Does Anyone Remember the Lessons of Black Americans?

Does anyone recall learning about the old days and of how people were put on the auction block and bid upon?

Part of the process of choosing a good slave was an examination of their body and teeth. A potential owner could touch and fondle any part of another person/slave.

Does anyone remember learning of how slaves weren't permitted to choose their occupation, their free time, or allowed to travel off the plantation without written permission of their master -- and even then, they were in danger?

Does anyone remember that slaves didn't often marry, but instead had several partners, and that they weren't allowed to stay home and raise their children, but had to leave them to the care of nature or someone that didn't love the child while the parent was at work for the master?

Does anyone remember that even after being granted so-called freedom many states and townships banned Black Americans from owning firearms?

Does anyone remember that it was forbidden to teach a slave to read or write, especially to write?

Does anyone remember that slaves were forbidden from gathering together in large groups to worship God?

Does anyone remember that in many parts of the country the slave population far outnumbered the non-slave population, yet they still submitted to being owned, rarely ever organizing effective revolts? It was nearly impossible for the slaves to organize and plan when they were banned from gathering together or having any free time or education.

Does anyone remember learning of Jim Crow and Separate But Equal laws? Does anyone remember how Black Americans were banned from certain businesses, universities, and neighborhoods for the "health" of the non-blacks?

Does anyone remember that the United States Constitution did not apply to Black Americans for many years, and that even after ratification of the 16th Amendment, the Constitutional rights of Black Americans were ignored?

Does anyone remember that the shoddy clothing, rations of poor quality food, and the paltry gifts given at Christmas were all provided by the "generosity" of the master?

Does anyone remember these lessons from our history books and can anyone make connections with our time? I guess, not, since these things aren't obvious. Even Black Americans can't see the connections, since they're not as black and white as they were in former days.

And does anyone recall how the slaves of America were set free? It wasn't they, but outside forces that fought and died. The help came from outside the slave community.

And then, does anyone remember how Black Americans won their rights as Americans? It took a long time, but they learned who they were and how to stand up for themselves and to defend their dignity and rights as humans.

And so, I wonder who will come in from outside to free the Americans? Who will fight and die for us? And how long will it take for us to learn to defend ourselves and move from superstition to educated and enlightened learning?

Americans are illiterate, uneducated and superstitious and believe in the Bogey Man. He's gonna get us. Boo!

We've wasted the lives of those lost during the American Civil War and we've wasted the lives of those who defended the rights of Black Americans in the following years. We've wasted their lives because now, we're all owned. At least, the slaves knew who their master was. We have no idea who has bought us or even that we've been sold.

image: The Problem We All Live With by Norman Rockwell. A painting and a title I find particularly revolting, racist.

TSA and Homeland Security Expose America's Biggest Threat

Why do Americans and others in the Western world feel so terrorized?

Earlier I watched a news clip in which travelers were asked their thoughts about the Naked-Body scanners and the Pat-Downs at the airports. Many people were very supportive of them, saying that if it saved their life from a terrorist it was worth it. Most people were very sincere and serious about their fears, really believing that the airplanes were dangerous and possibly full of terrorists, but never once mentioned fears of a plane crash, cancer caused by radiation, or of feeling insulted by a pat-down -- all of which are far more common and more likely to occur than terrorism.

It struck me as very interesting. It shows how much our fears are formed and caused by the media, rather than by logic.

It also shows how disgraced we are. We don't mind pointing fingers at others, other groups of people, singling them out and accusing them, blaming them, fearing them. We'd rather believe we are terrorized by a few people, than believe a machine causes cancer or that a plane could crash due to various factors. We love blaming people. We can't blame machines or planes crashing for feeling terrorized by our inability to control life and how it ends. We can't make naked body scanners or malfunctioning jet engines into scapegoats for our sins and fears -- but we can make people into scapegoats.

"I don't mind going through the body scanner or having a pat-down if it means keeping me safe from terrorists and saves my life."

And then, there are those who simply don't care. They don't care. They've never thought about it. It doesn't seem strange at all to remove their shoes and belongings, to pose in the scanner, or to be patted-down. It's only part of life, part of traveling, another process. They've become numb and hardened. These same people will strive to protect their family from unhealthy influences and foods, and will quickly accuse others of irresponsibility and sinfulness, but suddenly turn blind and dumb when they are accused of the same things.

And this may be why so many really aren't concerned about the body scanners and think that those who are must be paranoid. These people always laugh and say, "I don't have anything to hide. I'm innocent. Who cares." Most people really do believe they are innocent, or that their crimes are lesser than another's. They absolutely don't want to admit what the naked body scanner implies -- that they are guilty, that they are not innocent, that they are accused of a crime -- that they are a terrorist threat to the safety of others and to their friends, family, and country. It's too difficult to admit this.

We Americans will continue to feel terrorized and afraid of others until we admit we are guilty, imperfect, criminal, and stained. As long as those body scanners can only read the surface and those pat-downs only touch the surface, then we can also feel safe; for that scanner can't read our hearts and minds, and the pat-down can't grope our minds and find the weapons or evil intents we have hidden away. Go ahead, take my nail clippers, but don't you dare find the needles I use to prod my coworkers and family. Go, ahead, grope my groin, but don't reach into the cracks of my soul and pull out the hidden hate and excrement of my mind.

The real fear is not of foreign terrorists or men with dark skin. It is of ourselves. So, as long as it is easier for us to blame others and to point out those with superficial and skin-deep differences or obvious religious practices we will never have to look at that which lays beneath the skin and is not obvious. We will never have to look at ourselves.

We feel terrorized by our own self. This is why we feel terrorized and why we willingly submit to such things as the naked-body scanner. It takes a photo of our image, the false image we desire to project and to keep. It makes us feel as if we're doing something without actually doing anything. It allows us to continue lying to ourselves that we are not the terrorist and not a danger to our country or others.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. Abraham Lincoln made these words from the Bible famous and embedded them into the American mind.

America is united in believing that the way to defend against terrorism is to divide against itself. Rather than becoming stronger and steadfast we believe the best way to defend and protect ourselves is to accuse each other, ban each other, pat each other down and collect naked photos at the airports.

Somehow, it "protects" and keeps us "free" to avoid admitting our own sins and weaknesses while blaming others. Those damn tobacco smokers, those damn Muslims, those damn politicians, those damn Constitutionalists, those damn drunk drivers, those damn drug dealers, those damn bad parents, those damn this, those damn that. Keep pointing at others and wanting to get rid of them and we'll never ever have to point the finger at our own chest.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. Each of us is a house. How can we divide from our own self, disconnect our image from our soul? We are doing a good job of trying to divide ourselves. We don't want to admit how we have hurt ourselves and ignored our own basic freedoms in our individual lives. We have taken that New Age Christian teaching of "Dying To Self" and we have attempted to kill our self and negate it and tell it to stop nagging us. We have terrorized our own self.

In a strange way, Homeland Security and the TSA have tapped into the truth of America. We each stand accused of terrorism. We all have harmed America with our apathy, ignorance, hatred and fear, arrogance, and self-righteousness. There is no grace in America, only Law. And when there is only Law with no foundation of mercy supporting it, then there is no justice, and the U.S. Constitution dies.

The United States Constitution is a document firmly grounded on grace. That Bill of Rights is all about mercy and about refusing to divide against one's self or neighbors even when they are imperfect and stand accused. There is no such thing as free speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of religion without grace towards those we don't agree with or even think dangerous. But in America we no longer have grace. We believe attacking and accusing and banning the minority will save us and keep us alive.

And how odd that America was founded upon the rights of the minority rather than the majority, and yet we fear the minority. The power of the minority was well-known by our founders. They liked that minority. They were a minority that shaped the way the majority lived. But America wants to destroy that powerful minority. We think it smokes too much and will kill us all. It goes to the wrong churches or no church and will ruin our beliefs. It dresses strange and wants to blow up airplanes. It reads the wrong news. It eats the wrong food. Isn't it interesting how this minority holds so much power over our lives and minds? Our founders were right. The minority is important and strikes fear into us. It seems that all the majority can think about is the minority. Somehow, these minorities strike fear into us because they force us to be strong, merciful, graceful, educated, and to live in an imperfect world.

When we get rid of the minority we get rid of choice and the freedom required to make choices as a minority of one. America doesn't need the Bill of Rights anymore, because the minority is nearly illegal. If we all agree and do as we're told by the authorities, never questioning, never thinking for ourselves, then we no longer need the 1st Amendment or any other Amendment to protect us -- because none of us is a minority dissenter anymore, since those are illegal. There is absolutely no point in the Bill of Rights if we're all in the majority and agree on everything.

According to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution I have a right as a minority to express freedom of speech by buying tobacco, I have the freedom to express my religious beliefs by smoking tobacco, and the right to express these beliefs in printed format. But because I am a minority and don't have millions of dollars to pay off my state politicians and to fund "science" that supports my views (and the stock in my product), suddenly, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to me; the minority it is designed to protect. Because I refuse to support my local state health department's sick sense of humor, which advocates through cartoons the killing of cigarette smokers, or their racist advertising which links tobacco users to those of middle eastern descent -- because I am a minority and love other minorities, even those I don't agree with; I am labelled a danger to society.

I am a danger. I am a minority. I am one little person with one little lit cigarette. My vote doesn't count, but my actions do. I am the part of the house that most of America is divided against. I am the one to fear most. A naked body scan and a pat-down will not detect me. A law, a ban, cannot change my mind or who I am. The Constitution can fade, but in my heart it is still written and cannot be erased. I am the United States Constitution. I am freedom and liberty and without me, without those like me there is no such nation as the United States of America. If you are not for me, then you are against me. If you are against me you are against the Constitution, against your own country, against your own house.

Yes, it's dangerous to travel these days. Terrorists are everywhere. Each person who submits unquestioningly to the naked body scan and/or pat-down has failed. They, we are the reason America's safety is threatened. We cannot defend even the smallest minority, our self. If we will not stand even for our self, then who will stand for us? No one. And so, the TSA is doing a very effective job of identifying exactly how dangerous it really is in this country. We are surrounded by a majority of people who will defend no one. It's incredibly dangerous, for one could be raped or mugged in an airport and not one person would come to our aid, nor apprehend the perpetrator of the crime. Those few people who defend themselves are the percentage of people left in this country who will also defend others. There aren't many left. A minority.

Why do Americans feel so terrorized? Because on a daily basis, we each live with the terrorist and cannot get away from them. They are everywhere we are because they are us. And the aptly named Department of Homeland Security along with the Transportation Security Administration are doing a most excellent and thorough job exposing exactly how dangerous America is and how many terrorists there are. Perhaps, we should be applauding them for showing us how disgraced and dangerous America has become. We're naked and can't see it, defiled and don't care.

How To Deal With TSA: Bathrobes and Slippers, NOT Violence and Mobs

My solution to the TSA: Bathrobes and fuzzy slippers.

I used to work with a lady that would say, "Kill 'em with kindness, kill 'em with kindness, that's what I always say," then, she'd laugh and take a big drag off her cigarette and exhale it out the window.

I've often found that these words are true and work better than obvious anger. For some reason, turning the other cheek and giving tyrants what they want and more, but in a way they hadn't planned on and that is humorous confuses and enrages them.

If the TSA, under the auspices of our government wants us naked and wants to make sure we aren't carrying weapons or explosives upon our bodies why not make things easier and cheaper and save the environment while we're at it? Those Rapiscanners and the TSA cost the country billions of dollars and waste energy and space and time.

Wouldn't it be far cheaper and easier if travelers arrived at the airport in bathrobes and fuzzy slippers? This way, instead of passing through the Rapiscan or having to endure a pat-down, one could simply open their bathrobe and show themselves and it would accomplish the same thing as a scan and also cut down on time-consuming pat-downs.

If we gave them what they wanted and more and were jolly and made a holiday of it there would be no sense in the body scanners or in all of the TSA and we'd save billions of dollars and have fought back in a non-violent and humorous way. Also, sales of bathrobes and slippers would sky rocket, helping private businesses and the economy.

But no, Americans won't do this. It's too easy. Americans will continue to rant and rave about the abuse of the TSA and the stories of men, women, children, and handicapped being defiled will continue. And the TSA will continue laughing at us and telling us they're only going to get more invasive and thorough.

I've wanted to write in the subject of mass panic and lynch mobs for awhile and now, I may. What the TSA is doing seems deliberately designed to cause mass violence and terror.

In the early part of the 1900s there were numerous lynch mobs and riots across the nation. At that time they were white on black mobs, but now the color lines are a bit blurred which makes it harder to see the similarities. But there is one commonality to American lynch mobs. That commonality is the story of a woman or a child having been brutally raped by a member or members of a minority group which the majority feels threatened by.

The story of the woman being raped is often an exaggeration of a real event or never occurred. A few people spread the story around and incite the fear and hatred of the men who turn out to protect their women and avenge this heinous crime. In a short time there is violence and chaos in the streets. Entire neighborhoods are burned and looted, many are killed and injured, and the average person is turned into an angry animal. These lynch mobs are usually incited by manipulators in unions or governments who are trying to prove their power to another group in power who has not made concessions to their demands. But more on that later.

Anyway, the point I am making is that the TSA's arrogant attitude and Homeland Security's attitude, telling us that we haven't seen nothing yet and that the abuses will continue inspite of public outcry are obvious signs that they want the American people to form into a lynch mob and string up a few TSA workers. Each new article and YouTube image of men, women, and children being abused kindles the fire. Unlike the exaggerated stories of the past of the white woman being raped by the black man, these stories are true and have imagery to back them up.

I am not saying we should ignore the abuses of the TSA, but I am concerned about the mass reaction to them. It seems to me that someone higher up is trying to prove a point with someone else and will use the average blind citizen to carry out the force. It seems to me that somewhere someone desires to shut down all airline travel.

The attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 shut down travel and grounded flights. How much more devastating will a nationwide lynch mob in our airports be? This would stop all travel, cause fear, and perhaps even stop all automobile travel due to martial law in many states. Evidently, we are at war, and for some reason our government thinks it's an autoimmune disorder and wants to make us attack it so that it can attack us--funded entirely by our tax dollars and blindness.

The enemy is us. It's you and I. Our government is treating us this way and will incite us into making it a reality. If only we could kill 'em with kindness and show up in our bathrobes and slippers as a peaceful yet effective demonstration of our power and sense of humor. If only.

Samuel Wolanyk chose to strip down to his underwear in San Diego in order to comply with TSA's need to make sure he was safe and was recorded by a woman. For some reason Wolanyk's compliance wasn't acceptable procedure and TSA wanted him to put his clothes back on so that he could have a pat-down. He and the woman that taped him are under arrest. Huh? If I had to guess, Wolanyk's choice to comply in a non-aggressive, sexy, and creative manner which "turned the other cheek," frightens TSA and Homeland Security more than anything yet. Way to go Wolanyk and may God Bless and Protect you. "Passenger Chooses Strip-Down Over Pat-Down," R. Stickney, NBC San Diego, 22 Nov. 2010 http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Passenger-Chooses-Strip-Down-Over-Pat-Down-109872589.html?dr

Why You Should Read Lolita Before Traveling In the U.S.A.: American Travelers Are Lolita, and The TSA Is Humbert Humbert

In 1955 Vladimir Nabokov, a Russian emigre to the United States, published Lolita, a tale of a linguistically and aesthetically talented pedophile who runs off with his 12 year old step daughter, "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta" (first lines of Lolita).

Lolita was not published in the U.S. until 1958 due to its pornographic subject matter. Nabokov intensely hated cruelty to others and sexual deviants. So why did he write a book from the viewpoint of the pedophile, Humbert Humbert, who has conned several generations of readers and academics with the beautiful account of his love and "protection" of a 12 year old girl?

Nabokov hated evil. He had escaped the Bolsheviks in Russia, then later, escaped the Nazis with his wife of Jewish descent and their young son. They arrived in America and fell in love with it. Nabokov's wife, Vera, promptly purchased a gun to replace the one she had left behind in Europe, and learned to drive.

Nabokov, a seemingly absent-minded butterfly-chasing professor with an innocence about him that relied upon his wife's ferocity and protection liked to look at things from a very detailed and scientific perspective. He hated evil and studied it, dissected it, and understood its minutest detail. He climbed into the mind of evil when he wrote Lolita, shocking readers and enchanting millions with the beauty of his language.

Lolita was a triumph and proved how easily a population can be tricked into accepting evil, calling it beautiful, spending entire lifetimes studying its details without ever getting to its ultimate meaning. Anyone can tear apart an engine, or dissect a body and name the parts and figure out how they operate, but most cannot figure out the ultimate meaning -- why was this human body created, what is its purpose? How does one get into the mind of the creator via the act of dissection and cataloguing of the parts? It is impossible if one has no love or passion driving them. Creators and inventors generally have more love and passion which compels them to work harder and longer at something, creating a thing that changes the world for better.

Most inventions and creations were initially designed for the betterment of mankind or to add beauty or freedom. But many inventions are corrupted and used for evil purposes. The written word was made to better the world, but evil tries to corrupt it. The same goes for all art. We see technology abused, being used to make life harder rather than easier. Even Lolita, meant to show us evil from its own perspective, has been corrupted and adopted as a wonderful and dreamy tale by many gullible girls and joking young men, none of whom are aware that they have been artfully conned and that Nabokov proves his case of how evil survives and is accepted into the world.

Nabokov, the great enchanter and magician deceives many with his artistic slight of hand, keeping our focus upon the aesthetic, causing us to accept Humbert Humbert's defence because it is merely art and has no ultimate meaning or moral. If art is only aesthetic, then beauty has no meaning, thus what is the point of creating it?

Nabokov, a talented lepidopterist, studied butterflies and moths and was fascinated by their beauty. These creatures are patterned in ways that attract and enchant us, but also hide them from evil. Some butterflies blend in with their surroundings while others mimic dangerous animals to avoid being eaten. Nabokov learned that a butterfly's patterning is not merely aesthetic, but also enhances its survival. And this is what art's purpose is. Art is not merely aesthetic, but driven by truth and survival. If we cannot learn from art how to be wiser, better, kinder, and more graceful to others; to have pity, then art has no purpose, much as a shiny car has no meaning or purpose without an engine. A car is nice to look at, but without an engine it gets us nowhere.

The reason I expound upon Nabokov's Lolita and art is that more than ever America is deceived by the Humbert Humberts who claim they love us and want to protect us, while molesting us in various ways. We are made to pass through Naked Body Scanners, which undress us and expose us to dangerous mutagenic radiation. We are searched and groped by TSA officials as we travel the country, much as Lolita was groped by Humbert Humbert along the highways and byways of America. The stories now include "enhanced" searches that have left many feeling sexually violated after having had their penises, anuses, labia, and breasts felt by TSA screeners.

Now, does Humbert's love for Lolita feel nice and beautiful? Sure, he attacked the pornographic movie maker that ran off with Lolita, because that kind of art is immoral and degrading; but what of Humbert's protective and fatherly love for her? More than ever Nabokov's Lolita is important, for we all are her.

Was Lolita clean and innocent as the wind-driven snow? Was she faultless? No. But was that any excuse for Humbert Humbert to molest her? Was Lolita a kind and sweet child? No. She was obnoxious and sometimes crude. Was she more deserving of Humbert's sexual predation because of this? No. Americans are like this 12 year old girl and even though we are annoying and obnoxious and immoral it does not mean that we deserve to be treated by our states, by our fellows that work at TSA, as criminals in need of being stripped down or molested as we travel. Humbert Humbert protected Lolita as much as our airports are protecting us.

This is not beautiful, this is not America. This isn't even Nazi Germany. This is worse. This is worse for numerous reasons. Firstly, it's far worse and more abusive passing through United States airport security than in the rest of the world. America is supposed to be less abusive than the rest of the world. Second, the atrocities of the Nazis and American eugenicists and corporations in the first part of the 20th century are not so far removed from memory that we have forgotten them and what they looked like -- and what is going on in the United States right now resembles these past times.

The TSA's arrogance is only a small, yet extremely visible HINT as to what period of history we have regressed to. If a Naked Body Scanner, a long line in which one is divested of their possessions and shoes, hurried along, and subjected to physical searches which involve humble and silent endurance while one's anal and sexual reproduction areas are touched by uniformed employees of the government before being boarded upon crowded vehicles traveling somewhere doesn't wake us up and cause deja vu; then far worse than what happened in Nazi-controlled areas of Europe awaits us.

Rather than humbly lining up like the Jews, believing they'd eventually return home, we should stop cowering in embarrassment and start saying to hell with the "law," which breaks every law written into our soul. American travelers aren't terrorists and neither are visitors from other countries. The terrorists are the ones that apply for TSA jobs, and willingly carry out the orders of their superiors. If TSA employees were intelligent Americans they'd go on strike until they no longer were made to mistreat their fellow Americans. The terrorists are the ones groping for your wallet and now, your genitals. Soon, the women and children will be divided from the men, then the children from the women as enhanced airport security. It's already happening on an individual level. What next? Confiscation of Passport and Citizenship? Child sacrifice? When will their appetite be filled?

Wake up, America. Don't let the lives lost of the millions of Jews and others be for nothing. It's time to wake up out of our self-righteous and false morals. We are imperfect, we are obnoxious, we are all sinners, and we're not afraid of it. The Nazis were afraid of sin and imperfection and tried to hide it and eradicate it. We don't have to fall for that lie.

America wasn't founded as a utopia away from imperfection, but a place that would toughen up and accept it. That First Amendment isn't for the perfect or the safe people, but to protect the imperfect and those that speak unsafe things even if they are the truth and offend others. Our entire Constitution was designed to protect the so-called "impure," the "unsafe," the "sinful," the obnoxious, the rude, and the human. If the Constitution was only for the perfect and the moral, then our Founding Fathers would not have had any rights.

According, to Britain the American Revolutionaries were a bunch of terrorists, criminals, and tax evaders. And, according to our side of history they were brave, courageous, educated lovers of freedom. It all depends on who is writing history as to what the words "terrorist," "art," "pedophile," and "free" mean. We want to be on the right side of history. The trick is figuring out what the "right" side is. Usually, it's the side that is willing to break the law to show pity and hospitality to others when they are traveling in an inhospitable world.

America, this is not ancient Sodom where travelers were subjected to rape when visiting that town. Why are we forcing ourselves upon travelers? How does it protect us to treat citizens and visitors to this country this way? We are not Nazis, not Humbert Humbert, not Sodomites -- are we?

image: George Washington, Commander of the Terrorist Americans who threatened Britain's safety and health, also known as The Father Of Our Country, The United States Of America.

American Travelers Uncovered At Their Own Expense

I'll be traveling soon and have been studying the TSA site in hopes of passing the security exams I will encounter along the way. And I wonder to myself, if it's really this dangerous to fly, then why isn't it banned altogether as so many other health risks are these days?

It's amazing how much fear our government is in when it comes to travelers. Every particle must be examined and X-rayed. And now, passengers must stand in a Stick 'Em Up pose and have naked photos taken. Why would someone willingly give their government which is supposed to protect them, not expose them, a naked photo of them self, but not dear Granny or their own child?

Granny would take better care of that naked body shot than anyone else and protect it from all other eyes because it embarrasses her to even have such a thing, and she's embarrassed for you. She'd probably tear it into a million pieces, then burn it to make sure no one ever saw it.

And most children would also be embarrassed to possess a nude photo of their parent, and would hide it from any friends that may see it. Any parent who gave their child a naked photo of themselves would be considered a pervert. Conversely, any parent that gave a stranger a photo of their child naked would be a pervert. Any parent so afraid of their own child that they forced them to strip down upon entering and leaving the house needs help. And any child old enough to stand up for them self should never allow this kind of abuse from a parent. If a child is this dangerous, then they should be confined behind barbed wire and constantly monitored by professional guards.

What if you were a woman and had been raped by a knife-wielding man and from that point on demanded that all men, including relatives, entering your house submit to a strip search to make sure they weren't carrying any weapons or other dangerous objects? People would pity this woman and think her paranoid and in need of psychological help in order to regain her confidence and ability to live in a world were most are harmless and only a few dangerous. Wouldn't it also help such a woman to own a gun and learn self-defense techniques? America is this woman and has been attacked, but she hasn't been given the tools and confidence to face the world again.

Why would we trust the government and an invisible viewer with an image of our naked body but not a close friend or relative? It seems that a relative or close friend would be a better guardian and more respectful of this image than a person or government that has no personal love or interest in us. Not all of us are Playboy Play Mates or gigolos and there's a reason for that.

We live in a society that is image-obsessed, thinking that image is everything, and tells us everything about a person. Yet, increasingly, we are afraid of human touch and contact. We are paranoid of physical touch, which is not a cold image.

I've observed this fear of human contact around my little town. I've seen girls snap at men for touching them in the smallest way or by accident when passing by. I've seen guys stand like statues, their arms crossed over their chests in large crowds, glaring at anyone who dares tap them on the shoulder.

I've overheard girls talking about "the circle," an invisible area that others should know better than to enter. Evidently, there is an unspoken rule these days that says "thou shalt not cross within a few inches of any other person at any time." These girls were agreeing with each other that it was very rude of others to get too near, even though they were in a crowd. And this wasn't even about being touched or bumped up against, this was about getting too near although never having made physical contact. Yet, these same girls will post their image and every detail of their lives online and dress attractively. If one really doesn't want to be touched or have anyone get near to them they should refrain from bathing several days before going into public, step in a fresh dog pile, dump an ashtray over their head, and spill a glass of whiskey and coke on their clothes, and write "leper" across their forehead.

If you wanted to keep me at a distance you'd put on too much perfume. It works every time. My eyes roll up into my head, I feel as if a plastic bag is being wrapped around my head, and I wish there was a tobacco smoker in the vicinity to hide the smell (incidentally, where I live the indoor tobacco ban supposedly includes perfume, incense, candles and other strong smells in the air. I doubt that anything other than the tobacco ban is enforced).

Anyway, I'm not so much offended by the radiation factor of the full-body scan in airports, as by our society's willingness to give a government such power and a nude photo, which they never paid for. I don't know about you, but giving away naked photos of myself wasn't what I paid for when I bought my airline ticket. It offends me and breaks my heart when I see people standing in a pose reminiscent of a crucifixion.

Once, a long time ago, a man was hung on a cross, judged between two criminals. His crime was that he was a king, a person with dignity and who desired all people be royalty and their nakedness covered. He was naked and the entire world saw him and became obsessed with the image of him naked and bleeding, prone, unable to cover himself from our gaping and disrespectful eyes. And now, we are all like him, naked, being judged with the terrorists although we are royalty.

Anyone who thinks a naked body scanner protects them from death is a hypocrite. That America is this weak, this afraid is sad. A naked body scanner cannot save us or protect us from evil. Uncovering people has never saved anyone from crime. Whenever people are uncovered, laid bare, and treated as criminals by their master or government it has been a time of great suffering and hatred.

Can a naked body scanner read a heart? If it could I'd put the things at the entrance of every state capitol building and in Washington, D.C., for this is where the most danger to American safety resides. These few men and women have images that appear clean and safe, but are their hearts free of terrorist threats, do they use their pens as weapons of defense against evil or to enact evil upon women and children by stealing freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and fought for by a few belligerent and brave souls during the Revolutionary War?

I'm not Jesus and I won't sacrifice my life for a government that is afraid of me. If I sacrifice my life and my dignity it will be for those I love and for freedom and those brave enough to love me.

What is America so afraid of, what is our government afraid of? Why do we believe it makes us safe to hand over our freedom and ease of travel to a government agency? When a government restricts and controls freedom of movement and travel, rather than increases it we should be very concerned. When a government accuses all citizen travelers of being potential threats, then we must wonder why. Has America grown so weak and prone, so exposed and defenseless that it fears everything and everyone? What happened to the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave? Where are those who remember these words and what they mean?

Free doesn't mean tobacco free, sugar free, or free from something. It means free to DO something. Freedom is an action, not something that is excluded from the mix. We've twisted the word free to mean something is missing and that somehow this is a good thing. We now identify ourselves as free from this or that, rather than free to do this or that. America is not free if it thinks it's terrorist free. America is free when it's free to do, to take action, to move about, to stand for freedom, to stand against evil -- because evil is everywhere and always will be.

The only way to fight evil is with freedom to do, not freedom from.

Note: I will be requesting a pat down in place of the full body scan wherever possible. I can see who is touching me and prefer this human touch, even if slightly invasive and humiliating. I'd rather not lie to myself that I am fully clothed by stepping into the full body scanner. I much prefer the truth and the truth is often quite unpleasant -- which is why so many silently step into the scanner.

image: Amelia Earhart

A Guide To Jaco Van Dormael's Mr. Nobody

Jaco Van Dormael's Mr. Nobody is like a piece of great literature and needs to be "read" like one. This means that the viewer needs to have an ability to make connections with other literature and with their heart. If the reader is able only to make superficial connections they will come away with the impression that there is no ultimate meaning to life at the end of the movie.

Back in my university days it was very common for the students to forget that "Every great writer is a great deceiver" as well as a "storyteller, teacher, enchanter--but [that] it is the enchanter in him that predominates and makes him a major writer" (Vladimir Nabokov "How to be a Good Reader or Kindness to Authors").

And thus, I had to sit through many a class while my fellow students destroyed literature with their ignorance and cruelty. The youngest and most beautiful girls would swoon at Nabokov and Wallace Stevens and say it was so beautiful and wonderful, drooling sick and sugary syrup from their mouths, but never understanding exactly why the literature was beautiful. I once, heard a beautiful girl, accustomed to being thought intelligent in high school, tell the professor that she loved T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland because it was dreamy and had mermaids.

And then, there is the intellectual student. These are the ones with dour faces and black-rimmed glasses and mouths that know big words. These never understand anything and all great literature is nihilistic and nothing to them. They drone on, explaining why the literature was great -- because it means nothing and has no meaning (actually, they're too blind to know meaning when they run into it). These go on to power positions in politics or universities where they attempt steal the joy and meaning of learning and living from the rest of us.

These two types of "readers," the sugary girls and the educated idiots are bad readers and will not understand Mr. Nobody, but will shape nearly all opinion about it.

"the good reader is one who has imagination, memory, a dictionary, and some artistic sense"(Vladimir Nabokov "Kindness to Authors").

Here are a few connections I've noticed upon completing a first viewing. There must be much more:

Literature:
Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
"Annabelle Lee" by Edgar Allen Poe
Lolita by Vladimir Nobokov
The Odyssey by Homer
Bible

Movies:
Groundhog Day with Bill Murry
It's a Wonderful Life with Jimmy Stewart
The Matrix with Keanu Reeves
Dead Man with Johnny Depp
The Wizard of Oz with Judy Garland

Symbolism:
Water
Muses
Trains
Tunnels
Colors

And ultimately, these connections to the wider universe are only road markers, pointing us to the meaning of Jaco Van Dormael's Mr. Nobody, which is about the most important connection of all.

Mr. Nobody, Jaco Van Dormael's Sublime Universe

In the year 2092 Nemo Nobody is 118 years old and the last mortal human. A journalist asks Nemo what life was like back when humans were mortal and Nemo replies:

"There were cars that polluted. We smoked cigarettes. We ate meat. We did everything we can't do in this dump and it was wonderful."

I haven't enjoyed a movie as much as Jaco Van Dormael's Mr. Nobody in years. It's like Vladimir Nabokov on screen. Brilliant, provoking, intelligent, playful, beautiful, pitiful, awful and awesome -- Sublime.

Graceful Choices and the Freedom to Make Them

"We cannot go back. That's why it's hard to choose. You have to make the right choice. As long as you don't choose, everything remains possible" (Nemo in the film Mr. Nobody)

I haven't had the opportunity to view Mr. Nobody, as it hasn't been released in my part of the world, but it seems to be about the many choices a person is faced with and the ramifications of those choices which in turn leads to the many possible lives a person can or could live.

It seems that this film has left some with the feeling that life is beautiful eye candy with no absolute meaning.

"As long as you don't choose, everything remains possible." If we don't choose, then another will choose for us, and often it is the opportunists and power-hungry that take advantage of our inability to make a choice. Not making a choice is a choice -- the choice to be powerless and allow others to make choices for us -- to remain a helpless and dependant child.

"As long as you don't choose, everything remains possible" for evil to succeed unhindered.

This is the problem with most societies and groups of people. They think that choosing a certain leader will be an easier choice than having to take personal responsibility for the choices they make. The leader will make the choices and pass the laws, which always end up limiting choice, even banning certain choices.

We see this with laws and with certain fundamentalist religions. The law gets carried away and says "Thou Shalt Not," rather than allowing a person the freedom to make a choice for themselves based upon the knowledge they possess and the risks they are willing to take.

And because we cannot go back in time and make the "right" choice it is very important that a society is free to make choices. A society where there is no freedom is one in which one is trapped in the choices they have made and cannot move forward or improve their situation with new choices. A free society must rely upon Grace as a crutch to hold it up when parts of it fail.

When there is no freedom to choose we see situations such as the recently publicised case in Iran in which a woman was sentenced to be stoned to death for having affairs with two men after her husband was murdered. In Iran this woman's choice leads to death. In a free society in which one is allowed the choice to make what may seem immoral decisions, this woman would be allowed the choice to mend her ways and get on with life and Grace would overlook her past mistakes if it saw that she was making healthier and wiser choices. If Grace couldn't cover her, she could make the choice to move to a place where no one knew of her past.

In societies where choice has been given over to a few elites there is no freedom to move about freely, travel where one chooses, move up in the world, leave bad relationships, eat what one chooses, work where one chooses, worship how one chooses, smoke where one chooses, wear what one chooses, etc., etc...

These are Disgraced societies.

In order for a movie such as Mr. Nobody to even come to fruition there must still be free choice alive and well in the world. This movie is about personal choice and love, but there is no personal choice or pursuit of true love unless one lives in a society in which the possibilities are endless.

My personal belief is that each of us has been chosen for the moment in time that we live in. If we don't make a choice to seize hold of the moment and the role we've been handed, another will step in and fill the role; but will another do it as well us us? The trick is taking that incredible role and doing the best with it that we possibly can. We've each been prepared for those great pivotal moments of choice and can bring unique passion and knowledge to the role we play.

We cannot go back, but we can move forward.

Russia Says Smoke More For Healthy Economy, While U.S. and E.U. Tell People To Chew Coal Tar Candy To Help Weaken Economy

That's it, I'm going to Russia.

Russia's finance minister, Alexei Kudrin is telling "people to smoke and drink more, explaining that higher consumption would help lift tax revenues for spending on social services" ("'People Should Smoke and Drink More,' Says Russian Finance Minister," Telegraph, 1 Sep 2010).

According to the Telegraph article Kudrin says, "People should understand: Those who drink, those who smoke are doing more to help the state."

Really? Tell that to Europe and the Unites States of America, land of pharmaceutical phascism.

Those dumb Russians. They must be stuck in the Stone Age. Don't they know that the Western world all chews or sucks scabs of coal tar now? Haven't they heard of Chantix, which boosts the health of society and the economy by turning sane people into suicidal maniacs and diabetics? Jeepers, where's Nikon and his anti-tobacco league of nose-slitters when you need them?

I hear that tobacco use is popular in China too. China's government grows the stuff since they don't like importing it or relying upon the U.S. for their supplies.

If Russia's finance minister says that buying tobacco and alcohol helps the economy and even "[upholds] birthrates" (Telegraph), then conversely not buying these must harm the state coffers and the economy.

Kudrin would say that a ban upon these items and others is harmful and unpatriotic.

Hypothetically speaking, if you wanted to undermine another country's morale, economy and peace what would you do? You'd send out the agents of dissent and fear to propagandize and create confusion and panic so as to immobilize, paralyze, and silence.

Hypothetically speaking, how would you invade another country and move in right under their noses and never let them know what was happening so that they would not retaliate against you because they had no idea that they were even under attack, instead pointing fingers at each other?

Instead of openly invading the enemy country, instead of sending hundreds of thousands of troops across the ocean to attempt a new Normandy invasion, instead of dropping bombs and other expensive and finite devices you would buy people. You'd pay out several million, or billion dollars to a few experts and highly respectable personalities and let them spread ideas and false beliefs. These false beliefs would spread across the land and many would fall in line spreading the lies and hate, never realizing that they were helping the enemy agenda, never getting paid for their work.

This has occurred before, especially within Communist movements. There are a few paid subversives and many unpaid and ignorant adherents that spread the ideas until they become mainstream and no longer recognizable as dangerous. This is why joining any mass movement, be it religious or political is highly dangerous, perhaps nearly suicidal.

What I am trying to get at is that hypothetically speaking, smoking bans may actually be propaganda campaigns planted by foreign states to undermine the strength and stability of Europe's and America's economies as well as unity of their peoples.

No smoking ban has ever benefited a city, state, or country. Billions of dollars in revenue and taxes have been lost, unemployment increased, guilt increased, and hatred of fellow citizens increased.

A tobacco or alcohol ban keeps the populace busy blaming each other, wasting millions of dollars in enforcement, and divides them against each other. A tobacco or alcohol ban causes large segments of society from gathering together, removes them from benefiting society with money, ideas, or courage. The enemy wants us afraid of each other, separated, hidden, and guilt-ridden.

If smoking tobacco is healthy for Russia, then why nowhere else?

Do Europe, the United States and Canada really believe that undermining their own morale and economies with tobacco and alcohol prohibitions is healthy or wise? Do we really believe that forcing at least 25% of the population into hiding is good for the economy and for health? Do we really believe that forcing 25% of the population onto toxic and foreign coal tar-derived gums, candies, and patches is good for society? Do we really believe the delusion that prescribing varenicline to war veterans with shell shock, making them into homicidal maniacs at home is better for health and family than using tobacco products?

We know that most Nicotine Replacement "Therapy" is produced in foreign countries. We know that states, such as Ohio are spending 3 million dollars to collect 1 million in fines. We know that the states are pushing million dollar add campaigns to force people onto toxic NRT products and drugs. We know that children are being recruited in schools to spread the campaign of hate and fear. We know that tobacco farmers are being reduced to poverty, and millions have lost their jobs due to the trickle-down affect of tobacco bans.

What we know is that to "save" lives and money lost to tobacco use, our states are spending even more on enforcement and dangerous NRT promotions. How many of our state and federal representatives are agents of foreign governments? Who is paying them? Where is the money coming from? It makes no sense to undermine E.U. or American stability unless one is working specifically to do so with the purposeful intention of destroying us. I.G. Farbenindustries worked to subvert American strength throughout the 1920s and 30s in preparation for war.

It will be shown in future years that the tobacco bans along with the pushing of dangerous NRT products was a deliberate attack upon America and Europe. It will be shown that these bans were enacted to waste our money, to stop the flow of money, and to divide the people. All tobacco and alcohol restrictions benefit the enemy, whoever they may be. All tobacco and other bans are deliberate distractions and propaganda campaigns.

There is only one way to protect one's self from being duped by any kind of propaganda campaign, be it foreign, religious, or political -- Grace.

Because one can never know what the truth is at any one time, because one can never have all the information or knowledge, there is only one way to prevent one's self from being used against their own country and friends. Grace.

When we stand back and look objectively at things we can see a larger picture and see that those who incite us to hate others or fear them are the true enemies. It is un American to live in fear of food, tobacco, alcohol and other common parts of life. If a society is paralyzed by fear of the common, noncriminal, the ordinary parts of life how will it ever stand against real enemies and evils?

If a cigarette makes a "strong" Christian quake, if a chubby child is repulsive to the First Lady, if a stumbling drunk has the power to endanger a town's safety then we must be the most spineless and softest people that has ever walked the face of the earth. I'm embarrassed.

I'll be visiting Russia before I visit California. If Russia's not afraid of me, then I'll be boosting their economy and sunbathing in Red Square on a beach of snow and slathered in a heavy coat and hat as I watch the waves of tanks roll past on their way out towards the sea of Western arrogance and atrophied muscle. C'mon America, spit out the coal tar candy. Man up and light up before it's too late.

Kid, Inc: Are We Raising Our Nation's Children Like Animals?

It's that time of year -- autumn. The birds have quit twittering and the children have stopped playing. The last couple of years I have noticed a strange thing which I never used to notice. Perhaps, my hearing is more astute, but this sound of absolute silence in the air the week that the kids are herded back into their holding pens and fattened up for slaughter after a few years of corporate corn and antibiotics is nearly like a death.

One doesn't notice the sounds of the children ringing in the air up and down the streets while the robins are training up their young ones until it's gone. I swear I could hear a pin drop from down the street this week. I don't see these children or know them, but somehow, their activity and sound fills the air.

And I wonder, how is it that the very air, nature itself seems to know the children are gone?

A few months ago, when watching Robert Kenner's documentary Food, Inc (http://www.foodincmovie.com/ ) I was struck by the similarities between the way we raise much of our food and the way we raise our children. If it's not humane or healthy to raise chickens in a windowless and crowded shed, then how is it acceptable to treat humans with souls this way?

Food, Inc shows one chicken grower that is broken in spirit because she has been forced out of tobacco farming due to our nation's biases and fears which are reminiscent of those that incited tobacco and alcohol prohibitions earlier in the last century. She now spends her days in the sheds clearing out the bodies of the chickens that die every day. Her sheds had windows in them at the time of filming, but the company she was contracted with was fighting her on this, wanting her to get rid of them. Without sunlight animals die -- so do children.

Where I live we have some formerly beautiful Art Deco schools built in the 1920s and 30s. Even back then, people were concerned about energy use and thus, these schools were specifically designed to absorb as much solar heat as possible and to allow the class rooms to be well-lit because, according to the research of the architects and school system, children learned better with more sunlight.

Not only did the architect want the children to absorb light while in their classrooms, but aesthetic beauty and grandness. The classrooms were designed with very high and beautiful ceilings and fine materials. Back in the old days we knew that Creativity Class is everywhere and in everything, and that inspiration is embedded even in the floors we walk upon and the windows we look out of.

But we have lowered the ceilings, placing false panels in. We have blocked up the grand and beautiful windows, leaving only a few small sections open. Our idea of energy use is one of not using any, rather than of absorbing and using more in wise ways. And as we have hidden the high ceilings that invite children's minds to soar, as we have blocked out the light coming in and the ability to see out, so we have also done to our children -- blocking the light of inspiration from getting in or the ability to see out.

Our children are like those chickens, no longer allowed to run loose in the sun. Those chickens die in the dark, are over crowded and diseased. Those chickens can't stand up on their own legs. They peck at each other and kill each other because they have nothing else to do. And those that raise them have no pride or dignity in what they do because they are told they must do this or loose their contract. How many teachers are in similar situations?

And then, there is a farmer interviewed in Food, Inc, that raises his animals in a more traditional and humane way. He has joy in his eyes even though he works hard and is not rich. His cows and pigs love him when he comes around and he loves them even though he will one day kill them. But think of it, wouldn't you rather the farmer loves his animal and the animal loves him, for when the day of slaughter comes, that farmer is going to make sure this animal is slaughtered as humanely and cleanly as possible, for he respects it and the life it provides for him.

Are we feeding our children the right "food" in school, or only a false and indigestible diet? Are we making them fat and weak, unable to stand with dignity and joy, by penning them in dark sheds and muddy pens? Are we injecting our children with pharmaceutical drugs and treatments because we've overcrowded them, rather than letting them loose on the range?

We don't want our food genetically engineered by giant foreign corporations, nor do we want our livestock and poultry treated inhumanely. So, why is it acceptable to treat our children this way? It's not.

[Note: It is stated in Food, Inc, several times that if Big Tobacco can be beat so can Big GMO companies. Obviously, there is an anti-tobacco bias and some ignorance in the documentary. Those same giant companies that have pushed genetically modified corn and soybeans upon us are the exact same companies that have fought to ban tobacco production and use. Were it not for our ignorance of how exactly important tobacco farmers and tobacco production are to the United States of America's dignity, health, and economic prosperity we would not be spiting the very hand that feeds us in favor of foreign nicotine replacement "therapy" and grains with terminator technology. Every single ban on tobacco adds money and dictatorial control of our country to a giant foreign interest or U.S. corporation with strong links to foreign interests. These foreign corporations have eaten up U.S. corporations and states, and think of U.S. citizens as swine, not as humans.

Most tobacco farmers are very conscious of the land and possess hundreds of years of farming knowledge, which has been erased by the hatred of their main money crop. As illustrated in Food, Inc, most tobacco farmers have been reduced to extreme debt and poverty and now raise animals in a way that turns their stomachs and is anti-American and immoral. Because we have fallen for the fear of propaganda we have gotten rid of one of America's most important crops and allowed foreign corporations to dictate to us and our politicians what we can and can't eat.

Not everyone has to smoke, but everyone has to eat, and banning tobacco is actually affecting the health of our children who are forced to eat the unhealthy crops and unhealthy animals that now replace tobacco. Bring back tobacco farming and we will weaken these giant foreign corporations and their power over our nation's leaders and food supply. Banning tobacco will actually increase cancers and autoimmune disorders in the coming years because the replacement crops are usually genetically engineered (with your tax dollars at the local university for a foreign pharmaceutical or agricultural corporation) with proteins foreign to the human body that cause inflammation of soft tissue (such as lung tissue) over time.]

"Creativity Class," A New Oxymoron?

A few weeks ago Newsweek printed an article entitled "The Creativity Crisis" by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman, which detailed the decline of creativity in America. I laughed my way through the article because one of the ideas for fixing this problem was "creativity training" in the classroom--Creativity Class.

If ever there was an oxymoron Creativity Class is one. So is Creativity Training.

"[A]merican teachers warn there's no room in the day for creativity class" (Bronson and Merryman). Actually, there's no room in the classroom, a structured and controlled and biased environment for any creativity, unless you're one of the lucky little children with parents willing to fight the ADHD label and the pharmaceutical monopoly's terrorism on brains. Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign needs to make a come back, this time to save children from mind-altering and damaging pharma fascism.

According to James C. Kaufman, quoted in the Newsweek article, "Creativity can be taught" (Bronson and Merryman). By who?

If creativity can be taught and learned within a classroom setting then why hasn't the State school system used some creative thinking to come up with better ways of dealing with children, other than labelling and drugging them? Obviously, there is no creativity amongst those operating the State school system, and to deal with their inability and laziness they have turned to drugs, blaming the victim and their parents.

And then, to contradict the first article, the following article, "Forget Brainstorming," also by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman tells the reader that "[P]eople generate more and better ideas separately than together," and "Don't tell someone to 'be creative,'" Hmm.

The closing paragraph of "The Creativity Crisis" shows how ignorant and unable to make sublime connections we have become with an insult upon the very thing that has inspired all great thinkers, inventors, artists, and scientists: the Muse at the well, sprinkling inspiration and love:

"Creativity has always been prized in American society, but it's never really been understood. While our creativity scores decline unchecked, the current national strategy for creativity consists of little more than praying to a Greek muse to drop by our houses. The problems we face now, and in the future, simply demand that we do more than just hope for inspiration to strike. Fortunately, the science can help: we know the steps to lead that elusive muse right to our doors."

And so, the great wells have been covered over while we continue un creatively to look to the gods in white lab coats to inject us with creativity, herd us into Creativity Class and subject us to yet another standardized assessment of who is creative and who is not.

Creativity is born of love, of freedom, and yearning. It cannot be synthesized by science, the State, or by pharmaceutical candies, pills, and patches.

"Now these two Kings and two Queens governed Narnia well, and long and happy was their reign. At first much of their time was spent in seeking out the remnants of the White Witch's army and destroying them, and indeed for a long time there would be news of evil things lurking in the wilder parts of the forest--a haunting here and a killing there, a glimpse of a werewolf one month and a rumor of a hag the next. But in the end all that foul brood was stamped out. And they made good laws and kept the peace and saved good trees from being unnecessarily cut down, and liberated young dwarfs and young satyrs from being sent to school, and generally stopped busybodies and interferers and encouraged ordinary people who wanted to live and let live" (C.S. Lewis, "The Hunting of the White Stag," The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, emphasis added).

One Life Saved From Nicotine Replacement "Therapy" and Misc. Other News

One life saved from Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT), many more to left to save.

I am pleased to announce that I have saved one soul from the curse of nicotine lozenges and their threat to the health of good people. A few days ago, I was greeted by an acquaintance, who lifted their cigarette towards me, gave me a hug and told me that they had taken my advice and quit sucking. Hallelujah!

This reformed NRT user informed me that they felt good about it and were glad they had quit sucking because the lozenges are very unconscious and habit-forming in comparison to cigarettes. I agreed. Anything that is kept in the mouth like a candy for long periods of time becomes thoughtless and unconscious. Smoking a cigarette is very conscious and not a habit.

A habit is something that one doesn't think about, isn't aware they are doing, but does with no pleasure. A habit is similar to knuckle-popping, nose-picking, hair-twisting, nail-biting, gum-chewing and other annoying habits people are prone to do. It's very difficult to quit a habit and retrain one's patterns. But a cigarette user cannot make an unconscious habit of smoking, thus if one chooses to quit they have more control over their ability to do so.

Over the week I have encountered a few interesting people. One, a Vietnam vet about to retire from the Postal Service in California. He looked clean cut and fatherly, but was a typical drug-infused, closed minded person of his generation. He lives on marijuana, mushrooms, and peyote (which he said cured him of his LSD use). He's had several heart surgeries, and along with the hallucinogenics takes what the doctor deals him too: statins and a host of others. He thinks tobacco is evil. Hmm. That drug regimen is quite effective.

The Postal Vietnam Vet informed me that he is moving from California upon retirement to get away from the airport because it gives him flashbacks (sounds like he's nicotinic acid deficient). He said California was the most open-minded state in the Union and where I live is infested with "Tea Baggers." Nice. I love it when I meet open-minded people trying to leave the places they've destroyed to come and destroy my state with their open-mindedness.

Why is it that people who call themselves "Open Minded" are always unhappy, angry, doped up on drugs and medications and judgemental hypocrites? And why is it that this man's generation, in their 60's got to party it up with the Grateful Dead and the Loving Spoonful, have "Free Love," tobacco, beer, and marijuana; but my generation is told these are all sins? Sounds like greed to me.

Many of the 60s generation are still drug addicts and still immature. They fried their brains on all of the acid and now, prescriptions; and are paranoid freaks. They pass many of the laws against freedom, calling it "protection," and think that driving hybrid cars saves the planet even though they had to rip apart the land in China to obtain the rare metals required in those land-raping hybrids so their exhaust won't stink in the U.S. Anyway, this guy made me angry with his arrogance. Maybe, if he stopped the hallucinogenics he'd stop having flashbacks.

Thankfully, my faith in the older generation was restored after a conversation later with another older man who was in a wheel chair because his leg was missing. I don't know if he was a Vietnam Vet too. He came rolling out onto the pavement after the kind bartenders helped him out the door so that he could have a cigarette break (tobacco bans are particularly discriminatory to those with handicaps). Here was a person with a physical handicap, yet far less handicapped than the Postal Californian.

The man in the wheel chair had no bitterness and seemed quite happy. He could carry on an intelligent conversation without being arrogant. I told him to read Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man, a fantastic feat of American literature about a character that most readers and academics are trained to believe is a Savior type. In my estimation Invisible Man is about ignorance and our blindness, even as readers, being deceived into believing that a great and ignorant orator is a savior, although he's the greatest evil on the street. The man in the wheel chair laughed when I described the book and the brilliance of Ellison's main character, saying, "So, the character's like Obama?"

And then, there is the "subversive" activity. I encountered a person that informed me that we have three years to get ready. Three years. He's building fuel cells in preparation. He told me that his uncle is working for the government at an abandoned asbestos mine, welding shackles into rail road cars. I don't know what to say about things like this. What am I supposed to believe?

I don't believe there were shackles in the cattle cars used to haul the Jews and Gypsies to the German chemical and pharmaceutical industry's camps. When people are packed in tightly there is no need for shackles, which offer far too much comfort and individual space, things antithetical to a Marxist or other fascist Utopia's mode of operation. I think someone's uncle was telling tall tales. I hope so.

And then, there is the Apocalypse, which is actually an eye-opening. I've had some plague activity here. I'm not sure which Bowl Judgement hailstones are. But I've had them. It looks like the heavenly host descended upon the land and whacked everything into shreds with baseball bats. There are more leaves and branches on the ground than on the trees and shrubs. My car got beaten, the trees have had their bark stripped, and several people lost windows in their homes. The gardens are decimated. And another Plague Storm game is scheduled for later in the day.

And I wonder, when these Acts of God, as Nature's violent tempers are called, strike a nation already bowed under the burdens of over taxation, joblessness, rules, and regulations; can it stand? Will the people groan, unable to make the State Pyramid Scheme Bricks without straw? How will we function when there are not enough hours in a day, and no money to pay our taxes with? How will those in their 60s afford their drugs if the young Israelites can't support them? Cattle cars? I hope not.

All of you older hippies, now turned yuppie, beware how much law you pass onto us younger ones, beware how much behavior modification, and regulation and unconstitutional fascism you lay upon our backs. When young people aren't free they feel burdened and bitter, and the elderly are among the first to disappear. Have mercy on us young ones and we'll have mercy on you.

Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) IS Eugenics

Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) is eugenics, plain and simple. The anti-tobacco movement is not grass roots or organic, but backed by individuals and corporations that seek to rid the earth of those with so-called "restrictive markers" upon their DNA.

Tobacco prohibition has nothing to do with saving the economy or health of the average citizen.

The anti-tobacco movement is a eugenic movement because it proffers deathly drugs that act as a person's own private gas chamber to the brain, and doles out nicotine gums, candies, and patches that are pesticides. To these people, tobacco users are nothing but vermin, insects to be killed. The advertising is racist, depicting tobacco users as locusts and interestingly, camels, a Middle Eastern animal.

Instructions for use of a particular popular nicotine gum tells users not to ingest acidic foods or drinks before use. This is strange. The entire point of ingesting nicotine is to oxidise it either by acid or smoke, converting it into non-toxic nicotinic acid. The tobacco user does not get nicotine, they get nicotinic acid.

Nicotine not exposed to acid is still nicotine, a toxic substance used as pesticide. Varenicline is used like a personal gas chamber, leaving a person reborn as the living dead after use. And the NRT products don't want the nicotine oxidized. This may explain why most tobacco users get so ill, losing their hair and vomiting, or dying of heart attack when using NRT gums, candies, and patches. They are literally being poisoned like insects.

The scientific research of the genetic predisposition towards tobacco use consistently points towards the same groups of people targeted time and again for extermination: Middle Eastern, American Indian, Black, Native populations, low income, low income pregnant women, diseased, military veterans, prison populations, mental institutions.....everyone not of Anglo-Saxon, upper socioeconomic status. Even our President, of black heritage, has been put on the nicotine gum by his Big Pharma handlers, unaware of what it's doing to him! Could this be why his health report isn't as good as it should be for such a young and fit man?

This happened in Germany, with the Jews and others with "restrictive markers" on their DNA; also blamed for the health and economic troubles of the 1930s. These groups of people were gassed in groups, rather than alone with a varenicline pill, or slowly with a pesticide gum, candy, or patch. They died in groups. Now, the victims drop one here, one there, in ignorant and sad "isolation."

Do you love yourself, do you love your smoker? Save them from eugenic NRT pesticide. Fill your heart with love, your frig with niacin-rich foods, get a bottle of quick-release niacin from your health food store, don't drink alcohol (it depletes nicotinic acid/niacin). And love them, don't blame. Tobacco is safer than NRT. Stop Nicotine Replacement "Therapy." The doctor, the anti-tobacco activists are ignorant of the dangers of these products and their purpose, as many good people in Germany were ignorant of the dangers of destroying and banning certain groups of people. Please DON'T take NRT ever.

Philip Morris' "Avalanche" Scenario Predicted Current Economic Woes In 1999

In the 1990s Philip Morris set up a very interesting program of forecasts called Project Sunrise. Contrary to the common media depiction, there is nothing evil or insidious about Project Sunrise. In fact, these forecasts of America's possible future 10 to 20 years out from the 1990s is fascinating. Project Sunrise set up four possible future scenarios for the United States, naming them "Mostly Sunny," "Avalanche," "New Game," and "Blade Runner."

I have one document with each of the four scenarios side by side. This one is interesting because it covers everything that is part of our daily life from economy, health, socialization, technology, politics, and even a pharmaceutical nicotine monopoly. From a literary standpoint it's fascinating to see how there are so many paths we can choose and the predictable results of them.

Avalanche is the worst possible scenario envisioned for the country with freedoms limited, privacy eroded, hatred high, and a national healthcare program. The only hope is the younger generation who may, with persistence and wisdom beyond our years, throw off the yoke of bondage placed upon us by the self-obsessed Baby Boomers, thieves of our livelihood and freedoms.

The following is from a presentation on the "Avalanche" scenario of the future by Tim Beane for Philip Morris in 1999. Of course, some of the predictions were off, such as predicting Al Gore would win the presidency after Clinton's time was up. But generally, speaking it is still fairly accurate:

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vex75c00/pdf

"It is now October 2006 and, in contrast to Mostly Sunny and New Game, these are the images which have shaped the world for smokers in the U.S. over the past ten years. In Avalanche, a victimization ethos and an increasingly polarized society have created an environment where smokers, smoking and tobacco companies experience losses on many fronts. Smoker discrimination, restrictive legislation, litigation setbacks, negative media coverage, powerful enemies [Big Pharmaceutical Nicotine, Johnson & Johnson, Robert Wood Johnson (Synthetic Toxic Nicotine)Foundation, Corrupt States] and ally erosion define our world.

"How did our environment deteriorate to this point? Well, in retrospect, the seeds of our current situation were sown in late 1996 when, following Clinton's re-election, the U.S. economy entered a deep and protracted recession. Unemployment grew rapidly, the budget deficit ballooned and the combination of a Democratic President and a Republican Congress was unable to deal with the economic situation.

"An angry national mood, fueled by the paralysis in Washington, led to a broad based desire for an interventionist government. In the 1998 mid-term elections, Democrats took control of the House and Senate. This resulted in a more liberal government and one which conveniently blamed smokers and tobacco companies for many of society's financial and health care problems.

"By playing on the prejudices of a public looking for scapegoats and easy answers, it soon became a relatively simple task for the newly empowered government to implement strong-arm social policies targeting smokers, smoking, and tobacco companies.

"The boomers populating the second Clinton administration, and later, Gore's first, eagerly did what they felt was best for society. A single payer healthcare system was established. New environmental, health and safety requirements were passed. A tougher FDA evolved, one with undisputed control over cigarettes.

"This environment resulted in an ever increasing erosion of smoker rights. The social acceptability of smokers and smoking reached new lows as the very act of smoking came to be seen by many as impinging on everyone else's privacy. Although the importance of privacy was highly valued, events occurred which in effect compromised individual privacy.

"For instance, in an effort to allocate societal costs on those who were deemed responsible, legislation passed which made selected information about a person's health and personal habits available to employers, landlords, and insurance companies. This information could be used in making employment decisions and in determining insurance premiums. As you might expect, smokers did not fare well in these situations.

"When and where a person could smoke became more and more constrained. The rights of non-smokers began taking legal precedence whenever smokers and non-smokers were together. Depending on who they were with, smokers could even be prevented from smoking in their own homes or cars.

"Even outdoors, smokers are now harassed and marginalized because society views smoking as a costly vice. Costly for the smoker yes, but more importantly, the prevailing attitude is that smoking is costly for society as a whole. Simply put, the attitude now is your smoking costs me money so stop doing it.

"The cumulative impact of all of this is that smoking has become almost devoid of pleasure. Almost everyone, including some smokers, views smoking as a dirty habit, one not worthy of a respectable person. Smoker's are angry at themselves, the government, the anti's and even the tobacco companies. They are also ashamed of themselves and of how they are now defined by this new society--'the nicotine dependant weaklings.'

"Tobacco companies are severely limited in their ability to improve the situation for smokers. The anti movement is strong, well-funded [by Big Pharma Nicotine companies and "philanthropies" such as Nicorette and Robert Wood Johnson (Synthetic Nicotine) Foundation] and emboldened by its successes...."

"This media frenzy is epitomized by Smoke Out, a popular new TV show which follows law enforcement officers as they conduct sting operations, intercept cigarette smugglers and track down smokers as they light up in restricted areas."

"Smokers were singled out to help ease the country's economic problems through large and repeated excise tax increases...."

"So in summary, what does our world look like in 2006 [or 2010]? We see angry and alienated smokers who are segregated and subjected to discrimination in very real ways. We see smoking as ever more restricted both legislatively and by an intolerant society. We see government controlled by people who think they know what's best for everyone and are given the mandate to act on this knowledge. We see tobacco companies without allies and who are hamstrung in their ability to defend themselves and to compete [against Big State & Pharma Nicotine]. In short, we see a set of individuals and an industry frozen in an onrushing avalanche[of Big Pharma Nicotine candy, gums; and suicide, cancer, and diabetes-inducing drugs marketed variously as Nicotine Replacement Therapy, Breathing Cessation, Life Replacement Therapy, or simply Uncle Sam Wants You(th Dead)].

"If there is hope, it is in the fact that young adults resent the controls of big government and the pious morality of the aging boomer generation [yes, we do!]. They believe strongly in personal choice and as their rebellion begins to translate into political and economic power [if the boomers don't suck out our life blood first], opportunities may occur to reshape the debate. The boomers will not go quietly [oh, they may, since they're addicted to toxic Big Pharma dope in their bottles] however and it may be a long time before the avalanche recedes and a more open society emerges" ("Avalanche" scenario, Tim Beane, Philip Morris Tobacco, 1999; emphasis and brackets, mine).

Pharmaceutical Nicotine and the State: Defining and Segregating Sacred

Only atheists, infidels, and barbarians chew Nicorette or suck synthetic coal tar derived nicotine replacement "therapies." Only unhealthy and injured people need therapy.

True believers, those that have seen beyond the veil inhale tobacco, a natural green plant that supplies nicotinic acid the natural way.

If the State Health Departments and the synthetic nicotine manufacturers are going to define tobacco as "sacred," for use only by native peoples, or rather, a few select Indians within each tribe who are deemed by the State as sacred enough to inhale for the rest of their nation; then why would anyone want anything other than the sacred stuff?

By defining tobacco as sacred, when up until recently it has been called "dirty" or the "devil's weed," or "the nation's number one health issue," the pharmaceutical industry, health departments, and religious groups that have fought so hard to make tobacco use illegal are actually saying that tobacco is holy, safe, and natural. How is it that these tobacco haters say tobacco is immoral, evil, and dangerous yet at the same time holy, sacred, and even spiritual?

In describing "sacred tobacco" these groups say it is non addictive, has no toxins, and no nicotine -- as long as it's used by a specific genetic, cultural, and religious group. How is it that tobacco smoke used by Indians, or rather a select government minority within the tribe suffers no addiction, health risk, and gets no nicotine?

And how is it sacred when used by one person or group but not another?

If tobacco is sacred and natural, then synthetic nicotine gums, candies, and patches are the dirty and sinful corruptions of greedy corporations. These products have had all the sacred sucked out of them and may need someone to light a bowl of sacred tobacco over them in order to enrich them with what they are lacking -- spirit.

By defining tobacco as sacred for the select, this confers a high status upon tobacco and implies that synthetic nicotine is for the unwashed masses, the lowly. Everyone wants to be part of the select rather than the secular and anti-people, anti-tobacco gum chewers and lozenge sucking children afraid of smoke signals rising to the heavens.

In saying that tobacco is sacred, this implies that the groups of people standing around with pipes, cigars, and cigarettes are actually initiates into a sacred group. This implies that these people are engaging in a religious gathering, communing with each other and with God. Banning these people from a daily ritual and claiming that only those with the correct genetic markers and cultural heritage may partake, may "pray" and gather peaceably is highly suspicious.

When does a company or the local state get to define which group may worship or gather, or participate in certain rituals? I suppose it does all the time. The U.S. government prohibits certain practices such as polygamy, which it doesn't need to in my opinion, as most men cringe in fear at the thought of more than one wife at a time, and most free women would rather not share their home and other resources with another woman or her children. Sarah sent Hagar out, and Rebekah and Leah weren't pleased with their arrangement either. It doesn't generally work unless a man is a king, and even then it can be a failure.

What if the government told us that only descendants of Brigham Young could practice polygamy because for them it was sacred and not harmful? Or what if the government told us that only genetic Jews or genetic Catholics could drink "sacred wine" at Passover or Easter because it is used differently than for non adherents and isn't harmful? What if bread were banned from the general population, reserved only for Baptists in their "sacred bread" ceremonies?

The pharmaceutical industry and its department of health will say that these are ridiculous examples. There is no second-hand or third-hand danger posed by wine or bread, or other cultural and religious practices such as kosher preparations or dietary restrictions. Everything has so-called second and third hand effects if we want to look hard enough, hate hard enough.

What happens if one day it is decided that corporate gasoline is deadly and the number one health issue in the country because, according to the ethanol industry and health departments funded by them, it causes all the cancer, high blood pressure, strokes, low birth weight babies, and decreases productivity due to drive time? Will the ethanol industry ban gasoline, make it prohibitively expensive, imprison people that use it, and then declare it "sacred gasoline" reserved only for the elect in Washington D.C.?

Either tobacco is sacred and doesn't have nicotine or it is evil and does have nicotine. Perhaps, the tobacco is only as sacred and non toxic as the person smoking it. What the pharmaceutical nicotine industry is saying is that it is the people it hates for not using its synthetic and empty trash. The tobacco user must be banned and hated into using a product so far inferior to tobacco that they never would have voluntarily switched over of their own free will.

This is what happened when Mohammad swept through to force conversion to his new religious product. Under ordinary conditions a people like to convert of their own free will and because they are moved by some unseen spiritual pull. People generally like things as natural and easy-going as they can get it. Ideally, people prefer religions that allow for celebrations, communion with each other such as at potlucks and thanksgivings. People like a perfect mix of tradition that doesn't overwhelm spontaneity and joy. Each of us has a preference in religion which we think superior to all others. Preference is fine, but forced conversion from one religion or product to another is an act of violence and subjugation. And the anti-tobacco movement uses nearly all of the same arguments and reasons as a forceful religious movement.

In Islam, the government does not operate separately from the religious leaders. Our pharmaceutical industry is behaving like an Islamic nation, as if it is the religious head with its scientific clerics declaring what the holy writs say and sending out its terrorist converts to spread hate and fear and hardline law upon the ignorant people and State. The anti-tobacco movement is one of the most religious movements I have ever seen, and may actually be more harmful to American security, sovereignty, and health than radical Islam. If we were to tally the souls harmed by Chantix, job loss and land loss, and loss of 1st Amendment rights, the cost to society and the "pursuit of happiness" would be exorbitant.

The fact that the health departments and pharmaceutical activists are saying tobacco is sacred, says very clearly that this is religious and that the desired goal is not all that different from what radical right Islam seeks: Complete subjugation and annihilation of all adherents to other religions and products.

And tobacco smoke doesn't have any nicotine in it. When tobacco is burned it converts the nicotine to harmless nicotinic acid. This is why sacred tobacco doesn't have nicotine and isn't addictive.

And as far as not inhaling the sacred tobacco is concerned, that is a bunch of State and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation myth and homogenizing of a practice that is unique to each individual and Indian nation. As some churches don't "inhale" the wine by serving up grape juice, some Indians don't inhale the tobacco. Some Indians inhale, some don't. Some Indians smoke outside of the ceremonial use and have for time immemorial. And as there are many Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish denominations and sects, so are there many unique religious practices amongst American Indians across the continent. If an Indian didn't inhale the sacred tobacco either directly from the pipe or in the air they wouldn't know of its smell which is sweet to the Creator.

If Indians are going to allow a few nosy women to line their pockets with so-called non-profit and state "health" department money while telling everyone else how and when to use tobacco, then they will further corrupt and cut the ties with their Father who gave the people tobacco along with other nicotine containing plants, namely potatoes, corn, beans, and tomatoes.

Over and over I see that the pharmaceutical industry claims it's against "corporate tobacco," not "sacred tobacco." They hide nearly nothing. Propaganda never lies, but frames the truth in such a way that it creates a response that is destructive of the audience's own best interests. What the pharmaceutical industry is engaging in is called a coercive monopoly, which is when it engages the government legal process in prohibiting competition from other sources through law. My state runs a "Quit Line" which is designed specifically to profit the pharmaceutical companies by doling out synthetic nicotine currently "marketed as" smoking cessation aids.

Already, Nicorette is changing the marketing of its products as "therapy." Yes, Nicorette wants tobacco users to quit, but it wants the tobacco user stuck on their expensive and empty product. Nicorette is spending $30 million this year, not counting the millions in advertising spent by our state anti-tobacco campaigns, to push its products, especially the new quick-dissolve mini candy lozenge (Laurie Burkitt, "Nicorette puffs $15 Million into Ad Blitz," Forbes.com, 7 Dec. 2009). I would guess that this new product is not the traditional slow-release nicotine, which many find unsatisfactory and sickening, but a rapid-release nicotine more akin to a cigarette. Are these products monitored and taxed the same way as cigarettes? They should be.

Another question I have not researched properly is how the nicotine in nicotine replacement therapies is converted to nicotinic acid, as it's not oxidized through burning. If nicotine is not oxidized or alkalized it can't be freed for use by the neuronal and muscular nicotinic receptors. If nicotine is not oxidised or alkalized it is toxic, which is why the anti-tobacco people can say it's a pesticide, which it is when in its pure nicotine form. All plants have varying degrees of built in pesticide management. According to the research I've seen so far, the nicotine used in nicotine replacement "therapy" is freebase derived from pyridine, an extract of coal tar.

The nicotine replacement companies and anti-smoking campaigns are in reality giant advertising arms of a pharmaceutical monopoly that sees people as money, and has lost nearly all sight of health or cures. Proof that this is not a health issue but a coercive monopoly issue is the outrage against such products as smokeless tobacco, and products such as Camel Dissolvables which are similar to pharmaceutical dissolvables currently "marketed as smoking cessation aids" (Bill Godshall, "Urge FDA to make NRT products more consumer friendly," SmokeFree.net, 15 Aug. 2008)). And that e-cigarette really annoys them because it looks like a cigarette, is inhaled and the vapors are harmless. If this were really a health issue the anti-smoking advocates would love such products and encourage them, rather than pushing their products as the only alternative. Even quitting smoking without using a pharmaceutical nicotine product is not encouraged by these groups.

If these fake pharmaceutical products worked, everyone and their mama would have switched years ago. If these products worked and supplied nicotinic acid in a form that doesn't cause ill side effects the pharmaceutical companies and their non-profit arms wouldn't need laws passed against their competitors. Obviously pharmaceutical nicotine is lacking and our bodies know it. If pharmaceutical nicotine were equivalent to tobacco it would have an effect upon the paranoia and hate within the anti-tobacco movement, reducing its fears of social gatherings and death.

When a person is deficient in nicotinic acid they are prone to dementia and display fear of persecution, and think in terms of apocalypse. Evidently, the nicotine gums these people are chewing aren't healing the deficiency and only causing constant head ache and tension from TMJ. These people are confused and uneducated. They simply can't comprehend anything sacred or unregulated by their monopoly as this quote from Linda Lee of the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services illustrates:

"'There is no real reason to use an unregulated product [e-cigarette] that could be dangerous'..[F]DA-approved products such as patches, gum and lozenges are already available, she said" ("Montana health officials discourage use of e-cigarettes to avoid Clean Indoor Air Act," Missoulian, 9 Jan. 2010).

These people don't understand. It's like telling people that there are all kinds of alternatives to good food such as pills and supplements which supply the necessities in food. Why on earth would anyone want to sit down with their friends and family for a good meal when they could swallow a pill, chew gum, or put on a patch? This is how it is with tobacco and the e-cigarette. People want the process, the tradition, the involvement, the experience, and the shared time together. This is why people try to use the e-cigarette, because they are trying to create the image of the original thing that they love.

Take the human desire for communion, thanksgiving, and remembrance away and there is nothing left. Take everything from wine, leaving only the alcohol and not many will want it. There's more to wine or beer and other creations of mankind than "addiction." What are all of the other ingredients to a fine wine that make it desirable? First, there is the love and labor of growing the plant, watching it grow in the sun, worrying about its exposure to bad weather and insects. Then, there is the process of fermentation which I know nothing about. Finally, there is the act of drinking it, which people do for the exact same reasons they smoke tobacco.

People drink wine at Easter, at Passover, at dinners, and other places where opening the channels of relaxation and socialization are desired. People relax alone with a glass of wine, with a book, or even to aid sleep. It is not the wine that makes one an addict. Addiction is something that cannot be defined because it lays in the spirit and soul of a person. Alcohol and other substances that people use are like guns -- benign and only servants of the person using them. If one wants to use a gun or alcohol to harm another they will. It is the person, not the object or substance that is dangerous. A gun can be a weapon used to harm others, or it can be used as a form of defense against evil or to provide food.

Who is behind the cigarette and what are they using it for? Is the tobacco user burning babies or killing people? Or is the tobacco user thinking of ways to make the world better? Who is behind the glass of wine, behind the wheel of a car, behind the science, behind the money, behind the philanthropy? Each of these things is nothing without the person behind them. Money is nothing until a person makes it work for good or for bad.

We each are a force and we each make the objects and foods we consume either holy or cursed. And what is coming out of the pharmaceutical cartels and health departments is cursed because the people behind these entities are like vampires in search of blood to feed upon. These people don't see anything other than money and numbers. They hate freedom, they hate people, they hate people not addicted to evil. These people think that health is a healthy monopoly over the lives of people.

Addiction sells its soul, it doesn't function and think. It sits alone and is dark. Addiction destroys lives. Tobacco users out on the job, in college, filing taxes, buying homes, having children, serving in the military are not addicts. These people are highly functioning individuals that contribute billions of dollars and other assets not counted in monetary terms.

It is the monopoly pharmaceutical industry that is unsacred and addicted. What they accuse the common person of is not something most of us suffer from. The pharmaceutical industry behaves as a deranged meth addict, destroying the lives of children and family. It robs and murders to get its fix. The largest health issue in America is not tobacco or food, but the giant corporations that create a society so prohibitive and stressful that people die of stress-related disease due to unhappiness. If there are gifts upon this earth that can ameliorate and offer small respites from the stress, sadness and ignorance left for us after the wolves have torn apart our feast, leaving a decrepit and decayed carcass, then these gifts should not be despised or feared.

All tobacco is sacred and traditional. All synthetic pharmaceutical nicotine gums, patches, and candies are freebase and devoid of tradition. These products are anti-American and have tossed out everything good, including joy and happiness; leaving nothing but fear, hatred, poverty, and subjugation.

image: August Macke, Franz Marc, 1910