The Royal Yacht Britannia © Bryn Colton / Getty Images; (inset) Prince Philip © HANNAH MCKAY / POOL / AFP
Plans have emerged to commission a £190 million tribute to Prince Philip in the shape of a new royal yacht, funded by the UK taxpayer. But the days of gaudy luxuries built for the royal family have to be consigned to the past.
Britain’s elite are transfixed by class, but are simultaneously utterly classless.
The country is reeling from a shambolic Covid-19 performance by the authorities and bungled Brexit negotiations. Northern Ireland is witnessing scenes reminiscent of The Troubles, as police are firebombed and attacked.
Prince Philip’s death came amid all of this and has further polarised the population. The BBC has received a record number of complaints for its wall-to-wall coverage, to the extent it has had to create a dedicated online portal.
With all this going on, it seems incredible that plans are afoot to commission a new royal yacht in Prince Philip’s name. Members of Parliament and government ministers feel it’s an apt way to spend £190 million.
Tory MP Craig MacKinlay, who has been co-ordinating the plans, said, “The towering figure that was the Duke of Edinburgh deserves a permanent tribute to his support for the country, the Commonwealth and the Queen.”
An ocean-going memorial is felt to be appropriate because Prince Philip was a naval officer and adored the former royal yacht Britannia, which he is reported to have travelled 70,000 miles on.
Supporters have also briefed that it could also be tied to the Queen’s 70-year platinum jubilee anniversary next year.
According to royal-supporting newspaper the Daily Telegraph, it was no secret that Philip wanted a replacement after Britannia was retired in 1997. He’s recounted as asking a fellow member of the Royal Thames Yacht Club about what sort of vessel he had and when he replied he couldn’t afford one, the Duke responded, “And neither, it seems, can we.”
The big issue with this whole plan is that it’s expected to be funded by taxpayers. Ordinary people will see their hard-earned contributions splurged on an extravagance to take hugely privileged people – whose income already depends on the taxpayer – to foreign climes.
An unnamed government minister was also quoted as saying that “it could also be a flagship for reinvigorated British shipbuilding.” But that is tone-deaf.
The problem Britain’s manufacturing industry constantly faces is that other countries can produce things more affordably and efficiently. Taking money that belongs to the public to place a giant order is a false stimulus and will reinvigorate nothing.
Another ham-fisted attempt to convince doubters about the worthiness of the project is the notion that it could double as a hospital ship or training vessel. But if we need either of those, wouldn’t it be far better to build them for that sole purpose?
Besides, it’s very hard to see how the luxury the royals are used to dovetails with a floating hospital. Should we commission a royal jumbo jet which doubles as a school? Or what about a new royal train that also operates as an art college?
The tacky attempts to sell the proposed new yacht as potentially beneficial to the public only serve to demonstrate how deluded the British establishment is.
Some of them actually believe the ordinary person would be gullible enough to think a royal yacht is of tangible benefit. It’s like an episode from a cringeworthy mockumentary; you can imagine them holed up in grand state building confidently saying “they’ll love it.”
None of the royal family has yet to comment on the plans, which is generally interpreted as a nod of approval. They rarely say anything unless it’s to correct a perceived wrong, which is why they maintained radio silence, aside from a few lines of no substance, despite the bombshell revelations of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
The British state has no grasp of reality. The days of blindly using the country as its own piggybank unhindered is over. Voters can’t stop the yacht being built, but they can rise up and protest, unlike previous generations. The torrent of complaints to the BBC is proof of that.
The deference to the Queen and her family is gone, and a lot of it is their own doing.
Recently, after a year of lockdown, it was announced Buckingham Palace could not open up as normal this summer, but due to the tough times, people would be able to visit its gardens.
However, instead of offering free or even discounted entry as a gesture to boost morale, the palace are insisting on charging £16.50 for adults and £9 for kids.
And the thinking behind the new yacht is the same: let us do something for us, but pretend it’s about you and you can pay for it. Even the practicalities make no sense. It would seemingly be used by Prince Charles, Prince William and their families. But what will them bobbing about in the Bay of Biscay do for anyone apart from offering the House of Windsor’s finest an enjoyable, lavish holiday?
No death is a good thing and everyone is entitled to respect. But the Duke of Edinburgh’s passing has to be seen as the end of an era. It should offer a chance to look forward and reshape things.
