Think a smoking ban is about health? Think again. It's all about genetic cleansing and Big Pharma monopoly and federal control. If it were really about health the Food and Drug Administration, a State agency, would not be mandating that manufactured cigarettes be coated in a toxic carcinogen under the guise of "fire safe." This is purposeful poisoning of those who smoke tobacco and those who choose to love and befriend them.
The U.S. government deliberately poisoned alcohol used for bootleg production during Prohibition, causing the deaths of tens of thousands. This poisoning was intended to frighten people from drinking. What it really accomplished was the killing off of those in the lower socioeconomic strata, those who could not afford to purchase high quality alcohol. And no one cares about this group, unless there is profit to be made off of them in the name of philanthropy and special interests.
What Prohibition accomplished was the eradicating of countless small and local breweries, taverns, and other businesses that worked in a symbiotic relationship. These were local citizens, families that worked and lived in their local community. Prohibition accomplished the establishment of monopoly over alcohol production and distribution (Mafia). Those who knew that Prohibition would one day end swooped in and bought the bankrupt family breweries for small change, then made out like bandits when Prohibition was lifted. There is even growing speculation that Prohibition may have helped lead to the Great Depression by putting many out of home and business, thus causing less tax revenue and consumer activity amongst this silent group of new poor.
The past few years have seen a dramatic reduction in tobacco farms, and tobacco use as a result of the federal and Big Pharma-backed war on tobacco use (even the CIA/Battelle Memorial Institute are funding the anti-tobacco movement!). Like many of the family operated breweries before Prohibition, many of these tobacco farmers have been operating for several generations and proud of their product. But with tobacco prohibition rising, the State is paying them to quit in the U.S. and Canada. Now the State is ramping up its attack on Indian reservations, many of whom produce and/or sell tobacco products. The tribes of the north east in Canada and the U.S. are seeing an increase in restrictions, freedoms, and even troops threatening them.
Quite a few of the Indian reservations have been infiltrated by Marxist/Socialist ideologies, racism, and New Age corruptions of their spiritual beliefs, and elected officials more beholden to special interest money than to the people. There is also an influx of gang recruiting occurring upon the reservations. These are all purposeful strategies for weakening what may actually turn out to be the last stand against complete State and Big Pharma/Chemical control of the entire North American continent. (Note: Philip Morris, now Altria, is part of this attack on small tobacco producers, conducting a campaign against the tobacco manufacturers of New York's reservations at this very moment. Evidently, they believe they are too big to fail, and that betraying smaller tobacco producers will somehow make them look good.).
If tobacco bans are not repeats of hate movements and genetic cleansing, then why are they resorting to the same language and tactics used by these movements?
"The ugly truth is that smokers are not anything like junkies or alcoholics or prostitutes or anyone else who feels powerless over a hideous addiction. They are far worse.
"Smokers are alone the degenerates of society in that they share their poison with everyone within breathing vicinity" (Andrea Peyser, "Cancer Sticking It To Whining Nico-Fiends," 31 March 2003, emphasis added)
Why does my local Tobacco Free movement display a cartoon depicting a tobacco smoker shot dead by three gun-toting zealots because "he was packing"?
Why does the local Big State and Big Pharma funded highschool brownshirt group have T.V. commercials with dour-faced do-gooders holding pictures of camels with contorted lips and grasshoppers while their little voices say "I am not your grasshopper," and "I don't spit"? These are tried and true tactics used to subliminally tap into mankind's tendency to think of certain groups as less human, sub human, not human. Depicting a tobacco chewer as a plague insect, such as a grasshopper implies that these are only insects with no soul which should be crushed underfoot. In days past, Jews, Blacks, Tutsi, and Indians were shown as less human, more animal. It wasn't right then, and it's not right now. It's heinous and disgusting.
And speaking of spitting and contorted lips and faces. I've seen more non-tobacco users spitting and contorting than tobacco users. Yes, another sign of the past rising its ugly head. I've been spit upon, called names, and given looks of death because I am tainting the purity of the gene pool by existing. They said that about about other groups in the past too.
If tobacco bans are not about genetic cleansing then why has the local Tobacco Free site recently changed its wording for the word "group" to "cluster," a word used to describe a genetic group of people in scientific circles?
The local anti-Tobacco/pro Pharma nicotine group is pushing for an outdoor ban on tobacco chewers and smokers.
"Arguments for [non smoking] policy: Changes the social norms around tobacco use by eliminating highly visible 'clusters' of smokers....."
"Clusters," not people freely congregating and socializing. "Smokers," not people, but things that cluster and smoke. Not human.
The word "cluster" is very specific to genetics research as a way to discuss distinct groups of people who share genetic commonalities. It also has a distinctly malignant sound to it, as of disease.
There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of researchers funded by tax dollars and Big Pharma trying to pinpoint and prove a genetic marker that defines those who use coffee, tobacco, and alcohol. This is barely a justifiable use of tax payer money which should not be confiscated from hard working people for such useless purposes.
When reading these "objective" and "scientific" pieces of paper one must read them as if reading a twisted form of metaphor. The geneticists have spent much time and discussion formulating their language in order to hide what it is they really are saying in order to confuse and deceive new students and older "clusters" who remember history.
It is a bit difficult to see modern racism because it does not always seem clearly defined or focused upon external traits such as skin color or religion. From a superficial level a ban upon those who use tobacco may look benign and as if it has nothing to do with a particular phylogenetic group. But the truth is that racism has moved to a microscopic, molecular, and internal level. Instead of the yellow armbands with a Star of David marking people, the markers are internal strands of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which is divided into units called genes, which are unique to each of us.
Rather than using the word "People," or "Black," or "Blonde Haired" the words "genotype," "phylogenetic," and "cluster" are now used. Most people have the same genes/alleles, but differences/polymorphisms in the way the genetic sequences are organised. It is a language like any other, and like a language with a few basic letters and sounds, can be organised in many distinct ways. Thus, all of those with a shared allele sequence/polymorphism are a phylogenetic group, much the same way a person from a particular geographic region shares a distinct pronunciation and slang. Molecular genetics seeks to find the distinct polymorphisms for each phylogenetic group.
The language is highly suggestive of racism. The variations of sequence polymorphisms are called restriction length polymorphisms (RFLPs). The molecular biologists are busy trying to piece together these restriction polymorphisms in order to link them to particular phenotypes/families/people. When a restriction polymorphism is definitively linked to a particular trait, such as eye color, or disease it is called a restriction marker. It is claimed that identifying these "restriction markers" will help in diagnosing disease and in "isolating" genes, id. est., people.
This is exactly what went on in the first part of the 1900s. The strange science of racial purity flourished with the aid of universities and States. And the States did not merely want to rid the earth of a few diseased individuals, but also of those carrying supposedly tainted (restrictive) genetic markers. Germany and the U.S. (the U.S. was quieter, but no less avid) decided who carried the "restriction markers," which barred these people entry into society. Germany "isolated" the genes, the people in ghettos, IG Farben/Auschwitz, sanitariums, veterans homes, and hospitals.
One may believe they are safe because they are perfect -- don't drink, don't smoke, don't drink coffee, and don't eat the "wrong" foods. One may believe they are perfect because they go to church, don't waste energy, don't have the wrong skin color, vote for the correct political representatives, or whatever else. One may be perfect, but be carrying "restriction markers" all over within the secret little cells of their body.
What science doesn't tell us is that simply having a particular genetic sequence does not mean a person will die from it, or be an addict. There is such a thing as free choice, which we forget exists. Free choice is a genetic marker that each and everyone of us carries. It's the worst polymorphism of all to despots.
The direction that our wonderful science, which has been corrupted into a religion, is going is backwards. There will be no cure for cancer or other diseases. The scientists of Nazi Germany had a war on cancer, but the cure was death for millions. And in all these many, many years of scientific progress we have gotten no further than they. Our "cures" are exactly the same. Bans, blaming heredity, isolating the unwanted individuals. There will be no cure for cancer, only "therapies," which profit large corporations and the State.
There was not much cancer before the 1900s. But people have been drinking for thousands of years. People have been eating for thousands of years. People have been smoking for thousands of years, and hundreds in the Old World and Asia. People have ingested coffee for thousands of years. Why is it that a Japanese man may smoke and never get cancer, but an American man can't?
To admit the horrible truth would harm the giant monopolies and our governments who have committed crimes and made mistakes which they would rather not own up to. It is better to blame the individual for their cancer, blame their genetics and choices, better to call them "burdens" upon society than admit that there is more to cancer and its causes.
And now, that we have moved into the era of health care for all, this war on cancer, which is really a war on the individual will be ramped up. The large corporations and the State will place "restrictive markers" on as many "clusters" as they can because there is no way they will spend our money on us if they can help it. If an individual doesn't profit the State monopoly and Big Pharma, then they are a cancer and not worthy of life. Isolated. Banned.
And this is why 2nd and 3rd hand smoke were invented. There is barely a person alive that can say they have never been exposed to 2nd hand smoke, and 3rd hand smoke can be "caught" anywhere, from anyone. This creates the myth of the person who chooses to use tobacco as a virus, spreading cancer around like a flu. Thus, no matter what, the tobacco user will be the cause of all cancer, the scapegoat that must bear the sins of the people. And those who are caught anywhere near a tobacco user will be seen as carriers of the disease.
The harsh reality is that a tobacco user (or a coffee drinker or an alcoholic behind the wheel) is incapable of wiping out humanity the same way that Big Pharma and despotic states are. These people, if they ever do kill another, do it in dribs and drabs and feel extreme guilt for what they do. But large masses of "righteous" people kill large masses of innocents and feel no guilt. They tend to believe they are God's chosen and thus, have a command to kill. Somehow, the masses continually mistake Molech for God, and forget the story of Jesus and that it was a mob and the State that crucified Him.
It's easy to identify a person that smokes by sight and smell, much as if they were a group with a different skin color than the majority, or as if they were tattooed with a number. This makes them easy to hate and blame. No one cares because they're all poor and broken.
But the cause of cancer will not be eradicated by banning those who use tobacco. In fact, a new, but obvious group will have to be found, then another, and another. This will be the cure for our ignorance and will keep us distracted with hate and fear while feeling righteous and moral.
The truth is that cancer is a sad, sad disease and no one deserves to die of it or for it. It has many causes and most of them are linked to things we are unaware of, and nearly powerless over. Most causes of cancer can be attributed to our way of life the past hundred years, our addictions to things we have never considered addictions or dependencies, and issues that are too emotional to tackle.
In the 1950s and beyond, millions of Baby Boomers were given the life-saving polio vaccine which was grown on simian monkey kidneys which transferred a cancer-causing virus called SV-40 to those who received the vaccine. SV-40 lays dormant for many years until triggered for one reason or other, then may cause cancers of the soft tissues--lung cancer, skin cancer and others. SV-40 can be spread from one person to the next much like AIDs.
Many vaccines have been found to lead to cancer. A vaccine should be good, and they have stemmed many sicknesses, but there are often future ramifications which one does not find out until many years later.
Then there is radon, an invisible gas, which is in many homes. This too, causes lung cancer.
Exhaust from our automobiles contains many carcinogens.
Our jobs in certain industries which require exposure to chemicals and toxins may cause lung cancers.
Radiation exposure, such as via a full body scanner, or an X-ray machine can cause cancer.
Kissing someone with the HPV virus can cause cancer. In fact, all forms of warts are actually cancer viruses.
The use of immunosupressant drugs, such as are used by organ transplant patients, or by AIDs patients, or for arthritis leads to cancer.
Being born and living may lead to cancer and or death.
With the increased Chemical/Pharmaceutical push for genetically engineered grains cancer will increase even more. These genetically engineered foods usually contain an animal or human protein in them. Our bodies instinctively know when a foreign body has entered and this incites our immune system to be rid of it, the same way an organ transplant patient's body knows a foreign organ has been introduced into it.
Genetically engineered food will cause our immune systems to overreact, which will wear the body down, which will lead to more patients in the doctor's office asking for immunosupressents and allergy meds, which will lead to cancer.
Not only will genetically engineered crops harm our immunity, but they will cross breed with other crops and destroy them, putting small farmers out of business, giving the Chemical/Pharmaceutical corporations a monopoly over what we eat. The same corporate monopolies that are behind the smoking bans are also behind genetically engineered foods. They'll feed us from the cradle to the grave on their cancerous foods and their "therapies" for the sickness they have given us. But the tobacco users and others will reap the blame. And the people will be blamed for destroying the environment, while the genetically modified pollen spreads its disease to our land and farmers right under our noses.
We don't have to return to the stone age or eschew modern conveniences, but we must be more aware of what our modern and thoughtless addictions have led to. We are a nation of addicts. We think that a pill will solve our problems and that mixing unlike things, such as human with plant will give us health and nutrition. We think we can ban cancer by banning people.
It is nearly impossible to give up our lotions, foods, jobs, medicines, fertilizers, pesticides and cars. We don't have to, but we can find other ways, even if our friends and neighbors deride us and wonder if we are crazy. This author is going to try to the best of his ability to put his money where his mouth is, and also how to do without certain products. But time is running out. Once a group is banned, once a university's "pharmaceutical" grain crop sends its pollen out into the surrounding regions, once a cancer-causing virus contaminates a vaccine it is nearly too late to stop the spread of cancer upon our souls and society.
This is why I take a stand against tobacco bans. It seems that this one wall is what stands between everyone and complete monopoly over every aspect of our lives. Believe it or not, the tobacco companies devoted much time and money to combating the forces of Big Chemical and Big Pharma. According to the anti-tobacco propaganda, the tobacco companies saw the World Health Organization and the Big UN as their biggest threat, as their biggest "competition," and worked hard to keep them from implementing domination. We may never know exactly how important tobacco users and their money were in keeping America and the rest of the world free. And now, they are banned and hated by the very people they may have protected. Isn't that the way of the world.
Or, we will see how important and generous tobacco users were/are, but continue treading down the wrong road. Already, in my state, only a few short months after a smoking ban in the hospitality industry, the state has lost millions in revenue. The bars are having to lay off bartenders, most of whom are single mothers. In turn, these single mothers will lose homes, cars, nice clothes, money for their children's dance or sport activities, or tutoring, nights out with friends, etc, etc. In turn, this money may have flowed back to the fathers paying the child support. These single mothers will end up in government subsidised housing and on welfare, and the fathers will be punished by the State with fines, jail, confiscated driver's licences for not paying up. How does that save the tax payers money? A smoking ban effects the entire economy because the money doesn't merely stay in the bar or the casino. It goes out into the community, even benefiting those that hate tobacco users. Tobacco users can be highly generous and loving people, but not if their company isn't good enough for the community.
A ban on tobacco hurts our health in so many different ways. And Big Pharma Nicotine "therapy" will not save any of us in health costs because these products cause cancer, ulcers, diabetes, heart attack, brain death, and other wonders of medical madness.
I recently read a comment suggesting that the non profit status of churches be revoked to make up for lost revenue due to the tobacco bans. At the moment, this seems a plausible solution, as these groups (Christian, Jew, Muslim) quit being answerable to God by joining with the State and Big Pharma to push for the bans--at least where I live. There is no separation of Church, Corporation, and State. They're the same. They want our money to save the world, yet won't give anything back unless one sells their soul to them. And always, they blame illness upon some evil committed by the individual, thus claiming exemption from mercy or forgiveness.
The smoke of the saints. Good enough for God. Banned on earth.
image: Caravaggio, David and Goliath
No comments:
Post a Comment