Sunday, 1 August 2010

Word war with witterers.

Browsing through the smoky blogs (I'm going to have to set up a dedicated 'smoker's bloglist' although it won't be easy. Most cover other subjects too), I came across a link to the BMJ 'exterminate-the-smoker' blog.

There are a couple of interesting comments but they are pulverised by auto-spammers there. Word verification would sort that out in a flash, but I'm not going to tell them. There is no point talking to them at all, they make the Daleks look like paragons of reason.

They consider, openly, how best to propagandise their specific discriminatory hate-fest and how to further encourage people like the fine example of kindness and tolerance described here, who they evidently consider footsoldiers to be proud of.

If you can wade through their jargon-rich gibberish, you will be left with such a sensation of smug superiority you'll have to go and wash your hands before touching the keyboard again. They really regard smokers as subhuman, and it shows.

Apparently, all they need are the 'right words' and the sheep will declare smokers an inferior form of human that must be eugenically cleansed in order to preserve the purity of the race. Yes, that is where they are coming from on this issue and that is precisely what their drones are implementing.

Health? It has nothing at all to do with health. This is cleansing the race of impure forms of humanity by any means possible. This is Nazism and you can bleat on about Godwin's Law all you like. It is the exact process used by Hitler to remove those he didn't like from his Aryan dream. Denormalise the target, blame the target for all the ills of the world, remove all humanity from the target and then set the rabid and the deranged loose on them.

What's that? I'm being paranoid? Nobody is going to be going around killing smokers? Well, look again at that fine example of antismoker tolerance and kindness and read the rest of it. Smokers are being killed, now, and outpourings of hate and calls for more violence are not interesting to the police as long as it's only smokers who are the target.

If you say you are 'antisemitic' you can expect to be shunned, villified and possibly arrested. If you were to call for violence against any ethnic group you would certainly be investigated and would be likely to be in court in short order.

If you say you are an 'antismoker' you are praised. You can call for violence against smokers, you can abuse them in public, and nobody minds at all. The BMJ are asking for new forms of smoker abuse so if you have any ideas, let them know. They will shortly, no doubt, have them on billboards for general use.

They want a war of words but they don't understand what words can do. The words they spout serve to fire up the deranged they have recruited and those deranged footsoldiers take the words literally. They see those words as permission to be violent against someone. Permission to kill.

Maybe I'm wrong about the BMJ. Maybe they do realise what they are doing, and are doing it deliberately. I certainly wouldn't be surprised. They keep their hands clean and they get their population-cleansing done just the same.

Either way, whether the authorities are doing this deliberately or not, the end result is the same. Population reduction by turning three-quarters of the people against the other quarter. Then they'll cleanse out the drinkers and the overweight and the too short and the too tall and anyone else who doesn't fit their standard. The Aryan race is still on the agenda and I'm certainly not going to be included.

The NHS in Grampian are not content with denying patients any smoking areas at all. Before you antismokers get on your 'We don't like the smell' whine wagon, the hospital here is huge. One end of it could be engulfed in flames and if you were at the other end, you wouldn't notice. There is plenty of scope for an entire smoking ward, never mind a room. So bleat somewhere else.

No, their proud boast to be a smoke-free hospital (pity it's not hospital-acquired infection free, eh?) is not enough for them. They plan disciplinary action for any staff caught in possession of tobacco and they plan to withdraw treatment from smoking patients. Oh, sure, I'll hear 'Well you cost the NHS money' once again. No I don't. I pay the NHS money. I don't cost them a bean. Especially since they plan to refuse to treat me because I smoke, even if I had malaria or ringworm and not even the most indoctrinated antismoker could blame those on smoking.

The NHS will only provide patches and gum which won't work. If they were serious about getting people off tobacco, they'd provide free starter kits of Electrofag. Some won't take to them but there'd be a hell of a lot more uptake than patches and gum. The smoke-free hospital is, as pointed out here, a massively missed opportunity. If Electrofag was allowed in there we'd all use it. A lot of smokers would continue to use it afterwards. Yet the medical profession derides Electrofag and seeks to ban it.

Patches and gum. That's their fixation. They are useless. You can't get the damn things to stay alight.

Smokers pay far more in duty than they will ever cost the NHS. It is not in the medical profession's interests to really wean us off tobacco. Heard them call for an outright ban on tobacco lately? Nope. No ban. Just more controls, more denormalisation, more violence and more hate-speak. They don't want us to quit. They are making too much money from us and having too much fun shitting on us.

The patch-and-gum pirates depend on the existence of smokers for their income. They will only sell those things if smokers are made to feel less than human and think they need to be 'cured'. That's where the medics, government and ASH come in. They need tax money and smokers provide a hell of a lot of it. So they push the patch-and-gum nonsense knowing it won't work and won't spoil their tax income. The smokers will 'fail', they'll go back to smoking and the cycle begins again.

The pharmers realised a long time ago that there is no money in cures. If you cure someone, they stop paying for the medicine. The money is in treatment. Long-term treatment that does not result in a cure. A customer for life. That line of reasoning goes way beyond smoking.

This is why Electrofag is to be banned and tobacco is not. Electrofag risks breaking the cycle. If tobacco was as deadly as claimed, why is it not banned outright? Why all the window-dressing of fake photos, scary warnings and outright lies? Why not just ban it?

If Electrofag is a more successful means of leaving smoking, why are the medics not pushing for it to be promoted and subsidised? Why have they not thrown their patches and gum aside and taken on this new and more successful alternative?

If you still think it's about health, or even about 'the smell', you are deluded.

It's social control and money. Nothing more. Antismoking is big business now and most of those who do the groundwork are working for free.

The antismokers will fall for the words that the BMJ will spout. It gives them the excuse they crave to be intolerant, spiteful and violent. It makes them feel superior because they have subhumans that they are allowed to sneer at and kick around. They don't realise that they are more controlled than the smokers. That they yap to order whenever one of the Righteous yanks their chain. That the lies they have absorbed will be turned against them when it's their turn for cleansing.

The BMJ want words and slogans to use in the Smoke War.

Let's see if we can't think of some words and slogans ourselves. Denormalise the denormalisers. Use their own techniques against them. They want to blame us for imagined deaths? Let's look at their own record in causing real deaths. They want to say we 'cost money'? Let's look at what they cost.

I have in mind a pamphlet that can be printed cheaply and left all over the place. Like the ones F2C produce but less intense, aimed at the short attention span of the average person these days. Tabloid style (but not Daily Mail style!) We're not likely to get into the newspapers with our side of the story. We'll just have to print our own.

11 comments:

The Cowboy Online said...

Tobacco Control? They should be more honest about it, it's People Control. But of self-righteous fucktards.

The Cowboy Online said...

Whoops, bunch of ... not but of. Damn it, I need a cigarette ... and I don't even smoke. Oh well, perhaps a drop of Brandy then.

Anonymous said...

From the BMJ blog: "To entice you to join the conversation and make a suggestion, the best idea will win a one-year online subscription to Tobacco Control."

Oh, whoopee! These guys certainly know how to put temptation into the public's path, don't they? Surely no-one will be able to resist such an enticing prize .....

Chris said...

Commented on their hateful little talking shop. How quickly before my "wrongbadthink" is moderated away?

I have in mind a pamphlet that can be printed cheaply and left all over the place. Like the ones F2C produce but less intense, aimed at the short attention span of the average person these days. Tabloid style (but not Daily Mail style!) We're not likely to get into the newspapers with our side of the story. We'll just have to print our own.

I am interested in your position, and would like to hear more. (anon.)

Leg-iron said...

The Cowboy - Just waiting for 'Tobacco Control Officers'. Only a matter of time now.

Anon - next prize, they get to turn on the gas taps and light the ovens.

Chris - they don't seem able to even stop the autospammers. I have a feeling they never read the comments.

Frank Davis said...

Reading Ruth Malone's piece about the use of language, I couldn't help but notice that she perceived her enemy in her 'Word Wars' to be the Big Tobacco.

But when does Big Tobacco ever say anything? They've been prevented from advertising, which was their principal way of 'speaking'. Big Tobacco is bound and gagged. It's an Aunt Sally with words being stuffed into its mouth.

Her real enemy now is increasingly people like us: smokers who write blogs. We have instant credibility because we're people writing about our own experience and our own feelings and beliefs. We're not toeing any corporate line. We're not trying to stay 'on message'. We just write what we are thinking that evening, after a couple of whiskies.

People like her can cleverly twist language all they like, and coin new antismoking soundbites all they want. It'll probably work very well out in the corporate media. But it can't touch us. Because we're not playing that sort of game.

People like her are essentially impersonal. The BMJ is not a person. Nor is Tobacco Control. But I am a person, and so are you, and so are all the readers of your blog. To fight 'word wars' with us, she'd have to meet us as an individual, rather than an editor of the BMJ. And I rather doubt that she's able to do that. She is incapable of being personal in this context. It's beyond her experience, and beyond her abilities. It would be like asking her to write lyric poetry or something.

And so she has already lost the war with us. And she's got her guns trained on the wrong enemy anyway. Not that I'd want to point this out to her. I hope she carries on exactly the way she's going.

PT Barnum said...

To pursue Frank's thought in a slightly different direction - I am trying to reconcile my experience of individual doctors with the mouthpiece of the medical profession, the BMJ. I have been asked, by various doctors, from time to time if I would like to stop smoking. When I say No, they say Ok, but if you change your mind there are things that can help. And that's the end of that conversation.

So where a smoker has a personal relationship with a medical professional (ie where one visits the doctor or hospital every month or six weeks*) the hate-speak withers away to be replaced with civility and tolerance. Am I alone in this experience?

* Another condition an antismoker would be hard put to blame on smoking - epilepsy.

Longrider said...

Browsing through the smoky blogs (I'm going to have to set up a dedicated 'smoker's bloglist' although it won't be easy. Most cover other subjects too),

And some non-smokers cover the issues from time to time.

TheBigYin said...

Thanks for the links LI and I too would be interested in the posters you refer to so go for it.

On the subject of the Grampian NHS I see that they want to go further than I originally thought, they want to SACK staff caught smoking in their own cars or in the grounds during their breaks. This is truly horrifing.

Anonymous said...

TBY - I think that such disciplinary action against staff could be successfully challenged (and would be challenged by the Union who are against any such action). Employers have no jurisdiction over staff during their breaks because employees are not being paid during that time and, inn smoking, they're neither breaking the law nor engaging in behaviour that will compromise their ability to do their jobs.

Is the NHS really going to discipline a consultant surgeon to the point of sacking because he/she's been seen having a fag in the car park? Can you imagine the outcry at the headline, "Patient died because surgeon was sacked for smoking"?

Jay

PS what a nasty piece of sh*t tobacco control is (as if we didn't know)

fewston said...

Hello Leg iron
Just like to say I appreciate your blog and read it daily.

I think we live in the same part of the world and I am sure that a smoko ban will eventually hit the Redgarth Pub Garden: - For the unintiated the Redgarth has one of the best views in the UK, possibly the world. I was a regular there until the smoko ban. As a middle aged, overweight, meat eating smokey drinker and top rate tax payer, I find it easy to subscribe to your frame of mind. Will it change? No.

Apologies to Pastor Niemuller:

At first they came for the smokers, but I wasn't a smoker.

Then they came for the drinkers, but I wasn't a drinker.

Then the came for the fat, but I wasn't fat.

Then they came for the petrol heads, but I ride a bike.

And then they came for the voters.

And there was none left to speak for me.

The death of the British pub is entirely intentional.

Pubs allow freedom of thought and expression.

Dorme Bien.

opinions powered by SendLove.to