© V-R. Di Pierri 2003-2009
The Cult of the Body Returns
In a translation of his memoirs of living as a Jew in Berlin, Germany, between 1914 and 1933, Haffner(2002) notes:
......openly promoted and praised, was the sports craze which took possession of the youth of Germany.
In the years 1924, 1925 and 1926, Germany suddenly blossomed into a great sporting nation.......
........in those years the membership of sports clubs and the number of spectators at sports meetings multiplied ten-fold at a stroke. Boxers and sprinters became national heroes, and the twenty-year-olds had their heads full of athletics results..... (p.58).
I missed no sports meeting. I trained three times a week, stopped smoking and performed exercises before going to bed. (p.59)
....Not only were we once again able to indulge our old vice, the narcotic of the cold, unreal numbers game. This time we did it with the full attention and the unanimous approaval of our mentors.
.....The only man who seemed to realise that the forces he had released were taking a false and dangerous path was Stresemann [then Chancelor] himself. He occasionally made hostile references to the 'new aristocracy of the biceps', which added to his unpopularity (p.61)
Haffner points out that the physicalist/healthist craze subsided within a few years. However, shortly thereafter it would become a prominent aspect of the Nazi regime, and the German populace was very open to it.
Indeed, there are a number of layers that distinguish the Nazi mentality such as militarism and racism. However, the foundational layer of the mentality was the cult of the body. The body, from genetic to gross behavioral levels is all that matters. The Germanic race (body) is superior to other races, an attendant benefit of which would allow world overthrow (militarism).
If considering a multidimensional idea of health such as psychological (the expectation of accurate information for individual decision-making), social (accurate information for social cohesion), moral (honesty, integrity of conduct), political (protection of the previous levels) dimensions, it is obvious that a fixation on the physical dimension is superficial, and dangerously so. However, to flawed minds that are inept at these multi dimensions, the reducing of health to only a physical (material) dimension is very tempting indeed.
To the materialist, the animal (including humans) is no more than an organism (body) operating in an environment. There is no mind, no soul, no spirit, no God: Profundity is vanquished in materialism. Health of the organism is defined in terms of environmental exposures, intake (diet), and exercise.
The Nazi regime produced prescriptions and proscriptions defining health in these terms. For example, no smoking, regular exercise. Comp-liance was expected from the populace as their duty to the State.
Hitler promoted himself as a non-smoking, non-drinking, vegetarian role model, all supposedly contributing to his 'superior' work performance. Hitler was rabidly antismoking, as was the regime. Given that these prescriptions and proscriptions pre-dated attempts at applying the scientific method in the investigation of lifestyle factors and disease or performance, then these were ideological (healthism) in nature and their infliction on the population at large was propaganda or brainwashing. Misinformation, disinformation, blatant lies, the manufacture of social division and hatred, i.e., an assault on the multi-dimensions of health, were all considered viable in engineering population compliance.
Psychological, social and moral levels were bundled together and 're-defined' in adherance terms. Those complying with regime edicts were considered healthy in all senses, good, righteous and patriotic: Those questioning edicts were considered unhealthy, bad, unrighteous and treacherous, needing re-education and re-conditioning (i.e., further brainwashing), or worse.
Understandably, at a political level, the thinking degenerates into tyranny. The "master" race, defined so in essentially physicalist terms, was culpable of much of the worst conduct that humans are capable of.
Healthism (or the cult of the body and its fake 'puritanism') demonstrates the typical symptoms of cultism. Firstly, edicts are typically flimsy, whimsical and divisive. Such edicts are treated as infallible. Those who align themselves to the edicts (devotees) are always correct, and those who question the edicts are always wrong. Secondly, 'infallibility' underlies 'superiority'. However, as indicated, persons with all sorts of contorted beliefs and emotions, sociopathy and moral blindness can distinguish themselves as superior in the healthist cult. When persons or societies are defining themselves as 'morally' superior on the basis of only healthist terms, it can be certain there is great catastrophe afoot.
Immediately-post-World War II, the World Health Organization (1946) defined health as A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. This definition, at least in part, would have been motivated by the materialism of the Nazi regime and the very critical and destructive role that medical practitioners played in this regime.
It could be added that health is a multi-dimensional phenomenon beyond the bounds of governmental dictates. Certainly, governments should provide relevant and accurate information across these levels. However, it is given to individuals to appropriate such information in the manner that makes most sense to them. At least, such would be expected in democratic societies.
Within just a number of decades following the World Health Organization's abstract definition of health, it is across especially Western (democratic) nations that the spectre of the cult of the body is proliferating.
By the mid-1980's, physicalism was well entrenched. From then till now, health, again, has been redefined into biological terms alone. Gymnasia in the West were a rarity some 30 years ago. The few that existed were frequented by special-interest groups, e.g., boxers, bodybuilders, athletes. By 2009, they are literally everywhere. They are now mainsteam and are a highlighted feature of holiday resorts, condi-miniums, hotels, cruise liners, and work-places. Any time, day or night, one can see through street windows people mindlessly running on treadmills, not unlike rats running on a treadwheel in the behaviorist's lab. Marathon running and other endurance events, which were also a rarity, are now commonplace.
In coffee shops of the not-too-distant past, one could regularly overhear conversations on the nature of existence and other metaphysics. However amateurish, there seemed a definite desire for profundity of meaning and the de-cluttering of erroneous beliefs. Now, the 'buzz' is workouts, diets, supplements, physical appearance and 'makeovers'. In TV adverts, newspapers, talk shows, news programs, health is being portrayed as an entirely biological phenomenon. There is no shortage of products that will make you 'healthy': There is no shortage of medicos, dieticians, nutritionists, personal trainers that will get you 'healthy'. The brainwashing spews forth that 'responsible' persons should follow this track. The multitudes have degenerated into the cultist stance of distinguishing themselves as healthy and moral only because they regularly workout, watch their diet, do not smoke, etc.
It is the last few generations that have refused to consider the standard of their thinking in multi-dimensional terms, not wanting to contemplate too much about anything. They have been absorbed by appearances (vanity), entertainment, and technological gadgetry. Their final step into dangerous delusion is to distinguish themselves as 'superior' on the basis of cultist shallowness. They have used their freedom to imprison themselves. This is sad and tragic, and truly on an unprecedented global scale.
And, relinquishing vital lessons learned only a short while ago, it is, again, the medical establishment that is at the centre of the onslaught. It is the medical establishment that has demanded and enabled this mass delusion. Nazi medicos would be salivating at the prospect of a global healthist cult. The Nazis had to first physically invade countries before they could set about the brainwashing task. Rather, now, governments, 'health' departments, universities, the greater pulic are stumbling over each other to fully embrace the delusion. This should give a hint as to the extent of the underlying multi-dimensional dysfunction.
Indeed, there are no swastikas, or underlying militarism or racism. However, the cult of the body and its rhetoric and methodology is the same now as it was in the Nazi framework, and pushed by the medical priesthood.
The vital insight lost is that the 'puritanical' belief that persons who do not smoke or drink are superior is dangerous. There is a whole host of individuals that are deranged all on their own, not even requiring any external assistance (e.g., hard drugs) for their contorted thinking. The healthist edict above, then, itself born of the same delusion, further socially empowers such individuals to wreak havoc: Healthism is the co-ordination of such individuals to assault society.
Any attempt to curb the scourge of healthism should rest on this approach: Persons who do not drink or smoke are not necessarily superior. Rather, when these non-behaviors are elevated to high morality, it is typically a pretext for dangerous tendencies.
Haffner, Sebastian (2002) Defying Hitler: A Memoir. Weidenfeld & Nicolson (London).
What's Happened to Academia?
The medical establishment has strong proclivity to the cult of the body (healthism) since it deals with treatment of the body all day long. Medical treatment should not be confused with 'preventive' medicine. The latter, an idea introduced by the Nazi medicos, is at the heart of cultism. Where the cult proliferates, it is the medical establishment that holds a chief role in the cult - the high priesthood. In Nazi Germany, the medical establishment required no more than the seal of approval of the Fuhrer to go about its wholesale brainwashing of society. In the West, however, there has been no single autocratic figure to 'legitimise' this cultism post-WWII.
The 'legitimisation' of healthism has come from another source - 'lifestyle' epidemiology - under the guise of scientific credibility.
Lifestyle epidemiology has only a short history. It is the attempt to apply the scientific method to an investigation of the relationship between lifestyle factors and disease. Understandably, the 'lifestyle' factors are typically the materialist framework of dietary intake, exercise and environmental (externally derived) exposures. Critical is that lifestyle epidemiology produces statistics - quantifications, another obsession of the materialist mind.
The statistic of choice in the bulk of epidemiologic studies is 'relative risk' or 'odds ratio'. Lifestyle epidemiology has produced a plethora of findings, in line with cultist leanings, that have fed cultist propoganda over the last 50 years. Unfortunatley, relative risk is a flimsy statistic that has no application when there is an absence of homogeneity of group membership in invetigated groups. Further, relative risk is no basis for causal argument. A correlation co-efficient (e.g., Pearson 'r') or absolute predictive strength are far more appropriate in underpinning causal argument. For example, absolute predictive strength refers to how well an antecedent event predicts a consequent event. This, or a correlation co-efficient, take into account the, as important, non-occurrence of an event following an antecedent event as well as occurrences. Therefore, in the pinpointing goal of scientific enquiry, one is searching for high-level predictors. Although very rare, in a perfect pinpointing, a pre-defined phenomenon would follow each occasion of an antecedent event (a 100% or 1.00-probability absolute predictive strength). Given the potential for confounding factors, a far lesser threshold would be acceptable, e.g. 60%; even at lower levels, e.g., 30%, one could begin to entertain the idea of an indirect causal relationship.
Importantly, absolute risk should not be confused with relative risk. For example, consider a control group that has an incidence of a phenomenon (B) of 1 per 100 (1%); the incidence of B for the control group, and regardless of percent, is set at 1.00 and referred to as the 'baseline'. If an experimental group demonstrates an incidence of phenomenon (B) in the presence of a peculiar antecedent (A) of 4 per 100 (4%), then the relative risk of A for B is 4.00, or 4 times that of the control group. It can also be expressed as a 300% increase in risk. Noteworthy is that A, even though 4 times that of a baseline, is a poor predictor, in absolute terms, of B, i.e., 4%. As mentioned, the very severe limitation of relative risk is that it does not take into account non-occurrences of an event following an antecedent. Consider also the example of a glue being 7 times (relative strength) better on a range of criteria than another glue. If neither glue can adhere two pieces of paper (absolute strength), then the relative difference between them (whether 5 or 10 or 20 or 25 , etc.) is essentially useless.
The critical idea of absolute predictive strength is essentially non-existent in the epidemiological literature. Rather, lifestyle epidemiology has concocted its own deluded standard for causal inference. It has convinced itself that a relative risk of 2.00-4.00 is sufficient to infer cause. As such, there are many findings of RR of 2.00 or more that have been assigned causal meaning-fulness, even though their absolute predictive strength may be barely above zero. In fact, most epidemiological findings are on the zero-end of the absolute probability scale, i.e., useless in terms of causal argument.
Beyond this critical issue, whatever principles of coherent inference, statistical and causal, can be violated, lifestyle epidemiology violates as a matter of course; the sheer volume and magnitude of inferential errors is extraordinary. Lifestyle epidemiology demonstrates a dangerous endemic incompetence. Counter-argument concerning inferential errors is non-existent. Causal argument does not proceed by coherent inference, but by consensus amongst incompetent participants with cultist agenda. Research findings are severely over-interpreted (catastrophised), making findings sound as if they are high-level predictors for disease. By the time the 'health promotion' industry and lobby groups publicly peddle dictates, findings are further catastrophized such that what the public is being told does not remotely resemble the relevant facts. The conduct is delinquent.
Staggering then, is that this small, wayward group, itself cultist in disposition (i.e., a medical offshoot), has 'legitimised' through fake science ('scientism', or the illusion of scientific enquiry) the greater medical establishment's (priesthood) fake idea of health (healthism). Furthermore, it has been given direct access to public policy formulation.
By this teaming of lifestyle epidemiology and the greater medical establishment many changes in public policy, in line with the underlying cultism, have been foisted on populations the world over. And, in keeping with their Nazi brethren, the coercion of false (irrational) belief and fear, social division, hatred, are all acceptable in promoting the cultist agenda, i.e., brainwashing. Such is an assault on psychological, social, and moral health that will pervert political health.
If this teaming was not enough, another teaming over the same time-course has been even more devastating. The combination of the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical cartel has utterly brutalised psychological, social, moral, and even physical health. A number of the main companies in the current pharma cartel have their roots in the then German chemical giant IG Farben, which was instrumental, critical, in the Nazi regime and atrocities. The pharma cartel, over the last 60 years, has a very dark history (see links below). It has infiltrated the medical establishment, academia, government, and the media. There is stark, constant corruption, manipulation and fabrication of research. The pharma cartel is a global giant, a mega industry. For example, it dwarfs the tobacco industry. And, whatever one might believe of the tobacco industry, the nature and magnitude of pharmaceutical delinquency makes the tobacco industry look saintly.
More and more of life's peculiarities have been redefined into medical conditions requiring pharmaceutical remediation. Once-upon-a-time problems and difficulties that were a call to strengthening principled thinking in a greater metaphysical context (e.g., relational, grief, meaning of life) are now, magically, medical problems (i.e., neuro-chemical imbalances) requiring some pill, potion or gadget.
Through recent, highly questionable, redefinitions of, for example, addiction, overweight, de-pression, anxiety, the human condition has essentially been medicalised. Consistent with the greater materialist context, it should be obvious that an assault on the multidimensions of health is financially lucrative. There is now a very formidable super-industry of medical pra-ctitioners, specialists, 'health' care providers, pharmaceutical companies, research facilities, equipment manufacturers, an ssortment of 'experts', etc. Thinking and scrutiny are not encouraged amongst the population, just that they hop onto the medical production-line as soon as possible for a lifelong ride as the cash registers chink over. This super-industry is essentially cult-driven where the idea of health has been reduced to an absence of physical disease phenomenon.
In the propagation of cultism, lifestyle epidemiology has legitimised the medical establishment in 'preventive medicine', and the medical establishment has in turn legitimised super-industry participants and a whole host of lobby groups (e.g., antismoking), and 'charitable' foundations.
Before all the blame can be laid at the feet of healthism, populations need to recognise their role in this madness. Many just do not want to think too hard about anything beyond immediate gratification issues. They have lost a greater metaphysical context that drives psychological, social and moral strengthening and vigilance. Having no claim to integrity by consideration and profundity, the temptation to healthism is high: one can now appear superior by a small number of behaviors and 'stances'. It is the masses that have allowed this cultism to proliferate because that is what they want to believe. Many are using the cult to 'justify' and enact their multi-dimensional dysfunctions, e.g., crankiness, petu-lance, haughtiness, fear and hate-mongering, airs of superiority.
And, typical of a cult is the delusion of infallibility: Cultist beliefs are always correct and, therefore, anyone questioning them must always be wrong. In that most cultist beliefs cannot be supported by facts and coherent argument, any questioning or scrutiny is typically met with a barrage of ad hominum argument, e.g., disgust, contempt, anger, outrage, hatred.
The medical establishment and pharmaceutical cartel have 'legitimised' numerous lobby groups in promoting its cultist agenda, none more aggressive and deceptive than the antismoking lobby.
The cult of the body and , therefore, antismoking, of which it is an integral part, was proliferating through the 1980's. For example, at the University of Melbourne (Australia), smoking was banned in university vehicles in 1984. During a trip to the USA in 1985, smoking was banned in at least main buildings at the University of Oregon in Eugene. Smoking was banned indoors at major travellers hostels in San Francisco and Boston. In the late-80's, the University of Melbourne banned smoking in the graduate dining room. These bans could certainly not be scientifically based in that the first 'official' view, albeit corrupt, was not presented until some years later by the EPA in late 1992.
The antismoking saga is a good example of how a cultist stance drives 'research' and policy. The medical establishment and the 'health' promotion industry had been trying for years to force smokers to desist from the habit. They noticed, however, by the late-70's that one of their major stumbling blocks was non-smokers. Non-smokers properly interpreted healthism as brow-beating and bullying. People generally seemed to be far more cognizant of democratic ideals. I recollect a mid-1980's documentary scrutinizing an intended smoking ban in California, where a non-smoker placed his hand on the shoulder of a smoker at a bar and indicated that he would defend the smoker's right to smoke to the death. This would all change very quickly.
From the early-80's, the focus of antismoking would become the non-smoker on a 'divide and conquer' basis, with the promotion of the idea of the 'danger' of passive smoke exposure. This was not a new idea, having been introduced by the Nazis who instituted bans on this basis. Bear in mind, in Nazi Germany there was no evidence of danger, simply a 'bodily purity' fixation. The idea fits beautifully within the cultist framework in terms of environmental exposures.
In the latter-80's, the then US Surgeon General, a vehement antismoker, C. Everett Coop, severely overinterpreted, intentionally, the findings of a handful of flawed studies on passive smoking that had been done to date, promoting the idea of a probable danger to non-smokers. He also questionably re-defined the longstanding and reasonable definition of addiction to now include tobacco consumption, and promoted the idea of a smoke-free USA by the year 2000.
In late-1992, the EPA, another materialist organization, presented the 'official' interpretation of studies-to-date on exposure to passive smoke.
It would be a reasonable inference that the 'interpetation' would not be dispassionate and objective given what the intent of the findings were for. Indeed, the EPA concluded that environmental tobacco smoke posed an elevated risk, danger, of specific disease such as lung cancer, warranting action. On the heels of the presentation, organizations around the Western world scrambled to ban smoking in at least the workplace. The smoker from thence has been unquestioningly portrayed as an 'addict' who not only incoherently endangers his own life, but will recklessly endanger non-smokers if the latter do not take decisive action.
EPA (1992) concluded an RR of 1.19 for lung cancer in non-smoking spouses of smokers, and where exposure is long-term, e.g., 40-60 years. In addition to numerous other flaws, it is noteworthy to hightlight that, firstly, the RR=1.19 does not even meet epidemiology's contorted standard of RR=2.00 for 'causal' argument, and by a long way. Secondly, in absolute predictive terms - the appropriate basis for causal argument, if exposure to tobacco smoke is used as a predictor for lung cancer in non-smokers, one would be wrong just short of all of the time, i.e., the probability is barely above zero. Thirdly, all of the studies did not measure exposure to tobacco smoke. Rather, they measured, through questionnaire, persons' recall of exposure over all those years. This methodology has obvious severe limitations.
Yet, what is on the basis of coherent causal argument a comprehensive nonsense was used to promote irrational belief and fear, social division/upheaval, and progressive hatred/bigotry. Furthermore, the adult section of EPA (1992), the basis for the societal upheaval, was vacated in 1998 by a supreme court judge on the basis of 'working to a conclusion'. Working to a con-clusion - fixing a conclusion first and then selecting/manipulating findings to fit the conclusion - is one of the most serious failings or violations in scientific enquiry terms. Therefore, everything about EPA (1992), the cultist coercion, the mangling of the precepts of scientific enquiry, and the dysfunction promoted amongst the public is highly unhealthy. The dangerous absurdity is that all of this is promoted in the name of health! Those that promote this insanity are mentally disordered, socially dysfunctional, and reprobate.
In addition to the delusion of infallibility, the entire EPA saga highlights another strong delusion of cultism - dictatorial tendencies and contempt for individual decision-making. Once the cult elite had declared that no one should be smoking, then persons continuing to smoke produces utter contempt in the hierarchy. To the cultist mind, those continuing to smoke are obviously wrong, insubordinate, and incapable of making their own decisions. The 'proper' decision must therefore be forced on them. And, the EPA saga indicates just some of the lengths the cult is willing to degenerate to, not only to promote but, to enforce its views.
With the growing cultism through the 90's, the antismoking lobby attracted serious funding, bankrolled mainly by goverment, the pharma-ceutical companies, and 'charitable' organi-sations. The pharmaceutical companies' interest should be clear: With strong pressure on smokers to quit, their smoking habitat dis-appearing through progressive bans, a number of pharmaceutical companies can handsomely profit from their mostly useless 'smoking cessation' products, particularly when marketed that smokers need them to quit.
Awash with money and fake legitimacy, the antismoking lobby has 'worked' over the 90's and this millenium to further 'denormalise' smoking and smokers, typically through an assault on psychological, social and moral health. An amount of this unconscionable conduct is considered in the book above. There are now quite a number of antismoking and 'health' promotion groups. They are well co-ordinated and media savvy. Some of their funding is based on maintaining a high media profile, e.g., a few times a month. If there is no new contrived information or strategy, they will dredge up old ones. It does not matter, they have long understood that the media is as cultist as they are, presenting the antismoking agenda in unquestioned format. They can also play 'good cop, bad cop'. One group will present a dictatorial idea that the others will distance themselves from, calling for balance. Yet, the seed is planted in a public that has already been coerced into an antismoking stance. Within a short time, another group will present the same idea. And, then another. Until what initially seemed like an absurd idea is being caught up in public policy. They have a beautifully-functioning brainwashing machinery within the greater cultist framework. Unperturbed by fact or reason, they will do whatever the public allows them to do to enforce the antismoking goal.
It would be a reasonable question as to why there has been essentially no counter-argument, when so much is warranted, to this progressive insanity - particularly in universities? Much of the 'legitimising' nonsense begins in the university setting. If lifestyle epidemiology is in severe contravention of scientific edicts and incapable of self-correction, then it would be a call to other disciplines to highlight these contraventions. One of a number of disciplines that has this capacity in this circumstance is non-reductionist psychology. Education in this discipline, at least in the past, includes a level of statistical sophistication to identify the unhealthiness of reliance on the RR statistic with poor predictive strength to underpin causal argument. It would also be interested in the healthist intent of eradicating the multi-dimensions of the human experience, including psychological, and reducing the human condition to an entirely biological, unitary level.
Even more importantly, Psychology would have a considerable interest in issues of psychological health and the promotion of dysfunction through misinformation, disinformation, lies, coercion. For example, terms such as monomania, megalo-mania, and somatising disorders would have been understood by at least some staff in psychology departments.
Monomania, which can well describe anti-smoking and possibly other single-issue groups, refers to an acute dysfunctional fixation, i.e., obsession with one idea or phenomenon, or a train of thought. This sort of fixation indicates that the person/group cannot reason very well in multi-dimensional terms, or forsee or evaluate the consequences of their conduct in multi-dimensional terms. Within healthism, the materialist fixation is already monomaniacal. The antismoking within healthism is even further fixation, i.e., compounded monomania. When a group's fixation, such as antismoking, involves the banishment or persecution of another group and has access to cash and the media, psychological insight would counsel that a close eye be kept on them: If left unchecked, they can run a society ragged.
Megalomania can well describe the coercive, dictatorial tendencies in cultism (e.g., healthism). Participants have a severe over-estimation of themselves and their understanding, and suffer a lust for social domination. Obviously, when falsely legitimised under the pretense of scientific credibility and given social power, these tendencies are dangerous.
(cont'd lower left)
(cont'd from upper far right)
The environmental somatisation syndrome is of particular interest. There are some minds that are severely conflicted producing unbearable fear. Whether they do not want to address this internal conflict directly, or they do not know how to do so, the mind demonstrates a self-protection process of projection. The mind makes the pain of an internal conflict appear as if it has an external source. Alternatively, persons can have physical symptoms when they believe they are in the presence of a dangerous externalit even though the externality is not actually present. It should be noted that such persons do demonstrate actual physical symptoms. The problem is that they believe that the symptoms have an external cause. Whether physical symptoms are physically or psychologically mediated can be experimentally tested and there have been a number of studies done on this phenomenon.
In considering the antismoking crusade and its fear-mongering and legitimization of the fear concerning environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), there is a very high potential for fostering somatising disorders (also referred to as a nocebo effect).
If non-smokers are pounded with the idea that ETS is dangerous, then in the presence of ETS, many can demonstrate physical symptoms such as heart palpitations, cold sweat, shortness of breath, faintness, eye irritation, dry throat. These are not symptoms of ETS exposure. These are classical anxiety or fear symptoms. At this point, the disorder would be akin to a phobia. However, in a phobia the phobic recognises that their fear of a particular phenomenon is irrational. With antismoking, however, persons have been indoctrinated that their fear is rational and that their symptoms are being produced by ETS. I have had to refer to this reinforcement as the 'superiority syndrome'. The superiority syndrome, legitimised by the pretense of scientific credibility, reinforces the fear, obviously uncomfortable, which in turn will breed anger that calls for protection from the reckless, dangerous smokers (i.e., bans). Each time the cycle is reinforced, the fear becomes more acute, the danger more immediate, the anger shifts to hatred, the calls for protection more absurd and dictatorial, i.e., brainwashing. In other words, the reactivity becomes progressively more disproportionate to the phenomenon in question. And, the progressive shift is entirely psychological, i.e., dysfunctional.
Consider what has occurred over the last 15 years. EPA (1992) declared, improperly, that ETS was a danger to non-smokers based on long-time (40-60 years) exposure of non-smokers to their smoker spouses, and based on a recall of exposure. As soon as this 'danger' was declared and even though the danger concerned a usually old-age disease (lung cancer), a plethora of non-smokers began demonstrating immediate symptons typical of anxiety (i.e., somatisation). They were encouraged by cultism to interpret these symptoms as the effects of ETS. There is no indication in the historical record of a large number of non-smokers demonstrating these symptoms in a smoky room before ETS was made an issue by healthism. The large numbers appeared only when ETS was associated with danger. Understandably, many smoker spouses, partners, friends and guests were directed outdoors if they wanted to smoke.
Within a short time came the phenomenon of non-smokers holding their breath as they hurried past a group of smokers, by this time many believing that any whiff, a single inhalation, was enough to drop them dead. And so came the 'no smoking' within a certain number of metres of doorways.
Now, the antismoking lobby is cultivating the idea of 'third-hand' smoke. The very breath of smokers, smokers' clothes, wherever smoke has once settled is 'dangerous'. Obviously, if this deranged idea is allowed to take, smokers on a far larger scale will have to quit smoking if they wish to work. Obviously this stunt is to coerce this very goal. Because monomania is a mental disorder, the more it is reinforced, the greater the inordinacy between perceived (psycho-logical) danger, and demands for protection, and actual, demonstrable danger.
What has actually been occurring is an assault on psychological and social health; the fostering of a progressive dysfunction in multitudes of non-smokers. It is non-smokers that have allowed themselves to be brainwashed and to do the bidding of the cult. Whether they realise or not that they have become devotees, highjacked from sensibility, it is they who constantly clamour for more protection, and more control of smokers. The antismoking lobby, gleeful in its "accomplishments", could well be surprised by how all too easy the brainwashing exercise has been.
There is now even the 'smeller'/'sniffer' brigade. These detest, hate, the smell of tobacco smoke. And, if it was up to them, they would have smoking banned purely on this basis. Could one imagine some thirty years ago that cognizance of democratic ideals would have eroded and superficiality entrenched to the point that there would be those demanding bans simply because they didn't like the smell of tobacco. Remember that up to the mid-80's there were non-smokers willing to defend the right of smokers to the death!
Also relevant, is that the olfactory (sense of smell) system resides in the more primitive part of the brain and can be linked with more primitive emotion. In the time of segregation in the USA, there was an example of a few African-Americans entering a diner against ordinances and sitting at the bar for a meal. Some whites (of racist disposition) vehemently complained that they did not want the African-Americans in their dining facilities because they (the African-Americans) 'smelled' (gave off a repulsive 'odor'). The African-Americans being referred to at the time were well-groomed and dressed. The 'repugnant smell' could well be a somatising effect fuelled by irrational fear and hatred, as it could well be now concerning tobacco smoke. Whether an actual or phantom smell, high emotion such as fear and hatred can magnify an experience into repulsiveness.
Another insight for the 'smellers' is that, until the last two or three decades, ambient smoke was an integral feature of households. Fire was required for cooking and heating. There didn't seem to be too many 'smellers' back then or they would have had difficulty eating and keeping warm in cold climates.
Therefore, the question remains as to how, amongst the thousands of research papers done on smoking over the last few decades, there is not one paper addressing the potential for psychological and social dysfunction due to the activity of 'health' promotion, or antismoking specifically? How can it be so entirely one-sided? The situation is extraordinary.
It does not take too long to understand why. A scrutiny of Psychology Departments across the West indicates a severe domination by behaviorists (materialists). Some departments are entirely staffed by behaviorists. Behaviorists will not question any materialist maxim, being themselves materialist in disposition (i.e., they are a critical part of the problem). In fact, behaviorism and its methodology (operant conditioning) becomes the propaganda arm of the healthist cult. These work out strategies for how to positively reinforce 'required' behavior, and how to negatively reinforce 'unacceptable' behavior, not unlike how one would condition a pigeon to peck for a food pellet.
(cont'd next right)
(cont'd from left)
The absurdity should be obvious. Psychology pertains to a mental level, an enquiry into consciousness and thought, even to ontological concerns. Yet there are psychology departments predominantly staffed by those that do not believe that a mental level, in psychological terms, exists. Only observable behavior is relevant for them. Further, there are now many universities that do not have a psychology department at all: It has been replaced by the Department of Behavioral Science. Where funding bodies and university departments are aligned to ideology, only those seeking funding for ideology-aligned research attract funding. Those that seek to conduct research that questions ideological maxims will not receive funding. If they cannot do research, they cannot publish. If they cannot publish, their tenure will be in jeopardy. Within just a short time, it is possible for a critical department to be filled with ideologically-aligned staff: Genuine research, discussion and debate are eradicated.
More recently, there has been even further deterioration. Typically, Psychology was a foundational discipline at the inception of many universities. Its topics of interest have obviously changed over the many years. However, it usually had an independent status, offered for study under both Arts and Science Faculties. It has already been considered that there is little psychology occurring in psychology depart-ments at this time. Unfortunately, some uni-versities have gone even further. For example, at the University of Melbourne, the Department of Psychology has been absorbed into the Faculty of Medicine. One of the few disciplines that could call medical folly into question has been taken over by the medical faculty! This is extraordinary. At Monash University (also in Australia), the psychology department has also been absorbed into the medical faculty! These changes are not happenstance. They are carefully considered, albeit superficial, in a dangerously delusional materialist framework.
There are also a number of new centres at Melbourne University. In a side street just off the main campus there is the Nossal Institute for Global Health in a sizeable building. Immediately across the road is another sizeable building housing the School of Population Health. Within the latter is the Centre for International Mental Health. The term 'mental' does not refer to a psychological dimension, but is materialist in stance. All of these organisations come under the Faculty of Medicine. These sorts of centres, that seem to be proliferating with the materialist onslaught, are at the top-end of the healthist hierarchy. Again, unfortunate is the word 'health' in their titles. If the title included the qualification physical health, at least it would properly delimit the focus of their concern. Even then, the prescriptions and proscriptions manufactured by lifestyle epidemiology do not particularly promote physical health given that they are typically based on poor predictors. If they insist on using the general term 'health' in their nomenclature, then they are fraudulent; they are in denial of the multidimensions of health. There has been a deterioration back to the Nazi idea of health. The World Health Organisation, a medical/materialist organisation, violates its own reasonable, post-WWII definition of health. Wherever 'health' is seen in the name of these organisations, it would better be replaced with the word 'deception'. They are staffed by shallow minds pursuing cultist social-engineering goals. Long-gone is the public's reasonable expectation of accurate, impartial information by health groups. Now there is carefully-crafted wording in a context of selective statistics designed to terrify the public into superficiality, compliance and devotee-ship.
That these organisations are proliferating is symptomatic of the genuinely global slide into the superficiality of materialism. They are ideologically linked to universities, health departments, and generally sprawling govern-ment buraucracy. By critical terms in their titles (population, global, international, world) their motivation is the control of the multitudes by the materialist manifesto - man-engineered utopia (or the Orwellian nightmare). Unfortunately, one-time democracies are looking more and more like socialistic, fascistic, totalitarian regimes where the individual is the property of the State. Obsessed with the 'organism' in its environment, its intent to control both on the grounds of fake puritanism has been achieved by the trickery of constant appeals to 'safety' and 'health'.
In the new milenium, universities are not the bastions of high scholarly thought. They have been reduced to glorified institutes of technology running on the business model. They are the epicentre of the materialist cult, promoting its agenda, i.e., a materialist production-line. It has been universities that have been the instigators of deluded thought. It is universities, under the pretext of scholarship, that have enabled lifestyle epidemiology and its corruption. Under the pretense of scientific credibility for its cultist claims it has infected legal argument and the media. It is not difficult to surmise that all the key social institutions (government, academia, the medical establishment, the legal establish-ment, the media) across the West are cultist in disposition. And, through them, the multitudes have allowed themselves to become infected. What else could be expected when the critical dimensions of the human condition have been dispensed with?
The other key social institution is religion - particularly Christian denominations in the West. Religions did not buy into the early momentum of healthism - and properly so. However, in the last decade, mutiple religions, under long coercion from lobby groups, have capitulated and adopted the healthist stance, including antismoking. Some have even questionably accepted 'charitable' funding (tied back to the pharmaceutical cartel) to promote antismoking. Smoking was already not permitted inside churches, but many churches banned smoking from even outdoor areas on their properties. The Vatican banned smoking from its entire precinct. Giving an antismoking sermon became mandatory, usually parrotting the standard healthist propaganda, but with a twist - Christians should not smoke. This is a very critical sign.
It is the Christian teaching in particular that is a comprehensive challenge to character flaws across the multidimensions of the human condition. It is Christians that should be vigilant for the promotion of these flaws. They obviously do not realise, when they should, that they are feeding a cult, becoming devotees, that is anti-Christian in disposition. Body fixation and promoting irrational belief and fear, social division, bigotry, and dictatorial tendencies are fundamentally antithetical to the Christian teaching.
Supposed Christians have also been clamouring for protection from ETS. As Christians, they should be well aware of the potential of persecution for their faith, endured and overcome by the Love that comes by God within us. In some countries at this time there are Christians that are hacked to death if they do not renounce their faith. How could so-called Christians across the West even entertain the idea of enduring actual persecution, should it come, when they are already fainting at whisps of tobacco smoke? Christians do not understand that if it came to a choice between protection of the flesh or standing in faith, materialism, being the carnal mind, would always counsel for choosing the former. Materialism's entire preoccupation is with 'saving' the flesh, whilst sucking away all awareness of the soul and spirit. It will do whatever, even renounce God, in carnal self-preservation. Given that everyone attempting to 'save' their flesh will ultimately and definitely fail, then all that has occurred by adhering to materialism is that the same persons would also have lost the awareness of real being which is the Spirit. To lose on both counts would indeed be a great tragedy.
(cont'd next right)
(cont'd from left)
And, similarly as this superficial mentality can contort the multidimensional idea of health, the precepts of scientific enquiry and the edicts of coherent argument, it can also contort Biblical scripture to fit its derangement; whatever this shallow mentality lays its hand to, it will corrupt. Unfortunately, it is religions more recently aligning themselves with heathist edicts that has propelled the cultist hold over nations by orders of magnitude.
A final matter concerns another delusion of cultism. In addition to infallibility and megalomania, healthism, in particular, suffers from the delusion of benevolence. Cultists believe that their social-engineering conduct either has the desired effect (compliance) or no effect. It cannot grasp the other possibility, one that is the very frequent consequence of its conduct, that its conduct has detrimental, harmful effects. Consider the plight of the smoker. As the healthist 'denormalisation' of smoking and smokers has proceeded, smokers have had to leave the indoors of workplaces and homes if they wish to smoke. Some have lost their jobs because they smoke. A growing number of employers will not hire persons if they smoke. Others have had to watch their businesses fail due to smoking bans. Words such as 'disease', 'kill', 'danger', 'harm' and 'costly' are constantly associated with smokers. Divorces, child custody and visitation have been based on smoking-status. Those that smoke are barred from providing foster care for children and adoption. Although consistent with antismoking, the above is entirely harmful, particularly when it has been predicated on the additional harmful ramification of the pretense of scientific authority and 'health' promotion.
There is not much point indicating the folly of their ways to antismokers. If they could understand multidimensionality, they would not have an acute fixation. These are feeble minds, having spent very little time critically examining the standard of their own thinking: They are in a trance-like state, unable to reason beyond the small frame of their fixation. Therefore, they are simply enacting their derangement. In saner times, such persons would have been advised to undertake at least extended psyhological counselling. One can visit an antismoking website such as ASH.org, for example. It is almost painful to view such sites as to the way tid-bits of disjointed information are manipulated, twisted, contorted, and then twisted again to fit the fixation. The only public protection that has been needed over the last two decades is from the toxiciy of these groups that can only breed irrational fear, hatred, fake superiority and social division. In this regard, and this time on a global scale, societies have utterly failed, themselves having sunk into the superficiality of cultism: That these groups can peddle their poisonous wares with great support is a critical symptom that societies are not faring well. Even worse is that any potential for correction has essentially been dismantled.
A Parting Thought
It would be difficult at this time to find those that smoke in any of the major positions in the key social establishments in the majority, if not all, western and many non-western nations. It has become a prerequisite of advancement that a person not smoke, i.e., a progressive 'weeding' out of smokers. It is the 'superior' cultists - materialist, healthist, and non-smoking/anti-smoking - that have been in charge for the last few decades. It is part of the strong cultist delusion that a denial and violation of the critical dimensions of the human condition has no consequential cost. Under their domination the world has become a progressively more fearful, unstable, unsafe, and confusing place: They steer the worldly system surely and arrogantly towards the proverbial 'brick wall', the blind leading the blind. The worldly state is in metaphysical crisis. Healthism has manufactured phantom dangers, acute fixations, and social division. While social groups have allowed themselves to be distracted with squabbling about what behavior is disgusting, who is superior, who is brainwashed, and what smells are 'offensive', populations are missing the actual danger of the dark cloud descending upon them of dictatorial intent: It does not dawn on dulled minds that their one-time democracies are degenerating into dictated societies. Whatever one would want to make of it, the major antismoking crusades of the last century immediately preceded and were concurrent with the two World Wars.
The global extent of superficiality and cultism is staggeringly unprecedented; the global extent of financial crisis is unprecedented; the potential for brainwashing and population surveillance is unprecedented; the potential for population destruction is unprecedented. Nations, governments, establishments proceed on a contorted path; individuals, however, need not. Let each think again, considering what it is they follow.
Contact: bkrampt01 at optusnet.com.au
A Note to Nonsmokers
If you're a nonsmoker that has hyper-reactivity and 'symptoms' to ETS, find the smoking habit detestable and disgusting, and find those that smoke 'moronic' and 'filthy', deserving of all controls placed on them, then you have been brainwashed. It has been the express intention of the brainwashing crusade of the last few decades, involving large amounts of money and great effort, to produce this hyper-reactivity in you under the pretense of protecting your health and superiority. It has not protected your physical health because you were never in danger to begin with. At a psychological level, however, you now have irrational belief and fear (superstition), are most probably somatising this irrationality, and are bigoted. This is hardly a healthy or superior state. You should be concerned for at least two main reasons. Firstly, you should be concerned that 'health' authorities of the time are not concerned with the dissemination of accurate information or with your actual health, but with enforcing their agenda, even if it means coercing large segments of the population into mental, relational, and moral dysfunction. Secondly, it should be of great concern to you as to how easily you have been brainwashed. Further, if you accept without question whatever you are told by 'authorities', then what else can you be brainwashed into under a tirade of propaganda? There are nonsmokers that have not bought into the bigotry, aware of the manipilation involved. They can obviously see something that you cannot. It is worth your while to see this 'something' before you allow yourself to be coerced into further dysfunction.
Links on the Pharmaceutical Cartel
Links on Eugenics
Link on Fraudulent Medical Research
(slightly dated but still very relevant)
Link on The Association Between 'Charitable' Foundations and the Pharmaceutical Cartel
Link on The Association Between 'Charitable' Foundations and Education Philosophy