Make the Invisible Crime Visible

There’s an argument that’s been rumbling on for the past week in the comments under Small Acts of Resistance. It’s between Nightlight and Carol2000. Nightlight thinks that people need to discover that Smoking Is Good For You. Carol thinks that people need to learn that most of the diseases blamed on smoking have viral causes (e.g. Human Papillomavirus and cervical cancer).

I’m sympathetic to both. Most likely Carol is right about what causes disease. After all, the great medical strides taken at the beginning of the last century were the discovery of bacterial and viral causes of disease. The idea that tobacco smoke causes disease is really a reversion to older, more primitive ideas of disease being caused by ‘bad air’ (malaria) or ‘drain air’ (the reason why we have U-bends in drains is to stop ‘drain air’ entering our indoor environment).

And I think Nightlight is right too. Once the idea that tobacco smoke causes disease is dispensed with as a mediaeval throwback, it’s perfectly possible to suppose that smoking in moderation actually is good for you, in all sorts of different ways.

And they’re both arguing over the science. And they’re disagreeing over the science.

But I was wondering today whether the science really matters very much. At one point, Nightlight wrote:

We are discussing here in hope of figuring out how to help fellow smokers who are presently suffering under social, psychological and economic oppression and abuses not seen in the western world since 1930s Germany.

That oppression was, of course, of Jews and Gypsies in Nazi Germany, guided by Nazi racial science.

But does anybody anywhere ever look at Nazi racial science these days? Does anyone study Nazi racial science? Are there any magisterial refutations of Nazi racial science in print anywhere?

Not that I know of. In fact, it’s hard to find anything about Nazi racial science online. It’s a dead science. It seems to have completely vanished.

And if it’s dead, it’s not because it was ever refuted as science in learned journals, but because it led to the murder of millions of people. It’s tainted science.

And that’s all you need to know about it. It resulted in the deaths of millions of people, and that was a terrible crime, and Nazi racial science and eugenics were the ideological framework within which the Nazis carried out those crimes. So the Nazis and Nazi racial science were all consumed together in one single inferno. They both became intolerable and unthinkable at one and the same time.

So nobody has ever trawled through a textbook of Nazi racial science to point out the errors on page 76 or page 237 or anywhere else. For everyone knows that it was all garbage, because of what it led to. You don’t even have to open the textbooks to know this.

And we are, as Nightlight more or less said, back in Nazi territory with the current War on Smokers. We’re not being gassed and incinerated yet, but we’re being excluded, demonised, shamed, fired, and evicted. Under the onslaught pubs and cafes are closing, communities are being shattered, and an entire convivial culture dissolved. And it’s being carried out on a global scale that the Nazis never imagined. Because if the Nazis were persecuting tens of millions of Jews and Gypsies, modern antismoking Nazis (and the roots of antismoking zealotry are to be found in Nazi Germany) are now persecuting hundreds and perhaps even thousands of millions of smokers all over the world.

And so isn’t it more likely that the end will come for Tobacco Control when the scale of their crimes becomes apparent, at which point all the antismoking ‘science’ of the past 60 years will go the same way as Nazi racial ‘science’ – consigned to oblivion overnight, and for the exact same reason? That it was used to justify a terrible crime.

The only reason that people can’t see the crime that is being committed is because it’s almost completely invisible. There are no concentration camps, no gas chambers, no sadistic guards, no barbed wire. There are just hundreds of millions of largely mute smokers who are being invisibly excluded, demonised, shamed, fired, and evicted, scattered all over the world.

We seem to only take interest in disasters or crimes when they have a time and a place – like 9/11 or Columbine or Lockerbie. We don’t seem to notice the thousands of little deaths, exclusions, rejections, partings, that are consequent (and which were always inevitably consequent) upon smoking bans everywhere and every day.

So I’d like to suggest tonight that the science is secondary. Antismoking ‘science’ is going to become as discredited as Nazi racial science once its full, awful consequences are recognised. And once it has been thus discredited, the way will be open to rediscover the true causes of disease (Carol’s viruses), and the value of smoking (Nightlight’s Smoking Is Good For You).

And so I suggest that we need to be making visible the enormous (and currently invisible) crime of Tobacco Control against hundreds of millions of people. Everything else will follow from that.

About Frank Davis

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

32 Responses to Make the Invisible Crime Visible

  1. junican says:

    Well said Frank! A perfect summary of local persecution leading to general conflagration. How many times, in history, has that happened? As we have seen, the Tobacco Control Template is now being extended to multiple other claims that THE PEOPLE are not much better than vermin – control or eradicate – especially smokers.
    The iniquities of The Tobacco Control Industry are becoming more and more manifest.
    Over at the BSC:
    I have been analysing the claim that “Tobacco kills half its users”. “50% or PETS (People who Enjoy Tobacco) are killed by their addiction”. What rubbish! Doll’s Doctors Study shows that 84% of non-smokers are killed by ‘tobacco related diseases’, which is almost exactly the same as smokers (85%). As many non-smokers are killed by ‘tobacco related diseases’ as are smokers. How important is the time delay? How important to smokers is it to postpone death from 80 to 90? Or from 50 to 60? Or from 10 to 15 (since there are occasional instances of children who develop lung cancer)?
    The Tobacco Control Industry fell into the hands of charlatans decades ago, about the time when it engaged the services of advertising consultants to promote its agenda. The WHO, the EU and the UN, are hopelessly corrupt and have been for decades. It is because of the FCTC and ‘Global Warming’ and the ‘Tobacco Directives’ that we have become aware of it. It is NOT POSSIBLE for our elected representatives not to be aware of those facts.
    Our political system stinks.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Its a clear vision that these people believe people are cattle and they own us!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      As many non-smokers are killed by ‘tobacco related diseases’ as are smokers

      Its simple they took Old Age diseases and renamed them tobacco related! The above would prove that point!

  2. Ingrid says:

    Not entirely on topic, but too good a story not to share:

    `Morgenbesser was leaving a subway station in New York City and put his pipe in his mouth as he was ascending the steps. A police officer told him that there was no smoking on the subway. Morgenbesser pointed out that he was leaving the subway, not entering it, and hadn’t lit up yet anyway. The cop again said that smoking was not allowed in the subway, and Morgenbesser repeated his comment. The cop said, “If I let you do it, I’d have to let everyone do it.” Morgenbesser replied, “Who do you think you are, Kant?” Due to his accent, the word “Kant” was mistaken for a vulgar epithet and Morgenbesser was hauled off to the police station. He won his freedom only after a colleague showed up and explained the Categorical Imperative to the unamused cops.`

  3. I agree that the crimes of TC need to be exposed. I disagree that the Nazis went away. Some went to the States as scientists; some went to South America; some continued to work for the German military-industrial complex, etc. But worst of all, some remained in politics in one way or another and promoted ‘soft’ eugenics.

    In fact, I would say that our society is increasingly based on eugenics and Nazi ideology. It’s what comes with increased rejection of faith and total immersion in evolution theory.

    Marie Stopes has many ‘clinics’ named after her. Part of the ‘soft’ eugenics: a contraception and abortion ‘provider’, but she was far from soft (other than in the head).

    She doted on Hitler and sent him adoring poetry. She called for various groups to be sterilised, including drunkards and simply those of bad character. She concentrated her ‘clinics’ in poor areas to reduce the birthrate of what she considered the underclass. She was so consumed by the idea of a genetically superior ‘race’ that she cut out her son from her will because he married a short-sighted woman (the daughter of inventor, Barnes ‘Bouncing Bomb’ Wallis).

    As a result of people like her, over six million unborn babies have been ‘legally’ killed in the UK. Since Roe vs Wade over 50 million in the USA, with a much higher proportion of blacks killed. Abortionists kill more blacks every three days than the KKK has in its history. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, wanted to sterilise/abort the blacks into extinction. Eugenics is still very racist.

    And like the Nazis, modern eugenicists are against the disabled. In the UK, unborn babies suspected of disability can be aborted/murdered right up to the time of birth. So much for ‘equality’.

    But eugenics is an evolution-based sickness. Scripture teaches that all ‘races’ come from Adam and Eve (and more recently Noah, his wife and three sons and daughters-in-law). Some eugenicists believe that, for example, blacks are less evolved than whites. It’s the reason there are Australian Aborigines in museums, shot for being considered ‘missing links’.

    Today, the eugenicists are working on the old and sick, encouraging suicide aka euthanasia/assisted dying.

    All this has led to the diminishing of the value of life, so old people are neglected by their families and dumped in ‘care’ homes where they sometimes suffer neglect too, as they do in hospitals.

    It’s probably why the smoking bans have worked. Antismokers see smokers as less-than-human, so dehumanisation, vilification, criminalisation, restricted health care, etc., is ‘justified’. The survival of the fittest meme means that humanity has to be lean and mean, so how you live becomes another area of government interference.

    As nearly every ‘scientist’/’expert’ – if not every single ‘scientist’/’expert’ – who determines government policy is an evolutionist, it stands to reason that they will promote ‘survival of the fittest’ eugenics. They will promote it in schools. When atheists call for religion to be banned from schools, they mean Christianity. Schools are full of religion: evolution theory.

    They teach children that we evolved from pond slime and are not responsible for our actions to a higher authority rather than sound moral values – and we wonder why they often act accordingly?

    Michael Ruse, leading anti-Creationist, professor of philosophy and zoology and whose flawed ‘evidence’ against Creationism fooled the judge in the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2 wrote,

    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

    “… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”

    Except one religion promotes love, forgiveness, care of the poor and weak and the other, the opposite.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I disagree that the Nazis went away.

      And I disagree too. Because I didn’t actually say that. Quite clearly Nazi-type eugenic thinking continued in the USA and Britain, completely unaffected, and renamed ‘public health’

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Eugenics: the California connection to Nazi policies

        Eugenics: the California connection to Nazi policies_SF Chronicle

        Mon, 10 Nov 2003

        On Sunday, Nov 9, the San Francisco Chronicle published an extraordinary, most informative article by Edwin Black, that sheds light on the role played by the American eugenics movement in the Nazi extermination policy. Eugenics is a pseudoscience whose purported aim is to “improve” the human race, while eliminating that portion of the race that eugenicists deem “undesirable.” The article is adapted from Black’s recently released book, “War Against the Weak,” published by Four Walls Eight Windows.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Your right Frank that’s exactly what did happen!

          Quite clearly Nazi-type eugenic thinking continued in the USA and Britain, completely unaffected, and renamed ‘public health’

    • Edgar says:

      “But eugenics is an evolution-based sickness.” Hysterical!

      • I can’t remember the exact quote, but a famous evolutionist admits that after the Theory of Evolution gained in popularity, the rise of ‘racism’ rose exponentially.

  4. margo says:

    I’m open to the idea that viruses cause more illness than has been acknowledged, but I do wish you would all look at ENENews on Fukushima: mutated plants and butterflies, dead fish, and human illness that is being reported by ordinary people but suppressed and hidden by the authorities. I believe our ‘background radiation’ has just about doubled since the 1960s (I did read that but haven’t noted the site), and that huge damage caused globally by the nuclear industry is being constantly denied and lied about and hidden. One day, the truth of this will come out, and the stupidity of blaming tobacco will be clear. But by then it’ll be too late.

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    Bravo! Frank……………….

    And so isn’t it more likely that the end will come for Tobacco Control when the scale of their crimes becomes apparent, at which point all the antismoking ‘science’ of the past 60 years will go the same way as Nazi racial ‘science’ – consigned to oblivion overnight, and for the exact same reason? That it was used to justify a terrible crime.
    The one surest reality is that science and medicine have been reduced to BLACK MAGIC/Midevil Quackery!

    They’ve given up on demanding proof because they cant prove anything and they know they cant!

    Tobacco Control is like a religion, it requires propaganda/Preaching and a Bible/Junk Science plus the main requirement a BELIEF SYSTEM to make it work!

    Any variable that’s destroyed ends the ball game.

    Today statistics is there Bible its what feeds they’re Hate campaign. Hell, Statistics has always been their Bible. It feeds the agenda and any agenda and no proof is ever required just twisting a few equations and algorithms and voila instant Psuedo-science.

    It will take a new belief system to get back to factually based science not to say that’s not out there as it is in many places.

    But the Courts and the Law must quit rubber stamping zealots claims with no proof and pushing the agenda of madmen. It had to be the same way back in the early 1900s its the only way it could happen. It means theres no justice in any court anywhere when junk science can convict.

    We have to get back to demanding PROOF! Toss epidemiology into the shit can of history its use and abuse has destroyed!

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Indy smoking ban is unconstitutional

    For the past three years, the Indy Tavern League has challenged the Indianapolis smoking ban on behalf of Indianapolis bar and tavern owners, employees and customers. The ban removed business owners’ option of operating as a smoking over-21 establishment, or a nonsmoking under-21-allowed establishment. The smoking ban mandated that every privately owned bar, tavern and restaurant operate as nonsmoking and forced smoking customers to either go outside the establishment or go to establishments outside Indianapolis’ boundaries to smoke. However, the ban does make exceptions for the off -track betting parlor, cigar bars, hookah bars and private clubs. They may all still decide if they want to allow smoking.

    In February, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that a similar smoking ban in Evansville was unconstitutional because it made an exception that allowed the local casino to remain smoking while prohibiting all private bars and taverns from smoking. The reason the Evansville smoking ban was deemed unconstitutional was because it did not treat all Indiana citizens the same; instead it set up different classes of Hoosiers.

    In March, the Indy Tavern League filed a motion in Marion County court asking that the Indianapolis smoking ban be rescinded on the same grounds, pointing out that it allowed almost identical exceptions. In fact, it is public knowledge that the Indianapolis smoking ban would never have passed into law if it had not allowed these multiple exceptions.

    The Indianapolis smoking ban has been a financial hardship for many small businesses. It has protected smoking exclusivity for the exempted businesses while at the same time forcing Indy Tavern League customers to stand in the cold, snow and rain to participate in the legal act of smoking. This city ordinance is a bad law that has been ruled unconstitutional by the state and should be acknowledged as such by the city.

    Brad Klopfenstein

    Director, Indy Tavern League


  7. carol2000 says:

    “Nightlight thinks that people need to discover that Smoking Is Good For You. Carol thinks that people need to learn that most of the diseases blamed on smoking have viral causes…”

    That’s just a superficial look. However, when you look more closely, Nightlight accepts the anti-smokers’ scientific fraud of poorly documenting the role of infection (or ignoring it altogether), and thus accepts their claim that there’s an association with smoking that can’t be accounted for by infection, on the grounds that adjusting or stratifying by SES doesn’t eliminate it. But I say that those adjustments don’t work and can’t work because SES itself is not causal, and with the odds ratios from infections, confounding occurs when cases are missed. This is proven mathematically and confirmed with real data. And, Nightlight thinks this only applies to HPV, but it applies just as much to a multitude of infections/diseases that he doesn’t know about. So, Nightlight offers an “explanation” that’s completely unnecessary, and based on weak evidence (mouse models). And his “nicotine is anti-inflammatory” claim is a double-edged sword, because the anti-smokers can use it just as well to claim that nicotine impairs immunity. So it’s a poor explanation, and one that condones anti-smoker fraud; and it’s completely unnecessary in the first place.

  8. carol2000 says:

    You’ve fallen for the official lie that the only thing the Nazis did wrong was to persecute the Jews, etc., and that their “racial science” has vanished. Hogwash. The Nazis invented those studies based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infections. Those kind of studies will reliably find that poorer people have more diseases and die younger, which the Nazis misinterpreted as proof of racial inferiority. The racial interpretation is the only part that’s been banished. But the pseudo-science itself was enthusiastically embraced by the anti-smokers and health fascists and used exactly as the Nazis did, to persecute smokers and hype “healthy lifestyles.” That’s why it has never been “refuted as science in learned journals.” The Nazis could try to hide behind the excuse of ignorance, because nobody then knew about the role of infections. But today’s health fascists CANNOT, because these things are now known! And they WANT us to believe that the pseudo-science of the Nazis was “advanced” and “sophisticated” (e.g., Procter and his ilk)!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      So in essence todays Nazis use the same junk science as the real Nazis only the racial part is not included in todays movement. I d agree that’s exactly what has occurred………

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Smokers ‘hammered’ with punitive legislation, TD claims

    Finian McGrath says those with nicotine habit are hit unfairly compared to those with other addictions

    Smokers are the people who are always “hammered” with punitive legislation, compared to those with other addictions, Independent TD Finian McGrath has claimed.

    He said there was a “cozy consensus” in the Dáil and Seanad about smoking although he acknowledged “it’s not good for your health. But neither is excessive eating or binge drinking. But it always seems to be the smokers who get hammered even though we contribute €1.2 billion in taxes to the State each year… now that’s a lot of money to run a lot of services.”

    Mr McGrath said he was addicted to smoking. “I do try to give them up every day but bullying, marginalising or hectoring will never work with me.”

    He described as “disgraceful” the treatment of people using electronic cigarettes, who were trying to get off an addiction. He said there was a ban on them on buses and “even in the Dáil there’s been an attempt to stop members using an e-cigarette in the private members’ or the public bar”.

    He was speaking during the debate on the Public Health (Standard Packaging of Tobacco) Bill, which has already passed in the Seanad. The legislation will change tobacco product packaging to display graphic pictures of diseases causing smoking as well as warnings such as “smoking kills”.

    Mr McGrath asked the Minister: “Will this Bill make me or 25 per cent of the population, smoke less or give them up,” and said it would have little effect.

    He also warned of the cost to the State if it lost litigation, expected from the tobacco manufacturing industry once the legislation is enacted.

    Fine Gael TD Olivia Mitchell said she also had a problem with the standardised packaging. “I have a real problem in seeing how changing packaging is going to affect numbers smoking,” said the Dublin South TD, a former heavy smoker.

    She said “we’re talking about a package that already has a death threat on it”. She believed packaging would have no influence on smokers, adding that advertising works and “few are more skilled at advertising than smoking manufacturers and wholesalers”.

    Ms Mitchell said every smoker knew their habit kills but nothing would deter an addicted smoker. They would smoke a cigarette if it came wrapped in a dirty cloth “and come to love that cloth”.

    This was what addiction meant and was the reason why heroin addicts used dirty needles.

    The Fine Gael backbencher said however that she supported Minister for Health James Reilly’s efforts to stamp out smoking and said the focus had to be particularly on young girls, who smoke for weightloss reasons.

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Down on your luck,without any Hope,feeling depressed

    Call the I give a fuck hotline

    Where professional scammers will listen to your rants with a real sentiment of ”WE CARE ABOUT YOU”.

    For only 2.99 a Minute we provide the best Fake I care moment you will ever enjoy!

    For all those other fake phone banks like the Nations QUIT HOTLINES the ACS runs at taxpayer expense we let you pay for it! Oh you already do via high taxation on your already depleted emotional soul,we understand!

    So we offer coupons at your local depression center that will bring your online charges down to 1.99 a minute.

    Hurry are best bullshitters are available now at the touch of a finger…………..

    Call 1-900-328-7448 that’s 1-900-EAT-SHIT

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Via Iro on facebook

    Maybe the Australian government is finally realizing that the type of monkey science that some scientists are practicing has got to stop. I certainly hope more governments follow their example and invest the tax payers’ money in real scientific research that is bound to benefit more than just the researchers and their political agendas.

    Australian budget hits science jobs

    Research-agency staff protest over slashed spending and concerns about country’s future research capability.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Joining together in vociferous chants of defiance, nearly a thousand scientists at Australia’s premier science agency protested across the country last week as it began to shed jobs in response to deep funding cuts.

      The measures, announced in May’s budget, include a 16% cut in funds — a reduction of Aus$115 million (US$108 million) — for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) over the next four years. The budget, which is pending passage by the Australian Senate, also includes closures and slashed funds at other scientific organizations. The move is one in a series of steps enacted by the new government, elected last September, that have heavily targeted climate and environmental science.

      The CSIRO must now decide where the budget cuts will fall. But heads of divisions — from radio science to agriculture and health — are struggling to make the required cuts while safeguarding core priorities. The first of its employees to go are 28 researchers and 3 support staff at the organization’s Marine and Atmospheric Research division in Hobart and Aspendale.

      The losses underscore concerns in the scientific community that the government does not support environmental and climate science. Michael Borgas, an air-quality scientist and acting secretary for the CSIRO’s staff association, says that one budget measure specifically targets climate science. It includes an Aus$20-million cut, about 69%, to the Australian Climate Change Science Program, of which the CSIRO was a major beneficiary. “Since the budget, there’s been real fear for the future of our world-class climate, marine and atmospheric research,” says Borgas. “Unfortunately, those fears appear to be justified.”

      Overall, 420 of the CSIRO’s 5,500 workers could lose their jobs by June 2015, according to a memo sent to staff on 14 May — the day after the budget announcement — by agency chief Megan Clark. This comes on top of 300 jobs already cut last year. By the end of the four-year process, the agency could have 1,000 fewer staff than it had in 2013, and roughly 70% of those losses would be science positions.

      Research at two of the four radio observatories run by the CSIRO will be hit. Lewis Ball, head of the CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science programme, confirms that the Mopra radio telescope, 450 kilometres northwest of Sydney, will close unless alternative funding can be found. “I still do not have a confirmed budget for 2014–15, but the tea leaves aren’t looking at all positive,” he says.

      • harleyrider1978 says:


        The losses underscore concerns in the scientific community that the government does not support environmental and climate science.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          They cut off ASH Australia last year too………..Looks like Abbott and company are gutting the Nazis too I d assume in a back door manner.

      • nisakiman says:

        Bwaahahahahaha! My heart bleeds!

    • beobrigitte says:

      Research-agency staff protest over slashed spending and concerns about country’s future research capability.

      My sympathy for them has it’s limits. I did not hear about them protesting when lobby groups’ agenda decided the outcome of their research work prior to starting it!

      In order to resuscitate the credibility of scientific research we need to cull the currently existing one.

      Transparency is the key. (?)

      Now, if you go through the list you will find:
      Smoking and Health

      listed separately.

      add to this the funds for the so called ‘smoking related diseases’ and apply basic maths.

      Losing faith these day is easy.

  12. waltc says:


    I think eugenics did go away for a few decades, as did Nazism itself, though both only went underground and then popped their heads back up in a resurgence. Then, too, things always come back in a slightly altered form. We went from a period of “If it feels good, do it” to today’s “If If feels good, don’t.” We changed which groups were considered “defective” and which habits had to be eliminated. But for a while, the whole concept was so tarred by nazism as well as by maoism, it did disappear or dared not speak its name.

    Courts will always rubber stamp what a legislature does no matter how irrational because they judge almost all cases under the rules of Rational Basis scrutiny,. I wish you litigious types would look it up. Rational Basis doesn’t mean that the premise of the law is rational or has been proven to be true, let alone even sound. It simply means that if a sane (rational) person could believe the premise (and in the case of SHS, such belief is based on Surgeon General’s and EPA’s and CDC’s etc say-so), that’s sufficient unto the day and it’s the duty of the court to back up the legislature.

  13. Jeff says:

    “And if it’s dead, it’s not because it was ever refuted as science in learned journals, but because it led to the murder of millions of people.”
    Sorry to disagree with you, Frank. But if racial science is dead, it is because the Nazis were defeated on the battlefield, not because people were horrified by their crimes. People have come to be horrified in the decades that followed the end of WWII. Had the Nazis won the war, the number of their victims would be minimized and you would never hear about their crimes. Instead you would have endless propaganda about the great victories and scientific progress of that era. And so, I’m afraid Tobacco Control’s crimes will never be recognized as long as a great army is not assembled to defeat them on the battlefield.

    • Edgar says:

      There is a fallacy here. It is the assumption that A’s defeat by B, using method C, necessarily implies that method C must be employed to defeat D.

  14. Jeff says:

    If it is a fallacy, your answer is even more misleading. What you call ‘method C’ is used as a rhetorical device and does not imply that a real war should be waged against ‘D’. What I mean is that relying on people’s sense of morality is naive and can only lead to disappointment, because the vast majority of people only think according to information provided by authorities. And as long as ‘D’ controls the authorities, there is no hope of gaining popular support.

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.