A Weird World

A short post tonight  – have been to pub and am tired.

It somehow seems that for every worker who produces, there are several ‘regulators’ who leach on that worker. Each of the regulators may extract only of little blood, but there are several of them and the result is that it is difficult to isolate each individual leach.

I was watching a video earlier which was an interview with the American (?) economist who devised the ‘flat tax’.  The idea of the ‘flat tax’ is that, given quite generous allowances at the bottom end of earnings, all earnings over a given amount attract the same level of income tax. Obviously, the biggest earners will gain, when the system is compared with increasing income tax on higher incomes. But the idea is that premised upon the idea that the wealthiest people find their way around the demands of the Inland Revenue, and there is a massive cost involved in chasing those people.

There is a typical example of that ‘massive cost’ in train at the moment. Customs are trying to close the loophole which allows people to import ‘raw tobacco’ to make snuff and e-liquids etc. There is a ‘consultation’ going on at the moment – not that anyone knows about it or cares. I personally hold that I have every right to be self-sufficient, and that I can buy ‘raw tobacco’ if I wish to and make fags from it if I wish to. There is a lot of effort involved in doing so. It is not easy. But I do not sell what I make or even give it away. Also, it does not leave my home. In my opinion, what I do is no different from people buying black grapes and making red wine. There is no difference at all. I wish to be self-sufficient.

Is that a HUMAN RIGHT? If it is not, then it ought to be. We are not animals to be herded into the pastures.

====

But does this not bring us back to the abominable law which requires publicans etc to FORCE  smokers to go outside? Why did publicans and their staff take on this duty? Why did they not, en masse, refuse? That is beyond my comprehension and why I was astonished when the Smoking Ban was obeyed. It made no sense to me that 17 year old juniors in pubs were on the lookout for smokers lighting up, and getting hysterical.

It still astonishes me. Why did these juniors take upon themselves the responsibility? On the minimum wage? Why did their ‘trade unions’ permit it?

It still astonishes me.

====

From time to time, we have to stop being involved in present situations, like the ecig de-battle.  We have to go back and ask, “What exactly is the proof that smoking causes any illnesses at all? What is the proof that smoking does not cure illnesses?” Certainly, in The McTear Case, the Medical Establishment could not, or dared not, produce evidence of smoking harm. Had the Medical Establishment tried to produce the evidence of the Doll “Doctors Study”, it would have been shot down in flames, which is why they did not produce it. Thus, all the ‘evidence’ upon which The Tobacco Control Industry relies is ‘hearsay’. The same type of studies produce the same type of results. Thus, I am sure, that multiple studies produced the result that ‘miasmas’ from swamps caused malaria.

====

It will take courageous politicians to buck the trend. There are not many of them . Cameron, Clegg and Miliband (in any order) have no idea what they are doing. Miasmas and Subterfuges rule. It is reasonable to assume that the Civil Service lies to politicians all the time. Remember What’s-her-name, who claimed that 9/11 was ‘a good time to bury bad news?’ What has changed? Certainly Cameron etc are as ignorant as is possible in areas beyond their reasonable expertise. Thus, they must rely upon ‘experts’.

That is reasonable, unless the ‘Experts’ are chosen by people who have an agenda. We saw this in the Chilcote enquiry about PP. The Boss was already compromised. Further, a ‘Medical’ was absolutely not the type of person to conduct the enquiry. Why? Because it was all about statistics and not about medical matters. The correct person would have been a recently retired, renowned statistician. The point is that the chosen Chairman was not versed in statistics, but was versed in kidy-fiddling.

====

The Weirdness of the World depends upon the Healthy, Wealthy West. Only the healthiness and wealthiness can support the leaches.

—–

It is obvious that the WHO is utterly corrupt. Will Cameron declare it? Of course not!

Advertisements

3 Responses to “A Weird World”

  1. kin_free Says:

    We have to go back and ask, “What exactly is the proof that smoking causes any illnesses at all? “What is the proof that smoking does not cure illnesses?”

    I totally agree Junican and have been advocating this for years but in addition, given that anti-smoker ‘science’ is becoming increasingly corrupted by healthist ideology, we should be appealing to rationality, common sense and the mis-match between C20th promises of ‘health for all’ if they quit smoking,or eat/drink only what the ‘experts’ deem to be healthy etc. against actual outcomes today!

