Further about the IPCC and the FCTC

I’m a bit surprised that no one took up my suggestion to watch the videos here:

http://niklowe.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/musical-interlude-with-touch-of-climate.html

They are good stuff since they show that the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’ (IPCC) is a political and bureaucratic organisation and not a scientific one, and that ‘scientific papers’ are anything but, and that the reports of the IPCC are ‘fixed’. In other words, the IPCC is a fraud.

It makes sense to believe that the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (the FCTC) was also fixed and is a fraud. In fact, the fact that The Public and The Press were excluded from the shindig in Moscow shows with little doubt that that ‘conference’ was little more than window-dressing; that it was a gang of bureaucrats agreeing to whatever the leadership said. Thus, the conference followed WHO demands from its ‘partners’, the Drugs Companies, to condemn  ecigs. That is what happened. It is a lot like the Fuhrer deciding and receiving acclamation at a public assembly in the 1930s. There is no significant difference. The ‘assemblies’ are set up and dissent is excluded so that only the demands of the executive bureaucrats are heard, and the assembled people acclaim. Their jobs depend upon it. I think that Saddam Hussein’s ‘assemblies’ were organised on the same lines. Applaud hysterically or be taken out and shot.

=====

The precise purpose of ‘Democracy’ is to protect The People from such despotism. That what Democracy is for. Thus, for example, the word “Marriage” is sacrosanct. It means the union of A MAN AND A WOMAN. It does not mean the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or any combination of any number of such individuals, and their dogs. But, my statement does not exclude people from entering into agreements among themselves if they wish to. But do not call those agreements ‘marriage’.

The purpose of Democracy is not to have the demands of the majority complied with. In fact, the opposite is true. Its purpose is to elect individuals to:

a) stop the Bureaucrats (aka, the Aristocrats) from pleasing themselves, and

b) ensure that minorities are not persecuted, and

c) ensure that everyone is treated fairly as a human being.

=====

From the above, we see that it is the DUTY of elected representatives to protect individuals from persecution. That is their DUTY. That is what the are elected for. It is no part of their DUTY, or even ‘a good thing’, for them to espouse some course of action like banning smoking in pubs. That is no what they are for. They are there to oppose the demands of the Aristocrats, including Health Aristocrats.

We have given very little attention to the rise of the Health Aristocracy. I would not go so far as to suggest that certain Health Aristocrats should meet Madame Guillotine, but I am tempted.

In the meantime, there is no doubt that the servants of these Aristocrats continue to harass smokers in every way that they can. Why do they do so? 

It is all so artificial.

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Further about the IPCC and the FCTC”

  1. cherie79 Says:

    I often wonder why? What made smokers such objects of contempt when it had been treated as normal just a few short years ago. On the face of it it makes no sense given the tax losses, increase in smuggling and, whatever they say, they no it is not the cause of all illness and death. I am starting to wonder if it is the cause of any of it.

    • junican Says:

      The Tobacco CONTROL Industry is playing a very, very long game; witness statements such as “The aim should be to have eradicated smoking by 2030”. Note the 16 year delay – nice little earning period. Also, “Ban people born after 2000 from buying tobacco”. These people know full well that there will still be most of the population who enjoy tobacco buying it, and so the gravy train will roll on.
      Why are they so against ecigs? Because ecigs have taken away much of their power and, should ecigs become really popular, will take away their Big Pharma money as well.

  2. graham Entwistle Says:

    http://vapingiraffe.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/nicotine-addiction-when-and-why-it-all.html?m=1

    This is why. Corruption. Plain and simple

    • junican Says:

      Thanks for the link. Very informative. If the FDA (?) in the USA don’t watch out what they do to ecigs, especially if they claim nicotine addiction for their reason for acting, I can see that case becoming very popular in the law suits which will follow.

  3. smokingscot Says:

    O/T… well maybe.

    Saw this on Dicks’ twit feed:

    “Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is probably the most effective organisation in the anti-smoking lobby, and is very clear that it is a campaigning group. In 2013, ASH was given £150,000 from the Department of Health, £447,074 from other charities, £125,000 from one legacy and possibly only about £6,000 from voluntary donations.

    So, however worthy ASH’s intentions, it’s not obvious that it is a charity whose purposes are widely supported by an enthusiastic public eager to donate. There’s nothing wrong with lobbying. But the issue is whether an organisation that is mainly focused on campaigning deserves to promulgate its opinions under the banner of being a ‘charity’ while using its charitable status to avoid paying tax on its income.”

    And the article’s here:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2835947/The-Great-British-rake-really-happens-billions-donate-charity-Fat-cat-pay-appalling-waste-hidden-agendas.html

    I know it’s something we’re aware of, but nice it’s now in a book on the Great British Rip-Off.

    • junican Says:

      I have seen other articles about ‘fake’ charities, notable, Chris Snowden’s. But this is the first time that I have seen the matter taken up by the MSM. Good. Perhaps ‘something will be done’.

  4. The Last Furlong Says:

    I did watch your movie. Loved the music – and the message!

    • junican Says:

      Oh Dear. When I posted the link, I thought that I was linking to a different video! But the one you watched was good (and yes the music was fun). I’m going to post the proper links shortly.

  5. artbylisabelle Says:

    Reblogged this on artbylisabelle.

  6. Michael Bean Says:

    Sir:

    A friend sent me this article in the New York Times on a proposal to ban all tobacco sales in a small northeastern town. The story reflects not so much a love of tobacco, but a hatred of being told what to do and think. And that’s a good thing.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/disgusted-by-smoking-outraged-by-a-plan-to-ban-tobacco.html?_r=0

    Thanks for keeping up the fight. . .

    Cheers. . .

    Michael Bean A Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada, pipe smoker. . .

  7. beobrigitte Says:

    The precise purpose of ‘Democracy’ is to protect The People from such despotism. That what Democracy is for. Thus, for example, the word “Marriage” is sacrosanct. It means the union of A MAN AND A WOMAN. It does not mean the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or any combination of any number of such individuals, and their dogs. But, my statement does not exclude people from entering into agreements among themselves if they wish to. But do not call those agreements ‘marriage’.

    Ever since the gay community could enter a ‘Civil Partnership’ I had questions. And I envied them. Still do.

    I did not wish to get married (the bit where I have to agree to ‘serve’ my husband was too much to take and defied the notion of an equalitarian relationship was just too much for me) and had to “co-habit”.

    A ‘civil partnership’ would have been our preferred choice – unfortunately we are heterosexual.

    If gay people can marry, why can’t I have this legal civil partnership?

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: