Lying Propaganda: You Are Better Off Dead

The headline says it all: “A sick world: We live longer, with more pain and illness.” Yes, poor, poor, better-fed, longer-living us. Let’s all have a pity party and then figure out how to return to the good old days.

What is initially obvious simply from reading this story is that it doesn’t prove or even address the headline. There is no attempt made to prove that, in the past, we lived shorter lives with less pain and illness.

There is good reason for the writer to ignore such a claim, because it is nonsense. The exact opposite is the case. The reason why we died sooner was because we suffered diseases that we couldn’t cure. And, in case you don’t already realize it, infectious sores and debilitating parasites is not painless. Living in fear of polio outbreaks every summer, and then living with partial paralysis, is not painless. Losing children to cholera epidemics is just as economically debilitating as having to avoid modern childhood health problems.

“The Global Burden of Disease study, led by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at Washington University, finds that countries face a wave of financial and social costs from rising numbers of people living with disease and injury.”

This is eugenicist propaganda. It only makes sense if you discount the personal and economic costs involved in families losing children and in societies losing a sizable number of the next generation. Yes, there are expenses involved in living longer, but the costs are not nearly as much as the increased productivity. Of course, if one imposes a socialist economic policy on a population, then one will look for excuses to blame for the resulting poverty. That is half the motivation for pretending that “overpopulation” is causing problems—and that long life is a tragedy.

“Among other findings are that while malnutrition has dropped down the rankings as a cause of death and illness, the effects of excessive eating are taking its place. Smoking and alcohol use have also overtaken child hunger to become the second and third leading health risks, behind high blood pressure.”

This is such a stupid paragraph. I don’t know if I should be angrier at how misleading it is or angrier at readers who are foolish enough to believe it. Of course, when you eliminate a major cause of death, then another cause of death has to become the “leading cause.” The question is not whether or not, now that children are no longer starving to death, some are living to die of smoking or alcohol abuse. The question is, are nearly as many dying this way? Obviously, it is not. Otherwise, our overall mortality rate would not have climbed.

And what do they mean that “the effects of excessive eating are taking” the “place” of “malnutrition”? Take its place as a much less dangerous condition. This seems to mimic health books for high school students that emphasize all sorts of (usually questionable) possible problems with “obesity,” but pay scant attention to a real killer: anorexia. Does anyone really think that having a happy life for years, including food, is comparable to being skin and bones, perpetually hungry, and then dying young?

I’m all for improving the future and living longer and happier lives. But this article is lying propaganda—designed to make us ingrates against God for all our blessings and paranoid about future suffering. It is a talking point for Obamacare death panels.

I am not at all surprised to find the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation lies behind the idiotic data manipulation.

Comments

comments