of amalgamation. It remains to be seen whether or not the ‘fake’ economies of New York could survive a serious ‘disease’. I have no doubt that ‘Middle America’ could.

Petty Tyrants

14/09/2017

I have had little time today keep up with events – not that that is a bad thing. But I did note that our Gov has been castigated for not moving fast enough to provide aid to the stricken Caribbean islands.  It never seems to enter into people’s heads that may of those islands are not a responsibility of the UK. We do what we can to help, but we do not have to help Cuba, for example.

But how is it that we can help those islands at all? Those islands have been subjected to hurricanes since time immemorial. The reason is that they are situated where the atmosphere is hot and where the Southern hemisphere and the Northern hemisphere interact. They squeeze  each other. So why have the inhabitants, for centuries, not built their houses and other buildings as domes? Why present the wind with a wide area to push over? Even crazier is the ignorance among dictators in that region about the effect of airflow over the top of roofs. The principle has been known for donkey’s years.

Inside a building, the air pressure is X. When there is an airflow over the top of that building which is sufficiently violent, the air pressure ABOVE the roof is lower than the air pressure within the building. Thus, in effect, the air pressure within the building pushes the roof up and enables the wind to rip the roof off.

Domes are shaped in such a way as to deflect the air pressure outwards in all directions. There is very little ‘lift’ in one direction.

That is proper science.

But the Elite do not really give a shit about what ordinary people would call catastrophes. It is a case of: “Now is a good time to release bad news”.

Only by replacing our MPs with people who know that their job is to DEFY experts can we hope to regain our liberty from petty tyrants.

The ‘EU Withdrawal Bill’

13/09/2017

I rarely watch ‘The News’ these days. There is too much bias and toadying for my liking. I don’t think that you can even trust the weather forecast to be unbiased.

So I pick my news up from what other commenters say, such as Frank Davis and Dick Puddlecote and several others. For example, ‘Orphans of Liberty’ talked today about opposition to the ‘Withdrawal Bill’ being traitorous:

http://www.4liberty.org.uk/2017/09/12/eu-withdrawal-bill-the-quislings-the-gutless-and-the-sneaky/

I do not see it that way. Opposition to ‘Withdrawal’ had to be allowed to have its chance. It would not surprise me if some sort of ‘arrangement’ was not negotiated between Labour and Tory parties. Opposition to Brexit had to be permitted to be expressed in Parliament. That Opposition WAS expressed. The hundreds of amendments magically disappeared. One amendment (which might have been a composite of many, for all I know) was defeated.

Opposition to Brexit has had its say and been voted upon in Parliament. It lost.

Thus, from a Government point of view, there is nothing more for MPs to say.

There are still formalities to go through, but Opposition to Brexit LOST. The Government has been mandated to fight the war against the Brussels bureaucrats by any and every means possible.

It really is A WAR! There is no better word. Continuation of opposition from MPs must cease totally. Opposition has been expressed and the vote taken. WE MUST UNITE! Remainers will continue to blather, but words have significance no more. ACTION is now the main thing. Our negotiators now have a free hand. They should, perhaps, bypass the EU bureaucrats and negotiate with each of the other 27 Nations, then tell the EU bureaucrats what has been agreed with those Nations. Our ‘donations’ would be to those Nations and not to the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats would thus have to find ways to cut their massive waste. Perhaps, for a start, they could stop migrating from Brussels to Strasbourg:

  1. The Parliament (2nd) > 1st Parliament is located in Strasbourg, France. Which requires a major moving operation where all the diplomats, politicians and paperwork will have move to Strasburg twelve times a year. Which costs around 180 million Euro’s. Of course this is very costly and inefficient and although more and more politicians/countries would like to see this changed; France isn’t planning on agreeing to change this.

Why is France not ‘planning to change this’? It can only be for show. It is about ‘appearances’ and not ‘substance’. Millions of taxpayers’ Euros wasted every month for nothing. Nothing at all. Massive building created for nothing at all.

No. No. No. We shall not continue to pay for the upkeep of those wasteful buildings. The EU bureaucrats must cut back on their waste of taxpayers’ money. We will not pay for that waste.

The WAR is multi-dimensional. Not much has been said about the fact that a junior in the Foreign Office tore the EU’s legal argument for a massive UK ‘divorce bill’ apart.

Trade has little to do with the EU today. The EU has been more and more divorced from trade as the years have passed. It is now part of the UN drive for One World Gov. Nations need to ‘gang up’ against the USA. The EU would not dare.

I do not mean attack the USA in any way. I mean only to disconnect from the authoritarian USA. The USA did not ratify the FCTC. Why not? Because it would not allow itself to become subservient.

Why did almost all the rest of the States allied to the UN make themselves subservient?

There is a need to ‘Brexit’ from the UN. It is utterly corrupt and useless. It is a total waste of money. It cannot be reformed. It can only be replaced. In any relationship, there comes a ‘make or break’ point. The UN has long passed the point of ‘make or break’. It is obsolete.

It was founded to ‘keep the peace’, but it has morphed into a world-wide dictator.

‘Carthago delenda est’.

“Chuffed” To Be Invited

12/09/2017

If you were a professional of one sort or another, and you were invited to join a very exclusive club, you would almost certainly be flattered. The probability, if you regarded yourself as important enough, and there were no obvious detriments, is that you would accept the invitation.

At that point, you have diminished yourself. You have become a junior member. It does not matter what High Office you have held. You have become a Junior. Your superiors are the existing members of the club and its hierarchy. They will, of course, flatter you further by appearing to value your opinion, but that is a sham. Your opinion does not matter one jot. The Agenda has already been set. You have simply been ‘brought on board’.

If the UN was really serious about One World Gov, it would not have started with Europe. It is a bit like TC starting to protect children and teenagers with a ban on smoking in adult places. It makes no sense and never did.

Where should the UN have started its drive for One World Gov? Africa, South America, Asia? But OWG could not have been achieved without conquest in those places. The easy way was to cajole and invite VIPs in Europe to accept a vision.

There is much detail about the vision of ‘One Europe’ here:

http://www.4liberty.org.uk/2017/09/11/social-re-engineering-by-swamping-populations/

You can disregard ideas about swamping Europe with Middle East Muslims. The intention was to mix up the population of Europe: to do away with National Identities. All would be ‘Europeans’. Individual Countries, such as England and Germany and France would be simply ‘Regions’. Sure, they would have their football teams and ‘go to war’ on the football pitch. They might also ‘go to war’ on singing contests, and in the Olympics, but they would not have the power to actually fight against oppression.

The world-wide smoking hysteria has shown just what I mean.

The plan also intended to create ‘super regions’ in the One World Gov. Thus, there would be an African Super Region, with its EU-like Administration, and a South American Super Region, and an …. etc.

The USA was initially in favour of that idea, but I think that it is beginning to have doubts.

What is the ideal? I do not know, and I doubt that anyone knows. Some things are obvious – the idea of a European Army, under the control of Junker et al is a joke.

I do not know, but there is at least a reasonable idea that belligerents should be allowed to fight it out. It is their problem. At least, having fought it out, they would have responsibility for what follows.

The reasons for the dissolution of the USSR have not been properly investigated as yet. I do not know why. The USSR was a perfect example of ‘integration’. It failed miserably and was abandoned. Why did it fail? Why did Maoism in China fail?

All these things are very important, and yet no one is talking about them. Can world trade prosper without political costs and interference? Note the words “Political Costs’.

Does Each MP Regard Himself/Herself As a King/Queen?

11/09/2017

I have been musing about Cameron’s ‘joke’ that he has bought a shed for £20,000 in which to write his memoirs. He is already known to be enjoying tobacco in the form of cigs. Did he ever stop doing so?

It does not matter. What matters is that he pretended to have given up the pleasure of smoking, even if he actually did so to some extent. Lots of so-called ‘ex-smokers’ cadge a cig from time to time. In Saturday’s ‘Sun’, Jeremy Clarkson said:

“I revealed recently that after smoking 650,000 cigs over 43 joyous and happy years, I’ve quit”. Paraphrasing the rest, he said that he uses nicotine gum but has to chew so much that it his gums bleed. “On balance, I think that smoking is a better look”.

I do not understand the use of the word ‘look’. Perhaps he could not think of a better word to describe prettiness. Perhaps being seen to be smoking is better than being seen with bleeding gums. That might be what he meant.

But what seems obvious to me is that he has given up giving up. He said previously that his lungs were perfectly OK, so why give up the enormous pleasure of tobacco? That is what he said – smoking is wonderful and immensely pleasurable.

It is reasonable to suggest that both Cameron and Clarkson showed traits of ‘follow me for I am clean’.

I have a feeling that MPs, especially newly elected MPs, see themselves as VIPs. They hold the balance between life and death. How else could you explain the capitulation of Cameron to the Health Lobby as regards disgusting, filthy, stinking cig packets?  He thought that he was Godlike, having the power of life and death. By allowing disgusting, filthy, stinking cig packets, he could ‘save’ millions of lives. It must also be true that all the MPs who voted for PP thought in the same way. None of them asked smokers whether or not they wanted their cigs in disgusting, filthy, stinking cig packets. They asked anti-smokers and non-smokers to decide.

The whole thing was false, fake, trickery, and MPs knew it to be so. But they are Godlike and infallible. They CANNOT make mistakes. Even though the ‘evidence’ is fake, they KNOW that they are ‘doing the right thing’.

It is extraordinary that these MPs hide behind ‘walls’ made of twigs. But they are content to do so. That may be because they are NEVER brought to account for their decisions. Few histories adequately describe the failure of MPs to stop bad policies. Newspapers shout, but there is no depth to their shouting. Everything is superficial.

It really is incredible that Blair, as PM, along with his Cabinet, and his MPs, permitted the total indoor smoking ban. There was always the possibility of compromise – smoking rooms in pubs, clubs and restaurants, if the owners wanted to provide them. Those MPs etc MUST HAVE KNOWN that SHS is virtually harmless because of the weakening via diaspora of the smoke. According to Doll’s Doctors Study evidence, it would take hundreds of years for a person to be killed by SHS.

The result of the above cogitations is there is only one explanation for the Smoking Ban and subsequent events such as PP. It is THE GOD DELUSION.

That also explains why MPs cannot resist voting for sugar taxes and such. They cannot resist because they suffer from THE GOD DELUSION. They think that that they are Gods.

In this context, ‘Gods’ means the same thing as ‘kings and queens’. It means absolute power.

Rebellion is inevitable, which is sad. It is not the youths who will rebel. It is Middle England.

Brexit is only the start.

Why Does Inflation Happen?

10/09/2017

In my Banking Exams, decades ago, one of the four exams was ‘Economics’, although I cannot remember precisely the context. It might have been called something else to restrict its scope. Somehow or other, I got an ‘honours’ in that subject. That eventually led to my becoming a ‘bank manager’, in that I became manager of a TSB branch. That was because most of my peers could not be bothered about taking the banking exams, and, if they did, they were satisfied to get a ‘pass’. I did not put a huge effort into the studying, but I did have a good mental attitude. My mental attitude was TO UNDERSTAND. You can learn things off by heart, as you do with the times-tables, but you cannot reproduce memorised stuff in response to a question on an exam paper if that question is constructed to test your understanding. I actually read ‘The Radcliffe Report:

The Report of the Committee on the Working of the Monetary System is a report published in 1959 about monetary policy and the workings of the Bank of ……

I was able to quote from that report, which is probably why I got ‘an honours’. Not that I really understood it properly, but well enough.

“Bad money drives out good”.

There are all sorts of ways to interpret that statement. A simple example would be for a Government to reduce the size of a silver coin. Immediately, all the bigger silver coins would be driven out of circulation and be melted down and recreated as the smaller coins.

The penalty for doing so was death. I do not know if people are aware of Isaac Newton’s ‘other’ job. For a while, he was in charge of the money supply. He had people hanged for ‘crimping’ coins. That is, cutting tiny bits of silver off coins.

Inflation diminishes the value of our cash. It is, essentially, much the same thing as ‘crimping’ silver coins. It is like taking a pound note (EH? There is no such thing any more!) and cutting tiny bits of it off every year. Eventually, all that would exist is a tiny scrap. But it would never disappear completely, because inflation is a type of depreciation. It reduces the value of money a bit at a time. It is no accident that France replaced the Franc with the ‘New Franc’ decades ago. It was just a matter of reducing the numbers. But there is sometimes a more subtle intention, which is to cause hidden, criminal caches of ill-gotten gains to be revealed. Banks would be required to question the origin of treasury notes which exceeded a certain amount. “Excuse me, Sir. I am obliged to ask you how you acquired this sum of 100,000 old francs”. The problem for criminal gangs gets worse and worse the greater the cache of notes that they are holding.

But that has little to do with why inflation happens. Does Government deliberately  create inflation to devalue its debts? We seem to be seeing that at this time. The Government has grabbed massive amounts of spending but deflates the value of that debt over time. At the moment, it also pays minimal interest on those debts.

It is not easy for ordinary people, the VAST majority, to protect the value of their money. They just do not have the quantities necessary to get a good deal. In my bank, 30 years ago, we encouraged savers to invest in Unit Trusts. They were the BIG THING at the time. I have no idea what happened – whether those investments prospered or not. I had one myself. When I cashed it in, the ‘produce’ was, like, OK. But, to be absolutely honest, I have no idea whether the money that I paid into the scheme, over a decade or so, was as ‘valuable’ when I cashed the investment in as it was when I contributed it. You would need to continuously monitor inflation and values to know. But what actually happens, and MUST happen, is that we place our trust in the ‘Fund Managers’. They take their cut from the dividends, whatever happens to the value of the stock that your money is invested in.

There is a reasonable argument which depends upon the idea that everything deteriorates. Rocks get worn away by rain. Money deteriorates. A gold coin will not deteriorate. In fact, as gold, it will appreciate in value. That is why there are no gold coins anymore. They would have to be minuscule in size as a medium of exchange. A loaf of bread would cost a microgram of gold, or whatever.

If mice were money, they would become more valuable as they grew, but they would need to be fed. As they aged, they would become less valuable, until they died and became worthless.

Money, as notes, coins or bank accounts is similar.

Should Government stop that deterioration? I amused myself by creating a petition demanding that Gov should ensure that interest rates on bank accounts should never be less than inflation. It got about 20 votes in favour. That is a measure of ignorance. TOTAL ignorance. But, even worse, is that Government actively deteriorates the purchasing power of its currency.

Such activity MASSIVELY influences WEALTH. The poorest people cannot hope to save up enough money to buy stuff. They have to borrow.

Inflation hurts the poorest people. It hardly affects the wealthy because they have their wealth invested in growth industries.

The impoverishment of the poorest people is deliberate. Tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, sugar taxes, etc, are designed to extract wealth from those who can least afford it and who are defenceless. Even if a person tries to grow his own tobacco plants in a small way, is ‘under suspicion’. That is a new regulation slipped into law via a Finance Act. Apart from me, and a couple of other interested people, no one single person in the UK is aware of that fact. Growing the plants is not illegal. You can grow as many as you want to, but you cannot ‘transport’ the ‘waste’. It really is comical. It is as bad a law as one can possibly imagine.

Finally, there is no reason that money should not buy MORE goods as time passes. I would be happy not to receive a pay increase if I could buy MORE goods with my pay as it is.

The effect is that our day to day savings are not worth doing. We might as well spend every penny as we get it.

Government is supposed to represent THE PEOPLE. It does not, as the persecution of smokers has shown.

I doubt that one MP in ten has any idea that what he/she votes for is leading to surfdom.

 

Reading Frederick Hayek

09/09/2017

I have heard mention of that name many, many times. People seem to have worshipped his writings of hated them. His writings seem to be semi-quoted all the time about the processes of Government. According to what I have read, he wrote a famous tome called ‘The Road to Serfdom”.

After a struggle, I managed to find a PDF reproduction of ‘The Road to Serfdom’ and started to read it. I am 50 pages into around 250 pages.

As is usual with such tomes, the information is quite dense. It is not easy reading. What makes things worse is that it was written in 1943.

Here is the URL:

http://cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/Friedrich%20August%20Hayek/Friedrich_Hayek%20-%20The_road_to_serfdom.pdf

You should note the word ‘Philosophy’ in the link. That word is a bit misleading. Hayek was not noted as a philosopher – he was first and foremost an economist.

What has struck me, in the first few pages, is the similarity to ‘The Gulag Archipelago’. I do not mean the incarceration of ‘refusnicks’. I mean the hardening of ‘freedom’ to mean ‘free from’.

‘Freedom’ means ‘free to’. ‘Free from’ is not freedom at all. Hayek mentions those ideas, but don’t expect me to quote – too early. ‘Free From’ is not ‘freedom’ at all. It is tyranny. The logic is that ‘inequality’ is normal and natural. Imposing ‘equality’ needs tyranny. Total equality can only be introduced by, for example, in economic terms, taking income and wealth from those who produce it and spreading them around.

Fine, but what inducement exists for clever people to create income and wealth if they are snatched away from them and spread around? Why should anyone bother?

The whole philosophy of Tobacco Control is dependant upon ‘taking away’ (smoke-free). It ‘gives’ nothing at all. And there is a reason for that. At best, TC POSTPONES morbidity and mortality, to the great cost to Society.

Even in the first 50 pages, Hayek exposes how Socialist ‘Utopia’ depends upon  ‘conformity’ and ‘lack of enterprise’.

Enough for tonight.