Edward Cline's Blog

Masquerade

 noun

mas·​quer·​ade | \ ˌma-skə-ˈrād  (Merriam-Webster)

Definition
of masquerade

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1a: a social gathering of persons
wearing masks and often fantastic costumes

b: a costume for wear at such a
gathering

2: an action or appearance that is
mere disguise or show



It would be appropriate to begin this column with how and
why masked
customers chased a maskless customer from a Shoprite
storei in Staten Island.. NY. However, the masked customers do not own the
store (unless they’re shareholders), and so had no right to “evict” the
maskless customer by mob action or otherwise. That should have been the freedom
of the proprietor to do business with the maskless customer or not. The incident
was a min-prelude of the anarchic mob
mentality chaos now ravaging the country.  But governor Andrew Cuomo has given “permission”
to private businesses  to maskless people
from entering their stores. “  "That store owner has a right to
protect himself," Cuomo said at his daily Coronavirus briefing. "That
store owner has a right to protect the other patrons in that store…”  But he has no rights, or otherwise. Rights?
What are those? The concept is alien to Cuomo.




This is the
same governor who ordered Covid-19 patients 
be put into nursing homes which resulted in over 1,700 deaths. The state fudged the number of people who died from Covid-19 or from pre-conditions that
had nothing to do with the virus. Exactly how many nursing home residents have died remains
uncertain despite the state's latest disclosure, as the list doesn't nursing
home residents who were transferred to hospitals before dying. The revised list
shows that 22 nursing homes, largely in New York City and Long Island, have
reported at least 40 deaths. Cuomo granted the nursing home executives immunity from the legal responsibility of
causing patient deaths.




In the meantime,
in San Francisco, which has joined the mask mania, passed a law that requires everyone to wear face masks when outside their
homes, and especially in restaurants. And wherever else groups of people gather
in small or large numbers .  This is not
the San Francisco of Cyrus Skeen or Sam Spade..The San Francisco Chronicle
published a guide for the simple-minded about the new distancing rules, comparing the social distance
between people and a Muni bus, a cable car, sidewalk squares..




 One blog laughs at the purpose of healthy people wearing masks, to protect
themselves when they are actually harming themselves by donning  masks ,  even while they’re driving behind a ton of
glass and steel.

What is so obvious
now are the totalitarian urges of so many state governors and municipal
“authorities.”  The compulsion to render
Americans  submissive,  helpless and  mentally “manageable” in a regulated society
and in a statist political environment in which one’s actions and behavior are
controlled by “authorities,” have bared the actions and policies motives and designs
of the controllers. They want people to adopt and accept a lockstep mode of
living.  They want everyone to  wear masks and look like they’ve been
captured by alien invaders






NBC calls riots
“protests.” Some
on the left have argued that “rioting” is some kind of legitimate form of
protest.” The outrage in the name of George Floyd is but a masquerade,to disguise a sheer lust for destruction.





One unintended
consequence of universal lockdowns, “stay at home” mandates, and shutdowns is
reported by Fox News is the rise in sexually transmitted diseases together with
a rush on condoms in Canada. If and when the virus “crisis” has passes, there will
be a new “baby boomer” generation come the end of 2020.



I end this column with a note of levity. After reading all of today's news I had to grant myself a much needed chuckle.

lockdown:

The dictionary definition of a lockdown  is

the confining of prisoners
to their cells, as following a riot or other disturbance:




SYNONYMS FOR lockdown ON
THESAURUS.COM




Will Americans return to living normal lives, or take the
time to umlearn the Coronavirus
imperatives and behave as the State wants them to behave – that is, by being
controlled and living by and for the State’s sake and purposes? There is some
evidence that they are discarding all the “new normal” rules. Protests have
occurred at state capitals, while citizens have assembled in parks and at
beaches.. Some
judicial findings have declared the lockdowns and “stay at home” orders
have
 violated  people’s Constitutional rights. It will
take some time to unlearn the miasma of behaving as the virus commands people
to act. To behave according to State imperatives seems to occur automatically when
people act without thinking.




Outside my residence I see groups of ten or so people not wearing masks( the new "fasion accessory," according to Hillary) passing
by but as a herd at a “safe”  six feet
distance from each other, for no particular reason other than to conform to the
“new norm,” lest they are berated by a passerby going in the opposite ditection.
These are not people who will question anything. The “new norm” being compliant
and obedient, not standing out with an independent minds. Many states in the U.S. have issued decrees  which too many people are willing to obey
lest they are harassed by the new 
tyrants. And many countries, as well. Particularly Britain, Germany, France, and Spain, and Australia.   One country exemplifies how it can descend
into lockdown and quarintine tyranny in the blink of an eye, New Zealand. A contact sent  me the discouraging news of how its prime
minister, Jacinda Ardern,   took the defining step of enforcing a mandatory lockdown of the whole country,
oblivious to the rights and freedoms New Zealanders enjoyed before.

 

Jarrett
Stepman discusses how the major destruction of freemen’s freedom  and liberties can be reversed:

 

“While
our federal system gives broad power to states and local authorities to act in
the way that best serves their communities, it is still essential that Americans be wary of violations
of the Constitution and their fundamental rights.





This
important point was made by U.S.
Attorney General William Barr, who directed U.S. attorneys in late April to be
on the lookout for violations of civil liberties by state and local governments.”

What causes migrants from Africa and the Mideast to go on rape sprees of European, Caucasian women? Is it race or the fact that Europe is so superior to Africa and the Mideast that rape compensates for the obvious inferiority of Africa? A rape compensates for hailing from a backward, primitive culture. Or is it pure hatred? It represents a conquest of the better by the inferior.



According to Bare Naked Islam (cited above):





Elin Krantz was repeatedly raped even when she was dead from the attack, and her corpse buried under rocks in a forest. Alllah commands that white, European women be brutalized in the name of Allah. Robert Spencer wrote on Jihad Watch:




Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers must (eventually) win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)


The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition. Victims of rape have reported that their attackers often prayed to Allah while or before committing the crime. As Robert Spencer, an authority on Islam; noted above on Jihad Watch.



There is the scandal of Rotherham, of a decades old crime wave (and not just in Rotherham) The experiences of Emma Jackson (a pseudonym), a long-term victim of one "grooming" gang, are revealed in this Guardian report of the jailing and sentencing of one of many gangs, which operate with impunity because of the Crown's fear of being called racist, even though most of the 'groomers" are of Pakistani origin, and even though most of their victims have been white. Are the "groomers' racist? I would say, Yes, given the ethniticity of the victims and the common ethniticity of the criminals, Pakistani.



But what of Somanis, Nigerians, Eritreans, the Congolese?  And blacks of other African nations? And especially if they are Muslims? Is there penchant in them for the rape of  Caucasian-European women based on race? Given the races of both parties, I would say, Yes. One never reads of the rape of black women anywhere, and infrequently of the rape of Hindu or Indian women and girls in Britain. 



As Robert Spender has explained, the rapes are part and parcel of the Islamic imperative to conquer the West by humiliating its women. Mohammed was notorious for raping captive women. Ibn Kammuna goes into detail on the subject in Islam Watch:






Many critics accuse Muhammad of being a
rapist by citing certain sex incidents of his from the hadiths and Sira, but
Muslims reject such accusations by claiming that those incidents do not qualify
to be rape. In this article, I discuss the issue of Prophet Muhammad being a
rapist. To keep the article brief, I will cite the cases of three women whom
Muhammad had captured and used for sex.

I do invite the reader to look objectively
at the evidence before calling me a “bigot”, “Islamophobe”, or any other imagined
attributes that Muslims give to anyone who criticizes Islam or show Muhammad in
a bad light.

This work is divided into the following
sections:

1.    Definition of a
rapist

2.    Existing evidence
about Muhammad’s rapes

3.    Bani Al Mustaliq
raid and Juwairiyyah – Who was Juwairiyyah?

4.    Safiyah of
Khayber

5.    Rayhana of Bani
Qurayza

6.    Conclusion

7.    Supplementary
Hadiths




1. Definition of a Rapist
Varieties of dictionary definitions of rape
make one theme obvious: A rapist is someone who forces another person to have
sexual intercourse. Rape is the crime of forcing another person to submit to
sexual intercourse. To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially
sexual intercourse, amounts to committing rape.



Bare Naked Islam carries the whole story above. Most of the stories of rape are too gruesome to dwell on. And because of the "cultural" differences between the West and Africa, rape is a certainty, borne by envy, hatred of the West, and a strong, overriding element of racism. You must wonder what was the fate of Western women during the Hun invasion of Europe. Rome was spared  But the West is being subjected to another Hunnic invasion, from Africa and from the Mideast, at the behest of Western governments too cowardly to defend themselves or their citizens.






Recep Tayyip Erdoğan  of
Turkey wishes to unleash on Europe countless Muslim ‘immigrants.”  He is the new Attilla.






.

A Silver Lining

By Robert Gore



A guest column

 https:gellerreport.com/2020/05/who-will-fight-for-your-rights.html/





Who will fight for your rights?

…we are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

Ayn Rand, Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, Appendix, “The Nature of Government,” 1967









We are no longer fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion, we’ve arrived. It is the stage of which every would-be dictator dreams, where his whims are absolute, and everything everyone else says, does, or thinks must comport with those whims, even—impossible though it would be—when they are contradictory.

Science is anti-whim. Nature, as Francis Bacon observed, to be commanded must be obeyed. Nothing illustrates the ultimate inversion of the official coronavirus response better than its leaders’ assault on science in the name of their “science.”


Doctors have been discouraged or prohibited from administering hydroxychloroquine, by itself or in conjunction with other medications, vitamins, and zinc compounds, to treat Covid-19. They have observed and documented the effectiveness of such remedies—mitigation or elimination of the disease’s symptoms—but their observation and documentation are dismissed. Only the validation procedure mandated by the medical bureaucracy—the expensive and complex multistage tests required of new drugs to establish their efficacy and safety—will suffice for official permission. It’s what their “science” demands of a cheap and seemingly effective remedy that’s been on the market for years as a treatment for lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and malaria.



So where were the tests and control-group studies for the pandemic models, lockdowns, social distancing, masks, flattening the curve, closing businesses, and contact tracing that have been the official coronavirus responses? Projections are hypotheses, but only one class of hypotheses was officially accepted—disaster scenarios that fed panic and paved the way for further expansion of governments’ power. The doomsday models have been discredited; cases and deaths have been orders of magnitude less than projected.

Countries that haven’t instituted lockdowns have fared no worse than countries that have. Andrew Cuomo, governor of hard-hit New York, recently expressed surprise that two-thirds of hospitalized coronavirus patients had been sheltering in place. As if locking people down—often families under close quarters—in apartment buildings that can’t control cockroaches would somehow protect dwellers against a microscopic, easily spread, fast replicating, and virtually infinite virus.

No science at all supports social distancing; six-feet is an arbitrary construct (i.e., whim) of some medical would-be dictator. Masks force the rebreathing of your own respiratory waste, weakening your immune system for the dubious benefit of that all-powerful totem: public health. The health you’re supposedly protecting is certainly not your own. It’s like eating your own feces or drinking your own urine for a purported public benefit.

Flattening the curve to ensure adequate hospital space for the wave of coronavirus patients that hasn’t happened has flattened the hospitals, leading to empty rooms and wards and layoffs for medical workers. Bankruptcies will follow.








Recommended by







Lost jobs and shuttered businesses are just collateral damage for our would-be emperors, who have waged senseless wars and inflicted grievous collateral damage on other countries for decades. Now the devastation and misery they’ve left in their wake have come home. Americans who’ve never asked themselves how it felt to be a victim of their government’s senseless wars are now victims of their government’s senseless war on a germ. After an unsustainable debt-propelled respite, the Greater Depression has resumed (it started in 2008) and will last for years. Its poverty and devastation will sicken and kill multiples of the people who will ultimately be afflicted by the coronavirus.








All this supposedly guided by “science,” yet its proponents commit the most unscientific offense—they corrupt their own data. By their own admission the tests they use give both false negatives and false positives. By their own admission they’re corrupting the death count. Doctors have been instructed to list Covid-19 as a cause of death if the deceased had any of the symptoms associated with Covid-19, even though those symptoms characterize a number of other diseases that singly or in combination kill people, especially people with compromised immune systems. Hospitals have a financial incentive to perpetuate this fraud. They receive $13,000 from Medicare for each Covid-19 patient and $39,000 for each patient put on a ventilator (Links here and here).

The coronavirus tyranny has nothing to do with science, medicine, or health, and everything to do with establishing that ultimate inversion: the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission. These past few weeks we’ve seen how our rulers attempted to discard the last fig leaf—democracy—covering their creeping, now galloping, totalitarianism and complete lack of legitimacy.

A camarilla within the nation’s intelligence services, the Department of Justice, and members of the previous administration, including Barack Obama, attempted to depose the democratically elected president of the United States. Such coups are the province of two-bit plotters in banana republics that make no pretense of observing or protecting rights, where might alone makes right. The United States has gone full banana—the stage of rule by brute force.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority, a system that inevitably destroys individual rights. For the history-challenged, individual rights were the still revolutionary concept on which the idea—although not always the reality—of the United States was established. The logical consequence of the full protection of individual rights is the freedom to live your life as you see fit, as long as you don’t abridge the rights of others. Society or any other group of people has no rights apart from the rights of the individuals that comprise it. Governments have no rights, only the duty to protect the rights of individuals to live peaceably and freely. Government must be the servant, not the master, of its citizens. (See the Ayn Rand Appendix cited above, “The Nature of Government,” for a more detailed exposition of the proper role of government.)

We’re light years from that ideal. Individuals must receive permission to, among other things, leave their homes, hold a job, assemble with other individuals, attend houses of worship, visit parks and beaches, or patronize businesses. The governor of my state, Michelle Lujan Grisham, just decreed that masks must be worn by everyone outside of their own dwellings (I wrote STOP MLG’S TYRANNY on mine). Breathing fresh air is now at the sufferance of our overlords. Civilly disobedient soul that I am, I have yet to don my mask. Don’t think sheep don’t get angry—I get murderous looks from mask-wearers.

With every decree issued since this repression began, those who advocate for their individual rights or actually exercise them by violating the decree are denounced, shamed, censored, and in some cases arrested. Anyone who disagrees by word or deed is “selfish,” unwilling to sacrifice for the common good.







What do they mean by selfish? Is it selfish to fight for your rights? Is it selfish to want to work and produce? Is it selfish to be more concerned with your own welfare and the welfare of your family and friends than with the welfare of strangers, the public, or the government that supposedly represents that public? Is your desire for freedom selfish?

There are those who will tie themselves in intellectual knots answering those questions in the negative, but nevertheless asserting that individual rights and their exercise—free expression, free inquiry, free production, and free exchange—can all be justified as conferring the greatest public good. They then wonder why they never win arguments with those pushing collectivized notions of the public good. When might makes right, the public good is whatever the collective’s masters say it is—argument over.

Fighting for one’s freedom and all that flows from it is selfish, profoundly so. If you don’t fight for that which is yours—the individual rights that are the essential condition of your existence—who’s going to do it for you? Anthony Fauci? Bill Gates? Nancy Pelosi? President Trump? Joe Biden? George Soros? Jerome Powell? Adam Schiff? Mark Zuckerberg? Eric Schmidt? Santa Claus? The Tooth Fairy? When was the last time you even heard the term “individual rights” in polite, mainstream discourse? When individual rights are mentioned at all, they’re treated as a quaint anachronism.

And what do they mean by sacrifice? They mean that instead of selfishly fighting for your rights and freedom, you are to unselfishly place them on the sacrificial altar known as the public good. You’re selfish for resisting the sacrifice of that which is rightfully yours, but those collecting what is not rightfully theirs are selfless saints. If you voluntarily board that cattle car, you’ll secure your spot in the Unselfish Hall of Fame, along with millions of others who have lost their property, happiness, freedom, and lives without selfish protest or resistance. You might even be designated a Hero of the Public Good, posthumously of course.

If you find the world’s descent into evil unfathomable, it’s time to rethink the premises that the selfless is the good and the selfish is evil. Collectivist butchers, including the ones pushing the coronavirus hoax, always demand fealty to some cause greater than one’s self. Fall for that one and you’ve already lost two important parts of yourself—your self-respect and your ability to reason.

The precautionary principle—that no risks can be assumed if someone or something somewhere might be harmed—is anti-mind and anti-life, absurdly evil on its face. That philosophical abomination now excuses wholesale violation of individual rights and deadly economic devastation based on projections, bureaucratic whim, and political expediency. The precautionary principle would, if consistency applied, bring human progress to a halt, eventually rendering the human race extinct. Nothing is as unsafe as an insistence on absolute safety.







Risk is what makes life worth living—it’s the driver of human knowledge and progress. Imagine the choices that confronted early humans as they made their first choices. If we build a fire, will it warm us and cook our meat…or consume us? If we eat oysters, will they nourish or kill us? Will the canoe we’ve built float or sink? The forward steps of both our individual and humanity’s journeys have always involved unanswered questions, hypotheses, risk, experimentation, trial and error, tragedy, and triumph. It takes no imagination at all to envision potential risks. Make fear and safety paramount and none of those steps could have or will be taken.

To believe that risks can be eliminated by arbitrary edicts is delusional; to enforce those edicts tyrannical; to comply with them suicidal. Wars are always fought and tyrannies always established in the name of somebody’s safety. The betrayal of individual conscience and surrender of individual rights to a collective for safety’s sake never produces safety, only misery, destruction, despair, terror and death. That’s a lesson we’re set to relearn as we proceed through one of those darkest periods of human history.

There is a silver lining in all this: the curtain has been lifted, we now know exactly what we confront. Present governments and their many bootlickers and minions do not recognize—much less protect or hold themselves subordinate to the protection of—individual rights. Nor should we expect that they will do so within our lifetimes. Absent their replacement via revolution or abandonment via secession, we will continue to live in a political order where they are free to do as they please while we may act only by permission.

If we want our rights, our freedom, and our lives, we’re going to have to fight for them with word and deed. It has ever been so; it will ever be so. Those who choose to fight will have one important ally: rule by brute force is the agent of its own collapse. It has always failed, it always will. Whether we have the virtue and wisdom to replace it with it’s antitheses—freedom and individual rights protected rather than destroyed by government—remains to be seen.

Stay sane.

The
Coronavirus Fetish, or anti-social "Social Distancing."







Christine McNulty' via UKOA (Watford Observer)




4:02
PM (2 hours ago)




to UKOA published in May: 

[image error]










“There’s no reason for
increased penalties for reducing the 2  meter (6 feet) rule in the
open air because viruses disperse in the open air; the rule isn’t applied when
people are shopping in a supermarket and in many other indoor spaces where it
can’t be policed.



“I think the govnmt is trying to avoid the formation of crowds and the
potential for civil unrest.”  (4.02 PM 5/10)




Prolific writer,
Christine McNultty, is often published in the Watford Obsever, in the UK. 




But rationality rarely
enters the minds of power-lusters, with only the chance to use brute force
whetting their appetite. Reason and force are antipods 



Some good news is that a Dallas Texas salon owner was released from jail after
defying a judge's decision to imprison her for violating the and
"social distance" orders. The governor of the state ordered her
freed.




Some
awful, outrageous news it that an Australian woman in Sydney who was demonstrating
peacefully against the lockdown was brutally arrested and her young screaming
son wrested from her grip by the police. She was roughly put into the police
van, still resisting her arrest. 




The
current imposition of lockdowns, “stay-at- home” orders, and “social
distancing’ – at 6 feet, between people – reflect an uncanny echo of how people
lived in George Orwell’s  “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” and how people are behaving
today to “fight” the coronavirus, behaving in compliance with government
mandated and encouraged actions. (Masks, “ etc.) “Lockdowns” in Oceania were
the rule of daily life, while “social distancing” was de regur. You
couldn’t approach a stranger to make friends or ask for a date without risking
the attention of the Party and the Thought Police and endangering oneself and
the person you want to know.. Lockdowns meant that one stayed at home and did
not venture out to do something, such as search for needed things like razor
blades. If you were an Upper or Lower Party member it was forbidden to
“socialize” with the Proles or proletarians, and you could be punished, and
even executed for doing so – if caught.




But,
today, in our perishing "democracies, if you’re a scheming politician
hungry for more power and control over the citizens you can “socialize” all you
wish with impunity and with no fear of retaliation.




Orwell’s
narrative about the life of Winston Smith contains a plethora of gritty detail
of the everyday existence, the narrative to be admired because it conveys the
miserable existential realities of life under tyranny in Ocenia.. But those
realities are beginning to manifest themselves in Western nations today.




As
with the face masks, as noted in my column, "Stealth Fascism,"
enforcing “social distancing” has become a compulsive fetish and a constant
excuse to persecute or harass citizens by the authorities and by citizens, to
assert power. Some face-masked citizens will stare at you as though you should
be marched behind a dumpster and shot. Park rangers, cops, and bureaucrats
often jump at the chance to exert their power to punish citizens for not
conforming to the arbitrary rules, or to intimidate people into compliance.




A
mother at home was persistently badgered by Wisconsin
officers on weather or not she knew the meanings of  “stay-at-home” and lockdown, practically
inviting her to emerge from her home so she could be arrested.




A Seattle cop spoke eloquenty  on
Instagram against arbitrary powers. He has been suspended because he refuses to
remove his video.




As Heather MacDonald noted in an article about Trump not
wearing  a mask at a VE celebration:




"The
first thing to be said about the VE Day episode is that the criticism of Trump
for not donning a mask outside is based on no science at all. Outdoor
transmission of viruses in a wide-open space is virtually unknown. Infection
occurs overwhelmingly indoors, and requires close and
prolonged contact. People are less likely to get infected by the
coronavirus outside than they are to die inside from falling, poisoning
themselves, or choking, as Vanity Fair writer T.A. Frank has
pointed out."




To dramatize
the "new norm" in civil society:




You are
invited to a friend’s wedding reception about two miles away. You don your tux
and go. You have a turn to dance with the bride. Later, you fall in love with
one of the bridesmaids. You find her smile charming, and want to get to know
her better, and she seems receptive to your attentions. She’s not wearing a
mask (no one is wearing a mask). Just as the musicians begin to play a sultry
number and you start to dance with the girl, about a dozen armed, masked police
raid the hall and arrest everyone. Citing our violation of the lockdown, stay-
at-home and social distancing rules decreed by the governor. Everyone is
cuffed, put into a paddy wagon and taken to jail to be identified and booked, even
the bride and groom. Those not put into  cells are fined $75 each for “breaking the
law,” and ordered home. It is a celebration 
to “remember.”




When you think
of it, the enforcement of lockdowns and social distincing isn't really about
"fighting the coronavirus"; it's about wielding political power
against citizens who have been disarmed. The enforcement isn't without an ardor
that would make the Gestapo or the KGB envious. 

The Coronavirus Fetish, or anti-social "Social Distancing."







Christine McNulty' via UKOA (Watford
Observer)





4:02 PM (2 hours ago)



[image error]

[image error]







to UKOA published in May: 

[image error]









“There’s no reason for
increased penalties for reducing the 2  meter (6 feet) rule in the open air because
viruses disperse in the open air; the rule isn’t applied when people are
shopping in a supermarket and in many other indoor spaces where it can’t be
policed.



“I think the govnmt is trying to avoid the formation of crowds and the
potential for civil unrest.”  (4.02 PM
5/10)




Prolific writer, Christine McNultty, is often published in the Watford Obsever, in the UK. 




But rationality rarely
enters the minds of power-lusters, with only the chance to use brute force whetting their appetite. Reason and force are antipods 



Some good news is that a Dallas Texas salon owner was released from jail after defying a judge's decision to imprison her for violating the and "social distance" orders. The governor of the state ordered her freed.



Some awful, outrageous news it that an Australian woman in Sydney who was demonstrating peacefully against the lockdown was brutally arrested and her young screaming son wrested from her grip by the police. She was roughly put into the police van, still resisting her arrest. 




The current imposition of lockdowns, “stay-at- home”
orders, and “social distancing’ – at 6 feet, between people – reflect an uncanny
echo of how people lived in George Orwell’s  “Nineteen
Eighty-Four,” and how people are behaving today to “fight”
the coronavirus, behaving in compliance with government mandated and encouraged
actions. (Masks, “ etc.) “Lockdowns” in Oceania were the rule of daily life,
while “social distancing” was de regur.
You couldn’t approach a stranger to make friends or ask for a date without
risking the attention of the Party and the Thought Policeand endangering oneself and the person you want to know.. Lockdowns meant that
one stayed at home and did not venture out to do something, such as search for
needed things like razor blades. If you were an Upper or Lower Party member it
was forbidden to “socialize” with the Proles or proletarians, and you could be
punished, and even executed for doing so – if caught.




But, today, in our perishing "democracies, if you’re a scheming politician hungry for
more power and control over the citizens you can “socialize” all you wish with
impunity and with no fear of retaliation.




Orwell’s narrative about the life of Winston Smith
contains a plethora of gritty detail of the everyday existence, the narrative
to be admired because it conveys the miserable existential realities of life under tyranny in Ocenia.. But those realities beginning to manifest themselves in Western nations today.




As with the face masks, as noted in my column, "Stealth Fascism II," enforcing “social distancing” has become a compulsive fetish and a constant excuse to
persecute or harass citizens by the authorities and by citizens, to assert
power. Some face-masked citizens will stare at you as though you should be marched
behind a dumpster and shot. Park rangers, cops, and bureaucrats often jump at
the chance to exert their power to punish citizens for not conforming to the arbitrary rules, or to intimidate people into
compliance.



A Seattle cop spoke eloquenty  on Instagram against arbitrary powers. He has been suspended because he refuses to remove his video.




As Heather MacDonald noted in an article about Trump not
wearing  a mask at a VE celebration:




"The first thing to be said
about the VE Day episode is that the criticism of Trump for not donning a mask
outside is based on no science at all. Outdoor transmission of viruses in a
wide-open space is virtually unknown. Infection occurs overwhelmingly indoors, and requires
close and prolonged contact. People are less likely to get infected
by the coronavirus outside than they are to die inside from falling, poisoning
themselves, or choking, as Vanity Fair writer T.A.
Frank has pointed out."



When you think of it, the enforcement of lockdowns and social distincing isn't really about "fighting the coronavirus"; it's about wielding political power against citizens who have been disarmed. The enforcement isn't without an ardor that would make the Gestapo or the KGB envious. 

I wrote the following in April just to illustrate a term I invented to capture the character of what is
happening today, in 2020, because of the coronovirus and about the changing
character of America:









Stealth Fascism

Stealth Fascism

Taking my cue from Ayn Rand’s  The Fountainhead , what would Howard Roark do or not do? Imagine he is faced with the
likes of the Coronovirus in the 1920s and 1930s. He would laugh.

He would touch his face, while
scratching his head over a designing problem.

He would not regularly disinfect his
architectural drawings to show to prospective clients or employers.

He would take occasional trips to
shop.

He would not constantly wash his
hands, using a disinfectant; or a hand sanitizer.

He would go out, not stay at home,
and wonder what the hell ws “discretionary” or “essential” travel.

He would go to work.

He would not use his elbow to sneeze
into.
He would not wear a mask.He was already in conflict with the
collectivism of his time.

He would eat and drink in a
speakeasy, when he had the money.

He would not maintain a social
distance from Dominique Francon.

 He would perform other actions or
non-actions we should take for granted, as sane behavior, as normal in his
world.

I’m really surprised and disappointed
by how readily Americans are to submit to stealth fascism. It’s not a
world I want to live in. It's becoming less and less tolerable for me.

I have a good mind to order a Lone
Ranger mask from Amazon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most visible anomaly I observe today is the ubiquity of face
masks; almost everywhere I go now I encounter a  clot of people wearing  them , in restaurants and even in gas stations.
People have been told to wear masks to help arrest the spread of the virus.  And to treat it as one’s “patriotic duty.”
Overall, I regard face masks as a subliminal order to “shut up,”  and to obey.  Nobody I know of is willing to question or
doubt the practice and effectiveness of wearing the masks, which I regard as an
absence of intellectual acuity. People wear them because “authorities” insist
on it and say they must if they do not want to catch or transmit a virus germ.  They wear them to flaunt an imagined civic
virtue. I heard one person during a radio call-in show say that he did not wear
a mask, but when he went into a convenience store, the manager yelled
“evacuate!” and most of his customers, who were wearing masks, ran screaming
out of the store. This was an instance of “herd” mentality. I take Roark’s silent
attitude about the conformity without even a grain of salt: I greet such
behavior with an aloofness or indifference  that not quite verges on contempt.




The next ludicrous anomaly I’ve
witnessed is the “social distancing” rule, which at the moment is six feet..As
with face masks, the necessity of maintaining one’s “social distance” seeps
into the public mind through official decrees, media propaganda, and constant
reminders and badgering  that  citizens must do their bit.  I’ve shopped in some major stores, such as
WalMart and Publix,  that have marked out  aisles with chalked 6-foot signs on the floor
that wend through various product sections all the way to check-out, where the
cashiers wear gloves and “sanitize” bags and purchased items with spray, and
even the shopping carts. God help you if you infringe on someone’s “space.” In
one store a masked shopper yelled at me, “Get away from me!” I was tempted to
reply, “I wouldn’t ask you out to dinner, either.”  That has happened in more than one instance.
In smaller stores the proprietors conscionsstiously mark where people must
stand to get their purchases rung up.  You can even be castigated in a parking lot.
I’ve been upbraided just getting out of my car if it’was too close to another.
Another curios development is the rush on toilet paper as reported in various
news items. You’d swear that TP had acquired the economic value of silver
coinage. And has become an item difficult to keep stocked and shelved.




Park rangers, local cops, municipal
officials and others emboldened by lockdown authority have become petty tyrants,
closing or fining businesses, raiding gatherings in homes, public parks,  beaches, and even funerals, to break up
groups of people assembled “Illegaly.” . Doubtless hovering drones report them
to the authorities and vests them with omniscience. Across the country
protestors are demonstrating
enmasse against the lockdowns.
lone Individual citizens are giving the “authorities” backtalk they do not
like. Most lockdowns and “stay at home” orders are mostly state government
decrees. The states demand full, obedient, immediate, and thoughtless
compliance by the electorate.




Our culture today does not resemble the free culture of yesteryear. Tom
McCaffrey, in an article on Canada Fee Press,noted:
” It’s
hard to believe that there was a time in America when parents would set out
into the wilderness in covered wagons with their children, risking injury or
death every mile of the way, exposing themselves—and their children—to disease,
blizzards, droughts, wild animals, outlaws, and hostile Indians. Today, such
parents would be prosecuted for child abuse. …. But no one was in control back
then.” Freedom to move and assemble was taken for granted. Today, that freedom is vanishing at the whim of the Gavin Newsoms and Gretchen Whitmers of the world.

What
would Howard Roark do? For one thing, he would vanish, as well. You would not
hear him laugh. But he would remain as a vision of all that ought to be.






What is “Stealth Fascism”?  It is an aggressive government program to
ingratiate state policies and priorities into the everyday, banal concerns of
private citizens, to ensure that they heed and obey those policies and
priorities. And also that they look to the state for guidance and for “moral”
clarity. It is insipid and evil. Patrick Henry would have nothing to do with
it; nor would Howard Roark.


--30--

Stealth Fascism

Taking my cue from The Fountainhead, What would Howard Roark do? Imagine he is faced with Coronovirus.

He would touch his face, while scratching his head over a problem.

Not regularly disinfect his architectural drawings.

Take occasional trips to shop.

Would not constantly wash his hands, using a disinfectant; or a hand sanitizer.

Go out, not stay at home, and wonder what the hell is “discretionary” or “essential” travel.

Go to work.

Not use his elbow to sneeze into.

Eat and drink in a speakeasy, when he has the money.

Not maintain a distance from Dominique Francon.

 And other actions we should take for granted as normal in his world.

I’m really surprised by how readily Americans are to submit to  stealth fascism. It’s not a world I want to live in. It's becoming less and less tolerable for me.



I gave a good mind to order a Lone Ranger mask from Amazon.

All my work

 Skeen novel
chronology and Timeline for Dilys's paintings



August 1927  Inquest , pre-Dilys era (Skeen No. 27)

Early December 1927   Double Ententre , pre-Dilys
 (Skeen No. 28)

Mid-March 1928  Sufferance , pre-Dilys  (Skeen No.
29)

June 1928  Warlocks , pre-Dilys (Skeen No. 30)

October 1928  Beginnings , pre-Dilys  (Skeen No. 21)

December 1928  China Basin , marries Dilys  (Skeen
No. 13)

Early January 1929 Reciprocity, No Dilys paintings yet  (Skeen No. 22)

February 1929  Wintery Discontent , Dilys just getting her study  (Skeen No. 13)

March 1929  Manhattan Blues , Dilys interviews models for paintings  (Skeen No. 14)\

April 1929 The Janus Affair, Dilys getting her studio ready  (Skeen No. 15)

Late April 1929  First Things , Dilys completes early studies of 'Hypatia' Valda hired (Skeen
No. 16)

May 1929  The Head of Athena , Dilys visiting aunt Patsy back East  (Skeen No. 2)

May 1929  Civic Affairs , Dilys working with Valda and Sally Crofts on 'Hypatia'  (Skeen No. 17)

June 1929 Stolen Words, Dilys completes 'Hypatia', planning
'Salome' (Skeen No. 12)

June 1929  Exegesis , Dilys does sketches for 'Salome' (Skeen No. 18)

July 1929  The Daedàlus Conspiracy , Dilys refines 'Hypatia," Sally Crofts replaced   (Skeen
No. 3)

August 1929  An August Interlude , Dilys finishes 'Hypatia' (Skeen No. 11)

September 1929  The Circles of Odin , Valda models for 'Salome'  (Skeen No. 8)

October 1929  Sleight of Hand , Dilys still working on 'Salome'  (Skeen No 10)

November 1929  The Chameleon , Dilys finishes 'Salome'  (Skeen No. 4)

November 1929 Reprisals, Valda's birthday  (Skeen
No. 32)

November 1929  The Pendulum , Dilys makes sketches for 'Circe'  (Skeen No. 33)

December 1929  Seeing Double , Dilys makes sketches for 'Circe'  (Skeen No. 19)

December 1929  Trichotomy , Dilys works on 'Circe,' sketches for 'Phryne'  (Skeen No. 20)

December 1929  School Days , Dilys works on 'Phryne'  (Skeen No. 21)

January 1930  Saving Athena , Dilyx does work on 'Phryne'  (Skeen No. 23)

January 1930  A Crimson Overture , Dily finishes 'Circe'  (Skeen
No. 5)

 Late January 1930  Passions , Dilys works on 'Phryne'  (Skeen No. 25)

January 1930  Breakdown , Dilys refines 'Circe'  (Skeen No. 36)

January 1930  Split Infinitives , Dilys works more on 'Circe'  and 'Phryne'  (Skeen No. 24)

February 1930  Celebrity News , Dilys nearly finished with 'Phryne'  (Skeen No. 26)

February 1930  The Black Stone , Dilys works more on 'Phryne'  (Skeen No. 6)

March 1930  The Gumshoe Guild , Dilys finishes 'Phryne"  (Skeen No. 37)

March 1930  Serenity , Dilys does studies for 'Joan or Arc'   (Skeen
No. 38)

March 1930  The Pickwick Affair , Dilys puts final touches on 'Phyrne'   (Skeen
No. 37)

April 1930  Silver Screens , Dilys sells 'Hypatia' to M. Courau  (Skeen No. 9)

December 1930  The Skeen Chronicles ,  (Skeen No. 31)

April 1930  Flute , (Skeen No. 40)

May 1930  A Final Canvas , Dilys injures head in fall, while working on "Joan of
Arc," surgery (Skeen No. 41) 

May 1930  Gallery , Dilys. recovered from her surgery, opens Révélé gallery
for her paintings, featuring her "Joan of Arc,";  Valda is
murdered outside gallery  (Skeen No. 42)

"Sweets" a work in progress (March 1931)





 





Sparrowhawk  word counts for printed books, Kindle,
and ACX audio books of series:

The total word count
of the series comes to a little over 794,000 words. Here is a breakdown of the
counts of each title:



Book
One: Jack Frake: 108,000 (2002)

Book
Two: Hugh Kenrick: 171,742 (2003)

Book
Three: Caxton: 96,905 (2004)

Book
Four: Empire: 112,107 (2005)

Book
Five: Revolution: 123,156 (2005)

Book
Six: War: 139,410  (2007)

New
Sparrowhawk Companion:  43,000 
(2008)

Total:  794,320

All as of April 2016




The Merritt Fury
Series




Whisper
the Guns: (64,541) (1977)

We
Three Kings: (61,944) (1980)

Run
From Judgment: (89,006) (1983)

Total: 215,491 (as of 5 September 2016)




The Chess Hanrahan
Series




With
Distinction: (71,783) (1984)

First
Prize: (66,382) (1988)

Presence
of Mind: (84,119) (1987)

Honors
Due: (72.660) (1989)

Total: 294,944 (as of 5 September 2016)




Nonfiction Series




Running Out My Guns: 70,387   (1)

Broadsides In the War of Ideas: 49,948  (2)

Corsairs & Freebooters: 44,759:   (3)

Islam's Reign of Terror:  15,579:   (4)

Boarding Parties & Grappling Hooks:  69,782   (5)

Letters of Marque:  64,330  (7)

From the Crow's Nest:  66,347   (8)

Rational Scrutiny: 47,332   (9)

A Handbook on Islam: 14,628   (10)

Cogitations 55,521:   (11)

Routing
Islam 35,585:   (12)

Collectables  29,370 (13)

Ghouls
of Disambiguation 4,678  (14)

Wizards
of Disambiguation  11,451 (15)

Total to
Date:    531,820

As of 27 February 2019




Combined total word
count,, all series, as of 13 September 2017: 3,201,593



2,536 (including
guest non-Rule of Reason posts) 2,532 (including guest non-Rule of Reason
posts) 

NO SMOKING

Ayn Rand  > Quotes

Ayn Rand quotes 



― Ayn Rand,  Atlas Shrugged

“I like to think of fire held in a man's hand.
Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the
hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I
wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is
a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the
burning point of a cigarette as his one expression.”

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/432.Ayn_Rand







ANTI-SMOKING PATERNALISM: A CANCER ON AMERICAN
LIBERTY

by Don
Watkins | March 06, 2010

Newport
Beach is considering banning smoking in a variety of new places, potentially including
parks and outdoor dining areas. This is just the latest step in a widespread
war on smoking by federal, state, and local governments — a campaign that
includes massive taxes on cigarettes, advertising bans, and endless lawsuits
against tobacco companies. This war is infecting America with a political
disease far worse than any health risk caused by smoking; it is destroying our
freedom to make our own judgments and choices.

According
to the anti-smoking movement, restricting people’s freedom to smoke is
justified by the necessity of combating the “epidemic” of smoking-related
disease and death. Cigarettes, we are told, kill hundreds of thousands each
year, and expose countless millions to secondhand smoke. Smoking, the
anti-smoking movement says, in effect, is a plague, whose ravages can only be
combated through drastic government action.

But
smoking is not some infectious disease that must be quarantined and destroyed
by the government. It’s a voluntary activity that every individual is free to
abstain from (including by avoiding restaurants and other private
establishments that permit smoking). And, contrary to those who regard any
smoking as irrational on its face, cigarettes are a potential value that each
individual must assess for himself. Of course, smoking can be harmful — in
certain quantities, over a certain period of time, it can be habit forming and
lead to disease or death. But many understandably regard the risks as minimal
if one smokes relatively infrequently, and they see smoking as offering
definite value, such as physical pleasure.

Are
they right? Can it be a value to smoke cigarettes — and if so, in what
quantity? This is the sort of judgment that properly belongs to every
individual, based on his assessment of the evidence concerning smoking’s
benefits and risks, and taking into account his particular circumstances (age,
family history, etc.). If others believe the smoker is making a mistake, they
are free to try to persuade him of their viewpoint. But they should not be free
to dictate his decision, any more than they should be able to dictate his
decision on whether and to what extent to drink alcohol or play poker. The fact
that some individuals will smoke themselves into an early grave is no more
justification for banning smoking than that the existence of alcoholics is
grounds for prohibiting you from enjoying a drink at dinner.

Implicit
in the war on smoking, however, is the view that the government must dictate
the individual’s decisions with regard to smoking, because he is incapable of
making them rationally. To the extent the anti-smoking movement succeeds in
wielding the power of government coercion to impose on Americans its blanket
opposition to smoking, it is entrenching paternalism: the view that individuals
are incompetent to run their own lives, and thus require a nanny-state to
control every aspect of those lives.

This
state is well on its way: from trans-fat bans to bicycle helmet laws to
prohibitions on gambling, the government is increasingly abridging our freedom
on the grounds that we are not competent to make rational decisions in these
areas — just as it has long done by paternalistically dictating how we plan for
retirement (Social Security) or what medicines we may take (the FDA).

Indeed,
one of the main arguments used to bolster the anti-smoking agenda is the claim
that smokers impose “social costs” on non-smokers, such as smoking-related
medical expenses — an argument that perversely uses an injustice created by
paternalism to support its expansion. The only reason non-smokers today are
forced to foot the medical bills of smokers is that our government has
virtually taken over the field of medicine, in order to relieve us inept
Americans of the freedom to manage our own health care, and bear the costs of
our own choices.

But
contrary to paternalism, we are not congenitally irrational misfits. We are
thinking beings for whom it is both possible and necessary to rationally judge
which courses of action will serve our interests. The consequences of ignoring
this fact range from denying us legitimate pleasures to literally killing us:
from the healthy 26-year-old unable to enjoy a trans-fatty food to the
75-year-old man unable to take an unapproved, experimental drug without which
he will certainly die.

By
employing government coercion to deprive us of the freedom to judge for
ourselves what we inhale or consume, the anti-smoking movement has become an
enemy, not an ally, in the quest for health and happiness.

https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/regulations/anti-smoking-paternalism-a-cancer-on-american-liberty/





Ellsworth Toohey, the
chief villain in The Fountainhead,  on the imperative of sacrificing one’s vales
tor the “higher good.” T he Fountainhead Anti-Smoking
Essay.docx (pp. 301-314,
Toohey’s academic and journalism career. Chapter 9, Part 2)   throughout the novel Toohey is the
articulate essence of a power-luster whose unchanging goal is to destroy the
good for being the good.    

  “A man braver than his brothers insults them
by implication. Let us aspire to no virtue which cannot be shared.”…”We are all
brothers under the skin –and I, for one, would be willing to skin humanity to
prove it.”….”Everything that proceeds from the ego is evil; everything that
proceeds from love for others is good.”…”Service is the only badge of
nobility.”

A great many philanthropic undertakings and radical
publications, run by all sorts of people, had a single connecting link among
them, one common denominator: the name of Ellsworth M. Toohey on their
stationery. He was a sort of one-man holding company of altruism.…..

                                                                                          

(Toohey) in his
university career, was considered outstanding as a vocational adviser.

Some of his advice. He seldom let a boy pursue the career he had
chosen.

“No, I wouldn’t go in for law if I were you. You’re much too
tense and passionate about It. A hysterical devotion to one’s career does not make
for happiness or success…”  “No, I
wouldn’t advise you to continue with your music. That’s just the trouble—that
you love it…Yes, give it up, Yes, even if it hurts like hell.”…”The question of
where you could be the most useful to your fellowmen comes first….And where
opportunities for service are concerned, there’s no endeavor comparable to that
of a surgeon. Think it over.”

Of all the many titles bestowed upon him, he preferred one:
Ellsworth Toohey, the Humanitarian.

As he is portrayed in words and actions in the
novel, Ellsworth Toohey is the brain brother and soul mate of most of the
dictators in history. Many of these figures also professed to be humanitarians
– champions of the Race, of the people, of any collective idea or movement
“higher” than the individual, posing as vehicles of salvation. His purpose was
to exact universal obedience, conformity in thought, and in thoughtless,
knee-jerk agreement with the imperative of crushing the exceptional and  individual freedom and choice. Toohey sought
to reduce the tall mountains of individualism to a monotonous, unending expanse
of sand, undisturbed by the least wind of choice and independent thought.

The first prominent anti-smoker was English King James.

https://edu.lva.virginia.gov/dbva/items/show/124

KING JAMES I, A COUNTERBLASTE TO TOBACCO, 1604

Context

This document is the first
page of a treatise that was first issued by King James I (1566–1625) in 1604
and later received a new printing in 1674. He was the King of Great Britain
from 1603 until his death in 1625. The first English ruler from the House of
Stuart, he succeeded Queen Elizabeth I after her death, and was the first
British monarch to rule both England and Scotland. In this treatise King James
I gives various reasons for his strong dislike of tobacco, each of which is
meant to counteract several then common reasons for tobacco usage.



Europeans had been exposed to tobacco as early as 1560 and used it primarily as
medicine. In the following decades, tobacco use among Europeans increased, not
only for medicinal use but also for recreation. For many rulers in Europe,
including King James I, tobacco smoking represented a major social and health
problem. English leaders did not make the sale and smoking of tobacco illegal,
although many other European countries did. Instead, King James I

tried hard to reduce
tobacco usage, even instituting a 4,000 percent tax hike on tobacco in 1604.
The price increase, however, did little to reduce English demand for the
“noxious weed.”

The attitude of the king and members of England's
ruling classes changed when tobacco became a cash crop for its colonies. During
the early years of English exploration and settlement of North America, only a
small amount of tobacco was cultivated and exported. For that reason, in 1604,
when King James issued this statement, the main suppliers of tobacco to the
English were foreign shippers. Not until the 1620s did the English colonies of
Virginia and Maryland began to grow and export large quantities. Accepting the
inevitable King James decided the Crown might as well cash in on the popularity
of tobacco and the state took control of the industry. Ironically, tobacco
cultivation would lay the foundation for the success of England's American
colonies.

Of course, we
know that government anti-smoking powers have emulated King James and his
elitist allies over the centuries by not only frowning on tobacco and smoking
and discouraging them, but decided to impose taxes and controls on the
“noxious” leaf and its use world over because it could not be stamped out, and
collect revenue on its growing use and sale, as the U.S. government, state, and
local governments do now. One cannot enter a pool hall or a bar or a restaurant
anymore, without encountering “No Smoking” signs. Not exactly welcoming the
likes of Minnesota Fats,

.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Wikipedia
has an informative entry on the anti-smoking campaign from its early
beginnings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Cigarette_League_of_America

Anti-Cigarette League of
America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Anti-Cigarette
League of America was an anti-smoking  advocacy group  which had substantial success in the anti-smoking movement
in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States in passing
anti-smoking legislation. The campaign sought to pass  smoking bans  in public places as well as ban cigarettes themselves.

History

The group was founded in 1899
by  Lucy Page
Gaston , a
teacher, writer, lecturer and member of the  Woman's
Christian Temperance Union .
Gaston maintained that cigarette smoking was a "dangerous new habit,
particularly threatening to the young and thus likely to lead to the use of
alcohol and narcotics, so prevalent in the 1890s." Gaston's mission
attracted the attention and the patronage of like-minded progressives and
members of the WCTU. By 1901 the organization claimed a membership of 300,000,
with a paid staff overseeing chapters throughout the United States and Canada. [1]

Between 1890 and 1930, 15
states enacted laws banning the sale, manufacture, possession, or use of
cigarettes, and 22 other states considered such legislation. [2]

Even the legislature of the
tobacco-producing state of North Carolina considered cigarette prohibition laws
in 1897, 1901, 1903, 1905, 1911, 1913, and again in 1917.

Eventually,
all the states repealed their cigarette prohibition laws and associated smoking
bans in most public places. Kansas was the last to do so, in 1927

The anti-smoking
campaign in America from its beginning in the 19th Century was
compatible with the growth of Progressivism in the U.S, that is, with the rise
of political clamoring for more controls and the regulation of private choices
and behavior. One of my favorite short independent films is “Regulation.”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5gVhaum2s0&mc_cid=0c9a3d16c3&mc_eid=b84fd71138

In a not too-far-fetched
plot (not too far from the Democrats’ progressive designs on Americans), a
social worker from the Department of Health and Human Services appears to
attach a “happy patch” or a micro doser to a young girl in conformance with a
law that guarantees that every child has a “right” to be happy, “by law.”. The
girl offers the social worker an unanswerable argument about why she does not
want a “happy patch.” Unable to counter the girl’s argument, the social worker
resorts deception and reports the girl’s non-compliance.

There are dozens of articles on the anti-smoking and
anti-secondhand smoke issues.

We can’t overlook the Nazi contribution to the campaign.
Hitler was a notorious non- and anti-smoker. Had he won WWI he likely would
have banned smoking  not only in Germany
but in all his conquered countries.

https://www.bmj.com/content/313/7070/1450

Nuremberg

The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of
public health in Germany, 1933–45

BMJ 1996; 313 doi:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1450  (Published
07 December 1996)Cite this as: BMJ 1996;313:1450

·        
Article

·        
Related content

·        
Metrics

·        
Responses

1.      
Robert
N Proctor,
professor of the history

Author affiliations

·        
Accepted 6 November 1996

Historians and epidemiologists have only recently begun to
explore the Nazi anti-tobacco movement. Germany had the world's strongest
antismoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s, encompassing bans on smoking
in public spaces, bans on advertising, restrictions on tobacco rations for
women, and the world's most refined tobacco epidemiology, linking tobacco use
with the already evident epidemic of lung cancer. The anti-tobacco campaign
must be understood against the backdrop of the Nazi quest for racial and bodily
purity, which also motivated many other public health efforts of the era.

Medical historians in recent
years have done a great deal to enlarge our understanding of medicine and
public health in Nazi Germany. We know that about half of all doctors joined
the Nazi party and that doctors played a major part in designing and
administering the Nazi programmes of forcible sterilisation, “euthanasia,” and
the industrial scale murder of Jews and gypsies.1 2 Much of our present day
concern for the abuse of humans used in experiments stems from the extreme
brutality many German doctors showed towards concentration camp prisoners
exploited to advance the cause of German military medicine.

Tobacco in the Reich

One topic that has only recently begun
to attract attention is the Nazi anti-tobacco movement.4 5 6 Germany had the world's
strongest antismoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s, supported by Nazi
medical and military leaders worried that tobacco might prove a hazard to the
race.1 4 Many Nazi leaders were
vocal opponents of smoking. Anti-tobacco activists pointed out that whereas
Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all fond of tobacco, the three major
fascist leaders of Europe—Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco—were all non-smokers.7 Hitler was the most
adamant, characterizing tobacco as “the wrath of the Red Man against the White
Man for having been given hard liquor.” 

Hitler's so-called anti-cigarette actions were quite limited, e.g., he
merely "banned smoking by uniformed police, SA and SS men in public, even
when off-duty." And he merely approved "severe restrictions [not a
ban] on the advertising of cigarettes," Hobhouse, supra, p 232. Germany continues even
through the year 2006 to oppose banning such ads. See Germany's lawsuit to stop
the European Union from establishing such as ban: Germany v Parliament
and Council (Case C-380/03, 12 December 2006). Germany lost, the
court upheld  banning most forms of cigarette advertising .

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/the-nazis-forgotten-anti-smoking-campaign/373766/

The Nazis' Forgotten
Anti-Smoking Campaign

The Third Reich viewed
tobacco as a threat to the health of the "chosen folk."

TRACY BROWN
HAMILTON

JULY 9, 2014

DENIS DEFREYNE/FLICKR

“Nazi Germany was governed by a
health-conscious political elite bent on European conquest and genocidal
extermination,” writes Stanford researcher Robert Proctor in his book,  The Nazi
War on Cancer , “and
tobacco at the time was viewed as one among many ‘threats’ to the health of the
chosen folk.”

In 1939, German scientist Franz
Müller presented the first epidemiological study linking tobacco use and
cancer. In 1943, a paper prepared by German scientists Eberhard Schairer and
Erich Schöniger at Jena University confirmed this study, and convincingly established
for the first time that cigarette smoking is a direct cause of lung cancer.

Research by
German doctors also brought to light the harmful effects of secondhand smoke
for the first time, and coined the term “passive smoking.” But Proctor says the
findings cannot be separated from the context in which they were realized.

According to Proctor, Schairer and
Schöniger’s paper needs to be seen as “a political document, a product of the
Nazi ideological focus on tobacco as a corrupting force whose elimination would
serve the cause of ‘racial hygiene.’” The Nazi agenda was centered on the idea
of establishing and maintaining a German Aryan master race that was free of
illness or impurity, and tobacco was just one of the many influences that could
weaken the so-called Übermensch.

“Nazism was a movement of muscular,
health-conscious young men worried about things like the influence of Jews in
German culture and the evils of communism,” Proctor says, “but also about the
injurious effects of white bread, asbestos, and artificial food dyes.”

According to an  article in Toxicological Sciences , before 1900, lung cancer was extremely rare
worldwide, but incidents of the disease increased dramatically by the 1930’s.
This coincided with the growing popularity of cigarette smoking beginning
toward the end of the 20th century, but a link was never identified between
lung cancer and smoking until Nazi-era scientists made the connection.

Research into the harmful effects
of tobacco was funded by the Institute for the Struggle Against Tobacco, which
was established in 1941and funded by Hitler’s Reich Chancellery. The Institute
was led by Karl Astel, a doctor, high-ranking SS officer and fervent
anti-Semite, according to Proctor.

Among other things, Astel’s
institute funded and distributed pamphlets and articles about the harmful
effects of tobacco, including a collection of Goethe’s views on the subject.
The institute conducted research into the potential damage or mutations that
nicotine could cause to the genetic material of the master race

Nazi
Germany’s well-known obsession with creating a master Aryan race led to many
atrocities. But from these same sinister motives came research that may have
had health benefits for the German people during World War II—studies on the
dangers of smoking that led to the most advanced anti-tobacco campaign of its
time. Unfortunately, the campaign was only concerned with protecting the health
of Aryan Germans.

The wholesale ban of smoking on
the Veterans
Administration Medical campus in
October 2020 is an outgrowth (with a $50 fine) that leaves one wondering about
the actual motive for establishing the ban. Is it just an experiment in
sociological engineering or manipulation? A flexing of Progressive muscle? Is
it really a concern about the vets, the children, the elderly, or the planet?
Or is it an exercise in conformity with the consensus that smoking and
secondhand (or passive) smoking comprisa violation of non-smokers’ rights?
Universal bans, such as Tim Kane’s last act as governor of Virginia,
represented the statewide seizure of private property and the obliteration of
freedom of choice. The result was the obedience of bars and restaurants and
businesses; of their compliance, and of the compliance of their customers or
employees.

If enough people who claim to be
harmed by secondhand smoke can agitate for a smoking ban, there are always
politicians ready to endorse a law in their favor; regardless of the ruination
of businesses and private lives. The “harm” is too often feigned or faked;
non-smokers who put on a show to demonstrate their opposition to smoking and
secondhand smoke do so to demonstrate their personal dislike of tobacco and
their agreement with the anti-smokers.

Their dislike of it should not be
the legislative basis of law. But in an era of Progressivism their whims become
the rule.  Everyone must obey and comply.
Smokers who exercise their rights are regarded as pariahs to be shunned and
even punished with social snubbing or an alienation from normal contact with
others.

The harm of smoking and “passive’
smoking may be real, but it cannot be applied to all individuals; it depends on
a person’s physical make-up. I’ve read many stories of individuals who live
past 100 years but who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for years. There are
numerous studies of the harm (government and private), dating from

the 19th century on
through the Nazi period to the present. I am tempted to doubt the purpose of
these studies. The harm of smoking and “passive’ smoking may be real, but it
cannot be applied to all individuals; it depends on a person’s physical
make-up. I’ve read many stories of individuals who live past 100 years but who
smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for years. There are numerous studies of the
harm (government and private), dating from the 19th century on
through the Nazi period to the present. I am tempted to doubt the purpose of
most of these studies; their purpose seems to be to prove a priori that
smoking is bad and must be suppressed.

This is not to say that Secretary
Wilkie of the VA is a fascist. But it is to suggest that his smoking ban and
policy is in line with the worst consequences of political and social
collectivism.

The wholesale ban of smoking on
the Veterans
Administration Medical campus in
October 2020 is an outgrowth (with a $50 fine) that leaves one wondering about
the actual motive for establishing the ban. Is it just an experiment in
sociological engineering or manipulation? A flexing of Progressive muscle? Is
it really a concern about the vets, the children, the elderly, or the planet?
Or is it an exercise in conformity with the consensus that smoking and
secondhand (or passive) smoking is a violation of non-smokers’ rights?
Universal bans, such as Tim Kane’s last act as governor of Virginia,
represented the statewide seizure of private property and the obliteration of
freedom of choice. The result was the obedience of bars and restaurants and
businesses; of their compliance, and of the compliance of their customers or
employees.

If enough people who claim to be
harmed by secondhand smoke can agitate for a smoking ban, there are always
politicians ready to endorse a law in their favor; regardless of the ruination
of businesses and private lives. The “harm” is too often feigned or faked;
non-smokers who put on a show to demonstrate their opposition to smoking and
secondhand smoke do so to demonstrate their personal dislike of tobacco and
their agreement with the anti-smokers.

Their dislike of it should not be
the legislative basis of law. But in an era of Progressivism their whims become
the rule.  Everyone must obey and comply.
Smokers who exercise their rights are regarded as pariahs to be shunned and
even punished with social snubbing or an alienation from normal contact with
others.

The harm of smoking and “passive’
smoking may be real, but it cannot be applied to all individuals; it depends on
a person’s physical make-up. I’ve read many stories of individuals who live
past 100 years but who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for years. There are
numerous studies of the harm (government and private), dating from  




the 19th century on
through the Nazi period to the present. I am tempted to doubt the purpose of
these studies. The harm of smoking and “passive’ smoking may be real, but it
cannot be applied to all individuals; it depends on a person’s physical
make-up. I’ve read many stories of individuals who live past 100 years but who
smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for years. There are numerous studies 

of the
harm (government and private), dating from the 19th century on
through the Nazi period to the present. I am tempted to doubt the purpose of
most of these studies; their purpose seems to be to prove a priori that
smoking is bad and must be suppressed.

This is not to say that Secretary
Wilkie of the VA is a fascist. But it is to suggest that his smoking ban and
policy is in line with the worst consequences of political and social
collectivism.

Edward Cline (February 2020)