Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

What is a ‘Conspiracy’?


We rarely ask such a question. We all know what the word ‘conspiracy’ means, don’t we? We all know about Guy Fawkes, don’t we? He and his fellows ‘conspired’ to blow up Parliament and, thereby, kill all the MPs or a lot of them. The etymology is interesting. the ‘spira’ bit come from the word ‘spirare’ – to breath. So ‘conspire’ means ‘to breathe together’, which could also mean ‘to whisper’. I suppose that meeting in a secure place would not need the whispering, but it is much the same thing.

What brought this to my mind was a comment from Rose on my last post. Here it is:

From Rose:

Look at the timing.

15 May 2003

“Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98.”
James E Enstrom Geoffrey C Kabat

“192 member states of the WHO took part in negotiations, producing a draft text, adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2003.

28 countries, including the UK, signed the treaty in June 2003.”
http: //

Article 8 Which once said –
“Recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability, and that there is a time lag between exposure to smoking and the other uses of tobacco products and the onset of tobacco-related diseases.”

But now only says –

“Recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability”

The study was published too late to be anything more than an embarrassment to the 192 WHO member states who had just drafted the treaty.

What happened was that the FCTC text was approved in May 2003 by the UN assembly, and the E and K huge study of SHS effects (which showed no effect) was also published in May 2003. In June 2003, 28 countries signed up to the FCTC Treaty, including the UK.

It seems perfectly clear to me that there was a ‘conspiracy’, probably involving the 28 countries (a small number really) to delay the E and K study. But the delay was not so great as to produce accusations of deliberate fraud. It is a bit like the prosecution in a court case revealing new evidence at the last possible minute (or by the defence, I suppose). That suggests ‘conspiracy’.

But the last para in Rose’s comment further consolidates the ‘conspiracy’ idea. The need for a substantial amount of time for the effects of smoking to become apparent was removed. That paved the way for ‘instant heart attacks’ and ‘present SHS danger’.

One of the things that characterises a conspiracy is that the number of conspirators must be small. They need all to know and trust each other. They need to be able to ‘whisper’ to each other in ‘smokeless rooms’ or on the telephone. They also need to have power. It is implicit in the word ‘conspire’ that the conspirators have the power to enact their secret plans.

So we can see that only a very few people, right at the top of the WHO, were in a position to ‘conspire’. We know a few of them – Godber and Doll in the UK and Koop in the USA. I cannot be bothered looking up who else might have been in the conspiracy, but there would only have been a few. It may have involve those 28 States which ratified the Treaty one month after the text was accepted by the UN assembly. 28 persons are not a lot of people, but such a group is big enough, provided that it has POWER, to plan and organise political will. Surgeon Generals and Chief Medical Officers have such POWER. They override politicians, even Prime Ministers and Cabinets.

But there is a special problem which these people had to find a solution for. Who pays the costs? The conspirators had to find funders. They had to convince people with money to ‘invest’ in anti-smoking. Is it any wonder that a ‘partnership’ was established between Big Pharma and the FCTC organisation? But there was also the depth-less pockets of taxpayers which could be exploited. The vehicles of choice were NGOs and ‘charities’. Taxpayers were easily exploited via those organisations.

But what is apparent is that that small group has extended its tentacles beyond its control. It is not just ecigs which have thrown a spanner in the works. It is political upheaval. The general population is becoming aware that their elected politicians are not doing their jobs. They exist to PROTECT the people against the conspiracies of a few POWERFUL people.

What we have seen, over the last few decades, is cowardice by our elected MPs, and corruption as seen by the ‘expenses scandal’. MPs, including the PM and the Cabinet, are NOT the Government.  The Chief Medical Officer is a member of the Government. MPs exist to stop those people from enslaving us all. That is what MPs are for.

Anti-smoking is just a small example of enslavement. It is only the first step towards more general criminalisations. It will not be long before the use of water will be criminalised if a person uses too much. It will not be long before your illness is your own fault.

The trouble with conspiracies is that they eventually spread too far. They cause more trouble than was originally envisaged. And that is why TC will eventually fail.


Remembering Our Objectives


It is our freedom which matters. I we are free, then there is no reason that a smoker should not open a bar, staffed by smokers, for the enjoyment of smokers. As far as I know, there is no legal reason that a bar owner should not refuse to employ a non-smoker. Non-smokers are not a category of persons who are protected by discrimination laws, any more than smokers are a protected species.

In such a bar, which clearly advertised that it was a smoking bar, a non-smoker would not be able to complain about tobacco smoke and could be invited to leave. If he caused trouble, the police could legitimately be called. Witnesses would abound. “Yes, I was in the smoker pub last night and heard her shouting and I saw her throw a glass. She was demanding a ‘safe place’ to have a drink”.

In a way, smoking bans are the equivalent of ‘safe places’. They are no more justified on scientific grounds than are the snowflakes’ demands for ‘safe places’ among university students. If they want ‘safe places’, then they should create them for themselves. There is no law against it.

We can easily understand smoking bans if we consider them to be demands for ‘safe places’. But that would create a demand some sort of illustration that smoking bars etc are unsafe or dangerous places. I do not recall such illustrations being produced.

Everything about smoking bans is the wrong way round. If children are the most at risk group, then smoking in places where children are present should have been the first place for smoking bans. Thus, smoking in the home should have been banned for people with children. In any enclosed place where children congregate, such as schools or anywhere else, smoking should have been banned. Those are the first places where smoking should have been banned. So why were bars etc, which are almost exclusively frequented by adults, the first places to be attacked? The only reason that makes sense is that those places were ‘low hanging fruit’. If bans could be enacted in those fixed places, then it would be easy to spread the bans further to unfixed places.

But that suggestion demands deliberation, and it absolutely depends upon SHS danger. But that does not mean that there could not have been bars and pubs dedicated to adult smokers.

Why did not Blair and his Cabinet at the very top of the political tree not see that? I think that they did, but they were so blinded by POWER that they ignored the perfectly obvious RIGHT for the people to be free. They imposed a dictatorship, knowing full well that SHS CANNOT cause significant harm within the lifetime of human beings.

I think that SHS harm is comical. If you take Doll’s Doctors Study as your bible, and most similar studies have confirmed that study’s conclusions, that smoking is immensely dangerous, then you have to accept the time and quantity conclusions. You need to smoke a lot for a long time before it affects your life-expectancy significantly on the average. According to Doll’s study, the time-scale for danger from tobacco smoke depended upon the QUANTITY of smoke inhaled, and the PERIOD OF TIME over which that quantity is inhaled. Doll’s Doctors Study suggested that SHS was not dangerous because the QUANTITY of tobacco smoke inhaled was below dangerous levels. Once you accept that ‘scientific’ FACT, then SHS becomes no more dangerous than alcohol fumes in a pub. The difference is that our noses detect smoke but not alcohol fumes.

Our freedoms were deliberately negated. There could easily have been smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs

I honestly do not understand why Blair and his Cabinet created the smoking ban. I genuinely do not understand why those people fell for the hype of the academics. Nor do I understand why academics promoted the hype of SHS danger. It is almost the same as the UN and the WHO declaring that the Earth is flat. No science is more important than that which indicates that the world is flat.

Thus, really big studies such as Boffeta, financed by the WHO, which showed that smoking has a negligible effect upon heart problems, and studies such as Enstrom and Kabat, financed by the American Cancer Society until it appeared that the results would not conform to expectations, which showed that spouses of smokers did not suffer any increase in LC, were confined to the bin.

SHS danger has been debunked again and again, but we still have smoking bans. Why do we still have smoking bans? If those bans, ten years ago, were scientifically based, why have they not yet been repealed on the grounds that the science was faulty?

Laws which are enacted on a scientific basis are NEVER repealed, even if the science is revealed to be pseudo science. I am surprised that the USA endeavour to take a man to the moon ever succeeded in view of the potential for SHS, emitted by the engines, to to be dangerous for a thousands years.

All these issues are very complicated and messy, but only because the TC Industry and politicians have made them so, and that they have made them ENORMOUSLY important. SHS is of no importance whatsoever. The timescales are too slow.

But none of that ‘academic’ claptrap matters in the least as compared with our right to live as we wish to.

It follows that all the waste of resources and money used up by academics, must be curtailed. They should do the job which they are paid to do – teaching FACTS. Such people have no right to bugger up our freedoms.


The Scottish ‘Alcohol Problem’


It is a very strange thing that, no matter how well argued a critique of ‘minimum pricing’ might be, the authorities take no notice whatsoever. They never even comment on the critique. They are like bulldozers which have been directed to rip up the ground or demolish buildings. They cannot be stopped, no matter how much damage might be done.

There hangs the essence of the problem. Once the damage has been done, the ‘status quo anti’ can never be reestablished.

Is that the reason that very few laws are repealed? Is that the reason that EU Directives are written in stone?

The result of the Scottish Supreme Court’s decision that that the Scottish Government could override EU trading law ‘for health reasons’ actually raises more questions than it answers.

I do not blame the court. How can I since I have not read the detail of the judgement? I suppose that it DID NOT say who could legitimately and legally say what ‘health reasons’ were.

But we should not assume that the judgement clears the way for ‘minimum prices’. It does as regards EU trading laws, but not as regards the value of the proposal that minimum prices will reduce alcoholism.

Frankly, I suggest that such hopes are comical. But perhaps the objective of minimum pricing is not what we have been told that it is. It is so obvious that addicted drinkers will not be affected that one must assume that there are ulterior motives. What are they? I have no idea. Perhaps Scotland is an experiment.

But why are elected politicians so enthusiastic? It is hard to believe that Nicola Sturgeon is some sort of conspirator in league with the WHO and the ‘One World Government’ crowd.

Why are Scottish MSPs so enthusiastic?

But there are all sorts of ‘whys’. Why did so many Scottish people vote for a party intent upon persecuting them?

That problem applies especially to smokers. Who do you vote for when all the parties want to persecute smokers? The temptation is to vote for the least worst. But that solves nothing. It is like choosing between a quick death by garroting and being thrown to  starved lions in a Roman amphitheatre.

I have a theory. It is that, say, a Labour Gov is elected. Its first job should be to repeal almost all the previous Tory Gov’s laws. Perhaps a bit too good to expect, but better than piling more and more laws on top of each other.

Brexit is a chance to ‘start again’. No amount of political blathering will alter that FACT. Starting at the top, the UN must be defunded unless it can prove value for money. Have not just seen the waste of our money in the Mugabe fiasco? How many clear and obvious splurges of our contributions to the WHO on ‘Conferences’ in exotic places need to occur before our Gov calls a halt?

The Tory and Labour Parties (including the Greens and Scot Nats, etc) are old hat. Those divisions of Society no longer hold good. They are not fit for our times.

It is hard to envisage what could replace them. Libertarians versus Regulators? It is possible.

But what is surely clear in Scotland is that ‘Regulators’ are in command at this time. But if ‘Libertarians’ want to advance ‘liberty’, they must first repeal the ‘strictures’ on liberty, if they get control. That has rarely happened or has taken a long time. The ‘Corn Laws’, which were in place for some thirty years, caused bread to be unnecessarily expensive.  Thirty years of enforced poverty.

The ‘Scottish Alcohol Problem’, along with the ‘Scottish Obesity Problem’, is fake news. Both depends upon unreal suppositions. One if those suppositions is that it is better to be ‘healthy’ than to be happy.

A stricture of the US Constitution is that everyone has the right to seek ‘happiness’ in their own way. The State has no right to define ‘happiness’.

What it comes down to is the question: “Are Nicola Sturgeon and her supporters and advisers, and Scot Nat MSPs, sufficiently knowledgeable to enact laws which overturn the certainties of centuries?

Mugabe and the WHO


WordPress has been playing up for the last couple of days. I do not know why. I can only hope that this post goes through without difficulties.

So Mugabe has been deposed. Whether he can come back is open to question, but it is hardly likely, even if he had the stomach for such a fight. After all, he is 93 years old -or thereabouts. What little information that there is available suggests that he sacked his vice-President for ‘disloyalty’. Thus, he attacked his own political party. It was his own political party which removed him from office, so he is unlikely to make a comeback.


But is this situation not a wonderful example of ‘schadenfreude’? (schadenfreude means gaining pleasure from the discomfiture of your enemies) The discomfiture is not Mugabe’s; it is the WHO’s. A couple of months ago, the WHO elevated Mugabe to the level of sainthood as a shining example of how smokers should be persecuted, along with the likes of Duturte in the Philippines and jing jong in North Korea.

But will these events spur the funders of the WHO to ask a few questions? For example, who in the WHO proposed Mugabe as a shining example of ‘care in the community’? And who were the members of the committee which extolled him? And who voted for him?

But the WHO is not the only culprit. We see the UN (and the EU) constantly raising celebs up as symbols of virtue. Some fat-arsed female with no talent other than self-publicity becomes the ‘ambassador’ for this or that.

You would think that Governments would be alerted by these events to the shear waste bin into which they are chucking taxpayers’ money. You would also think that the would be asking what other waste bins they were chucking taxpayers’ money into.

But they do not.

I think that the problem goes back to the days of the Security Council, where the USA and Russia could talk to each other. Neither wanted nuclear armageddon, so they talked about ‘spheres of influence’. In other words, they divided the world into regions where they could rule, either directly or indirectly. And those discussions averted all-out war for decades. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UN! The UN was just a convenient meeting-place. What influence did countries like Malta have? None whatsoever.

So the whole organisation perpetuated itself, at enormous cost,  by  moving into ‘population control’. That is why Duterte and Jing Jong can be extolled. They are dictators who are admirable because they control populations.

But why are ‘free’ nations like the UK and the USA tolerating the enslavement? For the duties imposed upon publicans etc by smoking bans are enslavement. Publicans are not paid or ‘free’ to decide, nor are their staff ‘free’ to decide that SHS is not dangerous. They are all enslaved.

I do not understand how politicians cannot see that their decisions result in enslavement. Even the forcing of Tobcoms to display unproven medical porn is a form of enslavement. Does TC pay for the pictures to be displayed?

So where is the ‘Court of Justice’ which abjures enslavement? There is no such thing. Should it not be a duty of the UN to have such controls?

These days, everything about the UN (and the EU) seems to be about enslavement. DO AS YOU ARE TOLD!

The problem with Tobcoms all along has been that they have not involved their shareholders. Nor have they involved the consumers of their products. They have all along been led by the nose by lawyers. But they have been haunted by their past ghosts, which are probably REAL. I speak of ‘political clout’. Perhaps Tobcoms were arrogant, and perhaps that is the reason that the dangers of smoking were so exaggerated.

So what can be done?

In my opinion, it is clear that the ‘enslavement’ must be stopped, but it is not a ‘justice’ thing, and that is the problem. It ought to be a justice thing. All our efforts, whether we are ‘distinguished Professor or not, will come to nothing unless the principle of ‘enslavement’ is recognised.

The Government has no right whatsoever to enslave the people. That means that the Government has no right to require people to do unpaid work. Throwing a person, who dares to light a cig, out of the pub requires that the publican, or his representatives, do unpaid work. Publican organisations should have demanded payment for enforcing smoking bans.

It is reasonable to suppose that no one thought about that aspect of things ten years ago, but they should have. Such failures produce enslavement, such as minimum pricing of alcoholic beverages.

To finish for tonight, ‘enslavement’ seems to be the first priority of MPs.

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.


“The Killing Fields”


I am part way through three books. The first one is ‘The Gulag Archipelago’ which I started to read some months ago. I really do want to progress that reading, but all sorts of things get in the way. I am also halfway through Snowdon’s book ‘Killjoys’. To make things worse, I happened upon (H/T whoever) a book about about the causes of WW1 which I have been reading today. It is not really a ‘book’ so much as a series of posts, but it is very interesting. Here is a link:

Such books/blogs are hard work. We should not be surprised. If they are to have value, then they must go into great detail. For example, you cannot understand the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand as other than a chance event without knowing the detail which surrounded that event. ‘Security’ pleaded that the exact itinerary should not be published, but it was, in full detail. They pleaded for troops and police presence, but there was none. The book says that the assassination was planned by ‘Dark Forces’, intent upon fermenting a war in Europe to destroy the German economic ‘miracle’. It says that there was a secret society of the very wealthy which was trying to produce a New World Order, in which the British Empire, in cahoots with America, would control the whole world. It would be an anglo-saxon, world-wide Empire.

It is hard to accept such a concept, but we must put ourselves back into the times of 1914 and before. In those days, the ‘Aristocracy’ still reigned supreme, even though there was a Parliament. Further, very, very wealthy people were introduced into the Aristocratic circle. Newspaper magnates were elevated to ‘Lords’; senior diplomats became ‘Sirs’. In the USA, there was a different form of Aristocracy, but it was an aristocracy in its own way. It consisted of those individuals who had extreme levels of wealth.

Readers will know that I am wary of ‘conspiracy theories’, even though I believe that the world-wide persecution of smokers has  been organised right from the top over may years. That is different from deliberately provoking a World War in which millions of people perished. But I am prepared to accept that there were extremely evil people who regarded the plebs as cannon fodder.

Is that true today?

I think that it is. All that has changed is: “Who are the Aristocrats?” Who are the ‘Secret Society?”

You have to ask fundamental questions. One is: “Why is there a world-wide persecution of smokers?” What is the reason? If smokers die ‘prematurely’, so what? Who cares? Why are world-wide Governments pumping untold millions of pounds into the persecution of smokers? It makes no sense. Why spend millions on keeping people alive in their old age? It makes no sense.

But there are vague lights at the end of the tunnel. Austria may possibly revoke smoking bans. It is a possibility. But what seems clear to me is that that those populations who were subjected to either the Nazi jackboot or the Communist throttle are the least likely to succumb for ever to TC.

I am still utterly amazed that smokers in the UK buy taxed stuff. For a ‘light’ smoker, there are all sorts of trips from the ports in the East, such as Hull, to ports in Belgium. One trip could provide half-price rolling tobacco for a year. And the sail would cost around £50.

I wonder if our attack on TC should not be to persuade smokers to take such trips? Even the poorest amongst has a credit card. It is worth incurring a debt and paying interest on that debt than paying UK prices.

I must ask smokers at the pub how they get around the taxes. Surely the are not paying them. But some people MUST be paying them, otherwise there would be no income from smokers.

The ‘Laffer Curve’ says that income will fall once a certain level of tolerance of taxation is reached. Smokers with any sense would be advised to push the diminution of tobacco taxes.

It is sad that the only people who know about the Laffer Curve are indolent academics.

Our politicians are ignorant. I do not mean that as insulting. I mean that they have no idea how they are being manipulated. They are ignorant.  But do they care? I am not sure. I wonder if Frank Davis’s attempt to influence his MP’s attitude to the ‘Prison Smoker Persecution’ actually affects that MP’s attitude to persecution. Surely he must see the relevance?



Chris Swowdon, in his book ‘Killjoys’ uses the phrase ‘a private matter’ around page 80). I wonder if Chris is a fan of Columbo? ‘Columbo’ is an American detective series in which we see crimes being committed at the start, and we then see our intrepid detective, Mr Columbo, finding out who the criminal was and how he did the dire deed. In one episode, he quizes a woman (played by the delectable Faye Dunaway) about her activities and the people that she knows, but when Columbo asks her if a guy she was familiar with proposed marriage, she drew a line. She said she would cooperate, but such things were A PRIVATE MATTER.

The question about what are PRIVATE MATTERS has arisen very seriously in recent years. Are surveys about what you eat, what alcoholic beverages you drink, when, where, and to what extent, and your smoking habits, PRIVATE MATTERS which should remain private?

What is the problem here? I suppose that it is the fact that people are stupid enough to respond to surveys. But that answer is not good enough. I have recently used Jet 2 for a holiday. When I got back, I received an email survey asking me for my opinion about the trip. I could have ignored it, and probably would have, had it not been for a major incident at Manchester Airport. Very briefly, the flight board said ‘Go to Gate 3’. There was an Easyjet aircraft at Gate 3 and not a Jet 2. Retracing my steps, the board still said ‘Go to Gate 3’. Back again, and, this time there was a Jet 2 aircraft at Gate 3. Only when I got to the desk did I discover that that flight was to Vienna.

What could possibly have gone wrong? How could I have been so stupid? It turned out that I had not been stupid. The aircraft which should have been at Gate 3 had been grounded due to hydraulics problems and a different aircraft was on its way to Manchester.

The question in my mind is: “Why did not Jet 2’s survey ask me about the problems associated with the delay in flight LS831?”

Had it not been for the survey being available immediately after my return (“Tell us about your experience”), I would have complained anyway. Not about the delay, but about the lack of information and Jet 2 staff.

I am sure that readers would have been just as horrified at the turn of events as I was.

It is a common phenomenon that surveys are NOT intended to produce adverse results. They are intended to produce positive results. Thus, if you stay in a 3 star hotel, complaining that the service is not 5 star is a non-starter. It may be that one person in a thousand might complain about some isolated event, beyond the control of Jet 2.
All that Jet 2 could do was report that event to the provider of the service.

But that survey was at least pointed. It is surveys, such as those conducted by ASH ET AL, which are the problem. “70% of smokers want to quit” is the sort of thing that I mean. It is almost certain that ONLY smokers who want to quit would enjoy a guilt trip saying how much they hate themselves.

Some time ago, I was a member of the YouGov panel. I suppose that I was enticed by the phrase ‘YouGov’. The fact is that ‘YouGov’ has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘YOU’. It is entirely a tool for THEM’ to use.

But there are serious matters involved here. If surveys are to do with behaviour, it must be recognised that such behaviours are PRIVATE MATTERS. My eating habits are PRIVATE, my sexual habits are PRIVATE, my smoking habits are PRIVATE, my drinking habits are PRIVATE. That is because I have autonomy in myself. No one can deny me my autonomy, or indeed, my anonymity – MY PRIVACY.

But if a person moves into THE PUBLIC SECTOR, such as being a politician, then he relinquishes a portion if his right to PRIVACY. He does so voluntarily. If he has some sort of criminal history, then he must be open about it. I was arrested once because I was stopped when driving and the policeman did not accept that the breath test was negative. I had to endure a stay in the police station for some 20 minutes until I could be tested again. Again, the test was negative. But the question arises as to whether or not I was over the limit at the time that I was driving. I may have been later, but not at the time.

I should imagine that ASH ET AL have stopped their surveys. They have got what they want. Why have any more surveys?

So what is the point of throwing taxpayers’ money at ASH ET AL? Weird though the Oz Gov might be, at least it has defunded ASH OZ. I guess that it was a question of who gets the available money, and the pendulum swung to the Academics.

But all these Academics rely upon information which, somehow, appears from the ether. There is absolutely NOTHING to speak of which is real. Did Doll actually investigate the specific circumstances of doctors who developed lung cancer? He did not. Nor did he do so in the Hospital Study as regards LC patients around London.

But what is important is that people such as Doll invaded the PRIVACY of individuals. It is so easy to do. Would his victims have been allowed to invade Doll’s privacy? Would they have been allowed to ask him about his sexual proclivities?

My response to the nurse about smoking, ‘Let’s not go there’, is the absolutely minimal response. My response could easily have been violent. It is a weird thing that I love the nurses and hate them at the same time.

We have been inundated by a plenitude of new laws. There are so many laws that no one knows what they can do. Dare I dig a hole in my garden? I am not sure that such an action is legal.

It is all about the abolition of PRIVACY. I suppose that Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany was much the same.






I have been reading this evening, before I went to the pub, Chris Snowdon’s short book entitled ‘Killjoys’. I am about a third of the way through. You can read it here:

I am very impressed so far. I do not intend to try to summarise Chris’s book at this time. I have not read it all. But some comment are worthwhile.

The idea of ‘nudging’ implies some sort of ‘push’, but not a ‘shove’. One could imagine someone saying, “I nudged my way through the crowd”. What does that mean? It means that “I” applied a little pressure physically to ‘the crowd’, probably with my shoulders, and individuals responded to the pressure by ‘giving way’. It is similar to saying, “Excuse me”. But imagine what would happen if you were in a queue and a person said, “Excuse me”, and you stood aside to let that person through, but that person joined the queue right in front of you. Would you not say, “Excuse me, but I would prefer that you join the queue behind me rather than in front of me”. That would be a polite way to say, “Get to the back of the queue, you cunt”.

The phrase “Excuse me” is has much the same effect as a physical nudge. In fact, you could say that there is no need to actually ‘nudge’ – all you have to do is say, “Excuse me”, and people will naturally give way.

The UK Gov a few years ago, under the premiership of that chancer, Cameron, created the ‘Nudge Unit’. I suppose that it still exists, even though ‘Public Health’ has usurped all its functions. But I suppose that the ‘Nudge Unit’ might still be pushing people aside by saying, “Excuse me”. Such ‘nudges’ could be applied to Brexit or anything else.

In England, we have a polite society on the whole, but we do not take kindly to being taken for granted. We rebel against being taken for granted. That is why Brexit occurred. Premier May is no doubt aware that a ‘fudge’ is not on the cards. Or is she? We do not know. A ‘fudge’ is much the same thing as a ‘nudge’.

There is a nastiness involved in ‘nudging’. It depends upon ignorance. Today, a perfect example occurred in my own life. My wife suffers from Multiple Sclerosis. Her legs do not work at all and she cannot urinate or poo normally. She spends most of her time in bed. The condition has got gradually worse and worse. But she is still ‘compos mentis’. Today, a district nurse said that she should not smoke in bed.

I don’t think that the nurse was deliberately ‘nudging’, although she might have been, but her comment was adequately dealt with when I said, “I don’t think that we should go there”.

But what on Earth made her mention ‘smoking’ at all? Our habits are A PRIVATE MATTER. They do not belong to the NHS. She might just as well have said that we should not engage in sexual activity (not that we do! – too old to be bothered). Such things are PRIVATE MATTERS. Our smoking activities are PRIVATE MATTERS.

So if anyone asks me, “Do you smoke?”, I can legitimately say, “That is a PRIVATE MATTER”. Further, if anyone asks me about my habits, I can legitimate lie to them. That puts me on a par with ASH ET AL and the WHO.

