A day or two ago, this blog received double the normal hits. The post that interested people was my essay on ‘The Australian Law on Growing Tobacco Plants’. In 1911, or thereabouts, a law was passed in Australia that it was forbidden to transport tobacco plants and sees without authorisation.
It is easy to see why such a law was passed. It had nothing to do with health. It was all about protecting the tobacco barons of the time. I have no doubt that there were vast areas of Australia where conditions for the growing of tobacco plants were perfect. Australia was still rather primitive at the time.
To what extent do those primitive laws still apply?
There are no more Tobacco Autocrats and Barons, so what is the force of that ancient law?
It seems to me that it has no force at all. If it is used at all by the present Government to persecute those who grow plants of the Nicotiana variety, it is being used tyrannically.
There is no law which is tyrannical which must be obeyed. Tyranny is tyranny. We saw the backlash in the resolve of many people to march against the ‘Poll Tax”. It is odd that such marches did not occur in Scotland where the Poll Tax was first run out. It took little old ladies (who almost certainly benefited from the Poll Tax) to kick it into touch and depose ‘King Thatcher’.
The curious thing about those events, at the time, was that no one actually commented upon the virtue or vice of the Poll Tax. All that mattered was a march by a few old-age pensioners.
The 1911 law has lapsed by virtue of time and no longer applies. It was intended to protect aristocrats who ruled Australia at the time. As far as I know, NO ONE has been condemned by virtue of that ancient law. The modern version has to do with DUTY levied upon tobacco products. The production of Tobacco Products is forbidden, unless sanctioned by the New Autocrats.
Do you see the implication?
We are moving into an era of ‘The New Tyranny’. That tyranny emanates from the UN. That can only be so if it is permitted.
And it is being permitted.
It would be a mistake the believe that Prohibition of Alcohol (and Tobacco) in the USA in the 1920s was sudden. It was not. It was ‘salami sliced’ The ‘salami slicing’ was different, but was not dissimilar to today’s ‘anti-tobacco league’.
I was reading something today about how alcohol prohibition came about. Very, very roughly, there were political factions. Some factions said ban ALL products which were alcoholic; some said only prohibit ‘liqueur’, being, generally, spirits like whiskey, burbon, etc. Some said only to prohibit THE SALE of ‘liqueur’, but not beer and such. But, according to what I read, what the politicians at the time wanted was to preserve their positions. They said what they thought that their voters wanted them to say.
Has anything changed? Why did Cameron allow PP and car bans go through? In view of the lack of proper discussion, it can only be that ‘early in the 5 year term is the best time to bury bad news’.
I used the word ‘Cameron’. I did not say “David Cameron” or “Mr Cameron”. The reason is that I do not see ‘Cameron’ as a person. He may be a person in his personal life, but he is not ‘a human being’ in his office as Prime Minister. He is a characture. His public persona does not really exist. His brave and belligerent pronouncements about Syria are advertising.
I was listening this evening to a video which discussed Jihadist violence. The consensus was that there is no alternative but to meet violence with violence, and that Western violence must be ten times more violent that the Jihadists. The consensus was that Fundamental Doctrines, such as conquering the world by physical force, should not be the objectives of modern day Islam, and that such doctrines should be expurgated.
Cameron allowed PP for no reason other than appeasement. But who was he appeasing?
This needs to be a short post because I have to be up tomorrow earlier than usual. I dare not go on until 4 am.
Dick Puddlecote and others have talked about this in detail. See:
The TC Industry is fond of quoting such figures without putting them in context. A person who has no concept of ‘facts’ in the UK might believe that that number applies to the UK. It would be stupid to believe such a thing, but if you have no idea what the birth rate is, or how many babies die between 1 and 5, you might well take it on-board, without really thinking about it – and be absolutely appalled. You would not necessarily have to be stupid. All that is needed is for a person not to know essential facts, or even think about them. “It said so in the newspaper” is often enough.
I suppose that the figure of 165,000 deaths … per year…. is worldwide, although I did not see that stated – not that I particularly looked for it. Why bother? We all know that Public Health stats are manipulated.
So here is my own take.
In England and Wales, there are around 700,000 live births each year. I have a National Statistics table for causes of death in 2014. We must bear in mind that the 165,000 deaths are from ‘lower respiratory diseases’.
I have looked up the number of deaths in Eng and Wales from respiratory diseases in 2014. The total is 65,000. Of those, only 102 deaths, in total were of babies between 1 and 5 years old.
