Distracted.

It's Dick Puddlecote's fault. I have spent hours following the entertaining drama unfolding via this link.

So, despite getting the tip on this last night, it's covered already. If your MP was one of those who voted against the smoking ban amendment recently, make it known that he or she did this because they like to drive past pubs in winter and laugh at the smokers shivering outside. Make it known to those smokers and their friends. If any antismokers mention compromise, remind them that we have repeatedly tried that. Their champions like to laugh at smokers dying of hypothermia and they wish us to lose our extremities to frostbite. They think it's funny. Oh, and they also want more pubs shut down. Yours is next.

At Smoky-Drinky last night, there were still some SNP supporters who believed that Al the Oily Fish would never go as far as a ban on smoking in private cars. Oh really? Just as that smoking ban was supposed to only apply to places that served food? Just as only those places more than 50% enclosed would ban smoking, even though here, in Oily Al's own constituency, bus stops with no sides have 'no smoking' signs in them? Their minds are changing. Oily Al, you are another two votes down for next time. I did that. I will continue to do it, because of what you are doing to me. Two here, two there, they add up, you know. We're not just talking about small circles either. I can speak Chav, innit mon?

Neither the Lib Dems nor Labour need cheer. At Smoky-Drinky, you have already been demolished even harder than the Greens. The only reason the Tories have had a light ride so far is that they have no voters here anyway.

I had a book to review today which was a belter. Amazon list it as 'out of print' in the US and 'out of stock' in the UK even though it only came out in September. I don't know how they work with small publishers, and I've never understood why they list books they can't supply. That review will be done tomorrow. It'll go to the online magazine that asked for it so I can't post it here. I'll link when it comes up. Is it good? I finished it in one sitting. Is it cheap? No. Small press books never are. £7.99 for 120 pages is steep, but it's a damn good yarn if you like your tales weird and it's post-free in the UK. Anyway, that's all my problem (except my copy was free anyway because I'm a reviewer).

Between that book, the day-job and the Puddlecote Distraction, I am out of wakeyness for the evening.

Time to catch up on that sleep thing.

Out!

I'm off out for a Smoky-Drinky evening. Since I've sent off an eyewatering invoice today, I shall be mostly drinking Glenlivet 15-year-old. Back later tonight. Maybe.

Also out is Phil Woolas. He's not quite out yet, the Squeaker will have to prise his fingers off the doorframe of his office, but if he doesn't go then he will be a permanent embarrassment to Labour and an easy target at the next election.

A by-election looks likely and there will be a Libertarian candidate.

Finally, if you're out enjoying the sight of burning money this evening, here are some handy safety tips.

I'll be burning my money indoors tonight. Drinking it, too.

Jewish Laughs.

You can make things like this about Jews because they have a sense of humour.

Try to imagine a Muslim version of these things.

Think, Muslims. 'Funny' is not the same as 'derogatory'.

For example. I am mixed Welsh/Italian. Both these jokes are funny to me -

How do you know if the tank you're driving is Italian? It has one forward gear and five reverse.

What do you call a Welshman with 100 girlfriends? A shepherd.

See? You don't have to ban bacon imports from Denmark (as if that's really going to matter) just because of a joke. Laugh and move on.

Not laughing is a bigger killer than alcohol, you know. So being humourless will kill you faster than heroin. Scientifically proven by monkeys and weasels who used to work for the government and who have settled the science so hard it's sandstone.

Go on. Let out a chuckle.

If we can't laugh with you, we're going to laugh at you, you know.

Votes for criminals.

It's invoice-writing night and tomorrow is Smoky-Drinky night. It's the end of a big, big project with a large invoice attached so there will be much boozing tomorrow night. So I might be a little less vocal for a few days, to the relief of many. Hold on to your hats though, because I'm close to stopping work for the year. I've almost earned as much as I intend to for this year.

One thing that's been coming up lately has been 'votes for prisoners'. I've had to think about that because it wasn't at first obvious whether to say 'yes' or 'no'. Iain Dale gave it a definite 'no' but then, as Old Holborn points out, it's not that long ago that Iain Dale's personal preferences were illegal, and he'd have been sent to prison simply for being himself, as Oscar Wilde was.

With Labour's legislative legacy still on the books, people can go to prison for defending themselves or for a whole range of non-crimes and trivia. I don't consider a pensioner unable to pay their council tax a criminal, but the law does. Should they be denied the vote, along with murderers and rapists? I don't think they should.

I can agree with Subrosa that the Beetlejuice-impersonating axe-wielding maniac who has decided all prisoners have 'human rights' shouldn't be voting. I don't want to be represented by anyone he thinks would be a good choice. However, in the next cell might be someone locked up for defending his family from a similar axe-wielding maniac. He should not be in prison at all, and should not be denied the vote.

Prison is no deterrent to crime these days. Free food and accommodation, playstations, TV, library, gymnasium and you can smoke indoors. It's better than the homes most of these criminals have on the outside. Sure, they lose their freedom but for most of them, what does that mean? The freedom to wander around a five-block radius and hang around street corners and beat people up? It's not like they miss the golf course or that holiday villa in Tenerife, is it? Most of them have very narrow natural ranges. For many, a trip to prison will be the furthest from home they've ever travelled. They can fit right in to the grey concrete because it's just like the depressing blocks they came from and like those blocks, it's full of thugs with a few decent people to pick on. Home from home.

Guido hints at another potential problem with voting prisoners. Elected police chiefs. If you live near a big prison, you can expect your elected police chief to go by the name of 'Slasher' or 'Wayne the Hammer' and to end every nasally-extracted sentence with 'Innit?' Inside that prison, all the thugs from all over the place are voting for your local police chief. That's not good.

So for local elections - no. Having a local concentration of prisoners means that any town with a prison is going to get a skewed election. Unless someone is going to go to the trouble of giving them postal votes - and even then, particular areas will still get Commissioner Headbanger in charge of their police. So, no.

What about national elections? As I said, not all those prisoners have done anything that the Real World would consider criminal. You don't have to scroll very far down the Ambush Predator blog to find yet another case of the law criminalising people who haven't, in any sensible world, done anything wrong.

I have a different idea.

What if, instead of denying prisoners the vote, we denied it only to persistent offenders? Those who keep coming back could be banned from voting for five or ten years, longer if they keep it up. This would have interesting effects.

Those in prison for first offences, which will be the case with home defenders and smoking ban flouters, will still be able to vote. Those who use prison as a regular holiday destination will not.

Perhaps more interesting will be the reaction of those who bang on about 'criminals rights' because the more they defend those criminals, the more criminal acts they perform, and soon the criminals will no longer be able to vote for those who support their rights. Once that realisation hits, the number of MPs, councillors, or any elected official supporting those on the criminals' side will drop off sharply.

Finally, it solves the problem of the elected police chiefs. The worst offenders, those who would benefit from a police chief who would direct officers to leave Sweaty Bob the Fence alone, simply won't have a vote.

I opted for a five or ten year ban because if it was a life ban there'd be no incentive to reform. Stop the criminal lifestyle and you can have your vote back. And your benefits, which should also be withdrawn for career criminals, as OH suggests. This is only about the vote, we can argue about pillories, stocks and birching another time.

The electoral roll is as computerised as everything else these days so all it would take is an 'X' placed next to a repeat offender's name, with a subroutine that removes it after a predetermined time. Marked ones don't get sent a polling card and don't appear on the polling station's lists.

It doesn't sound expensive or difficult to me, but I wouldn't be the one who has to implement it so I don't know. Sure, some inept council official will mark the wrong names but that's solved by sacking the inept - a different subject.

Opinions? Could it work? I'm pretty sure it would be fairer than either a blanket ban or a blanket permit on votes for prisoners.

Punishing success.

It's something you generally associate with socialist envy, right? The harder you work, the more successful you are, the more they take from you, to keep you in your place.

Here's a scenario. Two students graduate from the same course at the same time. Both have student debts of £30,000.

One student goes on to do pretty well, earns £25,000 a year. That student will repay the loan in 30 years at £360 per year.

The other goes on to do very well indeed, works very hard, climbs the ladder and earns £45,000 a year. That student will repay exactly the same loan over exactly the same 30-year period at... £2160 per year. Because this student is a little smarter, a little more ambitious, a little better at the job, they will be charged a much higher interest rate than the average student earning an average graduate wage. So why bother?

Sounds like the standard socialist trap, doesn't it? Work harder, get further, demonstrate greater aptitude or intelligence and you will be branded 'elitist' and beaten back into line. Exactly the sort of thing you would expect from a really left-wing version of the Labour government.

Except... we don't have one of those. We have the allegedly Tory-led Cleggeron Coagulation.

At least I think we do. It's getting really difficult to tell.


Update: Mark Wadsworth explains why it's nowhere near as bad as it looks. He knows a lot more about money than me. I can barely get my head around a tax form.

I still think the government are insane though.

TEA party.

Two for the price of one. That white faced guitarist still gives me the creeps after all these years. If he was a teacher, we wouldn't have any discipline problems in schools.

The Telegraph has a real-time map showing what's happening in the American elections. Apparently two of the 'TEA party' candidates have won already.

I haven't said anything about the TEA party because I don't understand what it is. It seems to be not a party, but a sub-party of the Republicans. Sort of like the Blur's 'New Labour' or the Cameroid's 'Blue Labour'. I remember hearing about one of their candidates who wanted to ban masturbation and who believed science had cross-bred humans and mice, and I remember thinking 'well, every tea party needs one Mad Hatter'. I also remember thinking 'I wouldn't vote for that crackpot'. It seems few people did.

It's not Libertarian. It talks of less tax and more freedom but also of more controls and more laws. It's some kind of hideous chimeric freak with Thatcher's face on one side of its head and a Blurry-Brown face on the other. I don't know what it is. I suppose the Americans do and have decided whether to vote for it or not. At least, the machines they delegate their votes to have decided. I wonder if they won in Boston?

(Update: No, they didn't. Massachusetts isn't in this voting round.)

Currently it looks like the Republicans are on the rise. Not that it will make one tiny scrap of difference, just as it didn't here. I suspect that America will wake to find the new truth of a very old saying in the morning.

'It doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in'.

Watch out, there's a smoker about.

Smokers are to be branded lazy and useless. They are to clock off whenever they indulge themselves. Caffeine addicts don't have to clock off. Neither do those who use work time for websurfing. It'll come.

Some smokers just don't smoke during working hours. I do, but then my working hours are 'when I'm awake' and I can't smoke in my sleep. This lazy smoker now runs two businesses single-handed now that the writing has gone from 'hobby' to 'business'. I work alone in both and I still have to go outside to smoke. There is no time-clock in either business so this new denormalisation won't affect me, so why am I even bothered?

I won't be affected by the ban on smoking in cars that ASH are trying to introduce, so why does it trouble me in the slightest?

Because it won't stop there. It never has and it never will. One day I might have to type these posts in the garden because there will be smoke detectors all over my house. Then, neighbours will be rewarded for reporting me for smoking in my garden. My house. My garden. Not your house or garden. Not some collectively-owned house or garden. Mine.

Already, it's perfectly okay for an employer to stipulate that they have 'smokefree premises' ie if you smoke, don't bother applying. The BNP used to deny membership to non-whites and that caused an absolute uproar. If they had denied membership to smokers, what do you think would have happened? They would have been applauded for taking such a stance.

Already, there are moves to make smokers take 'seven steps outside' so the smokophobes don't have to suffer the enormous inconvenience of enduring five seconds of a smell they don't like. That is to apply to your own home too, which means that when I go outside my own home for a smoke, I'll be smoking outside the house next door. Then there will be complaint about smokers outside smokophobes' homes. It is not going to stop. There is no point at which these people will say 'Okay, we've done enough, leave them alone now'. They will never, ever stop.

We cannot have a smokers' club staffed by smokers, not for any health reasons but because if we did, the smokophobes would have nothing to whine about. We cannot have enclosed smoking shelters because if we did, passing smokophobes would have no whiff of smoke to bleat about. We have to smoke outside so the smokophobes don't need to go into the pubs, clubs or businesses in order to complain about us. Every antismoking law is designed to make smoking more directly experienced by the smokophobes. That makes the smokophobes wail, and that is used as justification for more laws.

If tobacco is so deadly, why is it still legal? Why, if it is more evil than any street drug, if it can kill children if they so much as see a pack of it, if it can trigger cancer in a nonsmoker if they so much as touch the hem of a smoker's robe, why is it available at all?

Why are tobacco plantations not firebombed or sprayed with weedkiller, like the fields of Afghan poppies or South American cannabis? Why are no antismoking groups, anywhere, calling for any restriction at all on the production and supply of this plant? Why are they concentrating only on the end users? That is like trying to smash a crack cocaine dealer ring by taking out the crackheads one by one. It cannot work.

It's not meant to.

Tormenting people is what the smokophobes enjoy. If they stopped the supply of tobacco, how could they sneer and feel superior? They'd have nobody to look down on and they might have to face their own realities. That's only the front line smokophobes, of course.

The top brass of the antismoking industry are in it for the money. Just like the Mafia dons who supply heroin but despise the addicts. The profit margins are vast.

It's not just the duty and VAT either. Stand Fast shows how those 'tobacco company fines' work.

The antismokers persuade a government to fine the tobacco companies massive amounts of money. These fines are payable over a period of years, not at once. So the companies add the cost of the fines to their price of tobacco. They collect the fines from their customers and pass them to the government, while the government takes duty and VAT on top. It's not a punishment for the tobacco companies. It's another tax on smokers.

Governments profit, tobacco companies profit, and the Dreadful Arnott and her band of thugs get funded.

If tobacco was illegal, all that income would stop. That, antismokers, is why your heroes at ASH have not, and will never, call for tobacco to be made illegal. The more fuss you kick up, the more justification for higher taxes and pretend fines on the tobacco companies. So you are goaded into kicking smokers at every opportunity and you are delighted to act as unpaid Stasi so that the politicians and ASH can get rich.

Then there's the Pharmers with their patches and gum. If nicotine was really an addiction with a hold over the weak, the NRT would work. It doesn't. It's not meant to. So the Pharmers encourage ASH and their drones to push this stuff onto smokers, at huge expense, knowing that the smokers will go back to smoking because it's not a nicotine addiction at all. If it was, any form of nicotine would do. Then they'll use you smokophobes as unpaid pushers to bully smokers into buying their useless products again.

The smokophobes will believe anything. Absolutely anything. They believe in the diseases attributed to second hand smoke even though there are now far fewer smokers than there were when those same diseases were rare. Number of smokers goes down, incidence of a disease goes up, and the smokophobes accept without question that the increase in the disease is due to smoking. And then they call smokers 'stupid'.

I suppose lots of smokophobes cheered when they heard Nick 'Silk Cut' Clegg tell the nation that relaxing the smoking ban would be like bringing back hanging. Oh, look, they cried. Nick is one if us. Nick understands. Nick believes.

If he believes in third hand smoke and all the rest of the bollocks, why does he smoke? Just sit and think about that for a moment, smokophobes.

He does not believe it. None of them do. They just want money and control and the useful idiots who act as unpaid antismoking enforcers are giving them as much as they want of both.

I know the smokophobes think it's the smokers who are being controlled, but think a little harder. We are still smoking. If we were under control, we wouldn't be smoking. We are finding ways around every rule and regulation. We are not doing what we are told.

You are, smokophobes.

You believe all the rubbish without question. You fear the smoker with the tiny fire and ignore the double-decker bus belching fumes. You rail at the worker who takes five minutes for a smoke and ignore the one who has a two-hour lunch. You actually believe that it's the shiny packets, not ASH's insistence on advertising smoking as a rebellious practice in every news outlet, every day, that causes your children to take up smoking. You genuinely believe you'll get cancer just by being near me - thank you for that one. I have a lot of fun with it.

You have sucked up the doublethink and the lies and you are doing the same thing with the latest nonsense on alcohol. You will do it again with caffeine and with salt and fat and with anything else. You know why you're getting all this new crap to play with? It is not for your health. It is not for your children.

It is to change you, to prove you can be changed. It is to produce an unpaid army of revenue generators who will be delighted to call for more money even though you won't be getting any of it.

Smokers see right through the stupid links between smoking and every possible bad thing. Mummylonglegs has another one for you. That's right, violence and aggression now causes smoking. Oh dear, aggressive antismokers, looks like you'll be joining us soon. One more thing for you to worry about. Still, at least you'll be calmer once you join us.

All these controls aimed at smokers have, as is usual with Righteous plots, have had exactly the opposite effect. We are less under control than ever, while the antismokers all believe exactly what they are told to believe and act exactly as they are directed to act.

Antismokers, you generate enormous revenue for the likes of the Dreadful Arnott, and you do it for free.

Don't believe it? Try getting them to ban the production and distribution of tobacco. Try burning a tobacco plantation, or spraying it with weedkiller yourself, and see what happens.

There are mugs in this game, but the smokers aren't the biggest ones.

From the ashes of the old...

The Righteous busy silencing blogs.
(Picture walloped over from here)

...rise the blogs of the new.

Anarchyland has written the first words of a new blog. He doesn't have time to run it himself at the moment, so he has enlisted some reprobates and maniacs to look after it. One of them is me.

I still have the keys to Old Holborn's place although I haven't been over to scrawl on his walls for a while. I must remedy that at once. My long rambles don't exactly fit his style so I'll keep this short.

That's the scary part of blogs for the control freaks of the Righteous. Knock one down and another stands up. There is no leader, no management, no structure and no central control. You can't break the chain of command because there isn't one. You can't target the leadership because there is none. Taking down one blog is meaningless. Another pops up in its place. Nobody orders that to happen, it just does. We'll work together on one specific task then we'll dissipate. We are self-sufficient but we form teams when we need to. We do not live rule-free or amoral lives, but we do not accept ridiculous rules nor do we accept unnecessary rules imposed by the threat of force.

There are those who say 'anarchy means violence and everyone out for themselves'. They say this because they want us to fear anarchy. Their biggest fear is that we will see what anarchy looks like and think that maybe it's not all that bad. They are terrified that we will realise that we don't need people to wield power over us and tell us what to do. They dread the day when we say 'It's okay, we can do this ourselves, we don't need you. If something needs a team effort we can arrange that amongst ourselves, thanks.'

The deepest fear of the Righteous is that we will see what anarchy really looks like, and realise it is not what they told us it was. So they divert attention from it and deride the one place where its true face can be seen and where its manner of working is clear.

Blogland is anarchy.

Jerk those knees, Coagulation!

So some bombs were allegedly found on a cargo plane, allegedly from Yemen, and have since been used by the terrorists in government to frighten the crap out of their voters. 'They could have blown up in mid-air. That plane could have come down on YOUR HOUSE!' Just who is doing the terrorising here?

The whole point of terrorism is to make people terrified. The clue is in the title, you don't need to read the job description. If you want to defeat terrorism, the way to do it is to quietly defuse those bombs and say nothing. Nobody is scared, and a group of baffled terrorists are left wondering why their bombs didn't go off and why nobody is running around like headless chickens at the headless chicken all-night rave. Terrifying the population by screaming 'Bomb!' when it's already been dealt with, then threatening everyone with falling plane parts is... well, it's terrorism. It produces exactly what the terrorists intend. They don't need to make bombs that work, they just need to make them look sufficiently bomby and our own government will do the rest for them.

Now, Theresa May (or may not, we'll have to wait and see) has decided to ban unaccompanied freight from Yemen and Somalia. Oh, that's a big help. I mean, it's not as if they'd send someone along with the bomb. That would be suicide. They'd never do that. It would be like some kind of suicidal bomber sort of thing. Totally unheard of.

What do we import from Somalia anyway? I haven't noticed 'Made in Somalia' on anything in the shops. Is there much air freight traffic coming that way? Somalia isn't likely to bomb us. Most of them have family here.

Come to think of it, what do we import from Yemen? Do we really get our toner cartridges from there? Or do they have an exclusive supply deal with American synagogues?

She has also taken the step of banning toner cartridges over 500g from hand luggage on domestic flights. Because every traveller has one in their back pocket, and no terrorist would think of using any other kind of container for their explosives.

In Newspeak, I think this would be rendered as doubleplusunclever. 'Stupid' is far too small a word.

If you were getting on a flight with a laser-printer toner cartridge, the security people will definitely want to look at it because only a total dolt would want to lug that around departures for hours. Why would anyone have one? They are not much use without a laser printer and if you think a leaky pen in your shirt pocket is a disaster, wait till you experience a toner leak in your carry-on bag. Does this spell the end for the hand-delivered toner cartridge business? No. Because there isn't one. Printer cartridges travel by air freight, not as passengers.

I would doubt that anyone has ever had a 500g toner cartridge in their carry-on luggage for any flight anywhere. If they did, I would bet that security would show quite a bit of interest in such an unusual item.

This is it. This is the bottom of the barrel scraped clean through and all the underlying soil removed right down to the bedrock. This is the knee-jerk to end all knee-jerks.

They are now banning things that don't happen.

Next, a ban on time travel and on the sun rising in the West.



Update: Smoking Hot has another take on this.

Godwin's Ashtray.

I had not expected to be working all weekend. Next weekend is a definite 'no'. One of the smoky-drinkers is going in to hospital for an arthritis operation so we're getting him sedated and full of antibacterial smoke and alcohol first.

Tonight, no children appeared at my door. In past years there have been some, and I have been tolerant enough not to snarl at them, to listen to the terrible jokes and give them some Dentist's Delight so they'll go away. This year, not one. I wonder if it's because of this? If I had known earlier, I would have hung some cigarettes outside my door and put up pictures of people smoking. Much scarier than pumpkins. I am bigger than the Bogeyman now, with full idiot-terrifying powers and if you thought I was a heartless bastard before, you ain't seen nothing yet. Watch out for a whiff of smoke coming from under the bed or through the keyhole of that dark closet. I might be in there, with my sack of baccy and my red eyes and the Fabled Zippo of the Lumpy Lung. As for spiders in my hair, I've always had those. Spiders like me. Possibly because I won't kill them. Antismokers, well, they aren't as important or as useful as spiders.

Over at Frank Davis's is a third hand video in which a professor tries to point out the dangers of lying through science. He says, among other sensible things, this:

"How far do we take this? At what point do we start to say that deliberately presenting information in a deceptive way so that people will change their behaviour. At what point does that become unacceptable? And to me, I start seeing gas chambers... Maybe that seems ridiculous, that a government of whatever shape should deliberately produce campaigns which are deceitful, intending to deceive - if that's the case - in order to produce desired change, is a very thorny problem."

A government deceiving and using gas chambers on its own people? Is it so ridiculous? Pol Pot's regime enslaved an entire population, killed anyone who showed any sign of independent thought and didn't even allow spectacles because they were evil Western technology. When they did that, they were the government. Mugabe's government routed all non-black farmers with violence and routinely arrests members of other political parties.

When the Jews were rounded up and killed in 1930's Germany, who did that? The obvious answer is 'the Nazis' but that answer avoids an uncomfortable truth. When they did it, the Nazis were the government. Governments still can, and still do, perform atrociously evil acts.

Couldn't happen in Britain? Look back only as far as the 1960's and you see the British government shipping British children as slave labour to Australia. Look now, and you see a deputy Prime Monster who smokes and who likes to put out other smokers' cigarettes by stamping on their faces. And to think you're all scared of the BNP. There is worse in power already.

Hitler invented the second hand smoke game. Whenever that's pointed out, you can be sure the smokophobes will bleat 'Godwin's law' because they believe it's as valid as the law of conservation of energy or Newton's laws of motion. So let's play.

Here is something I found concerning the Nazi anti-Jew propaganda, with a little modernisation as applied by ASH.


There are still Jewish lackeys today who attempt to disrupt our storm attack on the Jewish world rulers, trying to stop us or even cause us to fall. The following hints show how one can reply to these arguments by our opponents, or even turn their arguments against them.

There are still nonsmokers who don't mind smoking. Here's how to browbeat them into submission.

Argument 1: “You say that religion is a private matter. But you fight against the Jewish religion!”
Counterargument: “Actually, the Jewish religion is nothing other than a doctrine to preserve the Jewish race.” (Adolf Hitler). “In resisting all government attempts to nationalize them, the Jews build a state within the state (Count Helmuth von Moltke). “To call this state a ‘religion’ was one of the cleverest tricks ever invented.” (Adolf Hitler). “From this first lie that Jewry is a religion, not a race, further lies inevitably follow.” (Adolf Hitler).

1. 'You say smoking is a personal choice but you plan to ban it in private cars and homes'
Counter: 'Smoking is an addiction and these people need help because they are all of low IQ (like Einstein, who was both a Jew and a smoker) and need to be guided to the Proper Path'.

Argument 2: “There are decent Jews, after all!”
Counterargument: “This little phrase ‘after all’ proves that they are rare exceptions of no significance to our battle against Jewry as a whole. But Martin Luther saw four hundred years ago that this “decency,” proven by charitable deeds done in as public a manner as possible, is nothing but a hidden cost of business, to repaid a thousand times by uneducated Germans. “Know, dear Christian, and have no doubts about it, that next to the Devil you have no more bitter, poisonous and determined enemy than a genuine Jew. . . If they do something good for you, it is not because they love you, but because they need room to live with us, so they have to do something. But their heart remains as I have said!”

2. 'Not all smokers are filthy, selfish and inconsiderate'.
Counter: 'They are all addicted and will eat your head if they are deprived of their fix for ten minutes. Those who look to be considerate are only pretending. Inside, they are thinking about how best to give your children lumpy lung or leprosy. They are ingratiating themselves to you to distract you from their Satanic rituals and stoat rape habits.'

Argument 3: “The Jew has better prices than the German businessman.”
Counterargument: Any crook can sell junk. Jewish crooks have driven thousands of German businessmen to bankruptcy with the glittering trash in their department store palaces. When someone does get good products more cheaply from the Jews than from Germans, it is only because the united Jewish firms force down prices from the manufacturers, which means reducing workers’ wages. He who has bought good products cheaply from the Jew should never forget that the curse of a German worker and the tears of his hungry children come with them!

3. 'The smoker pays massive amounts of real-numbers tax.'
Counter: 'The smoker costs the NHS enormously made-up amounts of money.'

Argument 4: “There are also ‘white Jews’ [i.e., Gentiles who are as bad as Jews].
Counterargument: “That speaks against the Jews, not for them! The fact that one calls the crooks among us ‘white Jews’ is proof that being a Jew implies something bad. Otherwise, one would call crooked Jews ‘yellow Christians.’ The fact that there are so many ‘white Jews’ among us proves that the destructive Jewish spirit has already infected wide circles of our population. It is a warning to us that we have to take up the battle against the Jewish world plague everywhere.” (Joseph Goebbels). That is why Point 24 of our party program states: “The party battles the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and outside of us.”

4. 'There are nonsmokers who are friends wih smokers and don't mind smoke at all.'
Counter: 'That makes then as stupid as the smokers. They are dangerous people, just as dangerous as smokers and they will allow this evil to kill us all.'

Argument 5: “Mr. Levi is not a Jew, since he has been baptized!”
Counterargument: As we have already shown, Jewry is not a religion. The Führer pointed that out in a sarcastic manner during the period of struggle [1919-1933] when he said that it was a peculiar sort of religion when one could smell its adherents from a great distance! No, a Jew always remains a Jew. Chaim Herz Bückeberg, better known as “Heinrich Heine,” joked: “Are these long noses a kind of uniform that allows the God King Jehovah to recognize his old body guard, even if they have deserted?” “I have no desire to convert the Jews,” Martin Luther wrote, “since that is impossible.” A Jew remains a Jew. “In case of need, a dose of baptismal water saves both business and Jewry at the same time!” (Adolf Hitler).

5. 'Mr. Levi is not a smoker, since he only uses Electrofag.'
Counter: 'It's still smoking because it looks like smoking. And I don't like the smell even if there isn't one'

Argument 6: “It is true that Mr. Moses Freundenstein is a Jew, but his parents and grandparents lived here. He is one of our old established citizens.”
Counterargument: Just as a goat does not become a horse, even if his father and grandfather were in the same stall, a Jew can never become a German, even if his ancestor came to Germany as a peddler in Varus’ army [during the Roman era]

6. 'It is true that Mr. Moses Freundenstein is a smoker, but he never smokes around children or anyone who doesn't like it.'
Counter: 'Just because you don't see him smoking doesn't mean he is not secretly poisoning you with the supernatural emanations from his clothing. Smokers have the power to kill with a glance, you know.'

Argument 7: “The Jew is a human being too!”
Counterargument: “Of course the Jew is a human being too. None of us has ever doubted it. But a flea is also an animal. But not a very pleasant one. Since a flea is not a pleasant animal, we have no duty to protect and defend it, to take care of it so that it can bite and torment and torture us. Rather, we make it harmless. It is the same with the Jews.” {Joseph Goebbels).

7. 'The smoker is a human being too'.
Counter: Exactly as Goebbels stated. Word for evil Nazi word, just replace 'Jew' with 'smoker' and you're there.

Argument 8: “Everything with a human face is equal.” — Counterargument: Thirteen years ago, the “Stürmer” carried a cartoon. In it, a miserable pig looked up from his sty to a royal lion. “Everything with an animal face is equal!” But what did the lion growl in reply? “That’s what you swine would like to think!”

8. The same as 7. Just more Nazi justification for the superiority of the simple.

Argument 9: “Anti-Semitism is only something for idiots!”
Counterargument: One no longer hears this lie in National Socialist Germany. But one still reads it in the Jewish emigre press abroad, and Jews whisper it here and perhaps some Jewish lackeys still think that. We smile in response, and note that the Jews have never produced a single creative man, but that all great men in every country have been implacable opponents of the Jews. Some “intellectuals” may be distressed when one doubts their understanding, but we will follow the battle cry against Judah that all of the great men of our past have made!

9. 'Antismoking is only for the whiners and bleaters.'
Counter: 'You're not allowed to say that because it's hate speech. Besides, when has any smoker shown any sign of creativity? What use are they?'

Argument 10: “Can you live with the uproar and accept responsibility for the misery that the laws of the Third Reich bring to thousands of Jewish families?”
Counterargument: “It is almost a miracle that absolutely nothing has happened to Jews in Germany, but rather that only gradually the rights they stole from the Germans in politics and culture have been restored.” (Alfred Rosenberg). But even if a few hundred Jewish families in Germany really did have to go hungry, what is that against the many millions of German families that the Jew murdered over the course of centuries through wars, revolutions, and civil strife, not to mention those ruined through usury and fraud. “In the battle between the races, there is no truce. If you are determined finally to defend yourself, German people, then be pitiless!” (Adolf Hitler).

10. 'Can you live with the social isolation and Government-sanctioned hate aimed at 20% or more of the population? Are you comfortable with pensioners standing outside their State controlled 'homes' to smoke in sub-zero temperatures? You are responsible for the destruction of many pubs and clubs and the social lives of millions - not just smokers. Can you sleep easy with that? People are barred from many parts of normal life, denied work, denied homes, just because they like a smoke and they are sneered at by the mindless whenever they are seen because of your policies and your insanity. Does that trouble you not one jot? If you answer 'yes' to all those, Clag and Potato Head, look up the symptoms of the sociopath.'

Counter (the best one yet): 'There has been no effect on pubs at all and everyone wants the smoking ban to stay'.


Godwin's Law? More like Godwin's Ashtray, I'd say.

Antismokers, before you start bleating again, re-read what Hitler had to say about Jews in Argument 5.

Then try to convince me you are not a New Nazi.

Click those jackbooted heels, Antismoker. You didn't even notice you had them on, did you?