Little has been said, in studies and such, about PRIVATE MATTERS. It is as though every aspect of our activities and our thoughts are lawfully viewable. They are not. It is quite doubtful that people can be legitimately tricked into answering surveys which do not reveal the purpose of the survey. And vague reasons are not sufficient.

All the above thinking has come from reading only a third of Chris Snowdon’s book!

But there is a MASSIVE problem. That problem is politicians. “Forgive them, Father, for they do not know what they do” comes to mind. But these people are supposed to be the Elite of the Elite – aren’t they? If they are not, why are they in Parliament? It is scary that politicians are not ‘The Elite’ in terms of wisdom. In other words, why is that ‘The Intellectual Elite’ cannot be elected to Parliament? What is wrong with them?

Perhaps they are ‘not all there’.

More About Tribalism


I remember a quote which my mother told me that her mother told her: “Tories are best for government of the country, and Labour is best for local government”. I’m not sure what that statement was based upon, but I would assume that the idea was that the wealthy Tories could better negotiate (and win) with foreign potentates, whereas Labour would be lacking in such matters, and that local government was closer to the people, where matters to be decided did not depend upon wealth and contacts.

But that quote amply reveals the tribalism of UK major political parties.

Much has been made, again and again, of the idea of ‘Tory Toffs’, and yet such toffs cannot account for so much support for the Tories throughout the population. Perhaps grandma’s observation was more influential than one might think.

Whatever the reasoning, there is little doubt that lots and lots of voters never change their mind. Whatever cock-ups ‘their’ party makes, they always vote for ‘their’ party, even though they play no part in the conduct of that party.

So you get a situation where elected MPs of both parties agree, such as the iniquity of Tobcoms. Thus arises a ‘consensus’. Even a Tory Minister had the gall to say that he would be glad when the Tobcoms played no part in the economy of the UK. He got his way – there are now no major Tobcoms operating in the UK. Factories have been closed down and jobs have been lost, and yet tobacco products continue to flood the country, either legitimately or illegitimately. Don’t believe the stats. They only reveal ‘official’ figures.

Who do Nat Stats ask to complete surveys? In all my life, I have never received such a survey. How are participants chosen? How many people? We know that polsters reckon that about 2,000 participants are enough to reveal the preferences of the whole population. Perhaps that is reasonably true if you are constantly polling 2,000 people from time to time. But they singularly failed to predict the result of the Brexit vote, or the result of the last General Election. Would polling 10,000 people make any difference? How about 100,000 people?

I am wondering if Tribalism is beginning to break down. As the years pass, Tory and Labour are beginning to look much the same. That was especially true when the likes of Blair, an alumni of the upper-class boarding school Fetes, grabbed the Labour Party. Is it any wonder that the marxist Corbin has has replaced the bland, effeminate whoever who ruled before? Is it any wonder that the bland, effeminate Cameron was replaced? Don’t tell me that he ‘resigned’ – he was kicked out. His position was hopeless. And yet his replacement, May, was a Remainer. Has she been converted? I doubt it.

Little of any consequence has been revealed about the Brexit negotiations. We are fed scraps. We have no idea if The Elite are using the negotiations to protect their interests. We have no idea. Nor is it possible for us to know.

It is said that an iceberg is 90% below the surface of the sea. That, I think, is what is happening with Brexit. But the Elite do not see what the electorate voted for. They voted to end THE MONOPOLY. It does not matter if many people were bothered by immigration. That is just one aspect, and a legitimate one. The People were horrified by the idea that ‘foreigners’ could dictate to us.

I say again – it was not about trade. All the shit about trade is irrelevant. That is the least important thing. Trade is easy – just have no barriers. What is important is POWER. Power over The People. The more remote the power, the more difficult it is to combat.

I suppose that a looser version of the EU, one where there was less monopoly, could have worked. The important word is MONOPOLY.

Modern Government is a Monopoly. It is crude. It produces smoking bans. It permits internal corruption, as illustrated by the expenses scandal. It permits excuses for itself. The present sex scandals are distractions.

The reality is incompetence in important things and bad decisions in unimportant things. That is because politicians, individually, have no more idea what to do than the rest of us. They are easily led. But what would you do if you had to decide? Would you accept ‘expert’ opinion about a smoking ban and the results of opinion polls which say that 70% of smokers support such a ban? Would it enter your head that such supporters must be expressing a SECOND preference?  Or would you ‘go with the flow’?

I would guess that NO ONE wanted the smoking ban except the Zealots. It can only be a guess because no study has been conducted in pubs that I know of as to whether or not pub goers prefer a full, cheerful pub as compared with an empty, boring pub.

It seems to take decades for mistakes to be corrected, witness the EU rules about ecigs. Decades will elapse before those rules will  be changed.

Unless there is a revolution. Remember that ‘revolution’ means ‘revolt’. It means that citizens refuse to obey. It means that citizens are fined enormous sums which they cannot or refuse to pay. They get imprisoned.

Tribalism is part of the reason that decent citizens are pilloried.

You would think that tribalism would have become defunct in the modern world, but the reality is that it is worse than ever.



Fractured Democracy in Scotland


It seems that the Scot Nats are intent upon forcing supermarkets and restaurants to reduce portion sizes. The objective, it seems, is to combat the ‘obesity epidemic’ in Scotland. We note that the attack on ordinary people is indirect and that ordinary people would have no say. If you went to a restaurant, you would have no right to ‘ask for more’. Is that not very Dickensian? “Please may I have more?” “Sorry, Madam, the LAW is that you are only allowed so much, as per what is on your plate. We would be closed down if we gave you more. Sorry”. It seems that, day by day, the people who are supposed to be OUR voices are the voices of oppressors.

How on earth has that happened?

I think that it is the result of tribalism. Somehow or other, the Scot Nats managed to convince enough Scotsmen and women that independence was so important that it overrode all other considerations. Thus, the Scot Nats managed to create a TRIBE. We must understand what we mean by the word TRIBE.  A TRIBE is a close-nit ‘family’ group of people who defend themselves against intruders. The wise elders dictate what the younger members do. There is no dissent possible, other than in discussions among the wise elders. Things start to go awry in the tribe when the wise elders decide that the youth are becoming to indolent, fat and drunk, and decide to attack not the enemies of the tribe but members of the tribe. For a while, only small numbers of the tribe are disciplined but the discipline spreads.

There results the wonderful construct of ‘cognitive dissonance’. No one wants to weaken the tribe, but quiet questions start to be asked about the competence of the elders. No one speaks out because such speech would be seen as weakening the morale of the tribe.

The discipline becomes tougher and tougher, and thus the ‘cognitive dissonance’ becomes more and more pronounced, but the discipline holds. Anyone who whispers is denounced and harried.

And then something breaks. A few people gather their courage and shout, “The Emperor is naked!” And so the current elders are replaced. But the replacements turn out to be just as bad as the previous elders, if not worse.

But still, no one wants to destroy the hegemony of the tribe. The trouble is that the ‘cognitive  dissonance’ has not been resolved.

In general terms, Brexit and Trump have resolved the ‘cognitive dissonance’ to some extent, but not completely. Again, as we saw with the replacement of elders in a tribe, ‘fake news’ is in the ascendant. Brexit is not about trade. There is no reason whatsoever that trade arrangements should be disrupted. Brexit is about political autonomy. It is about not being dictated to about who can become citizens of the UK. Only we decide. It is about not being subservient to the UN, WHO, IPCC, etc. They are all, at best, advisors. They cannot tell us, the people of the UK, what to do.

And has that not been a huge problem? I remember a Minister saying in the Commons, that Parliament must pass a law because a treaty of the UN said so. Is there a better example of ‘cognitive dissonance’? How could an MP not see that the supremacy of Parliament had been compromised? That Minister was rapidly sacked.

There was a survey in which it was revealed that The People of the UK are unhappy with Brexit negotiations. And so they should be. Either the States of the EU want free trade with the UK or they do not. It is a simple question and has little to do with Brexit. Brexit is all about politics. We do not want horse-trading, at great length, with lots of ‘inducements’, about the strength of e-liquid, for example. That is corruption.

The EU is corrupt and the corruption is very expensive. Have our negotiators factored in the cost of years and years of corruption? Have they factored in the cost of UN complicity in the EU?

The corrupt complicity with the UN, WHO, FCTC, IPCC, etc has been very visible for years and years. Only ‘cognisant dissonance’ can account for the aberration. “The UN is wonderful and we must support it to the hilt”. That is the root of the ‘dissonance ‘. The fact is that the UN is nothing. It is all talk and reverberations of the air. It exists from moment to moment.

Democracy in Scotland has become nonsensical. It is ridiculous that a tribe which has been defeated can still be in power. That is the essence of ‘cognitive dissonance’.