    There is plenty of evidence that contradicts the ‘smoking kills’ ‘consensus’ of experts – for now! The longer this goes on, the more this evidence is going to disappear down the memory hole and the more the ‘victorious’ anti-smoker movement will replace it with their own version of ‘science’, statistics and rhetoric that only support their version of reality. (this is happening now!)

    It should be crystal clear to most people by now that the science regarding SHS shows that it is no danger to anyone, but the anti-smoker industry with their high profile ‘experts’ continue to lie about it. Whats more, they will continue to do so to win this war they are waging on normality but also because many have burned their bridges and can do no other IF they want to keep their lucrative jobs and not end up like Andrew Mitchell of ‘pleb’ fame – or worse.

    We should not let up on exposing this lie, and continue to collate evidence regarding its use, BUT while people continue to believe active smoking is harmful to health, even if they can see SHS ‘harm’ is a lie, they are going to continue to believe it is justified for ‘the greater good’ and future health of their cheeeldren.

    My own view is that smoking does not raise risk of harm in anyone, or at the very worst (because nothing can be claimed as absolute certainty) it may be a very small risk in some illnesses. On the other hand, it can be of great benefit in others.

    We need to be raising awareness of those many health, cognitive and social benefits of smoking and highlighting the truism that those who lie, steal or con people are very rarely exposed the first time they do so.

    • nisakiman Says:

      Yes, me too. I’ve gone from believing (in a fairly disinterested way) everything you read about the perils of smoking, to believing that smoking isn’t actually the cause of any disease at all. I can accept that it may be an aggravating factor is some situations, but the more I read and learn, the less I think that smoking is actually harmful. And on a completely anecdotal and personal level, I’m now 65, and over the years have known many people who were smokers. I can’t remember any of them getting ill as a result of their enjoyment of smoking. And as for myself, I started experimenting with smoking when I was eight years old, and by the time I was eleven, I was a fairly regular smoker. Apart from a couple of occasions when I stopped for about a year each time, I’ve smoked continuously ever since. I’ve never had any of those myriad ‘smoking related’ diseases (although that’s becoming an increasingly difficult claim to make as they continue to expand the number of complaints that are ‘smoking related’ – pretty soon, a broken leg will become a ‘smoking related’ disease…), and I remain in rude health. In fact, I’m in better shape than most guys I know who are in their forties, and when climbing a long flight of stairs with my wife (23 years younger than me and a never smoker), I’m the one who ends up dragging her up because she’s out of breath.

      We are bombarded with so much bullshit; so many lies, that I find it quite breathtaking. Just HOW do they get away with it? It doesn’t seem to matter how many times it’s pointed out that their emperor is naked, they just blithely carry on spouting the same falsehoods as if reality and the truth are irrelevant.

      And nobody questions them.

  2. junican Says:

    I think that you have both said everything there is to say. Certainly, the prohibitionists did not die out when the prohibition of alcohol in the USA was repealed, and, around the same time, those States which had also prohibited tobacco repealed their rulings. The nazi regime continued the eugenistic demonisation of tobacco because Hitler, and others, saw smoking as degenerate.
    I think that the end of WW2 was the perfect time for the Healthist missionaries to start the anti-tobacco ball rolling again, but with the emphasis on health rather than degeneracy. But they knew that, this time, they would have to go slowly. Richard Doll began his first study (The Hospital Study) before 1950, and must surely have been planning it for some years before that. Doll was a “Rockefeller student”, and thus beholden to that American Foundation. During the time that Doll was doing ‘The Doctors Study’, I have no doubt that senior positions in the Health Dept and medical schools were quietly being filled with anti-smoking zealots. At the same time, the same was happening in the USA and the UN WHO.
    But what I don’t understand is what drove their missionary zeal. It really was a form of religious conviction. But what “God” were they serving? Or was it more a hatred of Tobacco Companies? Doll was a communist (and therefore anti-capitalist) in his youth. Was it more a matter of fighting a wicked devil than serving a God? I suppose that either of those possibilities could be sufficiently motivating to spend their lives working to have tobacco prohibited (again) knowing that they would be dead before ‘victory’ would be achieved.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: