Not just smokers.

I picked up a link on the #Octabber page on Farcebok, to an article by Chris Snowden.

Plain packaging is on the way so get those cigarette cases now, while they are still cheap. Frank Davis has a template for making your own card ciggie boxes but I can’t remember how far back in the archives to look for it. I am still mulling over the design for a box of 20 Underdogs, but I should get a move on really. Won’t be long now. I considered calling them Underfags, but in the USA that could be dreadfully misinterpreted.

The main story is, of course, the banning of smoking in cars with horrible screaming brats present. If it calms them down, smoke them. It works with bees, and cheeeldren are similarly noisy and hyperactive.

Did you know that, honey-munching Puritans? When they collect the honey, they calm the bees by filling the hive with smoke. So your honey is full of third hand smoke. And sugar. Oh dear. Death is tapping your shoulder as I type. Tap tap tappity tap tap tap. Feel that bony finger yet?

What is not in the MSM is the enabling act that the Righteous put into that non-democratic railroading of the population. The Department of Health (in the Orwellian sense) can now do as it pleases to smokers without bothering about all that democracy nonsense and without troubling Parliament at all. IIncluding marching us all off to camps and killing us.

The Dreadful Arnott cackles her glee at her new witch-finding powers. She must be getting her Smokerfinder-General outfit made even now. It’ll be interesting…

“Burn the smokers!”

“Um… they’re already alight. And they have all the matches.”

There’s more to it than smoking. Has anyone else noticed the Mail’s daily fat-story? The theme is always the same. Fat girl gets humiliated and then loses loads of weight. The message to the drones is clear  – go out and humiliate fat people. It’s for their own good. Then they can be assimilated into the Collective and be made the same as you. Dull and filled with spite.

The tobacco template says it’s okay to attack those who are not like you, those you don’t like for whatever reason. It’s okay to abuse, denormalise, humiliate and attack them. Point and scream until their bodies can be snatched and they are made to be just like you. Difference is abhorrent, the English traditional love of eccentricity is an abberation, an anomaly to be corrected. You can be part of the hate-wave, you can Belong, you can be a Righteous drone and enjoy the witch-burnings and the hangings. If you’re very lucky, we’ll let you turn on the ovens.

It worked for the Inquisition, for Stalin, for Pol Pot, for Castro, for Hitler, for countless others. Get humanity’s dregs and give them a purpose and let them pick their own targets. Let them have their internal wars where one side is praised and the other damned. It keeps the idiots from realising how they are controlled and as a bonus, rids the regime of those who would oppose it.

The trouble is, once you let the drones out, there’s no stopping them. Smokers, drinkers, fat people, fast foods, even basics like sugar and salt. They find something to hate and form a group to attack it. There is never any science involved. No need. It’s all based on prejudice and spite.

That is why a man was hospitalised by modern youths for… having ginger hair. I have no idea why gingers are a target at all, it’s not as if it can be controlled by altering behaviour or cured by Pharmer drugs – unless the Pharmers also sell hair dye.

Not so long ago, in the UK, (well okay, a few hundred years ago) red hair would mark you as a Celt and someone to avoid irritating. Maybe that is the reason. Maybe they’re still scared.

It doesn’t really matter. Second-hand ginger is no more dangerous than second-hand smoke, but I have a feeling I could convince a few drones that it is.These days it’s hardly even a challenge. Twenty years ago most people would have laughed at the idea but now? Now, most people would be wide-eyed and open-mouthed at the news and just soak it all up. They really will believe any old shit.

The tobacco template made these people into spite-filed morons. It is being applied over and over now and it is no surprise to find a few of the drones applying it themselves, to anything fitting their personal prejudices.

And, as the Dreadful Arnott and her troll army have demonstrated, it’s perfectly okay to do anything you want to those you don’t like.

With full Government support, of course. They don’t like the common man either. None of them.

So don’t go thinking this new enabling act only applies to smokers. Don’t imagine that the incursion of government into your private world stops with smokers in cars. It does not.

It’s just the beginning. There is no end.

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “Not just smokers.

  1. Re PPs and cases: don’t forget the Smoke Screenz cases. Mine are holding up quite well, despite several droppings etc. The hard plastic is actually quite sturdy, and the quality of the artwork, both what they offer and what you can design yourself, is quite high. Heh, I have one done in the style of my original black and white Brains cover which raises some eybrows at the bar: “Huh? What kind of cigarettes are THOSE? ‘Dissecting Antismokers’ BRAINS’ ??? ” LOL!

    http://www.smoke-screenz.com/

    Leg, I’m sure YOU could come up with all SORTS of fun covers to blow the minds of the Antis!

    :>
    MJM

    Like

  2. Second-hand ginger is no more dangerous than second-hand smoke, but I have a feeling I could convince a few drones that it is.

    It’s when we get onto ‘Third-Hand Ginger’ that it starts getting interesting. From a comment by Tom on Frank Davis’s blog:

    Speaking of alleged “third hand smoke”, I now know, for a fact, anyone listing their home for sale in San Francisco, CA, USA, with a licensed real estate agent must answer a very clear yes or else no, to a specific question that asks if anyone has ever smoked in the property. And they place that required question in the same area that inquires aboutlead paint, mold and other required disclosures regarding environmental factors.

    So perhaps we will soon be seeing the question “Has a Ginger ever lived in this property?” I’m sure if you work at it, LI, you can make the question a reality! 🙂 After all, we have to think of the cheeldren, don’t we?

    Like

    • So… if you’re a smoker who obviously doesn;t care if a smoker lived there before, you can get the chouse cheaper because there’s less competition for it.

      Sounds like a good idea to me.

      What will they do though, when the realisation finally dawns that very few houses can claim to have never had a smoker in them? All the antis will have to buy new-build or caravans.

      Like

  3. “Has anyone else noticed the Mail’s daily fat-story?”

    Every day for years now, the bottom left of every page has pictures of slender, mostly near-naked, famous women (not that I’ve heard of most of them!), so they have constantly been pushing the same agenda as the magazines they pretend to rage against which are blamed on girls becoming anorexic.

    That’s your family values Mail for you. As I’ve been saying, it’s a Government rag; mainly used for divide and conquer (e.g. ‘Muslim immigrants given £1.5 million house in Surrey’) and so the thick Mail readers are angry at the new occupants rather than the Council chiefs who have made sure that Muslims (always Muslims?) get these houses – then give the Mail a call.

    Anyway, what I really wanted to say was that I see more stories denormalising larger families, not just larger individuals. Normally, though not always, it’s a family of eight or more living off benefits. The husband is often incapacitated and obviously the mother has to look after the young ones, unless she does the ‘decent’ thing and puts them into state day-care and works in a minimum wage job. No story there then, eh, being a compliant slave?

    So, I grudgingly looked through today’s front page of the Mail’s website and now they’re onto families of three cheeeldren. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2557675/Couple-jailed-cruelty-three-young-sons-living-disgusting-squalor-overpowering-stench-rotting-food-excrement.html

    They weren’t well looked after for sure, but it doesn’t look like they were sexually or physically abused, just that the house was filthy. (Whose kitchen doesn’t look like that sometimes? If they were *that* filthy, the sink wouldn’t be gleaming silver.)

    Basically, they have been jailed because their house is “full of rotting food, empty beer cans, debris and flies”. No mention of cigarette smoke (mum’s Facebook page – H/T Mail comments – shows her with a tab in hand), but that’ll be in future stories, I’m quite sure.

    But it’s the comments that tell you why the story of a dysfunctional family is considered newsworthy,

    –oo0oo–

    Jo, blackburn

    Why were scum like this ever allowed to keep the babies in the first place?

    –oo0oo–

    Ms Pittstop, Beaconsfield

    Stop paying these people to breed….cap benefits at 2 children…….NOW.

    –oo0oo–

    As Lucy from London points out:

    “What about the midwife who did the home visits after the birth of each of the children and didn’t alert the authorities????”

    So it wasn’t always like this, we can assume, and with that gleaming sink, maybe the Mail photographers emptied some bin bags around the place after the family had left?

    I suggest when baby #3 came along, they found it increasingly hard to cope, so some readers helpfully suggest that they need treatment for mental health issues rather than jail.

    Most of the others commentating are the usual soul-less, spiteful, holier-than-thou Mail readers. Out of the newest hundred comments, seven people call the parents “scum” and others, “fat slobs”, etc.

    Seems to me that this is a really sad story all round, but it gets the Mail’s Faultless Ones prepared to accept Agenda 21 restrictions on child sizes.

    I once left a comment on the Mail saying that we are all sinners and one incensed woman replied:

    “Excuse me, Mr Cowan, but I am not a sinner!”

    ‘Nuff said.

    So yes, just add smoking to the flies and faeces and you’ll get your children taken from you one day soon. All it needs is for one of their little friends to inadvertently grass you up to their parents.

    Like

    • Bottom right of every page, I should’ve said. Although perhaps ‘bottom’ isn’t the right word as there are always plenty on show covered only by skimpy bikinis.

      I’ll rephrase. The pictures are in the lower right corners of the pages.

      Like

      • You’re absolutely right, and the Daily Mail in it’s infinite wisdom has called to block online porn (for the cheeeeldren) without realizing that a lot of their scantily clad/near naked women on the right hand sidebar would also get caught up in the filter.

        The Daily Mail is run by utter morons that’s for sure.

        Like

        • If they’re calling for internet censorship, that’s more evidence it’s a Government rag. And the M&S ads for lingerie that they’re currently running are bordering on pornography.

          I don’t think they’re morons; I think they know exactly what they’re doing (told to do). It’s most of their readers who are morons.

          Like

    • Yes, they’ve been jailed for being grubby and unsanitary. Disgusting, but hardly a crime since it’s their own house. I looked again at those photos and you’re right – it looks set up. Or, at least, added to for effect.

      The thing is, their kids are likely to be the healthiest ones around. Immune systems need exercise just like any other body system. The kids brought up to fear the touch of dirt are the ones who will go first when the next plague hits.

      As for the Mail, I’ve wondered about those bikini girls too. ‘So-and-so is having fun in the sun’ stories and I’m thinking ‘Who?’ Also, it’s a bit unkind to show me all those sunny beaches when I’m in the middle of a Scottish winter.

      Like

  4. For those sad old gits like me there are several designs for “Morleys” out there http://home.pacific.net.au/~drjon/morleys.html
    “Carcinoma Angels” are also around.
    I keep meaning to look for “Green Apple”
    ————–
    Scully was the only sexy ginger ever. FACT.

    I used to be a mod on a sex-Ed forum and our usual response to any teen asking ‘how do I get laid?!?’ was “if you’re ginger then you’ll die a virgin”!

    Like

  5. Think about this!
    Big companies pay a fortune to have a worldwide corporate identity. They use specific colours, shapes, slogans etc to ensure their product is identified by a mere glance. Eg which company has a big red ‘M‘ with rounded tops? Would you recognise ‘Just do it’ or a tick with rounded edges?

    Every sports team has its own colours that are immediately identified by all those who support it and many others who do not. People identify with a specific group or team often wearing those same colours, painting them on their faces, waving flags, scarves etc to show solidarity. It is natural social behaviour and everyone likes / seeks to be part of a like minded ‘gang’ or group in all sorts of areas.

    My point is that while plain packs will destroy the corporate identity of individual tobacco companies, they will also create a massive new ‘corporate identity’ for SMOKERS that will be nationally and eventually internationally recognised, if they are copied worldwide?

    Hopefully there will be a worldwide PP standard, but slight differences in shading, font etc will merely identify with smokers of different nations. There will no longer be expensive or cheap cigarette smokers identifying with specific tobacco brands – they will all be the same – ALL part of the same group, SMOKERS, the same international union of like-minded individuals!

    It won’t have crossed the mind of anti-smoker nutters that this could be the largest and best advertising campaign ever, that will raise the profile of SMOKERS (rather than tobacco companies) to a level never before witnessed!

    Just as Man United football team exploit their colours/logos to raise their profile, the marketing spin-off possibilities for the smart entrepreneur re PPs colours are endless eg. clothing design with subtle colours or other consumer items.

    Given that PPs are almost certain to be brought in by naive politicians, spending a fortune to create this new ‘corporate identity’ for smokers, should we not now be embracing it, encouraging its roll out worldwide, and exploiting this to our advantage, rather than opposing it?

    Actually, just keep telling anti-smoker nutters that we are against PPs should be good enough to ensure they do so!

    Like

  6. Does anyone know when this ginger hatred began? Forty years ago there was no sign of it. Actually make that thirty. I’ve been curious about this ever since I first read of ginger people being bullied or beaten up.

    Like

    • Since German Nazi Racial scientists PROVED the danger of Passive Gingeritus (passive Rotschopfinfektion). Although it was the epuddemiological study by Dull that first brought it to a wider audience and the Sturgeon Genial….and is the study most quoted by GASH (Gingers Are Sub Human).

      Like

    • It was certainly around in the sixties. I remember a ginger neighbour lad being picked on for that very reason (and that was in Scotland!).

      Like

    • I was there in 2013. Until I saw a stack of non’s putting on wigs and the Canadian comedian trying to milk mileage out of it. Then the prats with cameras… I quit and went to Poundland for fag filters.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=ginger+pride+walk+2013&espv=210&es_sm=122&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=dzD9UtDuHoOThQeLjIHwDw&ved=0CD0QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=485

      They’re planning another this summer. During the festival so the Canadian comic, who’s not really ginger at all, can sell more tickets to his (tiresome) rants about discrimination against us.

      Re your question. No idea when it started, but being very different visually is a real problem. Very bright ginger, huge curls and – to top it off – freckles. Yup I had a fine old prelim for being a smoker. And the stuff TC dreams up ain’t close to what I went through.

      Like

  7. A bit of background on the ‘ginger’ thing – it originates from the belief that people with red hair were ‘unlucky’ – and that comes from the areas that were terrorised by the vikings, Despite what Leggie says, the celts weren’t red-haired (blonde, yes, according to Roman records) but the vikings were. So here we have a bit of racial memory carried forward to join all the current prejudices…….

    Like

  8. I’ve heard it said that if a pregnant woman sits close to a ginger person during the second trimester of pregnancy, there’s a very strong chance that she’ll produce – shock, horror! – a ginger baby, even if neither she nor her partner nor any of her antecedents had ginger hair. Could that be described as “passive gingering,” I wonder …

    Like

    • I’m going to have to get a big ginger Afro and sit next to pregnant women on buses. Just in case it’s true.

      Maybe it will still work with-ex-ginger hair. Mine’s grey now but there are occasional coppery threads still. One might be enough.

      Like

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s