|
Participate to the annual FORCES B.O.D. election. Click here.
Media
April 13
[03:00 GMT]
-
Here is what YOU think
– How can a medium outlet such as the British Broadcasting Corporation pack
a colossal institutional fraud in six minutes and 46 seconds and nudge the
viewer to the conclusion that smoking bans are “the right thing” after all?
There are several techniques, and our CEO explores one of them.
The mass media collaboration with institutional corruption to promote culture
engineering is one of the most fundamental problems of our time, as liberties
and economies are at stake along with the future structure of society.
Will it be dictatorship or freedom? Probably neither. It may be a
dictatorship by committee that redefines oppression and state control as
"liberty from" some proclaimed evil. That is no speculation: the
oppression of smokers is already "freedom from addiction" and their persecution
is "social therapy". Epidemiological frauds such as that of passive smoke
are endorsed by governments as the legitimate and even moral
tools needed as "social therapy" to "help" smokers achieve their "freedom from".
Obvious crooks sitting in positions of power show public contempt for those who
denounce their frauds, and proudly push them even further.
If you don't like what you read, that's good – but then here comes the
instigation: what are you prepared to do about it? There are risks
and prices to pay in challenging "public health" crooks – even more so when you
cannot get rid of them through democracy as they are appointed ministers or
bureaucrats. While you think, here is a good risk-free suggestion:
don't believe the mass-media – especially when they talk about health, which
is the most important issue in the world. Why? Because it is the
perfect vehicle to deliver "de-politicisized" commands directly to your beliefs
and behaviour – and nothing is more political than that.
Fight for
freedom
April 13
[03:00 GMT]
-
Candidates to oppose smoking ban
- Putting the money where their mouths are candidates in Scotland declare
their intention to amend the smoking ban legislation. A key point to
the platform is to amend the smoking ban so smoking in well-ventilated rooms
in recreational establishments be allowed. Hardly a radical proposal
considering smoking has occurred in Scotland for centuries without
government intervention. The candidates cite the catastrophic losses
experienced by business since the imposition of the smoking ban.
The goalposts change
constantly. As well as misleading the public about the dangers of
secondary smoke, the Executive has misled the government about the
popularity of the measure, and declared that any less draconian method
would be unenforceable. Their aim is to 'make smoking socially
unacceptable', in the hope that people will smoke less, and not caring
how much loathing of smokers they generate along the way.
While these candidacies may
be dismissed as single-issue grandstanding, those running realize that when
the government embraces scientific fraud in order to implement social,
economic and political policies upon the citizens who, after all, are free
to choose which pubs and restaurants they wish to frequent, a dangerous
trend has been established that bodes ill for everyone.
Manipulation
April 13
[03:00 GMT]
-
Re-branding a fraud
-
In
an implicit admission that the anthropogenic climate change furor may be
losing its head of steam the United Nations announced that the old fraud
should be tarted up to gain more support. To be highlighted at a
conference in Bankok in May, the UN will focus on the opportunities that
will arise from fighting global warming rather than the negative message of
impending doom that has so saturated the consciousness of mainstream media
consumers. Instead of harping on drought and marooned polar bears an
upbeat message of economic betterment for all is just the trick to convert
the agnostic into true believers that immediate action is required to
prevent the planet from erupting into a globe of fire. As the UN
bureaucrats put it:
The most promising policy
initiatives ... seem to be those that capitalize on natural synergies
between climate protection and development priorities to simultaneously
advance both.
When the dreaded word "synergy"
is invoked it's a sure thing that the current marketing thrust is a bust.
Re-branding is a method of taking the same old product, sprucing it up and
hiring a PR firm to get the buzz going in the hopes that sales will stop
their slide. That the UN is embarking on re-branding man-made climate
change is an encouraging development that people aren't necessarily fooled
by bogus "consensus of scientists", shrill harangues by politicians or media
hyperventilation. Re-brand all you want, United Nations, but remember:
You can dress up a pig, put lipstick on the snout and call it Monique but
when all is said and done what you have is still a pig.
Junk
science and propaganda
April 13
[03:00 GMT]
-
A surplus of girls
-
We
are all aware of the distressing imbalance between the sexes in North America
and Europe. A surplus of women, resulting in cutthroat competition for the
few eligible men, threatens to tear our society asunder. The answer of why
boy babies are as rare as Manhattan parking spots and how to replenish the
vanishing men is revealed by a diligent team of pediatricians in Liverpool
England who discovered that mothers who smoke are one third less likely to
deliver a boy while if both parents smoke the chance of delivering a boy drops
by one half. The promiscuous smoking habits of "the greatest generation"
produced a legacy of old maids and a few epicene men who, at the snap of their
fingers, scoop up the best looking, most intelligent and richest women,
desperate to land a man.
The above is satire but the study is real.
One needn't bother with the mechanics of the study, but rest assured that the
relative risks don't rise to any level that would cause worry. One need
only know that the parents of the massive numbers of children born after the
Second World War ended smoked at much higher rates than any time in history.
Their offspring, the baby boomers, while all too liable to believe any health
scare that catches their attention, are distributed evenly between the two
sexes, just as has been the case since man first appeared. The
pediatricians' "study" is junk as anyone with a brain, or memory, can see.
Antismoking morality
April 12
[03:00 GMT]
-
Coherence,
where are you?
– My God, what shame. Why take money from a legal industry that sells a legal
product that they say it is so bad? It’s immoral! This seems to be the
tone of some press
that has crossed the bridge joining the island of epidemiological frauds with
that of cheap moralism/paternalism on a social scapegoat. Universities
must not take money from an industry that the “public health” cons say kills
_______ (fill in the blank with the number that impresses you most today
– the bigger the better) people. But it is perfectly alright for universities to
cash antitobacco money – as
Michael McFadden, the Philadelphia author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
coherently argues.
“If the university rejects all studies that would be funded by those
arguably supporting one particular view while welcoming funding from
those supporting the opposite view, it can hardly be called an
enhancement to independent research. Unless the university wishes to
display a shameful lack of ethics, it needs to adopt the same policy for
all grants from organizations publicly devoted to smoking bans, higher
taxes on smokers, or other such goals that would interfere with true
neutrality of research.”
That,
of course, assumes moral integrity and intellectual honesty
where one measure applies universally – an expectation slightly excessive
for a system that is rotten at the roots. The concept today is that
the use of fraud and corruption to fight what is politically incorrect is
legitimate and fair. On the other hand, the use of fraud and
corruption by those who are legal but politically incorrect is corruption.
Antitobacco has
put itself on the same pedestal of the street cop who tries to catch the thief.
Would it be reasonable to demand that the thief be entitled to equal standing
with the cop in a chase? No, because the moral standing of the cop is
higher than that of the thief. This is the implicit rationale used by
antismoking offenders to justify institutional inequality – and it will
be that way until the antismoking offenders in power are forcibly removed.
Expecting justice and coherence from crooks who make laws and moral rules to
suite themselves is, unfortunately, illogical – but it will not change until it
is made to change.
Modern scapegoats
April 12
[03:00 GMT]
-
WHO has another mission
- Has lung cancer mortality really decreased because people “smoke less”?
Let’s not forget that lung cancer is a multifactorial disease, and remember that
the same toxic components that are in tobacco smoke are also in any organic
substance that burns. In fact, the big question is not whether the toxics
in tobacco smoke exist or not, as they sure do. Rather, it is whether the
quantities inhaled are sufficient to cause disease. It is also important to
remember that smoking is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause for
cancer in general, and for lung cancer in particular.
Many other factors have contributed to the decrease of lung cancer – from
dietary to socio-economic to environmental. These last ones are totally ignored
by antismoking propaganda because they stand to be the most likely reason for
the reduction of lung cancer, attributed to smoking in all smokers. Wood
and coal burning, poor or no ventilation in the past – and while smoking was at
its peak – were heavy (and probably the main) contributors to the disease, as
Steve Cross points out in
this
piece on Freedom To Choose.
“…We
have been told that the decline in lung cancers in the UK from the mid
1970's was fully attributable to declines in smoking but this is also
the very time at which gas fires started to replace open fires in homes.
With open fires killing so many people in India how do the WHO explain
this obvious omission from their anti smoking claims in the West?”
The WHO
can’t explain it, but we can: it has much to do with its
official partnership with Big Pharma on the one hand, and with the need
for a social scapegoat on the other.
Straightening up eaters
April 12
[03:00 GMT]
-
Soft drink tax
-
Norway
is poised to raise taxes on soft drinks and sweets. The country has a
history of taxing "luxury" products such as alcohol and cigarettes and now
is going after products that are considered "unhealthy." While
refreshing to read a news story that veers off script by mentioning
cigarettes and soft drinks in the same paragraph but labelling just the soft
drinks as unhealthy, it is disturbing that governments throughout the world
are basing policy decisions on pseudo "scientists" who crank out junk
studies that are more hype than research. The government is keeping
its cards close to its vest on how high the taxes will go and on what they
will be imposed but the ubiquitous "activists" hope for at least a doubling
of the tax rate. The activists also are clear on why taxes must be
raised:
"The problem is that we eat much too much sugar... too little fruit and
vegetables, and too many processed foods like potato chips."
As usual the operative speaks for the population at large, deciding with his
use of the royal "we" what will be done with the taxpayers who pay his
salary. The newspaper moves back on script as it reports that
Norwegians are firmly behind the government's plan to raise taxes.
Never before have there been so many people who want their taxes raised, at
least according to those who live to bilk the public.
April 12
[03:00 GMT]
-
Salt, the new Plutonium
-
Who
would have thought it? Apparently in Canada there are 15,000 dead
bodies found each year, every last one of them done in by salt. The
numbers come from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the
American shakedown organization that wants everyone everywhere to adopt its
austere diet of self-denial. CSPI is not above lying to stir up
hysteria while pressuring governments to crack down on the consumer.
For some reason salt consumption is an inordinate concern of this group even
though at the moment "research" has been exonerating salt after years of
demonization. America may not produce any goods that people would like
to buy these days but it sure is successful in peddling junk science
throughout the world, no matter how fraudulent the claims.
April 12
[03:00 GMT]
-
Eat drink and be merry for dieting is no use
-
The
experts for years have been hectoring us to loose weight since we are too
damned fat. The message is relentless and accompanies the drumbeat of
countless "studies" proclaiming that the industrialized nations are
undergoing an epidemic of obesity. Governments have of course gotten
in the act by re-defining obesity and heaviness so that more people fall
into that category without having to gain a pound. Dieting has become
a chronic condition for a huge swath of people.
So what are to make of the latest research that seems to say "give up and
pork up?" At least that is one message coming from junk science
central, the University of California where "scientists" analyzed dozens of
studies involving thousands of dieters. The university's conclusion?
Dieting doesn't work. This is an odd message to proclaim during an
epidemic of obesity and speculations on the university's motives are just
that. One explanation is that the university is preparing to pave the
path for the pharmaceutical industry to enter more aggressively the weight
loss game. Just as those who successfully quit smoking are those who
do so without using smoking cessation products those who lose weight and
keep it off do so on their own using will power. Will power cannot be
patented but weight loss aids can be. Pharmaceutical money is behind
the studies that discovered an obesity epidemic just as pharmaceutical money
financed "research" that discovered that smoking leads to all manner of
illness and an early, inevitable death. Based on its behavior
regarding tobacco, expect a flurry of studies recommending professional help
and pharmaceutical aids to lose weight successfully. It worked
with tobacco so why change a con job that brings lots of money to Big Drugs.
The world upside down
|
 |
|
Should antismoking
advocates be protected by disability laws? |
|
April 11
[03:00 GMT]
-
Antismoking is a disability: should antismoking advocates be protected by Human
Rights laws?
– In the past there was nothing that could be done for "inferior" people such as
women and blacks. Whilst Jews were the “danger from within”, the “reds”
could be “educated” and the “yellows” shown who’s in charge. But at least
there was hope for gays. In the eyes of many, gays were “sick people” who
perhaps could undergo some sort of hormonal or psycho-therapy treatment, get
“straight” again, and thus “recuperate” from their disability. We were not
without compassion after all.
We hate to
break it to you folks, but today all that bigotry is unchanged in spite
of political correctness. Because of it, in fact, we have changed the
targets
but not the travesty: those who are "different" are sick and need therapy and
social “compassion”.
The paper we
link to is proof. Its title is "Butt Out or You’re Out: Should Smoking Be
a Disability for the Purposes of Human Rights Law with Respect to Employment?"
The paper itself is a window into, and the product of, a severe cultural
disability, and of a dark aspect of the human nature which today has gone out of
control. Once again we have state sanctioned and initiated prejudice.
Criminal governments, through their “public health” ministries, push the
“disease” theory for those they think are "different", encouraging hatred and
promoting the use of “pharmaceutical” therapies sold by those whose lobbies
control the ministries. The most appalling aspect of this perversion is
that there are smokers who have completely fallen into the role of victims and –
like most victims – forego human dignity to take advantage of the situation and
suggest that they are indeed disabled. They keep on smoking while
cravenly faking reality by pretending that their "victimhood" is the result of
malign entities out to make a buck off their "suffering."
Disability
implies inferior abilities or – to put it in politically correct terms –
“different abilities”. Indeed the greatest thinkers, philosophers, writers
and artists of our last few centuries – most of them smokers – were differently
able. In light of that, papers and notions and concepts such as what we
read in this paper should be, quite plainly, shoved deep where the sun never
shines – and that would be a different ability too. Antismoking advocates,
on the other hand, must concede that they suffer the most degrading disability
of all:
that of soul and mind on top of obsessive-compulsive behaviour. For
that reason they should be protected by Human Rights laws. That must be
kept in mind in the future – when we will throw them in jail because their
public frauds will be defeated: after all, we are not without compassion.
Belgium: smoking bans are good for business, didn’t you know?...
April 11
[03:00 GMT]
-
Restaurant business plummeting in Belgium since smoking ban
 –
Since the implementation of the general smoking ban in Brussels “for the
protection of non smokers’ health” from dangers that do not exist, the situation
for the hospitality industry in general and restaurants in particular has become
truly precarious. Because of the huge business losses, many restaurant
owners have been forced to shut down (and consequently to lay off employees).
The losses are due solely to the fact that their customers can no longer smoke
during of after their meals and – like everywhere else in the world – they have
decided that they will continue to smoke during their meals at home.
Belgian smokers have also moved to pubs and bars, where it is still possible to
smoke and consume small dinners. Many restaurant owners report business
losses of 50% compared to when liberty existed in Belgium.
We at FORCES
know what the simple corrective measures should be: lift the ban and allow
business owners to choose their smoking policy. But we also know how the
crooks of "public health” think. They are aware that smoking is a popular
choice, and that most non smokers don’t mind smoking. As a result of that,
restaurants offering a non smoking environment would be few and far between.
Finally, freedom of choice would reveal the real popularity
of their criminal crusade – a reality that can not be covered up by the usual
misleading opinion polls routinely financed by "public health" itself and that,
predictably, show "overwhelming support" for total smoking bans.
That being
unacceptable, of course, the next logical step is to forbid smoking in pubs
and bars too so that – the crooks reckon – smokers will go back to
restaurants because they will be forced to. Once again as it
happened in other countries, the next consequence is also predictable: smokers
will stay home and discover that they can smoke galore, wine and dine for half
the cost and with twice the fun than in non smoking locales. Finally
we also know of the general stupidity of the hospitality industry, which will
have supported “public health’s” total ban in the name of “level play field” –
just before digging its own grave. “Equality under oppression” has always
been the motto of the dumb servant.
Clearing the Air
April 11
[03:00 GMT]
-
Secondhand smoke air quality test results measuring nicotine cited by the
British Medical Journal.....proves secondhand smoke is not a health hazard
- This piece by Clearing the Air looks at the math of the AQ test result
published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) which not only used the same
methodology as the St. Louis Park Environmental Health Department, and Roswell
Park/American Cancer Society, but the results prove that passive smoke
concentrations are 2.6 - 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA indoor air quality
standards require for second-hand smoke. Anybody with an upcoming court or
legislative battle should disseminate this information far and wide.
Straightening up eaters and saving the world
April 10
[03:00 GMT]
-
You are what you eat and what you eat is killing you and others
- Our ancestors spent the better part of 2 million years climbing to the top
of the food chain. Now those who know what’s best for us want to knock us
down a link or two by scaring us into believing that eating and cooking meat
will cause various cancers and that raising and processing meat causes
global warming.
Don’t
laugh this off. It’s the same tactic used to frighten the uninformed
that second hand smoke will kill them. Note the 17 heterocyclic amines
(HCAs) that “MAY” cause cancer in the
first article
(second item)
about the perils of outdoor grilling. “May” these also be the very
carcinogens responsible for non-smoking restaurant workers’ illnesses?
But we digress.
Then
there’s the acronym SAD for the “standard American diet” in the second
article,
Meat is a Global Warming Issue,
designed
to de-normalize meat consumption and make human carnivores seem misguided
and unintentionally cruel. All this should sound sickeningly familiar
to regular Forces readers, just substitute tobacco for meat. All
that’s missing is Robert Wood Johnson Foundation dollars. Once sugar daddy
Johnson & Johnson figures out how to provide PRT (Protein Replacement
Therapy) through a patch or gum, watch the bucks pour in. Over the counter,
of course, since the Food and Drug Administration requires more than an 8%
efficacy rate for prescription drugs — thus the change from requiring a
prescription to over the counter for their nicotine patch.
And
it’ll all be for our own good.
Junk science
 April
10
[03:00 GMT]
-
Smoking while pregnant raises the likelihood of female offsprings
- Fresh out of the press, here is the latest piece of epidemiological trash on
smoking. Armed with fresh questionnaires to demonstrate a preconceived decision,
here come “scientists” to tell us that mothers who smoke are more likely to have
a girl than a boy. It gets even better than that: if mother does not smoke but
she is exposed to passive smoke – yes! – she increases her chances of having a
girl! No kidding, read this: “…but that passive smoking may also affect the
gender of a child. Mothers who do not smoke but are exposed to cigarettes from
partners are less likely to have boys”.
 And:
“…When we adjusted for factors statistically like maternal age
and if both parents smoked they had almost double the chance of having a female
baby.” These poor people really seem to believe that stuff, don’t they?...
They really think that questionnaires can be tuned like radios. What other
variables have they “adjusted” for? What about family history, socio-economic
status, stress, menstrual cycles… the list is endless – so endless, in fact,
that all the possible combinations would equate to a number large enough to be
expressed with a 2-digit exponential notation. But the message is clear:
they want to project the general concept that smoking is so dangerous and
so generally “bad” that it can even alter the sex of children! The lesson is
also clear: use multifactorial epidemiology – the holy grail of “public health”
and health advocates - as toilet paper. And learn from the caveat spoken,
almost as an after thought, by the “scientists”. It describes, in one short
phrase, all that epidemiology is about: “We don't know what causes it.”
The moral inversion of “public health”: crooks investigate honest people
April 10
[03:00 GMT]
-
Enstrom cleared of scientific misconduct charges; American Cancer Society owes
him an apology
- Let us go to the core of the matter: we are living in a moral inversion, where
crooks are in charge and are antismoking. Honest epidemiologists who do
not twist the data to support the frauds and beliefs of the antismoking mafia
are called crooks or at least accused of “scientific misconduct”. The
misconduct, in this case, is that the results of Enstrom and Kabat study have
not been manipulated to support the fraudulent agenda of antitobacco on the
payroll of the pharmaceutical industry. All our readers are familiar with
the story concerning this study. The story is a confirmation of the lack of
ethics of gangs like the American Cancer Society and the legion of con artists
in the antismoking industry.
For details, visit James Enstrom’s website.
Michael Siegel,
in accordance with the rules of ethics and honesty, says that the ACS owes
Enstrom an apology – something that every honest person would agree with.
But what is overlooked is that the ACS and the rest of the antismoking mafia
are not honest, do not care about being honest, have contempt for the truth when
it does not serve their political purpose and consider fraud and
misinformation a legitimate tool to be used in their pharmaceutical fight
against smoking. Therefore, in a system that has been perverted into a
moral inversion, it is only “right” that honest researchers such as Enstrom get
investigated for not having come up with results corroborating the
passive smoke fraud. Crooks have become the system of “public
health”. It is time to find the courage to face that.
Prohibition
April
10
[03:00 GMT]
-
A modest proposal
-
Currently in Michigan there is a well financed effort to enact a smoking ban
in restaurants and bars. Michigan is unfortunately in the midst of a severe
economic decline due to current trade policies. In fact many small
businesses are struggling to survive. Knowing this the state
legislature is somewhat hesitant to pursue this smoking ban. But the
spin machine of the anti smoking movement is in high gear. The deluge of
anti smoking positions in the media to support this smoking ban has kicked
into high gear.
I wasn't
surprised to hear that smoking is choice that can no longer be tolerated.
Also that through legislation those who make the choice to smoke will find
themselves further isolated from society. When reading the local news
paper, views and opinions presented by smokers always seem to have the same
old twist that "I know this isn't isn't good for me" and "Please have some
consideration for me". Most seem to admit defeat. Not once have I read
or heard a choice other than continuing with the status quo or submission to
the ban. I was somewhat surprised when the Flint Journal actually published
the below letter I wrote them:
Maybe it's
time to consider the unthinkable. I'm talking about a modified version of
locking up all the smokers to protect the public health. Just imagine all of
the social pariahs locked up together, inhaling that toxic cigarette smoke,
puffing their way to the Big Dirt Nap. Finally, the nonsmoker's pristine
nostrils and virgin lungs would be forever protected from the ravages of
evil tobacco when dining out, or drinking in a tavern.
That's
right, I'm proposing "Smoking only" restaurants and bars as a solution. We
all must face the fact that putting smokers and nonsmokers together in a
closed and poorly ventilated room is no longer the viable solution it used
to be. Nonsmoking and smoking-only restaurants and bars could be the
solution that works for smokers, nonsmokers, and proprietors.
If what
nonsmokers say is true, then it will just be a matter of time before
smoking-only establishments fail because of a lack of customers, or until
the next study determines that just the thought of someone enjoying a
cigarette causes cancer. — Randy Piotraczki, letter to the editor, Flint
Journal, 3/20/07
The
Journal in their wisdom misspelled my last name bad did have the balls to
print it. It didn't stop the antis from still contacting me to inform
me of the stupidity of my simple suggestion. As a matter of fact I got
the impression by their reaction it scared the hell out of them. I
used the antis own dogma against them to justify the choice of "smoking
only". You all know what the result was from this. There is only
one one choice "Non Smoking". This simple letter has got people
thinking and talking. Most got the point of the final sentence, and
the ones that didn't never will. I am just one of many smokers who
have had enough and are more than willing push back. —
Randy
Piotraczk,
Michigan resident
Junk science and propaganda
April 9
[03:00 GMT]
A new con in town - Søren Højbjerg reports from Denmark on a new
entrant to the cancer rackets. This new group declares that it will not
tolerate lung cancer. Such an adamantine vow won't provide much relief to
cancer sufferers but it helps to establish the street cred of yet another gang
cashing in on the west's morbid fear of death. The new group focuses on a
particular form of lung cancer that mysteriously shuns smokers, preferring
instead to wreak vengeance on non-smokers and "reformed" smokers. Other
factoids are dispensed, proving that what a grifter lacks in logic he makes up
in floods of verbiage, some of it contradictory. Mr. Højbjerg welcomes the
new group but ponders its survival as it intrudes on territory already staked
out by the current mob of cancer vultures.
Joy of living
 It
is exquisite, romantic, sophisticated and we're going to get our hands on it!
The Cuban Cigar - Strangely not engaging the automatic routine of
enumerating the “smoking-related deaths” that is typical of all articles on
tobacco, this piece from CNN concentrates on the cultural aspects of the Cuban
cigar, and closes by highlighting the important economic contribution of smoking
to Cuban economy. For the cigar aficionado as well as the cigarette smoker this
is an refreshing break from the endless hammering of fraudulent
antismoking propaganda.
Behavior control
April 9
[03:00 GMT]
-
To cut or not to cut
-
The
New York City Health Department is considering a campaign to urge men to
undergo circumcision as a way to combat the spread of AIDS. Leave
aside for a moment the likelihood of an adult man volunteering to have his
foreskin sliced off and focus instead on the hyper-activism and
credulousness of Public Health today, not just in New York City. The
circumcision thrust comes, not surprisingly, from the World Health
Organization. The WHO claims that circumcised men have a lesser risk
of acquiring the HIV virus than do the uncircumcised. The relative
risks, however, relegate the studies that come up with some puny percentages
as junk. Undergoing the knife in order to reap the rewards of a 48 to
50 percent reduction is absurd when epidemiologists insist that 200 percent
or, even better, 300 percent, are the percentages that would indicate
corrective action is required. The WHO and its slavish minions in
public health are pushing a solution based upon research that doesn't say
much of anything, just as they do with the fraudulent studies regarding
tobacco. Why on earth would the WHO and New York City be advocating
painful surgery that will, based on the WHO's own research, do absolutely
nothing to combat AIDS? Our site is full of possible answers but
considering the fictitious nature of "scientific" studies these days we'll
quote the words of Myra Breckinridge, Gore Vidal's sublime avatar of
self-creation who, wanting to violate the young men under her tutelage was
piqued to find that all too many had already been raped by the surgical
knife at birth.
"Just as expected, seventy-two percent of the male students are
circumcised. At [the] party I had been reminded of the promiscuous way
in which American doctors circumcise males in childhood, a practice I
highly disapprove of [constituting, as it does] 'a rape of the penis'.
Until the forties, only the upper or educated classes were circumcised
in America. The REAL people were spared this humiliation. But
during the affluent postwar years the operation became standard
procedure,
making money for doctors as well as allowing the American mother to
mutilate her son in order that he might never forget her early power
over him."
United Kingdom
 April
9
[03:00 GMT]
-
A better generation of fighters - The international antismoking mob makes a
huge effort to project the impression that "society has decided that smoking is
no longer a socially acceptable behaviour". That is false, of course, but
the reason why there are smoking bans is to project that message, socially
intimidate smokers into obedience, convert them to the products offered by Big
Pharma and “settle” the issue that way. We also know that there is no
health hazard from passive smoke and that there has never been one. So the issue
is exclusively that of mercantile social engineering and control.
What Big Health
has miscalculated is the determination of people. Many of them do not simply
surrender because “Big Authority” has decided to pilot them. In the UK,
Freedom To Choose
is a recently created group that has decided to abandon finally the trite,
tobacco industry-style approach of the “smoking is bad but… let’s have a
debate while you are beating us up” and has chosen to fight legally,
socially and culturally.
In the video to
the right we enjoy F2C spokesperson, Mr. Martinez, presenting the position of
his group on the
passive smoke
fraud-based British smoking ban. F2C represents a new generation of
fighters who understand the fundamental realities of this war (notice: not
debate), which are: a) It is a fight for the long run; b) Groups have to be
structured and organized; c) The institutional corruption pushing frauds on
smoking and health is to be taken head-on as opposed to being "talked around";
d) The structure is to survive the single individual, offer a growing opposition
and to make it difficult for “public health” and antitobacco activists to push
their campaigns. But, especially, F2C is not dependant on tobacco money for its
survival. That is not because they believe that tobacco money is “tainted."
Big Tobacco money is honestly earned by a legal industry. But they know that
the industry has bent over and does not want to challenge authorities
it fears and depends on to operate – thus it cannot address the conscious
misrepresentations that authorities make at the expense not just of smokers, but
of all UK citizens. If you care about your freedom – to smoke and otherwise –
and you live in the UK,
give them a call.
They are sure worth it, for they know that "public health" frauds and state
intrusion are not an acceptable behaviour.
What the UK still is…
April 9
[03:00 GMT]
-
Man builds own private pub to dodge smoking ban
- “A grandfather was so outraged by a Wales-wide ban on smoking in public
places he built his own private pub…. friends and family of Mr Morgan can
puff away regardless [of the smoking ban], safe in the knowledge they are
perfectly legal. … It's 100 per cent a stand against the ban - I don't
make any money out of it. 'I would rather do that than be dictated to about not
smoking in pubs. The ban is over the top as far as I'm concerned, and the same
goes for my friends.' ”
Kudos to Mr. Kerry Morgan in his private war against state fraud and
prevarication. We wish him and his antismoking-free pub the best of luck and
success, and we hope that those who enjoy his kind hospitality will give him
generous donations so that he can keep thumbing his nose at antitobacco
fascists. A pint and a smoke are an inseparable couple which certainly is not to
be broken up by institutional fraud and made-up “health hazards”
–
none of them demonstrable in the slightest to boot!
… and what the UK is becoming if "Health & Safety" are not stopped
|
Talking camera surveillance to reduce litter |
 |
|
IT
WILL NOT END UNTIL YOU MAKE IT END |
|
April 9
[03:00 GMT]
-
Absolute control and surveillance mean safer and cleaner streets
– Yes, it is “bad” to throw that candy wrapper or butt on the sidewalk –
and sure, you are part of the majority who “doesn’t do that”. But –
what do you know – there are always those bloody phantom minorities that
are the “fault” of everything – in every and all dictatorships. Yes again: it
is
possible to have a perfect society where all streets are spotless and
safe, and where everybody behaves exactly in the best possible manner for
the good of all in the name of progress and civilization. All you need is
absolute oppression, total control, rootless enforcement, heavy sanctions
and fear, lots of fear. What you need is really to feel that
the State is “watching you” – always, no matter what you do or where you are.
Fear will "help you" remember all
the multiplying, innumerable and ever-changing rules and laws of a
bureaucracy-driven society. And, failing that, there will always be the heavy
fine (or the squealing zealot co-worker) to remind you that what you do is no
longer legal, now that the pettiness has finally become the law.
And things are getting even better now, don’t worry: technology is coming to
help. Be happy and smile - if you have nothing to hide, that is: cameras
are not just watching you anymore. They are warning you and telling you
what to do – with loudspeakers! Just imagine the positive, educational
effect of a voice coming out of nowhere telling you “don’t do that!” when
you throw a butt on the sidewalk. Kiss the Authority of the Supreme State (ASS),
and obey gratefully for the education you are receiving. Isn't that
wonderful? In one easy step you have been located, identified, and
automatically issued an educational ticket that will be delivered to your place
of residence and which you can pay through Internet banking without even moving
from home: how easier can Big Brother manage your life for you? And you
know what your big problem really is? You think that you need that.
And today’s bureaucrats believe the equation too: total, absolute behaviour
control = total, absolute health and safety. So who are the fools
saying that we must draw lines? Here is the solution: let's draw lines
that move all the time, an unbeatable way to make cultures out of
dictatorships. Adolph is delighted: it took him about 70 years, but
finally his British cousins understand and honour his good intentions.
After all, he just wanted to educate them to healthy and safe lifestyles.
|
