The Traumatised Antismokers

A bit sleepy this evening. I’ve spent all day back looking at asteroid 2012 DA14 and the Chelyabinsk meteor of 15 Feb 2013, which I got interested in a year back.

But in the background I’ve been thinking about antismokers. What makes someone an antismoker?

In my experience there were hardly any of them 40 years ago. Since then they’ve been gradually multiplying in numbers. I watched friends of mine first stop smoking, and then start banning anyone smoking in their homes. It was a gradual process. And it was largely driven by what was low-key but relentless antismoking indoctrination over decades. People were gradually being programmed to become antismoking. The ‘health threat’ of environmental tobacco smoke simply cranked up the intensity of the antismoking assault, and made scared people even more scared.

If I didn’t go the same way, it was probably partly because I’ve always taken all health scare stories with a large pinch of salt. But mostly it was because I’d met Dr W.

I had the pleasure of living in the family home of Dr W and his wife and children, because at the time my own parents were living in Brazil. I was aged about 17, and hadn’t started smoking. But Dr W’s 16-year-old eldest son had started smoking. And one day it seems that he caught his son smoking, because he started shouting at him at the top of his voice, his son having fled upstairs. Trying to escape from the unfolding drama, I came across Dr W standing completely alone in the hall of the house, bellowing “Filthy! Filthy! Filthy!” at the top of his voice.

It was one of those formative experiences. I realised that Dr W utterly hated cigarettes. And at the same time I recognised that his hatred was entirely irrational – because if had had rational reasons for disliking smoking, he would have quietly explained them to his son, who might have taken heed. Instead, he had erupted in an astonishing and unseemly tirade. I decided then and there that Dr W was a tad bonkers (at least in respect of tobacco), and always gave him a wide berth. The rest of the family were all perfectly normal.

Dr W was a very strange man. He seemed to take no pleasure in anything. As soon as he got home from work, he’d head off out to work in his garden where he kept chickens and grew fruit and vegetables. I never saw him watch TV. Or read a newspaper. Or even read a book. And he was strangely incapable of smiling. His method, when he deemed a smile to be appropriate to the occasion, was to simply hitch up the corners of his mouth in the semblance of a smile. I used to wonder what event had taken place in his life that had left him so damaged, and so emotionally frozen.

At the time, I concluded that he was a harmless crank, who was also hyperactive at the BMA. The last time I ever saw him was on BBC Newsnight, being interviewed outside the BMA about some medical matter. I realised then that he must have had a pretty senior position in the BMA. And maybe also in the WHO.

In retrospect, I don’t think he was harmless crank at all. I think he was a virulent nutjob antismoker (who almost certainly personally knew both George Godber and Richard Doll) with considerable influence in the medical profession. And if we now have a smoking ban in the UK, it’s probably in large part because Dr W worked tirelessly all his life for one – although he never actually lived to see it.

And yet he was bonkers.

And probably George Godber was bonkers too.

Because Dr W’s hatred of smoking clearly wasn’t something that grew out of dispassionate medical research. It must have come from somewhere else. He must have been taught, most likely in his childhood, that smoking was a filthy habit. And so ‘filthy’ was the word that he shouted over and over again when he caught his son smoking.

Dr W was most likely the child of an antismoking father and mother who would regularly beat their errant children with a belt or stick, shouting ‘filthy’ at whatever misdemeanour they had committed. Dr W’s antismoking zealotry had been beaten into him. And it had left him a disturbed and damaged man.

And I think that antismokers like Dr W were quite different from those friends of mine who quit smoking and started worrying about ETS. My friends were being rational. They were responding to medical advice. It just happened to be medical advice which was being provided by nutjobs like Dr W.

And when I started smoking, a couple of years after encountering Dr W, it was in large part because I felt that if a nutter like Dr W hated smoking, then there probably wasn’t any harm in it at all.

And the degree to which I am in favour of smoking has the same intensity as Dr W’s loathing of it. I’m an anti-Dr-W. I was permanently inoculated against antismoking zealots by Dr W himself. And for me he will always remain the archetypal antismoker: a strange, twisted, crippled man.

But I’ve begun to suspect that there are probably quite a few antismokers of the Dr W variety. They’re not people who have been persuaded by science or reason that smoking is a dangerous habit that can kill people. They’re people who have been traumatised into hating smoking, most likely in their childhoods. And this is why they have now set out to traumatise the whole world. It’s the way they were shaped, and so it’s the the way they set out to shape everyone else – with hideous images on tobacco packages, and exaggerated claims that smoking causes all diseases, and so on.

And the antismoking creed is probably one that runs in families, passed on from antismoking father to antismoking son. And occasionally, like some bacillus, it bursts out into the wider world, and causes an antismoking epidemic.

And they’re all deeply sick people. And they should be confined in mental institutions. Certainly they should never be allowed to appear on Newsnight outside the BMA wearing pinstripe suits, or help shape government policy.

Alas, this is exactly what has happened.

About Frank Davis

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

27 Responses to The Traumatised Antismokers

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Well fortunately I was there to ward off DARE classes to my kids and the poison they spread in the minds of the youth. I remember my son 8 years old coming home beaming about his new t-shirt he won for his dare attendance and recitation of the Don’t be an addict pledge.

    I took him and the t-shirt str8 back to the school and literally shoved the shit into the DARE class officers face! If it hadn’t been for 2 other officers there complaining about how they didn’t want the job Id likely ended up in a fight with them all. Its strange to because the cops told me in prder to get the federal dare grant somebody on the force had to do the class and all our cops smoke!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      It began with Nancy Reagan and her DARE bullshit!

      • Tom says:

        I thought the same thing back then. Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign seemed to be at the same time in California, anti-smoking started becoming more visible. To me, I linked them together and feared it might start leading to anti-smoking crusades and general prohibitionism.

        It also concerned me around the same time period, with the “Tear Down The Wall” rhetoric and eventual end of the Berlin Wall, I kind of figured, all the dictatorial stuff that was being practiced behind the Iron Curtain, once it was down and no longer “the enemy”, that would leave the field wide open for dictatorial infiltration into the US, something else I also sensed happening in California at the time.

        • chris says:

          Yeah, didn’t Nancy call for a “new intolerance” because too many things were becoming OK in US society?

          I totally agree about the demise of the Soviet Union. When the US claimed it was all about freedom (and not economics, as it was in reality), they had to kind of practice what they were preaching. But one the “Evil Empire” was no more, they didn’t have to pay attention to those niceties.

      • nisakiman says:

        DARE? Enlighten me, Harley. Us chaps across the pond are not necessarily familiar with all the American acronyms.

        • garyk30 says:

          From Wikki

          Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) is an international education program founded by Daryl Gates that seeks to prevent use of controlled drugs, membership in gangs, and violent behavior.
          DARE, which has expanded globally since its founding in 1984, is a demand-side drug control strategy of the American War on Drugs.
          Students who enter the program sign a pledge not to use drugs or join gangs and are taught by local police officers about the dangers of drug use in an interactive in-school curriculum which lasts ten weeks.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department 1978 – 1992

        • nisakiman says:

          Thanks Gary. I consider myself enlightened!

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          They incorporated Nicotine Addiction and other anti-smoking jargon into their propaganda under Clintoon back in the 90s……….That’s what I went off on! Fucking commie bastards

    • Nightlight says:

      Funny you had clashed with DARE. After finding out it was being taught to my kids, I wrote a long letter to the principal and superintendent, highlighting point by point all the idiocies of the program. I also incited parental revolt at the school meeting called up in response to the letter and got them to shut it down altogether.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

  3. Tom says:

    “And if we now have a smoking ban in the UK, it’s probably in large part because Dr W worked tirelessly all his life for one …”

    Except I doubt he did it on his own, without funding. There is probably someone(s) higher up(s) with more control and reign on things, more money, more power, more influence and who felt it was time to bring in anti-smoking, as a vehicle, upon which a lot of other things to their betterment and detriment to everyone else, only virulent anti-smoking and social reprogramming everyone into anti-smoking as the new belief system, would then enable a whole ton of additional social reprogramming, but required anti-smoking as the under belly to support the rest of it – AGW, one world government, global fiat currency, Agenda 21, forced mass migrations to destroy sovereign states and national identities, establishing single ruling political parties pretending to be opposites, a whole host of things someone(s) higher up wanted accomplished.

    Anti-smoking was the vehicle. It reprogrammed the mind and made it possible to then reprogram belief in all these other things. And Dr. W., he just fit the bill, being radical enough, once funded, like the others, could be counted up on to “do good” and thus destroy everything truly good, in the process and help install this one world junta that has taken over in some parts of the world already.

    He was probably a tool, used by someone(s) higher up, to achieve their ends and wouldn’t have realized he was being used, would have thought he was “doing good” – and because he was radical to begin with, this is the sort of person the early anti-smoking industry would have been funding. And his motivation level would have caused him to never cave in, to push forward, and he was simply used, a tool – a moronic, idiotic tool, like all the other anti-smokers in this world stupidly are but will never realize it, not ever.

    • waltc says:

      Though the 1964 US Surgeon General’s Report (smoking causes lung cancer) should, if anything, have launched a major anti-tobacco movement in America, it didn’t. It took until the late ’70s for the thing to start and it seemed to have been started by a mere handful of Dr. W’s (one-issue zealots like Repace, Banzaf and Glantz) some of whom happened to be cogs in bureaucracies like the EPA and who, as such, could ring in some of their buddy zealots– either into actual government positions or as recipients of grants to conduct a bunch of studies that would show…what the zealots wanted them to show. (Their canon turned up in the 1992 EPA Report.) These guys turned out to be the literal inventors of secondhand smoke ™ fulfilling Godber’s dream, and from there, it was a textbook barrage of propaganda, very much taken from the Stalinist playbook (see Jacques Ellul’s book Propaganda) that brought us to where we are.

      But beyond that, I’ve always shared what I interpret as Tom’s contention: That all other motives (like alleged costs) aside, that many in Power– especially those of a utopian bent– didn’t give a rat’s ass about smoking but saw it as a test case to prove the maleability of– for want of a better term– the masses. If they could inflict a thoroughly manufactured idea (secondhand smoke itself + it kills) on the American public–which had never before reviled either smokers or smoke–, then anything was possible. And I now believe it is. Possible. Anything.

      Not btw, Tom, I hope your threatened crisis has passed or has proved manageable.

      • Of all the hours I’ve spent considering the real reason for the smoking bans, I’ve not thought of it as being a test case for future misdemeanors, but you could be right.

        Sure, it is being organised from the very top, like “climate change”, to deindustrialise and impoverish the West and help create that world government through global legislation and taxation.

        And like installing traitors in positions of power so that they do like the last UK Government did which committed us to reduce our carbon output by at least 80% by 2050. And the same ‘ruling’ party allowed mass immigration to change our society – as admitted by one of Blair’s advisor’s, Andrew Neather.

        Then almost every country will sign up to Agenda 21 (the US states which have already voted to ignore it will probably be overruled from DC) and the mass killings can begin (over and above what we have now: abortion, euthanasia, unnecessary wars, drug and food company murders, avoidable hospital deaths, giving pensioners so little money (while making heating so expensive) that tens of thousands die of cold every winter, and the odd Stalin or Mao coming along),

        Tom – you mentioned the Iron Curtain coming down in a different reply. I have always thought that it was so relatively easy that it had to have been planned – now I realise it was to extend communism to everywhere else. Those hard line commies (millions of them – and they’re still there) would have done anything to preserve the USSR, then Gorbachev came along with his glasnost and perestroika and like the fools we’ve been in the West, bought into a sugar coated pill of death. Not that I mourned the death of that evil regime, but it means we’re getting the same thing happening by stealth rather than revolution – and the East is having one evil replaced by another (like the EU, Putin and the tyrants in Belarus). But who needs a revolution with a population that can be convinced that the almost impossible is the most likely explanation for everything?

        This is where the Dr W’s come in. Like the top politicians, carefully chosen for their rabid disdain of opposing views and a pathological inability to engage with other people as equals and incapable of appreciating that people deserve to have the freedom to chose, even if it means choosing wrongly, in their opinion.

        And then everyone below them in the organisation has to toe the line, or they’re fired.

        It takes many decades, but eventually, all the ‘right’ dysfunctional puppets have been put in place and…. Mission Accomplished – a global prison for the proles and a playground for the elite who have been masterminding it all for generations.

  4. smokervoter says:

    Aside from MJM’s first book there seems to be a paucity of studies into the mind of the antismoker. You would think that with an obvious growing world-emcompassing epidemic of tobaccophobia it would come in for more investigation.

    Normally a psychiatric disorder which was causing coincident homicides, the purposeful discouragement of higher education through campus bans, and widespread employment and housing discrimination would trigger an avalanche of scientific curiosity and scholarly research leading to the causes and possible cures for it.

    • waltc says:

      SV: From yesterday.

      I share your “don’t inflict more technology on me” attitude, and also share ownership of a semi-ancient computer– but losing Rush would drive me into buying the least expensive version of an iPad which I think could let you listen with a click at the usual time or any time you want. I’ve still got him, only 5 points down the dial, but I’m considering an iPad anyway to get more out of the net and be able to download movies. I continue to resist Kindle, like to read a book that’s made of paper, but when publishing implodes or books get even pricier, I suppose I’ll have to adapt to that too. Anyway, a thought.

  5. wobbler2012 says:

    I’m not too sure about that Frank I think some people are just born into this world to be miserable shits, it’s just how it is. I’m personally very happy with how I myself have turned out, a very tolerant happy person that doesn’t get hung up on what other people do as it’s no business of mine. Some people are just downright miserable twats like this Dr W clearly was/is.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    What does social division create?

    It simply furthers the cause of Class Warfare

    Smoking bans extend that political weapon by a factor of ten easily.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    The US Appeals Court customarily delivers rulings by a panel of three, subject to review en banc, by the full court. So it appears the panel was unanimous in their legal conclusions.

    US District Court: Citizen Journalists Have Same Rights as News Media

  8. nisakiman says:

    Unfortunately your Dr W seems to have his counterparts in just about every country, so the disease has become global. As I mentioned in Leg Iron’s blog, I’m currently in Thailand, and they have adopted the anti-smoking dogma with the same enthusiasm as UK has. I don’t think there are any exceptions at all, although I haven’t encountered any hand-waving antics. Most places have exterior seating, however, so for those not addicted to air-conditioning it’s not too much of a problem. I’m off to Laos tomorrow, and the last time I was there (6 – 7 years ago) there seemed to be no restrictions at all, and not even written warnings on fag packets. I will be interested to see what the situation is now. On the Agoda hotel booking website, the Lao hotels just about all advertise that they have ‘non-smoking rooms’. Whether that applies to all rooms or to a few that they disallow smoking in (for the American’s fear of third-hand smoke, perhaps?) I have yet to discover. I will doubtless make further comment on that subject in due course.

    I have to admit I’m finding it a tad tiresome on that level here, what with being used to the Greek way of dealing with the bans (i.e. totally ignoring them). Plus the in-laws (who I’m staying with) are non-smokers, so I have restrictions here, too. They are fine with me smoking outside, but when I go out into the garden the three dogs set off a hulaballoo – ok during the day, but when we get back from eating out, as tonight (Thailand is 7 hours ahead of GMT), and mum and dad are in bed, it’s a little insensitive to set the hounds off. And this is where my e-cig saves the day, albeit a sub-standard alternative. Ho-hum. The trials of dealing with family…

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Note from Michael Enright – an update on secondhand smoke and cancer

    Wednesday, January 22, 2014 | Categories: 9



    In my opening remarks on the program last week, I cited a new U.S. study of more than 76,000 women that found no statistically significant link between lung cancer and secondhand smoke. The study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was presented at a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology this past summer, and summarized in an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute Advance Access in December, 2013.

    Researchers looked at data from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study. Of the 93,676 women aged 50 – 79 who were observed over 10.5 years, 901 developed lung cancer. The incidence of lung cancer was 13 times higher in current smokers; and 4 times higher in former smokers. However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking did not significantly increase lung cancer risk.

    The science of whether or not secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, is deeply polarized. Many credible scientists believe secondhand smoke does not significantly increase the risk of developing lung cancer. Many credible scientists believe that it does, and most government and national health organizations say that it does.

    While this latest study suggests that the risk that secondhand smoke will result in lung cancer is small — even insignificant — it cannot be interpreted as the final word on the subject. One of the study’s senior investigators, Heather Wakelee, MD, associate professor of medicine and oncology at Stanford, says that because only 901 women in the study developed lung cancer, and only 152 of those cases occurred in never-smokers, “It’s hard to say anything conclusive with such small numbers.”

    Dr. Wakelee continues: “We don’t want people to conclude that passive smoking has no effect on lung cancer. We think the message is, this analysis doesn’t tell us what the risk is, or even if there is a risk.”

    Dr. Gerard Silvestri of the Medical University of South Carolina, and a member of the National Cancer Institute’s PDQ Screening and Prevention Editorial Board, welcomed the study. He believes the risks of secondhand smoke are small.

    “You can say, with regard to passive smoke, that it’s only the heaviest exposure that produces the risk. We’ve gotten smoking out of bars and restaurants on the basis of the fact that you and I and other nonsmokers don’t want to die. The reality is, we probably won’t.”

    In my opening remarks on last week’s program, I said, “Anti-smoking activists were quick to pronounce that “Second Hand Smoke Kills.” Well, no, it doesn’t, actually.”

    To follow Dr. Silvestri’s more judicious and considered scientific line of thought, what I should have said was, “Well no, it probably doesn’t, actually.”

    Michael Enright.

    Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.

    Hit it boyz and ladies

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Anti-smoking public service announcements can be undermined by online comments

    Thursday 23 January 2014 – 1am PST

    Commentary accompanying anti-smoking public service announcements (PSAs) in online forums like YouTube has an impact on the PSA’s overall effectiveness. Both negative and positive comments accompanying PSAs degrade the persuasiveness of the videos.

    According to researchers from the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, viewer commentary on PSAs have become an integral part of a PSA’s overall message.

    “One thing is very clear: It is no longer possible to consider the influence of news or other messages in the public information environment apart from the comments which follow them,” write Rui Shi, a doctoral candidate at Annenberg, and Profs. Paul Messaris and Joseph N. Cappella. Their research is covered in their article “Effects of Online Comments on Smokers’ Perception of Antismoking Public Service Announcements,” appearing in the Journal of Computer Mediated-Communication, a publication of the International Communication Association.

    Shi, Messaris, and Cappella worked with a group of nearly 600 adult regular smokers. Participants completed an online survey where they were told they were testing a new website where people can share health related video clips and PSAs. Everyone was shown and asked to respond to an equal number of anti-smoking PSAs. Each PSA had a carefully balanced mix of comments that were:
    ◾ Positive and civil
    ◾ Positive and uncivil
    ◾ Negative and civil
    ◾ Negative and uncivil
    ◾ Mixed positive and negative comments
    ◾ No comments, just PSAs

    The results showed the PSAs with no commentary were rated the most effective overall. Any form of commentary – positive, negative and mixed – made the PSA less persuasive.

    “The most surprising finding from the study is that positive comments failed to improve PSA evaluation over the no-comment exposure to ads,” the team writes. They theorize that the pure existence of comments reduces the effects of the PSA in part because comments distracted the audience from the PSA’s message. Those who watched the PSAs without any commentary had better recall of the PSA’s content than those who read comments. “The detrimental effect of comments […] seems to suggest anti-smoking PSAs would be better off without comments, especially if the PSAs are strong or if the target audience is somewhat ready to quit smoking,” they write. The power of audience participation via social media is clearly a double-edge sword. They note that a concerted effort to understand the influence of online commentary and social media is necessary to understand the way emerging media affect the public for good and for ill.

  11. smokingscot says:

    A while ago, in the context of Germany mainly, but also Italy and the UK, I took a look at what happened during WW2 and the use of cigarettes as well as candies, nylons,canned meats and so forth by service personnel as barter for sex.

    Against a backdrop of the 30’s depression, followed by the war and the rationing that took place as well as the paucity of available males, there was a sort of “live for the moment” mentality amongst females in the 16 to 24 age group.

    Unwanted pregnancies were relatively common and while some servicemen did do the honourable thing, many had no interest in the female (many were married and had family back home) or were killed in action.

    How women dealt with it is a sub study in its own right, however there is anecdotal evidence that many children were foisted on their grandparents and raised as their own child, with the mother acting the part of elder sister. We have a recent example of exactly that arrangement with Thomas Hamilton (the chap who massacred 16 children and 1 teacher in Dunblane).

    Others of course turned to back street abortionists, the married ones did their own thing with spouse behind closed doors but, for the most part, the pregnancy ran its course and the mother invented reasons for its being. Post war single mother with sprogg was commonplace.

    There were very few cases of mixed race children; most looked the part and that made things very slightly easier for the mother.

    What intrigued me was the mothers’ attitude to these children. Certainly there was no shouting about the fact she’d mothered a bastard. Seems this was a very shameful thing to do and a great deal of deceit was landed on the child.

    This was not an option amongst females in Vietnam, the Philippines or Japan. In Vietnam mothers of Amerasian children seem to have had a very tough time indeed. The Vietnamese coined a phrase for them – Bui Doi (dust of the earth), while Japanese half caste children earned the name Hafus.

    Unfortunately it seems that even amongst those sub group there’s a pecking order, with kids of non-white fathers way down there at the bottom of the pile.

    It also seems that something similar may have happened in numerous households in Europe and the US at some stage during the childs’ development. Perhaps something along the lines “the most expensive pack of fags ever”, because – remarkably – that seems to have been the commodity most sought (along with nylons).

    Few in the community would know the whole truth of every bastard sprogg, but if there was one it would be the local GP.

    Amongst the many factors that help shape people, this is one that I find endlessly fascinating. My main area of interest is 1938 through to 1946, with especial emphasis on 1943 to 1946 – and that equates to individuals who are into their 70’s.

    Anyway, a point to consider.

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Our Financial Future: Slowdown, Shutdown, or Shakedown?

    Don Boys, Ph.D.

    Only a fool would publically predict what will happen in the near future regarding the U.S. economy; however, I suggest that we will have a slowdown, shutdown, or shakedown–maybe all three. We are already in the slowdown; however, I think it is also probable that the other two disasters are in store for all of us. The “storm” is far from over.

    One portentous indication of trouble just surfaced on Jan. 3 when it was revealed in a headline: “Billionaires Dumping Stocks.” The article on Newsmax website reported that Warren Buffet is “dumping shares at an alarming rate.” In fact, he sold 19 million (no misprint) shares of Johnson & Johnson and he is very disappointed in Procter & Gamble, Kraft Foods, and others.

    Billionaire John Paulson also dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase, and all of his shares in Family Dollar and Sara Lee.

    Then there’s billionaire George Soros, the radical leftist that conservatives love to hate, who sold almost all his shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Obviously, George doesn’t have any confidence in financial stocks. Humm, wonder what he and his fellow billionaires know that we don’t know?

    Maybe these wealthy elite know that a massive correction is coming on Wall Street. Highly revered economist Robert Wiedemer, author of the best seller Aftershock, says that the stock market could fall 90%! Wiedemer predicted the collapse of the housing market in an earlier book.

    Standard and Poor’s suggested that Wiedemer’s prediction “demands our attention,” while Philip Gross, founding CFO of American Online said the book was “A compelling argument for a chilling conclusion.”

    CNN reported that about half of Americans agree with the doomsday predictions: “48% [of Americans] see a second Great Depression.” I think it will be called, “the Greatest Depression.”

    We must remember that our government is $17 trillion in debt, almost $150,000 per taxpayer! But then we must take our pencil from behind our ear and add Social Security obligations, Medicare, etc., totaling more than $100 trillion!

    The average American needs to look at the facts, analyze his personal financial condition, and make some difficult decisions. Does he believe Obama who said, “The private sector is doing fine,” or does he consider that statement like Obama’s assurance that “You can keep your doctor, period.”? Or maybe he believes the Washington Post that assured us with a headline: “No Housing Bubble to Pop” or the Washington Times’ headline, “No Housing Trouble,” or the conservative National Review’s article, “Hate to Burst Your (Housing) Bubble, But There Isn’t One.” Or the revered Wall Street Journal: “Housing Bubble? The Market Won’t Pop.” Pop, pop, pop. They were all wrong!

    Or the average American could believe the financial wizards on the television shows who never said a word about the imminent massive collapse of Enron in December of 2001. The financial experts were telling us to buy right up to the collapse! And they never apologized!

    Everyone knows that those experts and many others were wrong about the housing bubble as they have been wrong about many things.

    So, when the stock market hits bottom, 50% of Americans are out of work, bankruptcies soar skyward, and cities and states go belly-up as is happening as I write, you will know the nation is on the cusp of a shutdown mode. Does that mean riots in the streets accompanied by martial law? Wiedemer thinks not, since “that did not happen in the Great Depression.” However, the astute economist may know finances but he apparently doesn’t know human nature: this disaster will be far worse than the 1930s and Americans today don’t have the character those citizens had. Plan on it: panic, suicides, hunger, food riots, gang violence, etc. A recent British study declared that we were “nine meals from anarchy!” I don’t feel lonely anymore!

    How do the optimists in their rosy glasses defend their positive view in light of our massive debt? Today, the U.S. has more government debt than any country in the history of the world! In fact, we have more national debt than all the nations in the European Union put together!

    So, what is the Fed’s answer? Well, the Federal Reserve has been printing $85 billion per month; that’s more than a trillion dollars a year! That means the dollars in your pocket are worth less, or is that worthless?

    Presently, when a nation wants to purchase a product from us or any other nation they usually make payments in U.S. dollars. They could choose the British pound sterling, the Chinese yuan, or the euro; however, only a few nations bypass the dollar. That is going to end. We have begun to see the “flight from the dollar.” China, Russia, and the United Nations, as well as some Muslim nations are already on record that they want to back off the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

    Why is the U.S. dollar so special and is used by almost 70% of nations as the reserve currency? It is because the market for U.S. Treasury securities is “liquid and deep.” “Liquid” means the dollar can be sold quickly and “deep” means a large amount of dollars can be sold without impacting the price of the currency.

    When I have traveled in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Australia, etc., I never changed dollars into the currency where I was traveling. I always used U.S. dollars but those days have changed. It is now common for the dollar to be refused as I experienced in Africa and Japan.

    Sam Zell, the 60th richest man in the U.S., told CNBC: “My single biggest financial concern is the loss of the dollar as the reserve currency. I can’t imagine anything more disastrous to our country…I think you could see a 25% reduction in the standard of living in this country if the U.S. dollar was no longer the world’s reserve currency.”

    James Richards wrote in his Currency Wars, “If the currency collapses, everything also goes with it…stocks, bonds, commodities, derivatives and other investments are all priced in a nation’s currency. If you destroy the currency, you destroy all markets and the nation.”

    In light of the above facts, it seems we are in the slowdown, and the shutdown or collapse is starring us in the face. So, how will the politicians extricate the U.S. from the bottomless pit– dug by the same politicians? Enter the shakedown phase.

    The London Telegraph of January 4, 2014 reported, “Much of the Western world will require defaults, a savings tax and higher inflation to clear the way for recovery as debt levels reach a 200-year high, according to a new report by the International Monetary Fund.” Author Ambrose Evans-Pritchard opined that the debts of many nations are so huge that it “will require a wave of haircuts, either negotiated 1930s-style write-offs or the standard mix of measures used by the IMF in its ‘toolkit’ for emerging market blow-ups.” He says that what debtor nations must and will do is use huge taxes, massive inflation, and debt repudiation to stay afloat. He says we will all get a close-cut financial “haircut.” I think he means a scalping, not a haircut.

    That amounts to a shakedown. There will be no other choice. Weary, worn, wrathful citizens will be forced to pay for the failure and corruption of generations of pompous, prissy, profligate politicians.

    Slowdown, shutdown, or shakedown? All three are in your future ending with a showdown! I’m afraid that the sky is falling after all. Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!” And pass it on!

    Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

  13. beobrigitte says:

    But in the background I’ve been thinking about antismokers. What makes someone an antismoker?

    Indeed, where do these obsessed people come from? I don’t mean the ones who unquestioningly accepted and succumbed to the constant chipping away on society’s structure by these very anti-smokers. They are just happy thinking any lobby group’s thoughts – and never notice how these lobby groups plant thoughts.
    This week I did spent a very short time in London (4 hours in total) but my business involved a few (short) waits, so I went outside and chatted to the security guards whilst lighting up. I started off, saying to them: “I was told I have 1/2hr to wait, so I came out for a ciggie.” They looked at me a little startled – they just were not used to people stating: “I’m having a ciggie” and continuing a conversation. Judging from where the cigarette butts were, the other smokers went a bit further away…. (WHY? – it’s OUTSIDE!!!)
    Nevertheless, the guards got quite quickly used to me and we were chatting. When I finally left, they wished me well and said that it was a pleasure talking to me.

    Clearly, they were nice people but unquestioningly had accepted the anti-smoker dictation that smokers are the scum of the earth. I am glad to have been an example of a smoker in REAL life. I do hope they spend a little time in thought!

    With anti-smokers I mean the ones who still feel that they have a clear conscience despite being the direct cause of misery (especially to older people) and fragmentation of communities. I guess the could enter some sort of ‘Miss/Mister World’ contest and when asked what their goal is in life answer: ” I want to make the world a better place…….”.
    The scary thing is, they BELIEVE they do so by inciting hatred between friends and members of a family and lobby for LEGAL discrimination of law abiding people.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.