J’accuse.

I could make this plea in a number of tones we have seen numerous times, and once again, I would likely be ignored. I could declare “the emperor has no clothes” or as with the end of McCarthyism; scream defiantly while shaking a fist at the heavens; the single word “Enough”

The simple truth of the matter is, this oppressive tyranny runs so deep and is so well entrenched in the receivables departments of our nations press, even if by some miracle my single voice was heard, Damage control by the protectors of the great lie would swiftly move to action. My plea would quickly be set aside by a multitude of voices attacking credibility, my sanity or level of education as unqualified to make such an observation. Words like conspiracy nut and uneducated would resound before the silence, during which time all would forget such a claim was made, until the next time someone snuck past their defences, only to be dealt with in a similar manner.

The lie of healthism, which has arisen as the new international détente is a UN reality described in cryptic phrases specifically as “Disease management” in support of “sustainable development”. In plain English this would read; passing responsibility to the people for the expenses of an aging population, for which the funds have been squandered buying votes in elections past. Cowardice will develop lies to avoid the inevitable, Huge funds will be needed, so we have a necessity to create; the global warming crisis, disease pandemics and as a wedge issue to join the forces required to sell it all, we will reinvent second hand smoke.

A convenient lie, which is readily understood, by anyone with the time to open their eyes. I fear we are all in a slumber or a great depression, which allows our denials to exist; beyond resolution, or merely to be acknowledged. Are we so fearful of our public servants and the power of the state we will watch in open view as corruption percolates and unbelievably it is praised and enabled by journalists who support, profit over the trust of the people.

Is the State so weak that tenuous threads of propaganda are all which remains substantive in their moral authority to rule? Should we erect new signs at Canada’s boarders declaring “”Welcome to Canada if you are not in excellent health you are not welcome, our children must be protected”” Or “If you dare to smoke a cigarette, you will be punished” Quoting Dalton McGuinty in a run up to his smoking ban legislation. How about a Quebec Health Minister’s proud words “smokers have no right to speak” in response to complaints smokers were not being allowed to give submissions at the public hearings, leading up to his smoking ban legislation. What these confident public servants fail to realize is, if only 25% of the population smokes and they each found just one person to stand at their side, they could effectively end the careers of every hate mongering politician in this country. If your credibility or your truths are based in lies you are standing on very shaky ground.


In many ways the story of Alfred Dreyfus draws disturbing parallels to the politics of the day both within Canada and around the world. We see a targeted group, by state demand and approval, being discriminated against, openly and without remorse. We see the indictments to be speculative and exaggerated beyond reasonable proportion. Each exaggeration expanded upon the last. Most amazingly when the guard changed a new leadership who once claimed they understood an injustice existed, yet they let it stand, making Mr. Harper just as guilty as the former corrupt leadership, in light of the fact “Social Marketing” [Propaganda] is still an integral part of Health Canada’s process, delegating the entire ministry as nothing more than an agent of Industry promotional, of cherry picked, health reliant information, purchased from the public purse and distributed to the peril of us all.

We are being lead to believe, cigarette smoke is a huge health risk to non smokers, yet when we examine the evidence in its most basic sense, by physical description we hear most often the danger is due to particulate matter being trapped in the lungs of non smokers, resulting in damages many years later. Nothing found in cigarette smoke, on its own, or in the quantities presented, are beyond known safe levels or dangerous on their own, nor can they remain in the human body long enough to cause the described long term damages or at least not according to physical sciences.

Cigarette smoke particulate measures .15 to .25 Microns. It is classed as fine particulate which because of its size and weight; it is among the least likely to get trapped in the lungs or accumulate. Smoker’s lungs when examined do not demonstrate any visible differences to non smoker’s lungs, and are known as acceptable for human transplant. The same could not be said of a coal miner’s lungs for obvious reasons. We are in the majority, entirely well served in a comfortable lie, of the dangers of second hand smoke, however in that comfort, we have enabled more lies supporting the “common good”. We are left to only imagine, who decides what that good will entail? Or what we can believe any more.

Just as one observation, which should say a lot in comparing a mother with a stroller at a bus station and her level of concern, compared to the claims of child abuse by government sources, when smoking around your child; Although many studies measure “particulate matter” claimed to be cigarette smoke in a bar, as anything less than 10 microns, the imprecise measure is known to be lying by omission.

Ten Micron particulate includes all three physical dimensions of particulate matter; coarse such as coal dust [2.5 to 10 microns], Fine [.1 to 2.5 microns] such as cigarette smoke or any burned organic material including the smoke from a fire log, and last but not least, the category described in the threat of traveling to the smallest vestiges of the lung, where it is permanently trapped. Ultra fine particulate, measuring less than .1 microns. The category includes such things as diesel exhaust or many industrial emissions such as burned coal or degenerating asphalt, or a host of materials we know are carcinogenic by physical observation in laboratory studies. The one characteristic no one has observed or demonstrated, in respect to tobacco smoke, in over 60 years of trying.

The term second hand smoke actually had it’s origins in 1930s Germany and as Hitler tended to do the speculative evidence [propaganda] found twenty years before Sir Richard Doll [who was financed by Monsanto] and to the glee of his financiers, made his famous discovery using identical theoretic means. Now the craze has moved to finding “evidence” hardly a day goes by when we don’t hear of a new study defiling the intellect of anyone who would dare to smoke a cigarette with their beer.

This of course begs the question; what the hell have the charities been doing with all of our money all these years, when it appears so obvious now, cigarette smoke is causative of so many diseases, what took them so long to figure it out? It is however very fortunate to see so much information comes to light, just when it was needed, to support an international anti smoking treaty with compulsory deadlines, at the World Health organization. Way back in 1972, as the British delegate to the World Health Organization Sir Gober stated; if we are to make substantial gains in the reduction of smoking, it will be necessary to convince others they are being harmed by the smoke. Although I hardly think this had much to do, with anything happening today [wink]. Similarly Patrick Moynihan author of the much maligned 1965 Moynihan report, in the same era as the American delegate to the UN, [early 70s] suggested; in order to expedite international agendas, the public service should be mandated to create problems for the Government to solve. Again; this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the sustainable development process, or the insulated realities politicians of late have created for themselves, or the unexpected issues in the media, which always seem to dominate our election processes, while the real and substantial problems most of us face in the real world are almost always avoided.

An English translation of an excerpt, from the famous article entitled “J’accuse” in the Paris newspaper L’Aurore in March 1898. This was an article which deeply embarrassed the French government, in full view of the world. In retrospect; a statement which could have described a world also indicted with complicity, in creating the comfortable lies enabling the hatreds of anti Semitism.

“It is a crime that those people who wish to see a generous France take her place as leader of all the free and just nations are being accused of bringing turmoil to the country, denounced by the very plotters who are conniving so shamelessly to foist this miscarriage of justice on the entire world. It is a crime to lie to the public, to twist public opinion to insane lengths in the service of the vilest death-dealing machinations. It is a crime to poison the minds of the meek and the humble, to stoke the passions of reactionism and intolerance, by appealing to that odious bigotry that, unchecked, will destroy the freedom-loving France of Human Rights.”

I can not describe the contempt I felt, for a recent statement by opposition leader Stephan Dion, in making self serving use of the word “denier” in reference to the government taking a moderate approach to the climate change swindle. The word holds great power although the source of that power, draws a linkage to a horrific act, the use disrespects those who perished, using the denials by apologists and bigots who increased the insult in denying that the death camps ever happened. Mr Dion owes us all an apology; any encouragement by the media has been viciously slow in emerging.

Our gyration toward stock market appeasement as the enabling principle of credibility, finds our “encouraged behaviour” primarily among something which rushed across the land, of unknown origin we know it as “political correctness”. Just who sets the standards of what we should think, or how we should conduct our lives, is equally bewildering although every news agency seems to know the rules all too well, particularly in respect to a rash of news wire releases presented to us as the “news” although by closer examination they appear as corporate service infomercials with lab coats and talking heads, thrown in to finalize the sale. Commercials dressed up and read in discerning tones, in a way leading by example and stimulating discussion among those who can only believe what they are being told.

Journalists today seem to be working under the veiled restrictions of what is news “worthy”. Moving in baby steps, if any hope is seen in being published, any article which strays from the more popular belief systems, you have to roll with the flow or fade away. Banished to exist among the other silenced voices and conspiracy nuts. Can you handle the truth? Or do you trust the Government to protect you, from that as well?