I had to laugh.
Somebody dropped a video in the comments here today:
For the first minute or so I was wondering if it was an antismoking ad, given that the voice-over intones, “The medical evidence that tobacco is an unpleasant substance is indisputable.” But the rest of it was given over to several smokers complaining about how they were being made into an underclass, dividing them from their friends, and it was up to them as adults to make their own choices.
In the comments over the past few days, there’s been something of a running battle going on between Carol2000 and Walt and Nisakiman, to which I haven’t contributed. But the video above is, perhaps, a perfect example of the point that Carol is trying to make – which is that once you’ve conceded that smoking is harmful, you have conceded everything, and lost the war.
But more or less every smoker does this. They’ll start out saying something like, “I’ll be the first to admit that smoking is bad for you, but…,” or “Nobody is disputing that smoking gives you lung cancer and heart disease and emphysema, but all the same…”
When people start out like that, they’ve lost immediately.
L. O. S. T.
Deborah Arnott would die laughing if she saw the video above (and far be it from me to prevent her from dying laughing or crying or singing or dancing, if the net result is the same). And all the other Nazis is Tobacco Control would die laughing too. And then get out their whips and start driving the smokers towards the gas chambers again.
And the important point is that there’s no need to start off with this concession-of-everything. There’s no need for it at all. Because there’s no real scientific evidence that smoking is harmful. Antismoking ‘research’ isn’t science. The way Carol says it is that it’s ‘questionnaire pseudo-science’. The way I say it is that nothing has been measured accurately. Real science requires accurate measurement of things like mass and length and time, and antismoking ‘science’ never does this. In their questionnaires, they’re not gathering ‘data’. They’re simply getting people’s vague recollections, about how many cigarettes they may have smoked, and for how long, and so on. All their numbers are elastic. And even their fundamental unit of measurement – the cigarette – is elastic, because cigarettes come in all sorts of sizes and strengths. Which is like having a rubber ruler to measure the lengths of things. And they know in advance the conclusions that they’re going to draw from their ‘studies’. And because of all this (and more), antismoking ‘science’ is fundamentally and radically fraudulent. All these people have ever done, from their origins in Nazi Germany onwards, has been to feed people with the idea that smoking is killing them, simply by telling them so over and over again.
And this is of fundamental importance, because if antismoking ‘science’ isn’t called out for the non-science (or nonsense) that it really is, there’s never going to be an end to it.
If I disagree with Carol, it’s that I don’t think we actually know what causes cancer (or heart disease or more or less anything else). In my view, modern medicine remains essentially mediaeval medicine. We know eff-all about anything. And if there’s something else I disagree with her about, it’s her way of advancing her arguments with a baseball bat.
And while I entirely agree with her that antismoking ‘science’ is utterly fraudulent, most people don’t know how to distinguish between real science and fake science. This is true not just with antismoking ‘science’, but with climate science, and lots of other ‘science’ as well. People trust ‘experts’ and ‘authorities’ too much. And they’ve allowed themselves to be conditioned to believe all sorts of things which simply aren’t true, largely by hearing the untruths repeated over and over again.
And I think it’s with this conditioning with which we must begin. Because we’ve all been subjected to the same conditioning, the conditioning that tells you that smoking is ‘bad for you’. And the conditioning is so deep that it takes a great effort to shuck it off.
After all, it’s only been in the last 10 years or so that I started questioning whether antismoking ‘science’ might be fraudulent. And when I started doing so, I found it very difficult to even begin to entertain the idea that it might be. If anything helped, it was my memory of encountering, at age 17, my first antismoking doctor – who I thought then (and still think now) was utterly mad.
And so we have all these smokers, weighed down by decades of conditioning, setting out to do battle with antismokers whom they half-believe or even completely believe. And that’s like going into battle with millstones round their necks.
So there’s a psychological battle to be won before we can win the scientific battle. And the psychological battle is to get people to start to think that maybe they’re being deceived. And most people are nowhere near that point. As is wonderfully demonstrated in the video above, where the first thing that’s stated is the ‘indisputable’ conditioning of the people who made it.
And they’re far from alone. Forest’s Simon Clark regularly and routinely concedes that smoking is bad for you. And even Chris Snowdon believes that smoking causes lung cancer (or he did so two or three years ago during the CATCH debate). And so do all the Harm Reduction people. And most of the vapers as well. And they’re all sure-fire losers. The problem is one of de-programming people who’ve been caught up in what is really a Jim Jones-style Tobacco Control cult
My point is that it doesn’t matter to Tobacco Control if their ‘science’ is fraudulent, just so long as people believe that it’s genuine science, and as long as people can’t even begin to entertain the thought that it might not be genuine science. Because TC has never been working in the field of science, but in the field of psychology and perception and belief and religion. The only thing they want to do is shape or form opinion.
Going back to Russia and all that briefly, we used to be told that the Soviet Union employed ‘brain-washing’ techniques to keep people in line. But these days I rather suspect that it’s the Western world that has been using such techniques for a very long time. And they’re past masters at it.
I don’t usually post anything before midnight here in the UK, but I wrote the above this afternoon, so it may as well go out now.