EU President Admits One-World Government is Here

Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times

Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?

I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

The problem? Why wasn't communism spreading?

Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.

What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.

And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.

One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.

And call it something that sounds positive: "Political Correctness."

Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the people. "Sensitive training" – sound familiar? – and speech codes were born.

In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud's psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings.

But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society.

PC Cuba

My first conscious exposure to Political Correctness was in 1959 – the first year of Castro's revolution in Cuba – while attending an indoctrination session at a neighborhood elementary school in Havana. There I learned for the first time of the claimed superiority of life in the Soviet Union vs. the U.S.

There I also learned that the word "compañero" (filtered version of the communist "comrade" – Fidel was denying his communist preferences) was the correct way to refer to the other members of the new Cuban society-in-the-making.

Mr., Mrs. and Miss were no longer acceptable, and their further use could reveal that you were not a Fidelista. Since repression and violations of human rights came roaring in right behind Castro's sweep down from the mountains in 1959, objection or rejection of Fidel Castro's revolution would (and still will) land you in a lot of trouble. You could easily lose your life in those summary executions at La Cabaña prison under the direction of Che Guevara.

But don't worry about Che. Che was later transformed and cleansed by the masters of Political Correctness. His likeness became a revered icon of the far left, with T-shirts and posters still adorning the campuses of America.

The same techniques were used to cleanse one of today's "heroes," Mumia Abu-Jamal (even if he was convicted, by overwhelming evidence, of killing a cop).

And under the pervasive guidance of Political Correctness that took hold from elementary school to university, from the media to the arts, from the country fields to factories and offices, Cubans learned to say what it was safe to say. Always in line with the overpowering state. Always following the dictums of the only political party left: the Communist Party.

The self-censorship resulting from Political Correctness easily trampled freedom of speech. Political Correctness has succeeded in Cuba by creating a uniform political discourse that has lasted for 43 years.

Political Correctness has given the state (Castro) complete control of speech. That is the main reason why the U.S. media cannot extract the truth of what Cubans really feel when they interview regular citizens and deceptively present their comments as valid to the American public.

The same was true in the former Soviet Union and the former satellite countries. The same continues in the remaining communist world.

It's nothing new. The U.S. media must know that, so why don't they openly report that fact instead of misleading the public? Perhaps that is the reason why the American people are so uneducated about the Cuban tragedy and acted regrettably during the Elian Gonzalez affair.

The PC U.S.

With profound dismay, I have seen how the scourge of Political Correctness has taken hold in the U.S. It is very well entrenched in our educational system, at scientific, religious and community levels, the media, the workplace and even our government.

It is changing the American society from within, and the citizens of this nation are increasingly censoring themselves and losing their freedom of speech out of fear of Political Correctness repression.

It is the nature of Western Civilization to be civilized – respectful of others and concerned with correcting injustices. We don't need Political Correctness to make us think we are not civilized on our own and must have our thoughts and words restricted.

In December 2001, in Kensington, Md., an annual firefighters Santa Claus festivity to light the Christmas tree was objected to by two families. The city council, in the name of Political Correctness, voted to ban Santa from the parade. Fortunately, due to citizen outcry, the decision was reversed in the end and many people protested by dressing up as Santa.

Logically and respectfully, how can one person's benign icon be objectionable to the point of banishment? Offer to add other people's icons. Make it a broader celebration. That's the Perfectly Correct American way.

The rulers of Political Correctness reach absurd levels when they refer to the betrayal of America by the spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg – executed in 1953 – as "non-traditional patriotism"!

We see shameful situations created in our schools and universities in America that have fallen prey to Political Correctness. Some professors, students and publications are being attacked for expressing a point of view that differs from that imposed by a fanatical far left, under the guise of Political Correctness.

In schools and workplaces we see that "diversity" has degenerated into reverse discrimination, where often the less qualified are admitted and the incompetent cannot be fired. We have seen characters like Rev. Jesse Jackson shamelessly blackmailing and threatening to boycott entire corporations if they don't hire those selected by him or simply make "donations" to his organizations.

The Double Standard Emerges

Our Constitution requires the separation of church and state, which has always discouraged our public education system from teaching religion. However, in December 2001, while Christmas cards, symbols and decorations were being objected to for the first time in American public schools in Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oregon, in an elementary school in Texas, a girl was allowed to give to her classmates an overview and show a video about her Muslim religion.

And in January 2002, a public middle school in San Luis Obispo, Calif., had its students pretend to be warriors fighting for Islam. Another school near Oakland, Calif., also encouraged 125 seventh-grade students to dress up in Muslim robes for a three-week course on Islam.

This arbitrary double standard was applied in the name of Political Correctness following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

According to Ellen Sorokin's "No Founding Fathers?" published by the Washington Times on its front page on Jan. 28, 2002, even our Founding Fathers have fallen victim to the travesty. The article says of the New Jersey Department of Education's history standards,

"The latest revisions to the state standards have disappointed educators across the country, who said the board's exclusion of the Founding Fathers' names is 'Political Correctness to the nth degree.' "

Sorokin points out that "the standards specifically note that students should identify slavery, the Holocaust and modern Iraq as examples in which 'people have behaved in cruel and inhumane ways.' " Conveniently, communism is absent from that short list.

In another article by Sorokin, published by the Washington Times on March 10, "Report Blames Anti-Americanism on College Teachers," she presents two examples of upcoming courses for next spring and fall. They are " 'The Sexuality of Terrorism' at University of California at Hayward; and 'Terrorism and the Politics of Knowledge' at UCLA, a class that, according to its course description, examines 'America's record of imperialistic adventurism.' "

Recently, a historic photograph of the New York firefighters raising the American flag over the ruins of the World Trade Center was going to be made into a sculpture as a memorial.

But history's revisionists used Political Correctness to dictate that other minority faces replace some of the faces in the historical photograph! Fortunately, in the end that didn't fly either, due to the outcry of firefighters and the public.

The Goal of the PC Dictators

For people with the background and firsthand experience of living inside a totalitarian communist society, the tilt and goal of the dictators of Political Correctness in America are obvious.

The beneficiaries in the end will be the fanatic believers in the totalitarian state, who, in spite of the dismal failure of communism and the 100 million people exterminated pursuing that criminal system, have not given up.

Political and religious fanatics, as demonstrated by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the subsequent war in Afghanistan, are extremely dangerous in today's world.

All citizens who cherish liberty must reject the scourge of Political Correctness. Freedom of speech must be preserved in America if we are to continue to be free.

Let's say it: Castro is not a 'president,' as the U.S. media's Political Correctness calls him. Castro has not been democratically elected to anything in Cuba. The correct word to define him is 'tyrant.' He is not just a 'leader,' as the U.S. media also calls him. He is more of a criminal Mafioso-type character.

Why criminal? Because he has caused the deaths of more than 100,000 Cubans. Thousands have died through his support of guerrillas in Central and South America. Thousands of blacks were killed by Castro's soldiers in Africa. Castro in the 1980s introduced the use of bacteriological weapons to kill blacks in Angola.

How many thousands have died in America as a result of his drug trafficking into the U.S.? How many thousands have died all over the world due to terrorists trained in Castro's Cuba?

Former Soviet colonel Ken Alibek, who defected to America, was once in charge of the Soviet Union's production of biological weapons. In Alibek's 1999 book, "Biohazard," he revealed that with the help of the Soviet Union, in the 1980s Cuba created laboratories to produce chemical and bacteriological weapons of mass destruction – just 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The information about Castro's involvement with bacteriological weapons also comes from various independent sources. We must not forget either that Cuba is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist nations.

Why Mafioso? Well, Castro is like an untouchable godfather, surrounded by bodyguards and thugs and a private army of about 40,000 soldiers for his personal protection (roughly the size of the entire army of Cuba prior to 1959).

He stole foreign and national properties in Cuba. He has become one of the richest men in the world, according to Forbes magazine. He has created a despotic and corrupt elite to exploit the Cuban people and keep himself in power. He has made the Cuban people hostages and slaves of his corrupt regime.

The U.S. media do not call Al Capone "the former leader" of the Italian Mafia. Why the double standard with Fidel and other far-left regimes? The answer can be traced to where the sympathies lie – with the elite dictating Political Correctness in America.

It's one thing is to be educated, considerate, polite and have good manners, and another to be forced to self-censor and say things that are totally incorrect in order to comply with the arbitrary dictums of a deceiving and fanatical far-left agenda.

Let's preserve our freedom and say NO to the scourge of Political Correctness.

Source: News Max

Part 2: Smoking, drinking and obesity: a recent history of attacks

PART 2: DRINKING
Of course, your humble Devil has been tracking the progress of the denormalisation of drinking for a good long while now; many of the major stories were sumarised in this post in which I... er... commented on the proposed cigarette packet-style warning labels to appear on booze.

But it is because these fuckers always need to find something to ban in order to justify their own existence. So, fox-hunting and fags are nearly conquored, so it's time to move strongly against alcohol. We can hardly pretend to be surprised; the attacks have come fast and furious over the last few years: we had surgeon John Smith trying to limit people to three drinks a night, the EU Commission report on "passive drinking", health "experts" setting ludicrous "binge-drinking" definitions, the Preston police trying to ban "vertical drinking", the bloody EU (again) trying to curb alcohol advertising, the move to ensure that all drinks in pubs are served in plastic recepticles, and Patsy cocking Hewitt begging the Chancellor for some of that hot Polly-style lovin' much higher alcohol taxes.

This last was one of my more vitriolic posts and this one paragraph basically sums up my attitude towards all of these attempts to infringe on my freedom to get absolutely stoshus.

Go fuck youself, you stinking apology for a cunt of a human being; did I say human being? I meant hideous chicken-brained whore of a monkey's arse dipped in aubergine surprise—the surprise being that it is made of aubergines and shit, shit, shitty-shit-shit-shit—and mashed up with the pus-filled discharge of a diseased, eighty-year-old whore's raddled, smelly and very badly-packed kebab. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you cunting cunt cuntitty cunt cunt. Tit.

So there.

Where do we find these bloody parasitic busybodies, eh? We are crying out for more scientists, entrepreneurs, inventors, doctors, nurses, anyone competent and all we seem to end up with is these fucking killjoy scum.

Needless to say, the war on drinkers has escalated over the last few years: my colleague, The Filthy Smoker, covered some of the egregious lies and distortions being pushed by the government and its satellite fake charities only a few days ago. One of the things that he covered was the obviously faked "deaths from alcohol" figures...

According to the ONS, there were 509,090 deaths in England and Wales in 2008 and there were 6,541 deaths related to alcohol in England. That last figure doesn't include Wales so let's be generous and add a further 500 deaths for the sheep-worriers.

Which gives us a total number of about 7,000, or 1.38% of all deaths.

Of course, that doesn't give us the percentage for the whole of Europe, but seeing as we're supposedly some of the worst drinkers in Europe (another fucking lie), that should be considered a conservative estimate. Still nowhere near 10% though, is it? It's not even close to the 1 in 25—or 4%—claimed for the whole world, and for that global total you need to factor in a billion muslims who don't drink at all, plus God knows how many people who haven't got a pot to piss in, let alone a pub to get pissed in.

The thing is, as Costigan Quist pointed out (a tip of the horns to Dick Puddlecote and his rather good post around this subject), the British are not drinking significantly more than we used to.

Are we drinking more now than a decade ago?
No. You can look at all the data and see that pretty much everyone, men and women, all age groups, are drinking about the same as we were in 1992 and in 1996.

The only significant change I can see is that drinking amongst young people rose from 1994 to 2000, but has been falling since and is now back to where it started. Indeed, Conservatives might like to bear in mind that by far the biggest increase in young people drinking was from 1994-1997, in the second half of the Major administration.

The figures are confused because of the new alcohol units measurement. Remember that the number of units in drinks was recently revised upwards (there was a big advertising campaign, with the new unit value in foam on the beer glass and things like that). Some of the so-called increase seems to be down to this revision - the rises disappear in the like-for-like figures.

As an example, suppose you drink a glass of wine a day, which used to be one unit. The reality is that your alcohol consumption hasn't changed. If we jump onto the new figures, it looks like you're suddenly drinking more units (last year you drank 1 unit a day, this year you drink 1.5 units a day).

The Rowntree report shows both. Unless I've totally misunderstood the figures, it makes sense to compare like with like for trends. On the like-for-like figures, we're all drinking about the same - some a tiny bit more, some a bit less.

Has binge drinking for women doubled?
The shock headline is that twice as many women are binge drinking, but that appears to be utter rubbish.

It relies on this new units system. Funnily enough, if you count a glass of wine as 1.5 units instead of 1, the number of women drinking more that six units in any day suddenly rises. What a shock!

When you compare like with like, the proportion of men and women binge drinking is lower in 2006 (the latest year given in the study) than for any year in the last decade.

But, of course, we bloggers point all of this out in vain. For, as a few email correspondents pointed out to me, only a couple of days later some similar lies were wheeled out, by the state's mouthpiece, regarding alcohol mortality in the Scots.

Alcohol may have caused the death of twice as many Scots as previously thought, an NHS study has found.

Researchers used a new method of calculating alcohol-related deaths which is said to more accurately reflect the damage done by drinking.

By "more accurately", what they actually mean is that the study used a new method of lying—by chucking in all of the diseases, such as stomach cancer, that might possibly be caused by drinking (but for which there is little to no evidence, and which might be caused by many other things as well)—in order to provide some shock figures.

But why? Well, we'll come onto that.

The parallels with the attacks on smoking are alarming; indeed, the strategy is spelt out very clearly by the author of the Lancet study cited by the Filthy Smoker, above.

"The big message is treat alcohol like tobacco..."

The sequence is fairly simple really. The first thing that you do is to regulate the substance, e.g. through licensing, age restrictions, etc.; you need to concentrate on the health risks associated with the substance; you need to exaggerate the figures, by lying if necessary; then you need to appeal to those who don't like said substance and try to imply that they are suffering even if they do not indulge (e.g. second-hand smoke, third-hand smoke, passive drinking) to get them on board (after all, get a big enough minority and they'll be able to force their prejudice on others through the ballot box). All of these get the denormalisation ball rolling, and now you have enough support to start the legislative bans, and more subtle bans.

I have complained before about those signs in shops that insist that say things like...

If you look under 21, we will need ID of proof of age when purchasing alcohol.

My local Sainsbury's has changed it to 23 recently. Why? The drinking age is 18: why 21, or 23, or 25? And why would a shop try to restrict people from purchasing items? Because the state has insisted on it, through subtle or overt pressure. The state is denormalising the buying of alcohol.

And the bans? Well, they have started already.

More than 700 “controlled drinking zones” have been set up across England, giving police sweeping powers to confiscate beer and wine from anyone enjoying a quiet outdoor tipple.

Local authorities are introducing the zones at a rate of 100 a year, The Times has learnt. Some cover whole cities, a radical departure from what the law intended.

Yup, that's right: the law never intended that, eh? Don't fucking make me laugh: this is precisely what the law intended.

The signs all around the shops—much like the ones pertaining to tobacco, and the moves to push cigarettes under the counter—are to denormalise the buying of these substances.

These public bans are about denormalising the drinking of alcohol—in precisely the way in which they are attempting to stamp out smoking in films (or even to edit or erase cartoons that show it).

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."—1984, George Orwell.

The thinking is that if people are not seen to be drinking or smoking, then these activities do not exist—or, rather, they are not normal.

Yes, at present people can smoke and drink in their homes and private cars but, as has been spelt out by the director of ASH Scotland, the state is moving to stop this too. Indeed, they have made a start, as far as alcohol is concerned, by advocating higher and higher age limits—with more dire and unrealistic warnings—for any kind of exposure to alcohol.

Once a control zone is in place, police can seize alcohol from anyone who is not on licensed premises, even if the bottles or cans are unopened. Although drinking is not banned in the zones, police can ask anyone to stop drinking and it is an offence to refuse, punishable by a maximum £500 fine. No explanation or suspicion that the person could be a public nuisance is required. The highest fine will soon rise to £2,500.
...

Laws giving local authorities the power to set up the zones, or “designated public place orders”, were introduced in 2001 at the height of government concern over public drunkenness.

Note that they were introduced because of "government concern"—with the stress firmly on the word "government". Generally, the people were not—and are not—screaming for bans on drinking in public.

The law made clear that the zones should cover only streets or city centre areas with a record of alcohol-related disorder or nuisance.

There are now 712 zones, some covering vast areas where there is no record of disorder. There are city-wide bans in Coventry and Brighton, which cover even the quietest suburban streets. Birmingham tried to introduce a city-wide ban but had to back down in the face of public opposition.

And has Birmingham respected the wishes of the public?

Instead it is introducing the drinking zones gradually across the city.

No. It is sneaking the ban through piecemeal, deliberately ignoring the wishes of the people of the city.

Camden in North London has a borough-wide ban, apart from Hampstead Heath, Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill. The Times has learnt that Lambeth in South London is planning to make the whole borough a controlled zone, with no exemptions, even in Brockwell Park, a local beauty spot that is popular with picnickers.

What? Fuck. Fucking Lambeth bastards...

Research on the zones has been conducted by The Manifesto Club, a campaign group that challenges what it sees as excessive regulation.

Note the careful use of the passive tense there—the media are on the government's side, make no mistake. An excellent example of this fawning can be seen on the BBC website where—despite a poll showing that the percentage of teenagers drinking weekly has dropped from 50% to 38%—the headline screams "Youngsters 'drinking dangerously'". OMG! Teh horrors!

It found that police are routinely ignoring Home Office guidelines and confiscating bottles of wine and beer from peaceful picnickers and other adults having a quiet drink outdoors. In some cases, drinks have allegedly been seized by police from adults who have just bought them from an off licence and are on their way home.

So, what have we got here?

Well, we have the police making up the laws as they go along, and with no comeback at all; the police are now a law unto themselves. We are, quite literally, living in a police state.

Most terrifyingly of all, to my mind, we have state agencies, like Birmingham, that have given up any kind of pretense of governing in the name of the people that they are supposed to serve.

The political classes are now so sure that the British people are too cowed to resist any of these hideous restrictions in their traditional freedoms that they feel able to do precisely what they want to do: and it is the sheer, terrifying confidence in the security of their tenure that really scares me.

We do not live in a democracy, or anything approaching one: we live in an elected dictatorship in which we live our lives by permission of—and only as far as—the oligarchy wish us to.

And they are about to deprive us of yet more of our rights and freedoms, as well as the services that we have paid for...

Source: The Devils Kitchen

Part 1: Smoking, drinking and obesity: a recent history of attacks:

PART 1: SMOKING
FoREST have launched a new campaign called Save Our Pubs and Clubs—launched at the Buckingham Arms last week—which aims to amend the smoking ban to allow smoking areas in pubs and clubs (do go and sign up). You know, allowing landlords a modicum of freedom in deciding what should be allowed on their own, private, premises.

As some of you may know, your humble Devil is vaguely involved with FoREST's 30^th Anniversary celebrations and, whilst we were being wined and dined—courtesy of FoREST—in Boisdale in March, I decided to ask our host, "we all know that you are funded largely by the tobacco companies, so I feel I have to ask—what is your sponsors' objective?"

Our host replied that his sponsors wanted to stop the denormalisation of smoking. Recently, The Free Society carried an article recently, explaining what "denormalisation" means.

The government has added a terrifying new word to its lexicon. The word is ‘denormalise’ and we should be very, very afraid of it.

It is trotted out by the Government’s chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson when he’s having a pop at smokers. In fact, this verb is entirely directed at them.

But he doesn’t say that, of course. Sir Liam simply wants to ‘denormalise’ smoking. But smoking can’t be denormalised, only smokers, which means that for the first time in our history it is government policy to cast opprobrium upon a sizeable minority of the people it is paid to govern.
...

By denormalisation, he is setting up smokers to be scorned, frowned upon and suffer all the nasty bits of discrimination. This, among our politicians, is the ultimate evil when it comes to racism and sexism but is now perfectly acceptable, indeed desirable, when used against a minority of, ooh, 10 million or so.

A national health service for all – except for smokers. The right to work – except for smokers. Doesn’t sit well, does it? Replace the word smoker with black, or Jew, or woman, and for those people contributing billions of extra pounds to government coffers, it truly sticks in the craw.

This is the nature of modern government, though. Doctors are now talking of refusing to treat fat people. Perhaps they should be denormalised, too? Or how about drivers who decide to spend their hard-earned cash on a sturdy Range Rover instead of a nice Toyota Prius? Denormalisation is the least they can expect.

And another article points out the tactics by which the government and fake charities aim to achieve this.

Government ministers across the UK have often used the term ‘denormalise’ to describe the motivation behind their anti-smoking policies. They say their intention is to denormalise smoking as an activity, but the inevitable result, and arguably the real agenda, is the denormalisation of smokers as individuals.

It is difficult to ignore the Orwellian nature of ‘denormalisation’. It could have come straight from the pages of 1984, where a totalitarian authority seeks to control not only the actions, but the thoughts and feelings of its oppressed citizens. With the invention of ‘newspeak’ Orwell showed us how language and propaganda can be used to achieve conformity and obedience, whether through the creation of phantom threats, or the relentless drive to make everyone think and act the same way, lest they be guilty of a ‘thoughtcrime’.

Of course, if you want chapter and verse on all of these tactics, then I highly recommend that you buy Chris Snowden's excellent Velvet Glove, Iron Fist (use that link and earn cash for your humble Devil!)—Chris covers everything in fine detail.

Back in April 2007, your humble Devil covered a story about how the EU wanted to ban smoking outdoors.

The EU is now considering a proposal signalling the first move to limit smokers' right to puff away outdoors. It states that, as well as a ban on lighting up in all workplaces and public buildings across Europe: 'Restrictions could also be extended to outdoor areas around entrances to buildings and possibly to other outdoor public places where people sit or stand in immediate proximity to each other, such as open air stadiums and entertainment venues, bus shelters, train platforms etc.'

I can't help thinking that the EU really should put its own fucking house in order before ordering everyone else about, the stinking bunch of whore-cunt, fuck-stick arse-wipes.

Remember the ban on smoking in the European Parliament? And how they backtracked after only 6 weeks?

UKIP MEPs and staffers were fairly instrumental in having that ban lifted, quite simply by refusing to stop smoking. And UKIP are now urging civil disobedience because—yes, you guessed it—the proposed outside smoking ban has raised its ugly, totalitarian head again.

SMOKING outside pubs and offices could be banned under plans to be announced by the European Union tomorrow.

Brussels bureaucrats want to outlaw it in areas like beer gardens and covered patios – and even extend it to concerts such as last weekend’s Glastonbury Festival.

The European Commission says the current ban in enclosed public places doesn’t go far enough and non-smokers are still in danger.

Are they? Are they really? This large study on the effects of passive smoking—published in the British Medical Journal—would seem to disagree.

No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

Well, what a fucking surprise. Well, actually it isn't, because there are no studies showing significant health risks from second-hand smoke—and Roy Castle can go fuck himself.

But who would have thought that governments and fake charities would whip up hysteria on the very flimsiest of pretexts in order to gain control? Who'da fucking thunk it?

So, the EU ban has no medical evidence to support it whatsoever—and I know I have cited only one report, but there are many others—but the EU wishes to press ahead regardless. Indeed, as my peripatetic Greek friend highlights, the EU has even induced the Greeks to introduce a ban—although the Greeks have instituted it in a typically Greek way.

By the way, it is very much worth considering that, whilst one arm of the EU is trying to stamp out tobacco smoking, another is very much encouraging tobacco: the EU subsidised tobacco growing to the tune of €920 million (£620 million) in 2007 alone. Can anyone say, "hypocrisy"?

Meanwhile, back in Britain in 2007, we introduced our ban and did so in what has become a typically English way—over-budget by £100 million for a total, in 2007, of £1.6 billion—and with copious use of undercover spies to ensure its enforcement.

The project of denormalisation was started with a specially high fine for littering, i.e. dropping a cigarette butt, of £80.

With the war on smokers well on the way, the next undesirable thing to be hit must be drinking...

Source: The Devils Kitchen