The ‘Deep State’

The phrase ‘Deep State’ suddenly seems to have caught on. Essentially, it means that there is a level of ‘control and command’ within a State which is not subject to political control, or at least, not without great difficulty. Personally, I think that the ‘Deep State’ goes deeper than we think in that politicians know very well that they can only scratch the surface of ‘The Bureaucracy’. I think that they know that, if they overstep the mark, there are ‘People in the shadows’ who can bugger everything up. That is especially so when the so-called ‘ruling’ party has only a small majority.

I also think that the ‘Deep State’ has taken control of Agencies, such as the UN, WHO, EU, World Bank, IMF, IPCC and myriads of others, including vast numbers of big charities. It is not difficult to see how that could be done, provided that there was opportunity, time and money to do so.

And there was ‘opportunity, time and money’ to do so around the early 1960s.

Here are a couple of quotes from Wikipedia:

On January 11, 1964, Rear Admiral Luther Terry, M.D., published a landmark report saying that smoking may be hazardous to health,[5] sparking nationwide anti-smoking efforts. Terry and his committee defined cigarette smoking of nicotine as not an addiction. The committee itself consisted largely of physicians who themselves smoked. This report went uncorrected for 24 years.[6]

The important thing is the date.

And another:

He [George Godber] was instrumental is persuading the Royal College of Physicians to form a committee on smoking and lung cancer in 1958. Their report Smoking and Health, published in 1962 was important in bringing the link to the attention of the public.

The collusion is clear, although it is doubtful that anyone really noticed, because the effects of smoking, at the time, were described mostly as being short of breath and such. You know, no big deal and no real connection with serious ill-health.

Doll et al had produced the Hospital Study around 1950. It purported to show a big correlation between smoking and lung cancer. As an example, I shall quote this from my analysis of the Hospital Study:

He quotes a large-scale study from the USA (Wynder and Graham, 1950) which showed that only 1.3% of lung cancer patients were non-smokers, while 14.6% of general patients (not LC) were non-smokers.

It is easy not to ‘get’ the implications. The implications are:

Only 1% of LC patients are non-smokers, whereas 15% of patients suffering from other conditions are non-smokers. THEREFORE, smoking is 15 times more dangerous as regards contracting LC.

Of course, the actual study was far more detailed, but that relative risk (15 times) was the chief thing.

I remember reading that Doll et al were surprised that hardly anyone took any notice. I am pretty certain that the Doctors Study had already been planned because it started in 1951 – far too short a period for the planning to have been completed and the systems to have been set in place after the completion of the Hospital Study.

But I have digressed. The important thing is the collusion between Terry (USA SG) and Godber (UK CMO). It was they, in collusion with others, and especially with Foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, a known prohibitionist institution, who started the ‘long march through the Institutions’. It was they who began the persecution of smokers, but it took a long time, even to the extent that the originators had died, before their machinations overrode National Governments.

And now we see the results. There is a world-wide system in place which is totalitarian. No politician or group of politicians dare NOT TO support it. We have even arrived at a situation where a dictator is actively assassinating anyone who does not comply with his decrees. And he seems to be very popular in his country. Or perhaps the popularity is similar to Stalin’s and Saddam’s 99% votes in elections.

Will Trump do the business? He may, but ‘draining the swamp’ is not the correct symbol. It is more like tearing out the foundations of massive edifices. The problem with that is that only parts of the massive edifices are rotten.

What we lack, and have lacked for decades, is any sort of clear indication of what principles and ideals Government imposes upon itself. Government is a monopoly, and is dangerous. How many times does that truth have to be illustrated before politicians kill us all?



One Response to “The ‘Deep State’”

  1. Smoking Lamp Says:

    I agree that the data was altered to achieve the desired goal of prohibition. Unfortunately the fraud has become accepted wisdom and the totalitarian control regime is consolidating its power.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: