More About ‘The killing Fields’

I have finished the series of blog posts about the causes of WW1. The posts finished once hostilities really started, which is to be expected since the series was about the causes of the war.

I’m not sure that I accept the theory that a small cabal of ‘interested parties’ deliberately sought war with Germany to crush German power in the world. I just am not sure. Certainly, I am prepared to accept that there was a lot of deception by the British establishment, but there might also have been a similar amount of deception by the German establishment.

My thinking always come back to the same problem. What was the point? Suppose that the German army had comprehensively beaten the French army? Would Germany have annexed France?

I am not sure, but I think that the British Empire was mostly established with consent. Sure, there was force involved, but I think that the ‘Pax Britannica’ was a real benefit. The Roman Empire brought real benefits to most of the people of conquered territories. There was protection and the rule of law.  It took some three centuries for the Roman Empire to collapse, and that was mostly because of corruption.

Would Germany have been able to annex France? I doubt it. There would have been no consent whatsoever. But you might reasonably ask whether the Germans would have succumbed to the annexation of their country. After WW2, Germany was occupied, but that occurred partly because their was no other option, and partly by consent. The German people were starving. But Germany remained Germany, even though it was split.

But what I have found most disturbing about WW1 is the use of directed propaganda. Even MPs were subjected to it. There was no escape. It was relentless. To question the statements of Minsters was seen to be almost the same as treason.

So was WW1 the result of a conspiracy amongst a small number of elite magnates? If so, then they have kept very quiet about it. There has not, to my knowledge, been a death-bed confession.

But what matters to us smokers is that the lessons about the effectiveness of propaganda were well and truly learnt by our persecutors. Remember that anti-tobacco formed part of Prohibition in the USA in the late 1800s/early 1900s. Many US States prohibited tobacco just as they did alcohol. Smoking was just as wicked as booze.

Not a lot has changed. The same relentless use of propaganda is evident. It was less intense before the millennium, but is now everywhere. If you look up ‘COPD’ on the internet, you are confronted by relentless propaganda which says that COPD is almost always caused by smoking. But what is COPD? It is ‘Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease’. But there is no such disease. The phrase describes a group of specific problems which are not really diseases. They are ‘conditions’. In today’s world, it is unlikely that you will die from a ‘disease’, unless you are very old. Pneumonia polishes off large number of 80 year olds. That means that their aged lungs cannot defeat infections. It is their age which matters. Nothing can be done about it in the end.

I am not saying that smoking contributes nothing to those deaths, or that it is not a major factor. What I am complaining about is the propaganda which says that smoking is THE MAJOR FACTOR. But it is all propaganda.

Dick Puddlecote has revealed that ASH ET AL intend to promote criminal prosecution of Tobcoms:

The chances of such a trick proceeding are negligible. They have not a leg to stand on. Their attempt to prove ‘negligence’ was blow apart by the McTear Case:

Sadly, WordPress has been playing up and the rest of this post was lost. I cannot recreate it.

Enough for now – I am tired.



%d bloggers like this: