Well, by now everyone knows how far the tobacco denormalisation has progressed. You can now get cancer by reading a blog written by a smoker whether he/she is smoking while they type or not (I am, which means it's a dead cert for you). Nicotine is a deadly poison and the cure for it is nicotine, but only Pharmer nicotine is good for you and all other nicotine is bad. And there are plenty of people out there stupid enough to accept this without a thought in their heads.
Alcohol denormalisation is well under way even though, as with smoking, consumption is already in decline. Again, it will be done by racking up the duty with VAT on top. Drinkers will see all the same techniques familiar to smokers - abuse, lies and made-up numbers.
Now it's the turn of fats. Yes, the 'fat tax' is coming to town. This time they are not even trying to hide the real reasons and they are not even pretending it's for your own good. They know that out there in the general population are many who have fallen hook, line and sinker for second, third and nine hundredth hand smoke, for 'every drinker is an addict' and passive drinking, and now they feel no need to bother with all the charade any more. Just put the tax on. The suckers will lap it up. Are they that stupid? Of course they are, they've fallen for everything else.
So-called ‘fat tax’ on food products that are high in saturated fat and sugar has been proposed in a number of countries; most recently Denmark introduced a controversial saturated fat-linked tax at the start of 2011. The government-funded Forebyggelses Kommisionen (Prevention Commission) says that if the variable tax is levied for 10 years it will increase average life expectancy amongst the Danish population by 5.5 days.
You will pay this tax for ten years and be rewarded with five and a half extra days of... paying tax. Of course, that's only an estimate. Results may vary. That doesn't matter because as usual, the results are just made-up numbers anyway.
The idea has also been raised several times in the UK, and debate over a proposed tax on sugary soft drinks has been fierce in the United States, with health care reformers seeing as a way to increase funds on the one hand, and advocates of consumer choice regarding it as a curb on individual freedom on the other.
No pretence there. They see it as a way to increase their funds so they can nag us harder.
Tiffin and Arnoult concluded that a fat tax should be seen as “a component in a suite of instruments in tackling poor diets”. They noted that measures at a combination of different social levels – community, school, family, individual – are increasingly advocated.
Yes, here we go again. It's only the beginning. Total control is on the way.
Comparing the tackling poor diets with smoking, they said that habits were changed not just as a result of price increases for cigarettes, but media attention also had a lot to do with it.
And here's the admission. It's the same techniques again. So if you're having fun villifying smokers on the net while munching on a bacon sarnie, doughnut or biscuit, enjoy it while you can. You're going to get all the abuse you dished out - and more - right back at you. You're going to see those biscuits in plain wrappers sold from behind a screen. In fact, apart from the fruit and veg, everything will be sold from behind a screen. The screens won't be labelled either. If you see the word 'tobacco' you will immediately become addicted and will be forced to smoke 40 an hour until you die, kippered.
Yes, all the banning and abuse changed smoking habits. Increasingly, we buy from vans in alleys or on shopping trips abroad instead of buying the ones that fund our persecution. We don't spend money in pubs, clubs or restaurants, we buy our drink from behind the booze screen or from Calais for now. Until the home brew is ready. Man with a Van will soon have spirits on offer. Next we'll have to learn to bake and get hold of a deep-fat fryer if we want cakes, biscuits or doughnuts. That's assuming lard isn't completely banned, but then there are ways around that too. Soon, the only place you will be able to taste any of these things will be in a Westminster bar that has only 650 members.
Oh, sure, there are those who don't smoke, don't drink, and live on tofu and dandelions but you know, the number of denormalised people will soon, if it hasn't already, far outstrip the 'normal'. That would make election interesting, assuming we get another one.
This fat tax will be billed as being aimed at the overweight. The smoking ban only affected smokers, didn't it? Nobody else ever went to the pubs that closed down, nobody who worked there really wanted to work there and the landlords didn't really want to be landlords. Only the smokers were affected.
The drinking controls only affect 'binge drinkers' (those who drink three pints or equivalent) and will never affect someone who just goes out for a quiet evening and only drinks three pints. Oh yes, they believe it.
The fat tax will only affect the overweight and won't affect those who are slim but who like a bag of chips once in a while, or an occasional cake, or a bar of chocolate...
There are occasional smokers out there. They'll buy a pack once in a while, then not buy any more for weeks or months. Those smokers get the same sneers and looks of disgust as pack-a-day smokers. There are those who buy a bottle of whisky once a month or less, take a small glass once every few days and that's all. They are subject to the same abuse as those who buy a bottle a day.
So no matter how trim your physique, you're going to get sneered at when you buy one doughnut or one Mars bar. Quite possibly by a drunken smoker. That's how division works. Everyone has someone to look down on. Everyone sneers at everyone else.
Oh, sure, the tax is a small thing. If you buy occasional cigarettes, booze or cakes then you're not paying all that much, really. But it doesn't stop there. Look back on the recent history of smoking. Look at the unfolding war on drink. Watch fat go the same way. Observe the demonisation of the food industry.
Ridiculous? Well, it's hard to regard the food industry as being demonic, compared to what are non-essential luxury items such as tobacco and alcohol. Nobody, surely, would ever consider treating food as if it was tobacco? Oh, but that is exactly the approach being prepared. Among the 'experts' testifying there is an ordinary sheeple, whose tobacco/alcohol indoctrination has taken such hold that she has this to say:
“Absolutely I think the food industry is as guilty as the tobacco industry, and the pharmaceutical industry, and probably several others, of doing anything and everything to make a profit without the slightest thought for will this make people sick except to have it "allowed" by our government, hopefully with some kind of government perk or kickback to boot. The corn, wheat, sugar and soy industries are especially guilty of this.
They KNOW the food they sell causes allergies, auto-immune disorders, diabetes, obesity, Chronic Fatigue, candida overgrowth, bowel disorders, etc. Yet they "fund" studies to prove otherwise.”
Isabel Crabtree, consumer, location not disclosed
Note that she is not talking about burgers or crisps or pork scratchings here. She doesn't even mention meat (also on the removal agenda). No, the food industries she regards as evil are corn, wheat, sugar and soy.
You know, the stuff that grows out of the ground. She KNOWS that those foods cause a whole range of diseases just as she no doubt KNOWS that every smoker dies of cancer and every drinker dies of cirrhosis. It's the food that causes obesity in her mind, not the amount eaten. As for Candida overgrowth - that's thrush, isn't it? What the hell is she doing with her food? With table manners like that I hope I never have to share a restaurant with her.
So, food addicts, are you ready to be denormalised? Yes, you are addicted. I can go for considerable periods, weeks, even months without smoking or boozing. How long can you go without food? See? You're addicted. We are all addicts with this one. Don't bother trying to apply logic and reason. The other side will never even try.
Note also the conviction in Isabel's comment that the evil food industry funds research that proves food isn't poisonous. Heard that one before somewhere? You tell Isabel she's wrong and guess what? You must be a food indistry shill. You would think that some of them, faced with exactly the same rubbish over and over again, applied to every new scare, would think 'Hang on.' They never do. They really are that stupid. Over and over, the same method works because the drones have no minds of their own and just absorb whatever thoughts they are given. If you meet one, try it yourself. They really will believe absolutely anything.
She's not the only froth-mouthed swivel-eyed shrieking banshee you'll meet. Soon they'll be all over the place, anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-AGW denier, anti-food... where do we go from here?
Anti-water and anti-air, perhaps?
They could just be honest about it and declare themselves anti-life.
27 comments:
VAT on doughnuts?
Well water vapour has the biggest effect on climate change so banning breathing must be a good thing!
LI - I've just nicked all of this and posted it on our BNP-supporting blog. I can't get that Thrush picture out of my head, either - it seems to have become a mind-worm.
Want a taste of REAL denormalisation? Try smoking a fag while you are handing out BNP leaflets in the town centre. Perhaps with a tinny or two on the table, and a bacon butty.
http://wiganpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/01/food-is-new-tobacco.html
Why tax everything? Apart from fill the public coffers for the indigent and self-indulgent to leach off, what good does it do apart from raise the cost of living?
Filthy Engineer - I doubt it'll be VAT. More like a form of duty on fatty (and perhaps later extended to salty and sugary) foods. That allows more flexibility for increase.
William - don't thik they haven't thought of it! They just haven't worked out how to make it seem acceptable.
Sir Henry - put a salt shaker on that table and you've ticked every box. mind you, so does everyone else these days. Everyone who isn't toeing the line is extreme right wing these days.
Bill - it does a little more than collect some pennies. If the proles play up, their bag of chips goes up in price. If they behave, it might go down. Once something has a tax on it, it's controlled. And so are those who buy the stuff.
I was reading a woman's magazine on something called "obesogens". Apparently a new made up coined word for chemicals leaching into our food and water that makes us Yankees fat. Get this, the article said if you drink bottled water with a number 3 or 7 on the bottle, it could be making you fat. Geesh, now they are trying to claim water is making us fat.
What would the number 3 or 7 on the bottle have to do with making the water somehow different enough to make it fattening?
I have to split this post. The machine insists.
Part 1.
There is a reason that the smoking ban must eventually collapse and that is because of the unintended and unexpected consequences. That is, the more that Tobacco Control wind up the anti, the more ridiculous the original ban becomes.
What really, really annoys me is the fact that politicians jump on the bandwagon for short term financial and political gains. How else can one view the 'aircraft tax'? Everyone who books a flight has to pay a new tax which is justified by global warming - but how can it be that this tax in some way directly reduces, or indirectly reduces, global warming gasses when air traffic is unaffected by it and continues to increase? Is this not also true about the carbon trading fiasco?
The mind boggles.
And that is part of the problem - the mind boggles. Tobacco Control has now become so all consuming that no one, not even the zealots know where it is leading to.
There is only one answer, and that is the basic idea that I, as an adult human being, can decide for myself. Thus, the idea that there is some tobacco residue in aircraft is irrelevant, since there is no obligation upon airlines to do anything about it. "You want to fly on our aircraft? Then accept the risks." That is the elephant, isn't it? You want to fly to Spain? Accept the risk that the aircraft might blow up. You want to sail in a yacht? Accept the risk that it might sink. You want to go into a bar? Accept the risk that people might smoke. You want to eat in a restaurant? Accept the risk that people might be noisier than you would like.
There is the elephant - personal choice.
There is a massive difference between, say, a poisoned water supply and a water supply which could possibly be just a minuscule little bit purer.
I know that we have all suggested that we should write to our MPs. A couple of days ago, I sent off three letters (by first class post, I may add!)to the Editor of the Daily Telegraph, the Archbishop of Canterbury and The mayor of London. My theme in all these letters was PROPAGANDA. As one individual, I am sure that my opinions will have no effect whatsoever, simply because I am a lone individual. If thousands wrote actual letters, the situation would be different. But it would be a waste of time to write to individual MPs (what do they care?).
This matter (coming together to form a mass) needs some attention.
There are people such as Simon Clark of Taking liberties who have taken on the very difficult problem of trying to change the perceptions of MPs and such. We should give these people our full support, because what they are trying to do is very hard. But the really important thing is to bring smokers together.
There are millions of smokers who are not on line. Unfortunately, these people cannot be reached in the short term, other than through the MSM. What is critical is to understand that the smokers who ARE on line are the important people, in the short term.
Here is the important idea:
Would it be possible to create a website with the specific intention, and the only intention, of registering smokers in order to create a big group? The idea would be very simple. Persons registering in the site would be persons who agree with the following statement:
"I am a person who enjoys tobacco. I wish to remain so until I personally decide otherwise. I do not wish to be nudged, pushed, shoved, impelled, or, in any way, directed. I wish to decide for myself"
We have heard and seen people saying that we should hand out cards in pubs. I personally could not do that, indiscriminately. But I could certainly see myself handing out cards to smokers which give the details of such a site.
Remember the BMJ poll? Christ! The BMJ could not even raise a few hundred people to swamp the poll! In fact, the whole idea was of no interest to the ordinary members of the BMJ whatsoever. That was the important lesson.
Damn! I do go on. But these things are complex. They need not be so. Occam's razor would suggest this:-
1. It may be that smoking is harmful, but I am an adult and I can decide for myself whether or not the pleasure I gain from smoking is worth the risk of harm.
2. There is no significant evidence that I harm anyone who is in my vicinity, including children, through second hand smoke.
3. I see no reason whatsoever for the existence of 'tobacco duties', or any other special taxes of this nature.
Our experience with Tobacco Control leads us to re-examine many ideas which have previously been accepted as 'de facto' correct. For example, we have previously accepted the idea of 'smuggling' as an awful thing. But we are starting to ask the question, "What do you mean by smuggling? Is there any such thing?" And tell me again why people who enjoy cannabis should not do so if they so wish?
I think that Tobacco Control have lit a fuse which was not what they intended. In a very basic sense, one might ask this:
Guns are not allowed. There is no 'duty' on guns. If tobacco is so harmful,why is tobacco allowed provided that 'duty' is paid? And why is duty levied on alcohol, which is not perceived to harm those in one's vicinity? And why is there any such thing as 'duty' on petrol?
All these things are being questioned - directly as a result of Tobacco Control.
"..now they are trying to claim water is making us fat."
And I just bet someone is looking at that and planning to introduce the concept here.
A pint to go up by 30p a pint due to rising barley costs, VAT and price increases, well that the final nail for the pubs then.
"Anti-water and anti-air, perhaps?
Another dihydrogen monoxide campaign must be just around the corner. As for anti-air, sooner or later one of the bansturbators will hear about oxygen toxicity and believe that they must be able to decide how much is too much for the rest of us. You! You over there with the rosy cheeks. Yes, you. Have you been breathing? Right, just put this polythene bag over your head. You can take it off again after you lose consciousness. It's for your own good.
Anti-life? indeed they are...miserable Jonahs the lot of 'em!
Ayn Rand identified the souls of such people over 60 years ago so it's not like we mere mortals can claim ignorance...
doughnuts, biscuits, cakes, bag of chips, bar of chocolate, Mars bar, crisps
All the things you mention contain massive amounts of carbohydrate - not FAT.
Proteins and fats make you feel full. Carbs do not. People overeat them because they do not understand what it is they are putting in their mouths - nutritional rubbish. If people bothered to read the labels on food they would realise that most of the food they eat has very little fat in it and yet they continue to get fatter and fatter?
I cut carbs to a minimum level in my diet (no change in calorie intake, no exercise), upped my protein and fat levels and I've lost nearly 2 stones in weight over 6 months. I eat between 1400 and 2000 calories a day - most of it is protein and fat. Some days my fat content is 60% and yet I continue to lose weight. Supposedly I am at risk of a heart attack because of all that nasty fat in my diet. Well, I'd rather be 9 stones and at risk of a heart attack than fat and at risk of a heart attack and diabetes lol.
i.e Fat does not make you fat - carbohydrate does.
Junican, I agree with your suggestion. I am one of those who suggested handing out cards, but to smokers sitting at tables outside pubs and cafes. They have cigarette packets in front of them, so are precisely identified and it is never junk mail. Two summers have passed since I suggested this on Simon Clark's blog. Sometimes I wonder...... I'm going to do it myself this summer. Cards with links to relevant websites and a suggestion to pass the card on. A hundred people giving out five hundred cards each would have a huge effect.
The trains running on time, the farm animals all feeding from the same trough, and 5 extra days in a workers paradise, oh what a time to be alive.
People who supported the smoking ban have manoeuvred their way right into a corner here, haven’t they, despite many a dire warning from ban-opposers from the outset that “they won’t stop at smoking.” Because having agreed – by default if not by active support – that it’s OK to ban one section of society because their activities are deemed dangerous to “innocent bystanders,” they aren’t really now in a position to object to other sections (including themselves) being banned, or their activities severely curtailed, for the same reasons.
It may disconcert a lot of ban-approvers to realise that the only way this whole juggernaut can ever be stopped is by going right back to basics and challenging the whole basis for the ban which got the ball rolling, the smoking ban.
The lies, the propaganda, the dodgy stats and the faux studies – all will have to be challenged and laid bare by a hitherto-apathetic-but-now-concerned public (because their own pleasures are now at stake), if they are to have a leg to stand on when trying to fight for their own rights. Otherwise, their arguments will always be trumped with the counter-argument that they agreed with banning smoking in order to protect non-smokers, so how can they possibly disagree with banning anything else for the same reasons?
The accusation of hypocrisy will be used the trip them up every time – and it’ll succeed every time. Because, essentially, concentrating on only those issues which concern them but allowing the persecution of others to continue makes that accusation a correct one.
So, come on all you non-smoking drinkers and non-smoking salt and fat consumers - take a reality check and get active, for your own sakes if for nothing else! Don't wait for some bright spark to suggest yet another ban and then start moaning. That's what all of us smokers did, and look where we are now ....
@Anon 14.54 - I got some business cards from Simon Clark (by emailing him) which I hand out to smokers I come across. True, they lead only to the FOREST site but, once there, people will quickly find other sites and realise the substantial resentment that exists.
Jay
To answer Anonymous question, I will quote the silly magazine, "Early evidence suggests BPA - a synthetic hardener used to make plastics - may cause unhealthy levels of fat-storage hormone insulin, "'Steer clear of plastics with the number 3 or 7 on the bottom, which may leach BPA,"' says Dr. Oz. "Instead look for the numbers 1,2,4,5 and 6, which are unlikely to contain BPA."'
One of our large city in this state has banned smoking at bus stops. The lunacy of people sitting on a bench inhaling diesel and gas fumes is ok but God forbid they inhale cigarette fumes. It is madness!
Supi - smoking is already banned at bus stops here in Scotland under the draconian 2006 ban, they even put wee stickers on them so the intolerant can point to it whilst busying themselves calling the number to report you on the sign...
I mean bus shelters, apparently its fine to smoke at a stop (but not in the shelter)!
Supi - BPA has not been shown to do anything at all as yet. It's flagged up because it's a compound that's not found anywhere in nature so might be harmful.
Even though people have been drinking from plastics for a long time and nobody has shown any symptoms as yet, the fact that this substance exists and can be found in urine means someone, somewhere, is getting a good research grant as long as they keep the scare going.
Just as with second and third hand smoke, the utter absence of any symptoms of harm is of no relevance. As long as they can scare people into thinking it might harm them, they're in the money.
Is BPA safe? I've no idea. As yet there is no reason to suppose otherwise. There is plenty of reason to suppose otherwise if your income depends on it.
Junican - the website idea came up before, something like 'Denormalisation Club' which would then include demonised drinkers and fat people.
I don't have the HTML skills to do it, unfortunately.
Snakey - doughnuts, chips and crisps are deep-fried and the others all have a fair bit of fat too.
It doesn't really matter. The 'fat tax' will be applied to anything perceived to be fattening, then to anything non-approved, like meat, and so on. None of the smoking research was real, none of the alcohol units or five-a-day stuff have any scientific backing, and neither will this.
I agree that fat is not what makes people fat. Eating more calories than you burn is what does it, and carbohydrate-rich foods allow you to get a lot of calories in without feeling full.
You can get a lot more sugar than lard into your face before you have to stop.
It seems most illogical, captain, that a government that extracts a shed load of tax from a product then goes about trying to ban it. You would think they might try to encourage its use. However, tobacco, petrol/diesel and alcohol all have duty going up and up and seemingly to discourage us from buying said stuff and so reducing the tax take. WTF is going on here? And who decides what constitutes too much sugar, salt or fat in a food? I like bacon. but it's either well trimmed or I trim it (and it's not supermarket bought crap full of water and tripolyphosphate either. so i decide. Me. I'm going to eat it not some faceless government drone. Me. I thought the nannying bollocks was going to die back since there is no money for it.
We have always had a Nanny State. Margaret Thatcher wanted to get rid of it but found that you cannot keep a tight control if you let go of the reins.
Start new businesses and comfound the Law maybe? As in proabition in the USA. Too costly in the end for the government to control, never mind people power!
Post a Comment