Today's Anti-smoking Purge Is Borrowed From The Nazis, Smoking is healthier than fascism Options

[Cypher]

Today's Anti-Smoking Purge Is Borrowed From The Nazis
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.
- Hitler was an ardent vegetarian (Edit: disputed sources) 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.

[CJWarlock]

"- Hitler was an ardent vegetarian (...)"

The what?! Complete bullsh*t. The author of the quoted article should read more before he wrote such thing. I consider him stupid or ignorant to knowledge what vegetarianism is. I know people who could even say he wanted to disrespect vegetarians by saying so. And "ardent"?! OMFG! By how?!

Ardent vegetarians do promote vegetarianism (by lifestyle, by activism - try it and you'll know how absorbing it is), not war, not racism.

Historical documented fact is that A. Hitler was a political person. As such, he couldn't burp and fart whenever he wanted, and he had a serious problem with that. So his doctor told him to reduce pork meat consumption to very small and rare ammounts.

This doesn't make him "vegetarian" in any way, nor "ardent"!

If he would be, he would probably start changing his way of thinking to more wide and empathyful.

Vegetarianism is not about reducing meat consumption, it's a life style and a way of thinking and feeling. It's about not harming other beens without reason, which include not killing for eat. But it's something more than just diet.

My source of knowledge is a book "Diet for Transcendence. Vegetarianism and the World Religions" by Steven Rosen © 1997. Author demythologises the gossip about Hitler's "vegetarianism".

What's author's source on this particular claim? He didn't mention.

IMO he too much manipulate informations, too much mixes myths and gossips with a little bit of facts. This magazine-editors practice is recognisable to me and it drops a shadow of untrustworthness on the whole article. In fact, it is written in a way to make people feeling like it's a sensation! I don't like and don't trust articles that mixup gossips with bits of facts, and that spread some complete bullsh*t in a coverage of a build-up look of "factography".

This post has been edited by CJWarlock: 01-June-2007 19:50

[CJWarlock]

@ Cypher: I like your other posts, I've read in free energy section. I think they're interesting, and that you are probably an interesting person to talk with. I registered to this forum to have an ocassion to write on subjects, amont others, that you posted.

I think by quoting this whle article you help the author to spread the false claim which IMO may offend real vegetarians. I've met this myth before. Please stop false claims agains vegetarianism, which is really something pro-ecological and good. Most vegetarians I know got interested in free energy and ecological inventions AFTER they became vegetarians, which made them less narrow-minded and more interested in the whole Planet's good.

If you could do it and consider it a good idea, please add a small editorial insertion to that quoed article. Let it be "(EDIT.: which real vegetarians consider a repeated myth as, according to Steven Rosen's book, he just reduced pork meat consumption, which of course doesn't yet mean vegetarianism.)" after the words "- Hitler was an ardent vegetarian" and before the words "and did not smoke or drink after the age of 30, (...)".

One of the rule of this forum is to not spread the false information. I've red the rules tuday. Of course I understand you don't have to have knowledge about everything, and that's why I'm trying to help you to correct the false I found. I hope you aren't offended by that and that you recognise my intention correctly.

Greetings.

[CJWarlock]

Now I'm gonna reply to the meritum of this topic.

I think the author forgot to mention important thing. Law is for the primitive ones, the enlightened ones don't need it, they have hearts they learned to listen to. However smoking as a meditation differs from the smoking as a conditioned reflex, yet unconcious in many cases.

AND the style of this article speaks only for the people whose minds seek sensational content. People with more meditative state of mind as their usual state rather won't swallow this article.

I know people who smoke and pay attention to do it in a very nice way, to not disturb others (known or unknown persons). I also see people who take a deep inhaust of smoke right before they get in the crowded bus and exhaust the smoke right onto the nearest person's face... This is not nice, this is egoistic and just stupid. I don't ban anyone from smoking but I don't wanna breath someone's sh*t as it spereads along the bus. I know far less tolerant people than me, i.e. alergic to smoke. What such person would say if he/she faced an unpolite smoker exhausting smoke onto his/her face?

Anyone agree that not-smoking in buses is more safe. There can occure some situations when a cigarette could drop out of the smoker's mouth and damage someone's skin or cloth. Anyone who's clever enough and who has imagination.

As long as there would be stupid and egoistic people with strongly limited imagination, the laws would be necessary.

However, even the laws can't go too far. And I mean it. Personally I wouldn't respect a STUPID law, or, more specificly, I wouldn't respect a stupid part of some law, while accepting the clever part. But I am a person who don't neet law to know what's good for me AND the others. I can imagine consequences.

Now, knowing what I've wrote... Just ask yourself, dear reader...

WHO this sensational article is directed to? IMO mostly to people who could become upset against no-smoking laws. And it ends up there. And what about pushing the readers to independent thinking? This is what this article, sadly, doesn't do. It's just presenting prepared informations for the reader to accept as a truths.

Awareness, fellows, is the key, awareness!

Not all laws are bad, however some are stupid. Today's propaganda of companies-financed "scientists" (including doctors) exists, same as it existed in 1930, and will exists until there will be people stupid enough to listen to it.

IMO formation of nasi government in 1930's Germany is a result of some choices made by people before. It's a blind circle of reason - consequence. People let some person to government, this person spread some propaganda, and then the people gave him more power, and then the person forced some laws that took away some people's civil rights. That's how I see it, of course simplified and shortened.

It's not about giving sensation to people's minds seeking it. This is not a good way to change world. It doesn't change anything, it just deepends the frustration and doesn't give any advice how to calm down the mind and start thinking independently to not give up to mass propaganda anymore. Such advices would be a good way to change something. I believe it would make some people more aware and wise. It could go together with a bit of sensational writing style but putting more attention to creative thoughts.

And, I'll repeat, giving TRUE informations, NOT the repeated gossips and myths...

But it needs a reliable author, experienced and with imagination of consequences, someone who really knows and feels how to talk to people to not only get their attention but also spread positive thoughts. Definitely not the type of the author of the article I'm refering to. I think many people would agree with that.

[Cypher]

Hi CJWarlock & welcome to CoRe
Many thanks for pointing out the innacuracy in the article, I immediately rectified it and cited sources - basically, an exact-phrase search for "Hitler was a vegetarian" quickly reveals that this has been disputed elsewhere, and it seems pretty clear that he was not vegetarian at all. If nothing else, I'm glad that this innacuracy gave you the impetus to sign up and have it corrected - thank you for your help.

I don't believe that Paul Joseph Watson's article - at the end of which he cites numerous sources (28 of them) - was intended to cause any offense to any group of people, least of all vegetarians, and it's certainly not the norm for him to make careless mistakes. Knowing how insightful and accurate he generally is, I would tend to conclude that several of the sources PJW cites must have expressed this as fact (although I have not read these books myself, so I cannot know for sure).

Whatever else, it is certainly clear that Hitler was an extremist, and it's certainly possible that any "food fads" - whether for health reasons or otherwise - may well have been misinterpreted by many around him as being a strict vegetarian. I have no idea what peoples' diets were like in Germany during the war, but I will state for the record that anytime I've been in Germany, sausages have featured very highly on the menu. Since sausages are pork, it may have been very easy to interpret avoidance of pork (a German dietary staple) as vegetarianism - and I note that a great many of the sources Paul Joseph Watson quotes are from German writers, and written during the war years.

What I will state, in defence of his "sensationalist" style of writing here, is that it is simply the only way for some people to sit up and take notice of what's really going on in the world today, and it is absolutely essential that people wake up to this, and start to check things out for themselves. Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson have done a tremendous job in bringing these matters to peoples' attention, and although they are certainly "sensationalist" at times, I cannot for one moment criticise them for that.

The fact remains - and what the bones of the article are about, is the fact that the new laws being passed in Europe and North America, are more numerous and more draconian than the laws that Hitler passed once he siezed power. To understand the full implication of this, one must also realise that Hitler deliberately ordered for the Reichstag to be set ablaze, blaming it on his political opponents, and from then on he was a dictator who did what he pleased.

The German people did not give him permission or licence to do this, he took it upon himself, in much the same way as George Bush last week signed into law that he will assume dictatorial powers in the case of any "state of emergency" being declared. With the Bush family's long and sordid history as Nazi sponsors and supporters, I am sure that my money would be safe if I bet that another American equivalent of the Reichstag fire will occur in the immediate to not too distant future.

History has a habit of repeating itself when we don't learn the lessons of the past.

[qwan]

you got to be kidding me.
I believe that atleast in my country, they allow smoking but enforce you wear helmets.
Now that is dictatorship.
I am allowed the choice(even if I am primitive) to buy something that I can die of.
But I dont have the bloody choice to drive 5 minutes without a helmet even though there is abolutely no traffic on the road and it is abright sunny day and most of all I am the most safest rider in town.
Bloody dictatorship is forced vaccination and irradiaton of foods.
I cannot bloody drink raw milk. I dont care if I die of it. But cigarrettes are sold freely.
I think it is only fair to ban public smoking cause it is and inconvinience to the non-smoker.

[Entropiate]

Control qwan. It's about control. And making money.

To quote Alan Watt, "For everything they do there's always a perfectly good reason they give to the public - and then there's the real reason".

Q: Do you know who sponsored the Bills that first made crash helmets, and then later, seat belts in cars compulsory in Britain?

A: The answer has the word Kangol in it. Yes, Kangol, then a major manufacturer of aforementioned items. The other word you need is Lord.

The disease is systemic qwan - and one of us can become infected.

Tell me, how did this guy inconvenience you or any other member of the non-smoking public?

Control.

By the way, have you ever read the fable of the ducks and the hens?