Social Icons

Showing posts with label Pic of the Day. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pic of the Day. Show all posts

Saturday, 8 June 2013

True Nostalgia

I've been preparing the images I'm going to use for the blog posts whilst I'm away on holiday -- taking photos, cropping, adjusting my "wonky horizons," (I should have used my tripod, I realise now), resizing, etc.  I admit that preparation was more than a bit tedious at times -- it's a labour of love, let me tell you.  But I've managed to complete the prep work and I'm about to begin making the new images and blog posts.

I did stumble upon this fine example of an old cigarette advertisement in the Picture Post magazine.  I won't be using it for my upcoming blog posts, so I figured I might as well share it now with you.

Army Club Cigarettes Advertisement  - July 1940
"The Smoker's Reply  to the Budget  - A shilling a time's enough"
How cool is that?  Imagine paying only a shilling for a packet of fags!  I wonder how many women and children began smoking because of that ad and the packet design.  I suspect if any tobacco control fuckpuppets see this ad, they'll immediately claim that this ad was targeting foetuses -- because it certainly wasn't aimed at British men. Tobacco companies only target women and children... well, that's what public health wants you to believe, because that's how they roll.

So, yeah... that ad was on the only tobacco advertisement in the entire magazine.  There were plenty of other non-tobacco ads, however.  Here's a picture of the page from which the ad was taken.  Enjoy.

Advertisements on page 47 of PICTURE POST magazine - 13 July 1940
Click image to enlargify


Friday, 7 June 2013

Socialism and a Sneak Preview

In a week's time, my wife and I are going on holiday to the States. We're doing a west coast Route 101 driving holiday -- actually, we're doing a 3500-mile loop starting from San Francisco, to Vegas, up to Salt Lake City, over and up to Seattle, and then down the west coast on Route 101, terminating back at San Francisco. Not nearly as epic as Tom Paine's cross-country US Tour road trip of a lifetime, but for us it'll do nicely.  To be fair, my wife is nearly peeing her pants with excitement.*  I'm pretending to be calm and aloof about the whole thing. Because the handbook for men says you have to be stoic and cool outwardly. Inwardly, you can jump up and down like a schoolgirl who just got her first pony.

(*This is my wife's dream trip -- something she has wanted to do since her early twenties. Twenty years later, with a few modifications to the itinerary at my request (Vegas, for instance), she's doing it. She has graciously allowed me to join her.)

So we're going away for two-and-half weeks, returning back to ol' Blighty in the first week of July. Instead of not blogging during that period, I will schedule some special blog posts for pretty much every day that I'm away. And I want to give you a sneak preview of what is to come. 

First, some background.  Last weekend, when visiting some friends in a nearby town, we stopped in small shop selling antiques and other items.  I went merely eight steps past the threshold and saw a stack of old magazines from the 40s and 50s practically hidden in a cubby-hole at foot level. Idly, whilst my wife nosed about the shop with her friend, I picked up a magazine from the top of the pile and gently thumbed through it.

A curious thing happened. I suddenly wanted these magazines. I'm not a collector of anything. I mean, sure, I've got stuff that I've bought over the years -- primarily musical equipment that I'm simply unable to part with. But old magazines? Collecting things like these never would have occurred to me. Until I began to read them.

And they are awesome. They are, for me, enormously valuable insights to a time well before my years and experiences. I was born in 1971. My knowledge of the 40s and 50s is, at best, limited to old films and music from that time. Sure, I know my history, I know what happened during those years, generally speaking. But as I picked up another magazine, I realised that these magazines were glimpses of a time in Britain when people were not trying to control every aspect of your life. Just the opposite, actually. It was a time for freedom, a time to fight against tyranny and a time to be proud to British. Not only British, but proud to be any of the western nations who believed in freedom and liberty.

All at once I realised that I was both overjoyed and incredibly sad.  So much has changed in such a short period of time.  The freedoms and liberties our families had fought for, won, and enjoyed back then have slipped away because Britain and America have slowly become more socialist and controlling countries -- not that far removed from Germany in the 30s and 40s in my opinion.  Although it is more subtle now than it was then, and it's more gradual, socialism exists in spades in our academic and political institutions. And I cannot help but think:

People never learn from history

I'm not going to write that we are doomed to repeat history. We may be; we may not be.  But the truth is we simply fail to remember history and use it as guidance for the present and future. Probably because we don't know the past personally, or don't remember what it was like since time has a funny way of distorting our memories. Maybe that's how we're designed. I don't know. And I'm not saying that we should all go back to a time when things were "quaint" and "simple." Not at all. What I'm saying is that we need to remember that socialism is and always has been evil -- because it's solely about control. It's about forcing everyone to conform to an impossible ideal; to make everybody behave and think the same. This is entirely against human nature, regardless of how much some people believe it is not. We are all individuals, with different experiences and dreams and hopes and beliefs.  The only way to make everybody the same is to crush those dreams and hopes and beliefs, to transform you into a "citizen" -- an automaton incapable of free thought.  That ... is socialism.  

And all of the public health movement is unabashedly socialist. All of them. They believe they have the right to force you to conform to their beliefs -- even when they don't live by their own beliefs, they still feel that you should do precisely what you're told to do.  Typical hypocrisy for people of that ilk.

But you should never let anyone force you to do something or change you against your will. You should fight such influences with every last ounce of energy you have.  

Most people -- the vast majority of people -- won't fight, however, until they are backed into a corner so far that it's almost impossible to escape the inevitable loss of freedom and liberty.  Because most people expect others to do the fighting for them. That's also human nature. Why risk yourself when others might put themselves at risk first?  So it seems prudent and easier to sit back and wait. That's a mistake. Because when nobody stands up to fight, then it's too late. Then you find yourself forced to fight an uphill battle, and there's an excellent chance that the things you need to use for the fight were taken away or surrendered long before then.

Public Health and our current mainstream press are both the greatest enemies to freedom and liberty in our modern times. I don't say that lightly. I truly believe this to be true. Dictators can be overthrown eventually, but how do you overthrow an insidious, evil, people-control movement from within our own societies? How do you convince the mainstream press to stop propagandising on behalf of the socialists? How do you prevent these people -- who truly believe that they are justified in taking away anything you hold dear in order to save you from yourself -- from infecting our youth with their brand of hateful, socialist ideas?

How indeed?

You tell me. How much longer are we going to tolerate it? When it gets so bad that there is nothing at all left for us to lose? Or will we wake up and remember what happened with the socialist movement 80-something years ago, how it came to be, and why people chose not to act until things had already got out of control? Do we really want to repeat history all over again?

So I want to give you a sneak preview of what's coming whilst I'm away on holiday. I'll start with this:

WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING FOR
Picture Post, 13 July 1940
Click image to enlargify
You can probably see where this will be going.

Remember:  It should always be "Freedom To Do Something" -- never "Freedom From Something."  Socialism falls under the latter category -- and most if not all of you know that the term Nazi is short for National Socialist (or in full: National Socialist German Workers' party).  We all know how well that worked out. Don't we? We don't need socialism -- we don't want socialism. It will cause unnecessary divisions in our societies and already has done so; socialism will cause wars; it will destroy civilisation; it will be the end of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Public health and our press are attempting this right now by slow degrees of control and propaganda. We have to find a way to stop this socialist movement before it goes too far. Before it's too late to stop it.

[A much higher resolution of the above image can be retrieved here.]


Wednesday, 13 February 2013

Beer, Baccy and Crumpets

In case you hadn't noticed, there is a candidate in the Eastleigh by-election named Ray Hall, who is running for the Beer, Baccy and Crumpet party. I don't know anything about Mr Hall, but I love the party name. One assumes, perhaps incorrectly, that "crumpet" refers not to the actual foodstuff but rather the older slang usage -- woman. £500 well spent, if you ask me. 

In honour of beer, baccy and women then, I give you this delightful photo album comprised of 21 glorious images, all of which are certain to enrage the nannies.  If you have a favourite, let me know in the comments.




Several images were stolen (with thanks!) from the Women Drinking Beer blog on Tumblr.  Enjoy.



Tuesday, 1 January 2013

Drinking Will Make Your Tits Fall Off

Here we are on the first day of January 2013, and the shitbag prohibitionists who invented Dry January have wasted no time at all in getting their propaganda out in the mainstream press to assure you that if you stop drinking (and smoking) then you will live forever. The Telegraph has a gem of an article a propaganda piece called "Alcohol guidelines 'too high' say doctors."   Ah, just from the title we know it's going to be a doozy.

They have been set too high and fail to take into account new evidence showing that drinking only modest amounts raises the risk of cancer and other diseases.
[...]
A Harvard University study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2011, found that women who drank just four small glasses of wine a week - about five units - increased their risk of developing breast cancer by 15 per cent compared to teetotallers. 

OK, for argument's sake, let's say that this risk increase of 15% for women who drink a paltry 5 units per week is an accurate statistic (and let's be honest, I'm pretty sure that this arbitrary five unit limit is reached within a couple of hours on a daily basis, but I digress).  That sounds frightening?   FIFTEEN PERCENT INCREASED RISK!  ZOMG!  Stop drinking now, ladies, or your waps will rot and fall off!  It's the end of the world! Right?

Ahem.

So what does this 15% increased risk of tit cancer mean in real terms?  How concerned should you be, ladies? To get that answer, I visited the web site of CRUK, our favourite evil, prohibitionist, nannying charity.  Here they give the estimated risk figures for women getting breast cancer over the course of their lifetime.  I don't know if it's accurate or adjusted / weighted in any way, but for our purposes it doesn't matter.  We're going to assume that it too is accurate.

To start, here is their table of women's estimated risk for breast cancer:
The first thing we notice is, which CRUK even says on their site, is that your risk increases greatly as you get older.  That's fair, because your risk of getting every kind of cancer increases greatly as you get older.  But anyway, the stats are presented in a way to make it look as scary as possible.  1 in 2000 seems like a pretty high chance and a lot of women are getting breast cancer before 30, doesn't it?  "One in Two-Thousand Women under 30 will DIE from breast cancer!" the papers will claim!

Well, no.  Here's a another way of looking at that figure.  1 in 2000 = 0.05% or five hundredths of a percent (which also looks like this in pure decimal form: 0.0005)  That's rare. In fact, as a statistic, it's considered negligible (although, I readily concede that anyone under 30 who does get breast cancer would argue that it's not that negligible because it happened to them), and your risk is practically non-existent.

So if you have a nearly non-existent risk of 0.05% and you increase that risk by an additional 15% because you're a filthy drinker of alcohol, then what's your new risk of watching your tits fall off before 30?  The answer is still non-existent at 0.0575%.  It didn't even increase a whole hundredth of a percentage point.  The additional risk of 15% is still negligible, statistically-speaking.

Anyway, I've done the maths on the rest of the ages noted in CRUK's table.  Actually, my Excel spreadsheet did them for me, because I'll be honest here, my maths skills are fairly rubbish these days. But I still know how to calculate percentages and write a formula for Excel (maybe), so without further ado:

Looking at the table's Lifetime risk values, the highest actual increase in real terms that any woman who drinks the dirty booze could expect to see is just 1.875%.  And for all women under 60 years of age, your increase in real terms doesn't even reach 1%.  So, ladies, your waps are fine if you keep drinking up to 5 units per week.  (Of course, if you drank 6 units per week, then you'd probably drop dead within a month.)  I should add that even my table of stats must be considered dodgy, too. I just used CRUK's table and calculated from there, and I'm conflating data from different sources, which is a no-no.  It's only meant to be illustrative, not scientific or factual.  Truth be told, what I have just done is par for the course these days in Public Health, so I feel at ease doing so.

Regardless, I hope that clearly illustrates exactly how the media, its flunky-junky medical correspondents, our activist doctor enemies and a host of ill-meaning university departments deceive you on a daily basis in order to promote their prohibitionist agendas. They don't tell you the real truth. They don't tell you what the statistics mean in real terms.  They are in effect lying to you by omission, and that makes them deceitful scumbags from hell. Do not trust any of these people. Ever.

Good Lord! Look at the size of that beer!
Those puppies gon' be jus' fine! Keep drinking!

PS:  I'm sure you all know about Drinkuary, a wonderful riposte to Dry January. Don't you?  Such a shame this isn't happening next month, then we could have had "Febrewary."  Oh, well.


Wednesday, 26 September 2012

Hump Day News in Brief

Petition Watch

Most of you already know this, but in case you don't, Belinda over at Freedom 2 Choose (Scotland) has started a petition asking the Scottish government to consider allowing smoking rooms in accordance with EU air quality standards.  You do not need to live in Scotland to sign it -- you can add your real country of residence when you sign, although a few more "Scottish" signatures wouldn't hurt.  Presently there are 134 signatures. 

Meanwhile, the petition from the hateful anti-smoker pressure group ASH Wales, written about here, has managed 121.
* * *

Bulgarian Businesses Going Bust?

One to watch:  Three months after the introduction of a public smoking ban in Bulgaria, businesses have seen their turnover decrease by 50% (emphasis in original):
The Bulgarian restaurant sector is registering record losses over the full smoking ban, according to the Deputy Chair of the Bulgarian Hotel and Restaurant Association, Atanas Dimitrov.

Speaking before bTV Tuesday, Dimitrov said the turnover has slumped by 50% after the introduction of the ban, adding it would not reduce the number of smokers in the country anyway.

[...]

The Health Ministry, however, remains unwavering on the ban, with representatives saying that in the last 3 months when it was in effect, nothing "apocalyptic" has been noticed, the society is accepting the ban reasonably, and going back in the other direction would be more detrimental.
Nothing "apocalyptic"? Businesses are losing half of their turnover and that's just fine with the Bulgarian Health Ministry.  I would say that businesses losing lots of money that they were making before the ban was introduced is certainly devastating, just like it devastated the British pub trade.

But if you're in the Public Health religion, the only thing that matters is to believe you are helping people, even when the facts disprove your faith.  Yes, let's put people out of work so that they can live forever, or starve to death. I do not think that starving to death is a smoking-attributable cause of death yet. Yet.

All I know is that the tobacco control industry cheerfully destroys businesses and gleefully ruins people's lives. They are helping no one except for themselves. They are evil. How any of them can sleep at night is beyond my comprehension.

H/T Laurel O'Neill and J Johnson 
* * *

The Dark Art of Divination

Speaking of evil bastards in the tobacco control industry, Dick Puddlecote reports on a series of uncanny coincidences here. It seems that the tobacco control industry in New Zealand somehow knows a lot more about what will happen here in the UK than we do, and most uncannily the Root of All Evil is privy to information all the way back in June that we "fucking plebs" were not.  It stinks to high Public Health Heaven.

But hey, I don't need no stinking crystal ball to tell me what will happen, because I understand how the tobacco control industry works, and I know that so do you.  Britain's Department of Health will proceed to discount or ignore the opposition to plain packaging, because the fix is in. The consultation has been rigged from the start, and barring some kind of miracle, there is absolutely no doubt that these rotten, hateful bottom-feeders from hell that are living off the public purse will proceed with their evil machinations to denormalise adult human beings by implementing plain packs, despite the overwhelming public opposition to it.

Expect it.

A typical Tobacco Control Industry Bottom-Feeding Monster
The true face of  the Bottom-Feeding Tobacco Control Industry
Image via DreadCentral

Wednesday, 12 September 2012

Wednesday Wibblers

Eradication Plans revealed in Australia -- click to enlargify:

This is parody
Australian Federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek today laid out her approved plan for eradicating smokers
 * * *

Reframe the argument and the facts when faced with overwhelming opposition to plain packs and say you have unanimous support anyway:

Ailsa Rutter - Definitely Cute, Certainly Dangerous!
"There has been unanimous support from the NHS and local authorities in the North East, as well as a range of other organisations [...]" - professional antismoker Ailsa Rutter, FRESH NE

* * *

One more Sheep Minion sadly added to the blog post of shame.

"Plain packaging is a widely recommended solution and I am keen to see this introduced" - Dame Anne Begg MP


Sunday, 24 June 2012

Sunday Sheep Silliness

Wow. We've been calling them sheep for ages and at last we have photographic confirmation:



And doesn't it seem that the only groups truly targeting children are the antis?

Wednesday, 20 June 2012

Morons in Paper Bags

In what I can only describe as sheer twattery of the highest magnitude, the latest Twitter craze for the packet racket sheep minions is to upload a photo of yourself wearing a paper sack.  For some this might be viewed as a cosmetic improvement.  We can only hope this craze catches on and we can't wait to see what you sheep come up with next. It's almost as good as kids wearing khaki shirts.

Here are the first three I've seen, and may we suggest that you wear them all the time, please? No, seriously...