What Does Tobacco Control Matter to the New World Order?

My friend Ed gave me a link in a comment on my last post to an interesting document. If you have the stomach for gruesome meddling by Professors of Psychiatry etc who are themselves mad as hatters, then read it:


Note the date – 1948. That was the year that the WHO was created.

I haven’t even read it all myself yet, so maybe I should not be commenting upon it. But Ed gives a fair summary of the general idea:

The United Nations was formed in 1945. The World Health Organisation was formed in 1948. Also in 1948, the so-called “mental health” movement blossomed into the formation of the World Federation for Mental Health. All three are “NWO” political operations with the main objective being to form a world government.

These political operations use propaganda and other devious methods to accomplish their end that we should all be willing subjects in a world that is ruled and run by a tiny global elite– for their benefit and not ours.

Their political operation, masquerading under the guise of “mental health” – is their reality engineering and behaviour modification program to subjugate us. What is wrong with their behaviour modification is that they want to get rid of our very correct idea that we should live as free men, replacing that with an incorrect idea that we should live as slaves.

In the formation of the World Federation for Mental Health in 1948, you will see them attempt to lay the cause of wars on our doorstep and then they use that lie to justify the formation of a World government!

When the International Congress on Mental Health was held, the 2,000 attendees were presented with a pamphlet that was made by the small group of people who met before the Congress meeting started. This small group attempted to influence the attendees in the direction of supporting a political objective of forming a world government.

Here’s the pamphlet;


The mental health movement didn’t start with the formation of the WFMH, but the formation of the organisation clearly illustrates that their entire movement is in reality nothing more than a front for a political operation that ultimately ends up with world governance.

Even if you do not want to read the whole thing, you might like to read the list of members of ‘the committee’. They are almost all white, European and American ‘Experts’ in brainwashing. In fact, in the introduction, there is a passing reference to the sadness that there is little or no representation of Eastern countries. As far as I could see, Africa did not count at all.

We often see references to ‘the third world’. I often wonder what ‘the second world’ is. No one ever seems to mention it. So we have ‘the first world’, being economically advanced countries, and ‘the third world’, being every other country. Perhaps ‘the second world’ includes Greenland and the Antarctic. Africa must be ‘the invisible world’.

What is very important about that document is the references to ‘World Government’. That idea is thinly disguised as ‘cooperation’ on a world scale. But, as we have seen with tobacco control; it does not take long for cooperation to become coercion. Such distortion come in the form of ‘increased taxation deters children from buying cigarettes’ and such. Thus, the coercion of adults is disguised.

That is the future under a World Government.

I suppose that that is how it must be in a World Government. Everything must be simplified, stratified and standardised. As an example, I was doing our on-line shopping tonight. There were a number of items where the weight and price were precisely the same. On what basis do I choose? You cannot go to a supermarket and get ‘a quarter of dolly-mixtures, please’.

The bigger the organisation, the more simplified, stratified and standardised its products are, even if it has plenty of different products. What is very weird, however, is that the organisation itself is not the least bit standardised, although it is very, very stratified. The EU is an example. It is an enormous, vastly expensive bureaucracy. And yet its produce is ‘level playing field’. What it comes down to is that everything is the same, and choice is reduced to choosing between advertising ploys.

The medical profession is going in the same direction. ‘Best practice’ does not allow physicians to decide what an individual’s needs are. ‘Best practice’ is entirely reliant upon the Standard Human Being. A doctor must follow ‘best practice’ if he is to be protected from law suits. What is the consequence? It is probable that massive amounts of ‘brain pills’ (anti-depressants) are being prescribed when the real problem may be financial or whatever.

So what we can expect to see, as time goes by, is more and more regulation which standardises and restricts individuality, but at the same time, we can expect to see more and more emphasis on ‘bread and circuses’, in the form of football matches and such, designed to lull the the masses.

Only a few people can see the dangers, of which I am not one. I do not have the information, but I can see the dangers of mass immigration of thousands of jihadies hidden among hundreds of thousands of genuine refugees. We know that a lot of Jews were able to flee from Germany when the writing was on the wall, but the vast majority of Jews did not have the means to flee or even knew that they ought flee.


What we have seen in the recent past, and are seeing now, is the persecution of smokers written large. That is especially apparent in the USA where there is a huge threat that smoking will be banned in ‘public housing’. I suppose that ‘public housing’ is much the same a ‘council housing’ in the UK. I suppose that the attack on smokers in public housing in the USA is occurring because the USA system of providing such housing is privatised. Thus, the owners of the housing can bully residents if they wish to, but they need a local law to establish a justification. They need a ‘level playing field’ to impose restrictions.

The worst possible thing that occurred in the USA was ‘The Master Settlement’.  It was an error on the same scale as Prohibition. The States claimed that tobacco smoking harm cost them billions of dollars. I suppose that these costs were quantified somehow. But all that happened was that Tobacco Companies added 50 cents to the price of a packet of cigs, collected the money and handed it over to the States. We need not go into the matter that the States almost immediately borrowed money, secured on the expectation that funds from the Master Settlement would be the same forever. How does that expectation square with the expectation that the extra cost would deter people from buying cigs? The fact is that the MSA was never designed to deter smoking. It was a tax, and not an unacceptable tax at that. 50 cents is no great deal. That is important. The States did not expect that tax to have any affect on the level of smoking. Indeed, the probability is that it had little affect, but, just at the time that the MSA increased to cost of smoking, along came ecigs.


Can we all see how Tobacco Control and Health Control has become a quagmire? Masses funding have been misdirected at health, wealthy Westerners, while the really desperate needs of Africans have been seen as just too big a problem for the WHO, which has concentrated is money and time on stopping smoking in the healthy, wealthy West.

It can only mean that such organisations as the WHO are inhabited by dreaming, crazy mental health experts. They are the ones who are suffering mental health problems.


So, back we come to politicians. It seems to be taking an awful long time for our elected representatives, and especially Ministers, to understand that these ‘experts’ upon which they rely for advice, are not the least bit apolitical or independent.

Would it not be wonderful if Cameron asked Frank Davis, Dick Puddlecote, and a host of other for advice? What would they advise? They must surely advise that tobacco duties must be abolished, along with booze and petrol duties. There should be no such thing as duties. They are an anachronism.


Enough for tonight.


9 Responses to “What Does Tobacco Control Matter to the New World Order?”

  1. artbylisabelle Says:

    Thank you, I might not be able to read the lies and justifications of their greed, either. It is real and it is wrong!

  2. J Brown Says:

    I think that if you actually read this up to page 25, you will see that this pamphlet was not written in a political sense – it was written in order to attempt to research the possibility of world mental health that ensures ‘good will toward men’. You must remember that this was written on the back of two major world wars, as well as during a time when nuclear power/bombs, etc. were being tested and researched, etc. World information has come quite a long way during these past 70 years – both with the reaction towards nuclear warfare, as well as sociologically. Frankly, despite the paranoia about some clandestine group of men plotting to take over our free will, etc., I don’t think that there is anything wrong with the goal that mankind should tolerate, respect and care for one another.

    • Ed Says:

      I tend to judge these trees by their fruits and from what I see happening around me (especially in light of banning smoking for the mental health “prisoners”) it isn’t in any way a knee-jerk paranoid observation!

      I’ll try being brief, but I feel it’s important to know the origins of these movements and the people responsible, so sorry for the long post!

      The WFMH marked the takeover of mental hygiene by the mental health movement which in essence was a political takeover.

      The origin of the mental hygiene movement can be attributed to Clifford Beers in the United States. In 1908 he published “A Mind That Found Itself”, a book based on his personal experiences in three mental institutions.

      The book eventually resulted in the creation of the National Commission of Mental Hygiene in 1909. Its chief concern was to humanise the care of the insane: Eradicate the abuse, brutality and neglect from which the mentally ill have traditionally suffered.

      Unfortunately, due to financial and other pressures, Beers was railroaded into letting other elements undermine, then control their committee and it immediately became an organisation that was primarily concerned with society and not with the mentally ill individual.

      Once the committee was fully taken over it became another outcropping of Eugenics. In the same year this occurred, the first state sterilisation law in California was enacted on April 26, 1909 and remained largely unopposed for the next 70 years. By 1917, the laws had been amended to essentially include anyone deemed unfit.

      In 1912, the Rockefeller Foundation had funded a Dr. Salmon to be the National Committee for Mental Hygiene’s very first medical director and with this move, the perversion of its original goals was now complete.

      Two of the main players in the committee that attempted to sway the 2000 delegates in the WFMH pamphlet are John Rawling Reese and Harry Stack Sullivan.

      John Rawlings Rees was a Director of the Tavistock Clinic (with direct ties to M16), which is another rat nest front group for the New World Order people that had its beginnings around the time of World War I.

      Interestingly, Reese had written “The Shaping of Psychiatry by War” in 1945 and heaps praise on the Dr Salmon mentioned previously for deliberately bringing neuropsychiatry to the forefront into the theatre of war for treating battle neurosis.


      It was Rees himself in 1945, who proposed to the International Committee of Mental Hygiene that a world conference be held in London to unite the activities of psychiatrists.

      American psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan was an ardent proponent of world citizenship, as was Canadian Psychiatrist G. Brock Chisholm. They hoped that world loyalty would re-place allegiance to a nation.

      In 1946, Rees convened a small gathering of psychiatrists in New York City. It was at this meeting that Brock Chisholm was the first to suggest the formation of a new international organisation and proposed its name – World Federation for Mental Health and their first International congress was organised in London by the British National Assoc for Mental Hygiene and as mentioned above was attended by 2000 delegates.

      The small group (25 people) that held discussions on how to positively influence the 200 delegates in the direction of supporting the political objective of forming world government was known as the International Preparatory Commission. Harry Stack Sullivan was one of the primary people at their meetings. It was these people who produced the pamphlet.

      At the conference only one concept of mental health was put forward, by J.C. Flugel and discussion on world citizenship prevailed over any mental health issues.

      What started as an International Conference on Mental Hygiene, ended with a series of recommendations on mental health and by the end of the congress the International committee on Mental Hygiene was superseded by the World Federation for Mental Health.

      The mental hygiene movement had been transformed into the mental health movement and had accepted a new purpose.

      The mental hygiene movement was a crusade to end abusive treatment of mental patients and these people perverted it into a political crusade for establishing a world government in the guise of a mental health movement.

  3. slugbop007 Says:

    ‘… mankind should tolerate, respect and care for one another.’

    I don’t think that the WHO is fulfilling that directive at all. They are a social engineering machine, bent on imposing global conformity to a very flimsy idea about what they think/believe (almost religiously) constitutes health and wellness. Add to that the fact that they are being supported and funded by the World Bank, the Pharmaceutical industry, their moles (the French Health Minister), billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates, Globalink, charity foundations like Robert Wood Johnson and their ever expanding network of easy to obtain Public Health university degrees, severely exposes the credibility and integrity of their health policy directives.

    • junican Says:

      The phrase is “Health and Wellbeing”. Note the confounding. Health is as it is, but Wellbeing is ephemeral. The two things are not in the slightest bit equivalent.

  4. Ed Says:

    Pertinent to the discussion and to give you further insight into the mind of John Rawlings Rees (the chap mentioned above), here he is giving an address to the annual meeting of the national council of mental hygiene in 1940;


    While only being a relatively short piece, there are many good quotes contained within the transcript about imitating totalitarians and to behave as secret 5th columnists in society to help fulfill their long term propaganda plans, or how to sell mental health via the medium of novels and film, my personal favourite is this one;

    “Many people don’t like to be saved or changed or made healthy. I have a feeling however that efficiency and economy would make rather a good appeal because there are very few people who would not welcome these two suggestions. It has even crossed my mind whether we ought not to have a subsidiary company called the Social Efficiency Board and get Mr Bevin or someone like that in as Chairman!”

    • junican Says:

      It just becomes too complex for ordinary people to bother their heads about. In fact, such discussions are not for ordinary people at all. They belong in the academic stratosphere. They have nothing to do with reality.

  5. Frank Davis Says:

    Would it not be wonderful if Cameron asked Frank Davis, Dick Puddlecote, and a host of other for advice?

    Well he’s not going to, is he?

    • junican Says:

      Of course not. He does not want the views of ordinary people. He wants the views of ‘Experts’ which shield him from criticism.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: