I remember donkey’s years ago reading about homosexuals. I must have been very young, but old enough to be ‘sexually active’. It is a long time ago, so readers will be understanding, I hope. But I was a ‘good catholic boy’, and had been protected against such ideas, and so I was surprised that there were some males who ‘had sex’ with other males. “How do they do it?”, I thought. Again, readers must forgive my naivity. But there came a time, after quite a long time, that the thought occurred to me, as a randy young man, “The more homosexuals there are, the more girls that I are available to me!” Yes, I was a nasty little pervert, I must admit. Funnily enough, the idea that women could be lesbians never even occurred to me.
My idea that there would be more girls for me if there were lots of homosexuals would lead me to wish to encourage homosexuality, if I was really, REALLY, REALLY perverted.
So I am curious about what drives the anti-smoker zealots. Surely they realise that the sharing of pension fund returns depends upon the longevity of the pensioners? Given a group of, say, 1000 people who have contributed to a pension fund equally, and given that the fund performs reasonably well, then the more of that group of 1000 who die before starting to collect their share of the returns of the fund, the better for those who remaim alive. Better, perhaps, to put it the other way round – the more that contributers stay alive, the more likely it is that the pension fund will collapse. Again, in a reverse sort of sense, it is a bit like Mirror owner, Maxwell, using pension funds to fund his own projects. When those projects failed, the pension funds disappeared and ALL the Mirror’s pensioners lost their income.
So what drives the anti-smoker zealots? The people that I am really curious about are the academics etc, and not the lowly employees of stop-smoking services and clinics. Those employees are much the same as salespersons in shops – irrespective of the their personal views on smoking, they are just selling a product. That product might be free to the recipient, but it still needs to be ‘sold’. “Hello, can I help you?” Well, I have tried again and again to stop smoking, but I always start again”. How have you tried?” “Just by picking a date and stopping on that date”. “That does not work! What you need is support for that decision. Yes, choose a date, and be determined, but it would be a good idea to stick nicotine patches on your arm and chew nicotine gum when you feel desperate. Here’s a six month supply. Good luck! Come back if you struggle – we have other solutions”. Those people are just doing a job. But where does the rightious anger that academics display, and the zeal of ‘health professionals’ come from? Why do they bother? What does it matter to them is some people enjoy tobacco, even if the enjoyment of tobacco is harmful? What does it matter to them?
I can only think that there is a conspiracy. I mean that – it is the only reasonable answer. This is not a theory. Academics, along with their tame politicians, are not hysterical ‘anti-saloon’ teetotalers. They have some purpose in mind which may or may not be ideological in a religious sense. That purpose might be anti-multinational businesses. But, if that were so, why are they promoting regulations which only Big Business can comply with? Ought they not to be doing the opposite? Why are anti-smoker zealots not promoting snus and ecigs, as well as gum and patches and the dreaded Champix? Fear of long term effects do not wash since the long term effects of gum, patches and Campix are not known either.
The only conclusion that is reasonable is that most of the zealots, including political zealots (MPs and such) are small-time actors; that there are FAR BIGGER ideologies involved. Think of the millions of acres of land under tobacco cultivation; think of the millions of acres under vine cultivation, and hop cultivation, and sugar beat cultivation, and consider what would happen if those billions of acres were turned over to the production of food. “Let them eat cake” has never been so true, except that it has been reversed. “The people cannot afford puddings”. “Then let them eat bread!”
So, we can reasonably conclude that some group of people, ‘with no fixed abode’, is manipulating world health. Let’s face it, ‘world health’ is the latest face of colonisation. In Syria, no one in their right mind, at this time, would promote anti-smoking – unless they were acting to promote some specific agenda. Margaret Chan, Head of the WHO, decided that people dying from Ebola in great numbers NOW were of no significance, as compared with the theoretical deaths of billions and billions of people from smoking. Or should I say the billions and billions of deaths caused by the growing of tobacco plants, vine plants, hop plants, and land used to feed cows?
Brexit is only the beginning. As Churchill said, after the Battle of Britain (the air battle), “The is the end of the beginning, and not the beginning of the end”. How Theresa May can bear to have a Jeremy Hunt in her Cabinet, I do not understand. He is not English or even British; he is a ‘metro-New-World-Order Man’. A true believer in the ‘metrification’ of mankind to produce clones. I suppose that he also believes in ‘global warming’.
The original aspirations of the UN were entirely valid. They were intended to put an end to massive, world-wide violence, and they succeeded for the most part. But the new aspirations have gone to the opposite extreme – they encroach upon the freedom of the individual.
The Jeremy Hunts of this world clearly know what they are doing, and that does not bode well.