The Ship of State

In 1957, being a callow youth of 18 years, I saw nothing dangerous in getting on my bike with a few quid in a pouch around my neck and cycling off the Brussels. Not quite as straight forward as that, obviously. I spent a night in Stratford on Avon and took in a play at the Shakespeare Theatre, then carried on down to London where I spent a couple of days at my aunt’s place, then the boat train to Dover and Calais. As I said, that was in 1957. There are two abiding memories of that trip which have stuck in my mind. One was the presence of German guns still in place on the coastline of France. Two, was a huge pile of bricks and rubble in the centre of Lille. That was twelve years after WW2, and France could still not afford to ‘tidy up’. Such is the devastation of war. Rationing of food only ended in the UK in 1954 – nine years after the end of the war. The ‘good times’ only started to roll in the 1960s. Industry was building up and there was plenty of work. Young people had money to spend, and spend it they did. And yet Britain was still involved in wars all over the damned world – the Mau Mau in Africa, Korea, Malaya, and later, Vietnam. Why? Was it not obvious at the time that Britain, like France, was too f*cked  to do anything about those ‘rebellions’ other than delay the inevitable? The Korean war lasted for three years from 1950 – 1953. The division between North and South Korea still stands after some 65 years.

It was during that time (1950 onward) that Doll was amassing his Doctors Study statistics about the ill effects of smoking. He was not wholly unbiased, having been to Germany before the war to study. No doubt he was aware of and convinced by German anti-tobacco zealotry. No doubt he was aware of the failed attempts at tobacco prohibition in the USA.

I have no doubt, in my mind, that the prohibitionists in the USA did not go away. Maybe they seethed quietly over the failure of their eugenicist plans to stop people from drinking and smoking. Both were disgusting, filthy, stinking habits – like pissing in a swimming pool.

During the 1950s, 60s and 70s, Britain had enough to do keeping the Ship of State on a steady, reasonably safe, course. But, as time passed, the dangers became less onerous as the Empire broke up. The Commonwealth replaced the Empire. Trade and cooperation developed between countries in the Commonwealth – countries equal in status. The Ship of State was in good order and the sea was calm.

And then came along the Zealots – those prohibitionist Zealots who had not gone away. Vast numbers of people were still engaging in disgusting, filthy, stinking practices. Not only were those practices disgusting, etc, they were also consuming precious resources. Vast tracts of land were devoted to growing tobacco plants, which land could better be used for growing crops for the starving of Africa. Tobacco Companies were demons, but not because they did not share out the profits with the Africans who tended the crops. No, they were demons because they were using the land to grow tobacco crops.

The attempt by the UN to destroy tobacco has little to do with health as such, although there is a link between the two which helps the UN. The UN objective is ‘Sustainability’.

Although the UN does not actually spell it out, the number one objective of Sustainability MUST be population control. It just HAS to be. Absolutely nothing is more important. Most conflicts, whether they occur between families, tribes or nations, are nearly always about resources and possessions.

Throughout ages, thousands of years, Rulers (the owners of possessions and resources) have somehow managed to persuade the ‘hoi polloi’ that fighting and dying to preserve the Ruler’s possessions and resources is good news for them.

so I might ask this question: “What was the value to the UK of overthrowing a tin pot dictator like Gadaffi?” And the same for Saddam Hussein. What has been the result? It has been chaos, more bloodshed, economic collapse, mass migration, destruction of property on a massive scale, and general dissatisfaction. (Actually, the problem in Iraq was caused by the de-bathification, as though the bathists were similar to the nazis) Had the Yanks not treated Iraq as though it was Nazi Germany, the probability is that the functioning administration would have continued.

So our Ship of State was on course in calm waters. As McMillan said, “We have never had it so good”. But there were those who were not content, and they resided in High Places, like Universities. Good though the times in the UK were, they were not good elsewhere. The ‘good times’ were not sustainable, unless other people, like black Africans, suffered to provide the necessities of ‘the good life’. Such people invaded and took control over the UN. They had an ideal, which was ‘peaceful coexistence’, and it worked for a long time. I think that ‘peaceful coexistence’ is a great example of ‘hypernormalisation’. The fact is that, while the big nations were at peace on the face of it, they were bashing each other by proxy.

The proxy bashing did not stop, and still continues, but there appeared a vacuum – an empty space. No one was talking about disease. Throughout the cold war, when the USA and Russia were constantly vetoing each others resolutions in the Security Council of the UN, quietly, behind the scenes, the ‘Sustainability’ Zealots were infiltrating, and eventually achieved their wish in ‘The Millennium Goals’. Believe it or not, the Zealots got the ‘Millennium Goals’ passed through the UN around 1990. No one really knew anything about what was going on. I suppose that the goals were couched in language which no one could object to.

Tobacco control was one of those objectives. Too much land was being used for the growing of tobacco plants. The then UN (or WHO) Sec Gen said, “They can diversify” – aka “Let them eat cake!” That is true, although I cannot remember his name. Brum-something or other. That is what he said. In other words, he did not give a shit provided that the land in question did not grow tobacco plants.


So we come to the basic idea, and this is what I cannot understand. How is it that ‘The Zealots’ WIN again and again? I must elaborate on that statement. The Smoking Ban came from the Blair Government. I have it that Blair agonised over the ban but decided to approve it.

Why did he approve it? What information did he have which ‘proved’ that SHS was dangerous? Frankly, from my readings, there was NO actual evidence at all. In fact, Doll himself had said on TV that he would not be bothered by being in the same room where someone was smoking.

