Antismoking Nazis

Back to Simon Clark, and his remark in the comments here:

As I have said many times, repeated references to a totalitarian regime that slaughtered six million Jews is inappropriate and embarrassing in relation to tobacco control. In terms of building support for our cause, it is entirely counter-productive.

 Tuesday, April 10, 2012 at 14:29 |  Simon

So he’s saying we shouldn’t call Tobacco Control a bunch of Nazis. It’s inappropriate and embarrassing and counter-productive, he says.

And I can well see his point of view. Once you’ve called people Nazis, you’ve sort of got off on the wrong foot in any debate with them. A civilised debate of any sort requires a modicum of respect for the other guy, by giving him a fair hearing, and treating him with consideration, as a moral equal.

Trouble is, though, that antismokers don’t do the same for smokers. And they don’t do debate either. Antismokers see smokers as sorts of subhumans, addicted to tobacco, who need to have their best interests determined for them by antismoking professionals prescribing appropriate treatments – smoking bans, smoking cessation therapies, drugs, etc, etc. What smokers think is as irrelevant as what hospitalised malaria patients babble in their delirium before onlooking doctors. The antismokers see themselves as doctors treating sick people. And many of them actually are doctors. The first antismoker I ever encountered, Dr W, was a medical doctor. It is always going to be impossible to conduct any sort of debate with people whose fundamental premise is that their opponents are sick people.

So you can’t have a debate with antismokers. Debate requires some sort of equality, some equivalence of respectability. And that is something that antismokers deny smokers from the outset. As I just said, a civilised debate of any sort requires a modicum of respect for the other guy, by giving him a fair hearing, and treating him with consideration, as a moral equal. And antismokers don’t have any respect at all for smokers. And they don’t see them in the least bit as moral equals.

So Simon Clark is never going to get anywhere by treating antismokers as respectable people who should be given a fair hearing. Because the antismokers are never going to return the courtesy, and do the same for smokers. He will hear them out – and they will ignore him. Which is what they do, all the time.

If anything, by treating them with courtesy, he’s actually lending them a respectability they don’t deserve. By dealing civilly with these uncivil people, he is actually helping them. A bit like opening a door to a burglar, and inviting him in, and asking him if he’d like coffee and biscuits. It’s the polite and civil thing to do, perhaps – but not with burglars.

My view is that the profound contempt that antismokers have for smokers in itself betrays something of a Nazi mentality, because it denies moral equivalence to smokers, denies them any respectability, and denies any need for consideration for them. And the result is that they are treated worse than animals. And this is how one would expect Nazis to treat people.

And it’s not just their contemptuous attitude to smokers. This is a comment I left here today

“People often say that you lose an argument the moment you call someone a fascist or a Nazi.”

But what if they actually are Nazis? What do people have to do to qualify as Nazis? Wear black uniforms and jackboots and goosestep wherever they go? I doubt if most of those historical sorts of Nazis wore those uniforms very much, and goosestepped even less.

As far as I’m concerned, a Nazi is someone with Nazi attitudes. And this is principally an eugenic view of life, whereby society is to be improved by expelling/eradicating the ‘unfit’ or ‘diseased’ members of it. In the past, those ‘diseased’ people were Jews and Gypsies and homosexuals and a variety of others. Now they are smokers (and increasingly also drinkers and fat people). Conversely, the ideal human type is athletic and strong, and while the ‘unfit’ are publicly denigrated, the ‘fit’ are celebrated in Olympic games and the like.

So that’s one aspect of antismoking Nazism. But there’s also the fact that antismoking ‘science’ actually started life in Nazi Germany, and the post-war British and American antismoking researchers simply continued with it, using the same methodology. And they have advanced their conclusions (which were in fact the premises of their ‘research’) that smoking is harmful using the Nazi method of the Big Lie that is told over and over again. And they are setting out to impose their antismoking ideology by excluding smokers from society, firing them from their jobs, refusing them medical treatment. In the end, the logic of this will lead to murdering them, which is what many of them openly wish to do.

Any one of these things would be enough to justify the Nazi jibe. But the evidence of Nazism is actually overwhelming. So much so, that you have to wonder whether they actually do wear the black uniforms and the death’s head insignia and all the rest of it when they meet up with each other.

Nazi Germany was defeated in 1945, but Nazi ideology was not. And it has gradually grown stronger and more confident in the subsequent 50 years. But they still don’t like being called Nazis, even though that is exactly what they are.

So my view is that these people must be called Nazis. Anything else is actually dishonest. They must have respectability withdrawn from them, just as they have themselves withdrawn it from others. They must be treated with the contempt with which they treat other people.

And there is nothing to debate with them anyway. The debate is over. It never happened in the first place, actually. When was there ever any “debate” about smoking bans?

What we have is a state of war. And the sooner that people like Simon Clark recognise it, the better. We must set out not to debate with these people in a civilised manner, because that is impossible. We must set out to defeat them, and to destroy them, and destroy everything that they stand for, everywhere in the world.

About the archivist

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Antismoking Nazis

  1. Wiel Maessen says:

    I always avoid comparing current TC activists with 40-45 openly. Here in Holland it’s even more ‘not done’ then in the UK. It ends every discussion they say here (see: “Godwin’s Law”).


    If we want to take in account lessons from the past, it’s always important to watch the direction in which a development is heading. From our math lessons we must remember that each 2-dimensional location is defined by either X and Y coordinates or by a direction and a distance. Same goes for comparisons with historical situations. You may notice that a trend (direction) of current political or societal movements are heading towards a certain historical situation. That’s an important thing to discover as it should ring some alarm bells. Not everyone though will have the same intelligence to notice such a development in an early stage. It starts with people who are most affected by such a trend. But what we also need to take in account is the distance from the current situation to that comparable historic reference point. We may have followed the direction/vector for 20% now, maybe 30% next year and 40% the year after that. While proceeding on that vector, many more people will start to recognize this trend in the historically proven bad direction.

    The question is at what moment you must start to cry out loud and point to that historical comparison and hit the breaks. Some will think that it’s time to hit the breaks at 80% of the distance, others at lower percentages.

    And there is another property that needs to be taken in account when determining the right moment to hit the breaks: the speed of developments (like a fast car will need to break earlier then slow ones to avoid a collision). And again, the people who are most affected have a better look at the speed that the developments are having. And the ones inside the speedy car will often underestimate the danger of their speed and the location they are heading to, because they are too busy keeping the car running.

    Current developments are indeed heading in the nazi direction, but how far from that situation have these come on the distance line? Are we crying out too early? Possibly. There is not yet enough awareness of the trend in the general public yet, although it seems that support is growing. But it will probably take another year or two until a majority has noticed the trend, especially in the Anglo-Saxon countries, where this prohibition was born (Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and UK were the first before this prohibition reached Europe).

    And let’s all realize that Waterloo is located in Europe. So I expect that the antis will find their Waterloo there…

    • Frank Davis says:

      Are we crying out too early? Possibly.

      That is a political view of the matter, Wiel. “We mustn’t say this because most people don’t see it that way.” And that’s true. They don’t. But if nobody says it, then most people will carry on seeing it the way they always did. Somebody has to say it, otherwise nobody will ever see it.

      There was an American political question from the 1960s and 70s (I’ve not heard it since) which was: “Will it play in Peoria?” Peoria was a little town somewhere in the middle of the USA which was an exact average of America – same proportion of Democrats as Republicans, same ethnic ratios, etc, etc. US politicians flocked there. But I don’t believe in pandering to the average.

  2. Wiel Maessen says:

    Let me add this to my last paragraph:

    Why do I think that mainland Europe will be the antis’ Waterloo?

    Because all the Anglo-Saxon countries mentioned above were never occupied by any other country and certainly not by the nazis, they will recognize this trend towards fascism later. Here we’ve suffered from it and we experienced what a loss of freedom means. We were the people that were closest to the enemy and set up underground resistance to free our own country.

    And I see it happening again here….

    • Frank Davis says:

      That’s a very interesting point. We (Anglo-Saxons) were never occupied. And so there’s a different mindset, I suspect. In Holland and Belgium and France ( and Denmark and Norway) there’s bound to be a different response.

      But then, Germany isn’t the focus of this New Nazism. It’s a New Nazism that is really Anglo-American, if anything. Because their Nazism wasn’t rooted out. America was never de-nazified. Nor was Britain. So the old British and American Nazis just kept on developing and growing. In some really quite profound ways, this is becoming a war between Anglo-American Nazis and European freedom-lovers.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Because all the Anglo-Saxon countries mentioned above were never occupied by any other country and certainly not by the nazis, they will recognize this trend towards fascism later.

      Don’t we all ask ourselves if this wasn’t the reason in the first place that all the Anglo-Saxon countries were the first to be overrun with this idiotic smoking ban?

      Here we’ve suffered from it and we experienced what a loss of freedom means. We were the people that were closest to the enemy and set up underground resistance to free our own country.

      And I see it happening again here….

      It is happening. There is just one subtle difference; we all now live amongst the enemy and have watched science being taken to the gallows.
      History repeats itself.

      But then, Germany isn’t the focus of this New Nazism. It’s a New Nazism that is really Anglo-American, if anything. Because their Nazism wasn’t rooted out. America was never de-nazified. Nor was Britain. So the old British and American Nazis just kept on developing and growing. In some really quite profound ways, this is becoming a war between Anglo-American Nazis and European freedom-lovers.

      No, Germany isn’t the focus of this new, barely disguised New Nazism, although “the war” raging there has been taken beyond what is experienced here in England. It is nothing unusual to read in German smoker sites comments such as: “You murderers should all be gassed” In which other country do people get away with this open referral to the Nazi era?
      These people will need to be held accountible for their comments and more so for what they do.

      • Frank Davis says:

        There is just one subtle difference; we all now live amongst the enemy and have watched science being taken to the gallows.

        Yes, this is exactly the case. And that is exactly what they are doing.

  3. waltc says:

    The analogy is not to how the holocaust ended but to how it began. And we’re getting to a point now that’s rapidly creeping towards the end of the beginning. But yes, state the parallels between now and then, between Ashists and Fascists, even mention Jim Crow, and hear howls of outrage from legislative bodies. Not that it stops me, but it doesn’t seem to play.

  4. smokingscot says:

    Interesting you should mention they don’t want to speak. Sadly the link is to a BBC article, however here Lansley states (on plain packs).

    “We don’t want to work in partnership with the tobacco companies because we are trying to arrive at a point where they have no business in this country,”

    He goes on to say he has an open mind on the subject. I’d question if Lansley has anything of the sort.

    Perhaps the tobacco majors should consider moving their head offices and simply leave their marketing people in the UK. The loss of their tax revenue alone will put our “recovery” back by at least three years.

  5. Rose says:

    The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45.

    Click to access bmj00571-0040.pdf

    Lifestyle, health, and health promotion in Nazi Germany

    “As well as research on smoking there was much antismoking health promotion in Nazi Germany.3 The Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls disseminated antismoking propaganda, and in 1939 Hermann Göring issued a decree forbidding the military from smoking on the streets and during marches or brief off-duty periods. In 1942 the Federation of German Women launched a campaign against tobacco and alcohol misuse.

    Such campaigns were backed by legislation, and smoking was banned for both pupils and teachers in many schools. From July 1943, tobacco use was outlawed in public places for anyone aged less than 18 years. It was considered criminal negligence if drivers were involved in crashes while smoking.

    In 1944, smoking was banned on trains and buses in cities. It was also prohibited in many workplaces, public buildings, hospitals, and rest homes.

    The advertising of smoking products was strictly controlled, and there was discussion on whether people with smoking related illnesses should receive medical care equal to that of patients with illnesses not seen to be self inflicted.”

    “Smoking was only one of the health related behaviours that received attention in Nazi Germany. The consumption of alcohol was also strongly campaigned against. Fruit and vegetable consumption was encouraged, as was the use of wholemeal bread and the avoidance of fat.1

    A key figure in Nazi medicine, Erwin Liek, predicted that cancer would come to be seen as a product of diet.2 The consumption of whipped cream seems to have been a particular target of disapproval.

    The official newspaper of the SS, Das Schwarzes Korps, reported on German tourists in Austrian coffee houses and said that anyone would “think Greater Germany was only created so that this raving Philistine rabble can wolf whipped cream.” A prominent promilitarist slogan read, “Fighting power or whipped cream?”

    “Gabriele Schulze and Käte Dischner in their jointly written Die Zigarettenraucherin (‘The Female Cigarette Smoker’, Jena, 1942), for example, interviewed 165 women as part of a study of the physical and psychological effects of nicotine withdrawal.

    Most of the women studied were incarcerated at prisons in Weimar, Gera or Kleinmuesdorf near Leipzig, where smoking was forbidden; the dissertation records the women’s cries for cigarettes, and attempts to classify female smokers by menstrual patterns, ‘constitutional type’ (asthenic, pyknic, leptosome, etc.), and criminal behaviour.
    The authors claimed that smoking made one vulnerable to tuberculosis and called for a total smoking ban for women, consistent with the Nazi slogan ‘Die deutsche Frau raucht nicht!’ (The German woman does not smoke!).”

    “Dozens of preparations were available to assist people in quitting smoking, ranging from a silver nitrate mouthwash (1 part in 10,000 was said to create an unpleasant taste for tobacco) to a substance known as “transpulmin,” injected into the bloodstream to produce a similar effect (it was said to bond with the terpenes and other aromatic compounds in tobacco, producing an unpleasant sensation). Trade-name compounds such as “Analeptol” and “Nicotilon” were offered, as were tobacco substitutes in the form of chewing gums, ginger preparations, atropine, and menthol cigarettes. Hypnotism was apparently popular, as were various forms of psychological counseling.”

    But as Anna Gilmore et al remind us, in the main, Nazi anti-smoking policies were not nearly so severe or so widespread as the policies now.

    Tobacco policies in Nazi Germany: not as simple as it seems
    Eleonore Bachinger, Martin McKee,* and Anna Gilmore

    Reluctance to develop effective tobacco control measures in Germany has been attributed to the anti-smoking stance taken by the Nazis, which has encouraged pro-smoking groups to equate tobacco control advocacy with totalitarianism. This paper reassesses the scale and nature of tobacco control in Germany during the Third Reich.

    Analysis of documents and reports about the situation in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s supplemented by a review of Reich legal ordinances, party newspapers, health behaviour guidelines issued by Nazi party organizations, and interviews with expert informants.

    While there was considerable opposition to smoking in Nazi Germany, there was no consistent Nazi policy to combat smoking, and what did exist built on pre-existing policies. Although extreme measures were taken in isolated localities or by overzealous party members, there was a marked ambivalence to tobacco control at the highest levels. Many policies were contradictory; measures were often not enforced, and cigarettes were actively distributed to ‘deserving’ groups.

    Policies on tobacco in Nazi Germany are much more complex than is often represented by those who invoke them to condemn those seeking to reduce the burden of disease caused by smoking.

    “However, if a campaign was to be launched, it should be in no way aggressive, insulting or abusive towards smokers.”

    “What this paper has been able to do, particularly through the account of discussions within the Reich Propaganda Department, is provide additional insights into the differing views within the Nazi hierarchy, and indeed how measures were taken to constrain what were seen as the excesses of the anti-tobacco lobby.

    Furthermore, as will be shown in a subsequent paper, the Nazi authorities in Austria were even more tolerant.

    In conclusion, the widespread use of Nazi imagery by pro-smoking groups to attack those seeking to limit the harm caused by tobacco is a distortion of history that cannot be justified.”

    • Nightlight says:

      “In conclusion, the widespread use of Nazi imagery by pro-smoking groups to attack those seeking to limit the harm caused by tobacco is a distortion of history that cannot be justified.”

      In other words, we shouldn’t call them Nazis since the real Nazi’s were not nearly as inhumane and evil as the modern pharma driven antismokers. I guess the only level left would be to call them ‘the Beast’ or Satan’s spawn. That’s how I see them anyway.

  6. rebelsmoker says:

    The final straw that made me dismiss Simon Clark as unfit for purpose was his statement that “he quite likes Deborah Arnott”. Is there any smoker that quite likes her? Oh, l forgot, Clark isn’t a smoker. What about him saying that FOREST support the Welsh Assemblies proposal for banning smoking in cars? Clark actually supports this first stage which is “Educating smokers about the dangers to children if you smoke in cars whilst the children are in them”. Jesus H Christ!

    The most activity we’ve had out of FOREST is this Plain Packaging campaign HOOPS (not forgetting the abysmal ‘Review the Smoking Ban’ petition by AWT that’s hanging like a dead duck at 5200 votes). The truth is hardly any smokers care about this plain packaging that l know, but the tobacco companies do!

    Thinking about it, FOREST should be done under the trade descriptions act and change the definition of FOREST to ‘Voice and Friend of the Tobacco Companies’. They certainly aren’t the voice or friend of the smoker.

    • Rose says:

      The time to get angry was over the unpleasant and unnecessary pictures of crack addicts teeth and botched goitre operations on young europeans, which the Tobacco companies dutifully printed over their designs.

      “The UK will next week become one of the first European countries to introduce graphic images on cigarette packets to warn about the dangers of smoking.”

      Tobacco packaging, Simon Chapman explains the principle.

      “In Australia and a growing number of nations, smokers today must take their cigarettes out of a pack that might show a colour photo of a gangrenous foot, a disfiguring oral cancer, a blackened lung or a suggestion that the man with the pack may have erectile dysfunction problems.
      Cigarette packs were once elegant accoutrements of style, but today their designer boxes are desecrated with images that have tested strongly in focus group to repulse and unsettle large proportions of smokers.

      People are used to seeing strong health warnings on household goods such as drain cleaning chemicals, rodent poison and garden pesticides. But even these do not carry pictures showing damaged alimentary tract organs after ingesting such products. Tobacco products are thus positioned as exceptionally dangerous.”

  7. magnetic01 says:

    Just a point on “Nazi” references. Antismokers typically invoke “Godwin’s Law” to disqualify/ridicule the comments of anyone making a Nazi reference. As with many other issues, antismokers have mangled Godwin’s Law as well. GL is a point of humour, indicating that the longer a discussion goes, the higher the probability that a Nazi reference will be introduced, usually without basis. GL is not a criticism of uses of the Nazi reference where it is relevant to the discussion.

    In the case of antismoking, the Nazi reference is entirely relevant. Anti-smoking/tobacco (and anti-alcohol) makes an appearance in Nazism. And, it didn’t just pop-up out of thin air. It is central to the eugenics framework, and eugenics was a foundational layer of Nazism:

    Click to access bmj00571-0040.pdf

    Eugenics is a peculiar fascist framework; it has [only] biological health – racial and behavioral – as a central tenet. The citizenry, which is viewed as a human “herd” and the property of the State, are expected to conform to [biological] health edicts, even to coercion, as their duty to the State. The [unfounded] promise of the eugenicists was that, under their control, disease, poverty, and crime would be eradicated. Rather, in that it entirely disregards psychological, social, and moral dimensions, the framework brought out the worst in people along these dimensions, e.g., bigotry, racism, cruelty, brutality. Also notable is that the Nazis didn’t invent eugenics; it was popularized decades earlier in America.

    The current antismoking crusade, the Godber Blueprint, was put into motion by the standard eugenics personnel, e.g., physicians, biologists, statisticians, behaviorists. It has the same absolutist, social-engineering intent that is eugenics. It uses the same vulgar eugenics methodology of denormalization/propaganda to achieve its questionable goals. Post-WWII, the word “eugenics” is rarely used given its negative connotations. The obsession with physical health that emerged post-WWII has been referred to as “healthism”. Yet, healthism is really the behavioral dimension of eugenics. The antismoking crusade, which is a part of the “healthist” push, is also eugenics in motion. It is the eugenics framework that has made antismoking a societal ideal with a view to the eradication of tobacco use.

    With antismoking well along, healthism (eugenics) is attempting to extend its reach to other behaviors it wants control of, e.g.,

  8. Rose says:

    Long before it took root in Germany it started in America, after James 1st wrote Counterblaste.
    As far as I can tell, The Nazi’s just got rid of the religious element and added a veneer of science.

    The Hundred-Year War Against the Cigarette.

    “In the 1640’s Connecticut also banned public smoking and required smokers to obtain a smoker s permit. These laws generally were ignored, however, particularly after the clergy took up the habit; Massachusetts soon repealed its prohibitions, the Connecticut ones eventually faded away, and smoking vanished as an issue for the next one hundred and fifty years.

    It resurfaced in 1798, when Dr. Benjamin Rush published an essay called “Observations upon the influence of the Habitual use of Tobacco upon Health, Morals and Property.” Smoking and tobacco chewing were harmful to the mouth, stomach, and nervous system, Dr. Rush observed, in addition to being generally filthy and expensive habits.

    The doctor went on to draw a direct cause-and-effect relationship between tobaced use and drunkenness, a correlation that would persist throughout subsequent antismoking campaigns. Dr. Rush was followed by a number of antismoking reformers.

    Dr. Joel Shew,for example,carefully catalogued often in repellent detail some eighty-seven maladies directly attributable to tobacco use, including insanity, cancer, and hemorrhoids.

    The eugenicist Orson L. Fowler believed tobacco possessed certain aphrodisiacal properties obviously a more damning charge then than it would be today and warned, “Ye who would be pure in your love-instinct, cast this sensualizing fire from you.”

    The Reverend George Trask, author of the widely circulated 1852 tract “Thoughts and Stories for American Lads” (sub- titled “Uncle Toby’s Anti-Tobacco Advice to His Nephew Billy Bruce”), pioneered the misuse of statistics in warning of the dangers of tobacco.

    “Physicians tell us that twenty thousand or more in our own land are killed by {tobacco] every year,” Trask wrote in 1859. “German physicians tell us that of deaths of men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, one-half originate from this source.”

    “Nor were the “self-inflicted injuries” courted by young smokers conf ined to the potential, long-term maladies lung cancer, heart disease, and so on-now associated with cigarette smoking. On the contrary, in the 1880’s and 1890’s the cigarette’s ef fects on smokers were thought to be not only immediate and debilitating but also often fatal.

    Consider the following case, as reported by The New York Times in 1890. CIGARETTE SMOKING KILLED HIM “New Jersey-The death of eight-year-old Willie Major, a farmer’s son, from excessive cigarette smoking is reported from Bound Brook. The boy had for over three years been a victim to the habit. He would stay away from home several days at a time, eating nothing but the herbs and berries of the neighborhood and smoking constantly. Sunday he became ill and delirious. He died Tuesday in frightful convulsions.”

    There were dozens, perhaps hundreds, of similar case histories. Even if death did not immediately claim the young smoker, failing health surely would. Among the maladies attributed to cigarette smoking were color blindness, “tobacco ambylopia” (a weakening of the eyesight), baldness, stunted growth, insanity, sterility, drunkenness, impotence (or sexual promiscuity, depending on the point to be made), mustaches on women, and that traditional bugaboo of nineteenth century America, constipation.”

    “For all these reasons, cigarettes had by the 1890’s managed to arouse the ire of a major portion of the American public, pipe and cigar smokers included. It was thus only to be expected that parents, teachers, juvenile authorities, and particularly reformers would agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment (if not the grammar) of the following plea, published by the Annapolis Evening Capital in 1886 and echoed by antismokers for the next forty years: “Something heroic must be done for the suppression of this monstrous evil or the coming American man will be a pigmy and a disgrace to their race.”

    “In 1899, with the financial and moral backing of a group of Chicago businessmen, Gaston founded the Chicago Anti- Cigarette League, which spawned similar leagues throughout the Midwest. In 1901 several hundred anticigarette leagues, claiming a combined membership of almost 300,000, were loosely combined as the National Anti-Cigarette League, with Lucy Page Gaston as superintendent. The goal of the National Anti-Cigarette League (later renamed the Anti-Cigarette League of America and still later the International Anti- Cigarette League) was simple: the total abolition of the cigarette from American life, by force of law if necessary.”

    Of course, after America and Germany, the logical place to start anti-tobacco up again was amongst the English who, speaking from personal experience, mostly had not a clue what had gone on before.

    War of words – 1999
    Richard Doll
    “Robert Proctor is correct in thinking that few people know much about the public health measures of Hitler’s physicians (Opinion, 19 June, p 4, but he is wrong to imply that scientists have been ignorant of the medical research of the period.

    Opinions may differ about its quality and the conclusions that could be drawn from it, but it is just plain wrong to say that “Richard Doll . . . knew nothing of the Schairer and Schöniger article until he [Proctor] sent him a copy in 1997″.

    I published its findings in an article on the causes of lung cancer in Advances in Cancer Research, vol 3, p 9 in 1955 and have invariably referred to it in appropriate circumstances ever since.”

    Curiously, on a quick read through Counterblaste, I just spotted “filthie” 7 times, I wonder if there are any more.

    I was reading a post the other day by a very offended person wondering where this “filthy” thing come from.

  9. jaxthefirst says:

    It’s a shame in a way that there isn’t a word that means Nazi which isn’t actually the word “Nazi,” because no matter how true it might be, it always sounds to the average person like an over-exaggeration, purely because all that most people know of the Nazis is of the horrific end of their hate campaign, whereas all that they know of the anti-smoking movement is of their activities at (by comparison) the start of theirs, and because on the surface at this moment in time they look very different, and because most people tend to be of the headline-reading-only mentality, they assume that they are different.

    Of course, just because most people doesn’t realise that the two groups have precisely the same goal in mind – the eradication of an entire group of people, just directed towards a different one – doesn’t mean that this isn’t the case, but most people lack the imagination or insight to see the similarities. A comparison of the two campaigns from, say, the 1920’s to the 1930’s (for the Nazis) and the 1970’s to the 1980’s (for anti-smoking) would probably be remarkable for the similarities, but unfortunately no-one’s thought to do it yet in a way which is easily accessible to the average lazy-minded Joe, so the two groups remain, essentially, separate in his or her mind.

    And the trouble with perceived over-exaggeration of one’s case is that it immediately tends to push the “wavering” conversationee over towards the other side of the fence, because it smacks of having nowhere else to go with one’s argument than to resort to personal insult – look at how accusations of Fascism have damaged the anti-racist movement because of anti-racist campaigners liberally bandying the word around against groups like the EDL or the BNP. We’ve now gone from a generally laid-back, easy-going population who were tolerant of pretty much anyone regardless of the colour of their skin, and who were rightfully proud of the strides which we as a society had made – notably without massive coercion or force on behalf of the authorities – towards a much more equal, fair and accepting society, to a collection of defensive Little Englanders who are now probably more prejudiced against people from other nations than we’ve been for the last 200 years.

    So I do see Simon’s point about using the word Nazi with gay abandon when talking about anti-smoking. But I don’t think that means we shouldn’t do it, because after all, they are a group of people who have a Nazistic approach and who do agree in principle with what the Nazis did – otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it themselves. They just disagree about who the target group should be, as is evidenced by the fact that they’ve lifted early Nazi tactics wholesale out of the Nazi instruction manual and simply changed the word Jewish to the word Smoker. I think the important thing is to use the term, but to make it clear that it isn’t being bandied around – as it often is in arguments about all sorts of things – as just a kind of generalised insult, but to make it clear that it’s being used as a serious descriptive term, and to indicate that perhaps the similarities in the two campaigns deserve rather more significant consideration both by the authorities and by the average “man in the street” if as a race we are ever to rightfully make the claim that we’ve “learned our lesson” from the horrific consequences of allowing any group with a Nazistic approach to their fellow man from being permitted to continue towards their chosen aims unabated and unchallenged.

    • jaxthefirst says:

      Which begs the question, of course, then, why is he pushing for yet another half-measure like plain packaging? If his aim – as he says – is to render the UK into a place where the tobacco companies have “no business” here, then why is he pussyfooting around? Why isn’t he lobbying – and lobbying hard – for tobacco to be made totally illegal? Because then, at the stroke of a pen, he’d have achieved his stated desire.

      Of course, we all know the answer to that question, but I wonder whether anyone is going to have the courage to ask the man himself, directly, and in public, why he isn’t pushing for the one measure which would, overnight, achieve his aims?

  10. Steve Kelly says:

    Frank is right that the Nazi shoe well fits the Anti foot. Wiel is right that most people don’t “get” that yet. Magnetico and others are right that Antism is a (very) direct continuation of the behavioral aspect (with the presently politically incorrect racial aspect carefully buried) of eugenics and that the debased eugenics “philosophy” was the most essential basis for the Nazi “philosophy.” So that gets back to why Frank is damned right.

    But so is Wiel. Most people don’t yet understand the true and frankly evil nature of Antism. So you lose most people when you call the Antis Nazis and also when you call them eugenicists. Most people, when you say that, take you as being arbitrary, inflammatory, extreme, and therefore unworthy of being listened to. It makes most people look at you the way Anti does: as someone unworthy of any respect. So they stop listening to you and keep listening to the Anti/Nazis.

    Amongst friends, as here, I’ll speak plainly. The Antis are eugenicists using “new and improved” monickers like “lifestyle epidemiologists” or “social biologists” or “public health advocates”. Putting it short and sweet, the Antis are Nazis. Nazis don’t take issue with you. They don’t debate with you. They expect you to “sieg heil”, and if you don’t, they set out to destroy you. The Antis are the people we should never listen to. They’re the people who must, absolutely must be destroyed: revealed, disgraced, booted out of any and all debates or conversations amongst decent civilized persons.

    In light of all this, when addressing wide audiences, at this point, I tend to point at the direct links between the old haters and the new (for example, the most prominent originators of the biostatistical techniques used in “lifestyle epidemiology” studies on smoking and ETS were Francis Galton — who coined the word “eugenics” — and his proteges), the US Surgeons General really do dress up like Health Fuehrers, the original Nazis themselves declared war on smokers, and so on. I point to the transparently false pseudo-science and to the deliberate social division and the plain hate campaign against smokers. Outside our own knowing circles I avoid saying: “The Antis are Nazis”. I show it instead.

    FOREST might be good for this or that. It ain’t good for much. It reflects the Big Tobacco perspective. If Big Tobacco got to decide, Chamberlain would have remained Prime Minister for a lifetime, serving under his Fuehrer. BT got beat up and gave up. It sieg heils to the Surgeon General, the WHO, sweet Debbie Arnott, darling John Banzhaf, and the rest. You can’t do that. But for now, apart from ourselves, you’ve got to show people, instead of telling them, until they “wise up” and start telling you: the Antis are hateful damned Nazis.

    Weil makes a fascinating point I hadn’t considered before. Europe dealt “up close and personal” with the Reich as the Anglo world did not so much. Maybe Anti will meet her Waterloo, where it is, in Europe. I pray. Let it be soon!

  11. Frank is spot on and heres why:

    By allowing the practices that precipitated the Nazi era we ourselves our guilty of letting history repeat itself. The Eugenics movement that hitler used for his own were born in America and sold to the world.
    To sit idle and allow those past historical happenings to just grow all over again is to set in motion those same wars to occur yet again. If we see and make note to others of the historical record and what led up to the ”Hollocaust” we allow the world to be educated against these same actions occurring yet again. I cant in good concience ever concede the historical significance in the charachter and eugenics actions of the anti-smoking brigades. Hitler started out with nothing more than a smile with a funny moustache!

    Tobacco control started out with a LIE………………Now its the fatties their after,then who,who,who…….

    Godwins law only applies when the name has no bearing in fact……….with the nazis it has every fact to back it up in the comparison and if infection is left undeterred it slowly kills off the whole body.

    The worlds been infected and we are the cure……anyone who disagrees may as well join the NAZIS!

    Simon if your reading this,I start to wonder if you havent been BOUGHT OFF!!!!!!

    • Frank Davis says:

      to set in motion those same wars to occur yet again.

      Not the same war. As Brigitte pointed out above: “We all now live amongst the enemy”. There’s one living next door (probably). If it comes to war (and it may well do), it will be a civil war. But the point of writing and talking and thinking about these things is to foresee the possibility, and thereby avert it.

  12. BTW if calling them NAZIS hurt their lil feelings…….fuck em its better than a bayonet at my back for smoking or being a JEW!

  13. Frank Davis says:

    I think that another point to make about Nazism is that most people think that it was something that happened a long time ago in one single country, and it was defeated back then, and it’s over and done with, and so is completely irrelevant. This way of thinking puts events neatly into boxes, all separate from each other. They get upset when the contents of one box gets spilled into other boxes.

  14. Rose says:

    How about the Anti-smoking campaign took of in America in the 1700’s, reached it’s peak around the time of Prohibition and was then taken up in Germany?

    I first found about about the nazi connection when reading a newspaper thread, I thought the antismokers were behaving like Nazi’s and googled Nazi Tobacco in a fit of annoyance.
    I nearly jumped out of my skin when I saw Anti-Tobacco Campaigns of the Nazis, By Robert Proctor, at the top of the page.

    • “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
      (Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler; 1943)

      The Führer thanks you from the grave:

      Hitler was a Leftist
      Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

      One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Rose, you should have seen MY face, when I did the same………

  15. garyk30 says:

    I doubt that calling the antis ‘Nazis’ has much effect.

    They will not understand the comparison and, thanks to our schools, most people will not know what you are talking about.

  16. cherie79 says:

    I just don’t know what we are going to do Frank, I watched the unlovely Deb and a woman from hands off our packs on Sky today. It is just not possible to debate with these people, usual in the pay of tobacco, the children etc. can’t say the opponent did very well either. Junk science, never challenged as the interviewer is onside too. I wish sometimes they would just make tobacco illegal, worked well with drugs didn’t it! I would rather give my money to the cigarette dealers than any Government now. Certainly if I ran a Tobacco Co. I would leave pronto. I am so sick of them all but surely we will reach a tipping point, if not with tobacco then some other loss of freedom. Might not be in my lifetime but I will be cheering from the other side. What about calling them the Puritans, might stir some memories of the civil war! and start a new one.

  17. beobrigitte says:

    “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
    (Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler; 1943)

    The Führer thanks you from the grave:

    LOL, Harley. Glad you said it!

    (Perhaps we could use
    The Führer thanks you from the grave:
    as a pesponse to the tiresome, unimaginative, overused anti-smoker comments.)

  18. beobrigitte says:

    sorry, typos. I meant “response”.

  19. Pingback: Careful what you say… | underdogs bite upwards

  20. XX Wiel Maessen says:

    April 13, 2012 at 3:04 am
    I always avoid comparing current TC activists with 40-45 openly. Here in Holland it’s even more
    ‘not done’ then in the UK. It ends every discussion they say here (see: “Godwin’s Law”). XX

    Ahhh. “Godwins law”. An excuse used by communists, or “Greens”, or anti-smokers, or anti fattists, or any other scumbag hippy/Fascist/nazi/totalitarian/etc grouping, to deflect, or “defeat” any reasoned argument/discussion away from the clear fact that there IS no difference between them and the nazis, when that reasoning comes dangerously close to proving the fact. And used by Nazis, who are loosing their argument, but can, or will not be seen to be “throwing-in-the-towel.”

    As to “Nazi”. It is a methodology. Or a “world view” NOT an end result. (In fact part of Mein Kampf was TITLED “Weltanschauung” (World view)!)

    It does not matter if you end up eradicating Jews, or smokers, if the METHODS used are the same that were used by the “Nazis”, then the title is yours. Go and enjoy it.

    (A simple test is to compare methods used by the anti whatever lobby today, and “News”papers such as “Der Stürmer” ( ), or “Das Schwarze Korps” ( ). If the methods match, are so similar as to make no difference, or even if they FEEL that way, then those methods, and those using/purporting them, are nazis, and FUCK “Godwin”.)

  21. XX It does not matter if you end up eradicating Jews, or smokers, if the METHODS used are the same that were used by the “Nazis”, then the title is yours. Go and enjoy it. XX

    That SHOULD read “METHODS”, or “RHETORIC”……

  22. beobrigitte says:

    If the methods match, are so similar as to make no difference, or even if they FEEL that way, then those methods, and those using/purporting them, are nazis, and FUCK “Godwin”.)

    By now (and before Tobacco Control lobby-lied it’s way into governments, successfully banishing the opposition) the word “Nazi” would be a thing of the past to be remembered as a warning.
    Fact is, we experience the NAZI regime again – this time they are not confined to one Country and this time WE, the opposition, aren’t, either.

    To our overeager anti-smokers reading fearfully in EVERY smoker’s forum, thus here:
    XX It does not matter if you end up eradicating Jews, or smokers, if the METHODS used are the same that were used by the “Nazis”, then the title is yours. Go and enjoy it. XX

    Enjoy it before your are consigned to a very dark part of history.

  23. Pingback: Great Free Publicity | Frank Davis

  24. Pingback: Hitler Would Be Proud Of Them | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.