The ‘Deep State’

Long, long ago, an organisation called ‘The League of Nations’ was set up – in 1920, to be precise. It was a result of the Paris Peace Conference, which followed the end of WW1. Its purpose was to avoid future conflicts of the nature of WW1. It did not work. WW2 happened. Oddly enough, on paper, the LoN still existed in 1946 when it was replaced by The United Nations. No doubt the UN would claim to have prevented WW3, but anyone who believes that must be blind. What has prevented such a world war has been ‘the balance of power’ and nuclear weapons. The UN has not prevented localised wars a plenty all over the planet. In fact, you could reasonably say that the UN has prevented no wars at all. Where to begin? Malaya, Korea, India/Pakistan, South Africa, Middle East, South America, Bosnia, Somalia, Northern Ireland, Cuba, etc.

What has the UN actually achieved? It is tempting to say ‘NOTHING’, but that would be wrong. Under the guise of preventing war, it has established a World Government of a totally different kind. It goes under the nominal title of Health. And Health includes Global Warming. For what is the danger envisioned created by Global Warming? It is the decimation of humanity by starvation. But that must also imply over-populations, which the UN shies away from talking about. Perhaps they think that over-population can be corrected ‘at a later date’.

I cannot find it now….. Wait! I have found it. It states quite plainly that tobacco control is part of ‘sustainability’:

Entitled ‘Tobacco: A Threat to Development’ it’s a lunch reception and ‘policy debate’ hosted by Linda McAvan MEP, chairman of the European Parliament Development Committee.

Join us with high level speakers including Health Commissioner Andriukaitis and representatives of the WHO, the World Bank and international tobacco control advocates to discuss the importance of tobacco control to sustainable development [my bold].

We do not often see TC refer to its objective other than ‘health’ and ‘children’, but the bold bit above links TC to the UN millennium goals – sustainability. Sustainability cannot be achieved without population control, whatever anyone might say.

But, population control apart, one must ask why the enjoyment of tobacco is ‘unsustainable’. If that enjoyment reduces the longevity of smokers, then you would think that the UN would be advocating it to reduce the population. So why is the UN trying to reduce smoking? There is only one answer, which I have already mentioned – get rid of smoking and then address population control later – say, 50 years later.

So what is ‘sustainable’ about eradicating tobacco consumption? It can only be the use of millions upon millions of acres of land in the cultivation of tobacco plants. Those millions of acres could produce food. At the highest, ‘deep state’ level, in the UN, ANYTHING which continues the plantations of tobacco plants is anathema, which might explain the antipathy to ecigs. Sod the fact that ecigs are at least 95% ‘safer’ than smoking – they use nicotine, and therefore require the growing of tobacco plants since tobacco plants are the easiest source of nicotine.

As far as the ‘deep state’ of the UN is concerned, it is the growing of tobacco plants which is ‘unsustainable’.

The ‘deep state’ of the UN is illustrated very clearly by Simon Clark. Anyone who applies to attend a meeting/lunch about tobacco, must conform to FCTC demands – have nothing to do with consumers, since such consumers, by definition, are shills of Big Tobacco. A rep of Forest Europe was refused attendance.

Simon Clark recalls an earlier meeting in Brussels in 2008 purported to be “EU experts, civil society and social partners to support the Commission’s Impact Assessment on the forthcoming initiative on smoke-free environments”.

Simon was the only representative of consumers, but he was far from welcome. In fact:  “If I didn’t leave, said one, she would. Others nodded their heads in agreement.”

He was allowed to stay for the presentation, but not the discussion.

But what is most interesting to me is the list of ‘representatives’ who attended that meeting:

Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline (all pharmaceutical companies), Eurofound (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions), InwatEurope (International Network of Women against Tobacco), International Health and Social Affairs Office, NHS Health Scotland, Business Europe, EUN, HOTREC (representing hotels, restaurants and cafes in Europe), AESGP (Association of the European Self-Medication Industry), SFP (Smoke-Free Partnership) and EHN (European Heart Network)

Remember that that was in 2008.

So it is clear that there is an international, vastly expensive cartel of TC bodies, acting secretly in collusion, to bleed smokers dry with the intention of destroying tobacco plantations for the purpose of sustainability.

If that is not ‘Deep State’, I do not know what is. But what is comical is that there is no actual ‘State’ in evidence. The ‘States’ merely provide taxpayers funds to sustain these organisations, which would not exist without State funding.

Without State funding, TC would fade away overnight. But it cannot be done directly as such. There are too many UN organisations involved, such as the World Bank.

Would it not be wonderful if Trump, May, and all the major Countries’ leaders, got together and de-funded the UN totally? It has become a vastly expensive parasite, similar to the EU. At a stroke, all the intertwined bodies would disappear.

But that is where the ‘International Deep State’ comes in. It has an interest in perpetuating itself. It will fight hard and be supported by billionaire globalists. But just as the economic power of TobComs has been muted, so will be the uneconomic power of TobCon eventually. It is a citadel built upon sand.

POTUS could level the structure to the ground at a stroke if he a mind to. De-fund the parasite. In America’s interest, interference from elsewhere, like the EU and World bank should be terminated. Relationships with South America can be stabilised and bring prosperity to all, provided that Governments cooperate. The UN is totally useless and has no role in such exchanges, just as the EU had no role in the invasion of Europe from Islamic States. Note, not invasion by Muslims, but by invasion of Islamists.

Defeating the ‘International Deep State’ is very hard, but it must be done. There are ways to do it. For example, Soros could be declared to be an Outlaw by Trump. It is a long time since we saw a person to be declared to be an Outlaw. The importance is that such a person can no longer claim the protection of Law, and is thus at the mercy of all sorts of brigands and thieves. Soros’s fortune would disappear in an instant as everyone took a slice without fear of legal repercussions.

Am I dreaming? Perhaps, but history tends to repeat.

There is no doubt that there are far too many parasites. Brexit has revealed that the People of England especially will no longer tolerate the diminution of our living standards as a result of funding the Brussels Dictatorship.

England is a European country, and we wish to cooperate with other European countries to forge a ‘togetherness’. That ‘togetherness’ already existed prior to WW1, despite wars here and there. There are wars going on in the USA now. They are wars of supremacy between black and white. The Blacks want to impose segregation. How weird is that? No one wants that and yet that is what young black university students are demanding.

There is a craziness. In my opinion, that craziness started with the smoking ban, although that event might just have been a culmination of other crazinesses. I wonder how many ‘experts’ opined that WW1 would never happen? I wonder how many ‘experts’ said that WW2 would never happen?

There is a modern craziness surrounding all sorts of things, like global warming, smoking, eating, drinking, talking, etc. Only our elected representative can shout, “STOP IT!”

In my constituency for the GE, which candidate shows courage? I have no idea. The leaflets that have appeared through my letterbox are bland. Not one of them are in any way revolutionary.

We need a revolution. We really do.  Tory, Labour, Liberal, Green, UKIP, no longer make sense. Perhaps a new party called ‘The UK Prosperity Party’ could displace a lot of the sanctimonious parasites.



4 Responses to “The ‘Deep State’”

  1. Samuel Says:

    The long term goal is a return to feudalism with most people employed in subsistence farming on tightly restricted estates where the majority of land is left for wildlife and forests and where any remaining White people are forcibly “integrated” with “immigrants”. There should be no wonder that all “immigration” is from non White and non Christian populations. Any resistance to this is swept aside as “racist” actions against “minority” populations, ignoring the obvious that only White persons are in the minority on Earth and it was always the White people who opened their borders – voluntarily – to so called “minority” people and accommodated their communities and cultures to “diversity”. Everywhere White people emigrated to, where the native population was not destroyed through introduced diseases, it was the immigrants who were kept at the physical and cultural margins or simply killed. Yet, it is not these “minority” populations who control the governments and corporations and “news” agencies or the central banking of the world – the primary movers for “change” that only pits races and cultures against each other for their own purposes. Where these agents of “change” have had little room to operate people of differing backgrounds have, usually, found a way to live in peace – even if they had to hold each other at arms length – because no matter who you are, where you came from or what group you hold yourself a part of people, generally, are not murderers or thieves or liars – directly opposite of those working to seize total control of everything and everyone today.

