Republic or Democracy (2)?

Needless to say, having over-indulged a little in the vino dept before I finished the post, I forget to mention the whole point of the post.

When the USA declared itself to be a Republic, it did not declare itself to be a Democracy. “All men are equal” was not intended to mean “All men are free”. It meant “There are no divine Kings or  Emperors, and no hereditary Aristocrats. etc”. Slaves were still slaves and ‘the property’ of the their owners. Women were still disenfranchised, as were the poorest people. What actually happened was that the ‘boss class’ remained the boss class, but the new system achieved broad agreement, in the Constitutional document, as to the limits of the the power of Government. I suppose that the right of individuals (provided that they were not slaves, etc) to ‘bear arms’ was intended to ensure that no one person, or group of persons, could have a monopoly on armed forces.

——

Whatever the detail, and despite the civil war, Americans value their freedom greatly. So how can we account for smoking bans? How can we account for Bloomberg’s soda ban in New York? How can we account for massive and unfair taxes on tobacco? In fact, how can we account for Prohibition in the early part of the last century?

I suppose that the important question is: “HOW DOES IT BEGIN?”

Take alcohol. I read Chris Snowdon’s book about Prohibition, which goes into some considerable detail, but is scanty on ‘proof’ of the origins. Various religious sects might have railed against alcohol, but you might ask, “How was it that they gained power?” The answer is that they didn’t. It seems to me that all the detail of how religious fanatics smashed up saloons is not important. What is important is who was behind it all and why.

I am just writing as I think, but I understand that Rockefeller, the railway billionaire, was teetotal, anti-alcohol and anti-tobacco. You can understand how such a workaholic puritan billionaire would not want his workforce to be ‘under the influence’. So he chucks a large amount of money at the ‘problem’ with the objective of ‘demonising’ alcohol and tobacco and funding ‘activists’. But the clever thing is that his funding is partly directed at attracting funding from elsewhere, notably from government – and it works!

—–

A couple of days ago, Frank Davis was talking about ‘the elite’ – the group of billionaires, like Bloomberg and Gates. Frank was asking if they have met and have conspired. They may well have done, but, as I see it, that is not the most important thing. What is of the most importance is that their money has enabled them to infiltrate the WHO. Their money has put their representatives right in the heart of the WHO. Their money is funding anti-tobacco initiatives all over the place – but not anti-ebola initiatives, or anti-malaria initiatives, or anti-poverty initiatives. The Zealots justify that be saying that tobacco is killing millions while ebola is only killing thousands. Needless to say, they never mention that billions of smokers do not die NOW, while thousands of ebola infected people do die NOW.

—–

So it may be that the Bloombergs and the Gateses of this world conspire. But they do not have to. Via their wealth, they gain seats in the WHO inner sanctums. They gain seats at the absolute top level without being elected thereto. Why? Because the WHO is a KINGDOM!! It is not a Republic or a Democracy. It is an empire under the control of EMPERORS!!

What makes things even worse is that this ‘Autocracy’ bamboozles our simple-minded ‘Leaders’ in the UK into giving them pots of money. Thus, the billionaires can withdraw their funding after the initial boost.

===

What is wonderful is that resistance can only build, even if the resistance is slow to build. People like Glantz and Chapman etc have demonised smokers. For now, they have the media, but we have the internet. We must demonise them. It isn’t difficult. For years, these people have been persecuting smokers by demanding the theft of their hard-earned wages and ‘exiling them to the outdoors’.

===

Most of us have simple pleasures, and we mostly engage with those pleasures at certain times of the day. We get up and have coffee or tea and some breakfast and then go to work. We have lunch and then, after work in the afternoon, we go home. We mow the lawn etc, have our evening meal, watch some TV or whatever, and go to bed. We might even engage in sensual activities from time to time. Provided that no great threat appears, most of us are content with our lot.

The smoking ban has interfered with our contentment with really serious consequences. It is as though some university academics had found a tiny possibility that handling tea leaves or tea bags was possibly carcinogenic in a tiny way. Therefore, tea bags/leaves must be banned. “Studies have shown that those who drink tea, and therefore handle tea bags/leaves, are more likely to die prematurely than people who do not drink tea, and who do not handle tea bags/leaves. Therefore, the production of tea bags/leaves must be banned”.

The mind boggles.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Republic or Democracy (2)?”

  1. Ed Says:

    I was reading through an interesting blog the other week as I was doing a little research on the BSC and OSS. To me it looked like it all began with the system being infiltrated and eventually overran by anglophiles with the BSC being an important cog in it’s very long history, with its origins dating back to the 1600’s.

    The blog is exceptionally detailed historically, well referenced and took time to read, but was enjoyable and quite an eye-opener. The info on the BSC is in several sections, the first being here;

    https://mikemcclaughry.wordpress.com/the-reading-library/world-government/british-security-coordination-compendium-the-book-and-the-lords/

    I respect your opinion and would be interested to hear it

    Ed

    • junican Says:

      I’m off on holiday in an hour!
      I’ve read about a third of it. The rest will have to wait until I get back.

      I don’t know quite what to make of it, to be honest. The author seems to jump about from era to era. He seems to think that the British deliberately caused WW2. That seems to be massively far fetched since the country was so ill prepared and came very close to being invaded and conquered.

      I’ve book-marked the document and shall read the rest when I get back.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: