Re: virus: Tabacco mind virus.

Tony Hindle (
Tue, 3 Jun 1997 04:57:04 +0100

In message <c=US%a=_%p=NCR%l=DAYTONOH/AOHSDCG1/000DCBAD@aohsdcg1.daytono>, "Gifford, Nate F" <> writes
>>Tabacco smoking causes early deaths for many people. Some of
>>them are presumably very fucked off about this as their final agony
>>filled months roll on. Some of these people probably can see a higher
>>morality associated with deliberate and planned killing of a
>>spokesperson for tabbaco inc.

>If the government really wanted to prevent advertising induced smoking
>you'd think they would show these wonderful ads of the tobacco companies
>manipulating people in other cultures....especially with images of that
>friendly VH1 America.

I agree. So this begs the question "does the govt. want to
prevent advertising induced smoking? I live in Britain so our govt's
positions may be slightly different but since hearing about the bill to
outlaw tabbacco ads and sponsorship I started to believe that our new
govt perhaps did want to prevent it.
However, it could simply be that they want to be seen to be
doing something while not actually doing anything (the tabacco inc. have
already got their next moves in the arms race ready, branded lighters
etc). I think all this makes much more sense from a memetic perspective.
The memes that plant the desire to start smoking struggle against
"regulatory" memes but very little reduction is being made. So I will
re-iterate an earlier meme which might help the whole process. If you
are dying of lung cancer and you want to do humanity a service then
murder a tabacco inc spokesperson.
>>This would be the beginning of a grass
>>roots movement to discourage people from telling murderous lies because
>>they are paid to do so. It would lead to a net saving of lives. If
>>however this plan didnt work and it was simply another pointless murder
>>of an innocent by some misguided soul, at least the excess population of
>>the planet would be reduced by 1.
>The key to this movement is WHO do you murder.

I reckon the spokespeople are the ones to kill because they are the
delivery systems for the tabacco inc. pro smoking ad propoganda. Also
close to death lung cancer patients are the output from the whole
process and we all know the best way to reduce output is to use negative
feedback. However there are many relevant tagets for such virtuous high
morality killings. I leave it to the conscience of the kilers.

> The people who get me are
>the OBJECTIVE News media who are SHOCKED that the tobacco companies have
>supressed information that tobacco was addictive. IF ONLY WE HAD KNOWN.

Why? are you suggesting that the objective news media knew all
along that the nicotine was being added? Anyway isnt adding nicotine to
keep people hooked and then trying to hide this just an older more
blatant way of doing what their memes are doing today? Today their
adverts/sponsorship/spokespeople/p.r. are engineering our memespace in
order to maximise the number of smokers and at the same time they are
trying to hide this fact (they say they are just trying to get market
share for each brand, well if all ads stopped all market shares would
remain the same).

> Even worse the tobacco companies even added Nicotine to their cigarettes
>so that they could deliver a higher dosage of Nicotine in Low Tar
>cigarettes!!!! The only possible reason people would smoke a low tar
>cigarette was because they wanted to quit ... by delivering EXTRA Nicotine
>the government was stringing the junkies along ...

I wish people could take a step back from the memetic
indoctrination that they already have. The situation is very simple. The
tabbaco industry keeps a small minority very rich while killing 120 000
people per year (in britain). In time it will be virtually wiped out but
for now the tabocco industry employs hired killers to spread lies and
propoganda on their behalf in order to slow down this process.

>>Thinking about it, it might be more effective to murder the
>>person who holds the most shares in tabbacco inc.
>>I'll leave the finer subtleties of this decision to any self appointed
>killers that might
>>read this.
>Shouldn't it depend on if the share holders use tabacco or not? The same
>with the advertising people/tabacco executives etc.

Not really. Although it would perhaps be even more moral
murdering if a tabacco inc spokesperson with ling cancer on his last few
weeks was the victim, I am sure they could be made to understand the
underlying morality before having a bullet put through their head.

> Rather than actually
>killing these people perhaps you could kidnap their progeny - and then
>treat them like chicken ala Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver. Once the progeny
>had contracted AIDs you could send them back to their parents. A nice
>little Crack addiction would be a bonus.

Good point. But this would still leave childless people
unfrightened to take on tabacco inc's hits.

>Note that I am a Nicotine addict. Nicotine is my second favorite drug -
>Caffeine is my first with alcohol a distant third.

Dont take this wrong, but I hope you get lung cancer soon, so
you can execute someone in the name of world peace. I still indulge in
all 3 although none of them apear in my top ten favorite list of drugs.

>In America the tobacco companies must deny that they are marketing a drug
>delivery system. Recently the tobacco companies have invented "smokeless
>cigarettes" that consisted of a heated plug at the tip, glycerine soaked
>tobacco in the middle, and a filter at the end. The smoker would light the
>tip, starting some reaction that would produce heat for five minutes or so.
> The smoker would then draw air through the tip causing nicotine to
>evaporate and be delivered to the smoker without burning the tobacco. The
>FDA said these weren't cigarettes ... they were nicotine delivery systems
>and wouldn't let the tobacco companies market them.

Its all madness. Surely this new system would have been much

> My point is that the
>American government forces the tobacco companies to maintain the pretense
>that smokers get something from cigarettes besides nicotine.

I am still giving our govt.s the benefit of the doubt by
assuming their motives are pure but they are just FUCKING IDIOTS but I
am seriously entertaining the notion that they are all in the pockets of
the tabacco giants.

> Admittedly
>the ritual of smoking is fun too ... in the same way that the ritual of
>shooting up was portrayed as fun in Trainspotting. It would be pretty
>pointless without the drug.

The rituals are all just memes. I dunno, if the government is
ineffective at preventing joe public from being mass murdered by rich
powerful corporations in the name of profit then what the fuck use is
P.s. if you have any good jokes relating to any of this I will
be most gratefull, I am too tired to make this amusing tonight (I shall
be back soon though, tonight was catch-up night mainly).

Tony Hindle.