Reject Globalism

I’m not a believer in any New World Order, because I can’t see it anywhere. It doesn’t seem to have a head office. Or a managing director. Or a manifesto.

But maybe the best evidence for it lies right in front of my eyes, in the smoking bans I keep banging on about. Ten or twenty years ago there were no smoking bans anywhere in the world. And now they’re everywhere. And they’ve all happened at pretty much the exact same time, everywhere in the world. Isn’t that pretty good evidence for the existence of a New World Order, that such a thing could happen, all over the world, at the same time?

It’s no accident that it has happened. It’s a consequence of about 160 countries signing up to the UN/WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) treaty, and then implementing what they’d all agreed to do: ban smoking.

The same sort of thing has been happening with another hobby horse of mine: Global Warming. This is, as its name implies, another global project. It also has its own UN body, the International Panel on Climate Change. The aim here is in some ways an extension on the global smoking ban: they want to ban carbon dioxide. So everyone is supposed to be reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal and gas and oil, and replacing these energy sources with windmills and solar panels. But they don’t seem to have yet managed to get a Kyoto or Copenhagen treaty as binding as the FTTC.

It’s all done with treaties. The EU is another product of a whole series of treaties, starting with the Treaty of Rome, and running all the way through to the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty. A whole bunch of governments meet up and sign treaties that provide open borders, single currencies, European laws, European parliaments, etc, etc. – and then they go home and put into practice what they’ve agreed.

With the single flourish of a pen, ancient rights and customs and laws are all signed away.

And so if there is a New World Order, it seems to consist in a web of binding treaties. To ban smoking. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions. To centralise political power. All using top-down control.

And it’s all put together behind closed doors, in consultations between governments. I’d never heard of the FCTC, which Britain signed up to in 2004, until I met its consequences in the form of the UK public smoking ban of 2007. I still have no idea who signed on behalf of Britain.

Apart from banning smoking everywhere, the globalist project is also dispensing with borders, and with nation states, and with national currencies. We are all to become world citizens, able to go anywhere and live anywhere and work anywhere.

And that’s why millions of migrants and refugees are being invited into Europe. For in the globalist view, they have as much right to live there as the people already living there.

EUROPEAN UNION bosses yesterday said they were near allowing Turkey’s 79 million population to be handed visa-free travel across the Continent.

And anyone who refuses them faces severe punishment:

EU BORDER THREAT: Brussels to fine countries €250,000 for EVERY REFUGEE refused entry

BRUSSELS is set to slap EU states with eye-watering fines of €250,000 for every refugee they refuse – twisting states’ arms into accepting controversial migrant quotas.

There is of course an inevitable growing nationalist reaction to all this globalisation. And a growing rejection of the globalist political classes ensconced in Washington and Westminster and all the capitals of Europe.

In Britain it’s found in Nigel Farage’s UKIP, in France Marine Le Pen’s Front National, in Italy 5 Star, and in Germany AfD and Pegida. And now in the USA it’s personified in one single individual – Donald Trump -, who wants to build a wall to keep out illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico, and who rejects globalism and global warming and political correctness (although not yet, it seems, smoking bans).

The War on Smoking is a globalist project, and it’s being implemented by the same globalist politicians (Blair, Brown, Cameron) who signed up to the relevant treaties. And it will only end when these globalists are ousted and replaced by nationalists or patriots in every treaty signatory country, and the treaties are revoked.

If you want to be able to sit in a pub and drink a pint of beer and smoke a cigarette, you must reject globalism and all its global projects. Every single last one of them.

Escape from hell:


About the archivist

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

8 Responses to Reject Globalism

  1. harleyrider1978 says:
  2. harleyrider1978 says:


    Bans on smoking, blocking sidewalks in downtown Ashland effective in June

    If you receive a ticket for smoking downtown, the fine is set at $135.


  3. jaxthefirst says:

    I absolutely agree with all you say in this article, Frank. I think that in many ways smoking has been the sort of “toe in the water” experiment for many of these huge global organisations, to see how far they can push things, starting from a position where it might reasonably have been thought they couldn’t push things very far at all. In this sense I agree with many commenters from on here and elsewhere who have often said that in many ways smokers were just unlucky – the short straw could just have easily have been drawn first by drinkers, or caffeine lovers, or overweight people. Those people are, of course, now coming dangerously close to the crosshairs, but only because the way forward has been charted and mapped by the anti-smoking movement who went before them, hence the almost word-for-word copycat tactics now being applied to those other groups.

    At the start of the anti-smoking movement, the vast majority of adults were regular smokers, which may well have been precisely why they chose smoking and not some other, less popular, activity, which could have been easily quashed without hardly anyone noticing. They wanted to take on something big, because their ambitions were for even bigger things (like democracy, and freedom, and basic human rights, all of which are now being quietly eroded). They wanted to prove that they could do it so that they could pave the way for bigger and better things. I think that’s one of the reasons why, now they’ve got their blessed bans in place everywhere (or virtually everywhere) and they’ve made smokers a minority, rather than a majority, group, a lot of the interest and impetus in anti-smoking measures has faded away. Of course, you’ll always get the likes of ASH bleating on endlessly, because they still think that they are big players in a global movement, but the fact is that the real powers that be have moved on to other things and aren’t really interested in anti-smoking any more. The main purpose of anti-smoking these days seems to be to drum up a bit of airtime when there isn’t very much else going on – or when there’s something going on that they don’t want to talk about (like TTIP) – because they know it’s a good distraction and is always good for a bit of argument on radio phone-ins etc.

    It’s one of the reasons why I feel that the smoking bans and the whole anti-smoking movement is such an important thing for everyone – smokers and non-smokers alike – to stand up to (not that many people are doing so). Not out of affection or loyalty from non-smokers towards smokers because, as we know, non-smokers by and large don’t give much of a damn about smokers, but for their own sakes because, as sure as night follow day, having got away with doing what they’ve done to smokers, they will move on to other things (as they are doing), and those things won’t just be more isolated “health-related” topics such as obesity or alcohol – which, again, won’t affect everyone – they’ll be the really big, really important things that do affect everyone. Things that all right-thinking people should be concerned about. Anti-smoking really was just the start. What a shame the world has such a large proportion of small-horizoned, small-thinking people who, even now, can’t see it.

  4. Lecroix says:

    Reblogged this on Contra la ley "antitabaco".

  5. Yvonne says:

    I had a high school teacher over 40 years ago and she told us that one day all people in the world would be coffee coloured. As I grew up I realised her take on politics.
    I wonder now whether mass movement of people is just to speed up the process ironing out individual racial characteristics.

  6. Tony says:

    Just thought I’d add this for info:

    There is also a ‘United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)’ treaty.

    It was drawn up in 1992 and came into force in 1994. I’ve no idea whether or not anyone ratified it on behalf of the British people. But it does not appear to set any real binding commitments.

  7. smokingscot says:

    Just on the off chance you happened to miss this. UKIP has managed to get 7 people elected to the Welsh Assembly. They tanked in Scotland and Northern Ireland, though in Scotland that was entirely self inflicted.—results-in-full-map-and-find-out-who-won-in/

    There are 60 Assembly Members in Wales, so UKIP makes up a tad over 10%.

  8. Clicky says:

No need to log in

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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