Misguided Policy or Manipulation & Exploitation concerning health, commerce and freedom: Chocolate Bars and Fast Food

 Misguided Policy or Manipulation & Exploitation concerning  health, commerce and freedom: Chocolate Bars and Fast Food

Whilst buying a multi-pack deal of chocolate bars at a supermarket recently, on opening the packet, I noticed the deal was not as good as it first seemed to be, as the bars were small. I usually wouldn't have fallen for this, as being aware of these tricks, I feel the pack first to examine it (and find the wastage of packaging masking the reduced proportions inside...I guess the environmental responsibility claims are not as important as the health mantra deception). I have grown up with these bars and remember my father buying them for me on the way home from work. I didn't end up as a fat child due to this regular treat, as my parents did feed me more than chocolate bars, I did learn about nutrition, exercise, balanced diet, excessive eating, and dietary deficiencies at home, school and later in life as part of general education, experience and common sense.

However, I was not taught at school about economic exploitation under the guise of 'health' and excessive governmental interference in consumer and company choice under the guise of 'social and commercial responsibility'. I don't want my eating habits enforced on me. A gun doesn't kill someone, a human does and a chocolate bar doesn't make you fat, it is your use of it and the rest of your time.

When I buy a chocolate bar, I know roughly what I am buying, I know that it isn't supposed to be a health food or dietary staple. I am unaware of any traditional culture that advises abandoning the natural sources of fibre, minerals, vitamins, protein, complex carbohydrates and healthier fats while replacing them with manufactured confectionery. I am also unaware that the food manufacturers themselves ever offered such advice. The last time I checked human physiology and biological processes, it seemed that fats and sugars are bodily, biochemical, nutritional needs, they are not toxic alien invasions of the food chain. Yes, in excess, or without a balanced diet and exercise they may well contribute to a whole range of health issues, but this maybe the case with many things. As long as a manufacturer does not deceive the customer and advertise a product as serving a function it it does not, nor misrepresenting its content and nature, nor directly recommending harmful usage levels, then there should be no problem. You can after all, drink too much water, so will the government start rationing supplies on this basis? Should all desserts in restaurants be replaced with fruit salads, but only small ones due to the fructose sugar content?

To say there is too much sugar in a chocolate bar is a little like saying there is too much potato in chips. Perhaps the government and manufacturers need to be reminded "This is a CHOCOLATE BAR,it is not excessive calorific content...because, it is a CHOCOLATE BAR...this is what any rational person would expect of a chocolate bar." What reaction did they want? "Oh! We can't believe it, they have been putting sugar all this time in the chocolate bars?!" Perhaps this idiocy is an extension of the general dumbing down of the education system and swapping the original meanings of words for opposite meanings.

There should be freedom in the manufacturer's development of their selection of products, along with their sizes and ingredients unless directly harmful. Equally, there should be freedom from interference between the manufacturer, supplier, retailers and consumer in such transactions. We know the government will find this concept difficult as seeing as it already interferes with the oppressive usurping of 20% of each such transaction under the absurd misnomer of 'value added tax'...

If portion sizes are being reduced, somebody might end up eating more than they originally wanted, as they might buy two instead of one to fulfil their want. More importantly, if portion sizes are reduced then the price has to match the reduction otherwise this is exploiting and duping the customer under the dubious guise of "we are making you healthy." In reality a poorly concealed ruse to snatch more money for less product, a wicked collaboration of government and big business disguised as altruism and health policy. Indeed, if this new government-business collaboration is not sinister it is at least ludicrous and misguided. Sweets are treats and not meant to be the main-meal, no business is advocating eating their confectionery for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

If some people are irresponsible concerning their own health and diet or that of their children, then these people need assistance with education or decision making if that is their problem. The answer to this isn't to punish and restrict manufacturers and consumers for their normal behaviour and restricting their access to products that meet their needs, preferences or desires. We announce today that there are some irresponsible parents down your street who made their children sick with sweets and therefore to save you all, none you can any longer buy what you want! What happened to freedom of the market place, consumer choice, products that reflect the diverse needs and desires of the market? It seems the uniform social engineering (via media and education) extends to dietary engineering, maybe soya milk will replace dairy milk...not too far away from the apocalyptic nightmare invoked by the dystopian 1970's movie 'Soylent Green' (don't read any reviews or trailers before you watch it).

To announce that manufacturers will be forced into making their products more healthy, less calorific via reduction of portion sizes sounds like some parody of an Orwellian society or totalitarian joke. "We have made this chocolate bar healthier by giving you less!" This is like saying "A kilogram of sugar will no longer have the calorific content of a kilogram, because it will be reduced to 500grams!" But what if I want a kilogram? You have reduced the chocolate bar so it has less calories, but I am buying it because I want a full bar and perhaps the calories too, it is then up to me whether I eat it all now, share it or save some for later. So no matter who you are now, no matter what your needs, tastes and preferences are....no matter whether you are 7years old and two stone in weight or 30 years old, 6ft 5 and 14stone in weight, the government has decided that you will all have the same small chocolate bar. In another era this so called responsible partnership between government and manufacturers might be called communism, or something close to it. If there is so much concern for sugar and obesity and it's connection with chocolate bars, then why not restrict consumers to one bar a week or ban them altogether? Indeed such a measure would be ridiculous, but who is drawing these lines and on the basis of what?

This is all being done for us supposedly. Why not go one step further, as soon as I take one bite, snatch the bar off of me and give it to someone else then tell me you are doing it for my health and my character by making sure I am sharing with others. 

Along the same lines we have fast food retailers being forced to offer salads and health options. Well if they want to supply that then fine, but I don't go to a fast food restaurant necessarily for health reasons, I go because I desire what they are known for offering. If they can offer the same, for the same price, taste and texture but more healthily then very good, we are all winners. But if it is at the cost of taste and texture, then this is effectively the government saying "No more burger and chips for you...only wholemeal pasta and salads now." I am all for, burgers being offered in wholemeal buns, I think they will taste just as good, along with the garnish and sauces, but perhaps they will not sell so well, so no-one should be forced, we don't want more piles of wasted food. Will we be forced to have semi-skimmed milk? We don't want to get fat do we? I don't like semi-skimmed, I want milk as it was originally 'milked'...but it seems we are the ones getting milked!

What will be enforced next? Cars with only capacity for 50 miles worth of petrol? "We are doing good for the environment and your journey cost savings, you can only travel 50 miles at a time." It wouldn't be long before we expect to hear "We have removed all the frightening content from this horror movie so all sensitive characters can enjoy it."

If the government is so concerned with the health of people, then they should stop dropping bombs on people and stop promoting their exploitation with the facilitation and promotion of so called 'financial services' i.e. robbing people of their wealth via insurance and usurious banking, they can also stop robbing people of 30-50% of their income or wealth via the plethora of exorbitant taxes. There seems to be a lot less rules concerning consumer protection from the sale of gold bars than there are for chocolate bars.

Art is not without Limits - Freedom of Expression is a Lie, a Delusion and a Mechanism of Social Engineering

Art is not without Limits - Freedom of Expression is a Lie, a Delusion and a Mechanism of Social Engineering

 

We often hear artists, critics, commentators, academics and libertarians say 'art is without limit' or 'art and expression should be unlimited'. But is this correct in reality? And is it even desirable?

This is yet another of those societal slogans which are followed by many, repeated by many, but thought about by none, or at least very few.

The Nature of Art is Limited
In reality, art is limited. It is just a medium of expression and expression is limited. Our tools of expression are limited, we can't talk forever, we can't paint and draw forever. Our materials of artistic expression are limited, do we have paint brushes that are unlimited? Do we have unlimited supplies of paint, wood, canvas and stone? Of course we don't.

Our Bodies are a Prison

We are limited by all the physical limits that exist for any of our activities. We are limited by our strength, endurance, speed, lifespan and senses. We can only see as we see, hear as we hear, say what our tongue, teeth and lips allow and we can only touch what we can reach.

We are held captive by our own nature
We are limited not only physically, but also by our own human nature. Our instincts and emotions limit our artistic expression just as they limit any other activity. If our body demands something, that often hinders what our dreams call us to. If we are in a state of shock, we may not think clearly and may not be able to do what we would have wanted. If we are depressed we may not be able to work as normal, if we are happy we may lose control and get depressed about the results. If a performance artist wanted to end his life with a televised suicide, his personal doubts and fear may prevent him from doing it or someone else may intervene, or he may even die naturally or by some other external cause before he can fulfil his wishes. Artistic ability is limited, externally and internally, just as our lives are generally.

Our Epoch is a Limit
We are limited by the tools of our time. Could people one hundred years ago, express themselves in digital (computerised) art? They could not, it didn't exist. And these limits applied to all media whether oils, acrylics, watercolours, pencil, charcoal etc. If it hadn't been discovered or invented, then you would have a tough time using it. Indeed we expect new media to be discovered and invented, but that maybe after we have gone. We can't use what we don't know and we can't use what we don't have access to and this seriously  limits us. If I had all the actors I desired and a professional crew, I'm sure I could make excellent movies, but instead I maybe stuck on Youtube talking to myself. What will the writer do if the paper runs out, if the ink runs out? What will the blogger do when the electricity stops? 

It is not just the material limits though. We are limited by the influences in culture and wider society. These influences can motivate or demotivate us. We are limited by how our work is received by the masses or by specific groups. These are partly products of our time and we can't control that, and even if we could, they are certainly limited.

Our Words are Limited
If we express ourselves in words, then again, we are limited by the rules and words of the language in addition to our ability to learn multiple languages and our ability to access and learn vocabulary. I would like to know many languages to express myself in, but time and responsibilities of priority prevent me. Words can only go so far and they can't reach everyone in a way that they are understood anyway. You speak to two people directly at the same time and they can end up with opposite understandings.

Our Internal Limit
We are also limited by the seed that drives all artistic expression, our own mind. Can we express matters that we don't even know about? Mostly not. We can unknowingly express something and then discover a meaning later, as we act as conduits for unseen or unknown forces inside and outside of us. But mostly we act upon a will that is limited by our own experience, knowledge, intellect and psychology. You can't express what you can't think of and we have limited control over our own thoughts. We can even try to think of something and fail or try not to think of something and fail.

Art isn't the only painting in the gallery
Artistic thought is just one type of thought among many. Art has its role and capabilities and spheres of application but so do other types of thought such as political, literary, scientific, rational, spiritual, ideological, philosophical etc. Some types of thought are more fundamental and comprehensive than others. Society suffers when a group of people try to build a society on a type of thought that society can't be built upon. A house made of chocolate isn't very practical, especially in summer.

Political Fences and Chains
Now lets look to restrictions on us from the political order.

We are limited by the laws that are imposed on us. Whether we agree with or recognize those laws or not is another thing, but it is likely at least we will curb our expression and application of artistic skills in order to avoid the hassle of law enforcement. Every nation in the world puts limits on the movements and behaviour of its citizens regardless of the deluded claims of 'freedom' that exist in 'democratic societies.'

Are people free to say what they want and do what they want, just because they categorize it as an artistic expression? Do governments allow artists to unveil State secrets or official secrets as part of an artwork? They don't. Do governments allow artists to pretend to be doctors, police etc without informing them first of these games? They don't.

Just as speech and action is restricted by thousands of laws that exist, so to artistic expression is limited by those same laws. Copyright, patent and a whole range of other monopolizing laws and principles which prevent creativity, expression and more importantly accountability and justice exist all over the place like white on a primed canvas.

Many artists are deluded into thinking they are free to act artistically as they please as they find that they seem to be free in two particular areas, the freedom to insult religion and the freedom to insult politicians and represent sexual imagery. In two of these cases, we have to remember that in most places in the world (if not all when analyzed accurately) we live in secular societies. This means societies where religion is separated from governance. That is, the State has based its authority on an ideology of opposing religion in all but the personal sphere. Therefore when an artist attacks religion and religious law in particular, he is in alignment with the objectives of the secular government. So far from being an act of rebellion, it is in fact an act of compliance and conformity by the artist. As for the issue of expressing sexual imagery in art, then again this is something which religion puts restrictions on based on its defining objectives and roles in human relations and protecting the family according to a religious criteria. So representing sexual imagery is not something which secular government regards as a threat to its authority, rather, politicians calculate that it serves them well that their population is busy with stimulating its own sexual instincts rather than paying attention to the contradictions, inadequacy and exploitation that emanates from government, its laws and policies.

As for the issue of artists targeting politicians for ridicule, then know that again this generally isn't regarded as a threat to the establishment. Journalists and artists can expose and mock politicians and this is unlikely to bring about any change. This is because firstly, change requires an alternative and most journalists and artists have no alternative. Secondly, an attack on an individual is not an attack on a system, even if an individual falters in their political ambitions or falls from 'grace' altogether, they are expendable and will be quickly replaced and the system lives on. If an artist actually engages in an artistic expression which does expose the nature of oppression, corruption and exploitation within a system but more importantly exposes the intrinsic flaws, fallacies and contradictions in the foundations and philosophy of an ideology or system then this is much more dangerous. If such an artist or writer did this along with proposing a viable alternative (especially if connected with a movement or body of people to carry it) then this truly threatens a radical change to the existing political structure. Such an artist may swiftly realise that his freedom of political and artistic expression was a figment of his imagination or rather, his unknowing acceptance of indoctrination.

When it suits a government to talk about freedom of expression they are its champions, such as when they want to invade another nation or target an idea that threatens them. But when it does not suit a government to talk about freedom of expression they talk about responsibility, patriotism, the rule of law and everyone's right to practice this or that imaginary freedom. We have people imprisoned, killed and tortured all over the world for expressing their religious and political beliefs while those doing the persecuting are on other occasions the loudest advocates of the fictitious principle of freedom of expression. People need to look beyond the slogans and spin they have been chanting at the behest of others without awareness.

Do we really want art to be unlimited?
Finally, let us consider this as an ideal. Do we want to freedom of expression absolutely in society? Is it ideal that people can express themselves however they want, with whatever they want, whenever they want?

Do we want doctors giving us the wrong prescriptions and then afterwards telling us they did it for artistic reasons? Do we want people to kill babies and make sculptures out of them to show us how willing they are to shock in the name of art? Do we want people to turn the whole landscape into a blank canvas by chopping down all the trees? Do we want people to make a continuous streaming art video compiled from all the bathrooms and bedrooms of the whole population without their permission? Do we want new genres of art to arise such as 'murder expressionism' or a whole range of other vices and harmful acts to the person, mind and society? I think everyone with sanity, sense and decency will agree that such artistic liberalism is not worth its costs.

Consider a person who follows you everywhere, photographs and films you from all positions and places at all times. He says "You own yourself, but you don't own my vision of you, this is my artistic right." So he continues to film, then merges your photographs with those of scenes of child abuse, animal abuse, hatred and oppression. He does this with such skill that thousands of people are now seeking to kill or harm you. You appeal to him to stop for your own safety, and he replies "We can't abandon our principles out of fear, art is unlimited and I am free, whatever happens then so be it, at least art has not been restricted." So his religion of artistic freedom has become your death warrant.

People say 'Express yourself in any way as long as it doesn't harm or affect others'. But in reality everything we do affects others. As soon as people see us we are affecting others, we affect both by our our actions and inaction, even by what clothing we wear. As soon as we show a picture to someone it affects them, as soon as we communicate with someone it affects them. You may say something and ten thousand people might end up dying because of it. You may say a word to someone and they become depressed for the rest of their lives, or end up an alcoholic, drug addict or gambler. You might make someone happy or sad by what you say or do. You may inspire someone to change their beliefs for the better or for worse. Some people may see a photograph and become physically sick and not be able to get the image out of their mind. They may react with anger and then change all the priorities in their life. You put a seed in society by any expression, creativity or act and you don't know what it will grow into.

In reality no-one or hardly anyone believes in this principle of 'freedom of expression' or 'absolute artistic freedom.' Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are just slogans used to justify an individual's, groups or nation's attacks on other people. But whenever they are tested to be victim of the same principle, they change their mind or the rules which govern it, even if they claim otherwise.

Regardless of anyone's deluded beliefs, art is limited in every aspect, sphere and sense you can think of.

I am an artist, I love art and I love expressing myself artistically and delving into the symbols and meanings of various artistic media, but I don't believe in talking nonsense about it and making claims for it that don't hold up. I don't believe in putting one sphere of thought on a delusory pedestal and clothing it in a false and nonsensical status.

I believe in acting with responsibility and consideration of consequences. I believe society needs organization, law and order and I believe in individual and collective accountability. Society is a mess but that mess has been fostered by the false principles it is built upon and people's blind acceptance of them.

So next time you find someone insisting that the harmful art they have just expressed is justified by the principle of 'freedom of expression' and 'art without limits,' then ask if they are also willing to be a victim of the same philosophy as they are turned into a human paintbrush dipped into a vat of sulfuric acid.