What Blair might not have foreseen, during his agonising, is the persecution which followed his decision. He caused the persecution of smokers, which is JUST THE SAME THING as the Nazi persecution of Jews. There is no difference whatsoever. “Disgusting, filthy, stinking” is actually more likely to be correct of smokers than Jews.

Simon Clark of Forest does not like us comparing the likes of Arnott to Nazis, but we must, for it is true. The only difference is ‘degree’. But Arnott is just a cypher.  She is the spokesperson for the Board of Directors of ASH. ASH is a charity with no members. It is ‘totally owned’ by the Royal College of Physicians.

I don’t object to the tax-free status of charities. Not in the least, if they are ‘not for profit’. But they should pay VAT, or some other transaction tax. In fact, would it not be a great idea for VAT to be transformed into a transaction tax? I mean, what do the words ‘value added’ mean? They mean nothing except a form of income tax. Are we not incredibly ignorant and stupid not to ask what ‘value added’ means?

It is reasonable to ask what the phrase ‘value added’ means. It is also reasonable to ask what SHS danger means. Note that I use the word ‘danger’ which ASH ET AL do not use. They use the word ‘harm’. Right. There is a danger that scoffing a huge meal, washed down with copious amounts of wine, might possibly cause you to peg out, and it will happen here and there.

So it is with the doctors study.  A very few smoking doctors got lung cancer, but far more than non-smoking doctors, if we accept that 15 out of a thousand is ‘far more’ than 1 out of a thousand. Well, yes it is, but it is of little importance. The reality is that 985 smoking doctors did not die from LC, and 999 non-smoking doctors did not die from LC. The difference is neither here nor there. [The numbers are hypothetical for ease of  comparison but not far off reality] But those doctors were far from ‘ideal’ doctors. They served in the forces and exposed themselves to all sort of disease and suffered the deprivations and fears of WW1 and WW2. So, they were, at the same time, both representative and unrepresentative.

As Fisher said, “doing exactly the same research will produce exactly the same results” – statistically.

In the past 20 years or so, male LC deaths have fallen a lot, but female LC deaths have risen. Male smoking has fallen a lot, but so has female smoking. So why have female LC deaths risen?

When I started this post, I did not intend to blather about TC. But one must recognise TC as a symptom. Suppose that the the Ship of State is ploughing through the Ocean, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, and everything is wonderful (as it was in the 1960s, what with the Beetles etc). Post-war trade with Germany and other nations, interrupted by WW2, is revitalising.

And then comes along a ‘viral infection’ which particularly affects politicians. It does not matter if the politicians are charlatans or not. They all become infected apart from a very few who seem to be immune.

Tobacco Control is only one, and the easiest, of the plans that UN ‘Sustainability’ has. But who elected those Superior Persons? And why did our actual elected representatives accept the idea that ‘they know their place’?

I envision Trump using the USA power to change things things, not necessarily for the better, but at least different. I am not sure what May might do. What is certain is that Brexit means Brexit, and there is no alternative. But I personally see Brexit as divorce from the EU Bureaucracy, and what is most important of all is the de-funding.

If May approves continuation of EU funding, then she betrays Brexit.

So the Ship of State sails on. The waters are calm. Only agitation on board the ship can bugger up the smooth movement of the ship.

But we see the reason for disruption of the smooth movement. It is tobacco control insurrection. The crew of the ship rebel because they have been told that smoking will bring on tornadoes in the sea in front of them.


May and her supporters need to exorcise the devils. All of them. Climate Change, Tobacco  Control, Fat Control – all of the academics have to be sacked and told to reapply for their jobs, just like the rest of us.



4 Responses to “The Ship of State”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    I get very fed up with people trying to control me. I enjoy Tobacco. Always have always will.
    I wish these fucking idiots would leave me alone. One can see how less well balanced people turn to assasination when they are really provoked.

    • junican Says:

      ‘Leave me alone’ is exactly the sentiment. Stop persecuting me with gigantic taxes and bans, etc. Arnott et al are not the problem. They are a symptom of malaise much further up the chain of command.

  2. Samuel Says:

    The goal is not population reduction. We are told over and over that the “developed” and “industrialized” nations are not replacing their “workers” fast enough to sustain the welfare chicanery built up since WWII and premised on ten paying “workers” for each “retiree” (the ponzi scheme is growing threadbare). The true goal is population replacement and the extinguishment of “Western Civilization”. The people of traditionally poorer, less educated and more fecund States have also, traditionally, been easier to manipulate and control and more given over to credulity and superstition. As older people leave their employments and “retire” they collect from the monies that were stolen from them in their youth to pay for their livings after the paychecks cease. Or, at least, that’s how it was supposed to happen. The truth is that the governments stole the money and spent it and then used freshly stolen money to pay retirees. All the while they found new reasons to pay people an “income” even when those people had never worked and never contributed a penny to the “fund” they were living off of. Meanwhile the stubborn old people refused to die before reaching retirement age and started actually making and sustaining, for years, claims on their bankrupt accounts and businesses found the young people wouldn’t work, because they could get paid to fo nothing by the government, or that the work could be done faster and cheaper somewhere else (such as India or China) of by robots. This further decreased the stolen money coming in while the money going out increased. There is, in fact, no need for new workers to be imported from other countries. There is no labor shortage. There’s just a significant gap between the money that was stolen over all those years and what’s left “in the vault” to pay the claims by all those long lived retired people and a need to change the political and social culture to one that is more compliant and one without any valid clains against the promises of the ruling class.

    • junican Says:

      I agree with your summary of the woes of the welfare state, Sam, but what I am talking about is exponential increase in the human population of the whole planet. It is that which the UN is interested in, and not the fate of individual states. ‘Sustainability’ means nothing unless the whole population of the World becomes stable at some figure, whatever that may be.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: