Donald Trump’s state visit to Britain ended today, and then, after visiting Ireland, he’s going to Normandy for the D-Day 75th anniversary.

He brought with him the full Trump Derangement Syndrome, of course, because it follows him wherever he goes. The current “stone cold loser” mayor of London seems to have been one of the principal deranged. And the current leader of the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn, seems to have been helping him. No doubt the BBC were hurling brickbats at him as well, but I wasn’t watching.

But quite clearly the Queen likes Donald Trump, and Donald Trump likes the Queen. And that’s probably because his Scottish mother admired the Queen, and so he has his own unique special relationship with her.

And via Smoking Lamp, this:

The cigarette tax has saved millions of lives. A soda tax could too

You might want to think twice before downing that 12-ounce can of Coke. Since sugary drinks can cause a host of health problems, drinking one sugar-filled soda ends up imposing about 10 cents of health costs on others because the resulting medical bills are paid through Medicare, Medicaid or private insurers.

This is deranged.

I don’t think Coke kills anyone. And I don’t think cigarettes do either.

I think that the attack on Coke is simply yet another attack on America. And of course the war on tobacco is another attack on America.

It’s got nothing to do with health. This is just a cultural war. It’s a cultural war by the Progressive Left on everything American. And what’s more American than Coca Cola?

Donald Trump’s great crime. in the eyes of the Progressive Left, is to be an American who’s proud of America. He’s an American president who wants to Make America Great Again. And the Progressive Left want to destroy America.

And it’s why I think Donald Trump is going to be re-elected president in 2020 by millions of Americans who are proud of America. I think that if (or rather, when) the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives starts impeachment proceedings against him for no good reason at all, they’re just going to be telling America that they just can’t stand this most American of US presidents, and that they can’t stand America. I think that the only result will be that in 2020 Americans will hand Donald Trump an even bigger victory than they did last time. And I think the US Democratic party could end up being destroyed. And it already seems to be destroying itself. And it’s destroying itself by becoming the anti-American party.

Soda taxes also counteract what behavioral economists call “internalities,” mistakes we make because we succumb to temptation or don’t have all the information we need before making a decision.

This is a religion. It’s a religion in which it’s a sin to succumb to the temptation of doing something we enjoy doing. It’s a killjoy religion. Antismoking and anti-sugar are two components of a miserabilist  anti-religion in which there is no God, but only a Satan. There’s nothing that these people are in favour of, only things that they’re against. Smoking. Alcohol. Sugar. Salt. Fat. The list is endless.

They can all go to hell.

But there’s no need to send them to Hell. They are there already.

About the archivist

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

12 Responses to Derangement

  1. Fredrik Eich says:

    A new season of the TV series “black mirror” is out.
    Which connects quite well to the Trump protests if you look at the protesters placard!

  2. Rose says:

    I was watching the President’s state visit very carefully, BBC and Sky played up the protests in advance as expected , but they turned out to be a relatively damp squib and merely made the Labour and Lib Dem political particpants look small, mean, spiteful and misguided.

    Donald Trump couldn’t have been more gracious and kind in his speeches, which I made sure to hear in full, so that I could contrast with any misleading quotes on news programmes later and there were many.

    It must have been rather disappointing for our media, but I must say that though they say he was on his best behaviour, I did warm to him a lot.

    I was very pleased to see that that disgusting blimp that seemed to be shown on every news programme has been punctured at last, lets hope its beyond repair.

  3. jameshigham says:

    “They can all go to hell.”

    Wise words.

  4. smokingscot says:

    I agree that Trump will be returned to office in 2020. I also believe he will do all in his power to then arrange a replacement who shares his beliefs.

    Traditionally American presidents use their 2nd term to take off the gloves, and he has a lot of unfinished business just bubbling under the surface!

    Should be fun even if Nancy is factored in.

  5. E.G. says:

    The ban this and that people are miserable people. I think they believe in the original sin of existence itself. They don’t need to go hell, they live in hell hating anything comforting and intuitive.
    I think that most of them are raised that way though. They are raised to never be happy and relaxed because the world is not perfect. And they want to remove all comforts from everyone else.

  6. Yvonne says:

    Oh dear! Looks like YouTube has taken down the video you shared.

  7. slugbop007 says:

    “But there’s no need to send them to Hell. They are there already.”

    They must have good bandwidth and a sympathetic IPS. How fortunate they are.

    Mark Twain’s Letters from the Earth is quite the hoot. Also C. S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters.

    An old girlfriend of mine from long ago who was born in the Cotswolds was probably at Corbyn’s rally yesterday. I haven’t commented on her Facebook page since she admonished me to stop smoking several years ago. Oh well.


  8. beobrigitte says:

    The cigarette tax has saved millions of lives. A soda tax could too

    You might want to think twice before downing that 12-ounce can of Coke. Since sugary drinks can cause a host of health problems, drinking one sugar-filled soda ends up imposing about 10 cents of health costs on others because the resulting medical bills are paid through Medicare, Medicaid or private insurers.
    It’s not the sugar that causes the problems, it’s that darn artificial sweetener the anti-sugar brigade lobbied to replace the sugar with.
    And, since when are we all FORCED to buy cans of soda?

    Soda taxes also counteract what behavioral economists call “internalities,” mistakes we make because we succumb to temptation or don’t have all the information we need before making a decision.
    This is an interesting point. The “unable to resist” temptation lark is everyone’s personal issue, withholding information of what is in the product on offer is not. Adults generally like to make informed decisions; How about clearing up all lobby groups’ misinformation spread out there?

    Hope Donald Trump enjoyed his stay over here. I am pretty sure he will be re-elected in 2020, too.

  9. waltc says:

    The other telling part of the soda screed is this: “Two facts help quantify internalities. First, more than half of Americans who consume sugary drinks say they do so more often than they should. This suggests soda taxes could help people reduce their consumption to a level they are more comfortable with.”

    The real point is that people aren’t intrinsically “uncomfortable” (if they’re genuinely uncomfortable at all) the point is that because the government and the Experts have been nagging and bullying them about sodas (officially and pejoritively renamed “sugary drinks”) for so long that they’ve been purposely MADE uncomfortable, or aren’t uncomfortabke but are made to feel that to be Correct they should at least confess to being sinful and not doing what they “should.” And the taxes might reduce their consumption to a level the bullies would be “comfortable” with.

    “Second, those who are more educated about nutrition consume a lot fewer sugary drinks. This suggests that soda taxes could help people reduce consumption toward the level they would choose if they were fully informed.”

    This merely means that those who buy the twaddle we indoctrinate them with, are more likely to be obedient. And taxes might force people to obey our instructions regardless of whether they buy our twaddle.

  10. Joe L. says:

    OT: YouTube is ratcheting up their censorship once again, expanding their definition of “hate speech” to include Holocaust denial and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Basically, now sharing any beliefs or ideas that run counter to an “official narrative” is considered “hateful.” The future is looking more and more Orwellian. The company stated,

    “Today, we’re taking another step in our hate speech policy by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”

    According to this, I believe we should each write to YouTube to ask them to remove all Antismoking propaganda from their platform, as well. Claims of harm from “secondhand” and “thirdhand” smoke are outright conspiracy theories not supported by science, and Antismokers promote segregation (“exile to the outdoors”, anyone?) because they feel they are superior to smokers.

    If YouTube wants to censor videos based on their stated criteria, then they must be held accountable to do so indiscriminately. “Veteran status” may be considered a “protected class” like the rest, however–aside from involuntary drafts, which haven’t occurred since Vietnam–“veteran status” is a choice, just like smoking is. It’s about time smokers start getting treated equally and fairly again.

    Full article:
    YouTube to ban ‘hateful,’ ‘supremacist’ videos

  11. Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

    Pack of bullies, but you are all abundantly aware of that…
    Here is my latest missive (edited to remove address, although under the Metadata Retention Law I am not hard to find!) into the black hole known as the police nanny state Australian Government. I won’t hold my breath waiting for a substantive response.

    From: Jarratt, Mark
    Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2019 2:26 PM
    To: ‘’
    Subject: FW: Request for Identical Treatment of Imported Cigarettes and Cigars

    Dear Liberal Democrats,

    As the only political party displaying any commitment to free choice and personal autonomy, I would very much appreciate it if you could use your good offices to lobby against and raise awareness of the latest draconian proposals for tobacco hyper-regulation and persecution of tobacco consumers.

    Since when was Australian Government tobacco control policy dictated by the Taliban.

    Yours faithfully,

    Mark Jarratt

    From: Jarratt, Mark
    Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2019 2:23 PM
    Subject: Request for Identical Treatment of Imported Cigarettes and Cigars

    Mr David Smith, MHR
    Member for Bean

    Dear Mr Smith,

    Sincere congratulations on your recent election as the inaugural federal Member for Bean.

    I write seeking your assistance with my request for identical treatment of imported cigarettes and cigars falling to Customs Tariff Item 24022020.

    My request was lodged on 9 April 2019 but I have no record of a reply from any addressee.

    Prohibitionist lifestyle controllers get privileged red carpet treatment while the personal preferences of citizens are ignored, or fobbed off with propaganda from the tobacco control lobby.

    The advice on the Home Affairs website is unchanged from the original content and Home Affairs Notice 2019-013 I referred to below.

    The proposed approach of treating tobacco as if it were heroin or cocaine is unworkable and is bound to fail, as prohibition always does.

    It is unclear how a product can be classified as a prohibited import when it is legal to buy and consume.

    If tobacco is as deadly as claimed by strident well-funded tobacco control prohibitionists it is deeply immoral and hypocritical for the government to profit so handsomely from an effective monopoly.

    The snobbish elitism underlying the obey and conform tobacco prohibitionist policies is well indicated by the fact that cigar imports by post will be allowed, but not cigarettes.

    This is collectivist bullying and paternalistic coercion inconsistent with civil liberties, and has no place in a modern western democracy.

    The government lacks moral standing or authority to interfere in individual consumer choice, while creating social division and deadweight regulatory costs, and fuelling the black market.

    From the operational standpoint, Border Force officers will still need to inspect tobacco shipments to decide if they are cigars or cigarettes, tariff classify the goods, and produce and issue a debit or seizure notice.

    The same level of official intervention and enforcement resources will remain necessary.

    It is unclear why consumers will be denied the kind opportunity to pay the astronomical and punitive duties on personal cigarette imports.

    The burden of proof rests solely with the government to justify yet more intrusion and regulation of tobacco. No such justification has been offered for this latest abuse of regulatory power and of individual autonomy.

    If the relentless persecution of citizens who choose to smoke had wide support, yet more hyper regulation and prohibitionist infringement upon the rights and liberty of tobacco consumers would be unnecessary.

    Current government policy exclusively heeds shrill lifestyle regulators while ignoring the individual preferences of millions of Australian adult smokers, who unfairly subsidize other taxpayers.

    In view of these arguments and my comments below, I would sincerely appreciate it if you could make representations as my local member to ensure identical treatment of cigars and cigarettes imported via post, and ideally to prevent the implementation of the proposed discriminatory and punitive regime on 1 July 2019.

    Thank you in advance for your efforts, and please feel free to contact me if any aspect of this request requires clarification.

    Yours sincerely,

    Mark Jarratt
    From: Jarratt, Mark
    Sent: Tuesday, 9 April 2019 5:33 PM
    To: ‘’
    Cc: ‘’ ; ‘’ ; ‘’
    Subject: Request for Identical Treatment of Imported Cigarettes and Cigars

    Hon Peter Dutton, MHR
    Minister for Home Affairs
    Parliament House
    Canberra ACT 2600

    Via e-mail

    Cc: Ms G Brodtmann, Member for Canberra
    Dr Andrew Leigh, Shadow Assistant Treasurer
    Tobacco Policy, Department of Home Affairs

    Dear Minister Dutton,

    I write seeking amendment of the proposed prohibition from 1 July 2019 on importing cigarettes, but not cigars, using the international postal system.

    Home Affairs Notice 2019-013 (copy attached) states that with effect 1 July 2019 tobacco importers including individuals will be obliged to obtain a permit in advance for every tobacco shipment.

    If no permit has been issued or is quoted when a shipment of tobacco arrives in Australia, the goods will be seized as prohibited imports.

    Permits will not be issued for tobacco products imported by international post, except cigars.

    Shipments of cigarettes, but not cigars, sent by post are to be treated as prohibited imports, seized as forfeit to the Crown then destroyed.

    I import cigarettes shipped through the international postal system every few months. My cigarette orders are solely for personal use and are never “…sold, distributed, supplied or exported”.

    My preferred cigarettes are unavailable in Australia, and my commercial tobacco merchant does not send orders via air or sea freight, only by registered air mail. I can obtain a statement from my tobacco merchant confirming they ship via post only, should that be material.

    I pay the import duties and taxes for cigarettes of higher quality than the government approved tobacco products available in Australian shops, as that is my individual preference.

    A copy of the latest tobacco import notice of assessment I paid is also attached.

    The government proposes to prohibit a particular method of import (the global postal system) then seize the goods, with no option for importers to pay the duties and taxes.

    Cigars and cigarettes fall to the same Customs Tariff item 24022020 and attract the same import duties and taxes, currently at 900% ad valorem.

    Denying me and other consumers our preferred tobacco products solely if they are shipped by post appears unfair and unjustified.

    No rationale is offered to justify treating imports via post of cigarettes solely for personal use as prohibited imports.

    I therefore request the government as a matter of equity extends the proposed exemption for cigars imported by post to cigarettes imported by post, so tobacco products falling to Customs Tariff item 24022020 are treated identically.

    Thank you in advance for considering this request, and I look forward to your favourable reply.

    I have written in similar terms to Ms G Brodtmann, Member for Canberra, Shadow Assistant Treasurer the Hon Andrew Leigh, and the tobacco policy email address listed in Home Affairs Notice 2019-013.

    Yours sincerely,

    Mark Jarratt

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.