Dehumanising demonstrated

Many other bloggers who I may have linked to once or twice in the past have commented before on the denormalisation of smoking, and the dehumanisation of one’s enemies is a tried and tested technique. So it was quite fascinating to watch a very blatant example of such a thing on BBC4 tonight in The Smoking years. Notionally a historical program the propaganda aspects weren’t even thinly veiled with smokers referred to as “creatures” and a separate species from early on and in the blurb on the BBC’s web site:

Timeshift reveals the story of the creature that is ‘the smoker’. How did this species arrive on our shores?
….
The Smoking Years tells the unnatural history of a quite remarkable – and now threatened – creature. Warning: smoke-filled nostalgia may damage your health.

The reference to smokers as a separate and worth less species was fairly unrelenting, with the first world war being described as providing the ideal breeding ground, and smokers benefiting from the ingenuity of others – with the development of mass production allowing for cheaper cigarettes to be produced. The obvious comfort and enjoyment of cigarettes by soldiers was closed over as quickly as possible to discuss how importing cigarettes prevented the import of vital food and munitions, and the use of pre-war tobacco cards by the Nazi’s to identify allied ships.

Moving into the fifties we learn that cigarette smoking is the direct cause of 95% of lung cancer. Though there is hope as apparently only one in two smokers die, so take up smoking and you’ve a 50/50 chance of immortality! Unless of course in fact everyone dies regardless of if they smoke or not. But that 50% mortality rate is why big tobacco need to “recruit new customers”. Into the 60’s and when a small survey asked if there should be optional non-smoking sections 80% said yes, this was seen as over whelming hostility to smoking rather than maybe people being considerate and in favour of choice? But it’s ok because we’re told that the “Smoker has been herded into a new ecosystem.” where they can be easily identified. After all the smoker has apparently “accepted it’s fate to live in a smoke free world“, as apparently asking to smoke in someone’s house is now as horrifying as asking to shoot up would be!

As a final interesting adjunct to the program it was followed by a trailer for a show that challenged celebrities to give up drinking for Christmas. Not subtle but then the puritans never have been. As a final thought watch the show and just substitute the word “smoker” with any approved of minorities you like and think how many complaints the BBC would get for that.

Happy new year

As the rest of today is going to involve the serious business of visiting friends and getting drunk, possibly in that order. I’d just like to wish all/both of my readers and various commentators a happy new year and pray god the next one’s better than the last.

Usual lack of service will resume once the planned for hangover is gone, I plan to drink my months recommended drinking tonight as a minimum. Who knows I might even try to update a bit more next year.

Have fun everyone … it’ll annoy the puritans.

Who are Anonymous fighting?

As I’m sure I’ve mentioned before I don’t really think all that much of “anonymous” or at least of their public actions. I can’t help but think they are at best well intentioned idiots – with, much like wikileaks, little concern for the collateral damage they cause as long as they get headlines. Time and again I wonder who they cause more damage to, or course it’s the nature of the “anonymous” movement that anyone can do anything and claim it was an act of “anonymous” – want to blow up a nuclear power station and claim it was the work of anonymous go ahead and do it all you need is a youtube clip and who’s to say you’re not a genuine part of “anonymous”?

Sticking though to real events and an article from earlier in the year, apparently “anonymous” plan to “wreak havoc at Facebook and other social networking web sites” – presumably those would be the same social networks that have been being used to organise and co-ordinates all sorts of protests and direct actions against the state and big business? The may charge the charities for the privilege, and from what I know if you accept too many fraudulent payments you can lose you ability to accept credit card payments. So that’ll all help the charities a bunch won’t it. Of course all of this extra cost gets factored into the interest rates we all pay for using credit cards. So the only people who definitely won’t be out of pocket are the very banks “anonymous” wants to target.

The most recent target of this cunning ruse was a company called Stratfor security and judging by this bit of “anonymous” publicity about it, literacy doesn’t seem to be a strong point of “anonymous” (supporters at least)*. Stratfor Security apparently provide a news letter about security and political issues globally and some of their customers are large corporations so they’re a target, the stolen credit card details of course also belong to private individuals that want to keep abreast of the same issues for themselves. Now who’s going to be more inconvenienced by a credit card problem the evil global company (assuming they’re even paying by credit card) or the private individual? Also is it not at all likely that people fighting against evil global companies might find such a news letter of interest?

Venturebeat has a nice little FAQ about the hack. In the meantime watching these “anonymous” attacks, and considering how easily their previous DDoS attacks led been to their supporters, I do wonder if they aren’t the US army of cyber warfare and the safest place to be is in front of them.

* Yes I realise I may well be a poi calling a kettle black here but…