Smoking is healthier than fascism

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, April 25, 2007

A wealth of overlooked yet frightening literature concerning the Nazi crusade against smoking provides a clear parallel to contemporary developments and an alarming warning that state restriction of personal habits is the pre-cursor to dictatorship.

Beginning in the early 1930’s, as part of the Nazi agenda for racial purity, Hitler spearheaded a national campaign to ban smoking in all public buildings, and denounced the practice as a betrayal of the fascist drive for bodily purity.

“Brother national socialist, do you know that our Führer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?” stated one magazine.

As I wrote earlier this year, “The regulation of the personal habit of smoking, including new legislative moves in San Francisco to ban cigarettes in private homes, and its enforcement by an eager cadre of state snoops and snitches, represents nothing more than a move on behalf of big brother towards the complete subjugation and shackling of the individual.”

Read these shocking parallels and compare them to the endless lecturing we are forced to endure today about our personal lifestyle choices by the state and their propaganda arm, the mass media.

Nazi anti-smoking propaganda poster.

- The Nazis banned tobacco advertising and financed huge public relations campaigns to propagandize people into giving up smoking.

- The Nazis banned smoking in government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces, and Hitler gave awards to associates who quit the habit.

- A ban on smoking in private vehicles was called for.

- The Nazi Reich Health Office warned that smoking caused impotence and produced posters depicting smoking as a dirty habit of Jews, Gypsies, blacks, intellectuals and Indians.

- Nazi lobbyists lectured terrified children in schools on the horrors of racial impurity as a result of smoking.

- The term “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined by the Nazi Anti-Tobacco League. Its author, Fritz Lickint, offered no supporting evidence to claim that smokers poisoned everyone around them, while also stating that drinking coffee caused cancer.

—————————————————————————————————————
The Internet leader in activist media – Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3’s, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more – all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
—————————————————————————————————————

- Hitler was an ardent vegetarian and did not smoke or drink after the age of 30, even accrediting the rise of fascism to his success in kicking the habit. He forbade anyone from smoking in a room he might enter. Fellow fascist leaders Mussolini, Napoleon and Franco also detested smoking.

- The Nazi anti-smoking crusade was unleashed with the help of manufactured junk science on behalf of the medical and health establishment, one such example being that smoking caused “spontaneous abortions” in pregnant women.

- Hitler attempted to price out smoking for Germans, levying huge taxes on cigarettes.

- Despite the Nazi propaganda crusade against smoking, tobacco sales increased in Germany, leading some history professors to hypothesize that smoking was an act of cultural resistance against fascism, until the late 1930’s after smoking was banned in most public buildings and tobacco sales rapidly declined.

Another Nazi anti-smoking propaganda poster depicts a jackboot kicking a cigarette, a cigar and a pipe.

What conclusions can we draw from these parallels? Either the Nazis were benign really cared about everyone’s health or they used the specter of anti-smoking to exert massive control over people’s lives and scale back basic freedoms, getting a foot in the door for the political dictatorship that was to follow.

Similarly today, either the same elite that advocate “mass culling” of the majority of the world’s population really do care about public health and well-being or they are using the excuse of the anti-smoking drive to condition us to accept state regulation over every aspect of our personal lives.

It’s all about control, it’s all about letting you know who the bosses are. If the government can regulate personal habits and behavior, what’s next? If the state is so concerned about our good health as they would have you believe, why not use the latest scientific advancements to remove that nasty aggressive gene that causes so much unhappiness? Well, you’re causing those around you distress and harming their health so why not? Are your political opinions a mental illness? Are they harming society? Perhaps we should ban certain types of “free” speech that is offensive to others.

You see where this is all heading – how long before our wall mounted personal x-ray body scanners are accompanied by special smoke detectors that inform on you to the local Stasi if you dare to light up?

We live in a paranoid world overpopulated by ninnying jellyfish who dare not dip their toe in the water in case there’s a law against it, it might upset someone, or it might be bad for their health.

Many people will read this article having lost loved ones as a result of smoking. Please don’t have a knee jerk emotional reaction, try to understand that the point I’m making – smoking is unhealthy but it is healthier than fascism and government regulation of personal habits leads to dictatorship.

The fact that the very language and policies that we are now bombarded with as a justification for state regulation of our personal lifestyle choices are directly lifted from Nazi policies for racial hygiene from the 1930’s should alarm us all and act as a wake up call to the true agenda behind today’s anti-smoking purge.

——————————————————

SOURCES (collated at this website)

1 Proctor R N. Racial hygiene: medicine under the Nazis.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1988.

2 Kater M H. Doctors under Hitler.Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989.

3 Annas G, Grodin M. The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code.New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

4 Smith G D, Strobele S A, Egger M. Smoking and death.BMJ1995;310:396.

5 Borgers D. Smoking and death. BMJ 1995;310:1536.

6 Proctor R N. Nazi cancer research and policy. J Epidemiol Community Health (in press).

7 Bauer D. So lebt der Duce. Auf der Wacht 1937:19-20.

8 Picker H. Hitlers Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier.Bonn: Athenaum Verlag, 1951.

9 Lee PN, ed. Tobacco consumption in various countries. 4th ed. London: Tobacco Research Council, 1975.

10 Reid G. Weltanschauung, Haltung, Genussgifte.Genussgifte1939;35:64.

11 Kosmos. Bild-Dokumente unserer Zeit.Dresden: Kosmos,1933.

12 Reckert FK. Tabakwarenkunde: Der Tabak, sein Anbau undseine Verarbeitung.Berlin-Schoneberg: Max Schwabe, 1942.

13 Erkennung und Bekampfung der Tabakgefahren. DtschArztebl 1941;71:183-5.

14 Klarner W. Vom Rauchen: Eine Sucht und ihre Bekampfung.Nuremberg: Rudolf Kern, 1940.

15 Rauchverbot fur die Polizei auf Strassen und in Dienstraumen. Die Genussgifte1940;36:59.

16 Berlin: alcohol, tobacco and coffee. JAMA 1939;113:1144-5.

17 Kleine Mitteilungen. Vertrauensarzt 1941;9:196.

18 Mitteilungen. Off Gesundheitsdienst 1941;7:488.

19 Charman T. The German home front 1939-1945. London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1989.

20 Fromme W. Offentlicher Gesundheitsdienst. In: Rodenwaldt E,ed. Hygiene. Part I. General hygiene. Wiesbaden: Dietrich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1948:36.

21Informationsdienst des Hauptamtes fur Volksgesundheitder NSDAP. 1944;April-June:60-1.

22 Muller F H. Tabakmissbrauch und Lungencarcinom. Z Krebsforsch1939;49:57-85.

23 Schairer E, Schoniger E. Lungenkrebs und Tabakverbrauch.Z Krebsforsch1943;54:261-9.

24 Kittel W. Hygiene des Rauchens. In: Handloser S, Hoffmann W, eds. Wehrhygiene. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1944.

25 Goedel A. Kriegspathologische Beitrage. In: Zimmer A, ed.Kriegschirurgie. Vol 1. Vienna: Franz Deuticke, 1944.

26 Pritzkoleit K. Auf einer Woge von Gold: Der Triumph der Wirtschaft.Vienna: Verlag Kurt Desch, 1961.

27 Werberat der deutschen Wirtschaft. Volksgesundheit und Werbung. Berlin: arl Heymanns, 1939.

28 Peto R. Smoking and death. BMJ 1995;310:396.

This special report was filmed in the hours after the Virginia Tech massacre and covers the early details that were known about the shooting. Alex discusses the inexplicable two hour gap between the first shootings and the warnings to students as well as the slow and cowardly police response.

View Video Clip Here 

“Claim a difference between the parties on the voters’ chances of survival — and you do Osama Bin Laden’s work for him.

And we — Democrats and Republicans alike, and every variation in between — We — Americans! — are sick to death, of you and the other terror-mongers, trying to frighten us into submission, into the surrender of our rights and our reason, into this betrayal of that for which this country has always stood.”

Terry Anderson comes to us LIVE from Washington DC at the “HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE” Rally with co-host, Kevin James. Bill Richardson is the most Horriblest Clown of the Week. What an exciting and exhilarating line up of guests!! Terri, again, brings you a uplifting show LIVE IN WASHINGTON with HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE!!

Listen to the show mp3 here

I was watching the news yesterday and was amazed at how stupid the media and our leaders think all of us are.  I was hearing stories about the Korean community worries that everyone will think Koreans are crazies that will shoot you because of this Korean shooter from VA Tech.  First off people aren;t that stupid and no one believe that Koreans will start any shooting sprees anytime soon.  If there are people that believe that then they deserve all the pain the have.

The 2nd thing that bothered me was the debate if the public should have seen the tape the shooter made.  The answer is yes.  It is news and is relevant to the shooters state of mind, why shouldn’t the public see it and make their minds up?  There is a supposed outcry that the video is hurtful to the families and some people.  If that is true then I am sorry for those people but all they have to do is turn the channel or turn the tv off.  Since when does something that is hurtful to some people mean the rest of us can’t experience it?  If that was the case then no one would be able to eat sushi because I think it is horrible.

No one accept for stupid people believe that showing the video tape validates what the shooter did so this argument is based without any logic at all.  This has to be the most obvious push to try to disarm American citizens but it will not work.  They have definitely succeeded to to scare all the cowards in America calling for a total gun ban.

So let’s get this strait again, gun control does not prevent gun crimes.  the facts and date prove that without a shadow of a doubt and legislators and cowards will ignore that and push their agenda to get stupid people to go along with it.  Remember Hitler disarmed the people right before he declared himself the definite ruler.  To all the people who believe in gun control need to either get informed or get out of the way because anyone who tries to disarmed good law abiding citizens will find great opposition.  We will not let you do it.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/190407mindcontrolled.htm

http://infowars.net/articles/april2007/190407Second.htm

Gun control advocates should love the President
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, April 19, 2007

In the wake of the tragic shooting massacre in Virginia this week gun control advocates have once again come crawling out of the woodwork to capitalize on the ill informed and automated response of blaming the destructiveness of a mentally ill person’s rampage on the second amendment.

The problem is that the gun control advocates are preaching to the converted when they clamor and claw at the government to restrict gun ownership in America.

Gun control advocates should applaud Bush for what he has done for their cause, instead they reveal the enormity of the false left/right paradigm that exists in US politics by berating him and his ilk as right wing gun nuts.

Many point to the fact that Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004 as an indication that he caved in to the NRA. John Kerry even accused Bush of conspiring to “chose his powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police officers and families that he promised to protect.”

In Reality Bush wanted to renew the assault weapons ban but was forced to let it expire when it became clear that he may not retain office in 2004 should he alienate core Republican voters.

At the time Bush was applauded by Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer for his stance.

The assault weapons ban is just one of the numerous anti-gun positions taken by the Bush Administration. Additional examples include disarming airline pilots, forfeiting gun rights for misdemeanors, and arguing that the total DC gun ban is a reasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment.

Speaking in late 2005 on the topic of the second amendment, former Republican Congressman, CIA official and board member on the NRA Bob Barr said that his position had enabled him to judge the difference between how the Clinton and Bush administration’s approached the issue of gun control. Barr echoed the sentiments of many other prominent conservatives in expressing his frustration about how the Bush administration was even more anti-second amendment than the Clinton office.

“it’s my impression to be honest with you, and this is confirmed by a lot of folks who are involved very heavily in regulatory matters involving firearms, that it is more difficult dealing with this administration than it was dealing with the prior administration.”

In the past another Republican Congressman, and now Presidential candidate, Ron Paul has accused the Bush administration of attempting to set in motion a militarized police state in America by enacting gun confiscation martial law provisions in the event of emergencies such as an avian flu pandemic or natural disasters.

“I think they’re concerned about the remnant, the remnant of those individuals who don’t buy into stuff and think that they should take care of themselves on their own, that they should have their own guns and their own provisions and they don’t want to depend on the government at all and I think that is a threat to those who want to hold power. They don’t want any resistance to their authoritarian rule.”

Paul, a staunch gun-rights supporter, has previously blasted the administration’s position on so-called “assault weapons” while claiming it is gun-rights oriented as hypocritical.

In making his point, Paul quoted Georgetown University professor Robert Levy, who recently offered this comparison: “Suppose the Second Amendment said, ‘A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.’ Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?”

“Tortured interpretations of the Second Amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed,” said Paul.