The Public Health Terrorists

A short post – I must to bed.

We are in danger of equating ‘terror’ with bombs and bullets. But, historically, terror using bombs and bullets has always been short-lived. Terror is far more affective if it is started slowly and built up over time.

The word ‘Terror’ is unusually clear in its meaning. We all know what it feels like to be terrified, even if that terror is small scale. For example, you might be terrified if your car broke down on a motorway. Why? Because their are enormous risks and you do not know what to expect. At the other end of the scale was the calmness of the astronauts in the space shuttle when their air supply broke down. They rigged something up.

The use of terror is well known. It really is odd how the use of terror by Public Health has gone unobserved for so long. Perhaps its use regarding ecigs has made it more visible.

To be a ‘Terrorist’ requires only that the person seeks to impose intense fear, for that is what terror is. It is intense fear. “I was terrified” means much more than “I was afraid”.

But what is most important is that a mild fear has been projected to politicians as terror. That is why we have smoking bans, and it is why politicians have no defence against it. The terror is encapsulated, deliberately, by the ‘no safe level’ of SHS meme.

The whole anti-smoker organisation is a terrorist organisation. It promotes intense fear. Even worse is that it promotes persecution.


6 Responses to “The Public Health Terrorists”

  1. Some French bloke Says:

    The Zealot’s habit of dismissing any counter-evidence out of hand as ‘preposterous’ would fully qualify as intellectual terrorism even if the intimidation had not been turned into some of the most obnoxious legislation that’s been passed in this ‘modern’ day and age (and the Daesh crew’s mindset didn’t fail to recognize that by endorsing and enforcing it with a vengeance).
    Trying to unravel a skein of facts and hypotheses, weeding out contradictions only to be left with the most stubborn ones makes for some quite strenuous mental exercise; sometimes the mind even finds itself caught on the horns of a dilemma and that likely leads to a degree of psychological suffering, but we have to take that in stride inasmuch as it’s based in reality and not contrived, simply because ‘reality bites’ and it would be unfair and futile to insist on a perpetrator being designated.
    On the other hand it is not an abuse of language to describe the deliberate use of artificial constructs such as false dichotomies as ‘mental torture’.

    • junican Says:

      Precisely correct, SFB. The weight of anti-smoker ‘evidence’ is so great that it would be impossible to sift through it all and fillet it. There is just too much of it. But there is evidence that LC deaths are declining as they should after smoking prevalence has diminished over the last couple of decades. But, as we know, health is no longer a factor. It is a moral crusade. I suspect that, one day in the not too distant future, a proper scientist will discover that cancer is entirely genetic and that certain viruses can alter a person’s genes, but that environmental factors cannot.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Yes and I for one am getting fed up with being terrorised by the likes of Arnott et al.

    • junican Says:

      Indeed. Arnott et al are fronts. They spout what they are paid to spout without the slightest bit of empathy with their prey.

      • Smoking Lamp Says:

        Not only do they spout propaganda and reject coater-evidence, they reject public opinion and democratic process. Antismokers are interested in totalitarian control. Actual health is not important; power and profit is. They must be contained.

  3. Reign Of Terror | Frank Davis Says:

    […] they even share the same methodology: scaremongering and bullying. In a short essay – The Public Health Terrorists – a few days ago, Junican […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: