Mick Hartley

Jörg Luyken on the new antisemitism in Germany: not so much neo-Nazis, more Muslim immigrants.

These days, you don’t even have to be involved in activism to “get what you deserve.” Last month, a young Israeli couple were assaulted by two Arab men at a fast food restaurant in the Berlin neighbourhood of Neukölln after they were overheard speaking Hebrew. One of the men tried to hit the young woman over the head with a chair.

These sorts of attacks are examples of a new type of anti-Semitism that Germans are still uncomfortable talking about: hatred towards Jews in 2024 is more likely to come from Middle Eastern migrants than from neo-Nazis.

Officially, this isn’t true. In national police statistics, over 90 percent of anti-Semitic crime is still “assigned to the far-Right.” The problem is that the culprits for things like swastikas scrawled on a wall are hardly ever apprehended. And, when in doubt, police still tick the “far-Right” box in the crime report.

This practice has recently been criticised. A report commissioned by the Bundestag in 2017 found that the official statistics “distort the picture towards the Right” and “shouldn’t be mistaken for a representation of reality.”

Indeed, other research paints a very different picture.

A 2017 study conducted by the University of Bielefeld among victims of anti-Semitism found that 80 percent thought the culprit was a Muslim. Last year, a survey by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung found that Muslims were over three times as likely as the rest of society to agreed that “Jews shouldn’t be surprised if they get a smack.”

That chimes with anecdotal evidence I’ve heard.

When I visited a Berlin synagogue shortly after the Hamas attacks in October, people I interviewed said that they avoid migrant neighbourhoods like Neukölln and Kreuzberg due to safety concerns.

One man said that ever fewer Jews send their children to state schools for fear that they will be bullied by their Muslim peers. That isn't just paranoia. There have been several cases in recent years of Jewish children being bullied out of school by Muslim classmates.

It would seem that this hatred is being stoked up in mosques.

Surely not!

A study released by the Bertelsmann Institute in December found that non-practising Muslims are about as anti-Semitic as the rest of society (i.e. one in five think Jews have “too much influence” in Germany). But, among Muslims who regularly attend mosque, half think that Jews have “too much influence” and close to 80 percent agree that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is “the same as how the Nazis treated the Jews.”

Given that hundreds of German mosques are run by imams sent by the Turkish government, that isn't the most surprising finding. After all, a couple of months back, the head of Ankara's religious authority described Israel as “a dagger” in the heart of the Muslim world.

Muslim attitudes to Jews vary though. Migrants from countries in southern Europe like Bosnia have broadly similar views of Jews to those in German society as a whole.

By the way, religion can work in both directions. Devout Christians are much less likely to be anti-Semitic than the rest of society, the Bertelsmann survey showed. “After centuries of hostility, churches in Germany have taken a critical look at their role in the Holocaust, something that has had an effect on their congregants," the report noted.

An interesting and telling contrast there between the two religions. 

deprivation of civil rights and protection for Jews, especially Jewish students in this country goes on – why should wearing a kippah or a star of David risk abuse and assault when a hijab doesn't ? https://t.co/goqjLSLdmh

— Simon Schama (@simon_schama) February 9, 2024

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The issue of North Korean workers abroad – slave labour, in effect, earning currency for the regime back home – has been highlighted here often enough. According to this latest BBC report there've actually been riots in China as wages go unpaid:

The riots broke out across several North Korean-run clothing factories in north-east China on 11 January, according to a former North Korean diplomat with sources in the region, who broke the news to media last month.

Ko Young Hwan, who defected to South Korea in the 1990s, told the BBC he heard the workers exploded when they learnt that years' worth of unpaid wages had been transferred to a war preparation fund in Pyongyang.

"They got violent, and started breaking sewing machines and kitchen utensils," Mr Ko said. "Some even locked the North Korean officials in a room and assaulted them."

The BBC cannot verify Mr Ko's account of these protests, as no independently verifiable information is available. Not only is North Korea highly secretive, but its factories in China are closely guarded.

An estimated 100,000 North Koreans are posted abroad, mostly in factories and construction sites in north-east China, operated by the North Korean government, where they earn valuable foreign currency for the sanctions-hit regime. It is estimated they earned Pyongyang $740m (£586m) between 2017 and 2023.

Most of their earnings are transferred directly to the state. But Mr Ko understands that during the pandemic the textile workers at the striking factories had their wages withheld altogether and were told they would be paid upon their return to North Korea….

The BBC has been shown an email from someone claiming to be a North Korean currently working in China, which suggests the level of control exerted on workers has increased over the past four years.

The man, who says he is an IT worker in north-eastern China, had been emailing Mr Ko for more than a year, and contacted him again last week after hearing about the protests, Mr Ko said.

Mr Ko told us he had confirmed the man's identity, though the BBC cannot independently verify who he is, or his account, because of the level of anonymity required to protect him.

"The North Korean state exploits IT workers like slaves, making us work six days a week, 12-14 hours a day," the computer programmer wrote. The staff work through the night for clients based in the US and Europe, he said, which is causing chronic sleep deprivation and many illnesses.

When he first arrived, he was paid between 15-20% of his earnings monthly, but in 2020 he claimed his payments stopped. An order then came down from the authorities in Pyongyang, he alleged, ordering officials to padlock the workers into their camp at night to stop them escaping.

The man detailed in his email how managers are pressured to publicly shame underperforming staff, by slapping them in front of everyone, and later beating them until they bled.

In contrast, he said the high achievers are rewarded with a trip to a North Korean restaurant, where they can pick one of the waitresses to spend the evening with. The top employee of the month gets to choose first. He likened it to a hostess bar – and accused managers of "preying on young men's sexual urges, to get them to compete and bring in more money"….

French photographer Nicolas Damiens, looking at Singapore through his pastel-colour project City Pop.

"The primary aspect of my work involves photo editing and retouching: creating a well-balanced composition to emphasise the main subject, meticulously removing unnecessary details, and finally adjusting the colours to achieve the desired retro ambience".

[Images © Nicolas Damiens]

On Instagram.

My take the other day on the David Miller Employment Tribunal ruling that anti-Zionism is a protected characterisic:

It's not hard to see why the tribunal might reach that decision. In a sense, no doubt, anti-Zionism is a political position that can be defended. The point is: can anti-Zionism ever be separated from antisemitism – and the answer in Miller's case is clearly no.

David Hirsh at the JC takes a more detailed look:

This was a fight between Bristol University and David Miller, whom it had honoured with a professorship. It had stood by him, and the conspiracy fantasy he passed off as academic sociology, for years while taking a cut of his research money, much of it from public funds. Bristol had, for years, trusted Miller with the power to shape his teaching curricula and to assess students’ work. The Tribunal is critical of the university’s sudden change of mind, for steadfastly refusing to criticise or censure Miller at all for years, but then suddenly veering straight to dismissal for conduct that it had until then defended.

Well, one might have thought that it should have been obvious to the tribunal, nevertheless, that Miller’s anti-Zionism is antisemitic. But the tribunal refused even to consider the question:

“233. We pause to note that [Bristol University] confirmed …that its position was that nothing [Miller] said or did was antisemitic or in contravention of the Equality Act…”

And then later:

“305. Although, as we have indicated, there is fault in what [Miller] did, we also remind ourselves that even on [Bristol University’s] analysis what [he] said was accepted as lawful, was not antisemitic and did not incite violence and did not pose any threat to any person’s health or safety.”

If his conduct was not antisemitic, if it was not a violation of the Equality Act, then why was he fired? Bristol said that the problem with Miller was not with his beliefs in the abstract but with his explicit identification of his own Jewish students as Zionists and therefore racists. The university also said that miller’s antizionism was “inflammatory and unnecessarily aggressive”, but what was inflammatory or aggressive about them if they were not antisemitic?

Why was Bristol University fatally afraid of accusing Miller of antisemitism? It had commissioned two internal reports from a barrister, Aileen McColgan, who had reported back that nothing that Miller had said was antisemitic. Having accepted these reports, Bristol found it difficult subsequently to say that he in fact was antisemitic, or that his threat to students, to whom he had a duty of care, was antisemitic.

Since his sacking, David Miller has made a whole stream of antisemitic programmes for the Iranian propaganda station, Press TV. Former MP Chris Williamson plays Watson to Miller’s Holmes, as they spin conspiracy fantasies about one Jew after another, one Jewish institution after another. The independent barrister who found Miller not guilty of antisemitism in Bristol’s internal process had previously represented Williamson in his unsuccessful case against expulsion from the Labour Party.

Perhaps there is another reason that Bristol refused to make the case about the relationship between Miller’s anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Perhaps it was just too hard; perhaps they were advised by lawyers who didn’t understand the importance of it, that it was a losing strategy for Bristol; perhaps Bristol just didn’t want to stand up for Jews against antisemitism.

By determining that anti-Zionism is protected, but without considering the issue of antisemitism, the tribunal risks protecting antisemites against Jews. It risks turning the Equality Act on its head, making its effect the very opposite of what was intended.

The tribunal might have accepted that political anti-Zionism, in the abstract, was protected, but what they actually did was worse; they said that Miller’s specific anti-Zionism was protected. It is worse because Miller’s anti-Zionism is significantly more clearly antisemitic than many other more mainstream forms of antizionism.

Since October 7, British Jews, as Anthony Julius has said, have been painfully aware of “a partial failure by state institutions — the BBC, the police, the universities, the Crown Prosecution Service— to meet the challenge of this antisemitic moment”.

It seems like Covid and politics just can't be separated, with different regimes tailoring the truth to their own requirements. Here's a piece in the Daily NK on how the story of the outbreak in North Korea was manipulated to place the blame on "filth" from South Korea:

In early June 2022, a man surnamed Choe, the chief of the military medical department of the Second Division of the First Corps – a military unit located in the eastern section of the front line with South Korea in Ipo Village – rushed to Wonsan in his work vehicle.

Choe had received a sudden message that members of an investigation committee of the State Emergency Epidemic Prevention Headquarters had arrived in Wonsan to hold an emergency meeting on quarantine activities in Kangwon Province. He had then rushed off after packing a bag with reports on COVID-19 cases in his division from the unit’s army hospital and unit quarantine stations, along with some basic toiletries.

North Korea officially declared in May 2022 that COVID-19 had entered the country. The government had completely shut down intercity and intercounty travel in the province after the country implemented its “maximum emergency epidemic prevention system.” As such, Choe and the other participants invited to the meeting found it odd that the central government would call an emergency face-to-face meeting.

The meeting, which began at 8 AM the next day, was attended by emergency quarantine officials from Kumgang County invited by the investigation committee. Choe attended as a representative of the medical department of the army unit stationed in the county.

It turned out that the authorities weren't interested in what Choe had to say. The story had already been decided.

At the start of the meeting, the Pyongyang officials said that the State Emergency Epidemic Prevention Headquarters “had been ordered by the Central Committee to determine with certainty how COVID-19 entered the country and to take countermeasures” and that they had come to Kangwon Province “to inform the local people of what they had learned in Pyongyang.”

The officials said they had concluded that the source of the COVID-19 infection was “filth [enemy materials] and leaflets flown in from South Korea, where defectors’ garbage intentionally carried the COVID-19 virus.” They claimed several residents of Ipo Village had visited Pyongyang after coming into contact with the items.

In short, the officials had identified Kumgang County’s Ipo Village as the starting point of the COVID-19 outbreak in the country.

Choe could not believe what he heard. Ipo Village was home to the Second Division of the First Corps, the same unit where he served as chief of the army medical department. Since he had been testing the officers, soldiers, and families of soldiers in each unit five to seven times a day, he had no idea how the Pyongyang officials had determined the location of the outbreak when even the local army medical officers and doctors were unaware of the spread of the disease.

The findings of the State Emergency Epidemic Prevention Headquarters Investigation Committee were kept secret, and the participants had little choice but to accept the central government’s conclusion that COVID-19 had entered the country through Ipo Village.

Not long thereafter, major North Korean media outlets, citing the findings of the State Emergency Epidemic Prevention Headquarters, reported on July 1 that an 18-year-old soldier surnamed Kim and a five-year-old kindergarten student surnamed Wi had tested positive for COVID-19 in the frontline community of Ipo Village, Kumgang County, after touching “alien things.”

In mid-July, the investigation committee of the State Emergency Epidemic Prevention Headquarters transferred two soldiers and one officer and his family members from their quarters in the Second Division, First Corps to a state-run quarantine facility. Choe was assigned to carry out the order.

Believing that it was wrong to take away people who had not even visited Pyongyang for the previous several months, Choe asked for an extra day to “question the patients by referring to more precise medical records.”

Choe’s request provoked the indignation of his superiors, who warned him that haggling over the decisions of the State Emergency Epidemic Prevention Headquarters Investigation Committee could result in immediate execution under martial law, which had been declared with the start of the “maximum emergency epidemic prevention system.” Eventually, Choe was sent to the government quarantine facility along with the others for disobeying an order from above.

And was never seen again.

In October of that year, Choe’s family in Kumgang County received a notice that he had died in the quarantine facility after contracting COVID-19, along with an envelope containing his ashes. Choe’s wife immediately fainted at the news. His family was evicted from Kumgang County a few weeks later.

Others who were quarantined with Choe never returned to Kumgang County. Even if Choe did die from COVID-19, it is unclear why the others vanished into thin air. Perhaps the authorities sacrificed people falsely accused of having the disease in an effort to blame the outbreak on South Korea.

Some good points from Juliet Samuel in the Times this morning, on the Covid lab leak theory and the (successful) attempts by leading virologists to shut down debate early on:

Sometimes, I do a thought experiment. What would have happened in January 2020 if the world had quickly become aware of the real possibility that the deadly new cold virus circulating in China, rather than being of natural origin, had been engineered and leaked from a virology lab?

Perhaps you think, naively, that nothing would have played out differently. Humans, however, are fearful, emotional and highly moralistic creatures. As the astronomer and novelist Fred Hoyle once put it: “Lives lost through an ‘act of God’ are regretted … but they do not arouse our wildest passions. It is otherwise with lives that are forfeited through deliberate human agency.”

My guess is that governments and populations would have reacted far more quickly to the prospect of a potential bioweapon heading our way, making earlier and more vigorous attempts to contain or avoid it and being less likely to downplay it as hopefully just a bad cold. Diplomatically, the Chinese government would have been in the fight of its life, in which its malign and untrustworthy nature would have become indisputably obvious.

Would we still be buying Chinese phones, cars and solar panels on such a scale and welcoming its scientists into our universities? Would prestigious lords and bankers and ministers still be advocating loudly for Beijing and its interests? I doubt it.

But none of this happened. Why? Largely because a coterie of prominent scientists in the US and UK made it their business to kill the lab leak theory with as much force and speed as possible. Most shockingly, they did so even though in private many of them agreed it was entirely feasible.

In this they were aided by prominent British scientific journals such as The Lancet, which published a hugely influential letter from scientists in February 2020 denouncing a lab leak as a “conspiracy theory”. The journal then took 16 months to acknowledge a major conflict of interest by one of its key signatories. In the meantime, the lab theory was consigned by most experts and governments to the realm of crackpot misinformation.

None of the people involved in this debacle have lost their jobs or even their respectability. Far from it: this week the Financial Times published a glowing profile of Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, which made only a glancing reference to the journal’s Covid activism. Horton was seemingly not even asked about the matter.

He boasted that, because of his great financial acumen, The Lancet’s corporate owner gives him the “editorial freedom” to pursue an unabashedly political agenda. It might have been interesting context to know that in 2015 Horton received a “Friendship Award” from the Chinese government, that in 2017 he wrote a bizarre column to mark Xi Jinping’s address to the Chinese Communist Party congress in which he stated that “medicine has a lot to learn from Marx”, and that The Lancet has a substantial presence in China.

Lancet editor Richard Horton, besides that February 2020 letter, has a long history:

In May last year [2020], its editor-in-chief Richard Horton appeared on the state-owned broadcaster China Central Television to praise how ‘tremendously decisively’ the Chinese Communist party had handled the pandemic. He also penned multiple editorials about China, including one entitled ‘Covid-19 and the Dangers of Sinophobia’. This did mention ‘the case against China’, including ‘the repression of the Uighur people’ and ‘belligerence towards Taiwan’. But it went on to write these off as mere ‘perceived encroachments on liberties’, concluding that, essentially, we should all just get along: ‘a pandemic is a moment for conciliation, respect, and honesty between friends.’…

Alas, some of the most famous stories of scientific fraud have originated at the Lancet during Horton’s tenure as editor.

The best-known is, of course, that of Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced doctor who managed to get an almost entirely faked paper on autism and the MMR vaccine published in the Lancet in 1998. It wasn’t retracted for 12 years, all the while allowing the worst anti-vaxxers to claim that their ideas had been taken seriously by a prestigious journal.

No less disturbing is the case of Paolo Macchiarini, the flamboyant surgeon who was apparently able to transplant artificial tracheas into human patients. Many of those patients ended up dead, the operations a dangerous failure, but Macchiarini claimed in the Lancet (and elsewhere) that the surgery had been a success.

Other Lancet scandals haven’t concerned outright fraud, but highly questionable research that nonetheless got through the filter. Critics of the Iraq war were re-energised when, in 2006, the journal published a paper estimating that more than 650,000 excess deaths had been caused by the war and subsequent occupation. This seemed almost unbelievable, and indeed other studies found a far lower toll. The authors of the Lancet study were heavily criticised for their methodology — surveying specific parts of Iraqi cities that would have likely had higher tolls, thus inflating the figures — as well as for failing to be open and transparent about important aspects of the research.

Also:

He published a letter in Lancet in 2014 from a number of pro-Palestinian activists which the Israeli Ministry of Health characterised as “bordering on blood libel". Some of the letter’s authors were later revealed to have links to antisemitic groups. Two had shared a video of David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, railing against Jews and Israel. One author had forwarded a message claiming that Jews and Zionists were behind the Boston marathon bombings. Horton announced in response that while he “deeply regretted” the “completely unnecessary polarisation” the letter caused, he stopped short of condemning the letter itself, and kept it up on The Lancet’s website. And refused to publish a rebuttal. In fact, as shown here, the Lancet under Horton has quite a history of publishing anti-Israel propaganda.

Back to Samuel:

Unfortunately, the love-in with China is not the only form of rot that is plaguing science. There is also its enthusiastic embrace of extreme progressive ideologies, in which research is seen to be an activity that should happen in the service of “social justice”.

As university administrators have embraced the all-encompassing ideology of victim “intersectionality”, science has been caught in the net. Bizarre political language (in which women become “bodies with vaginas”, as The Lancet infamously put it in 2021), un-meritocratic hiring practices, race workshops in place of lab work and the slow icing out of colleagues who don’t conform to the prevailing fashions are all diluting the claims of scientists to be the Olympian guardians of truth.

Ah yes, the Lancet again – jumping, predictably enough, on the gender band-wagon.

Kemi Badenoch: I have evidence gay young people are being told they are transgender.

Kemi Badenoch has told MPs she has strong evidence that gay young people are being convinced they are transgender instead.

The equalities minister quoted experts who said children likely to grow up to be same-sex attracted “might be subjected to conversion practices” which persuade them to change gender.

In a letter to the Commons women and equalities select committee, she revealed a former clinician at the NHS Tavistock child gender identity clinic had said that in agreeing to requests to help children change gender, they were in fact “making them straight”.

Another said that agreeing to help a homosexual child change gender was in effect “conversion therapy for gay kids”….

She wrote: “I committed to providing further details on the evidence that children likely to grow up to be gay (same-sex attracted) might be subjected to conversion practices on the basis of gender identity rather than their sexual orientation.

“Both prospective and retrospective studies have found a link between gender non-conformity in childhood and someone later coming out as gay.

“A young person and their family may notice that they are gender non-conforming earlier than they are aware of their developing sexual orientation. If gender non-conformity is misinterpreted as evidence of being transgender and a child is medically affirmed, the child may not have had a chance to identify, come to terms with or explore a same-sex orientation.”

It's not clear how much of this is old news. We heard about these concerns at the Tavistock after the damning Cass Report, but plans to close the clinic have apparently been postponed till later this year. How much of this same nonsense is still going on, then?

Still, it's good to see a government minister bringing this up now – the real gay conversion therapy scandal.

The minister also quoted a survey of 100 “detransitioners” – people who have changed gender but then regretted it – which found the experience of homophobia or difficulty accepting themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual was expressed by 23 per cent of respondents as a reason for transition and subsequent detransition.

She quoted one German gender clinic as stating: “It must be understood that early hormone therapy may interfere with the patient’s development as a homosexual.

“This may not be in the interest of patients who, as a result of hormone therapy, can no longer have the decisive experiences that enable them to establish a homosexual identity.”

Bev Jackson, co-founder of the LGB Alliance, said: “LGB Alliance is delighted that the minister for equalities has recognised the concerns that we have been raising for a long time.

“The evidence is clear. The vast majority of young people being put onto irreversible medical pathways are attracted to their own sex.

“We are literally ‘transing the gay away’ when we should be helping them to understand and accept their sexuality and grow up to live happy, healthy lives as lesbians, gay men or bisexuals.”

Helen Joyce, from the women’s rights group Sex Matters, said: “It has been well-established for decades that children destined to grow up gay are far more likely than other children to be highly gender non-conforming in early youth.

“Such children need to be allowed to grow up in a safe, supportive environment, and to be allowed to discover their sexuality on their own timescale.

“Instead, trans ideology interprets gender non-conformity as a potential sign of a trans identity. This tragically misguided framing is today’s version of the historic atrocities of gay conversion therapy.”

I don't think I've seen this level of crude antisemitism from China before. 

On January 29, 2024, Chinese social media influencer "Media Person Zhou Zheng" posted on his Haokan Video account a video titled "Never Believe What the Jews Say." In the video, Zhou said that people only hear about the death of six million Jews during the Holocaust, but not about how the "filthy rich Jews" had previously been "homeless" and had been accepted by "kind" Germany before they betrayed the German people by seizing control of the economy. He also said that the Jews' crimes against China are even worse than their crimes against Germany, and that they had incited the British to invade China in the mid-1800s. In addition, he said that the Jews had collaborated with Imperial Japan against China during World War II, and he falsely claimed that the Rockefellers were a Jewish family and that they had offered free Western medical knowledge in China in order to undermine traditional Chinese medicine and dominate the Chinese market.

Depressing.

Those experts at the Met are at it again. Back in the early days of these interminable post-Oct 7th anti-Israel rallies they assured us that calls for Jihad on the marches were nothing to worry about, as Jihad can mean spiritual struggle. Those Muslims calling for Jihad were merely suggesting we should all undertake a deep inner spiritual journey. 

Now it's flags.

While this tweet has been deleted, the claim about flags is still being shared.

The flags in the lower left photo are not those of ISIS.

They are the ‘shahada’ which is a declaration of faith in Islam. ISIS flags may appear similar but are not the same.

We have… pic.twitter.com/OYrqJrXhsR

— Metropolitan Police (@metpoliceuk) October 21, 2023

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

We have specialist officers with knowledge of flags working on this operation to assist with these assessments, they assure us.

Khaled Hassan responds:

I have never been as resentful of British public institutions, celebrities and police as I am today. You see, I have a big fucking problem. I was born a Muslim. I grew up in a Muslim family. My Muslim, Egyptian mother studied at Al Azhar University, the world's oldest Islamic educational institution, and I lived like any other Egyptian Muslim.

Not for once in my fucking life, from the day I was born in 1990 until I left Egypt in 2016, did I see any single Muslim say that there's something called the "shahada" flag. I knew ministers, Imams, and scholars, interviewed terrorists and radicals, and pretty much crossed paths with almost every kind of Egyptian/Arab you could think of. Not one of them ever spoke about a "shahada" flag. Let me tell you why.

The Shahada is a declaration of faith in one Gd, Allah. Understandably, no fucking one carries a flag of it around to show people that they believe in Allah. Why would you? No one gives a shit.

When you are declaring Jihad, however, you wave the banner of Jihad. This is why Bin Laden had the same "Shahada" flag. This is why ISIS had the same flag. So, what do you think? Do you think those waving this flag in London are doing it because they want the bloke next to them to congratulate them for believing in one Gd? Or, is it more likely that, when a Jihadist group, Hamas, is waging war on Jews, they are waving this banner in support of this Jihadist group and Jihad in general?

I can't get my head around this. I am in a situation where I have to either believe the Met police, and dismiss 25 years of firsthand experience of Islam in Egypt, or simply accept that the Met is either horrifically inept or, even worse, spineless. It's like watching someone refer to cancer as a "common cold" when you are an experienced doctor. You're telling them it's fucking cancer, and they're telling you "Nah, mate. It's just a cold. I'll take some paracetamol and I'll be fine".

I had quit smoking for about 3 years before Oct 7th. I am back to smoking now. It's getting absolutely fucking unreal!