One of the things that bothers me about Tobacco Control, apart from their holier-than-thou self-image, is their complete indifference to what happens to smokers. They’re just not interested.

If I worked in Tobacco Control, I’m sure that I’d be very interested in smokers, given that my work would be directed at them, and (supposedly) intended to help them. I’d want to know what they thought about what was being done on their behalf.

Not Tobacco Control. They’re only interested in their own opinions. Any dissenting opinion is disregarded, or seen as a threat.

How strange!

But today I came across a story that seemed relevant to the puzzle. There was an horrific gang rape in India a year or two back, which resulted in the death of the victim. The rapists were all caught, and sentenced to death. But one of them was interviewed in prison by a woman film maker:

In 16 hours of interviews, Singh showed no remorse and kept expressing bewilderment that such a fuss was being made about this rape, when everyone was at it.

“A decent girl won’t roam around at nine o’clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy,” he said.

“Housework and housekeeping is for girls, not roaming in discos and bars at night doing wrong things, wearing wrong clothes. About 20% of girls are good.”

People “had a right to teach them a lesson” he suggested – and he said the woman should have put up with it.

“When being raped, she shouldn’t fight back. She should just be silent and allow the rape. Then they’d have dropped her off after ‘doing her’, and only hit the boy,” he said.

Chillingly, he went on: “The death penalty will make things even more dangerous for girls. Now when they rape, they won’t leave the girl like we did. They will kill her. Before, they would rape and say, ‘Leave her, she won’t tell anyone.’ Now when they rape, especially the criminal types, they will just kill the girl. Death.”

I had the long and shocking list of injuries the young woman had sustained, read out to him. I tried, really hard, to search for a glimmer of regret. There was none.

It struck me immediately that the attitude of this rapist to his victim was very like the attitude of Tobacco Control to smokers.

Firstly, the rapist has the same holier-than-thou moral superiority. The victims are condemned for not being “good girls” who stay home doing housework. The rapist is the judge of this, not them. They were “doing wrong things” and “wearing wrong clothes”. And so people “had a right to teach them a lesson”. And, while being taught a lesson, they should just “put up with it”, and not fight back. The rapist is both the teacher and enforcer of morality. He gives aberrant girls the education they deserve, and he has nothing to regret.

Tobacco Control takes the same holier-than-thou attitude to smokers. Smokers aren’t “good” people who deserve respect. They’re “doing wrong things” by smoking cigarettes. And people have “a right to teach them a lesson”. And the Tobacco Controllers have no regrets about what they do to them.

Of course, smokers aren’t being raped by Tobacco Control. But if rape is humiliating and degrading, smokers are also being humiliated and degraded, and treated with complete contempt. They are “exiled to the outdoors”, and expelled from society. They are reviled and humiliated, and they may lose their communities and their friends, or be fired from their jobs, or evicted from their homes, or even refused medical treatment.

And if most smokers don’t complain about their treatment, it’s because they respond the same way as many rape victims. They keep quiet, and tell no-one. They get on with their lives as if nothing had happened. They pretend everything’s all right. And they may even say that they deserved the treatment meted out to them, and that they knew they shouldn’t smoke. Because many of them share the values of their tormentors. And, above all of course, they don’t fight back.

The rapist had a primitive set of values and rules. There were “right things” and “wrong things”, and he handed out punitive “lessons” to transgressors of the rules. The rules were the rules that had been handed down since time immemorial, and they were written in stone. Women were to dress modestly, and stay at home doing housework. There was no deeper rationale underpinning these values and rules. They were the rules, and that was all that mattered. The rapist was incapable of any sort of moral reasoning. He could not, for example, see that the punishment he’d handed out – to be raped and beaten and murdered – was worse than the crime – of wearing a short skirt. And he could not see it because he had no rules for evaluating rules, or for making rules. He’d never been taught any. He’d just remembered the rules by rote. He didn’t know how the rules had come to be made.

The Tobacco Controllers have an equally primitive set of values and rules. There are “right behaviours” and “wrong behaviours”, and they hand out punitive “lessons” to transgressors of the rules. People shouldn’t smoke. It’s a rule that’s been handed down since time immemorial (since James I of England, no less). There’s no deeper rationale underpinning the No Smoking rule. It’s simply the rule: it is just so. The Tobacco Controllers are incapable of any sort of moral reasoning. They can’t see that the punishment they hand out – to be reviled, exiled, fired, or evicted – is worse than the crime – of smoking cigarettes. And they can’t see it because they have no rules for evaluating rules, or for reasoning why some rules are more important than other rules, and why some rules might even be bad rules. They’ve never been taught how to do it either.

And if nobody – including most people in government – go along with the simplistic (and monstrously destructive) moral certainties of Tobacco Control, it’s because politicians and ministers are equally incapable of moral reasoning.

At least in the case of rape, it is recognised as a crime. But what is being done to smokers all over the world by Tobacco Control is not seen as a crime. It’s instead seen as “education”. An education just like the rapist’s “education”.

Nisakiman made this fascinating video in Hanoi earlier this year:


About Frank Davis

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

39 Responses to Education

  1. The more “Idealist” wing of the Antis — people like Mike Siegel — care about the impact of things on smokers (even though they devalue that impact in comparison to their exaggerated concerns about ETS and their “end justifies the means” analysis of the benefits of many people not smoking in the future compared to the sufferings of the minority smoking group today).

    – MJM

  2. waltc says:

    Once you successfully dehumanize people, they simply become Things and then anything’s possible. How do you gas children? How do you behead unbelievers? No human empathy required.

    The video. Fascinating indeed. A Rorschach . Here’s what I get: Though the street appears to be a model of randomness, chaos, anarchy –no rules apply– it works! Hundreds of individuals, aware of each other yet making their own individual decisions based on their own goals, in the end create a perfect working harmony with everyone concerned getting what he wants and gettiing where he wants to go.

    Was that your and Nisakiman’s point or am I over-reading it like an idiot academic finding literary symbols in Three Blind Mice?

    • nisakiman says:

      I can’t speak for Frank, but yes, it was the way that this maelstrom, this completely anarchic situation flowed serenely and successfully that mesmerised me. As I remarked to Frank, if traffic lights were to be installed at that intersection, it would result in traffic jams for blocks around. Left to their own devices, the people make it work. Crossing the road there just involves launching yourself at a steady stroll off the kerb and letting the traffic flow round you. Jaywalking? Hah! It’s the only way to get to the other side! :)

      • prog says:

        Traffic lights (including at a pedestrian crossing) were temporarily switched off at a busy crossroads on Lincoln High St last year, for what appeared to be minor works. Normally there’s a 10 or so tail back in three directions, but the result was dramatic – no waiting, less frustration, presumably less pollution – just extra caution by both drivers and pedestrians. Probably knocked 5 minutes off getting through them.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Here’s what I get: Though the street appears to be a model of randomness, chaos, anarchy –no rules apply– it works! Hundreds of individuals, aware of each other yet making their own individual decisions based on their own goals, in the end create a perfect working harmony with everyone concerned getting what he wants and gettiing where he wants to go.

      That’s more or less what I got too. There’s a complete absence of top-down control in the form of traffic lights and policemen – but it works. In fact, it works better than it would have if there had been traffic lights, as Nisakiman says. Because the flow never stops.

      I don’t know what time of day it was taken, or whether there’s a rush hour in Hanoi, but I’d guess that if the traffic density had doubled, it would have all kept moving, only slower.

      But while there may be no formal rules on How To Get Around on Hanoi Streets, I think that there actually has to be a logic that governs what happens. Part of it must be that nobody is more important than anyone else, or has any priority over them. What happens with ambulances? Or senior politicians?

      It’s something I thought about a bit in an Idle Theory essay on the way people give way to each other on narrow roads and passages.

      • nisakiman says:

        It was taken around lunchtime. I didn’t notice any particular ‘rush-hour’ period; it seemed to stay pretty much the same all day.

        Part of it must be that nobody is more important than anyone else, or has any priority over them.

        There is indeed a general attitude of deference to all other road users, from everybody. Nobody gets pissed off if they have to brake to avoid someone coming from another direction – they just take it in their stride. It’s the norm. Even at smaller, basic crossroads, everyone just sails into the intersection, blithely anticipating that everyone else’s avoidance techniques are up to scratch.

        I didn’t see any emergency vehicles or VIPs with outriders, so I have no idea what happens. I’d imagine that the traffic would just part like the biblical Red Sea, and regroup behind.

  3. Lepercolonist says:

    Beautifully written, Frank. These antismokers are not laying a guilt trip on me. I will not succumb to their little moral lectures on good behavior. Let’s not take this ‘education’ without a fight.

  4. Zaphod says:

    That video is remarkable! I was expecting a crash, of course.
    But it just works.
    Without “Control”.
    Why should that surprise me?
    Because I too have become conditioned to expect that Control is needed.
    Thanks for that reminder! :-)

  5. roobeedoo2 says:

    Today’s Times cartoon is a play on the meaning of words, and has an educational setting:

    A silly thought, but I wonder if there is a correlation between the normalisation of homsexuality in society, with the denormalisation of smoking fags.

    • Rose says:

      This one came in last night and made me laugh.

      Anti-drugs lessons are counter-productive, Government’s drug experts tell Theresa May

      “The advice – from the Government’s own experts – means the very foundations of anti-drugs teaching for generations could be pointless at best and actively harming children by encouraging drug use at worst.”

      I am amazed that it took them so long.

      It certainly worked on the upper sixth, dear innocent souls no one knew a thing until the shock horror drugs lecture.
      In those days, having been taught to think critically and to take nothing at face value,and as everyone knows you can’t have a valid opinion on a subject you have no knowledge of, we soon developed some experts whose opinion we could trust.

      I suppose that’s why I still have a certain contempt for neversmokers endlessly pontificating on smoking.

      • Rose says:

        Two favourites.

        “inhaling burning particles of organic matter and hot toxic gases deep into the lungs.

        A moments thought would show that that couldn’t possibly be true.

        The inventor of the nicotine patch.
        “Murray was always asking, ‘Why do people smoke?'” said Richard Olmstead, a UCLA associate researcher in psychiatry and a friend and collaborator of Jarvik’s. “I would say that Murray’s greatest impact was advancing the proposition that nicotine was the key addictive component in tobacco.”

        “We put the tobacco on our skin and waited to see what would happen,” Jarvik recalled. “Our heart rates increased, adrenaline began pumping, all the things that happen to smokers.”

        No, that’s the symptoms of Green Tobacco Sickness, being a neversmoker he couldn’t tell the difference.

      • roobeedoo2 says:

        Hmm, that suggestion to move drug policy from the Home Office to Health, reminds me of another one earlier this week when Ed Davey announced at the ‘Ecobuild’ conference, a scheme for GPs to “prescribe boilders”:

  6. nisakiman says:

    Quite off topic, but I just came across an article about a cinema in Wales that had found three packets of old, but well preserved ciggies behind the seat.

    For some inexplicable reason, half way down the article was a poll banner asking “DO YOU SMOKE” Yes / No. To my surprise (I have no idea how many respondents there have been) the result is:

    Yes: 37%
    No: 67%

    That’s considerably at variation with the 19% we are assured are the hardcore rump of remaining people who still refuse to do what they are told.

    • nisakiman says:

      That should have been 33% / 67%. Unless of course we are dealing with 104% as the total. :~I

      • Bandit 1 says:

        50-50 now…

        It probably won’t get through but I wrote the following comment:

        Neurrrghh! How could you be so irresponsible as to show a COLOUR PHOTOGRAPH of CIGARETTES (the most deadly substance in the known universe)? And in their (80-year-old) GLITZY PACKAGING no less??? Have the display ban and ‘plain’ packaging crusades all been for nothing?? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

        If I contract something nasty thanks to fifth-hand smoke I’m suing.

        • Bandit 1 says:

          The comment seems to have gone up…

          I feel a bit bad for leaving what amounts to graffiti on an interesting and not-particularly-anti-smoking story but I couldn’t resist. I reason that distilling the antismoker mindset/MO via (slight) exaggeration – and thus replicating the entirely ugly and destructive ‘contributions’ antis have made and continue to make to society – might just prompt one or two people to reassess the propaganda.

  7. Rose says:

    They’ve got one!

    Prisoner wins landmark ruling to ban smoking in jail

    “Paul Black, who is held at HMP Wymott in Lancashire, says he suffers from a range of health problems made worse by second-hand smoke”

    “A prisoner has won a landmark ruling that the ban on smoking in public places applies to state prisons and all Crown premises.

    A High Court judge made the ruling despite fears that rigorously imposing the ban could lead to unrest in the jails of England and Wales.

    The judge rejected Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s argument that the 2006 Health Act, which makes smoking a criminal offence in enclosed public places and workplaces, does not “bind the Crown” and does not apply in state prisons.

    Mr Justice Singh, sitting in London, declared: “In my judgment it is clear from the terms of the 2006 Act…that the intention of Parliament was indeed that it should apply to all public places and workplaces which fell within its scope, including those for which the Crown is responsible.”

    Because of the wide-ranging importance of the case, the judge postponed his ruling taking effect to give the Justice Secretary time to appeal to the Court of Appeal.”

    ASH and Thompsons’ Tell Employers: Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned Over Secondhand Smoke – 2004

    “Because of the widespread publicity the scientific evidence on secondhand smoke has now received, it is our view that the date of “guilty knowledge” under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 has passed.”

    “We will shortly be announcing further moves to encourage employees whose health has been damaged because their bosses allowed smoking in the workplace to begin legal actions for compensation.”

    • Rose says:

      Unfortunately it’s not a particularly good one and they won’t have to prove passive smoking caused his illnesses in court.
      ASH would probably have preferred someone more respectable like a member of staff to help them expand the smoking ban to all prisons.

      “Black, a sex offender who has been at Wymott since 2009, says staff and prisoners are guilty of illicit lighting-up in areas where it is not allowed and not enough is being done to stop them.

      Smoking is permitted in the cells of state prisons with the doors shut, but not in communal areas. The Health Act already applies to private prisons as they are not Crown premises.

      Shaheen Rahman, representing Black, told the court at a hearing last month that he was frequently exposed to second-hand smoke in areas of the prison where smoking was prohibited, in particular on landings, laundry rooms and healthcare waiting rooms.

      He came to court arguing that prisoners are legally entitled to anonymous and confidential access to the NHS freephone smoke-free compliance line to report infringements of the rules.

      The line enables members of the public to seek enforcement of the Health Act ban.

      Confidentiality and anonymity was necessary to avoid reprisals from fellow prisoners who might feel the line was being used to “grass them up”, said Ms Rahman.”

      “Ukip deputy leader Paul Nuttall warned that placing restrictions on prisoners smoking “is going to cause unrest in many prisons”.

      Mr Nuttall said: “I’m no defender of prisoner rights, but since it is impractical to force prisoners to leave the premises whenever they need a cigarette, smoking in prisons may be something we need to allow.

      “This case was brought by one prisoner who felt his rights were being infringed by being exposed to passive smoking.

      “There’s a simple answer to that. If you don’t like prison conditions, don’t be a prolific criminal.

      “I don’t know what the judge has been smoking to come up with this decision, but it is clearly the wrong one.”

      • jaxthefirst says:

        This prisoner must be a very brave (or very foolhardy!) man to bring this case. I’m not entirely sure that I’d like to be in his shoes when Smoky McThug who’s doing a 10 year stretch for armed robbery and attempted murder hears that it’s Weedy McWhiner from cell number 3 who’s the one responsible for stopping him from lighting up. There’s no secrets “inside,” as they say …

  8. cherie79 says:

    I can just imagine the chaos this will cause if the ruling is upheld, first on psychiatric patients now prisoners. More stress for patients and very likely more trouble in prisons. Where will it end?

    • Rose says:

      Think of the cost of all that NRT.

      “He came to court arguing that prisoners are legally entitled to anonymous and confidential access to the NHS freephone smoke-free compliance line to report infringements of the rules.”

      • Since it was in her majesties prisons no ban existed in which to report,so he had no right to inform on anyone to begin with.

        • Rose last I recall they had to prove something caused a disease to begin with.

          Even the HSC admits it cant prove SHS causes a disease so they tell their folks stay away from confrontations over it in court.

          The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 “The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act”. The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related

  9. Rose says:


    Ukip: The First Hundred Days imagines Nigel Farage in power – and reveals a Britain in meltdown
    15 February Channel 4

    Meet the Ukippers, review: ‘riveting’
    Toxic fly-on-the-wall footage exposed Ukip’s shortcomings – BBC2 22 February 2015


    Storyville programme “The Great European Disaster Movie – BBC 4 March 1

    Last night Channel 5 showed their own anti-UKIP offering.

    Farage Fans and UKIP Lovers
    http: //

    I have just watched it in it’s entirety and I strongly suggest you spare yourselves.


    Farage Fans and UKIP Lovers: Watch the extraordinary rant by man who wants to HARVEST paedophiles for their organs

    The dominatrix who believes Nigel Farage has been sent from God to save us from a foreign invasion (and help us be open about ‘our needs to have our bottoms spanked’)

    I have no idea how they find these people.

    • Frank Davis says:

      They’re coming thick and fast, it seems. And the election is still two months away.

      • nisakiman says:

        They’re petrified that the status quo is going to be sundered. It’s been a nice cosy little hegemony for a couple of decades, but UKIP threatens to upset the apple cart by actually asking people what they want from government. Hence the hatchet jobs.

  10. garyk30 says:

    TC nannies are just jealous because smokers are less likely to die from the smoking ’caused’ diseases.

    Cancer Research, UK(CRUK) has data on their web site that proves that: compared to smokers, never-smokers are 70% more likely to die from a ‘smoking related’ disease.

    Published in 2004, the Summary of Doll’s Doctor Report showed that 84% of never-smokers’ deaths were from the diseases related to smoking.

    This what CRUK says:

    “The fact is that half of all long term smokers eventually die from cancer, or other smoking-related illnesses.”

    Half = 50%

    84% is 70% greater/higher than 50%.

    ” Compared to smokers, never-smokers are 70% more likely to die from a ‘smoking related’ disease.”

    • garyk30 says:

      WHO says the same thing.

      Leading cause of death, illness and impoverishment:
      ” Up to half of current users will eventually die of a tobacco-related disease.”

      • garyk30 says:

        American Cancer Society
        Did you know that, around the world
        Half of cigarette users will die because they smoke.

        Another way to say that is:
        A. Half of smokers’ deaths will be caused by their smoking.
        B. 50% of smokers’ deaths are caused by smoking and 50% of smokers deaths are not caused by smoking.

        If a smoker dies, there is only a 50% chance that death was caused by smoking and that would include lung cancer death! :)

    • Mike told me once half of smokers get cancer and half of non smokers do to. In fact the older you live the better the odds you will get a cancer………

      Lung and Bronchus. Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals by Age and Race and Ethnicity, United States (Table *†‡

      Rates are per 100,000 persons. Rates are per 100,000 persons.

      Note the age where LC is found…………..OLD AGE group incidence hits the 500/100,000 at age 75-85

      AGE it seems is the deciding factor……….… Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&Site=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInstanceID=1

      Now Carol showed us a study on HPV and CMV being causal to 93% of the above same cancers………Is HPV a silent virus that lurks for many decades before it strikes to cause a cancer………who knows.

      • garyk30 says:

        Lung Cancer is actually a very rare disease.
        There are about 320 million poeple in the USA and only 160,000 deaths per year.

        That is a rate of 1 death per 2,000 people That is 5/100ths of 1%.

        TC make a BIG fuss over splitting up the blame for that 5/100ths of 1% and willfully ignore the other 99.95% of the population that does not die from lung cancer each year.

        When we look at that huge majority of the people, we find that never-smokers are only 1.005 times more likely to not die than smokers.
        That is not a significant increase.

        TC may claim that smokers are 25 times more likely to die from lung cancer; but, smokers and never-smokers have the same chances of not dying from lung cancer and those that do not die out-number those that do die by 2000-1. :)

  11. Bandit 1 says:

    Absolutely agreed with your post (as always), Frank. You put things into words so well.

    The lack of ‘moral reasoning’ that seems to characterise so much and so many today saddens and terrifies me. It leads to despicable crimes such as gang rape; it leads to corruption and the abuse of power in all walks of life. And it creates the conditions for future horrors on a mass scale.

    In the specific case of Tobacco Control, like you I am sickened that they seek to possess the moral high ground when they are demonstrably amoral.

    They may not like the label ‘Nazis’ but it sure as hell fits.

    • Well a little history lesson is now needed I can see:

      Look who first invented the Passive smoking Fraud

      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.

      That’s fine company are so called public health depts. keep with ehh!

      History can shed so much lite on todays own movement it just amazes the mind………..

      Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.”

      Something along the lines of the Hitler Youf:
      Proctor (1997) continues that “throughout this period, magazines like Genussgifte (Poisons of taste or habit), Auf der Wacht (On Guard), and Reine Luft (Pure air) published a regular drumbeat against this ‘insidious poison’ [tobacco], along with articles charting the unhealthful effects of alcohol, teenage dancing, cocaine, and other vices. Dozens of books and pamphlets denounced the ‘smoking slavery’ or ‘cultural degeneration’ feared from the growth of tobacco use. Tobacco was branded ‘the enemy of world peace’, and there was even talk of ‘tobacco terror’ and ‘tobacco capitalism’ …. The Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls both published antismoking propaganda, and the Association for the Struggle against the Tobacco Danger organized counseling centers where the ‘tobacco ill’ could seek help” (p.456-457); “Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.” (www.zundelsite – January 27, 1998.htm)

      • The Nazi moniker not only fits,Reading Nazi anti-smoking laws and junk science tells us all they took hitlers playbook and just copied and pasted it to the rule book they call their bible…..

        The SmokeLess States Program
        Publisher: Jossey-Bass
        Publication: To Improve Health and Health Care

        Author(s): Gerlach KK, and Larkin MA
        Editor(s): Isaacs SL, and Knickman JR

        This chapter describes SmokeLess States®: National Tobacco Policy Initiative, one of the largest investments made by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, with $99 million authorized in grants since 1992. Primarily, grants were awarded to non-governmental organizations, with the intention that they would educate the public and policy-makers about the tobacco problem. Two features about the program are significant: (1) the Foundation encouraged its grantees to be activists; (2) advocacy was emphasized to bring about policy change. The program relied heavily on three major health voluntary organizations: the American Cancer Society; the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association. They provided financial support and, in particular, funds to help lobbying efforts which the Foundation could not support directly. In addition to insight on the effects of advocacy, this chapter offers a window into the role of coalitions in bringing about social change. The program ended in 2004 and its lasting impact has yet to be determined.

  12. Furor Teutonicus says:

    XX Smokers aren’t “good” people who deserve respect. They’re “doing wrong things” by smoking cigarettes. And people have “a right to teach them a lesson”. And the Tobacco Controllers have no regrets about what they do to them. XX

    Pitty these shitholes did not have the same attitude to others that “break the rules.” Like CRIMINALS, for instance. The same mind set, the same “gang” are also those that think John Howard is a hero.

    Point 2.

    The attitude is not confined to smokers, drinkers, or any other of their hate targets.

    It is an all pervading attitude regards ANYTHING that does not meet the “P.C” image these days.

    Take the demonstrations in Germany against islamification. You could go into Broadmoor and bet your ARSE, that if 25;000 Moslems were out every Monday protesting, the Dictatorship would be bending over fucking BACKWARDS to meet their “demands.”

    But, as we are “Only Germans” the so called GERMAN “Government” could not give a shit. In fact they go further, they commit crimes against the constitution (Defimation, “Volsverhetzung” (Inflaming the people against a group) and a few other offences, that would get you or I 10 years in pokey.

    But not only is that accepted by Joe shit on the street, it is actualy SUPPORTED!

    And not just in Germany, you can look at any Western country and see the same.

    THEN they ask themselves “How could Auschwitz ever have happened?!” The bastards need to look in the mirror once in a while.


    Who is most likely to change their erroneous positions concerning Jesus and His terms for pardon when confronted with the truth? Is it more likely that religious leaders or common followers of Jesus will repent of false beliefs when God’s truth is presented?

    The majority of those who followed Jesus were common everyday men. Most church leaders rejected Jesus and His terms for pardon.

    Luke 7:27-30 This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way before You! 28 I say to you , among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” 29 When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves not having been baptized by John. (NASB)

    It was the Pharisees and lawyers who rejected God’s purpose by not being immersed in water. Is it not the church leaders today who reject Christian baptism. They reject its purpose.

    1.Immersion in water is not for a testimony of faith.

    2.Water baptism is not simply an act of obedience.

    3.Baptism is not something men do after they are saved.

    4.Immersion in water is not in order to wash away the original sin of Adam.

    5. Baptism is not in order to join the denomination of your choice.


    1. In order to be saved. Mark 16:16 …and has been baptized shall be saved…(NASB)

    2. In order to have sins forgiven. Acts 2:38….and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…(NASB)

    3. So we can walk in a new life. Romans 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (NASB)[THERE IS NO NEW LIFE BEFORE BEING IMMERSED IN WATER]

    4. So men can be holy and blameless. Ephesians 5:25-27 …Christ also loved the church…26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word….27….that she would be holy and blameless.(NASB)

    Is it possible that men today reject God’s purpose for themselves by not being immersed in water according the New Covenant terms for pardon?

    Church leaders are usually the last people to admit they have been wrong and change their position when confronted with the truth. Even church leaders who know the truth are reluctant preach and teach the truth for fear of criticism or losing their position in the church.

    Very few who followed Jesus were Pharisees or scribes.

    Being immersed in water is the last act of a sinner, it is not the first act of a Christian.


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.