Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Coca-Cola Becomes A Health-Nazi Ventriloquist Dummy

By, Chris Rossini
Email | Twitter

Looks like The State has its long-arm up the backside of Coca-Cola.

Watch the ventriloquist dummy recite some wholesome collectivist propaganda:

Let's begin with: "We'd like people to come together on something that concerns all of us: Obesity. The long-term health of our families and the country is at stake."

Some Ludwig Von Mises is in order here:
"All rational action is in the first place individual action. Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts."
As individuals, we use our own minds to choose how to act based on our own value scales. We are always picking and choosing based on our own scale of priorities.

Mises again:
“Human life is an unceasing sequence of single actions.”
There is no such thing as a national value scale. There is no such thing as the health of a country. They simply do not exist.

However, just because something doesn't exist doesn't prevent people from believing in it. Those abstractions are valuable linguistic tools of tyrants; for those who seek to take away your ability to choose, so that they may make the choice for you.

“The issue is…spontaneous action of each individual versus the exclusive action of the government. It is freedom versus government omnipotence.”
Leon Trotsky explained what happens when you give up your individuality, and choose the latter:
"...who does not obey shall not eat."
Anything and everything is valued subjectively by individuals. This applies to health, wealth, and even life itself.

Values are subjective.

When it comes to health, some may place a high value on it, while others can really care less. Live for today, and the hell with tomorrow! We all perceive life in our own unique ways.

And, at a moment's notice, our perceptions and values can change. Values are never static. A total recluse can change at any time, and start watching his health carefully. It works the other way as well; a health nut can one day decide that it's no longer worth it, and let loose.

This is the beauty of the free lives that we've been given. We are not cookie cutter creations, but explicitly unique, and free to choose our own adventure.

At least that's the initial setup.

There's a great enemy to such a way of life.

Government is constantly trying to take away that uniqueness. Cookie-cutter automations is what it seeks to rule over. It's much easier (for them) than a bunch of people choosing their own path.

The Coca-Cola propaganda piece finishes with the following: "The well being of our families and communities concerns everyone, and finding a solution will take continued effort from all of us..."

Do you see how the attempt is made to tie everyone together into one big blob? How this so-called problem "concerns everyone"? How there's supposedly some kind of "solution" that needs to be found?


That's the language of the power hungry health nazis.

So Coca-Cola, do something good and stick to satisfying the desires of your customers. Get the State's long arm out of your backside....hop off of its lap...and tell it to hit the bricks.


  1. Of all the manufacturers "stuck" in the USSA, Coke-or anyone making flavored sugar water-would seem to have the easiest time moving all of their manufacturing to someplace more tax advantaged and simply using the balance of their existing infrastructure to distribute their products after gutting their manufacturing component.

    I don't understand why they don't follow the Apple model of manufacturing.

    1. Because you can ship 10s of millions of dollars of iPhones/iPads in a relatively small space. Not so with 2 litre bottles of soda. The logistics costs would skyrocket.

  2. This is a great post. Thank you.

  3. Brilliant move by Coke: campaign to remove just a little heat on Coke & obesity.

    That way they don't mention the real danger of coke: diabetes, heart disease, & alzheimers (thought to be "type-3 diabetes.)

  4. By the looks of the participants, Coca Cola has found it's true customers and the new Americans so desired by the collectivist, 3rd world immigrants and low IQ minorities.

  5. The thing is, with this drive towards simply counting calories led by the FDA, people consider coke zero etc... to be healthy choices. In fact, they are much more harmful to your health than the sugar ones (which are also bad). Aspartame has been demonstrated to lead to cancer among other things and really is nasty stuff. But because it has the FDA seal of approval people guzzle the stuff down.

  6. Absolute propaganda…of course. It's not the calories dummies.

    For non-main-stream nutritionists the thermodynamic equation is only a tiny part of the weight gain/loss logic. In fact you can go several thousand calories above the recommended daily intake, do no exercise and still LOSE weight

    It's not the calories. It's what you eat. Eliminate primary sugars (table sugar, sodas,etc.), eliminate vegetable oils and hydrogenated oils, cut the carbs (grains and cereals, and all their processed derivatives - flour, bread, pasta, rice - they are all sugar in the end), eat meat, fish and eggs for protein, saturated fats (butter, coconut oil) and olive oil and vegetables. Do that and you can eat as much as you like. It's how humans have eaten for 2 million years. Cut the processed crap and eat real food ! End of obesity, diabetes, CVD, cancer et al. In other words go low-carb / Primal - not obsessionally but as far as you can. STOP BURNING SUGAR AND YOUR BODY WILL RETURN TO BURNING FAT.

    So simple…yet no government, health or nutrition agency will tell you that. Big, Pharma, Big Agriculture, Big Sugar have their sticky fingers in the pie.

  7. The general point here - that we are individuals, not a collective 'thing' - is one of the most important points we individualists can (repeatedly) make. Ayn Rand said that her philosophy, if reduced to a single word, would be 'individualism'. ALL organizations are simply groups of individuals and this is especially true of 'government'.

    But our own use of language can weaken this point if we allow the collectivists to design the common rhetoric. So I make a habit of never referring to "government", but instead to "the gang of perverts who call themselves government", or "the parasites who are called government", etc. I try never to refer to 'government' as if it exists. It does not. What exists is a mob of sadistic gunslingers with a bunch of parasites hiding behind them, and all of them chanting together the superstitions of power politics.

    What exists, in short, are violent savages called law enforcement and their dependent courtiers, mumbling their collectivist superstitions in their stylized rhetoric while they feed on the innocent by means of an extortion racket called 'taxation'. It is a very great mistake to accept and repeat any of their stylized rhetoric.

    So I might rewrite Chris's sentence (above): "Government is constantly trying to take away that uniqueness..." as "The parasitic perverts who call themselves government would like to convince the rest of us that we are merely interchangeable parts of an object that they own."

  8. I kept waiting to see the Veridian Dynamics logo.

  9. Chris, i think it's important to differentiate between voluntary collectivism and coercive collectivism. (If you think voluntary 'collectivism' isn't true collectivism, then that's understandable, but then we're just playing word games. We could just call it something else)

    For example, suppose climate change is real. Even libertarians could say "we should all come together to solve this problem, each doing his own part" while maintaining the non-aggression principle.

    So although most people don't differentiate, I think as libertarians, it's important that we should. Coca Cola doesn't seem to be doing anything that's -actually- unlibertarian. In fact, Coca Cola should be praised for trying to take a swing at obesity in a voluntary manner, while peacefully encouraging others to do something about it.

    Of course, as some of the comments above indicate, diet cokes may actually be worse for you, so if anything, that's the proper line to criticize them with, not with the collectivism line. The latter is better applicable if the company actually has a relationship with the State (which may be present, but was not indicated as part of your post) or explicitly states something similar to "Michelle Obama's food plans in schools is the way to go!"

    1. Sorry, meant to say "suppose global warming is a critical part of climate change"