The section of the Table is called: ‘Diseases of the Respiratory System’. It is split as follows for 0 to 5:
Influenza: 7 deaths.
Pneumonia: 38 deaths.
Bronchitis, Emphysema, and other chronic obstructive ….: 1 death.
Asthma: 2 deaths.
Something is wrong, because the total of 102 deaths does not conform to the breakdown. The breakdown total is only 48 deaths. I see no explanation of the discrepancy. Here is a copy of the entries:
The last three columns are: total deaths, under 1 year old, 1 – 4 years old.
|Diseases of the respiratory system||M||32,270||20||31|
|Influenza due to certain identified||M||19||0||1|
|Bronchitis, emphysema and other||M||13,547||0||1|
|chronic obstructive pulmonary||F||12,720||0||0|
That is a ‘copy and paste’ of the bit of the table. I can see nothing amiss. The figures do not add up. Perhaps the difference comes from uncertainty about the precise underlying cause.
But that is not important. What is important is that the number of deaths, tragic though they might be, is minuscule when compared with the number of live births. Remember that, during the five years that such deaths were recorded, some 3,500,000 live births had occurred, of which, for whatever reason, some 500 babies had died from ‘respiratory diseases’. Take, for example, asthma deaths. Two such deaths were recorded in 2014. Why did those two babies out of some 700,000 have such a terrible affliction? The ’cause’ of death is described as ‘asthma’, but there must, surely, have been some other factor, such as prematurity, or genetics.
TC has taken a world estimate and made an assumption that SHS has ’caused’ deaths which would not otherwise have occurred, mostly in 3rd world countries.
May I suggest that the lack of such deaths in England and Wales proves that those deaths in 3 rd world countries were NOT due to SHS? When I say proves, I am not being precise, but I am being no more imprecise than TC. Lots of parent in England and Wales smoke. The number of deaths is minuscule compared with the number of smoking parents – so minuscule as to suggest that SHS has nothing to do with those deaths.
Why should it be otherwise in Africa and Asia?
What thinking about epidemiology has suggested to me is that “Null” results can be trusted (but not all the time, obviously). The reason is that ‘no correlation’ is is like saying that water does not make you drunk. It’s a simple fact which we are all aware of. The above figures suggest a “Null” result in England and Wales. There are simply two few such deaths. Therefore, it is likely that positive results in 3 rd world countries are false positives. Much more important factors cause the deaths of those babies.
For some year, Dick Puddlecote has been saying “It is not about health”.
It is hard to understand how that idea works. After all, if smoking is as bad for your health as described, then surely smoking bans here and there must be good for the health of the population in general. Surely, that must be true?
But there is a huge elephant in the room, stamping about and trumpeting, which is that Tobacco Control has not demanded prohibition of tobacco products. We all know why that it – it is not because TC do not want that, and do not dare demand it; it is because prohibitions have always failed. The ‘New Prohibition’ passes under the guise of ‘looking after the children’. TC state that people only become ‘addicted’ to tobacco because they start to smoke in their early teens. They have said, again and again, that people only become addicted because they start to smoke in their teens. Stop them doing so, and they would not become addicted.
The stupidity of that idea is obvious. The reason that teens started to smoke in the past was because they could do. If you pass laws which force teens not to smoke, then they will start to smoke when they are not teens. Regardless of the word ‘teen’, eighteen years of age is adult. An adult can decide. Perhaps the jargon of TC could be utilised. Perhaps we could think outside the box of specific ages. Let us think of ‘children’ as up to and including the age of twelve; let us think of ‘youths’ as up to and including the age of 17. Let is think of anyone over 17 as adults. I know that my suggestion incorporates specific ages, but it clarifies definitions. If that were so, the the phrase ‘children and young adults’ would be ridiculed, and rightly so. It is similar to the phrase ‘overweight and obese’. I read today an article which seriously, although comically, ridiculed the conflation of ‘over-weight’ and ‘obese’. There is massive evidence that being ‘overweight’ is healthier than being ‘underweight’.
What the last para indicates is that ‘definitions’ are indispensable. The phrase ‘children and young adults’ is a deliberate misrepresentation of reality, as is ‘overweight and obese’. I really do not understand how the Zealots have got away with it for so long. I really do not understand how they have got away with such definitions for so long.
The above has been in preparation, because I am going to provide a link to the Scottish Parliament’s examination of Sheila Duffy’s (she being the voice of ASH Scotland) interview with a Scottish Parliament Committee. It is very important to know that the Scottish Parliament IS NOT THE SAME THING as the Scottish Government. The importance of that difference is that the Parliament is not bound by Treaties.
