A number of recent articles in various online media sites really began to annoy me due to the manner in which various subjects were presented. It’s not bad enough that we are fed constant propaganda by the media on all manner of issues, but it’s worse when these issues are distorted so that it leads people to believe that what is being said is the absolute truth of the matter. As always, ‘experts’ are being quoted as having done some form of research and then come to the conclusion that fits the latest impending calamity, the favourite driver of our nanny state adherents. It doesn’t matter what the subject is, as long as it follows the approved thought, it’ll be made to look good; but if it follows non-approved thoughts, it’ll be made to look bad. Sometimes there’s no attempt to even make the so-called research or reporting appear unbiased, assuming a complete reliance on people not being capable of critical analysis.
As I wrote in ‘The Nanny State‘ there seems to be a never ending push by government/s to control our lives, egged on by government funded entities (food Nazis) trying to make themselves relevant and justify their continued taxpayer funding. It hasn’t been completely government driven, as there are other groups pushing their own wheelbarrows filled with personal agendas, such as PETA, that wants everyone to become neurotic vegans and live in mutual misery. And given how they behave, it certainly appears to be a miserable life. However, a new entrant has entered the scene by way of The Lancet, who has now declared their own set of rules as to how the world (notably the western world) should, or must, live in order to save the planet from every perceived misery, including the mandatory climate-change baggage-carousel. These professional misery merchants seem to be appearing everywhere with the intent to force people into lifestyles these same misery merchants invariably never have to live themselves, given their positions of wealth.
In my story about The Good Old Days, I alluded to minority groups having a significant influence over societal changes and questioned whether that’s a good thing, but some of my comments appear to have been misconstrued as to who they were directed towards. So when another initiative by a group of Nanny State adherents, acting under the guise of ‘experts’ or do-gooders (well-meaning but unrealistic or interfering philanthropists or reformers) was announced, I thought I’d consolidate some of my views into a single story. I guess I’ve made it somewhat clear in a number of stories that government interference in our daily lives, to an extent that I’ve never experienced before, is one of my pet hates. Sanctimonious do-gooders, funded by taxpayers, need to have a reason for existence and thus keep coming up with more and more self-serving ideas to inflict upon everyone and it needs to stop.