“We” are Being Brainwashed With this Simple Two-Letter Word
June 6th, 2012
Reader Views: 465
The big news out of New York City these days is Mayor Mike BloombergâsÂ proposed ban on the sale of soda drinks over 16-ounces (about 1/2 liter)Â at restaurants, movie theaters, sports stadia, street carts, fast foodÂ chains, etc.
Bloomberg stressed that we have a responsibility to combat obesity,Â diabetes, and heart disease, and that the government must consequentlyÂ regulate what people can/cannot put in their bodies. Michelle Obama evenÂ came down to applaud the idea.
Last night I was out with a group of friends at a chic Soho restaurantÂ called the Dutch, and we started talking about the soda ban.
One of them defended it, saying that âweâ have a responsibility to doÂ something about the obesity problem in this country.
âExcuse me,â I asked, âbut who exactly is âweââŠ? I certainly didnâtÂ come into this world born with a burden prevent obesity. And Iâm prettyÂ sure nobody else signed up for it either.â
âWeâ is one of the most dangerous words in the English language,Â particularly when bandied about in Western representative democracy.
Itâs a term often used when a politician wants to thrust a burden orÂ obligation onto everyone elseâs shoulders, but without being too directÂ about it.
âWeâ masks responsibility by pushing the burden to some nebulousÂ collective like âsocietyâ or âthe countryâ rather than directly toÂ individuals. This makes things much more palatable.
For example, itâs easier to say âWe have a responsibilityâ rather thanÂ âYou three guysâ Don, John, and Bill, have a responsibility.â
âWeâ is disarming. It makes the stakes seems smaller, so itâs easier toÂ achieve buy-in. And this is what makes it so dangerousâŠ because inÂ actuality, âweâ is code for âyouâ.
I live my life by the principle that human beings come into this worldÂ born free, born without obligation to serve another human being, aÂ government, some political construct bounded by invisible linesâŠ andÂ certainly not to âdo somethingâ about the obesity problem.
Simultaneously, government is based on the principle of awarding a smallÂ handful of individuals a set of powers that no human being shouldÂ wieldâ the power to kill. The power to steal. The power to wage war.Â The power to control what we put in our own bodies.
Throughout our lives, governments use these powers to create artificialÂ obligations and reduce the natural freedom that we were born with. ItâsÂ so commonplace that most people have simply become accustomed to itâŠÂ hence only 30% opposition to the soda ban.
Such policies, however, fall on a very slippery slope. When governmentÂ begins regulating X, the regulation of Y and Z will follow by extension.
This is how frogs are brought to a boilâ slowly, deliberately,Â gradually, and grounded in good intentions. The real question is whetherÂ you want to be trapped in the same pot as everyone else.
Needless to say, the rest of the conversation didnât go especially well;Â we debated endlessly over several bottles of wine, after which I reachedÂ an obvious conclusion:
People will either see the light for themselves, or theyâll becomeÂ victims. Trying to change their minds is fruitless.
In the meantime, when you find yourself philosophically andÂ ideologically separated from the majority of other peopleâŠ isnât itÂ time to consider relocating to greener pastures?
If not, whatâs the breaking point? Iâd like to hear your thoughts.
Original Article by Simon Black ofÂ Sovereign Man
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Contributed by Simon Black of Sovereign Man.
Leave A Comment...
The Daily Sheeple Home Page