What good fortune for governments that the people do not think

Rachel Sa says she finds it ludicrous and offensive when someone equates her with being a Nazi. What she doesn't seem to realize is she has a lot in common with Hitler and his crew. First of all, she and Hitler would have been very much in agreement in their dislike of tobacco. She and Hitler would also have agreed it is right and proper to use state power, I.E. judges and jailors, to influence individual choices.

Ms. Sa supports "the impending Ontario-wide ban on smoking in public places" which the Nazi regime implemented sixty or seventy years before Ontario ushered in the McGuinty Reich. It is important to note that these "public places" are all on private property.... businesses, bars, restaurants etc. Like all fascists, Ms. Sa does not believe there is any important distinction between public and private property, so she sees no need to even mention it. All venues are subject to rule by those in power.

Nazism, Socialism and Communism are variants of collectivism. None of these variants of collectivism differ in any important way. All of them require the wishes, will, aspirations, tastes and beliefs of individuals to take second place to the wishes, will, aspirations, tastes and beliefs of the collective. Thus it would be equally valid to assert that Ms. Sa is an anti-smoking communist or an anti-smoking socialist.

Since a collective is not an organism, it really does not possess any wishes, will, aspirations, tastes or beliefs. What ends up happening is that a few powerful groups or individuals represent their own wishes, will, aspirations, tastes and beliefs as those of the collective. This is what Hitler did and this is what anti-tobacco activists are doing.

Current anti-tobacco policy shows just how deeply collectivism has anchored itself into the minds of the vast majority of citizens, not just in Canada, but also in the rest of the world.

It goes without saying that if someone believes tobacco is evil and manages to elevate that individual belief to a collective "belief" everyone in society must conform to any resultant prescription.

Property ownership involves possession and control. When government steps in and asserts it's own control, it has in effect committed a partial expropriation without compensation. Such an act can only be seen as just or proper from a collectivist point of view. Society is not taking private property, it is merely taking part of it's "own" property.

Ms. Sa states, "non-smokers have the right to move about in society without being exposed to potentially deadly second-hand smoke." This is certainly true and has been true all along. No one was forced to patronize or work in a bar or restaurant or any other establishment where the owner permitted smoking.

Of course, we know this is not what Ms. Sa intended to say. What she is dishonestly implying here is that non-smokers do not currently have that right. Using the legislature to force everyone in society to accommodate non-smokers, she implies, is the only way for non-smokers to exercise that right.

What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.

Without a ban in the privately owned businesses that Ms. Sa views as "public places", the issue of smoking is resolved by mutual consent. When government imposes a ban, it over-rules mutual consent. It is therefore, not so much controlling property as it is controlling people. Hitler said, "Why socialize banks and factories when you can socialize human beings?" Sa obviously agrees with Hitler.

If not for the incredible success of collectivist ideology, these laws would have little chance of being passed. There would be a thunderous backlash from smokers who, though a minority, remain a sizable minority, capable, if united, of wielding considerable electoral clout. Property owners, both smokers and non-smokers, recognizing the underlying principle, would also fight back.

Unfortunately, the majority of smokers carry the same collectivist credo. Again the degree to which collectivism has seeped into the subconscious mind is amply demonstrated by the reaction, or perhaps more accurately, the non-reaction of most smokers.

After a lifetime of exposure to the intellectual sewage of collectivism they have renounced their own independence of thought and will in favor of the thought and will of the collective. You may hear them say, "Oh well, I know smoking is bad... maybe this will help me quit." Long accustomed to the subservience of individual to collective will, they now rely upon the collective to provide them with the will, or will power, they have surrendered to the group.

Such people would make fine citizens in a Nazi regime.

Sa said, "Equating anti-smokers with Nazis is absurd, idiotic, and worse, an insult to the millions of people who suffered and died under that murderous regime."

This is an almost incomprehensively simple-minded statement. It suggests the sum and total of Ms. Sa's knowledge of the Third Reich includes only one fact... they murdered millions.

It does not occur to Ms. Sa that the reason she is being labeled Nazi is not because she has anything to do with murdering anyone. It is because their ideology was, like hers, dictatorial.

In order to function, the Nazi state employed its secret police, the Gestapo. For invasive and expropriative anti-smoking policies to be enforced, the government will have to employ it's own version of the Gestapo. It's no coincidence that both regimes require an army of paid snoops showing up uninvited and unwelcome to impose the "will of the collective" on unrepentant or recalcitrant individuals.

Sa also said, "I heard from the smokers who want the right to smoke themselves to death and to impose their carcinogenic second-hand smoke on everyone else."

If true all this proves is that there are a few pro-smoking Nazi’s out there somewhere.

Oddly enough, I have never met nor heard of a "Pro-smoking" Nazi. A pro-smoking Nazi or whatever your preferred collectivist variety is, could paraphrase Ms. Sa by stating, "smokers have the right to move about in society without any restrictions on their enjoyment of tobacco."

Pro-smoking collectivists would advocate laws that would, for example, force all business owners to allow smoking on their property regardless of their own preferences.

If this were the case then it would be true, non-smokers would be deprived of the right to move about in society without being exposed to deadly second-hand smoke. But it is not the case. It never has been.

(See my satirical representation of what a pro-smoking Nazi agenda would look like at www.w3taxi.com/emancipation/buthead.shtml)

Another thing Sa and her ilk have in common with Nazi’s is their sheer mendacity. It simply boggles the mind when one observes how such glaring mendacity, as that practiced by the anti-tobacco collectivists is not seen through by most people.

Another Nazi saying comes to mind..."The greater the lie, the greater the chance it will be believed." Like the lie that second hand smoke is carcinogenic. This lie was given an enormous boost with a flawed EPA study, which was trumpeted far and wide by the media. In a 1998 Federal Court decision U.S. Federal Judge William L. Osteen nullified the EPA's 1992 ETS risk assessment. Anti-smoking zealots and politicians have simply chosen to ignore this inconvenient fact. (A recent study of over 35,000 people, reported in the British Medical Journal, no "causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality.")

What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.

Many bars and restaurants and other establishments have separately ventilated smoking areas. Bar owners installed these areas to accommodate both smokers and non-smokers. How often do you ever see a smoker, when given the choice offered by these establishments, demanding the "right to impose their carcinogenic second-hand smoke on everyone else" in the non-smoking section? When given the choice, the vast majority of smokers are more than happy to restrict their activity to the smoking section.

When the regime bans even separately ventilated smoking rooms absolutely no doubt remains that the issue has nothing to do with exposure to second hand smoke.

Why does Sa mention hearing from smokers who demand the right to expose others to ETS? Obviously, it is to imply that any smoker who opposes McGuinty style fascism is one of them.

In order to vilify smokers to maximum effect, it is necessary to perpetuate the lie that smokers demand the "right" to impose their "carcinogenic" second-hand smoke on everyone else.

Nazism is all about control of human beings. In essence it is no different from communism or socialism and, we can now add to the list, so called "liberalism". All of these ism's attempt to employ some form of social engineering. People who believe they can mold and shape human beings into some desirable form practice social engineering.

To say the anti-smoking "movement" is about protecting innocents from second hand smoke is a lie. First of all, it is a lie based upon the dubious EPA (political) "science". Secondly, laws that prohibit even separately ventilated smoking areas reveal the lie.

The truth is, anti-smoking activists have one goal and only one goal. They want tobacco eradicated. In common with their Nazi cousins, they believe they have every right and prerogative to control the behavior of their compatriots. If mendacity will aid them in their endeavors they will not shrink from it.

It doesn't matter to the anti's whether second-hand smoke is deadly because their agenda is not about protecting people. It is about punishing smokers. It doesn't matter to the anti's if separately ventilated smoking areas are available for smokers because their agenda is not about protecting people. It is about punishing smokers. This understanding is reinforced by the applause always heard from the anti's whenever governments increase tobacco taxes imposing ever more severe hardships on smokers.

If anti-smoking legislation were really about protecting non-smokers from second hand smoke then separately ventilated smoking areas would be fully acceptable. When even separately ventilated smoking areas are prohibited the true agenda is revealed. Smokers are to be punished and ostracized until they see the light visible to the anointed.

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." -- Adolf Hitler

last modified:Wednesday,March 19, 2008 at 04:40