ASH Scotland produced a ‘Petition’ demanding that the Scottish Parliament implement the FCTC chapter 5.3, which demands that ‘the parties’, in effect, chuck any submissions by Tobacco Companies into the bin. Such submissions are tainted, merely because they come from tobacco companies, which are devils incarnate. Nothing that they say is truthful, whereas everything that tobacco control says is the perfect truth.
You might want to watch the appearance of Duffy before that Scottish Parliament committee here:
Or you can see a transcript here:
An important thing is that it is rather obvious in the video that MSPs bridle at the idea that the WHO can dictate to them. It is obvious that, as a Parliament, they refuse to accept government by the WHO. I think that there is also an implication that those MSPs reject the government of the EU.
As an aside, I was astonished to hear that one member of the committee had no knowledge of the FCTC at all. He did not know that it existed.
If I may, I can signify ‘faint praise’. Duffy is well-practised in using feminine wiles, with her soft, feminine, caring voice, and her tremulations, One cannot but admire her ability to stick to the mantras through thick and thin. Her major argument was that the FCTC is the ONLY Treaty which demands obedience. God help us all if there were more.
And is that not the problem? Such treaties are unreal. They are ephemeral, as is shown by the question asked, which Duffy could not answer, about the definition of ‘what is the tobacco industry’?
Is it not wonderful that Scottish MSPs did not defer to demands from ASH Scotland and the WHO? That is the first time that I have seen it. It is incredibly important that The People do not bow down to organisations such as the WHO. In fact, any politician who suggests that THE PEOPLE should bow down should be kicked out forthwith.
Tobacco control should be ridiculed just as Sugar Control is being ridiculed.
The real problem is the lies being told by ‘academics’. What is really sad is that tobacco companies have abandoned their customers, if they even ever thought of them. You do not have to defend ‘smoking’ if you wish to defend ‘smokers’.
When my wife was taken into hospital, I noticed that care and importance were paramount. No daft questions were asked about smoking, nor did anyone ask such questions on the ward. A couple of years ago, I has a quite viscous argument with a district nurse who was a Zealot. “Get out of my house”, I said. Since then, no one has said anything about Herself’s enjoyment of tobacco. What I am saying is that the Enemy is not Hospital doctors and nurses.
We can see the ‘disconnect’ between the Duffys of this world and reality. The ‘Duffys’ see obedience to the dictates of a blithering idiot as the replacement of ‘natural law’. These people demand dictatorship. The EU is a dictatorship. The USA is, gradually, becoming a dictatorship.
That is the Truth.
And yet, most persons in the NHS are kind and caring, and that is especially so in Emergency. ASH et al paint a picture which is as far away from TRUTH as it is possible to get. But it is an INDUSTRY, and is thus concerned with profits. When the Bloombergs, and the Gates’s cease to support those industries, choice might re-emerge.
I titled this post: “A Sense of Duty”. Doctors and Nurses in hospitals have ‘THE SENSE OF DUTY”. I believe that the researchers who claim to be doctors have no such thing. It is totally different to claim to being doing your duty, as compared with pronouncing from some high place.
These things need to be thought through. Bans and Prohibitions are not the answer, even if they are introduced by salami slices.
That last sentence is important. Salami slices work well to start with, but each iteration produces more and more antagonism.
A quick post tonight. The pub was quite jolly, and it does make a difference.
Dick Puddlecote drew attention to the Scottish Parliament’s committee deliberations about implementing the New World Government (The FCTC) demand that Tobacco Companies must be denied a voice. Ms Duffy from ASH Scotland demanded that the Scottish Government must implement the demands of the FCTC without demure. She said that the Scottish Government had no choice – it must implement the Treaty.
But, odd though it might seem, she did not get her own way and was harried. Essentially, when asked, she could not define ‘contacts with tobacco companies’.
It is not easy to be clear, and it is not designed to be clear.Everything that she said was emotional. A person on the committee asked her to define what topics should exclude tobacco companies from stating their case. She could not answer.
But that does not matter at all. The ‘debates’ are ‘show trials’. ASH SCOTLAND wants to justify its costs. That is becoming harder and harder. The main thing is that ASH SCOTLAND is artificial. It has always been so. It does not matter what ASH SCOTLAND says. it is no more relevant than The Inquisition.
I must to bed. Here is DP’s post:
I’m bogeyed and must to bed.
Chris Snowdon (I think) invited us to view a video of a Battle of Ideas about ecigs. I can’t remember exactly, but I think that Arnott was on the panel, if that was the video that I am thinking about. Whichever one it was, Arnott was on the panel.
I did not watch it. I did not watch it because I never want to see or hear Arnott again, apart from her confession of the crimes of creating hatred through her lies and distortions of science. But there are so many of these criminals that it would require something in the nature of the Nuremberg war crimes trials to cope with the numbers and intensity of the crimes and criminals.
I never want to see or hear Arnott again. I suppose that snippets of what she et al are unavoidable and that you need to know what they are saying, but you do not need to actually see their faces or listen to their voices.
The Zealots have been saying that the events in Paris are as nothing compared with the ‘devastating toll’ of smoking tobacco throughout the world. Naturally, I utterly disagree. For that to be true, people would be mown down while sitting outside a cafe having a beer or a coffee by a smoker blowing smoke at them. For that to be true, people would have to be physically committing suicide by the millions, by shooting themselves or slitting their wrists or throwing themselves over cliffs. That is not the same as enjoying a substance which might just possibly affect your ‘life years’.
But in a wider sense, the Zealots are creating MISERY. I read a lot of news sites, and am constantly appalled at the ignorance of commenters. I honestly believe that, if the Zealots shouted loudly, again and again, that going outside in the rain would cause you to inhale water to the extent that you might drown, a very large number of people would believe it. What is worse, is that people who never go outside in the rain would be the first to demand a law which forbade OTHER PEOPLE to go outside in the rain, because of the cost to the NHS. Or possibly the costs of clearing up the litter in the form of dead bodies in the streets. Some might even complain about ‘plagues of bluebottles’ caused by the dead bodies. The fact that they never see or step over a dead body in the street would not deter them. Sometimes, it is hard to understand people who say that their hair and clothes stink after going to a smoking place, even outdoors. They never seem to realise that it is their own body ‘effluent’ which is the reason that they need to wash their hair and clothes from time to time. Nor do they know that the air we breath is filthy, and our lungs have been dealing with that filth for millions of year.
Is it any wonder that, in the McTear Case, the Judge said that the ‘Experts’ (which included the fabulous Richard Doll) had not come remotely near providing good evidence that full-on smoking causes lung cancer? No one seems to understand that epidemiology is not SCIENCE – it is MATHEMATICS. I fail to understand why statisticians have not pointed that fact out in no uncertain terms. Statistics is MATHEMATICS. Epidemiology is counting, and, at best, can only point SCIENCE in the right direction. Thus, the Doctors Study can only show that more smokers than non-smokers got LC. That is all. HOW that might actually happen is SCIENCE, but no one to date, 50 years later, can isolate the cause. It is therefore reasonable to say that there is no known ’cause and affect’, although there may be.
But I have drifted. ‘The Misery of it All’.
Tobacco Control has created untold Misery. It is a Misery which is invisible mostly. It includes the Misery of smokers who have to go outside, without protection from inclement weather. It includes the Misery of persecution and harassment. It includes the Misery which will come from plain packaging and the ban on smoking in cars with kids present.
All this Misery was avoidable. It has been caused by politicians who were just passing through and voted for laws without having the slightest idea what they were doing. The existence of Lobby Groups is essential in a Democratic Society, provided that those Groups are accepted by politicians as informers and not enforcers. What we have seen in recent years, is Lobby Groups like TC making demands and being assuaged. How else can you describe PP?
I am sick to death of being made Miserable. I will not tolerate it. They can pass their ‘hospital grounds’ smoking ban. I do not care. “Let it develop” is a wise phrase which a friend of mine said years ago. Only when age-related incidences of LC prove that smoking is not especially related to LC will the Zealots move on to other targets.
The MISERY is caused by Government and no one else. Do not blame individuals like Glantz and Chapman. It is GOVERNMENT which is causing the MISERY.
I was GOVERNMENT which allowed the import of millions of strangers into France. It was GOVERNMENT which allowed millions of strangers into the UK. It is true that the observance of rituals in christian churches has declined enormously in the past decades, but we still live by the tenants of the New Testament, by and large. We DO forgive; We DO make allowances; we DO ‘not covet’. That is why we live together amicably on the whole.
I’m sick to death of Zealots, and, for the life of me, I do not understand why GOVERNMENT regards the Zealots as the fount of all wisdom.
But I am sick to death of the posturing. Just sick to death. Newspapers and their comment are of no importance at all. No one gives a shit about them. Only LAWS matter.
The Misery of it all.
You have to despise them. You cannot reason with them because they have a fixed agenda. Reason does not come into it. Only the statements of mantras matters. Thus, the statement that ‘there is no safe level of second hand smoke’ relies entirely upon some sort of immediate affect of a whiff of tobacco smoke in the street, regardless of the cancerous emissions of diesel engines in that street. I suppose that, rationally, it is possible for a terribly weak person to walk down a street, be inundated with diesel fumes, and not drop dead until he/she encountered a whiff of tobacco smoke. The way that TC utilises these comparisons is to say, “The person who was exposed to masses of carcinogenic fumes from traffic fell down and died only because of the additional affect of a whiff of tobacco smoke”. That is, they claim that traffic is NECESSARY, whereas smoking is not. We have seen this many times before. But such a argument ignores Choice. Diesel engines are things, and do not involve ‘choice’. No diesel engine can decide whether to emit carcinogens or not. Thus, traffic is worse than smoking, since it is uncontrollable.
How can you not be amazed that such a minor thing as smoking can infect politicians with righteous zeal? It can only be that the politicians are the wrong sort of people. In the UK, many of them retired, or were forced to retire, because of the expenses scandal. The replacements were ‘placemen’.
What is incredible is that it has taken so long for politicians to understand that there is such an emotion as ‘enthusiasm’. ‘Enthusiasm’ is an emotion. It does not need ‘Reason’. Supporters of MUFC do not need reason at all. If MUFC lose a football match, it is because the players did not ‘try’ hard enough. ‘Trying’ is emotional, and has nothing to do with skill.
Many of the people who were killed in Paris were probably only outside because of the law which grabbed private property and turned into the property of TC Zealots. TC Zealots are probably responsible for many deaths.
The scandalous affects of the Zealots’ corrupting influence on politicians cannot be ignored. But, to be honest, one cannot ignore the willingness of politicians to be corrupted.
What a mess!
The word ‘crusade’ has had a very bad press recently, and possibly rightly so. For what else can one describe Tobacco Control other than a ‘Crusade’? It is vicious, violent, unscrupulous, demeaning, underhand, scheming, dishonest, and COLD. It is especially COLD when it inflicts suffering upon mental health patients. Words such as ‘help’ lose all meaning when such afflicted people are forced to throw away one of their crutches, and forced to stand on one leg, on the grounds that doing so might just possibly enable them to live beyond 150 years. Would Arnott hang around physically ‘supporting’ a person who has been derived of one of his crutches? Would she hell!! No, she would move on to snatching away the crutch of another person to ‘help’ him/her to ‘stand on his/her own two feet’. The cruelty is abominable.
It seems that the crusades of the 12th century were very cruel. We must remember that Islam was well established by then. The crusades were intended to drive Islam out of the Holy Lands of Christendom, and they succeeded. Muslim people were driven out of Palestine to the East. The probability is that loads of Christians from Greece, or wherever, relocated to Palestine, protected by Crusaders. Until political events in Europe took the troops home. Oh Dear! Those immigrants were then on their own!
Whatever the true history might be, the fact is that the Christian crusades eventually failed, and the Holy Lands became of no importance.
In our modern way of thinking, the words ‘HOLY LANDS’ have no meaning. The area of land which Israel occupies is no different from a piece of the Antarctic. It is just ‘a place’. The Jews in Israel experienced just such similar attacks as Paris has, with just the same suicide intents. What did Israel do?
It found out who the perpetrators were and then took heavy machinery and demolished the houses of the families of the perpetrators and anyone associated with them. The attacks stopped.
Does Hollande have the same courage? It it turns out that some of the terrorists had homes in France, does he have the courage to demolish those homes?
Somehow, I doubt it. I suppose that he would rather send some jet aircraft to bomb a camel or two, rather than hit the supporters of the jihadists at home.
Thus, the new ‘Crusade’ is at home, and not abroad. Anyone who is involved in atrocities risks the loss of EVERYTHING that his family and supporters own.
Further, it is important that extremist Islamic Clerics should be targeted and killed, just as they themselves advocate. Whenever a cleric chants, “The kafir must be killed”, he himself is rendered an ‘outlaw’ with a price on his head.
So the new crusade must be to severely punish activists either directly or indirectly (demolishing homes), and/or killing Mullahs.
The ‘New Crusade’ is essential, if we are not to be subjected to slavery, according to the Koran.
I read an informative piece today. It is quite a long read, but examines ISIS in some depth. The link is:
The title is “What ISIS really wants”, and the subtitle is “What is the Islamic State?”
