Trapped By Language

This is just a thought. It may not go anywhere.

A couple of posts ago, I talked about the phrase, “We can make a difference!” which tobacco controllers use frequently. I said that those people really mean, “We can win!”


Suppose that the England manager, just before a match against Germany, or whoever, assembled his team and gave them a pep talk. The team has been together for a few days and practised various scenarios, discussed weaknesses in the opposition and assigned jobs. The final word is with the Manager. He does not say, “We can and will BEAT THE BASTARDS!” He says, “We can make a difference”.

So, rather than say, “We can destroy the tobacco industry, and will use whatever means we can to do so, regardless of jobs and unhappiness”, they say, “We can make a difference”.

The trouble with such euphemisms is that they disguise reality.

Towards the end of WW2, the Americans dropped two atomic bombs on Japanese cities. Those bombs killed thousands and thousands of people, fathers, mothers, children, without distinction. Those people were not soldiers. Not for a minute am I judging the USA – believe me. I am not. Japan had to be forced to surrender, come what may.

And yet……….. Suppose that the USA had dropped those bombs on uninhabited islands around Japan? There are lots of little islands around Japan. Would not the point have been made? The invincibility of the USA? It is interesting that not one atomic bomb has been used since 1945. Perhaps the horror of such conflagration sunk in only after the the conflagration. No one involved in the dropping of those bombs has been brought before any sort of Nuremberg court and hanged. The victors write the history.

A couple of posts ago, I commented upon ‘may, might, related, suggest, imply, etc’. None of those words have any certainty. Taking a simple example, suppose that the weather forecast says that there is a 50% chance that it might rain tomorrow, or not. Therefore there is a 50/50 chance that it might rain somewhere in the UK. Thus, if a drop of rain falls anywhere in the UK, the forecast is justified. Either a drop of rain will fall somewhere, or it will not. That is 50/50, is it not?

And that is how the met office get away with bad forecasts. Also, the forecasters never apologise for their mistakes.

Forecasters make mistakes, as we have seen big-time with the last General Election, Brexit and the USA Presidential Election. But they never apologise. To me, that seems to indicate that they are just playing games. Anyone in politics who does not apologise for mistakes, or at least explain how he came to make a mistake, is a charlatan.

The whole administration of the UN, WHO, FCTC, IPCC, ETC, is corrupt beyond imagining. And the corruption depends upon getting away with euphemisms. Increasing taxes upon cigs is portrayed as ‘persuasion’ when the correct word is ‘persecution’. Smoking bans are described as ‘health promoting’ when the reality is that they destroy businesses and make not one iota of difference to health. Where are the studies about how much ‘healthier’ the population is due to smoking bans?

That is part of the problem – there is no language which can describe such things, even if there was an improvement in ‘general health’. TC is a subsidiary of the WHO – it does not have the language to describe ‘good health’. According to the WHO, everyone is ill.

I hope that Trump and May get together in the short term. Between them, ‘they could make a difference’. Just a few Countries provide the majority of the funds for the WHO etc. The USA is one, as is the UK, and several other first world countries. Most of the third world countries fail to pay their dues. Who can blame them? Why should they pay for their indigenous economies to be taken over by ‘Big Business’?


Over decades, a new language has emerged. ‘War’ is now described as ‘Correction’; ‘bombs’ are described as ‘ordinance’.  I have no doubt at all that the ‘Conference of The Parties’ to the FCTC consists of nothing more, in real terms, than “we can make a difference”.

The reality is that the people whom we elect are the people who make laws. We do not elect the EU. No one should vote to elect the EU Parliament’s useless tax-gobblers so that it fades away.

Language has to become more robust and accurate. I hope that Trump, May, Putin, etc, can get together and, collectively, describe reality.

But, most of all, I hope that Trump will stop subsidising the UN. It has become a leach attached to the ‘body politic’.

So we wait and see if Trump et al will start to talk in the language that we understand. I hope that he and his advisers do that.


7 Responses to “Trapped By Language”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    “And yet……….. Suppose that the USA had dropped those bombs on uninhabited islands around Japan? There are lots of little islands around Japan. Would not the point have been made?”

    Only if the military leaders of Japan were rational in our sense of the word.

    They were not.

    The thought of funding being cut for the UN and it’s climate control fills me with great joy.

  2. smokingscot Says:

    Mr. T has an uncanny ability to recruit extraordinary people. And the common sense to listen to them. Certainly that was absolutely crucial while he was campaigning.

    And the very few who didn’t deliver, or who attempted power plays were hoofed unceremoniously.

    He’s got somewhere in the region of 4,000 appointments to make – and it’s simply not realistic to think they’ll all sing from the same songsheet. Or that he’ll be able to get the very best.

    So he’s done something I admire; he’s doing the choosing for those closest to him and has handed over the rest to his Vice President.

    He (the VP) was on the telly today – a business channel, probably CNBC, saying their core values are 1) Less government. 2) Fewer rules and less regulation on business. 3) A review of foreign policy to determine what’s in the best interests of the USA.

    I noted he kept it very simple and tailored it to his audience.

    What we all know about Trump is he saw the smoking ban in NJ kill one of his casinos, so he has personal experience of what they do to business.

    And Mike Pence has been quite sceptical about the effects of smoking and quite virulent against smoking bans. There’s a great deal of critical stuff about Mike on the web – and this article’s no different (included only for the bits I’ve mentioned).

    If Mike still has connections with the tobacco industry then I’m 100% certain they’ll be able to brief him about the entire edifice (though again I feel they’ll boil it down to the bare essentials) both in the US as well as internationally. And yes both the UN and the WHO will be included in their briefing. As well as he who started it all:

    John Francis Banzhaf

    and set up ASH and helped concoct FCTC.

    Regards May. From her old role in government she knows all too well the effects of exclusion and isolation. I believe she has a good personal relationship with several key players (some retired) in the police/security services. I suspect she, as a person, is not one to support the means by which they want to reduce the numbers who smoke – and she seems to have been absent from all votes involving the ban and many of the measures subsequently adopted.

    What you may find quite amusing is this entry on tobacco tactics.

    Yes he’s there, May’s right hand man and Chancellor. And the bovine controllers think he’s one of the naughties because he accepted tickets from Japan Tobacco to attend two flower shows!

    Is he likely to be very different from Brown and Osborne? We’ll see.

    However there is some evidence that Ms May is either not being briefed, or the DoH is acting against the government. Did she know that Andrew Black would pledge £15 million to the WHO to do WTF they want with no checks or verification required?

    Certainly that attracted the attention of the Express.

    (though naff all that I’ve seen elsewhere).

    (As an aside within an aside Junican, the Tobacco Control lot don’t much like Priti Patel – and she ain’t too fond of them either).

    Regards some form of straight talking. I feel much depends on whether Ms. May goes for a snap election – and if she wins a full 5 year term and an increased majority.

    As things stand she’s got 3.5 years to clear up other people’s messes, try to run the country and get her party re-elected. It’s really far too much, especially as her main opponents within the EU. The bosses of France and Germany will / could (respectively) be replaced within a year.

    If it’s Le Pen, then we’ll get the lot, if it’s Alain Juppé then not without strings.

    • junican Says:

      Interesting links, SS. But we shouldn’t expect too much in the short term (which might be quite a long time!). For example, I would be surprised to see a direct attack upon the Clintons. A proper investigation into the emails affair is more likely, perhaps disguised as an investigation into computer security.
      As regards the UK, I still fail to understand why Cameron permitted the PP regulation. Why did he go further than the TPD demanded? And why on earth did the go along with the plastic bag ban? It wasn’t even a tax! And why did Osborne introduce a sugar levy? Was it just to raise more tax? In which case, he should have said so. Was he unaware that people are not stupid? Well, not all of them.
      The last link was particularly appropriate. It is rare to see anything in the MSM which criticises TC.

  3. Samuel Says:

    All is deception and things are not as they seem. The “history” books tell us that Japan surrendered and WWII was over when the US dropped the second atomic bomb; that it was the enormous destructive power and loss of life that forced their hand. This is not true.

    There were many reasons for Japan’s capitulation. One of these was their being cut off from essential resources (the main reason for the terribly expensive “Island Hopping” Pacific campaign “strategy” which, also, so conveniently “provided” the US with an extension of it’s Empire). The US had been alone in its Pacific war. Yes, the Australians and a few others contributed some help but it was a 99% US operation. Clearly, despite it being a “world” war and the US having so many “allies” with naval capabilities that could have been employed at sea while other arms were employed in the European land war, there were politics being played behind the scenes, off the front pages and, later, kept out of the school books.

    The US had already been busy fire bombing all the inhabited Japanese islands (but not the royal palace or main government buildings) and had already killed far more men, women, and children than would die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and this did not produce a surrender. The atomic bombs also did not produce a surrender.

    The war with Germany was already over (I have zero doubt the atomic weapon program was expedited to ensure it could be used against Germany and using it against Japan was merely to justify the millions already spent) and the Soviets were eager to secure the best of terms from their “friends”. They got those terms when the “West” handed all of Eastern Europe and half of Germany over to them. They also wanted China and Japan. Since China was “off the table” as a “non belligerent” they couldn’t justify a claim to it (they thought they had it, later, by funding Mao’s communist take over) but they did get a piece of Japan. It was only after the dropping of the second (and last) bomb that the USSR declared war on Japan (our Russian “friends” had only then discovered there was another war going on even though most of their weapons and materiel had been supplied by the US).

    It was the Soviet declaration of war that prompted the Japanese to sue for peace; they would rather deal with the US than with the USSR. They knew a distant US would be far less of a threat to their future than a close by communist empire that had long sought to take over all of Japan. The Russians did send a large army to Japan to occupy it but, as in Germany, they soon found the US wasn’t willing to let them take more than had been agreed upon and withdrew to concentrate on ruling in the parts of Europe they had been given.

    As an unrelated curiosity, if the people running the US were so convinced (as they frequently and loudly declare) that the “American way” is such a good thing wouldn’t they have, in every place they’ve taken control over, instituted a Constitutional government of a similar pattern to that which, though in rags and tatters, still governs the US? Instead it is always a “Parliamentary” system which is much closer to pure “democracy” or rule by mobs and force.

    • Darryl Says:

      “All is deception and things are not as they seem.”

      Agree. You’ve hit the nail on the head.

    • junican Says:

      Quite a history lesson, Sam! (Not pejorative)
      I’ve always thought that the dropping of the two atomic bombs must have convinced the rulers of Japan that the Japanese people could no longer be fooled by propaganda. Maybe that is why the US decided to actually destroy a couple of cities – so that the evidence could not be talked away.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: