More About the EU Exit Referendum and Associated Subjects

Ed wrote a comment on the last post and included a link to a speech to the Senate in the USA from a Senator Borah, in which he spoke against USA participation in the League of Nations. Here is the link:

In effect, Senator Borah said that the LoN was a set-up by the British to perpetuate their Empire. In particular, he pointed out that the British ‘dominions’ would be considered to be individual countries (India, Australia, New Zealand, etc) so that each would have a vote. The USA would have only one vote.

I do not propose to go any further into that matter, but is it not peculiar how the EU started with a principle that ALL the States would have a veto, but that principle was discarded and substituted with ‘modified majority voting’?

Senator Borah insisted that the USA would absolutely not surrender its autonomy to any other nation or group of nations, and yet Blair gave away our veto in matters concerning the UK when he approved ‘modified majority voting’. Now, Cameron is sort of claiming that he can alter the EU and ‘claw back’ powers to the UK. Erm…. That is not the point, Mr Cameron. The point is that the UK should never have given ANY POWERS AT ALL to the EU Elite in the EU Commissariat. In particular, there is no reason whatsoever that the UK should go along with with what other nations in the EU have decided to cooperate in. The UK did not go along with the euro, and still hasn’t. What happened to ‘modified majority voting’ to force the UK to adopt the euro?

The corruption is self-evident, and it seems obvious that the corruption is directed corruption. It is as Senator Borah said [words to the effect]: “If we go along with the demands of the constitution of this League of Nations, we might find ourselves outvoted and be required to make war upon ourselves”. (NB – I did say, ‘Words to the effect….’)

But, most of all, as I see it, the whole business is so top-heavy, so autocratic, so complex, so incomprehensible, that only abolition and start again can solve the problem.


What has that got to do with smoking bans and the persecution of smokers?

It is clear that the use of the EU, by the Zealots, to create a ‘no escape’ situation, depends upon compliance. We have recently seen an example in the demand from the WHO that all EU States should introduce a sugar tax at the same time. There is also the example of the ban on snus outside Sweden. Erm… Has the UK Parliament actually banned the sale of snus, or was it hidden in some incomprehensibly complex, general regulation? I don’t know.


We can see that the Zealots have somehow managed to, gradually, infiltrate institutions. It has been going on for decades. We can see also that many Elite politicians have become traitors as a result of their Common Purpose allegiance to shadowy entities.

But the important question is: WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?

It does not matter whether the conspiracies are real or not. That question remains. In the end, it depends upon forces much greater than those available to smokers, other than their own personal decisions.

Thus, I rarely go to the pub. Why? Is it because of the smoking ban in itself? Well, No. It is because pubs have become boring. They are empty. They are boring, and I cannot even have the solace of reading the paper while having a pint and a fag.

Thus, I take it upon myself to make those decisions which matter to me. As a ‘morality’, the law means nothing to me. Thus, I have become a member of the criminal classes. I doubt that I would snatch a granny’s handbag, but it is always possible. It isn’t easy to change your attitude to ‘The Common Law of England’. What used to be protection has become persecution. The ‘Common Law’ was about protection: ‘Statute Law’ was about prohibition. Statute Law has taken over almost totally and has, as a result of its definition as ‘prohibitive’, become a tyrant.

The EU (and the UN/WHO) has no Common Law. Thus, by definition, it is tyrannical. Those organisations, and the Elite within them, claim authority. They claim authority via “Experts”, and committees of “Experts”. The reality is that these people are paid and controlled and have not authority whatsoever. 


Can we change things?  No. We can only refuse personally to conform. That is my attitude. I refuse to conform. That means that I shall, if the opportunity arises, buy stuff from white van man and engage in cash transactions, if the circumstances dictate. I contribute NOTHING to charities. I, and my family, are an island. But we pay our taxes, therefore we take every advantage that we can, even if we do not really need to. The Zealots have said so. The Zealots have said that we must obey. The Zealots have said that we must grab. We shall grab.

But there is a big problem. Too many smokers feel guilty. Why? The reason is that they have no support. I blame tobacco companies. You see, I suspect that TobComs really thought that they were unassailable.

‘Feeling guilty’ and the promotion thereof, is a classic method of promoting obedience. Think of the WW1 slogan, “YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU!” OBEY, OBEY, OBEY.

Do schools teach children to evaluate adverts on TV and look for the advertising tricks, and the way in which these tricks are used to fool people? NO THEY DO NOT. In fact, schools are being used to do precisely the opposite. They are being used to promulgate ‘advertising think’. It is odd that schools have capitulated so that they waste time on propaganda rather than teaching. There is building up a magma of resistance and it is only a matter of time before the volcano erupts.


As I see things, the World has become too complex for politicians to have control of events. What is even worse is that ‘experts’ should have control, unless they are ‘official’ and therefore subject to scrutiny. People such as Glantz and Chapman should not be given ‘airtime’ unless they PROVE their assertions. Minor variations in statistics are not enough.

Further, the question should be asked as to whether or not they have been using student fees to fund their activities. If not, where have the funds come from?

It seems to me that tobacco companies should be asking these questions on behalf of their customers.


What is absolutely clear is that smokers should hide. That is a tricky idea. It means lying to your doctor. However, you could say to your doctor, “Please note down that I no longer smoke – but I shall start to smoke again tomorrow if I wish to”.

I need to go to my dentist. He is OK. I have always said, on the form, that I smoke 50 per day. I might just say “No” this next time. Why not? Who cares?


%d bloggers like this: