September 17, 2012

Welfare funding for activists?

Decca is a media advocate for a global activist organization which has infiltrated its members into government agencies worldwide in order to attract considerable tax-payer funding for its ‘healthy lifestyle’ agenda.

“When our organization started many years ago it was not too difficult to convince government officials that adopting our agenda would save lives and save costs,” says Decca. “Medico-materialism is now how government health departments are run, and our members unashamedly helped to bring this about.”

“There are those who say that our media advocacy work is self-serving, inflammatory propaganda and that we control research favorable to our cause,” says Decca, “but everyone wants a healthy life and our tax-payer funded media campaigns are effective and popular – getting the message across to everybody.”

“I would not call the funding we get as ‘welfare’ – although it most certainly does provide jobs for us as well as being spent on the well-being of everybody in the community,” says Decca. “The money the government gives us from the extra few cents it adds to taxes on unhealthy consumer goods goes directly to a health promotions trust which pays our wages and funds media campaigns.”

“We convince government agencies that our agenda will save lives and save costs – and in order to do that we have to change behavior through media campaigns which, of course, cost money,” says Decca. “Our research has proved that constant exposure to our message brings results – think of the success we have had already with the anti-smoking campaigns – and this success is an argument for substantially more funding so that we can tackle alcohol consumption and obesity next.”

“Yes, it is true that our agenda attracts obscene levels of tax-payer funding – or ‘welfare’ if you wish to call it that,” laughs Decca, “but the level of unhealthy habits in the community is even more obscene.”

“I see nothing immoral about making people extra tax on their unhealthy consumption in order to fund us to tell them not to do it,” says Decca. “If they don’t wish to fund our salaries and media campaigns, then they should simply stop consuming unhealthy goods!”

“Naturally, we do not advocate ‘banning’ any product – from tobacco, to alcohol and junk food – because people still have choice,” says Decca, “and that suits us fine because as long as people are living unhealthy lifestyles we can continue to exist in the manner we do.”

“We would prefer that people choose a healthy lifestyle – and save themselves from early deaths and poverty from the extra taxes they pay to fund us,” says Decca, “but we fully understand that some people are incorrigible and need to be constantly reminded of the damage they are doing to themselves, their families and their communities.”

“As long as those incorrigible people exist – so will we,” says Decca, “and it is amazing how the organization I belong to has grown to become a huge unelected, bureaucracy that did not exist 25 years ago and has real clout with governments, the media and policy makers.”

“Yes, I suppose our work is essentially propagandistic – and attracts some unsavory characters – but most of us are true believes when it comes to healthy living and we are dedicated to ensuring that everybody follows our lead,” says Decca. “And, yes, I agree that a lot of tax-payer funds get spent on extraneous stuff like workshops, conferences, overseas jaunts and social functions bestowing awards on our activists – but as a quasi-government organization it is pretty normal for this sort of thing to go on.”

“And, another thing that goes on, of course, is that tax-payer funded research is directed to uphold our agenda,” says Decca. “It is regrettably true that researchers quickly get the gist of what attracts funding and a great deal of their funded studies is not exactly rigorous.”

“It may be true that drinking a few glasses of wine, smoking a few cigarettes and eating some rubbish is not exactly going to kill you or overburden the health system with your self-induced ailments,” laughs Decca, “but we certainly do NOT direct your funds into proving this to be true.”

“All of our research has defined terms of reference, themes and policy agendas and is accepted as credible by politicians, the media and the public – and that is the way it will be because to do otherwise would jeopardize our funding,” explains Decca. “This is exactly how all charitable organizations and foundations work – be they Cancer Societies or whatever.”

“Also, we are not entirely dependent upon ‘welfare’ from tax-payer funding for our work,” says Decca. “We have always fostered economic partnerships with corporations on track with us – such as pharmaceutical interests – and governments, of course, gain from these partnerships, too.”

“The quit smoking campaign, for instance, was helped by the sale of ‘nicotine replacement therapy’ and we will be usual similar partnerships in our forthcoming campaigns against alcohol and junk food,” says Decca. “It’s a bit like what my colleagues in the Green Movement are doing to wean you off fossil fuels by making them so expensive and politically incorrect that you will gladly fork out for alternatives.”

“It’s all about changing your behavior to what we believe is good for you and the community,” says Decca, “and that you are paying us to do this for you means that you are not giving us ‘welfare’ but paying for a community service.”

Read more by Decca on this issue:



  • student activism




  • Media driven social policy




  • UN subverts democracy?




  • A career as an activist




  • misuse of 'war' for other issues?




  • Education and activism




  • activist cults and sin taxes