Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

When the UK Becomes ‘Smokefree’

26/09/2018

So we take the definition of ‘smokefree’ as stated by TobCON – no more than 5% smoking prevalence. Of course, it is quite likely that TobCON will say that there are still far too many smokers. 5% of an adult population of some 40,000,000 is 2,000,000. But suppose that ‘smokefree’ is achieved. What will happen to ‘smoking related diseases’?

I have found a useful site. It lists 50 ‘reasons’ to stop smoking or not to start:

https://www.unitypoint.org/livewell/article.aspx?id=17ace3fc-fb01-45c3-8617-1beb81404fc4

Frankly, with a bit more invention, they could probably have doubled or trebled that number. Anyway, another site listed 32 ‘health problems’ linked to smoking. But, oddly enough, I could not easily find a simple, direct list of ‘smoking related diseases’. I did not look far because there are loads and loads of sites, all ‘propaganda related’. Perhaps, as part of its internet censorship, the Gov should take a look at those sites. There is clearly a conspiracy to flood the internet with only one totalitarian narrative.

So what will happen to those diseases?

OK. Here is a short list:

  • Lung Cancer. Smoking dramatically increases your chances of developing lung cancer. …
  • COPD. …
  • Heart Disease. …
  • Stroke. …
  • Aortic Aneurysm. …
  • Oropharyngeal Cancer. …
  • Esophageal Cancer. …
  • Cataracts.

So if smoking stopped, would nobody suffer and die from those diseases?

It is not sufficient to say that smoking ‘increases your chances of …..’. That does not establish cause and effect. In fact, the wording is wrong. A better sentence would be ‘If you are a smoker, it is somewhat more likely that…..’.

I read Simon Clark’s piece at:

http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/blog/2018/9/25/fewer-smokers-want-to-quit-official.html

I admire Simon, but sometimes he also gets his phrases wrong. EG, in that piece,

At that point what possible reason could there be for further anti-smoking measures?”

It is an easy mistake to make. Was the 2007 smoking ban intended to stop people from smoking? No, it was not. The propaganda said that it was to stop bar staff etc from suffering from SHS. Its effect, however, was entirely to bash smokers. It is hard to believe that there was not an intention to bash smokers, since it is perfectly obvious that there were alternatives to the ban.

No, it has gone on for far too long. Every smoking ban and other ‘initiative’ (especially taxation) is aimed directly to hurt smokers. Arguments stating ‘for the children’ are just straw men. So Simon’s phase should read:

“At that point what possible reason could there be for further anti-smokER measures?”

The diseases listed in the above short list will not go away. Sooner or later, some ‘condition’ will cause a major organ to fail and the person will die.

Another thought. What will happen when everyone, from birth, is diagnosed to have some ‘non-communicable disease’?

Is there an answer? There must be, but politicians are not the people able to decide since they are here today and gone tomorrow. The answer ought to be provided by academics, but they seem to be obsessed by ‘preventing what cannot be prevented’ -aka, death.

But, in the first instance, it would probably be a ‘good thing’ if correct words were used. The word ‘disease’ should never have been allowed to be corrupted. For example, malaria is undoubtedly a disease. It is ‘communicable’ in the sense that mosquitoes ‘communicate’ it? But, hang on a minute. I always thought that ‘communicate’ meant exchanging information either verbally or by other means. When did the word ‘transfer’ cease to be appropriate? But if a disease cannot be ‘transferred’, by whatever means, it is NOT a disease. It is a ‘condition’.

I suffer from prostatism. It concerns the effect of the prostate gland becoming enlarged. It is not uncommon. I wonder how many readers know that the ears and nose continue to grow bigger throughout life? The effect of the enlargement is to squeeze the uthera and interrupt the flow of urine from the bladder to the outside.

It is not ‘a disease’. It would be stupid to say that it is, any more than to say that a broken leg is a disease, even though it is ‘non-communicable’, or, better, ‘non-transferable’.

Words have power. The more dramatic the word, the more carefully it should be defined and used. Words like ‘epidemic’ and ‘crisis’ should be curtailed to be more precise in their meaning.

‘Smokefree’ is a nonsense word. The atmosphere always contains smoke. It will always contain smoke. “There is no safe level of smoke” is a silly statement because it is impossible to prove – it is impossible to prove a negative. “There is no safe level of alcohol consumption” suffers from the same defect – it is impossible to prove.

In the meantime, we must find every opportunity to laugh at ‘Public Health’. EG, what area of London will become ‘smokefree’ by 2030?

Advertisements

The Effects Of The ‘Deep’ State

25/09/2018

I read somewhere that the reason for the collapse of the Roman Empire was that it became too cumbersome. The idea of ‘cumbersome’, to my mind, is much the same as ‘deep’. The EU is the epitome of ‘cumbersome’ and is therefore the epitome of ‘deep’.

‘Deep’ does not have to mean ‘almost bottomless’, although that is implied. It is more like the hydra – chop off one head and two new ones appear. The ‘deep’ state is thus much better described as the ‘jungle’ state. (I am sure that readers will be able to think of a more catchy phrase!)

“Deep in the jungle, living in a tent; better than a prefab – no rent”. You need to be of a certain age to recognise that quote.

The ‘Jungle State’ takes years and years to develop itself, but once it gets going, it multiplies and multiplies, so much so that it becomes impenetrable. Thus, it would take a long time to actually cut the jungle back. Far easier to ‘slash and burn’.

In a way, defunding is ‘slash and burn’ in that it is not targeted, and itself requires a huge department to administer. To make matters worse, it never seems to occur to the ‘Jungle State’ that its first target ought to be itself. Why? Because the state itself is a monopoly.

It is hard to understand why Cameron created ‘Public Health England’. ‘Public Health’ has been ‘under control’ (sewage, etc) for generations. Systems are in place for vaccination against most dangerous diseases. So it should have been obvious that PHE would have little to do, unless it invented new ‘dangers’. Thus, Cameron created another vastly expensive extension to the ‘State Jungle’.

It seems not to matter one jot that clever people examine the system and point out its faults. The Jungle State does not give a damn.

One might ask how can the Jungle State be ‘slashed and burnt’ without great harm? Well, it all depends upon where you start. For example, ‘smoking cessation services’ could be abolished and staff reassigned. It would not be difficult. Funding anti-smoking departments in Unis is another, and especially demanding that professors teach and not waste student and public money on biased studies. They can do them in their own time at their own expense. So called ‘not for profit’ orgs like CRUK should be investigated and  taxed to pay for the investigation. Target and defund first, and then make the ‘charities’ reapply.

Make academics WORK for a living.

The effects of the ‘deep’ (cumbersome) state are to drain resources to perpetuate itself. Let’s face it. It is almost certain that the smoking ban has not had the slightest effect on ‘the health of the nation’. But the economic effects, in terms of closed pubs are well known. On top of that, how many studies have been performed to assess the loneliness downside to pub, club, bingo hall, closures?

How many miserable and lonely people have nowhere to go? The smoking ban caused the places that they went to to become unprofitable, which caused their closure. There is no doubt.

Brexit will be useless unless it includes all the connections between the EU and ‘One World Gov’. For ‘Government’ means coercion, and the idea of ‘One World coercion’ is very frightening indeed.

Under What Decree Did Public Health England Gain Control?

23/09/2018

Readers might remember that I mentioned that I suffer from  Prostatism. The word describes a condition where the prostate gland, which surrounds the uthera, become enlarged and squeezes the uthera making it difficult to pee. The problem can be alleviated with drugs which cause the gland to relax.

I have been having problems so took advantage of an offer of a full blood test, which included a prostate test.

I got to see the Practice Nurse about the results of the test and everything is more or less OK apart from my iron count, which is somewhat low, but not problematical, and my prostate count which is a little high. Needless to say, I was asked if I smoke, to which I replied that you already know that from my record. Yes. How much? I don’t count, but around 40 or 50 cigs per day, but I hardly inhale. Also, I do not do heroin or ecstasy, or anything like that. Do I drink? Yes. I go to the pub on Wednesday and have two pints; on Friday, I have three pints, and on Sunday I have two pints. But I also enjoy red wine? How much. OH…. About a litre per night. You should have seen the look of horror on her face. What!!? Government guidelines say a maximum of 14 units per week. You are drinking far, far more than that. Yes, I know about the guidelines. They were figures plucked out of the air by the Chief Medical Officer. Not long ago, they were 21, and before that 28. Other countries have much higher figures. Ha! Ha! Ha!

I then got to see the doctor about the prostate. Nothing decided, but further tests required. The main thing is to get THE FACTS.

But my point tonight is the clear evidence from my discussion with the nurse that lies and deceit have gone mainstream in the relationship between doctor and patient. How can you trust your doctor if his main staff are are lying and promulgating  propaganda? These people KNOW that they are promulgating lies and deceit, precisely because of their intelligence and training. So why are they doing it?

The only answer is that they have been forced to do so. But how? What government mechanism has been employed? What mechanism has been employed to convince those educated and trained employees to assume that guidelines are honest, when they are manifestly not?

Which takes us to the mechanism.

I am not sure how it might work. I read somewhere that GPs get extra money if they ask patients who smoke if they would like a referral to ‘stop smoking services’. The Nurse asked me that question, and, of course, I declined. So that is one method – bribery. But what organisation has the authority to offer and pay bribes? It can only be the Ministry of Health. But it makes no sense for the Ministry itself to organise the bribing. Perhaps there is an offshoot which operates the system. I could envisage GPs being required to fill in a document, citing my personal details, and stating that I was asked the questions and offered the advice. How else could GPs be deterred from completing loads and loads of false claims to boost their income?

But the original scheme MUST have come from PHE, since that is what PHE exists to do. It exists to ‘improve the general health of the population’. The important word there is ‘general’. That is, the aim is to subject the population, as a whole, to propaganda and various forms of force in order to reduce the percentage, overall, of alcoholics, fatties and smokers. That is the job of PHE. PHE produces the plans which might achieve that ‘population wide’ objective. It submits those plans to a Junior Minister (most certainly not to the Minister of State him/her self). The Junior Minister (of health) is the one who ‘officially’ grants permission for bribery and force. Then that minister is shuffled and any trace of personal responsibility disappears. All traces disappear, unless someone is prepared to spend oceans of time and effort to discover those traces. But even if someone does, no ‘scandal’ ensues because there there is no sex in it.

In the same way that it seems impossible for smokers to organise so as to speak with one voice, nor can any other despised group. In any case, there is no political party which speaks for them.

It would have been interesting if UKIP had widened its remit to include ‘independence’ from control of the People by ANY external body, such as the UN, WHO, IPCC, FCTC, World bank, IMF, etc, etc, etc. Billions of pounds could be saved and put to better use by defunding them all.

I have no objection to the idea of Public Health England, but I object to lies, propaganda, and force. All three amount to PERSECUTION. Lies and propaganda are just as much persecution as force.

So the answer to my question is that there was no decree. PHE is supposed to be a ‘Non-Government Organisation’, but it is anything but. But, as things are, it works the other way round – the NGO uses government as a tool, and can get away with as much persecution as it likes.

So where does PHE get its power from? It is because there is no antidote. There is no NGO which analyses its claims. I am speaking of a powerful group of statisticians with complete independence, preferably people who are recently retired or nearing retirement.

For every NGO, there must be an equal and opposite NGO. For every advisory committee, there must be another committee, totally independent from the first. And there must not be multiple committees masquerading as different entities when they are all the same.

Government should have sorted this out years and years ago. ONE committee will come to a decision, whether that decision is the best or not. Several committees will come to different decisions, provided that they do not collude.

But I would agree that it is not easy. And for that reason, I deplore the decision of Blair and his Cabinet to enact the smoking ban. It is not easy, and so the decision should not have been predicated upon success in Scotland and Ireland. Those ‘successes’ were, in fact, awful failures in the sense that they caused massive disruption for no purpose, since SHS is not dangerous.

The crude reliance upon ‘whole population’ regulation must cease.

But when will politicians see it? To gain respect, they must be honest and transparent. That means that they must say that they are prepared to persecute smokers, drinkers and fatties, and explain why they do so.

There comes a point where one might ask the question: “Who can I vote for if all of the candidates are happy to persecute ME?”

It is not an easy question to answer in a General Election.

Where Is The Saviour of Western Civilisation?

21/09/2018

It is not that long ago that most of the European population were serfs, aka slaves. They were supposed to be ‘free men’, but the reality was that they dared not step out of line, otherwise they would be made examples of – deprived of employment, impoverished and probably accused of some felony and imprisoned or hanged. Ordinary people would have accepted the propaganda of the Lord and Master, that they were well rid of this scum.

Our Western Civilisation is being eroded bit by bit with only an Elite benefiting. But that Elite spreads the benefits just enough to make its serfs believe that they are important. Thus, conferences are arranged in splendid places and delegates, often politicians, are housed for free in five star hotels, and wine and dine in the best possible places. And it all conveys an impression of invincibility. Exclusion of the press also gives the impression of omnipotence.

No wonder that politicians quake in fear when confronted by the Royal College of Physicians or the British Medical Journal.

But the whole point of having a Parliament is that the elected members must be fearless – every single one of them. They should be prepared to serve only one term and be rejected at the next election, provided that they follow their principles. When they stand for election, they should declare their principles. Offering increased benefits should disbar them in the minds of the decent people, and so should intentions to persecute citizens.

I think that, for FAR TOO LONG, voters have not read the manifestos of the Parties. I must admit to being equally guilty. I do not remember even one occasion when I read the manifesto of any Party. But it is also true that the MSM NEVER publishes the manifestos, rips them to bits or applauds them. It is almost as though the MSM do not want The People to know what the manifestos contain.

As far as I know, the Labour Party manifesto DID NOT include a smoking ban ten years ago. So why was there not an outcry in the MSM when the Smoking Ban was proposed? The only reasonable conclusion is that the MSM was already ‘on-side’. Certainly, the Mirror, the paper of choice for working men, was ‘on-side’. One can only assume that the proprietors of the Mirror regarded their readers as inferior intellects which needed to be ‘educated’ – by force. “This will teach you!!” A slap. To be followed by more and more slaps, becoming harder and harder. “This will teach you!!!!!!!!!!!”

So why does anyone, especially the working man, still buy the Mirror?

I buy the Sun on Saturdays for only one reason – that it has the best TV programme guide. I read it, usually about Tuesday, to amuse myself about the salacious goings-on of ‘celebs’. Also, the couple of pages of agony aunt waffle about the sexual exploits of various silly people are always worth a laugh. The sex is always ‘amazing’. Other than that, forget it. Political comment is equally childish and brief. The Brexit attitude is massively simplistic. It is akin to “your job is to kill Germans”, as was said in WW1. But as I said a couple of days ago, there are masses of simple agreements, preceding the EU, which should have been ‘ticked off’, such as overflying. I was in the Airforce between 1960 and 1963. I was in radar. I was stationed in Cyprus for two years. We monitored air traffic. Even then, flight plans were lodged. Air liners (as they were known at the time) called in when approaching the airspace of the area controlled by Air Traffic Control in Cyprus. The official Air Traffic Control was based in Nicosia, but our radar was far superior to theirs. The important thing is that there was cooperation. I was even seconded to the civilian ATC for a couple of days to observe the cooperation and to experience that cooperation. The important thing is that there was nothing whatsoever frivolous about it. It was, even then, a serious matter when a ‘blip’ appeared on the radar screen. Speed and height were calculated by the radar machines and displayed. The aircrew called in when they were within range. From time to time, rarely, a mysterious ‘blip’ appeared, and a fighter was scrambled to intercept it. It was always some harmless Cessna or similar which had failed to supply a flight plan, or something like that. Such incidents were jolly good practice for the fighter pilots.

Those experiences are what form the foundation of our British Identity. In Cyprus, the Air Force defended part of the Middle East. It ensured, partly, the peace of the area. We Brits established ‘Pax Britannica’ for a couple of centuries.

All that effort is being wasted by belligerent anti-smoker legislation and persecution. We have descended back into tribalism. But the ‘tribes’ are not ‘natural’. They consist of people who are terrified of a bit of ‘miasma’ – a bit of tobacco smoke. Further, they are even terrified of the smell of ecig vapour. But, for some strange reason, they are not terrified of the scent or aftershave. Nor do they seem to be terrified of cooking smells or diesel fumes, or the scent of flowers. Only ‘brainwashing’ can account for it.

We smokers cannot establish a united front against the Zealots. We do not have the money, organisation or time to do so. It would take only ONE billionaire to take up our cause for the shit to hit the fan. It really is sad that Trump decided to stand for POTUS rather than defend and free smokers.

Zealotry

20/09/2018

Frank Davis, in a comment on my last post, reminded me of how some businesses try to enthuse staff so that they try harder than their wages demand. For example, why should a person working in a shop on the minimum wage, try to ‘sell’ profitable products to customers? In the past, there was a built-in incentive – if a staff member sold a particular product, even if the customer asked directly for that product, the staff member received a bonus. The more expensive the product, the greater the bonus. Thus, staff who ‘sold’ products were rewarded with income greater than the minimum wage.

But what seems to inevitably happen is that some ‘marketing expert’ comes along and tries to ‘enthuse’ staff to work for no reward. Generally, the trick is to make people believe that they will somehow be rewarded in some sort of Heaven.

How many people, currently employed by Tobacco Control and PHE would turn up for work every day, and do the work, if they were not paid to do so? Would Selbie do so? For, if he would not, then he is not as enthusiastic as he seems. His words at the conference were just deliberate lies.

He may not know that they were deliberate lies, although that is doubtful. He must have known that everything that he said could be summarised as, “WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!” And that is all. Whether the ‘difference’ is good or bad, in terms of the welfare of The People, is neither here nor there. Only the objectives of PHE matter – destroy tobacco companies, debilitate drinks companies (including soft drinks), overwhelm food companies with calorie counts, and generally create mayhem.

It is a matter of simple fact that elected politicians, no matter what education they might have endured, cannot even remotely possibly know enough about any subject. Space exploration? Micro-biology? Weather and Climate? League tables of deaths in hospitals? Thus, they are at the mercy of their advisers. But who decides who their advisers should be? We have seen, again and again, MASSIVE errors (of which the Smoking Ban is one). Most of the crap decisions are hidden, but, occasionally, one becomes known, such as the multi-billion aircraft carrier which has no aircraft. The WHO is another completely corrupt mess. I learnt today that only the UK, Australia and New Zealand contribute to the FCTC org.

If that is true, what sort of Elite is directing the dispensation of funds? Why have PM May etc not brought that Elite to justice?

In OUR UK, the Elite should be the people we elect. There should be no ‘Elite’ above them – not the UN, not the WHO, not the IPCC, not the World Bank, Not the IMF, not the EU, and above all, not the FCTC. The FCTC was not a Treaty at all since there was no ‘give and take’. It was an agreement to persecute smoker via bans and taxes. That is not a Treaty. It is Totalitarianism. Stalin would have been proud.

It is incumbent upon us all, smokers, vapers, fatties, drinkers to unite. There is already a movement to defend fatties.

How would a movement to defend drinkers, smokers and vapers be organised?

 

 

Subjugation

19/09/2018

I ‘did’ Roman History for a GCE subject. At that level, there was no depth to the knowledge expected. Much of what we studied related to conquests, especially Julius Caesar’s conquests. Perhaps those happenings were important because around then was the beginning of the expansion of the Roman Empire. Caesar had ‘conquered’ Gaul (France) and most of Britain. In recent years, I became quite fascinated by Rome, especially since I visited Pompeii. My visit was only a half-day trip from the cruise that I was on. I was so fascinated that I could easily spend a week there. Since then, I have read a lot about Pompeii on the net. Unfortunately, when I visited, it was not possible to see inside any of the villas. Great though it is to see inside those places on the net, there is no substitute for seeing the real thing. I dare say that if you were prepare to pay extra, you could be one of a small party which could be escorted around a villa, sticking to prescribed walk-ways.

Much of the history of Rome is actually rather humdrum, but those parts of Roman life are not ‘interesting’ at GCE level. Conquests are far more interesting. But rarely have I seen any explanation of WHY Caesar wanted to invade and take over territories. Nor do we see any attempt to justify such invasions. Perhaps if you were able to dig deep enough into writings of the time, some sort of justification might emerge. For example, lawless tribes might have sneaked over the border and raided Roman territory. But why would Caesar invade Britain, which was separated from the continent by 20 miles of sea? It is hardly likely that tribes in Britain crossed the channel to raid. What would they have been able to carry back home in their rather flimsy boats? Herds of cattle?

But it seems more likely that Caesar NEEDED to dominate.

Perhaps ‘the desire to subjugate’ has always been part of the human psyche. Perhaps it has always been a sort of ‘defence mechanism’. It seems to be an animalistic drive, basically about sex. The ‘senior male lion’, in a pride, gets to shag the females which are in season. But he is constantly challenged by younger male lions until he gets ousted. I believe that the same applies to chimps.

Anti-smoking zealots, along with all the other anti-this, or anti-that, seem to display the same sort of wish to dominate. I watched a bit of a video of Duncan Selbie, CEO of Public Health England, welcoming delegates to a PHE conference:

[H/t Frank Davis and Chris Snowdon]

I did not watch it all. I rapidly became sickened by ASSUMPTION of such people that they had the right to subjugate and dominate The People, or sections of The People. If ‘nudge’ means ‘force’, no matter how gently, it is still ‘force’. That is entirely different from ‘persuade’ by the application of reason and evidence.

Selbie appears to be a ‘nice’ man, but he is anything but. It is an act. He is a hard-faced apparatchik. He serves the UN, WHO, etc. They are his bosses. Local authority ‘health depts’ are responsible to him, and not to the Council.

Who enabled this ‘conquest’? It is tempting to say, ‘Cameron’, and it is true that he gave ‘PHE’ lawful existence. But PHE had existed already for years and years. Around 1959, there was a huge drive by the Gov to persuade everyone to get inoculated against something or other. I was at college at the time, and all of us, including Professors, queued up to get the jab. I don’t know if any of us were ‘saved’ thereby at some future date. That was ‘Public health’ as it existed at the time.

Today’s PHE is far more dominant. It DOMINATES! Politicians dare not oppose the domination. If they did, they would be accused of killing babies.

And that is when domination turns into subjugation. There is a fine line between the two. For example, we were supplied by the Local Authority with separate bins for general rubbish (grey), food waste and grass cuttings and other natural stuff (green), paper (buff) and bottles whether plastic or glass and other glass stuff (maroon).

Fine, we do our best to ‘help’, in the expectation that we are helping to reduce costs. But it does not take long for our voluntary efforts to divide our rubbish into categories becomes A DEMAND. Thus, there appeared a sticker on our grey bin which said “No Food Waste”. Only a day or so ago, there appeared a sticker on our buff bin which said, “Loose paper and cardboard only”.

Thus do ‘requests for cooperation’ become ‘demands’ in short order. Domination requires some sort of cooperation. Subjugation employs force. And worse, it enslaves.

The irony is that the UK has just passed a law called ‘The Modern Slavery Act’ (or so I believe). Like 99% of The People, I know and did not know, that any such piece of legislation was going through the Parliamentary process. Nothing has been said about it. But where was the law about ‘Modern Slavery’ due to Gov demands? When the Gov demands my cooperation, it ought to pay me for doing so.

More and more demands that people and organisations must do this and that are being passed into legislation, but there is never any mention of ‘compensation’ for doing such work. In fact, failure to do the unpaid work results, in many cases, in fines – NEGATIVE remuneration! You pay them for daring not to do work for them.

Publicans were first dominated and then subjugated. Had they rebelled ten years ago and marched through Westminster waving flags, they would have done us all a massive favour, even if they failed to stop the Smoking Ban.

First, DOMINATION, equals the silencing of dissent. Then SUBJUGATION, equals fines, imprisonment and, in the former USSR, a bullet in the back of the head. The modern equivalent is career destruction. In Germany, in the 1930s, being a Jew who was a professor in a Uni caused that person to be sacked. Einstein escaped to Switzerland. Had he not, then we would not have had ‘The Theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity’ which have changed our visualisation of the Universe. Essentially, those theories postulate that for any object to move at the speed of light, it must BECOME light.

Such theories free our minds. We vaguely begin to understand just a little more about this incomprehensible Universe.

But we are still woefully blind.

Torturing Yourself by Watching PM May on Panorama Talking about ‘the Chequers Brexit Plan’

18/09/2018

In point of fact, almost the whole programme was about how nice a person Theresa May is. Significant sections dwelt upon her having a nice time and a cup of tea with her husband whilst watching a TV quiz show. “Oh, How gay we were that day!”

Everything was generalised. “We are negotiating. Compromises have to be made. We want to save jobs and maintain wellbeing. Chequers will do that”.

“Other people say not, PM”.

“Negotiations continue, and there is still some way to go, but we are preparing for any eventuality”.

I have some sympathy. It is true that massive hold ups at the boarders will cause mayhem to industry and travel. But I ask, “Why were such matters as tourism not sorted out in minutes?”

“Do we agree that there should be no change in over-flights, air traffic control, passport arrangements, etc?”

“YES!!” Job done. There are masses and masses of such matters which could have been conclude months and months ago. They should have already been agreed.

The border between North and South in Ireland was as leaky as a sieve for generations. But twenty ton lorries cannot move along the paths which terrorists could. They have to use the main roads. In any case, a trade agreement with the EU would depend upon manifests, as it has always done. Manifests apply to Ireland just as they do to anywhere else. The only REAL problem is illegal immigrants moving from Europe to South Ireland and infiltrating into the UK. But has that not been going on for years?

But that problem is not integral with trade with Europe generally. Despite all the shouting, it is a minor matter. The obvious correct solution is for South Ireland to leave the EU, but they won’t because of the hand-outs.

Not for a minute am I denying that Brexit upsets a lot of things. What I am saying is that there are masses of matters which were not problems, and which could have been removed from the equation within months of the vote. By now, we should be left with only the most difficult problems – those which actually need concessions on both sides.

And, no, there is no need for a second referendum. It would be impossible for The People to decide what should be contained in a NEW TREATY with the EU, for that is what is required. The new treaty must recognise the independence of the UK, and that the UK Gov alone will decide whether or not to accept the terms of some ‘foreign’ directive. We just ignore those directives until the EU apparatchiks make waves, then we talk to individual States.

What has been a massive error by the EU has been to create a ‘one size fits all’ regime, especially about things like tobacco. Further, it colludes with the UN, WHO, IPCC, World Bank, IMF, etc, to further the aims of those bodies. Those are the things that I object most to. Those bodies are tyrants, controlled by vested interests. There is nothing even remotely ‘democratic’ about them. But, somehow, they gained control of our UK Gov. Minister come and go with breathtaking frequency. They are not the ones who are in control.

The whole situation reminds me of the quiz show ‘Eggheads’ on BBC2. There is a panel of about nine ‘eggheads’ from which five take on quizzers who normally take part in pub quizzes and such. Subjects are chosen by the organisers and the guest team is allowed to chose one of its members to answer questions on that subject. Often, that team might contain a physicist who takes on questions on ‘Science’. He can chose which ‘Egghead’ to compete with.

That person almost always loses.Why? Because the ‘Eggheads’ are people with the most extraordinary memories. I mean phenomenally retentive. It does not matter what the subject is. If they have read something somewhere in the past, or seen a film or TV programme, they remember the details. What I find weird is that they should all be billionaires if they have such powers. There again, perhaps they are.

It strikes me that politicians have some of the attributes of Eggheads. They can remember their speeches and the points which are significant to them. The better their memories for such speeches and ‘briefings’, the more likely they are to ‘go far’. But that does not mean that they can ‘reason’. They just have good memories. Our Dogs Bella and Harley both remember perfectly well where their ‘treats’ are stored.

It still amazes me that someone like Blair could agree to impose the smoking ban, which expelled Labour’s core supporters from their pubs and clubs. What advice did he receive from ‘Eggheads’ about the likely effects? I suppose that he gained support also from ‘Eggheads’ on the Tory side. Perhaps Labour and Tory (and Liberal) agreed not to talk about it or its effects. Slam the ban in place and then shut up.

For is that not what happened? From then on, Council Environment Officers, Police and Magistrates put the persecution into effect. Potentially massive fines were possible, but rarely imposed. The threat was enough. Publicans caught ‘permitting (aka not actually snatching cigs out of people’s mouths)’ smoking were not fined thousands of pounds but a couple of hundred. But they had to plead guilty.

The misuse of legal force is astonishing. Why did Blair permit it? The probability is that he had no idea what he had unleashed.

But the knock on effect is that we smokers do not trust a word that any Minister says or believe that they know what they are doing. I don’t think that Theresa May has the foggiest idea of anything about Brexit. She is good at memorising scripts, just like actors. I suppose that the most hired actors are those which can memorise their parts faster than others. Time is money.

I am not sure that any politician can deal with Brexit. That applies to EU bosses. They simply do not know what to do. All those Treaties containing thousands of pages, all having hidden contradictions of one sort or another, which no one had noticed. Millions of pages of blather.

CUT THE GORDIAN KNOT! Agree to continue everything as it is until a NEW TREATY is created. Thus, leaving the EU would not be traumatic.

But we would not have EU MPs. Their deliberations (actually, corrupt agreements) would mean nothing to us. Let them fester in their corruption until States refuse to finance the EU MPs and the buildings. Turn the EU edifices into flats for the poor.

The torture of watching PM May talking about Brexit was that the programme was obviously SOPORIFIC. In effect, it was portraying a rosy future, provided that May and her ‘remoaner’ supporters got their way – remain for all intents.

I would assume that serious industries would have already planned. and already know the likely outcome. After all, they MUST have great influence.

 

How Is A Popular Uprising Created?

17/09/2018

I have been thinking about the attack on vaping in the USA. By ‘vaping’ I mean also Jule-ing. There is a difference in that ecigs do not use tobacco, although the nicotine may or may not be derived from cured tobacco leaves. Nicotine can be derived from green tobacco plant leaves without the need to cure the tobacco. That is the easiest way, but it can also be derived from various vegetable of the ‘Solanace’ varieties, or it can be artificially created in a lab. Jule uses tobacco ‘heets’ (capsules of tobacco) which are heated but not burnt.

There are now millions of vapers in the USA, but the FDA (Food and Drug Admin) does not represent them. Why is that? It seems to represent everyone else who might have an interest in doing vaping down, except vapers. Why is that?

If food was routinely contaminated so that it had to be cooked at high temperatures, and a way was found to reduce the contamination to negligible proportions, in the sense that any remaining contamination would not harm people eating that food, then the ‘scientists’ who discovered the ‘secret’ would be awarded the Nobel Prize.

Why has Hon Lik not been awarded the Nobel Prize? Finding a way for billions of people who enjoy or are addicted to nicotine to do so without any significant danger, must surely be akin to the discovery of penicillin.

Perhaps the ‘New Nicotine Alliance’ should propose him for the Nobel Prize and shout and shout about it. I mean SHOUT AND SHOUT. Why? Because the only way to beat the TC Zealots is to bypass them. You cannot go through them – you must go around them.

That is how many of us smokers are gradually getting the upper hand. (Although it is very slow!) We are doing and must concentrate upon the persecution. The State has no right whatsoever to persecute any of its citizens. No right whatsoever in any shape or form. It is NOT acceptable for the State to raise tobacco taxes to ‘deter’ anyone, even children. In fact, there is every reason for individual citizens to refuse to pay such taxes. That is where ‘the tyranny of the majority’ comes in. In this case, however, the ‘majority’ do not really give a shit. And that is the problem. And I speak of the majority of MPs as much as The People as a whole.

During the Prohibition of Alcohol (and Tobacco in some States) in the USA, politicians were imbibing alcohol as though they had not passed the prohibitive laws. They did not give a shit.

The same sort of attitude exists today, although not as blatantly as was the case in the 1920s. Today, Politicians pay lip service, and indeed have passed a ‘Climate Change’ Act, on account of Global Warming. But they jet about to their hearts content, often attending ‘freebie’ events such as COP8 in Geneva, all expenses paid by ??????

A popular uprising has already happened in Brexit and another in the elevation of Trump. I am not sure that Trump and his associates have realised how important the uprising is. It is not quite a revolution, but almost so. That is what I mean about the silly appointment of Gotleib to head the FDA. It is like replacing one Nazi apparatchik with a different one who only gases people slightly dead.

Our political leaders in the UK are fucked by their own corruption, but Trump in the USA can lead the way, if he has the courage. To ‘make America great again’, he must free the people from constraints. SHS danger is not worth considering. For all intents, it does not exist. It is a fabrication. Anyone who has extolled SHS danger is a crook or a dope. One does not expect Academics to be crooks or dopes, but that seems to be true.

The best possibility of a popular uprising lies with Vapers. Not so much in the UK, but in the USA and Australia. But Vapers must feel strongly enough to become incensed by political persecution.

PERSECUTION IS EVERYTHING!!!

Government Obsession with Trivia.

16/09/2018

It appears that the Oceans are awash with plastic bags. How do the bags get there? Is it likely that a person who leaves a plastic bag on the beach contributes significantly to that problem?

But one must first ask, “Are the Oceans really awash with plastic bags?” I find that difficult to believe. Pictures of plastic bags and other detritus on the tide-line of beaches means very little, other than that rubbish floating on the surface of the sea tends to wash ashore eventually.

The probability is that ship carrying thousands of tons of rubbish half way round the world to China dump the stuff over the side somewhere. Who is watching and calculating how much of the rubbish being transported to China actually gets there? In fact, the mere fact that the stuff is supposedly being transported to China suggests there is no intention of it reaching its supposed destination.

So why not make a virtue out of necessity? Why not transport the rubbish to the nearest subduction zone in the deepest trench in the Ocean and dump it there? 50 tons of compacted rubbish in a huge, strong plastic bag with plenty small holes in it, weighed down with boulders, would sink to the bottom of the trench. Eventually, it would disappear into the crust of the Earth. A decent sized cargo ship could carry hundreds of such bags. It might even be worthwhile replacing the bags with cheap Chinese steel boxes, if plastic was not strong enough.

My main point is, “Why do we NEVER hear about such ideas? I vaguely remember some book or website suggesting that we send our rubbish into Space by rocket. Not a very economical idea.

But instead of having such great ideas and discussing them, the Gov decides to force shops to charge 5p per plastic bag. Our weekly shop of around £80 is delivered to our door and we pay around £2 for that privilege. We also pay 40p for plastic bags, regardless of the number used, since it is easier and quicker to move the groceries to the kitchen if they are already in bags. But, since the groceries are being delivered, we can take more advantage of special offers and bulk buying. Thus, costs equal out.

As an aside, I have noticed that Asda are now using bigger bags. I have no doubt that they are paying the same cost for them, but they use fewer.

The plastic bag farce is just an example. But it is a perfect example of: “Something must be done; this is something; therefore it must be done”.

Parliament has been becoming debased for some years. I have no doubt that the EU has had a lot to do with it, but I also think that individual MPs have become debased also. What was the message, delivered by The People, over Brexit? It was not about tariffs or trade in general. It was about who decides our laws!! The short answer is, “WE DO!!” France, Germany and Italy do not. The fatal flaw in the EU arose when ‘qualified majority voting’ was introduced. From then on, the UK was obliged to consent, unless it could provide more bribes to the other 23 or so States. That is when the rot set in. That is when corruption became normal.

It is the same with the UN. The spread of smoking bans is a symptom. You don’t have to be a ‘conspiracy theorist’ to see it. It is as plain and the nose on your face.

  1. The population of the world must be stabilised.
  2. The land used to grow tobacco must be used to grow edible crops.

I do not disagree with the first. If the first was accomplished, then the second would not be necessary. The Chinese adopted a strategy of one child per couple to stabilise its population. Perhaps it was effective. Nobody talks about it any more. Perhaps China has relaxed its ‘rules’ if deaths have exceeded births. We do not know because nobody talks about it any more.

There are loads of examples of Gov ‘fiddling’. The whole ‘Horrific pictures of dead and dying people’, aka ‘Plain Packaging’, was projected as deterring youths from starting to smoke. Perhaps it worked, although I doubt it. But all the evidence indicates that smoking is better than swallowing ecstasy tablets or sniffing crack cocaine. The possible harmful effects of smoking take thirty years, mostly when people have retired. Is there a connection between retiring and ‘smoking related diseases’? Are there any studies?

Brexit should be a minor matter. There is no reason that trade arrangements with the States of the EU should not continue as they are. There is no reason that air traffic should not continue as it is. Those matters have nothing to do with the EU. They are international.

The ‘Smoking Ban’ was always trivial essentially. Smokers would not stop smoking because of the Ban. Instead, they stopped going to pubs and restaurants. Why should they patronise such places when they are ‘put upon’? ‘Put upon’ means ‘harassed’,  ‘cajoled’, ‘told to obey’.

And that is the oddest thing. Publicans etc did not fight like hell to oppose duties imposed upon them which were not their fault. If a person lights a cig, it is not because of some action by the publican.  Providing an ashtray might be ‘supportive’.

It is in that ‘inequity’ that the eventual collapse of ‘Tobacco Control’ is certain. It would take only one pub to declare itself to be as ‘smokers pub’ for the whole edifice to tumble, provided that The Supreme Court agreed that ‘the individual is supreme’ over his own life.

That Principle is paramount. It is far more important than ‘The Children’. Once a person becomes an adult, at whatever age that may be, he/she has the right to live life as he wishes to. Children do not come into that equation. It is for parents to shelter their children if they wish to do so.

Government has been avoiding confronting the really important issues for years and years, making noises about trivial issues to distract attention. Thus, serious problems, such as the cost of very old people, were not anticipated. Dying people are not allowed to die. That is another problem caused by Government.

Solutions to such Gov created problems are not easy to find. The problems were created by long-gone politicians, doing what they were told to do by Party whips.

Our elected reps must pull their socks up and realise that they are there to OPPOSE. They must oppose The Elite.

What Was Trump Thinking When He Appointed Gottleib As Head Of The FDA?

15/09/2018

I know that I have touched on this subject before. If there is a specific class of person who OUGHT NOT to be appointed to a Federal Position having anything to do with ‘drugs’, whether medicinal or street, it is a Physician. Gottleib is an ‘MD’ – a doctor. He is automatically biased.

But what type of person should be appointed? It is tempting to say ‘a Judge’, and certainly a Judge would be better. But perhaps a ‘logician’ would be the best in all such positions.

The ability to reason is by far the most important faculty when it comes down to making decisions about laws and regulations. But one rarely hears about Uni courses in ‘logic’. Are there such courses or are ‘gender studies’ more profitable to the Universities? I vaguely remember that, many, many years ago, I had classes in ‘Logic’, although I cannot remember what they entailed. Perhaps there was some sort of history of logical thinking involved, starting with the Greeks.

The basic idea which underlies all logic is this:

“If A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C”

I have always had a vague worry about that. For example, it is like saying ‘if A is ‘2’ and B is ‘2’ and C is ‘2’, then A,B and C are the same.

So my claim that “If A equals B….. etc” is wrong.

And another thing, for A to be A, and B to be B, there must be something different about A as compared with B. Otherwise, both could be described as A – or B. Thus, they cannot be precisely ‘equal’.

But that does not mean that ‘consequences’ cannot be assessed. For some strange reason, Gottlieb has FAILED to assess the logic of toxicology about ecigs. The vapour contains zero or minuscule toxins. Minuscule toxins do not endanger human bodies. Our bodies can deal with them. Even if they are absorbed and retained, they present no danger within the lifetime of humans – say, 100 years at best.

So what does it matter if people in their late teens take up vaping? There are almost NO toxins in the vapour. There is no excuse for ‘what if’ when there is nothing to fear.

Why is it so difficult for that ‘knowledge’ of almost zero toxins to enter the brain of Gottlieb?

The fact is that he is not the right person to be involved. He still sees, as a doctor, mystical effects, just as doctors in the 19th century believed that there was a mystical ‘miasma’ in the air which caused cholera. Dr Snow, who discovered that the contaminated water was the cause, was vilified tremendously at the time.

Trump is a breath of fresh air, but there is a long way to go. It is quite possible for ‘Logic’ and ‘Public Opinion’ to come to the same conclusions. For example, The Spanish and Italian Govs should return people who just arrive on their shores in inferior boats, to their point of departure. Just take them back and dump them. Give them enough rations for a week or so.

I can see nothing else to say. Gottlieb cannot be ‘corrected’. He has totally wrong ideas. If Trump continues to support him, then Trump’s judgement is awry. Do not underestimate his appointees willingness to undermine him.

There are ‘traitors’ everywhere.