    • junican Says:

      The main thing that struck me as important about your comment was the final bit. It is the people seeking control who are the aggressors in today’s world.

  2. Rose Says:

    Climate change report sets out an apocalyptic vision of Britain
    February 2010

    “Mass migration northwards to new towns in Scotland, Wales and northeast England may be needed to cope with climate change and water shortages in the South East, according to an apocalyptic vision set out by the Government Office for Science.

    Heathrow would be converted into a giant reservoir by 2035, there could be severe restrictions on flying and driving and farmers would be forced to sell their land to giant agricultural businesses. Greenhouse gas emissions would be controlled by carbon rationing for individuals, which would lead to “significant shifts in lifestyle as everyone tries to stay within budget”.

    The Government would ease pressure on the South East by planning to “disperse citizens to three new towns in Dumfries and Galloway, Northumberland and Powys”.

    The vision is published today in a report entitled Land Use Futures: Making the Most of Land in the 21st Century.
    John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, who directed the research, said that climate change and the growing population would present Britain with difficult choices about how it used its land.”

    “Business as usual is not an option over the longer term. The effects of climate change and new pressures on land could escalate, seriously eroding quality of life,” he said.

    The report says that the projected population increase of nine million by 2031 and an increase in the number of single-person households would result in unprecedented demand for land for development and put pressure on natural resources such as water. By 2050, hotter, drier summers could reduce river flows by 80 per cent.

    The report, compiled by 300 scientists, economists and planners, includes three scenarios to “stimulate thought” and “highlight difficult policy dilemmas that government and other actors may need to consider in the future”.

    All the scenarios involve dramatic changes in lifestyles and landscapes in response to climate change. In the most extreme scenario, world leaders hold an emergency summit in 2014 when it becomes clear that the impacts of climate change are going to be far worse and happen much sooner than previously envisaged.

    The Government responds by taking control of vast tracts of land and using it to grow wood and crops for biomass power stations. An agricultural productivity Bill requires farmers to increase yields per hectare but most have to sell up because they lack the resources to comply. “The average farm size in the UK increases from 57 hectares to 500 hectares; farms in the East and South East of England increase to 5,000 hectares.”

    The report says that satellite images in 2060 would reveal dramatic changes in the countryside. “The landscape is mottled with wind turbines; the patches in the patchwork are bigger; there are more forests and fewer animals; there are fewer vehicles moving along the roads.”

    In another scenario, the Government redefines land as a national resource and the rights of landowners are balanced with “society’s rights to public benefits from the services produced by it”.
    Home ownership falls as people begin to embrace the idea of “stewardship” of shared natural resources.”

    With the new Garden Tax , it looks like Labour intend to carry on with it.

    JEREMY Corbyn’s so-called ‘garden tax’ on the value of land could treble average council tax bills for middle-class homeowners across the UK, it has been claimed.

    • junican Says:

      Still spewing the same propaganda, despite evidence that they are wrong. How do they get away with it? Because there are no consequences. They can say ANYTHING THAT THEY LIKE. Newspapers are always ready to publish doomsday scenarios because they are exciting. Scientific repudiation would not get a mention because it is intellectual and not exciting. I really, really hope that Trump goes through with his rejection of the Paris ‘climate accord’ or whatever, and that he is not just trying to get a better deal for the USA.
      Land Value Tax has been pushed by several economists. I would be in favour of it (provided that it replaced lots of other taxes) if there was income derived from the land. Where I disagree is that home owners might be taxed when they derive no income from their homes. Council Tax, based upon the supposed value of your home, is bad enough.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: