Mission Creep In The FCTC

VGIF (Velvet Glove, Iron Fist by Chris Snowdon) has an interesting article about the machinations of COP 8:


One thing that struck me, amongst many others, is that the FCTC has now set up another subsidiary called:

the Global Strategy to Accelerate Tobacco Control – to ‘reinforce government policies and accelerate global action for more effective implementation of the tobacco control treaty’.

Oh, and there is already another subsidiary called: the Framework Control Alliance. Oh, and there is another shindig just starting in Geneva called MOP 1, which ‘aims to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products’. I have no doubt that the word ‘illicit’ means ANY trade in tobacco products, other than that which is controlled by ‘The Mob’.

Do we see a pattern emerging? What is the difference between TobCON and The Mafia? The rake-off for TobCON from the ‘licit’ sale of tobacco products is massive. See what the COP 8 cost:

US$ 577 per minute ($1,906,000 for 55 hr of meetings). I should imagine that most delegates will also have their own grants as well.

Oh, and the IPCC has just published its undoubtedly massively costly list of ‘wish-thinks’ to take us all back to medieval times. It was published with massive publicity, including a glowing report on the BBC. “Scientists have …..”. For some reason that eludes me, the list of ‘wish-thinks’ needed a dozen or more tailors’ dummies on a podium to make it seem to be important. The report is here:


Here is a quote:

“The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.”

What does that mean? It is that there is no way that it is possible to hit that target of 45% reduction by 2030! Are cities to be raised to the ground? Is land to be returned to 90% coverage by forests? Are the deserts to be made to bloom? In climate timescales, it is only five minutes ago that England had a population of some 5,000,000 and was 90% forest. Oh, an it was round about then that the medieval warm period and the little ice age took place.

There is something like the moon landings about the whole FCTC, IPCC, EU, UN ‘project’. The impetus to ‘go to the moon’ was to see if it could be done. That is what it was all about. Actually going to the moon revealed little that was not already known.

I am venturing out on a limb here because I am ignorant, but I read Feynman’s ‘Lectures on  Physics’ (I have a copy on my computer somewhere). He reckoned that light was not reflected from objects like the moon but absorbed, which caused the material on the surface of the object to emit light in its turn. Thus a green leaf absorbs ALL the sunlight which strikes its surface, but only emits green light in response. I suppose that the leaf might also emit infra red and ultra violet, but I do not know. I would imagine (but do not know) that moonlight has been analysed to death, which analysis would reveal the nature of substances on the moon’s surface. I’m not saying that it was not worth collecting samples of moon rocks, but I would expect that they would merely confirm what was already know.

The UN and all its subsidiaries are way, way out of date. They are monopolies which exist only because there is no competition, and because they are very remunerative. To make it even better, none of the well-rewarded ‘experts’ have to do any actual work at all! They can make it all up, if they wish.

Is that not one of the wonderful things about Brexit? The UK will no longer be obliged to pay for the EU ‘delegates’ to the UN, and its servile, UN-directed ‘health and sustainability’ departments.

But do the likes of PM Tessa May et al have the strength of character to call a halt to the whole charade? I doubt that they would even know where to start. The President of the USA gave a hint, in fact, several hints. He withdrew from the International, UN court on the grounds that it has no authority over US citizens; he withdrew from the ‘Paris Accord on Climate Change’ on the grounds that it gave countries like China an advantage economically; he decided that the US would pay no more than 25% of the UN Peace-keeping force.

So why has the UK not declared that it will pay no more than 25%, if that, to support the FCTC org? Why not no more than 10%? Why does the UK contribute the vast majority of funding for the FCTC with only a handful of other countries contributing?

It seems to me that such contributions constitute ‘illicit’ transfers of taxpayers funds because the are funding ‘Mafia-like’ operations. Trump has already called for the UN to reform itself, to no avail. I can fully understand his thinking. For example, why should a ‘General Assembly’, consisting mostly of impoverished, small nations, dictate the actions of the USA?  Much the same applies to the EU Parliament.

Trump has decided that he is having none of it. The USA will not be dictated to by impoverished tyrannies.

So why is the UK not doing the same? Is it that PM Tessa May et al do not know? I doubt it. I think that their thinking revolves around votes. Let me put it this way. Suppose that out of 1000 people, 800 do not give a shit about the UN and its works. Suppose that the other 200 are, to a greater or lesser extent, supporter of the UN. Which group are likely to vote in favour or against the Gov in elections because of the UN?

Better to ignore the UN until the shit actually hits the fan?


4 Responses to “Mission Creep In The FCTC”

  1. Elizabeth Says:

    Good post I think. All the ‘bits’ drawn together. Thank you.

  2. Philip Neal Says:

    Like you, Junican, I often wonder how our elected and, increasingly, unelected leaders come by their opinions. That fascinating old book The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon strikes me as very relevant. It is about crowds as a phenomenon – impulsive, irrational, easily swayed, and as stupid as the stupidest member.

    Le Bon makes the important point that high-level gatherings such as parliaments, party conventions and international conferences are just as much crowds as the Paris mob of old, just as unreasoning, prone to groupthink and zealotry. Perhaps the cure is to ban the international junkets beloved of climate activists, tobacco control activists and the rest of them, since the participants always seem to come back even more radical than when they left home.

    • junican Says:

      The key word is ’emotion’. A political ‘crowd’ tends to be just as emotional as a football crowd. What was the point of spending $1.9 million on a shindig when the text of the speakers’ speeches could have been emailed to the participants? The gatherings are about excitement, confirmation and pleasure. The most important question is the justification of the cost and the need to reduce those costs to zero.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: