Promoting the Incompetent


I read somewhere today Jeremy Hunt is fed up with being Sec of State for Health, after six years in the job. I do not know why, since he could have requested a change when May reshuffled after the Gen Elec. Anyway, it is rumoured that Anne Milton MP might replace him.

Ha! Ha ha! Ha Ha Ha! When she was last a junior minister, she was sacked for sheer incompetence – actually removed from Government. She was given a position in the whips office, but it is rumoured she wept bucket-loads of tears when she was dismissed. So how the hell does she wheedle her way into favour again? It beats me. Perhaps the sacked Health Minister, Soubry (the one who thought that ecigs had been removed from the TPD) will also be resurrected. Perhaps this has something to do with it:

Incompetence is not important – gender is. Experience and skill are not important – gender is.

Of course, the Telegraph article might be ‘fake news’. It mentions seven possible promotions. It may be that May intends only four promotions. So that would be OK then. Only four females who know bugger all about the ministries involved.

There again, Maybe Theresa May is something of a King (or Queen?). Her objective might be to remove potential opponents and replace them with compliant substitutes. Why not? She has her own ‘cabinet’ of advisors. “Who will rid me of this (these) troublesome priest (priests)?” comes to mind. Perhaps she does not care that her days are numbered. Are not the days of all PMs numbered? How many have lasted for more than a few years in the past couple of decades?

What I find very annoying is that really important UK issues are not important in that scenario. Only personal advancement matters. Thus, platitudes abound, such as the effect of SHS in pubs. Former MPs do not give a shit that their platitudes and votes for the smoking ban destroyed many pubs and created isolation and morbidity (in every sense). In our language, the word ‘morbid’ is not essentially associated with physical illness. It is associated with a sort of depression:

From the Cambridge dictionary:

The fact of being too interested in unpleasant subjects, especially death:

“She remembered her dead brother without morbidity.”

Only recently has the Medical Profession purloined the word to mean ‘illness’. Perhaps the etymology of the word has something to do with the French word for death: mort.

We have a local election in our ward to elect a Councillor to the Bolton Local Authority. Very few people can be bothered to vote – maybe 20 or 30%. I received a pamphlet from the Tory candidate today. He advised not to vote for any party other than Tory or Labour, because Labour could only be ousted by the Tories. I shall be voting for the UKIP candidate if there is one. Why? Because there is a real possibility of the UKIP candidate being elected, as happened last time. In this case, it is not about the EU – it is about ‘balance of power’. A Tory majority would be just as bad as a Labour majority. Oh, and one of his promises is to prioritise dog poo on the streets. That is quite comical since there are hardly any poops on our streets any more. It is pathetic to isolate dog poo as a serious problem. It may be unsightly, but it is not A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

ASH ET AL are fond of the phrase: “Backward step” They say it as though there is something intrinsically wrong with ‘a backward step’. There is nothing whatever wrong with ‘a backward step’, if you are about to be run down by a motor car.

It is a moot point as to whether Wars are caused by special interest groups manipulating temporary politicians. I mean long-term, established special interest groups, whether they be industrial, political in a wide sense, the very wealthy, or whatever.

So PM May might be about to reshuffle and introduce lots of girls into the cabinet? If she does, she is out of her mind.


‘Social Solidarity’: Fairness


I read an interesting essay only a little while ago:

It is a short but interesting read if you ignore the jibes at Trump.

‘Asabiyyah’ is much the same as ‘social solidarity’. It means a high level of trust and ‘togetherness’ within a given group. It is said that there was a time when you did not need to lock your house doors because the idea of robbing your neighbour was anathema. It just did not happen. To have such trust and togetherness, there must be fairness, or, better, the perception of fairness. Perhaps even better, if there is a perception of UNfairness, and it is felt by enough people, then you can forget ‘social solidarity’. DIStrust will be the order of the day.

There are massive ramifications to that idea. Once the ‘feeling’ of unfairness creeps in, then distrust automatically follows.

Why did Brexit occur? Why was the referendum not a walk-over for ‘remain’? I think that we can reasonably say that there must have been millions of ordinary Britons who distrusted the EU. Had they trusted the EU, then must surely have put up with the many manifestations of incompetence and some corruption. But we know that distrust comes from a perception of unfairness. We Brits are especially sensitive to the horror of unfairness. “That’s not fair!” is one of our favourite cries. We even have some sympathy for baddies, if they are treated unfairly.

It is difficult to know where to start. Perhaps the prison smoking ban is a good point. How can an ordinary Brit have any sympathy for a criminal in prison? As I far as I personally am concerned, it is about not punishing people more than the law demands – in this case, loss of freedom. “It’s not fair!” to deprive the prisoners of a little pleasure which is not part of the sentence. What is worse is they are even deprived of that little solace outdoors in the open air. But, of course, I have a personal interest, being a persecuted smoker. What surprises me is that organisations which claim to look after the interests of prisoners have not said a dicky-bird about the smoking ban. Why is that? One can only assume that they are so far up the ‘do goodie arsehole’ that they agree with the ban – for health reasons, of course.

But what was the unfairness about the EU? What did the majority of Brits see? I suppose that there may well have been many and various unfairnessnesses, of which immigration might have been one. For example, why would Polish people cross the whole of the rest of Europe to get the the UK? Why should Britain accept a ‘quota’ of grown-up young men masquerading as children? I would have thought that every smoker and vaper in the UK would have voted ‘Leave’, if only on the principle (It’s not fair!) that smoking has bugger all to do with the EU.

And is that not a very, very important point? There has been a massive distortion of what the EU was intended to be. Parts of it are simply off-shoots of the WHO. Who gave the EU power to decide what is or is not healthy? It was enough for the EU to organise standards of the quality of horse meat and similar products. It was not to ban snus everywhere except Sweden. Who let the EU do it?

But there must be more ‘unfairness’ perceived by Brits than individual components. I suspect that is loss of self-determination. Stories abound in the papers about matters referred to the EU Court of Justice. ‘That is not fair!’ Why should our own courts be insufficient? And it is even worse when the EU Justice overturns our own Court judgements!

Further, I think that a large number of Brits have wondered what our Parliament exists for. Does it exist to discuss gold-plating EU directives? Or does it exist to decide matters such as PP? Is its existence like this?:

Perhaps many thinking Brits are aware of the costs of the EU and have reckoned that those costs are far too great to be justifiable. I agree totally with that. The EU ‘Government’ has produced almost nothing of value. It has created ‘level playing fields’ which ought not to be level. It is a parasite.

So a majority of Brits decided, on balance, and for their own individual reasons, that the EU is not for us. It is unfair. And that is what bothers me about ‘the negotiations’. Will May give away our fisheries in exchange for ownership of Greek debt? That is the sort of ephemeral ‘gain’ which none of us, except the fat cats in the City, understand.

The settlement will have to go before Parliament. There is no doubt. It will have to be in the form of a Treaty which replaces all previous Treaties. That is the bugger. It is massively complicated. What to keep and what to throw away?

Is there a simple answer? I think that there is. Keep what is ‘fair’.

Not much else matters.

Happy New Year!


I must admit that I rather over-indulged last night, so much so that I forgot my manners. So I hope that readers enjoy a contended 2018.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother with anti-smoker zealotry. It only makes me annoyed and discontented. Sometimes I think about the worst scenario. In the immediate future, what is the worst scenario? As far as herself and I are concerned, it is having to pay full price for our cigs. We can afford to do so, so what is the problem? Why do I let TC try to make me miserable? For is that not precisely what they are trying to do? What are those ‘hard-hitting’ TV adverts, showing tumours growing on cigs, for, other than to make us afraid and miserable?

Maybe its the injustice of it all which keeps me involved. Parliament votes organisations like ASH taxpayers’ monies to produce the hate-filled propaganda and a lot of those monies are monies extorted from the pockets of smokers. And what is behind Parliament’s actions? Idealism, that’s what. Religious persecution is forbidden by Constitutions and even by the EU, but it does not stop Government and the EU from engaging in blatant persecution which is ‘religious’ in it form. According to TC, the devil is Big Tobacco and everyone must accede to that ‘belief’. No deviation is permitted. I guess that that is the definition of a cult. Anyone who opposes the ‘creed’ is drummed out, ostracised and, if possible, ruined. And the Zealots get away with it as though their actions were perfectly ethical. Is that surprising since the Zealots control most of the eminences of ‘the medical establishment’, including the WHO, EU Health Dept and National Health Depts? And very remunerative the whole industry is.

Yes, I think that it is the injustice which drive me on.

I think that the key, when reading stuff from ASH ET AL, is to treat them in the same way that they treat us. Don’t take it personally. Their lies and propaganda have nothing to do with each one of us personally. Be patient. Watch them splitting into sub-groups, fighting like rats in a sack. When ASH indicate their support for ecigs, they are lying. They want control and ownership of ecigs as ‘cessation devices’. In that way, they can exclude tobacco companies. That is their objective. The fact that thousands of vape shops will be forced to close is irrelevant to their cult. So, whilst they theoretically support ecigs, the reality is that they detest them and wish that ecigs had never gatecrashed the party.

For a lovely party it is – or was. Lots of jollies all over the world, paid for by a combination of taxpayers and Big Pharma. Lots of academic papers, paid for by students and grants. Lots of newspaper adulation and publicity. FAME AT LAST!

But bun-fights are breaking out all over the place. Party-goers are chucking glasses of champagne in each other’s faces. As an example, ever since Glantz was accused of lechery and plagiarism, ‘Dr’ Siegel has not posted anything on his website:

The last entry was 6th Dec. I don’t blame him for shutting up shop. Anything that he says will be plagued by his claims that Glantz was his hero and mentor. What is even more amusing is that it is not long ago that Glantz was tearing Siegel’s support for ecigs apart.

Academics weary me. You would think that they would indulge in intellectual arguments without rancour, but they are just as tetchy as the most vituperative of Twitterers. They call each other rotten. How does Government chose its academic advisors? Think about that.

A cabinet reshuffle occurs. An MP who who knows bugger all about health becomes Health Minister. For some reason, said minister need to form a committee to examine ecigs. Who appoints the members of the committee? Not the minister, because he/she knows bugger all. No, a Zealot, placed in the ministry, recommends X, Y, Z, all of whom are zealots, or at least the majority are. There was a good example some years ago, but I cannot remember the detail. A committee was formed for the Health Dept. Someone called Peter Lee, I think, gave evidence on behalf of Tobcoms which made a lot of sense. His evidence was not only ignored but expunged. The recommendations of the committee totally ignored the points raised by Lee. The committee was packed.

That is how modern Government works – not evidence-based policy, but policy-based evidence. Talk about a swamp?!!

So what should happen?

The swamp needs to be drained, just as is the case in the US. Charities which actually do work should be supported in their work, but charities which just talk should not. How much ‘research’ into the causes and cures of cancer has CROOK ever done? Where does all the money from legacies go? What cures have been discovered by CROOK?

(For strangers, CROOK is a parody of CRUK – ‘Cancer Research UK’ – CRUK).

We should notice that TC acts independently of Government. It has a life of its own. As we have seen, TC congratulated Syria for enacting some sort of smoking ban – in the middle of a civil war. As we have seen, the UN appointed that long-standing dictator, Mugabe, as a ‘special envoy’, which was only retracted after world-wide derision.

What thought processes appointed him in the first place, and how disconnected from the real world were those thinkers? WHO WERE THEY? Why are such bonkers people in charge of anything? I think that ‘bonkers’ is the right word. Those people are detached from the real world.

‘Draining the swamp’ is an imperative for all modern governments. In the case of the UK and the EU, it should be made clear that we shall not pay a penny unless we get some sort of ‘quid pro quo’. And we shall not pay a penny unless the EU ‘drains the swamp’.

What I am trying to say is that ‘draining the swamp’ is of the highest priority. Propaganda must cease, and only facts must dictate policy – not ‘evidence’ in the form of ‘may’, ‘might’, ‘it is suggested that’, ‘more research is needed’, etc. That is not evidence because it is not fact. A couple of sites which I read today took ‘climate change’ as a FACT. What I read was about power stations burning wood to power electricity generators on the grounds that CO2 emissions by the burning were equal to the CO2 extractions from the atmosphere by the trees. Or, to put it another way, that CO2 extracted from the atmosphere by the trees was replaced by the burning – a balance. But the academics were not happy. Their thinking was that more and more trees would be required until there were no trees left.

I agree! The idea of using wood to power power-stations is stupid. What is wrong with coal, which is compressed trees from millions of years ago? I do not know the ratio, but I would imagine that coal is at least twice as productive of heat as is wooden chips.

What will happen in the future is that, when gas and coal begin to run out, a way will be found to produce atomic energy easily and safely at a domestic level. I suppose that their are very few people who do not know that you need to switch off the power before you mess with electrical appliances.

I don’t know quite how to put this. An atomic reactor is much like a central heating boiler. When a certain level of heat is achieved, the reactor must switch off. Only one safety factor cannot be regulated, which is the possibility of runaway reactions. A way will be found to exclude that possibility.

But let us not forget that the human race has only scratched at the surface of what is possible. There is a long, long way to go.



It is hard for us amateurs to know what is important. For example, I think that many Brexiteurs expected that the vote in June 2016 would result in our Gov notifying the EU bosses that we were leaving the EU pronto. Article 50? Sod off! The People’s decision meant that Article 50 was irrelevant. Article 50 was a technocratic invention. A letter from the Queen to the EU might have said, “Our subjects have decided to abrogate all treaties which formally bound our Nation. Those treaties are therefore defunct with immediate effect”. But that does not mean that our Nation stepped out of the common market necessarily. We decided to leave the ‘European Union’.

The real question, therefore, is: “What is the European Union?”

I came across a site tonight which revealed why Trump and Brexit came to pass. I cannot find it at the moment. It asked the question, ‘why did Trump and Brexit happen?’ It answered the question thus (not accurate):

“Because you paid more attention to LGBT than providing jobs; because you banned smoking in parks rather than curing diseases; because you promoted immigrant rights over housing.” Something like that.

Do we see a pattern? I see it. I see trivia over substance.

What might a ‘proper’ EU have achieved? It must surely not have been the shape of bananas or incandescent light bulbs or the power of hoovers or tobacco products. What I would have thought would be of primary importance would have been a common language which would have been taught in all schools. The language might be English, French. German or even Latin. The main thing would be that everyone would be able to communicate easily.

I blame our pathetic political system. How was it possible for a Minister to think that ecigs had been dropped from the TPD when the facts were clear for all to see? But why were ecigs considered to be in need of regulation at all?

That is what I mean by trivia. If ecigs are to be regulated to death, how can atomic power plants survive the same interrogation? What safeguards are in place to stop marine life from being damaged by ships’ propellers?

The enjoyment of tobacco has always been trivial as compared with communicable diseases.

Which of our Prime Ministers agreed to allow the UN/WHO to spend our taxes on trivia?

Damned if anyone, including the PMs in question know.



I have, as usual, been reading all sorts of stuff today. What tends to happen, in my tiny mind, is that I see connections between all sorts of different subjects. I really ought to have a jotting pad next to me so that I can make notes when I see connections because it is so easy to forget.

I have often said that Epidemiology is not science – it is just counting. When Dr Snow noticed that cases of cholera in London, during a specific period of time, were located in a specific area of London, he realised that it did not make much sense to believe that the disease was caused by ‘something in the air’. If the cases of cholera were localised, the cause must also be localised. The rest is history. The cause was water-borne and the pathogen was located at a specific water pump which was used by the sufferers.

But what was ‘scientific’ about Dr Snow’s activity? Not a lot. The tool that he used was mathematical – locations and numbers. Counting. The real science was the actual discovery of the pathogen itself.

I think that the importance of Dr Snow’s work was that it pointed the way to the discovery of the real cause of cholera (a bacterium called Vibrio cholerae). What was not quite certain became certain, and it could be tested.

Testing, is the important thing about science. The possibility of ‘falsification’ must be present, otherwise, it is not science.

But we must be wary of the idea that repetition equals ‘potential falsification’. It is not. Repetition might contain the same biases that the original ‘study’ contained.

And is that not the problem with ‘tobacco studies’? They repeat. But they almost exclusively rely upon ‘relative risk’. Let us be clear. The important word there is RISK. I was reading something today about the climbing of Everest. There are about 200 dead bodies lying about on Mount Everest. I don’t know if it is still so, but it appears that some of those dead bodies were in plain sight to climbers, even though they were frozen in place. Climbing Mount Everest is a huge risk, but is it the same sort of risk which smoking entails? No, it is not. The risk of death is 100% – at any instant. It does not matter what the statistics of deaths on climbing Everest show. There make be hundreds of thousands of ‘tourists’ who have climbed Everest and only a few deaths, but each one of those deaths was known as a specific person.

‘Death by smoking’ cannot identify individuals, other than those which resulted from Tobacco Control interference, such as people falling off balconies, or being murdered by a Zealot. Not one individual who died can be truly said to have died because he/she smoked.

It is a hypothesis.

Whenever you see ‘more research is required’ of the words ‘may’, ‘might’ ‘could’, ‘it is possible that’, etc, you are seeing hypotheses.

What is horrific is that actual smoking bans, all over the country, with brutal punishments for rebellion, were enacted on the basis of hypotheses. And it is the same even today, ten years later. Government has learned nothing from the effects of its smoking bans – the closure of pubs, the alienation of millions of smokers, the rise in vituperative and hatred. And what is most important, the hatred that we smokers feel for our persecutors.  I hate every MP who voted for the smoking ban, even if I do not know whom they were.  It is a visceral hatred of oppressors. The treatment of smokers in the UK is just as bad as racism, or even worse.

And the whole thing is based upon a hypothesis – Doll’s Doctors Study. Most of the doctors were smokers and very few of them died from LC. But, according to the study, 15 times more deaths from LC were smokers as compared with non-smokers. Is that conclusive proof? Well, no it is not. Why not? Because no one knows what other factors, for each individual death, were involved.

There seems to have been a rise in the use of hypotheses to create laws and regulations. The process is called ‘evidence based’. Forgive me for laughing. Hypotheses are not ‘evidence’.

For some reason or other, there is a cruelty hidden in plain sight – tax the blighters into submission. And MPs vote for that cruelty. Is it any wonder that ‘entrepreneurs’ are taking advantage of the wicked laws voted in by MPs? It is MPs who are wicked and not the ‘entrepreneurs’.

It is hard to understand how politicians fell for the tricks of the FCTC and the IPCC. Perhaps, en masse, it was just the easiest way.

There are immense repercussions from political acceptance of hypotheses as fact. Not least of which vast waste of taxpayers’ monies.



Is There a Type of Person Who Tends to Authoritarian?


I have been wondering if descriptions of people who get engaged in politics are wide of the mark. What propels certain individuals to become politically active?

One can understand how downtrodden workers might wish to rebel against their bosses. In fact, the Labour Party was founded upon that ideal – exploitation. And members of the Labour Party were revolutionary in their thinking and actions. They took great personal risks to oppose ‘Power’ and ‘Authority’.

Perhaps it is a trait of such courageous people that they tend, themselves, to be authoritarian. Perhaps ‘Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood’ containes within it a contradiction. It is suggested that ‘Liberty’ and ‘Equality’ are contradictory. A population cannot expect to be ‘equal’, meaning ‘all the same’, and and have the ‘Liberty’ to be ‘different’ at the same time.

So maybe people who stand for election as MPs are authoritarian in their nature. And it does not matter what Party they stand for. They are all the same. They are all authoritarian.  Perhaps that is the reason that so many MPs are against Brexit. They are horrified that the UK might diverge from ‘Equality’, also known as ‘the level playing field’. They are horrified that ‘Liberty’ might take precedence.

‘The General Rule’


Even in Shakespeare’s time, several hundred years ago, people, as a general rule, were expected to live for a period of ‘three score years plus ten’ – 70 years. In fact, that number goes back much, much further. It is possible for that ‘general rule’ to be the maximum apart from a relatively few people, in which case it would not be a ‘general rule’ in the sense of ‘an average’, or ‘a majority’.

This idea of ‘The General Rule’ has been picked up by Tobacco Control. Its ‘General Rule’ is that smokers will die ten years before they should do, were it not for the fact that they smoke. Or rather, that 50% of smokers will die ten years before they should.

We can easily understand the notion that smokers die 10 years before non-smokers do – on average. But it is difficult to incorporate the 50% into that idea for most people. Would it not be more rational to say that, on average, smokers die five years before non-smokers, and cut out the superfluous 50%?

I vaguely understand where the 50% came from. It was thus:

The difference in Doll’s graphs between heavy smoker and non-smoker deaths was ten years. Moderate and light smokers were closer to each other. Moderate smokers were only five years earlier, and light smokers were only two years earlier. Needless to say, the Zealots would not want light smokers to know that their long-term risk, as a result of smoking, was only a difference of two years. Far better to exaggerate the ‘50% effect’ of heavy smoking.

Massive problems arise when regulations and laws are applied to whole populations to correct errors which apply to only a few members of that population. For example, district nurses attend our house twice a week. They are all female and rotate through around ten individuals. Of those ten, only two are what I would call ‘slim’; the other eight are somewhat plump. But is there any excuse for NHS personnel to be less than perfect? In fact, why should not fat people such as Glantz not be ignored because they are fat?

The problem is the salami slicing – each slice has been introduced via a clause in an otherwise innocuous Bill. Even the smoking ban itself was just a clause in a Bill concerned with with other matters.

What has happened is that ‘The General Rule’ has been inversed. The ‘General Rule’ was that deaths from smoking were indistinguishable. Now, deaths from smoking require corpses to be fumigated and incinerated.

The ‘Unintended Consequences’ Start to Pile Up


I was reading something today at Samizdata:

The comments turned into a discussion of the Vietnam situation around 1970.

I remember Vietnam. It was a crazy situation. In the end, US citizens got fed up with pictures of US servicemen being brought home in body bags and started shouting.

And rightly so. According to commenters, the US did not send its troops to fight a war with the intention of being victorious by winning the war. It did not want to win the war. It could have ‘won’ quite easily by hitting North Vietnam hard with bombing campaigns, or whatever. Perhaps Americans did not realise that ‘the game’ was not about winning or losing. It was about ‘power-play’. I should imagine that readers would be as appalled as I am to think that the US sent troops to be killed in Vietnam in a war which the US had no intention of winning. That is not the same as defending a territory without the intention of invading the territory of the invader. The Vikings might have stopped trying to invade England had their initial attempts been repulsed.

I have often thought that the best way to deal with ISIS is to let them fight it out. The winners will then become the rulers, and they would then have to take responsibility for the Nation’s affairs. In a way, from our point of view, it does not matter who wins. Let them fight it out.

The involvement of Government in anti-smoking is much the same thing. Gov becomes minus in income from tobacco and plus in costs of enforcement, including stop smoking services and combating illicit imports. Taken to its logical conclusion, only some 5% of people will admit to smoking, but the costs of maintaining that ratio will become horrendous. For smokers will find other suppliers. The smaller the number of smokers, the more difficult it becomes to persecute them. Thus, you can imagine an army of customs officers searching for a 2 kilo parcel of tobacco leaf. I read somewhere that intercepted consignments of millions of cigs were burnt in furnaces powering electricity supplies. So masses of tobacco smoke was poured out into the environment. But who opened the packs and removed the silver foil? Or was the silver foil burnt and poured into the environment along with the tobacco smoke?

The simple fact is that Gov should never have become involved in Zealotry of any kind. That also applies to obesity, global warming, etc. It is not the subject which is the problem – it is the Zealotry. When Gov gives way to Zealotry, and especially when it actively engages with the Zealots, it must become authoritarian. And once it becomes authoritarian as regards one aspect, it is easy for it to become authoritarian in other aspects.

And all the ‘interventions’ become more and more expensive.

The only way forward is to let the Zealots sink or swim.

Trump Says That He Will Cut UN Funding


I don’t know how many people have seen this report:

The report seems to think that Trump decided to cut the US contribution by some $285 million. According to the report:

The U.S. currently funds about 22 percent of the U.N.’s $5.4 billion annual budget.”

Which suggests that the US contribution is about $1 billion. The proposed reduction is therefore quite substantial. The cut is said to be related to the vote in the UN which chastises the US for deciding to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem, but the US Ambassador to the UN said the cuts had been being discussed for months, and were not related to the Jerusalem move. The report also mentions that the US forced the UN to cut the cost of its so-called ‘peace-keeping’ force by $600 million earlier this year.

You can’t help but feel that the Americans are beginning to see the light. For decades, they have maintained a solid control over the UN, but it seems to me that the UN has has gone to far, especially with Climate Control. It makes you wonder to what extent Obama and others fell for the junk science underpinning the likes of the IPCC. It seems to me that Trump has decided to pull the rug from under Agenda 21 programmes which are costing the US loads-a-money and hurting the US economy.

It makes you wonder when he will turn his attention to the FCTC. Is that not another UN agency which has grown like Topsie and is costing a fortune due to jamborees in far flung places where they just talk to each other?

I read today another report that Local Authorities all over England are cutting the financing stop smoking services:

The Zealots are blaming Gov ‘cutz’. They may be right, but if Gov ‘cutz’ are necessary, then LAs have to prioritise stuff. Why pay good money to ‘help’ smokers to quit when there are far more important things that LAs must do? There have been loads and loads of charities touting for funds in the run up to Xmas, mostly ‘for the children’. I have not seen a single advert from TC asking for funding ‘for the children’. Why not? Because they would not receive a single penny, even though it is ‘for the children’.

I was reading the comments to that Independent article and I found it hard to believe the venom being spat out by commenters about smokers. They are really vicious. I find it very hard to understand why ordinary people should get so incensed about something that does not concern them. If people want to go swimming in the ice-cold sea on Boxing Day, and risk heart attacks, why should I rail against them? What has it got to do with me?

Perhaps Gov is beginning to wake up to the fact that the demands of TC are becoming more and more irrelevant. It costs more and more for less and less – not that TC ever actually did anything except demand more and more persecution of smokers.

I found it quite amusing that the WHO boss said that the WHO was at war with Tobcoms, as reported by Dick Puddlecote:

I found it amusing that such a person would want to encourage a vast black market.

But the mantras are always the same, aren’t they? Why is that? I suspect that it is because Agenda 21 is THE IDEAL. It is a sort of bible – written in stone. Unsavoury practices (as decided by the new prophets) waste resources and must therefore be stopped – apart from TC jollies in exotic places.