Essentially, it says that the war in Syria is a civil, religious war. It says that the Islamic State organisation is essentially, “closely identified with the jihadist wing of a branch of Sunnism called Salafism, after the Arabic al salaf al salih, the “pious forefathers.”
The article is written by someone who has studied Islam and enquired from many sources.
The ‘Salafists’ are Muslims who abide by a strict interpretation of the text of the koran. It is easy to see how that means stoning adulterers, but it also means waging war to extend ‘the caliphat’ to include the whole world. So there is a civil war going on between Sunnis and Shiites, with the added complexity of really aggressive ‘Salafists’.
But how does that translate into slaughter of Parisians, whether Muslim or not? Why is it that the assassins did not care whether their actions killed Muslims or not? Why did they not target some place which would obviously not be Muslim, such as a Christian Church? Perhaps it was because the church would be virtually empty. In that case, it is quite possible that a target could be wholly Muslim, since the assassins do not differentiate. If they are imports from Syria, or wherever, they might not know that a particular venue is a favourite place for Muslims.
Why do Muslims in the UK not protest their innocence?
I have read stuff which demands that decent Muslims should disassociate themselves from the assassins and condemn them, but I can understand why they do not. It is a matter of self-preservation. If any person spoke out about the atrocities, unless he is protected by bodyguards, he could expect to be assassinated, and the police could do nothing about it.What that actually means is that ‘the rule of law’ no longer applies in the UK. There are ‘outlaws’ abroad, and they are killers.
Is there a simple solution? I fear that we must go back to posting notices which say ‘dead or alive’. Muslims dare not speak out openly, but they could denounce extremists, who could be described as: “WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE. £50,000 REWARD”. I see no alternative. If that were the case, then decent Muslims could report suspicious activities without personal risk.
I have a taxi contact. He is a Muslim. I have spoken to his daughter, who is what I would call a normal, Lancashire girl. His wife is similarly Lancastrian. He told me that his wife has been in the UK for 20 years, whereas he has been here for only 5 years. Perhaps we got out wires crossed because he could hardly have a teenage daughter unless ….. etc, etc. I haven’t met the daughter, but I have spoken to her on the phone. She is charming, friendly, Lancastrian, helpful, understanding, NORMAL.
I suspect that it is this NORMALITY that the people behind IS are trying to destroy – in France, the UK, the USA, Germany, etc. NORMALITY means that Muslims, Christians, Jehoshaphat’s witnesses, etc, can live together amicably, along with agnostics and atheists.
But the Events in Paris also show the triviality of Tobacco Control. Political Death and Destruction are more or less unknown in the USA and Australia. Those countries have not experienced Genocide in the same way that Europe has. They do not understand. They allow ‘childlike’ evidence to fill their minds. ‘Tobacco smoke is a ghostly devil. It will turn you into a rotting vegetable”.
I wonder if the ‘Incidents in France’ will make politicians understand that the enjoyment of tobacco is the least of our nation’s worries.
I doubt it.
This is a subject which I would not normally comment upon. It is not part of this blog’s purpose. But it is hard to resist.
The question that comes into my mind is, “Why do these kamasaki individuals sacrifice themselves?” It makes no sense that they are young men. If a General says that it would be a good idea to kill as many people as possible, and thus create fear, by suicide bombs, it would make sense for very old Islamists to kill themselves chanting “Alluha ackba” or whatever. It makes no sense for young persons to sacrifice themselves, while chanting “Alluha ackba”.
In WW2, some Japanese aircraft pilots sacrificed themselves by crashing their planes into American ships. They were incredibly brave. Incredibly brave. They thought that their self-sacrifice would win the war. It is reasonable to assume that those Japanese airmen were clever and intelligent. And yet they killed themselves to defend a despicable, autocratic, medieval, totalitarian, fascist, regime.
That is what happens when politicians like Cameron et al pretend to represent THE PEOPLE, when, in fact, they represent no one at all. That idea is very important. Cameron et al, including Miliband, Clegg, Corbyn, et al represent no one at all. And that scenario is deliberately engineered. They do not represent Big Business, but they conform.
Persecution of smokers is an abomination of personal autonomy. The tax on tobacco products must be reduced to normal VAT levels, and so must alcohol taxes. In this modern era, there is no excuse for inordinate taxes. Sin taxes must be justified by the illustration of ‘Sins’. It is not enough to say that ‘Sins’ produce harm. The ‘Sins’ themselves must be justified as ‘Sins’.
I am an old man. I cannot deny it. I have gone beyond the Zealots.
I am infinite.