100 Years of War

Audrey Silk in NYC:

We must be getting close to an election.

When former NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn was sliding in the polls in the 2013 race for mayor due to supporter dismay at her softened stances on issues important to them she reached for a mob-pleasing shield: A new anti-smoker law. She ushered through a law that raised the sales age for cigarettes from 18 to 21. That she failed to win the election is beside the point.

Today, as the next election approaches, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has suddenly lifted aloft the same shield. Out of darkness come ten proposals assaulting smokers.

I say out of darkness because he’s already had four years in office with barely an anti-smoker peep. That was Bloomberg’s signature and it’s no secret that de Blasio didn’t like him or want to be seen in his shadow.

In what way do people win elections by launching assaults on minorities? Why does it ‘please the mob’ to see vindictive laws enacted against minorities? Why should I vote for A because he attacks B? What good does it do me if A attacks B?

Perhaps these minorities are really just punchbags on which to vent spleen? Why such spleen? Maybe it’s the spleen that was born of losing the presidential election last November. Democrats still haven’t got over that. They feel cheated. By Comey. By the Russians. By whoever. Smokers are a convenient target of pent-up rage. Like battered wives. If it wasn’t going to be smokers, it would just be someone else.

Maybe it was the same back in inter-war Germany. Germans were enraged by the harsh terms of the Versailles treaty, and by the state of their country in the aftermath of WW1, and were looking for scapegoats. The Jews were the most convenient targets.

It’s perhaps something that always happens when there are deep animosities. And somehow or other Democrats seem to bear the deepest grudges. They hold grudges against more or less everything. The scapegoat, whoever it is, is a lightning conductor on which to discharge the pent-up, generalised, undirected animosity.

But all this animosity directed at smokers is only going to come back at them one day. Because smokers are gradually being filled with their own animosity towards all the hate-filled, vindictive people who are persecuting them.

I like to think that the current global war on the world’s 1.5 billion smokers will will just run out of steam one day. But that may well be wishful thinking. For it’s also possible that it will just go on and on, and smokers will get angrier and angrier, and it will all explode one day. And it will become a 100 year shooting war of smokers against antismokers. Because that’s what’s slowly coming down the track.

Perhaps that’s how wars start. Perhaps they bubble up out of an ubiquitous discontent, where everyone has become a powder keg of seething, contradictory emotions, a boiling cauldron of rage and hate. Sooner or later, the swollen river overflows its banks, wherever it can find a way. If not here, then somewhere else. And warmongers are people who direct the flood, by breaking the banks in one place before it breaks them somewhere else. We fight wars in Syria in order to avoid them in Manhattan.

The hatred and rage that’s directed at smokers is perhaps the same hatred and rage that’s directed at Donald Trump, or Ann Coulter, or Roger Stone, or Jews, or Muslims, or bankers. Or maybe just America, and Western Civilisation, and the entire infuriating history of the world.

About Frank Davis

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

7 Responses to 100 Years of War

  1. prog says:

    Superb analysis well worth reading and bookmarking.

    A snippet:

    Moral Compass vs. Moral Relativism

    Moral relativism is perhaps the pinnacle goal of the globalists. Why? Because if you can convince an entire society that their inherent conscience should be ignored and that their inborn feelings of morality are “open to interpretation,” then eventually ANY evil action can be rationalized. When evil becomes “good,” and good becomes evil, evil men will reign supreme.


  2. Tony says:

    To get re-elected the mayor would need funds for his campaign and a favourable press. The global anti-smoking industrial complex has both money and vice like control of the press. So I reckon they called him up and told him to give smokers a really good kicking if he wanted re-election. He gladly (greedily) agreed and they provided him with the precise details of exactly where they wanted each kick to be directed,

  3. jaxthefirst says:

    Many years ago, Joe Jackson wrote an essay about the then-recent New York smoking ban which was published, I think, in Forest’s newsletter (then in paper format), which I kept for posterity, because it echoed a feeling that I’d had about the anti-smoking movement for a long time, too. In it he said: “You have to wonder if there’s something darker at work than concern for public health: a lurking need in society to have some minority to beat up on, now that every other minority is off-limits.” And I think he was (and still is) bang-on with that statement. There’s no doubt that the anti-smoking movement has tapped into a deeply unpleasant side to humanity. To my mind there are more would-be racists, sexists, anti-semites, islamophobics and homophobics amongst the more vocal of the anti-smoking crowd than there are people who genuinely, if mistakenly, believe that they are assisting the health of the nation. They mask their true feelings – now no longer socially acceptable – by expressing against smokers the kind of things which, if the truth be told, they would actually far rather express against ethnic minorities, men/women, gay or transgender people, etc etc.

    They do this because they are bullies at heart and it’s one of life’s truisms that bullies are always cowards, too. Bullies never pick on someone who can or will fight back, or who has anyone bigger and tougher than them (like the law, or public sentiment) who can fight on their behalf. They pick on the small, the passive or the defenceless. This element of anti-smokerism is rarely, if ever, recognised, possibly because those people who could – indeed should – recognise it and do something to stop it are too busy taking part; a fact which, in and of itself, is a worrying reflection on the inner mental state of the majority of those people who sit in positions of authority. How can you expect a bully to stop others bullying when that bully won’t even admit that’s what he/she is? It’s like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire brigade!

    But it’s one of the reasons why politicians and other lawmakers’ support of the anti-smoking movement is so disgraceful. Because by failing to stand up to a particularly forceful group of bullies in our midst – indeed instead tacitly supporting them by acquiescing to their every demand – they effectively support bullying in all its forms. And bullying is all around – it’s in the workplace, in marriages, in families, in public, within religions, within the legal system, in the medical profession, and in the playground. And no wonder. Whenever one group is deemed by those “in authority” to be “favoured” over another group, that “protected” group seems inevitably to turn from erstwhile persecuted to new persecutor, in the same way as so many ex-smokers, regardless of what they say beforehand, morph seemingly inescapably into anti-smokers. As I say, it seems to be a natural instinct in a lot more people than most would like to admit. So ultimately, it doesn’t matter how many schools or workplaces politicians force to have an “anti-bullying” policy, and it doesn’t matter how much empty rhetoric they spout about “tackling bullying” or being “against bullying,” the moment they fail to address such a loud and publicly-obvious group of bullies as the anti-smokers in Public Health and their increasingly-unreasonable demands, they give themselves away. The message they give out is “We’re not going to say we actually support your bullying methods, but we’re not going to do anything to stop you, either” and bullying, like an unchecked virus will – and indeed has – spread to all facets of life. And, to me, that’s the one of the worst facets of the damage that the anti-smoking movement has done.

  4. Smoking Lamp says:

    NYC Mayor de Blasio needs to be removed from office. He is a totalitarian tyrant. C.L.A.S.H. in NYC needs all the support it can get to expose tobacco control lies.

  5. waltc says:

    You might want to get your mind around this one, Frank.

    “Already, developers are working on systems that can detect, for example, if someone is smoking in a non-smoking area. And recently the government piloted a program using wireless sensor technology inside private homes to track the movements and sleeping patterns of older residents, as part of an effort to better safeguard the health of the growing aging population. It’s even hoping to harness artificial intelligence to help the government predict what services an individual needs.”


  6. Lepercolonist says:

    New York City used to be an open, cosmopolitan city. What the hell is happening to New Yorkers ? You can’t smoke in Central Park or Times Square. Kim Jong-un might win the mayoral race in NY.

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.