This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Brainwashing Starts With This Two-Letter Word
Submitted by Simon Black from Sovereign Man
Brainwashing Starts With This Two-Letter Word
The big news out of New York City these days is Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s proposed ban on the sale of soda drinks over 16-ounces (about 1/2 liter) at restaurants, movie theaters, sports stadia, street carts, fast food chains, etc.
Bloomberg stressed that we have a responsibility to combat obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, and that the government must consequently regulate what people can/cannot put in their bodies. Michelle Obama even came down to applaud the idea.
Last night I was out with a group of friends at a chic Soho restaurant called the Dutch, and we started talking about the soda ban.
One of them defended it, saying that ‘we’ have a responsibility to do something about the obesity problem in this country.
“Excuse me,” I asked, “but who exactly is ‘we’…? I certainly didn’t come into this world born with a burden prevent obesity. And I’m pretty sure nobody else signed up for it either.”
‘We’ is one of the most dangerous words in the English language, particularly when bandied about in Western representative democracy.
It’s a term often used when a politician wants to thrust a burden or obligation onto everyone else’s shoulders, but without being too direct about it.
‘We’ masks responsibility by pushing the burden to some nebulous collective like ‘society’ or ‘the country’ rather than directly to individuals. This makes things much more palatable.
For example, it’s easier to say “We have a responsibility” rather than ”You three guys– Don, John, and Bill, have a responsibility.”
‘We’ is disarming. It makes the stakes seems smaller, so it’s easier to achieve buy-in. And this is what makes it so dangerous… because in actuality, ‘we’ is code for ‘you’.
I live my life by the principle that human beings come into this world born free, born without obligation to serve another human being, a government, some political construct bounded by invisible lines… and certainly not to ‘do something’ about the obesity problem.
Simultaneously, government is based on the principle of awarding a small handful of individuals a set of powers that no human being should wield– the power to kill. The power to steal. The power to wage war. The power to control what we put in our own bodies.
Throughout our lives, governments use these powers to create artificial obligations and reduce the natural freedom that we were born with. It’s so commonplace that most people have simply become accustomed to it… hence only 30% opposition to the soda ban.
Such policies, however, fall on a very slippery slope. When government begins regulating X, the regulation of Y and Z will follow by extension.
This is how frogs are brought to a boil– slowly, deliberately, gradually, and grounded in good intentions. The real question is whether you want to be trapped in the same pot as everyone else.
Needless to say, the rest of the conversation didn’t go especially well; we debated endlessly over several bottles of wine, after which I reached an obvious conclusion:
People will either see the light for themselves, or they’ll become victims. Trying to change their minds is fruitless.
»
- 20126 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Word choice is important for sales. And that is what propaganda is - a sale. The government and it's supporters try to sell the public on a certain idea. One of those words is we.
The article does a good job taking a moral perspective. This is wrong. Though "we" also know that this is just how it is. And if my job was to write propaganda copy, I would use the word "we" too. Welcome to freedom of speech.
The best way to fight this would be an anti-propaganda campaign. There are plenty of people who feel the same way. But do "we" really care enough? Not really. More fun to trash it than try to stop it, methinks.
It's worse than you think. The trouble is, everyone thinks the government should do something about everything. Why should they? Why should government regulate soda sales in hopes of reducing obesity? First of all anyone who thinks about it for 2 minutes, if they have ever been on a diet, knows it won't work. But that is a side issue. The real issue is, the government has no business horning in at all. That is what the American Revolution was about.
So, we not only need to substitute "you" for " we", as in "you should do something" instead of "we should do something". We should be thinking in terms of "them" and "you" as in, "they should be telling you what to do" not "we should be telling them what to do".
I'll never forget a clip I saw of George W Bush saying "there's nothing wrong with a dictatorship - as long as I'm the dictator" and laughing. Anyone who is capable of thinking that, even as a joke, should be ineligible for political office.
Yes, it is.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bulging-costs-americas-obesity-epidemic
We could start by tearing down the disasterous, and wrong idea that fat makes you fat and causes heart attacks and carbs are part of a healthy diet: and go back to the idea that starches and sweets are fattening and meat is good for you.
It has been proven over and over again that a low carb diet featuring vegetables and meat is healthy while a low fat diet featuring lots of carbs is unhealthy. But look at the number of people who shy away from meat in favor of "low fat" cookies and snacks made of corn and wheat flour.
You don't have to take my word for it. Go to any grocery store and notice who is buying the "low fat" snacks and "diet" soda, and who is buying fresh produce and meat.
Common sense would dictate that this ban isn't enforceable - in that you can buy two 12 oz sodas. So go with another tactic - ban ALL clothes with a waist size larger than 36 inches. No attractive woman has a 36 inch or larger waist. And not many men either I'm betting. The Navy used to have problems with over-sized service memebers that could nto get through an escape scuttle (that little round hatch on horizontal hatches between decks). So stop making uniforms with waists larger than 40 inches. Took a while but it worked.
Can't you just imagine all those fat people at Shea Stadium or on the morning commute in Feb?
Dang, not a pretty pciture is it? OK, so maybe Bloomfriggingberg just taxes pants at $1.00 per inch of waist size.
OUI have a problem
http://theweightofthenation.hbo.com/
Watch episode three and you will understand why this country needs better regulations on corn/hfcs/sugar. It is really for the children. How can you argue that banning super-sized soft drinks HURTS children? Please, argue away, but you are wrong. This countrys public school food programs need MAJOR over hauls and banning foods with no nutritional value is an EXCELLENT idea. If kids want to buy soft drinks or candy AFTERschool then that is their prerogative, they should just be educated about their decisions first.
The same corporate america that has brought us the financial crisis are the same people bringing you the obesity epidemic. Corporations should have to adhere to strong regulations by who? Our Government, because there is no other entity capable of making large corporations play by the rules. What is going on now is basically WW1-2 era propaganda by food companies, children and even a majority of adults have no idea what they are doing to their bodies when they eat hfcs foods.
What about 40 oz drinks? Are those right out now, too?
Old English fans hardest hit!
Aw, hell no! Even Bloomberg isn't that stupid. If they outlawed 40's, it would be the Rodney King riots Part Deux in every ghetto in the country. Besides, 'we' gotta keep those angry brothas mellowed out with plentiful cheap alcohol...
We is anyone that thinks obesity doesn't have a public cost. Unemployment, foodstamps, disability benefits, unfunded ER and health costs over 70 years is a "we" issue...you will pay for this one way or the other and personally I would rather not watch the 400lb guy with a supersize drink at a movie theater prepping for a heart attack on my dime.
Also, listen to this guy. This is what weight of the nation talks about. For every obese person there is a cost that YOU/US/WE have to pay to take care of them.
Don't worry, vendors will still charge you the same for a 16oz as for a 20oz.
The only reason theme parks, stadiums serve such large portions is an attempt to give a bit more "value" to customers so they can justify spending $10.00 on 18 cents worth of sugar water in the first place.
Now that we're saved from Obesity, the president thinks it would be nifty if gay people can get married can we start focusing more on the economy which more and more resembles an overfilled diaper left in the sun.
I hear the next step is to ban Boteros, Rembrandts, Degas, Renoirs, Picassos, etc. from NY museums because it gives the wrong impression that people were heavier at any time in human history.
Also no more Dogs Playing Poker because it makes people want to be a dog smoking a cigar.
When is to government going to start allowing people to have free lapband surgery? Or maybe we can sew everyone's lips together? That is government spedning at its finest.
they used to offer to wire people's mouths shut for "diet" purposes.
oh wait, a quick search says they still do,
http://www.livestrong.com/article/454289-post-op-diet-after-a-jaw-wiring/
there also used to be an "appetite suppressant candy" called Ayds. . . ^^
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/3998/
What mean "we" white man?
The problem in this instance is the same probelm with the fed bailing out failed institutions.
If people aren't afraid of the consequences of their actions, i.e. overleveraging and making risky gambles because they will be bailed out or becoming obese and having "free" healthcare when problems arise, then they will not be concerned of the outcomes. Fat people don't care about being fat because then they can go on disability and be taken care of.
What if everyone had private insurance? Would Hitlerberg not then care about these noble souls? It's only an epidemic because it comes out of the govt. coffers.
I think the greater epidemic is stupidity. Unfortunately the politicians prefer that as it is the path of least resistance to re-election.
'We all make choices, but in the end our choices make us.'
"We" must ban unprotected sex. See, ejaculation into a vagina allows for direct fluid contact, which can lead to aids, pregnancy, yeast infections, not to mention the skin-to-skin contact allows for herpes and crabs. Additionally, seeing as how years of education and free distribution has failed to stem these issues, we will start a new agency, the Condom Enforcement Agency, to provide hands-on instruction and enforcement. To ensure all steps are followed correctly, the CEA agents will perform the hands-on instruction with all wives, girlfriends and legal-aged daughters. To ensure maximum accountability and civil rights protections, the instruction sessions will be performed at your homes in your bed and with CCTV links to a discreet control center.
Do you prefer the helmet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80UQWWUIYs
or the pill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI1sUP2dvcI
?
This all goes back to our fascist health care and insurance system.
Cheers to everyone that correctly pointed out how retarded it is to subsidize GMO corn and indirectly all the monstrocities created with it while at the same time trying to regulate excess sales because it "makes people fat". Good old fucking retarded USA...
Veritas
Next on the list will be salt because of high blood pressure. Chips sold in only 4 oz packages. No salt on Mc Donalds fries. Or maybe no fries.
No Doritos, no chips, no salty pretzels, no salted peanuts.
all commercially made products sourcing GMO fuds - like wheat (preztels), Doritos (corn), potato fries and chips, peanuts, all GMO now.
hence the many food allergies being seen in children, high rates of asthma & ADD. . . environ-mental, eh.
This will sound psychotic to many of you, but the NWO is not your friend :-) Their intention is to kill off, one way or another, at least 90% of what war criminal Henry Kissinger (who got the pent house suite of honor at Bilderberg this week) refers to as "useless eaters." And to put most in a stupor in the meantime. They just don't need that many slaves and serfs now with the new technology and cybernetics. Some of this may be difficult to believe simply because it is very difficult for normal human beings with a basic sense of empathy and decency to get into the head and (empty) heart space of our global leaders. They are psychopaths and have been self-bred for psychopathy for centuries (at least). In addition, they are covertly conditioned as children to reinforce their genetic tendencies. As the late, great George Carlin put it shortly before he died, "It's a club and you ain't in it."
Most of their actions have more than one reason. They are very clever and efficient in that respect. One major reason that Bloomberg is suggesting this new regulation is to force the muppets to switch to aspartame (NutraSweet) soft drinks. While HFCS is bad for your health and brain, aspartame is 20 times worse. Those well hooked up inside the Matrix will argue that aspartame must be all right because it was thoroughly tested before it was allowed to enter the food system by the FDA. Really?
Aspartame was owned by Searle in 1980, which was a failing company. The newly appointed CEO of Searle at the time was arch-demon, war criminal, and SEC DEF under Ford (and once again in the future under W) Donald Rumsfeld. He had to take a break from "public service" when the Democrats under Carter had a four year stretch. There was no way that the FDA was going to approve Aspartame under normal circumstances because it was so injurious. But Reagan owed Rumsfeld. An executive order was signed by Reagan his second day in office that the acting Commissioner of the FDA was not to take any regulatory decisions regarding aspartame until a new, Reagan administration one was approved by the Senate and took office. The new one, of course, was vetted by Rumsfeld, and pushed aspartame through against any opposition by career scientists. If you think I am making this shit up, research it. The dots are pretty much in the public record. You just have to connect them.
good post, fellow vulture. . .
we roost, we watch, we wait.
I quit smoking twenty yeras ago and I don't give a damn if anyone else does or not.
Bullshit on a soda tax.
How about a 10k tax on murder? 5k discount on fat people.
Deficit solved.
Hey,
While I agree trying to regulate what people eat may be a bad idea or not effective, something has to be done unless everyone or a majority agrees that the government isn't going to provide medicare or medicaid to treat illnesses related to obesity, smoking, excessive drinking etc. If you get the majority to agree that we as a people will be responsible for all of our healthcare costs or at a minimum those costs associated with exercising our unhealth choices, then great.
I like the idea that I take care of myself and everyone else takes care of their selves but unfortunately only about 2 out of 10 of us can really take care of themselves absent the expectation of or reliance on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc.
I see lots of posts about government subsidies for corn sweetners that should be abolished. I agree. But you can't out lobby the multi-billion dollar industry. So somehow people have to pay for their bad choices. What to do?
"something has to be done"
How about, say, if, people get to a weight 50 pounds more than their 'ideal' weight, I guess as defined by doctors? Govt?, govt doctors? Bloomberg? Michelle Obama? - maybe they should be put to death. That would definitely work and since the folks are 'letting' themselves get overweight shows that they have a malfaesance in regards to the "public good" which certainly should be a justification for ending their lives, right?
If a guy goes around raping and murdering women then yes, something has to be done. If people are getting fat, or lazy, or whatever, nothing has to be done. They should have to bear responsibility but again you come down to, are they doing it on purpose? Is it genetics? Can it not be avoided? How do you tell? and which ones get punished, all regardless?
You can try to reach them but to make it illegal just means, as Gary Johnson says, a new specific police force needs to be created. It's all about reducing your civil liberties. Dont' fall into that trap.
And, yes, you can out lobby a multi-billion dollar industry by making lobbying illegal and making violations of those laws BY THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS punishiable by severe penalties such as at least 30 years in max security or death. Only til we start demanding of our officials that they not be corrupt, not allowing it cuz they're 'on our side', will this problem get better.
Finally, yes the folks should be responsible for their decisions but also - the left argues that corporations are evil in an unfettered market but our markets HIGHLY manipulated by government - if we took the government out - there would most likely be solutions for these things.
"And, yes, you can out lobby a multi-billion dollar industry by making lobbying illegal and making violations of those laws BY THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS punishiable by severe penalties such as at least 30 years in max security or death. "
And who would vote in favor of this law?
Better to get rid of K Street.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q
indeed, for every new constitutional amendment, every new law, there will be an enforcer hired to do this job.
given the people currently attracted to these enforcement roles as careers, I'm not in favour of any more laws being created to hire more enforcement.
good thinking. no more laws, and less enforcers in the culture.
"I live my life by the principle that human beings come into this world born free".
Are you serious...?
"free slave" you mean....right...?
I thought the FDA was already fighting obesity by raiding Raw Milk and whole food producers? I mean, look at all the obese Amish they are saving...
How much in taxes would the city collect if a 32 oz soda is purchased vs. two 16 oz sodas?
How does New York's Bottle Bill work?Deposit initiators collect at least a 5-cent deposit from each distributor or dealer on each beverage container sold to such distributors or dealers in New York.
Dealers (commonly referred to as "retailers") pay the distributor or deposit initiator at least a 5-cent deposit for each beverage container purchased.
Consumers pay the dealers the deposit for each beverage container purchased.
Consumers may then return their empty beverage containers to a dealer or redemption center to get their deposit back.
Retailers and redemption centers are reimbursed the deposit plus a 3.5-cent handling fee by the distributor or the deposit initiator for each empty beverage container returned.
Smaller containers = more deposits = more TAX
Who is this good for? Well, Hobos, for one!
How do I open a redemption center?
There is no cost to obtain a redemption center registration. You must complete the 6 NYCRR Part 367 Notification Form for Redemption Center Registration (PDF) (47 kb) and send to:
NYSDEC
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-7253
Please allow 30 days for processing of the application. In addition, before opening a redemption center, you should contact the municipality where you would like to locate your redemption center to ensure compliance with any local zoning and/or business requirements.
Please note: You are required to notify DEC in writing of any changes to the information submitted on the notification form. Mail any changes to the above address.
It's all Game Theory to me. Because I like eating crap food, I'm glad it's available.
Because I enjoy a healthy meal, I appreciate that others eat crapy food.
I hope America keeps eating junk so the vegetables I enjoy remain inexpesnive and plentyful.
When you have an advantage or edge on everyone else, don't give it away!
Every town has one....
Bloombergs the FuckTard.
"We" have ways of making you talk.
"We" have ways of making you belch.
The average American apparently drinks 1.5 sodas (size unknown) per day.
Until you change that to a number below 0.10, no one is "fixing" anything regarding obesity or health.
This is purely a PR stunt by and for Jewmberg's neo-progressive-with-vastly-more-money-than-sense voter base (remember, this is NEW YORK city) who get off on being the entire city's nanny, and it is par for the fucking course for that shithole and its shithead governor.
So the simple solution is, if you have 2 brain cells, you don't live in NYC. The people who support such massively idiotic intrusions into the proles' lives ... are not the proles, and will be not affected by it in any way - because there are no Big Gulps at Dean & DeLuca, Zabar, Eataly, Whole Foods, or any other place a self-respecting neolib NYC scumbag would be seen buying food.
Problem is we ("we' means everyone, thru Medicaid, taxes, etc) have to pay for thier diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.If the fat people had to pay for their own medical care....I could not care less.
From that standpoint, Broomberg is correct.
You can tax tobacco and alcohol, but you can't tax 'junk food'?....hmmmm there seems to be a BIG hole in the AR devotees 'logic' here.
I know, we won't tax consumption at all (neo-libertarianism?) We will just put a big FAT tax on carbon emissions AND stock speculation.
Nahhh, we can't do that, let's just find a new way to "Let 'em Die", "Let 'em Die'
Sorry to bust up your 19th century pseudo-philosophy nonsense
We will be paying for all these obese people through higher taxes so it is a We problem. Its pretty obvious that the media is on a serious backlash about this issue because the food companies are huge sponsors for ads. Coca Cola doesn't give a damn about the common man, that's why they are selling poison. How many times have they shown that cola can dissolve a tooth in 2 days or the other crazy stuff.
Who needs more than 16OZs? Not a human body, it doesn't matter if you're "bigger" you don't need more food and soda, that's how you got bigger idiot. I'm really amazed at how asleep at the wheel people are about this issue and they don't realize that they are not fighting against "big government" they are fighting for the corporations to make more profits off their backs.
There are tons of dangerous stuff that is illegal, you can't feed your kid bleach and say, "well its my kid don't worry about what I do?" If you walked over to the bridge to jump off and kill yourself, a police officer would stop you and you'd be put in a mental institution, you can't say, "Its my body I can kill myself if I want" So why is it any different if you are killing yourself with fatty foods which have been manufactured to be as addicting as drugs so that you can't stop needing them that the government steps in and says this isn't right?
I for one fully respect your right to kill yourself. POOF! Consider yourself empowered
Being a simple-minded 19th century pseudo-philosopher doesn't shed any light on the problem of the DIABETES pan-demic caused by HUGE subsidies to GIANT corporations AND highly succssful brain-washing campaigns by retail food outlets. (one listed on the BIG BOARD)
The problem the 19th century pseudo-philosophers ignore has to do with the stipulation(s) in the law (if you get ill from eating junk, the government willl pay your medical bills) The people who make themselves ill by consuming junk are just pawns in the LARGER game of a society based upon ego-centric nihilism, quarterly profits, and fraud as a way of life.
Let's talk 19th century 'libertarianism' and ignore the whole poverty 'thing'. After all, we know who 'THEY' are don't we.
the people who eat the corporate advertised food (profit), and then end up at the corporate advertised "health care" facilities (profit) and are pre-scribed various pills from corporate pharma druggerys (profit). . .
pattern recognition?
They're livestock -- cash cows.
agreed.
isn't "live stock" an great descriptive, particularly here at the 'Hedge, where perhaps a deeper understanding of "holdings" of "stock" as an "investment" is more easily understood. . .
when one also extends that en-visioning to a gov't point of view of it's "cash cows" - including the fact that GMO corn is used to fatten prior to slaughter, and also used in the "human" food supply - it's such an "AHA!" moment.
best wishes.
I'm against limiting food and beverage choices on personal freedom principles. I'd be for requiring a person to weigh in and take a physical fitness test for health insurance pricing. Healthier pople should get a rebate or pay less in health insurance premiums. This would set the incentives in the right way for people to live healthier. Just because someone may like their Soft Drinks doesn't mean they can't beat you in a foot race or have a lower BMI.
"health insurers" already reject "fat people" from their "plans" - been going on for decades, where people apply for employee benefit plans and are told they are not "qualified" - and what of those who have health issues not related to their eating habits? yup, they often find they aren't "qualified" for to pay for "health insurance" either. . .
In the end people who live unhealthy life-styles pay a bigger price in lower quality of life. Maybe make over-weight people take nutrition, health and fitness classes to get any benefits.
"unhealthy lifestyles" include unsafe sexual practices, unsafe Xtreme sports, unsafe alcohol & substance consumption - "overweight" people are just a favourite target, culturally acceptable for decades now for the cultural policers (male and female citizens) to mock and profit from.
difference lately is corporate fud has made more "overweight" people, so now the divide 'n' rule game gets serious, it's not just comedians doing the labels, it's "taxed-payers" and mens who don't like "fat chix" getting in on the policing.
if one cannot find someone to be-little, how can one be-larger?
Black is right. Bloomberg's an idiot. Moochelle as well. "Do as I say"
FUCK THE GOVERNMENT! FUCK THEM ALL!
Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we."
Mark Twain </quotes/quotes/m/marktwain137903.html>
What do you mean "We" white man?
These asshat politicians twitter valuable time and energy away screwing around with legislation on what we should or shouldn't eat when it's been there oversight that has bankrupt the USA.
For the most part, the USA has been sent down the drain by the Democrats but there has been more then enough contributory negligence by RINO's like GWB.
What fuck faces like Bloomburg should be doing is lowering taxes, allowing accelerated depreciation, rasing tarrifs (B.S. it will start a trade war and even if it does we'll deal with that if and when it happens), make the USA a manufacturing base and get a handle on immigration: admitting productive people who want to assimilate not turn the USA in to the bigger shithole they wanted to leave. Stop and claw-back, those reaping juiced-up, sweetened, double-dipper, public pensions that were granted for working one fucking day or week at a higher pay public job. Legislate all public employees paying at least a significant deductable or contibution to there health care plan. Have welfare provided to the truly needy and not some crack dealer gettin SSI.
After they've addressed all that and more they can fuck with 16 oz. soft drink legislation.
"Have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up."
we should only allo the sale of 1soda per day to anyone. that will solve everything.
unless you r a politician then u get as much as u want
cuz ur sp;ecial
By the way, frogs dont stay in the pot to be boiled, they jump out, i have tried it. Not surprisingly they only stay in if you keep the lid on. And lemmings do not jump off cliffs, it was shown a 1950's hoax nature documentary, the producers pushed them off the cliff for effect. It seems the only species capable of that kind of herding are humans.
don't you know freedom is a bubble? it's time to return to reason. it must start symbolically with the accursed super bubbly high fructose syrup big gulp concotions that threaten us with great sticky messes should our hands not fit securely around the oversized cups that contain them.
in the philippines, sprite cans have labels saying that all men should drink 13 cans a day to stay hydrated, and all women should drink 11. accountability for both gov and corps