I have a feeling that it is becoming recognised that TC is becoming less and less relevant every day. It was TC which caused the massive increase in the smuggling of tobacco. But it is not TC which is paying for the massive increase in customs officers. It is non-smoking taxpayers who are paying, just as much as smokers. People forget that tobacco taxes (as well as alcohol and petrol taxes) just go into a big pot, along with income tax etc. Everyone who pays tax pays for customs.

I also read another interesting item somewhere. It appears that the Gov has created a special dept for Universities. The first announcement was that Unis must encourage debate and freedom of speech, and stop this ‘no platforming’ thing. Is Gov back-pedalling on ‘hate speech’? Has it realised that it opened a massive can of worms when it tried to control speech? Imagine the massive waste of police time when it has to investigate ‘he said, she said’ complaints. “He said that I was a fat nigger!” “No I didn’t. I said that she was a fat cunt”.

And so the pressure on Gov grows and grows, and costs grow and grow. It may be that, in budgetary terms, the cost of grants to ASH et al are nothing. Perhaps the realisation that giving in to those groups (financed by Gov) simply encourages further demands, which sound simple enough (like PP), but have immense ongoing costs consequences. In the EU, Tobcoms offered money to help tackle counterfeit cigs. The Zealots screamed and screamed. They want taxpayers in general to pay, and not just smokers.

Personally, I have come to a point where I do not give a toss. I think that Gov has gone way, way beyond what is reasonable in a free society. I do not recognise the laws about tobacco at all. They are despicable and cruel. But they are there, and I must not bring the establishment down on me personally like a ton of bricks.

What I have described above illustrates the the fact that The People, all over the world, are getting fed up with being conned. It is the epitome of a confidence trick that people do not realise that they have been conned until they have fallen for the con. But it is also a fact that, generally speaking, there is no way to get revenge. Either the perpetrators of the con disappear, or they were never really visible in the first place.

ASH has a ‘public face’ in the form of Arnott, but the real owners and drivers are hidden. At one time, Clive Bates was the ‘public face’ until he was replaced seamlessly. Those ‘public faces’ are like masks. They hide the real monsters. The monsters are those who are committed to Agenda 21; those with allegiances to supra-national IDEALS.

‘Servitude’ is not quite ‘slavery’, but it is close to it. You may be free to ‘move on’, but there is not much point in ‘moving on’ if the place you move to is just the same as the previous place. What terrifies Governments is the possibility that anyone and everyone might just decide to do their own thing. Imagine this possibility. Imagine that there was a massive availability of jobs. Imagine that potential employees demanded that they should be paid their wages gross, without any deductions whatsoever. The employer would pay employer Nat Ins contributions, but not deduct employee contributions. The employee would also arrange his tax liabilities. Gov is terrified of such a possibility. It prefers ‘Servitude’.

There are hopeful signs, but not clear signs. Why did the ‘War on Drugs’ fail? One reason was that the word ‘drugs’ has little meaning. No one knows what is a ‘drug’ and what is not. Big Pharma ‘drugs’ are beneficial but street ‘drugs’ are not.

The hopeful signs are cost related. Prison smoking bans have caused riots. Are they worth the costs? Are the riots one-off incidents? I see prison authorities turning a blind eye and paying lip-service to the bans. What else can they do?

The hopeful signs are de-funding of Zealot organisations. Even a mere million pounds, in terms of national budgets, could be spent better on real charities which attempt to succour the homeless. Multiply that number of real charities by thousands and you get a real difference.

Things are changing. The Unis are being told to be objective. Funding will be challenged. Trump has challenged other Nations to raise their contributions to the UN, if they want control. He knows that they will not or cannot do so.

There is much more for Trump to do. But why is he on his own? Why is not the UK also battering the UN? Why is France not also?

There has never been a truer way to describe the situation than ‘drain the swamp’.



I wasn’t going to post anything tonight, but I am still ‘compos mentis’ and I would rather blather than watch my daughters’ choice of TV viewing – ‘Christmas Bake Off’. The contestants are disgusting, filthy, stinking fatties, apart from one token skinny bugger who may be male or may be female with goth overtones.

Several events in the recent past have made me wonder about the ‘allegiance’ of many UK citizens. The whole thing which is happening in my mind, is a mess.

Herself was watching the carol service from some cathedral or other this morning. It was very nice. But I noticed something very odd. The singers were children – about 20 of them. What struck me as odd was the ethnic mix. There were a couple of black kids, an Asian-looking, and Chinese-looking, and a couple of other variations. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but it did seem to be just too good to be true – almost as if it had been set up to be ‘inclusive’. I suppose that it is quite possible that the composition of the choir was decided by a committee which toured schools and chose the singers. The committee might regard all the children as equally able, more or less, so it might pick a Chinese-looking child just for that reason – Chinese-looking.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but, somehow, it also seems to be intrinsically racist! Choosing a person on the grounds of race and diversity is just as racist as excluding.

I worry about the allegiance of our ‘Elite’. I am not really talking about politicians. They depend upon reelection for their existence, but they could be allied to, or even part of the ‘Elite’. No, the ‘Elite’ are outside politics mostly. They head up institutions. They are on the board of organisations such as ASH. Their names, and often their qualifications, are published, but very little else.

It is easy to see how such people can form a clique via international conventions and such. What then happens to the allegiance of such people?

It seems to me that there are large numbers of British, American, German, French, Australian, etc, high-ups in institutions (and not necessarily politicians) who have pledged their allegiance to X.

What is X? I don’t think that it is the UN as such. It is, perhaps, something greater than the UN. It is AN IDEAL. Perhaps that ideal is Agenda 21.

Consider that for a moment. Think about the origins of the Labour Party, and how it began as the mobilisation of worker voters. What enabled the mobilisation? It was THE IDEAL. And the IDEAL was perfectly simple – ‘fair does’. Workers deserved better pay. Once that IDEAL took hold, there was no end to what constitutes ‘better pay’ – and ‘better conditions’ and ‘more love’. Not for a moment am I contesting the need for ‘better pay’ or the need for the Labour Party. All I am saying is that an IDEAL knows no bounds. ‘Better pay’ begets ‘even better pay’, and then ‘even better, better pay’.

What we have seen over the past several decades is the creation of AN IDEAL. And it to that IDEAL that many people have transferred their allegiance. Some are UK citizens, but their allegiance lies elsewhere. You might say that, over the past several decades, a new Tribe has appeared. It is to the new Tribe that these people pledge their allegiance.

Several hundred years ago, King Henry VIII declared himself to be God’s representative in England. In order to ordain himself, he needed to destroy any allegiance to the Pope. He dissolved the monasteries (thereby acquiring all their gold and silver chalices, etc, at the same time). He created the Church of England, of which he was the anointed head.

Are we not seeing much the same thing in principle? Is not the massive taxation of tobacco products not much the same thing as Henry VIII collecting the silver and gold of the monasteries? There is, simply, no economic justification for extra taxes on tobacco, or alcohol or fuel in the modern day. Petrol tax especially comes from the era when motor cars were luxuries. How much damage do those fuel taxes do to our exports?

What is the possibility of a Tory or Labour Gov abolishing such stupid taxes? ZERO!!

So when we talk about the ‘allegiance’ of ‘the Elite’, we must also talk about the allegiance of ‘Political Government’. I find it weird that no MP ever questions simple and obvious artificial costs, imposed upon our industries, by the petrol taxes. Are they stupid? Has Industry never implored Gov to remove the artificial petrol taxes altogether or at least reduce them?

Sooner or later, The People will have to rebel. We cannot go on paying taxes to support obviously corrupt institutions.

Oddly enough, there is a way, although it is far from clear. It is possible NOT TO have to engage in PAYE. It is possible to arrange your financial affairs so that you only pay your taxes on your income ‘on demand’. I do not know how it is done, but it is possible.

But the threat would be enough, if we had the power to threaten. That is the power which MPs, over the years, have denied us. They have rendered us incapable of withholding tax monies by making employers/pension funds liable if they do not deduct taxes at source. In other words, your money is not entirely yours.

We need a Trump. But our Trump would have to be even bigger that the USA Trump. He/she would have to be strong enough to defund and ignore everything coming from Internationalism. That means defunding and withdrawing from the UN, WHO, etc as they presently exist. 

Brexit has indeed opened a can of worms, and not before time. It is hard to believe that our MPs have closed their eyes to the obvious bullying of Nations by the World Bank (aka the USA) and the EU Central Bank (aka the USA).

Is it any wonder that the UN headquarters is in New York? I used to think that is was as a result of USA generosity, but I have come round to the conclusion that it is about control.

I have no doubt that POTUS intends to defend American interests, even if they do not accord with ‘best economic practices’. ‘Protection’ is not always wrong. The EU itself is protective. It is malleable, but has a common external tariff.

So is it not to be expected that ‘experts’ who are also ‘evangelists’ will glorify themselves? Such people have existed before. There were many people in academia, including Richard Doll, who admired Hitler.