The job of the antitobacco is to spread false and alarmist information, which is then used to denigrate and suffocate smoking and smokers. Our job is to point out those epidemiological frauds, the underlying fanaticism of antismoking ideology, and the stupidity of its policies and laws.
As there are lots of frauds and stupidity in antitobacco, some difficulty exists in selecting the fraud or the stupidity of the day: so many idiocies, so little space on the FORCES page. What we have selected for today is a gem.
The article we link with at bottom this page says it all in the headline: “Dutch cannabis smoker fined – for using tobacco”.
"While the Netherlands has kept its liberal policy on the smoking of cannabis in the country’s legendary ‘coffee shops’, zero tolerance is now shown to tobacco smokers in Dutch cafes and restaurants after a smoking came ban came into force last July.
An Amsterdam police spokesman admitted that it could be difficult to understand the current Dutch policy of allowing smokers to puff away on pure cannabis while fining tobacco users. ‘For logic it is sometimes impossible to explain, even to the Dutch,’ he said."
The poor spokesman is right, but he betrays a fatal expectation — that is, trust in the public health authorities. He seems to assume, in other words, that Dutch public health policy proceeds from truth and logic, that it has a basis, some form of reason behind it, even though the reasoning may seem inscrutable, or even downright unfathomable.
That may explain his lack of understanding. It’s a very common mistake — a mistake that has sidetracked our movement since its inception, making it waste many precious years. In its long voyage through the dark times of prohibition, FORCES has seen thousands of good people getting angry and frustrated at the contradictions of public healtth.
These good people spent immense efforts exposing the technicalities of the epidemiologic frauds — in great detail, painstakingly, one at a time. They would find themselves alternately laughing, crying, and getting red in the face, in reaction to myriad contradictions of transparent pseudo-science, or at episodes such as that we report on today. They saw the insanity, and saw how it just goes on and on, crazier and crazier all the time. They wondered why but never could figure it out. Many became disgusted. They burned out and gave up.
They made the same error of expectation the Dutch police spokesperson makes: they assumed that public health authorities had intelligence, logic and moral integrity, thus, “… If we could just make them see the incoherencies, they would get on the right track again.”
Wrong. Because the assumptions are wrong. Contemporary public health has no intelligence, logic or moral integrity. It is a blind technocratic machine. Public health is a bureaucratic drone that acts at an international level, coördinated by a bureaucratic monster, the World Health Organization, which in turn is heavily influenced by yet another evil machine, the pharmaceutical multinationals. The public health machine is programmed with false information. It uses its institutional credibility (gained in different times) to bamboozle mass media and the public at large into fear and behaviour control.
True, the public health machine is manned with people — some of them personable, others not, but all crooks because they spread and endorse frauds. While it is true that the salesman is the face of the company, it is equally true that the company is not the salesman, mainly because it is not a person.
In a modern war, you fight machines much more than you fight people. For example, if you are a soldier and must disable a tank, what do you do? You climb atop the tank while it’s in motion, open the hatch, and throw a hand granade inside. Yes, you are killing the crew, but your purpose is not to kill but to disable the machine; the killing is what you may hypocritically call "collateral damage."
Stopping the tank is the thing. You could ponder why the tank attacks your people. That wouldn’t stop it though. You could, alternatively to dropping your grenade, try to persuade the machine’s crew that they are making a mistake, but since they are quite evidently committed to blasting away at your friends, that wouldn’t likely work either. Don’t ponder or parley in the thick of battle. A tank is a killing machine. Throw the bomb in and jump away.
Our side must understand once and for all that this is a war that takes no prisoners. For all their crookedness, our enemies are honest, open and clear when they say: “the debate is over” and “war on tobacco (obesity, alcohol…)”. * How much clearer do they have to make it? Perhaps we need to re-learn the definition of war, for our enemies cannot be held responsible for our ignorance — or willful "misunderstandings."
Debates and understandings are over during a war. In a war anything goes as long as the enemy is destroyed — no moral boundaries, truth, logic, ethics or chivalry can get in the way. In a war you cannot say: "I don’t wanna be like them" — or you will be killed. If you want to survive, you must be like them for as long as the war lasts. By definition war is an immoral, dirty, and bloody business. Expecting morality in a war is dangerously foolish naïveté. Get that through your head.
Public health has declared total war on smokers, drinkers, fat people, industries, and on personal lifestyle choice in general. Public health is the aggressor. It sees lifestyle choices that it considers wrong as a disease to be uprooted with surgical precision and methodology — up to complete sterilization. That legitimizes the persecuted to use the same means and approaches for the preservation of their way of life.
Only two possible conclusions ensue: either the attacked choose to surrender, or in turn declare active war on the public health tanks. In the latter case we have to climb onto the tanks, open the hatches, throw in the hand granades and blow them to bits. And — please! — stop arguing with the drivers!
Contemporary public health has become a vicious enemy. Destroy it or be subjugated “for our own good." In either case you had better understand that the enemy is not an entity to argue with — or to understand. It cannot understand you and it cannot be understood. Arguing with evil – or hoping that evil will relent – is a fool’s errand.
__________
* The more sophisticated call it "Tobacco Control", as in control to extinction.
0 Comments