The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewLarry Romanoff Archive
Social Change: If Greed Is Good, Maybe Smoking Is Gooder
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Social changes come in many forms, some of which we might not immediately recognise or identify as such. Some kinds of social changes are natural, generally manifesting themselves slowly and occurring over long periods of time, normally without upheaval or societal distress. Other kinds are consciously contrived by persons with an agenda, these appearing suddenly and evolving much more quickly, often with considerable social upset and distress, at least in some quarters.

The easiest way to identify normal evolutionary social change from the contrived kind is that with natural social change there is no noise. We do not have the mass media beating the drums in support of the new order and, if the change attracts their attention at all, the media most often rail against it in favor of protecting the status quo. Newspaper owners and editors argued strongly against the abolition of slavery, of child labor, of giving women the vote, for example.

By contrast, the social changes contrived by our NWO masters-of-the-universe-to-be, are always noisy, their media compatriots leading the charge with well-prepared psycho-babble designed to eliminate our natural resistance to change, to shame us into new ways of thinking, and generally to extort our compliance. To assist in the public propagandising, vocabulary is re-assigned new meanings and connotations which serve to disguise the anti-social purpose of the changes. Resistance becomes not only increasingly futile but personally dangerous, because resistors are early on identified as ‘the enemy’ who, unlike a social tradition, are personally identifiable and can thus be targeted. In this latter category we have items such as the alphabet soup of (negative) sexual perversions now categorised as (neutral) “preferences”, and the campaign to legalise marijuana (and soon, hard drugs as well), both led by our media with the volume turned to ‘maximum’.

It should be noted that with many of these agenda-contrived changes, morality and values are either discarded or, like the vocabulary, re-assigned new values. Consider in this light the issue of homosexuality. For at least the past 80 years, the sexual molestation of young boys by older men was considered a reprehensible crime leaving personal devastation in its wake, claims of its negataive effects supported by enormous volumes of medical and other evidence. And even today, young athletes are still pursuing in civil courts retribution for such molestation committed by coaches and others while the police are still laying criminal charges against those responsible. And it isn’t only sports venues; the Catholic Church is being bankrupted in many dioceses for its long covert approval of the practice and its vast support of the perpetrators.

But the landscape appears to have changed suddenly to the point where two men can marry, become husband and wife, and adopt small boys, with absolutely no mention of the potential emotional damage to those same young victims. The effects on the child-victims have totally and entirely fallen below the media radar. So where is the truth? If the sexual use of small boys was psychologically devastating and a reprehensible crime 80 years ago, it must be the same today. If the practice were harmless, as seems to be what we are told today, then it was harmless also 80 years ago. But then why the vast medical evidence in opposition, and why the criminal and civil trials occurring regularly, along with the serious prison sentences meted out?

Only one side of this story can be true. If we were being told the truth in the past, then everyone is lying to us today. If what we are told today is the truth, then everyone has been lying to us for 80 years. But lies of this kind don’t put basketball coaches in prison and bankrupt dozens of Catholic churches. The logical conclusion is that we were being told the truth in the past and that our masters-to-be are perpetrating an enormous fraud on Western nations today. It would appropriate to ask who are these people and what is their purpose. How did we travel from the point where some acts considered deviations – such as pedophilia – have morphed into conditions where even political leaders celebrate their existence in public parades? Of course, it isn’t the specific act of child sexual molestation that is being celebrated, but this is precisely the problem in that the act is in large part inseparable from the fundamental condition, but this part of the story is being silenced, presumably on the grounds of ‘fake news’.

But with my statements, please understand I make no judgment or condemnation of other people or their conditions or preferences, but then neither do I participate in public parades to boast that I am a typical run-of-the-mill heterosexual. And I don’t participate in public sexual parades for two reasons. One is that the very idea is stupid and the second is that nobody would care. In this context, the power of the political pressure that can be created by the media is astonishing. There are few government leaders with the character to avoid being used by private interests in such a shameful way, and even fewer with the courage to do so. The ‘gay pride’ movement, to my best knowledge entirely a Jewish initiative, has accumulated a power equivalent to supporting Israel: both are pre-requisites for re-election, and both involving an insignificant percentage of the population. You might care to think about that.

If you have been watching the media carefully, we have slowly been prepared not only for the praise of these new sexual ‘preferences’ so far listed, but also for the practice of incest – which will be next on the list. The relentless propaganda campaign in favor of casual abortions is part of this series of contrived social change – instigated by the same people and accompanied by a huge volume of incessant media noise.

There are other kinds of changes that, due to media conditioning, we tend to identify as political or financial, but that are very much social changes and usually with vast implications for society as a whole. Consider the matter of infrastructure privatisation, which we have been conditioned to look upon as purely a commercial concern, but which is in fact almost entirely social in its effects. You might care to read earlier articles I wrote on the evils of privatisation, to see some specifics on the effects of a society.[1][2][3]

In this category we find toll highways, airports, hospitals and medical care, prisons, electricity generation, pensions, driving licenses, education, and much more, all creating unpleasant social changes in addition to the financial implications. When Britain was pushed to privatise their public railways – with immense financial losses to the government and untold misery for the travelers, the procedure was re-categorised from ‘privatisation’ to ‘liberalisation’, suggesting that the railways had been hamstrung by their public owners and were now being set free, any kind of “freedom” being a universal value and thus cannot be challenged.

There are many others that fit more comfortably into what we might term ‘social change’, such as the animal-rights activists and various environmental groups. For many reasons, I have little sympathy for most of these people or the groups to which they belong. To begin, you might have noticed that in addition to the more or less sudden appearance of these groups, there is the inevitable accompanying media noise which is prima facie evidence of these movements having been contrived by persons behind the scenes with an agenda. Also, if you haven’t been sleeping, you may have noticed that these groups are all promoted and funded by people like George Soros and the usual group of suspects, and could not exist without such support and the media encouragement.

These people are not much motivated, at least in my opinion, by true social values or instincts to do good. The attraction seems more an opportunity to rebel, to give an unjust society the finger, and to engage in outrageous conduct while protected by some level of political correctness. Perhaps even more, it is the exhilarating feeling of power over others, the power deriving from some measure of extortion to enable one to force others to do one’s bidding by the false expedient of causing moral discomfort.

No Mink Allowed

One of my favorites in this regard is the “fur coats are evil” movement, perhaps best manifested by the young psychopaths who accost you on the street and spray-paint your mink coat a pretty fluorescent green. These are the same people who sneak into a mink farm and release the thousands of animals into the wild where they will all die for lack of food and hunting skills. These people are not animal-lovers in any sense, and probably wouldn’t know a raccoon from a skunk, much less be able to identify a mink. They are merely anti-social trouble-makers looking for an excuse, and would have latched onto any cause that would give expression to their criminal instincts. They might just as easily have become tree-huggers if George hadn’t gotten to them first. We might wonder why they aren’t more interested in preventing the loss of honey-bees than in exterminating mink, but the answer lies with those who set the agenda, and bees aren’t on it while your mink coat is.

I admit to some perplexity on this above issue. For untold generations a fur coat was not only a useful luxury but a source of some satisfaction and pride, as well as a lovely status symbol. As usual, there is the issue of hypocrisy: These same people, agenda-makers or trouble-makers alike, have no hesitation in wearing leather jackets, leather shoes, leather belts and sheepskin mittens while a fur coat is re-categorised as a crime against humanity (or at least against the animal portion of it). With the willing help of the media, we are being made to feel ashamed for wearing one kind of animal skin while other kinds are permissible. But a mink is just a kind of weasel, and a generally nasty creature at best. It’s a surprise anyone would care. There are some big lies being told here.

This is partly an aside, but it’s more than nothing. Denmark recently killed more than 17 million mink on more than 1,000 mink farms, which had an export value nearing $1 billion annually. It was so bad that Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen broke down in tears when visiting a mink farmer who lost his herd following the government’s order to cull all the mink in the country, ostensibly to curb the spread of the coronavirus.[4] In related news, the government later admitted the cull was illegal, the Agriculture Minister resigned in shame, and the government faced a non-confidence motion.[5] If you followed the tales of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK a few years back, the cause was different but the result was the same: thousands of small farmers were liquidated – illegally – eliminating the entire livestock herds, and soon afterwards Big Agra was there to take over. My guess is that history is repeating itself here, as it has done in so many sudden and unexplained infections resulting in the elimination of small farmers and providing an opportunity for Big Agra to fill the supply deficit.[6]

In any case, this is one social change that can and should be resisted. In addition to the genuine practicalities and ostentatious luxury, fur coats are like Ferraris and Lamborghinis – they need no further reason to exist. Mink is one of the nicest furs. Sable is especially luxurious, and very expensive. Perhaps the best is a floor-length chinchilla – if you don’t mind looking like a pimp. My point is that we needn’t latch onto every orchestrated social change just because the NYT and WSJ tell us ‘blue is the new red’. We have the power as individuals to simply refuse to accept the agendised propaganda and continue as we have always done. This applies as much (and even more) to matters involving morality as to those of activity or purchasing.

No Smoking

In the matter of orchestrated and contrived social change, I cannot ignore the matter of cigarette-smoking. This is not an argument in favor of smoking but instead is a tirade against an enormous hypocrisy that stinks up the entire room while everyone pretends to not notice.

When I was a child, smoking was an acceptable and deeply-ingrained social habit. You would no more refuse permission to smoke than refuse a glass of water to a thirsty guest. Every table had an ashtray, as did every airplane on every seat-rest. It seems a bit strange now that we would smoke up an enclosed space like an airplane, but we did. Most of the famous news anchors and the well-known talking heads regularly made cigarette commercials. There is a well-known film clip of the young actor James Dean casually smoking cigarettes during a long TV interview. My point is that I did not create this world. I was born into it. And, because that was all I knew, I believed that was the way the world was. And that was the way the world was.

The younger generation today would like to change this, and I have no objection. They will inherit the world into which they were born, and they are free to make whatever social changes they deem appropriate. But recall what I said at the beginning about natural social changes occurring slowly, without noise, and without social distress. The front-line soldiers pushing changes as this and others, benefit from the noise and have no concern about causing distress. My suggestion to them is to change the future and not the past. Corporations do this easily. When implementing major policy changes, they often apply those to only new hires, excluding existing staff or some subset of them. This is what we have come to call a “grandfather clause”, leaving untouched what is while changing what will be. In simple terms, change your world – for you – but leave me out of it. I do not want to do what you want. I want to do what I want. And my wants are every bit as valid as yours.

But the real issue is the hypocrisy. We know all about the dangers of smoking and have read much of the toxic nature of ‘second-hand’ smoke. So, if you are a parent (preferably a mother), let’s make a deal. I will give you a choice. Your child can sit next to me for 20 minutes while I smoke a few cigarettes or, for 5 minutes, I will hold your child’s head under the exhaust pipe of your car. You and I both know that in the first case nothing will happen while in the second case your kid will be dead.

You pump more toxic and deadly chemicals into the air in one day of commuting than I would do in one year of smoking cigarettes, so where is your concern for your health, my health, the public health, and the environment? The non-existent elephant in the room. Why is it okay for you to poison me with your automobile exhaust but not okay for me to do the reverse in a far milder form? The answer of course is that you drive but you don’t smoke. Your position constitutes not only willful blindness but an hypocrisy of an astonishingly high order. If you are one of those righteous Christians who treasures the opportunity to despise others for not behaving the way you want, my advice to you is to either throw away the keys to your car, or put a sock in it.








Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Larry was doing pretty well till he went on his smoking tirade.

    Smoking produces a concentrated exhaust that lingers in a room and attached itself to clothing, hair, everything.

    As Steve Martin explained:
    Smoker: Do you mind if I smoke?
    Steve: Do you mind if I fart?

    People should be allowed to smoke, but not exhale where other people have to inhale it. Vehicle exhaust was a real problem and is now a much smaller problem thanks to technology and improvements. We all use or get the benefit from vehicles, but only smokers benefit from smoking (if one can call getting diseased a benefit).

  2. Keep on shining, Larry, you rock !

  3. @RoatanBill

    What are you smoking? Are you a bot , programmed to be wrong?

    The article was about the “hypocrisy” of YOUR reasoning.

    Conveniently ,completely and probably intentionally wrong. Shame on you!

    Try the exhaust of over 50 MILLION BARRELS per day..How many gals per barrel?

    Are you saved or chosen? Your insouciance is ruining reality, please stop, please.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  4. Deep Throat “Do you mind if I smoke?” comes to mind but all is now well in Rome since Pell is back from Australia but Brereton is stirring up a storm—-Ozzies killing Afghanistan kids and proud of it? Morrison–is he a Jew like Trump or a frump like Forrest Gump ?

    • Troll: GazaPlanet
  5. BuelahMan says:

    Get rid of this hack, Unz.

    • Agree: acementhead, gay troll
  6. @goldgettin

    Are we supposed to stop using fossil fuels? We all need fossil fuels, even if we know they have side effects. No one needs to smoke cigarettes. There’s the difference.

    Please note I didn’t come at you personally, as you did to me. If you want to discuss issues, then discuss issues without ah hominem as that does not in any way bolster your position.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @goldgettin
  7. The author assumes that gay men who adopt boys will automatically victimize them sexually: but Catholic priests are not allowed to marry, see.

    Some have the bizarre notion that gays must be recruited, preferably by being molested as children. It seems, rather, that for whatever reason, an average of ten percent of humans never get past the normal state of development which briefly includes sexual interest in their own gender. Ancient Jews feared and hated such individuals because they interfered with the imperative to breed warriors to fight other barbarian tribes for grazing rights in the desert. Christians continued this unpleasant idea, while in the larger, civilized world, Greeks and Romans didn’t even have a term for gays, considering their proclivities unremarkable. One of their most amusing criticisms of the Christian cults was that their god did not cut a very impressive figure, being so morbidly obsessed about what people did with their private parts.

    • Troll: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Brooklyn Dave
  8. Rich says:

    The rectum, sir, is not a sexual organ. Those who find comfort within it, are obviously not quite right. The silly notion that young men, and even boys, aren’t “recruited ” by homosexuals is laughable. I’ve known young men who were recruited, and through religious conversion were able to leave that degrading lifestyle behind, and lead normal lives.

    As for the Romans, before the decline, the punishment for a Male homosexual was to be tied in a sack with a fox and thrown in the Tiber. Homosexuality was illegal and despised in Rome.

    • Agree: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @gay troll
  9. gay troll says:

    I make no judgment or condemnation of other people or their conditions or preferences, but then neither do I participate in public parades to boast that I am a typical run-of-the-mill heterosexual. And I don’t participate in public sexual parades for two reasons. One is that the very idea is stupid and the second is that nobody would care.

    Nobody would care, huh? Is that why you care so much about gay pride parades, writing about how they are boastful and stupid? I would also never participate in a “public sexual parade”, but unlike Larry I won’t let myself be perturbed by people who do. Larry says he’s pretty sure Jews invented gay rights (and we know Larry always states indisputable facts backed up by a filing cabinet full of citations that he never actually bothers to open) but Jews were the first to codify homophobia and sexual intolerance, which Larry displays so coyly. Gay rights are human rights. Homophobia is Jewish. Larry Romanoff is a psywar troll.

  10. IvyMike says:

    I dunno, when I was a kid it was still legal in some Southern states for an adult male to marry a 13 year old girl. Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed was the old saying. Times weren’t better in the past.
    I never smoked a cigarette in my life but there are few things I miss more than noisy, dark, smoke filled bars.

  11. gay troll says:

    As for the Romans, before the decline, the punishment for a Male homosexual was to be tied in a sack with a fox and thrown in the Tiber. Homosexuality was illegal and despised in Rome.

    That is the stupidest thing I have ever read and I defy you to cite a source.

    • Replies: @Ultrafart the Brave
  12. Rich says:

    The Ministry of Truth has done a pretty good job of hiding the truth on the web, but if you really care about ancient Rome and its prohibitions against sodomy, the Lex Scantinia is a good place to start. I’ve got stacks of old Roman history books, published before the truths of history were wiped, and if I find the time, maybe I’ll give you the specifics of the law prohibiting that disgusting behavior. I doubt that you, a prisoner of the disorder, would want the truth in this matter, though.

    • Replies: @gay troll
  13. @gay troll

    … the punishment for a Male homosexual was to be tied in a sack with a fox and thrown in the Tiber…

    I heard they tied them in a sack with a lemming and pushed them over a cliff…

    Or maybe they tied them in a sack with a badger and shoved them down a hole…

    • Replies: @gay troll
  14. gay troll says:
    @Ultrafart the Brave

    I heard they sealed them in a wine barrel with an eagle and catapulted them into the sea.

  15. @RoatanBill

    Tobacco Control scientific fraud falsely blames smoking for diseases really caused by infection, namely HPV, EBV, H. pylori, CMV, HBV, and HCV. At least 2/3 of supposed deaths are bogus. Government using scientific fraud to rob the people’s liberty violates our basic rights. It’s like using fake evidence to put innocents in jail.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  16. gay troll says:

    I am no expert on the subject, but from what I understand, although there were proscriptions against a certain class of men being “receptive”, and a prejudice against femininity in general, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to fuck a young man, or a male concubine. Therefore you grossly mischaracterized the situation by saying that homosexuality per se was illegal and despised. It was rampant enough to have a body of laws to regulate it. If I read the Lex Scantinia will I find the part about foxes in the Tiber? And since the “decline” of Rome coincides with the rise of Christianity, you imply in your original comment that homosexuality and Christianity gained popularity at the same time.

    • Disagree: Rich
  17. @RoatanBill

    Where to begin?…amazing that you’re so offended.
    I was told never to argue with stupid , …but since It’s sooo
    obviously necessary,allow me a few moments.
    We are not talking about cigs or 100’s of MILLIONS of tons of exhaust.
    The article was about right and wrong and the hypocrisy of modern thought.
    Please reread the article, primarily, the summary of the last 2 paragraphs.
    It’s a lack of comprehension,”willful blindness” on YOUR part.
    Just trying to help. I’ll give you another,because I’m nice and caring.
    You said smoking creates the exhaust that “lingers and attaches in a room”
    Do you not admit to paint,carpet,germs,corona,mold,mildew,dust,pollen…
    Why do I try? Realist agreed with you.I’m disappointed in him as well.
    .Once again, PLEASE somehow,stop this before it’s too late.

  18. @Realist

    Please see my comment to rotten bill.
    you must be an ex smoker?
    Socrates said “the only original sin is ignorance”.
    We must get smart, I say, as the national I Q plummets.
    Good luck to all of us.

  19. @Grace Jones

    Make a guess – Is inhaling smoke into your lungs better than inhaling normal air – yes or no?

    Do you think the accumulation of smoke particles in the lungs is what lungs were meant for or was it the extraction of oxygen from normal air?

    One doesn’t have to be a scientist to conclude that smoking can’t be good for you. The longer one does it the worse the effects because they accumulate.

  20. Smoking should be allowed to make a comeback now that we’re all so thoroughly protected from airborne risks by masks…

  21. Bill H says:

    Leftist social movements are almost always filled with obvious inconsistencies. Gay people say that they are born that way, that gayness is simply an inherent factor of their being and that they did not choose to be gay. Then they turn around an hold parades to display how proud they are of being gay. What?

    You can’t have it both ways. How can you be proud of something that you are simply born with?

    I am much taller than average, 6’4″ in height. Should I be proud of that? Should I gather with other tall people and hold parades to advertise how proud we are for being so tall? I was born to be tall, and I don’t really care that I am tall. It is an inherent quality that I did nothing to obtain.

    So gay people: Either quit claiming that you were born gay, or quit bragging about being proud to be gay.

  22. Mr. Romanoff,

    I find It hard to understand how you can simultaneously:
    – raise concerns about the societal push to restrict tobacco use.
    – oppose legalization of marijuana.

    Would you mind explaining this in more detail?
    My own perspective is that adults have the right to do as they please as long as their behavior doesn’t harm others. So, there must be a civilized way for society to accommodate the use of marijuana and tobacco.

  23. polistra says: • Website

    Romanoff discusses the physical aspect of smoking validly but misses the mental aspect.

    *** Tobacco helps preserve sanity. ***

    This was formerly recognized even by governments. Prisons allowed smoking because it helped to prevent riots. Schools allowed smoking (but not in classrooms) because it helped to keep “troubled” students focused and able to learn. Insane asylums and hospitals were super-smoky, for the sake of the inmates AND the doctors and nurses. Totalitarian countries were smoky.

    Deepstate wants to stop smoking because Deepstate needs to prevent ALL POSSIBLE FORMS OF SANITY. Deepstate forbids all forms of SELF-DEFENSE, both physical and mental. No walls, no cops, no guns, no cigarettes. We must be perfectly open and vulnerable to every physical and mental assault and rape, and we must be unable to shrug things off and continue normal life.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  24. I am glad that Mr. Romanoff brought up SMOKING. I am a 69 year-old retired industrial electrician who smokes a pipe. I have never smoked cigarettes in my life but have smoked a pipe for many years. I don’t try to tell anyone what to do or what not to do.

    There are umpteen millions of people running around our country, beating their chests and proclaiming the fact that they are not a smoker. But it’s OK for them to be 50 pounds overweight, gossip about everyone else and drive like there are no vehicles on the road but their own.

    One needs to do a little REAL research on CANCER…in the 1920s, the incidence of lung cancer was so rare that if a doctor saw a case of it, he would alert his fellow doctors to the fact. What has changed? What are they now putting into the tobacco that was not in it before?

    There have been many real cures for various kinds of cancer over the years. Individuals have been run out of the country and their legitimate businesses shut down, because they DON’T WANT A CURE for any kind of cancer. There’s too much MONEY to be made in it. There have been BILLIONS of dollars spent on so-called “research” on breast cancer. So much money that nobody knows where all the money goes to. To date, they still have no idea of what causes it, let alone a non-destructive and practical cure for it. Can you say “SCAM?”

    People in the USA are now spending MORE money on health care than ever before and they are SICKER than they have ever been. Now, why is that? It’s because the medical “industry” is one big SCAM. There are actual epidemics of the various types of cancer in this country and all one hears about is the Covid-19 B.S.

    What about all of the nuclear weapons testing that took place in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s? How many different kinds of cancer has that caused? The government will not tell you that!

    By the way, I use my real name; I don’t feel the need to hide behind an “alias.”

    Thank you.

  25. Larry I am glad that you briefly mentioned gays adopting kids. OK, you mention it in the same breathe as minors are being abused by Catholic priests -but I get where you’re going in your line of thought. Society is rightfully outraged at this sexual molestation, but yet at the same the biggest proponents of social change are openly advocating sex between an adult and a minor. What is happening here is the absolute joy these social changers are feeling at taking a slap at the institution of the Catholic Church rather than seeking justice for victims of a horrible crime. Now getting back to gays & adoption. If one mentions the negative aspects of gays adopting children, the shrilly shrieks one would hear in response would be -“are you calling all gay people pedophiles?” No, I am just saying that it is not a healthy psycho-social environment to grow up in, even though the child may be more than well cared for materially. But mentioning this is totally verboten. Homosexuality, as a sexual act between two individuals has been around forever, and I’m not interested in taking anyone’s moral temperature as long as they are two consenting adults. But like the “Authoritarian Personality” put forth by the Frankfurt School, there is also the homosexual personality which needs to be as equally criticized, scrutinized and warned against as the authoritarian personality.

  26. @RoatanBill

    I am not a smoker. In the past on a rare occasion. I do remember when the smoking prohibitions for bars and restaurants came into play in NYC by edict of the Grand Nanny Stater himself, Michael Bloomberg. By that time the great majority of bars/restaurants had put in ventilators etc. It was nothing like it had been a decade or so earlier regarding second hand smoke. I do prefer a smoke free environment, but what I resented at the time, and still resent is the high-handed self-righteous attitudes and actions of people like Bloomberg and the hordes of nanny state know-betters that haunt our world.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  27. @Observator

    Actually, the sexual proclivities of Catholic priests and gay peoples’ ability to adopt children are totally separate. Accusing prospective gay adoptive parent/s of pedophilia is unfair, but at the same time I don’t believe that it is the best environment for a child to grow up in. The issue of possible pedophilia is not in question here. As far as a concrete agenda to attract people to the homosexual lifestyle/subculture – yes, it does exists. It doesn’t exist through the means of sexually molesting some minor so as to further an agenda, but it exists in the push to make homosexuality another norm. This is done through schools, media & on and on. To be conspiratorial, I wonder if some proponents of the gay agenda participated in the AIDS holocaust. At one time, in every city with a large gay population, there were bathhouses and bar with back rooms where gay men could have uninhibited sex. This was fairly repulsive to the larger population. The image of the gay man had to be re-invented in order to foster this normalization. First, you eliminate a certain percentage through AIDS and make the rest afraid, you close the baths and back room bars as part of the response to AIDS, and then once things calm down a bit, you push same sex marriage and others items of the agenda. The gay man today is not seen as the sex obsessed creature of the 1970s & early 80s, but more of the effeminate, funny person who loves show tunes and is obsessed with fashion rather than f***ing. A harmless entity.

  28. @Brooklyn Dave

    It’s just inconsiderate of people that do smoke to waft their exhaust around a room full of people who don’t smoke. The law, however, should have no say in the matter as the owner of the business should set the rules for his establishment.

    It’s also inconsiderate of some women who bathe in perfume that can scent a whole area, or someone who seriously smells of body odor. There’s no law against that, to my knowledge, and is as it should be.

    I do recall an incident, I believe in England, where someone purposely and flagrantly farted in the direction of a police officer and he was charged with assault. You can’t make this stuff up.

    • Replies: @Brooklyn Dave
  29. The Jews set ’em up, and the Jews knock ’em down.

    Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, was the man who made it fashionable for American women to smoke in the 1930s with his highly dubious “Torches of Freedom” publicity stunt, which equated women smoking with “freedom”–three decades before the same damn tribe activated the American negroes to assert their equally dubious and deadly “civil rights” in the 1960s.  

  30. @RoatanBill

    There are quite a few people in whose direction I have had the desire to aim my flatulence at – but my upbringing prevented me from doing so.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  31. @Brooklyn Dave

    I understand your desire completely as I’ve often wanted to hurl something of much greater mass than gas.

    You must be an old guy like me.

    The word upbringing is no longer used as it is no longer practiced. Today’s ethos is to have free range kids that you don’t even apologize for when they act up. It’s their free spirit asserting itself and if you have a problem with that you must be a racist or other form of bigot.

    • Replies: @Brooklyn Dave
  32. @polistra

    Romanoff discusses the physical aspect of smoking validly but misses the mental aspect.

    This is modern “science” in action–a totally materialistic and mechanistic view of human beings.

    Some great Terence McKenna quotes on this topic:

    “Science is going to be shown up for what it is, nothing more than a pleasant metaphor usefully extrapolated into the production of toys for healthy children. That’s what science is good for.”

    “We…traded partnership for dominance, traded harmony with nature for rape of nature, traded poetry for the sophistry of science.”

    “I *loathe* Science and am always keen to attack it in most situations….because I love Reason and I’m perfectly aware of the difference.”

    ““We are asked by science to believe that the entire universe sprang from nothingness, and at a single point and for no discernible reason. This notion is the limit case for credulity. In other words, if you can believe this, you can believe anything.”

    ““Things are pretty strange in this world and people do it many ways and you are just an atom in a galaxy of possibilities and your opinions and your science and ‘What I think’ and all that, is just so much noise in a very complex and busy world. ”

    ““We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons.”

  33. @RoatanBill

    YUP as much as I hate to admit it, I am in the old guy category.

  34. Syd Walker says: • Website

    A lot of people in most if not all social change (and social conservatism) movements exhibit hypocrisy which is easy to lampoon. But that’s a poor basis on which to dismiss a movement’s objectives out of hand.

    I’m disappointed to learn you seem to have little concern about environmental issues, which I can only surmise is the result of a low level of awareness about them. Human impact on the planetary environment has clearly reached crisis point during your/our lifetime. We are like the generation of bacteria on a petri dish which starts out thinking there’s really no issue at all (Hey, what issue? Three quarters of the petri dish is still wide open agar!), but lives long enough to see the remaining natural environment polluted and degraded in real time. If you haven’t noticed that, Larry, I can suggest reading material that may change your mind.

    I have more sympathy with your irritation over smoking restrictions, which rather too often seem to be the result of non-smokers’ officious self-righteousness. You might find this 1959 interview with Bertrand Russell amusing (from 28.45). I wonder how old Bertrand would get on with nicotine-despising 21st century BBC interviewers?

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Larry Romanoff Comments via RSS
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?