You can look up Talking Heads videos yourselves.
Quick visit tonight. I picked up ‘Creepshow 2′ and ‘The Fear 2′ in the bargain bins so I’ll be settling down to a night of amusing video shortly.
There are writing tasks to complete. One is taking longer than I thought it would but it’s a fairly complex factual story and I have to get it just right. It’s serious so it’s important to get this one exactly right.
The thing about writing, especially fiction, is that it has to make sense. Oh, I can have a window floating in the air with a room on one side and the world on the other, but no walls. I can do that as long as I have a good reason why that window is there and why it only works from one side. It doesn’t have to be real but here has to be a logic to it.
The real world suffers no such constraints. I was listening to a recent David Icke performance (I know, it makes my head go all strange but since he dropped the lizards he now poses some interesting questions) and something he said struck a chord.
He was talking about his World Elite who are, it seems, no longer lizards. He raised a very interesting point. With all the countries in the world, with all their different lifestyles, different forms of government, different ways of doing things, how can they all enact the same policy at the same time?
The smoking ban is a prime example. It came in all over the place over a very short timespan. It’s not just an EU thing, it popped up in the USA and in Australia and in other countries, all at largely the same time. That, for me, does strongly suggest that there might be something in this ‘global elite’ idea after all.
Yet something wasn’t right. When you look at what this global elite seem to want, one of their major objectives is a massive reduction in world population. A reduction that makes the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot look like naughty little boys. We are talking about reducing seven billion people down to about five million. That’s a very big pile of dead people.
In that case, why do they want us to stop smoking? Surely having twenty percent of the population cough themselves into Purgatory would help with the whole population reduction idea? Why don’t they want us obese? Why don’t they want us to hit our livers with the booze-hammer until they pop?
Okay, we can speculate that they want us healthy for spare parts but how many spare parts can they use? The shelf life of a spleen isn’t all that long. They don’t need very many of us healthy, the rest of us could just be allowed to enjoy ourselves to death and that would make this population-reduction a breeze. Give us free booze and tobacco and salt and fat and drugs and we’ll reduce ourselves very nicely. And we’ll be too plastered to breed.
Instead they impose smoking bans and fat taxes and booze restrictions and then release the instructions on how to make a virus that will kill us all just as we become healthier than we’ve ever been. It makes no sense at all.
Unless you stop thinking of the Dreadful Arnott as the controller of a lot of useful idiots, and consider her just a useful idiot herself.
The Dreadful Arnott is focused on smoker-bashing. It’s what she does. She loves to make smokers suffer. The ban has made no difference to health or smoking prevalence anywhere, it has destroyed businesses, put a lot of people out of work, made twenty percent of the population into pariahs but she insists it has worked and is popular. Plain packaging will do nothing, and she must know it, but she is using ever more ridiculous arguments to push for it. Smuggling and counterfeiting is now rife and not just tobacco, illegal stills are popping up everywhere too. ASH simply deny that smuggling happens.
Idiot? Well, her credentials on that aspect are impeccable – but useful? To whom?
Not to the global elite, surely? Isn’t she doing exactly the opposite of what they want? Isn’t ASH and the WHO, by bringing in smoking bans in multiple countries simultaneously, risking giving away the existence of a central control group? What aspect of global control is served by the smoking ban?
We know it’s not about anyone’s health and never was. Some drones still try to resurrect that old ‘it was to protect barworkers’ rubbish but Dreadful herself has admitted it was never about that. For her, it was all about denormalisation of smokers.
Swift gear-change here. Gay marriage.
Okay, that did grind the gears a bit but I think I got away with it.
I am neither gay nor religious so gay marriage is of no relevance to me at all. I don’t care if it’s called civil partnership, marriage, gurgleflop, the holey-pokey or The Grand Ceremony of Eric the Giraffe. It has no effect on me whatsoever so I don’t care. That, I now realise, is a very dangerous attitude.
Look at those non-smokers. Not the antismokers, there are nowhere near as many of them as they think. Those who don’t smoke and don’t care about smoking. Those businesses that were non-smoking before the ban. Churches too. Why would a church support any rights of smokers? They never allowed smoking on their premises. The ban made no difference to them. All those nonsmokers who lived smoke-free lives anyway and who weren’t bothered either way about tobacco – the ban made no difference to them. Are they all happy with it, as the Dreadful Arnott claims? Or was it more a case of ‘Are you troubled by the smoking ban?’ to which most nonsmokers would say ‘Of course not, I don’t smoke so it has no effect on me’.
The insistence on calling a gay coupling ‘marriage’ has no effect on me. None at all. It has had a profound effect on the religious and it means that what used to be ‘marriage’ is no longer what it was. Religion lays claim to the terminology and I’ve never cared about that either. Still don’t, really. But look at it as though I was a non-smoker when the ban came in. It has no effect on me but a whole load of people are very deeply affected. They are marginalised and brushed aside in the name of ‘progressiveness’. To me, there has been no change at all as far as I can see but to those religious people, something very fundamental is being taken from them.
Just as the smoking ban took something very fundamental out of my life.
I don’t think Peter Tatchell, or whatever his name is, has any New World Order agenda. He just enjoys bashing Christians, whether they are running a hotel or the entire Church of England. Just as the Dreadful Arnott certainly does not speak for all non-smokers, he does not speak for all gay men. Just the radical look-at-me-I’m-important section. He is as useful an idiot as the Dreadful Arnott, but in a different part of the game.
If you are going to control a population, they can have no other god but you. All the totalitarians try to wipe out religion. This new lot have Nature as their worship, which is why they want to get most of the people off it. Those left cannot imagine themselves to be any kind of ‘chosen people’ or they might start another Exodus all over again. Religion has to go. Bit by bit. Destroy one religion with another, then demonise the incoming one, then rip out the central tenets using your special groups that can quash any objection with ‘whateverophobia’.
Don’t get too confident, Tatchell. Islam was once the golden child of the Righteous and that is already changing. They aren’t needed any more. You’re expendable too.
So what does the smoking ban achieve? It had no effect on eighty percent of the population. Or did it?
One of the advertised aims of this global elite is the abolition of private property. They can’t just muscle up one day and say ‘Right, your house is mine now.’ They have to do it by stealth.
Twenty percent of the population noticed that on the day of the smoking ban, the State now dictates what a private property owner can and cannot do on their property. Eighty percent of the population said ‘So what? We weren’t doing it anyway’ and missed the point. If someone smokes on your premises you will be fined. Not the smoker. You. You are now the unpaid enforcer of someone else’s rules on your property and you cannot refuse to comply.
The State has taken ownership of your property and left you there as caretaker. For now.
The smoking ban was never about health. It seems to me that it was never even about smoking. It was about getting State rules universally imposed on private property. Start with one that lots of people will agree with and once that principle is established, you’re in. They are already moving into your home and even if you have a totally non-smoking home, this rule will apply to you. So will the next one, and the one after that.
Think back ten years. What would you have said if someone told you there’d be tax on food? Get the population all worked up about obesity, get them to hate the overweight and get them thinking that only the obese will be punished by a food tax and hey presto – tax on food. Just the fatty stuff to start with… to start with. Then the sugar and the salt. Perhaps the fizzy drinks. But that’s all, no more, because there has been no escalation of any other measure, has there? Oh wait, look at how much fuel it takes to move runner beans from Nigeria to Luton. All that carbon! Green tax on your greens.
None of these measures are really about health or equality even though those pushing them might genuinely think they are. They are about taking control of property, getting everyone to accept taxes on everything, and removing any religion that competes with Gaia. There are other movements pushing other aspects and none of them look to be even remotely connected. I have to admit, it’s all very cleverly arranged.
We’re even going to be happy about euthanasia soon.They’ve made it a fairground ride. A roller-coaster to die for.
I hope someone can blow that argument right out of the water because I really don’t want to be right.
Anyway, I’m going to cheer myself up with some horror films. They are less scary than thinking about this.
Hi Leg!
You wrote, “The smoking ban is a prime example. It came in all over the place over a very short timespan. It’s not just an EU thing, it popped up in the USA and in Australia and in other countries, all at largely the same time.”
I see it as a combination of two main forces actually:
1) The recognition among the “Tobacco Control” folks in 1975 and thereafter that focusing on ETS and smoking bans “to protect those around smokers” would be a more effective social control device than just continuing to dun the message of “Don’t Smoke!”
and
2) A massive influx of money in the US through tobacco taxes funneled directly into the antismoking groups. Suddenly you had a movement that had been subsisting on a nationwide budget in the tens of thousands of dollars being given tens of MILLIONS of dollars: a thousandfold increase. Instead of just being a small bag of nuts and fanatics, the movement now had access to quality media and a body of full time professionals to push their insanity. The US Master Settlement Agreement (the MSA) pumped it up to well over 800 million dollars a year by 2001: that sort of money buys a LOT of push.
The early stages of that money started rolling into the pockets of the Anti groups in California in the late 1980s. By 1995 they got a full restaurant ban along with the “promise” of a moderate bar ban by 1998 that most folks never believed would really happen. They were wrong of course and the Antis made the politicians stick to the promise and suddenly we had one of the largest and most “important” of the US States with a bar ban for all bars employing six or more people.
Even then, the Antis were stymied despite all their money: they got a number of little local bans, but in general California was seen as a fruitcake state and everyone just figured they’d go back to “normal” at some point. Instead we got a couple of fruitcake governors in NY and Delaware, and a fruitcake/control-freak Mayor in NY City. Suddenly we not only had three states with bar bans (actually four, although Florida’s didn’t include “stand-alone” bars) but we had the unthinkable concept of a working bar ban in NEW YORK CITY — a place where half the bars were regularly known for everything from brawls to gang activity to outright gun fights … but where suddenly the bartenders were throwing people out for smoking because they feared they’d lose their liquor licenses!
That’s really what broke the dam: a combination of insane amounts of money over here combined with a confluence of unfortunate “accidents.” And the money here was enough to spread the contagion across the seas. The NY model of conscripting civilians against their will and forcing them to act as Citizen Vigilante Enforcers in the bars they owned or worked in was the best idea since the Nazi and Stazi “secret police” snitches. It was picked up in force by the Irish model and worked well there because so many Irish pub “regulars” were friends with their pubkeepers and “didn’t want to cause them trouble.”
And the rest of the history you know very well.
:/
MJM
P.S. Re Australia: That’s something I’ve never understood. The person with the best handle on that would be Rick Vincent DiPierri at:
http://www.rampant-antismoking.com/
who has been fighting them for over ten years now. His book is a masterpiece and he’s made it free for download from that site. Highly recommended!
MJM
Nice post as always, Leggy. Just one thing; I’m a non smoker and I care about the smoking ban. I care because I see what they have done to those who choose to smoke and, like you I know it’s just the first rung on an almighty ladder of intolerance and denormalisation. I’m not sure I’m quite there with the global elite stuff – yet. But the more I read and the more I learn from bloggers such as yourself, the more I realise how ignorant I have been. It’s kind of like the bit in the matrix and the red-pill, blue pill choice. It’s quite scary how deep the rabbit hole goes.
I keep reading references to “The Matrix”, and I haven’t a clue. I must watch it – it is a film, isn’t it?
It’s probably in the bargain bins by now. Good film but total fiction. It’s the principle people refer to when they quote it, that of a population who have no idea what’s really happening.
Something closer to home would be Terry Gilliam’s ‘Brazil’.
“In that case, why do they want us to stop smoking? Surely having twenty percent of the population cough themselves into Purgatory would help with the whole population reduction idea? Why don’t they want us obese? Why don’t they want us to hit our livers with the booze-hammer until they pop?”
Perhaps because they know that all these nasty habits actually make little difference to the average lifespan.
Or, perhaps, increase life span and cognitive abilities?
As someone who watches people he cares about (friends, not relatives – I volunteer) slip into dementia, what I want to know from the antismokers is this: How will you die? You will die, how will you die? You’ve been telling me that I’ll get small cell carcinoma of the lung, or I’ll bugger my bladder, tongue, oesophagus, pancreas, liver, kidneys or any other primary organ you care to name.
How will you die?
Hopefully sweating in a pile of your own rotting filth, despised by your family
as an imposition and executed by the state of which you are so fond, through starvation.
Moreover, I hope that the nursing assistant at your care home doesn’t do a very good job at wiping your backside. You can feel that itch, right down there Debs, but you can’t reach it. After the stroke you had, all you can do is ‘mmm’ and everybody does that in here.
They though that you’d lost sensation, but you can certainly feel that.
It’s so itchy, Deborah.
I want it to itch for decades.
I can’t remember who said it but – they’re going to feel awfully silly one day, lying in a hospital bed and dying of nothing.
Many thanks for stating in public that they want to reduce the human population.
I know it’s been stated many times by others, but – thus far – not that I’m aware on the the anti-ban blogs.
I read the Celestine Prophecy – a 1993 novel by James Redfield and felt some of his opinions about levels of consciousness to have vague merit, though it was that – a novel and put it in the same bucket as Erich von Däniken and his Chariots of the Gods.
Increasingly I’ve had to question if others may have taken these ideas seriously because there is a way off the wall answer to your question about why they want to cull the human population.
Well the theory goes that Old Age Testament ages were fact and there’s no good reason why we can’t rack up a couple of hundred years. The sane tell them those figures were based on a lunar calendar, so Methuselah was something like 76 when he popped his clogs.
However the big kicker is the certain knowledge that the sun will become a White Dwarf and in about 200,000 years Earth will start to become toast. That’s why they’re spending vast amounts trying to find another planet for us to live on.
Take the two together and it starts to make sense. Except for one thing. 99.9% of the suckers will be left to fry and the chances of any group of humans living in perfect harmony for 500 years on a space craft is nothing more than wishful thinking.
And it depends very heavily on future generations going along with that theory.
No shooting the messenger svp.
What we need here, I think, is Douglas Adams’ ‘B’ ark…
It was about getting State rules universally imposed on private property
Ditto the hunting ban. The alleged support for a ban on hunting with dogs seemed to be about one side of the political spectrum enforcing its will on the other. But most people don’t hunt and probably thought ‘this has nothing to do with me’.
Once it was shown that a powerful group such as the Countryside Alliance could be defeated, the other groups could be picked off one by one. The smoking ban affected that bastion of working class baccy, the Working Mens clubs. Canvassers on the doorsteps went back and told Gordon Brown’s government point blank that this had hurt them, but the government did nothing even though it was itself being damaged. Bizarre, but explained adequately by your recognition that the motivation was, and is, the over-arching imposition of the state over private property and individual freedom.
You have definitely seen the light, Leggy.
“In that case, why do they want us to stop smoking?”
Ooh, where to start with that question? Well, there are actually plenty of reasons why anti-smoking has been seized upon so enthusiastically by adherents of eugenics.
Firstly, it has been posited that smoking prolongs, rather than shortens life, along the lines of “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” It’s notable, for example, that those of us “of a certain age” who were brought up in close contact with smoking parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents and friends, and who often smoked alongside them ourselves as we grew to adulthood; and who daily spent time on buses, trains, in cinemas, pubs, restaurants and offices surrounded by tobacco smoke just also happen to be the longest-lived generation in recorded history. The last thing that eugenicists want is a lot of tough-as-old-boots 40-a-day smokers jogging on into their nineties, stubbornly refusing to succumb to all the new bugs and viruses that they keep unleashing experimentally on the population.
But smoking bans and forced “quit” programmes also result in an increase in: (1) obesity (2) isolation and loneliness (3) depression and other mental illnesses and (4) mental deterioration, Alzheimer’s and senile dementia – all of which are extremely useful disorders for aspiring eugenicists to encourage within a society for all number of reasons, whether because they are directly harmful to health in and of themselves (thus shortening life), because they exacerbate problems to such an extent that the sufferer may either harm themselves (thus doing the eugenicists’ job for them) or may become troublesome within society (thus gaining public support for the medical wing of the eugenicist movement to “do something about these people”) or because they become mentally incapable of realising what is being done to them and thus unable to protest against it (thus enabling eugenicists to do away with a few “undesirables” without anyone knowing or challenging them).
There are as many reasons for anti-smokers to be anti-smokers as there are anti-smokers on the planet. Politicians, as you point out, Leggy, for setting precedents and seeing how far they can push people and where the boundaries lie; healthists for ideological/religious reasons; puritans because the act of stopping someone from enjoying themselves is in and of itself their own best-favoured form of enjoyment; and individual anti-smokers just from a driving need to feel better than someone else and to have someone upon whom they can vent their misplaced fury at the meaninglessness of their own empty little lives.
And eugenicists simply because anti-smoking is a damned useful tool for furthering – step by step and inch by inch – their own ultimate agenda.
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories because I don’t believe that there can be structured, planned consensus among disparate groups. What I do see, however, is Zeitgeist and I suspect that the Zeitgeist of any age is a result of a host of complex factors ‘interacting’, exploiited by those in power, eg we have a diminishing of the power of the Church, this gives rise to a culture of secularism which is exploited by the State, which in turn, is influenced by policy advisers. So, for example, the lack of belief in an after-life allows Government to exploit the fear of death through sin taxes, reinforced by the likes of ASH who happen to benefit from collusion.
I’m sure that everything boils down to money-power-saving face just as it’s always done.
I used to dismiss conspiracy theories entirely and I’m still very sceptical about this ‘world elite’ idea. The ‘bloodlines’ Icke and others talk about have produced the likes of Prince Charles and can anyone see him successfully plotting anything? He’s no Blofeld, that’s for sure.
However, it could be done using disparate groups, each with their own narrow agenda. You’d just need to be in a position to direct funding to whichever groups will do whatever you want done at the moment. When they’ve done what you want, you move funding to the next one. For people in the right positions it wouldn’t be hard.
I’m not saying that’s what’s happening, but it certainly could be done.
The question is why? To get into that position you’d have to have more money than anyone could ever spend so money couldn’t be the motivation. I can’t understand why anyone would want to rule the world – if I was rich enough, I’d buy a small island somewhere and let the rest of the world go to hell. I just can’t understand the mindset that would want that level of control. I don’t even want an assistant!
Then again, there have been lots of attempts to control the world. None ever work. It’s easier to herd cats.
It’s power, Leggy. Power and money are so closely interlinked with each other in our society that very often the two become confused, or even seen as the same thing – the phrase “the rich and powerful” didn’t come together by chance. But as you say, there comes a point where some people have so much money that, to be honest, it ceases to mean anything for them and getting more of it is a bit of a pointless exercise (not to mention the fact that the more they have, the less the rest of us have, which in turn starts to devalue the very concept of money – in a hypothetical extreme situation, for example, if one person had all the money in the world, it would be worthless!) And at that point, all that’s left for them to enjoy is the wielding of power which their money has got them. In fact, for many very wealthy people, it was the desire for power – even if only subconsciously – which made them pursue the money in the first place.
Like you, I don’t understand how anyone can enjoy having power over anyone else. It’s not something I’ve ever aspired to and I strongly suspect that in the unlikely event that I ever found myself with any I’d find it a rather uncomfortable experience. But just because I might not enjoy having power over others doesn’t mean that there aren’t people out there who do – as smokers we should understand that better than anyone, after all the times we’ve been told by the antis how unthinkable it is that we enjoy smoking just because they don’t.
For some people power really is like a drug – intoxicating, thrilling and endlessly enjoyable – again, the phrase “letting the power go to one’s head” is no accident. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it’s yet another reason (to be added to my list above) as to why some anti-smokers are anti-smokers – they’re hooked on the power which the recent groundswell of opinion against smokers has afforded them. Even if they’re not big movers and shakers in the world of anti-smoking, just being a minion in “the movement” gives them a teeny bit of power over all those naughty smokers, which in turn gives them a bit of a boost and a bit of a “high” every time they utilise it with a fake cough, or a scowl, or a weakly flapping hand. Indeed, the overly-hysterical and increasingly desperate reactions of the whole anti-smoking movement against the now-obvious subsiding of that same groundswell is, in and of itself, a classic marker of addictive behaviour. And if the little guys can get that hooked on the ability to throw their weight around in such a minor, insignificant way, just think how much of a kick the big guys, with the real power must get.
It’s true that the smaller the man, the bigger the kick they get from power over others. For a literal interpretation, just look at Sarkozy.
I think you’re right that those who want such power are the same as those who always want more money. Enough to live comfortably is never enough for them. They have to have the next big car or the Lear jet or the yacht or whatever it takes to make them feel important. They’re always trying to be better than the Joneses and they never understand why the Joneses don’t care.
That’s why those totalitarian regimes always fall. They cannot understand our minds any more than we can understand theirs. The difference is that we aren’t trying to make them think like us.
These smoking bans and attacks on our lifestyles don’t seem to be about helping us to live longer. They’re more about getting us used to being controlled. The tiny amount of people living longer due to stopping smoking and drinking etc will be dwarfed by the billions that will die from chemtrails and compulsory immunisations and genetic foods from Monsanto etc.
I’m not religious either but see the attack on religion as similar to the attack on smokers and drinkers. So it’s worth standing up to the elite who want to kill off religion. They obviously see religion as a threat to them.
The attack on religion is part of the “plan”. I would suggest that it’s not “religious,” but “spiritual.” True love vs. true hate.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12
I’ve been looking at this website: http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1023-financial-tyranny?start=1 as it documents historical information regarding Freemasonry, the Rothchilds, the Rockfellers, etc. It also documents the Illuminati and its 25-point strategy. (http://www.freeforum101.com/artneuro/viewtopic.php?p=863 — this is only one list). Part of the Illuminati’s “plan” was 3 world wars. It also has some information on the Federal Reserve, which, as we’ve been seeing lately, is very “powerful” — I don’t think we know even the half of it!
Anyway–”conspiracy theory”? Maybe, maybe not, but definitely something to consider. Thank God for the internet — we need to make sure it is kept free!
Again, we probably have a multifactorial situation. I suspect that ‘self-defence’ and ‘survival’ play an important part in ‘control’.
We could think about someone like Bill Gates. He invented the computer operating systems we all use. As his invention becomes more widespread in day-to-day use, others try to steal it and so he needs to defend it. Others are also improving it, so he needs to be one step ahead of them all the time. His organisation grows and grows, faster and faster. He needs also to drive competitors out of business if he can. He hires lawyers to sue for copyright infringements. He needs more and more wealth to pay for everything which he is doing to defend his creature. And so it goes on as he becomes more and more obsessed with defence.
We see same thing in the way ASH ET AL have exploited the self-defence instincts non-smokers and the defence of not only the non-smokers own children but all children, We are now starting to see ASH ET AL starting to defend their own income and their positions.
And what more than anything do you need to defend your income and your positions?
Power!!!
XX Okay, we can speculate that they want us healthy for spare parts but how many spare parts can they use? XX
I think you have missed an important point.
At the same time the worlds dicatorships muscled up to ban smoking, they also “invented” the “opt OUT” clause for organ donations.
XX Twenty percent of the population noticed that on the day of the smoking ban, the State now dictates what a private property owner can and cannot do on their property. XX
From the day they invented “licencing laws” they could do that. The smoking ban is just an extention of what the dictatorship have been doing for centuries.
Does NOT make it RIGHT. Just to point out it is nothing new.