This idea of a new £190 million royal yacht is an abomination and any decent, democratic society would discount it immediately. Britain’s food banks have seen record numbers of visits. Tens of thousands have lost their jobs due to the pandemic and its aftershocks. So, let’s send this hare-brained scheme off to where it belongs – into the distant sunset, never to be seen again…
Chris Sweeney is an author and columnist who has written for newspapers such as The Times, Daily Express, The Sun and Daily Record, along with several international-selling magazines.
April 15, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Supremacism, Social Darwinism | UK |
Leave a comment
It’s easy to laugh when middle-class greenies write about their eco-anxiety, under headlines like ‘Can you drink milk and stay ethical?’, but there’s a deadly serious side to this that threatens to curtail our freedoms.
The world of the eco-warrior is a gloomy one indeed. Just as the rest of us are starting to enjoy the first loosening of government-imposed lockdown and pondering the post-Covid-19 world, they, while drinking their barista-quality oat milk lattes, are preoccupied with highly moral dilemmas most of us don’t have the time or money to think about.
What follows is not made up, but is a shortened version of Guardian columnist Emma Beddington’s moral dilemmas facing the post-Covid-19 world.
While anxious to minimise her part in transforming the Earth “into a flaming wasteland,” she has a major dilemma with milk, well, multiple problems. Why? Because milk is apparently, “bad news for the planet: three times worse in greenhouse emission terms than any plant milk.” (We’ll come back to the moronic concept of ‘plant milk’ below). But her dilemma is that while knowing this for “ages” she has pretended it is not. And why? “Because tea is horrible with oat milk.” Who would have thought? (We’ll come back to this equally moronic concept below too).
According to Beddington, the horror of this complex dilemma is earth-shattering, or scorching, depending on where you place your carbon footprint. Her solution is to seek out what she terms “the least bad dairy”: she gets her milk from “cows fed on seaweed, which reduces bovine belching.” Apparently, research has recently found this can cut methane emissions by up to 82%.
But before you can breathe a sigh of relief (while perhaps pondering whether feeding cows seaweed does not constitute abuse and animal cruelty), it gets even worse. Her ‘good’ dairy comes in plastic bottles, not glass ones, which makes it bad. Because her household finishes two pints of seaweed milk precisely six days after the weekly delivery, ordering another two-pint bottle, would mean “most of it would end up down the sink” – obviously a no-no for sustainability. So, her instinct is to hold out. But this results in an even greater moral dilemma because it means imposing her “eco-guilt” on her younger son, who, bless him, “has the smallest carbon footprint of any of us, and just wants milk on his cereal.” The result? She ends up buying a pint of “Bad Milk from the corner shop.” (The horror!).
At the very least, this suggests her son has something she lacks: namely, the ability to recognise that Bad Milk tastes good while Good Milk is, in her own words, “horrible.”
But who would have thought that living ethically was so complex and difficult? Milk is just the tip of the rapidly melting iceberg. Every consumer decision is laden with moral dilemmas: how to shop without contributing to “flat-pack landfill waste.” What’s the point in recycling “like a demon, sorting, flattening, rinsing and parsing the council’s opaque and inadequate recycling policy” when no-one “will take plastic takeaway boxes” (an admission that Beddington and her fellow eco-warriors have spent lockdown dealing with their eco-dilemmas while eating takeaway food delivered by people who, in all likelihood, are relying on food banks for their survival, not struggling with the pros and cons of seaweed-fed bovines).
But for the virtual signalling eco-middle class every choice is bad and carries a heavy burden. The weight of having to balance “one harm against another” is causing them mental health problems. So, what is her solution? Well, she says, “as in so much of life…I just want someone authoritative to tell me what to do.”
This is where eco-anxiety ceases to be a source of comedic brilliance and where virtue signalling becomes a serious political issue.
What Beddington and the Guardian are advocating, in reality, is that we should all succumb to the dictatorship of experts – but only the experts that accept misanthropic eco-anxiety, not those who might question it.
The concepts they use, like ‘plant milk’ already indicate the type of conformity they expect and demand. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘milk’ as “a whitish fluid, rich in fat and protein, secreted by the mammary glands of female mammals (including humans) for the nourishment of their young, and taken from cows, sheep, etc., as an article of the human diet.” As such, it reflects human ingenuity and how mankind has transformed nature to meet human ends. This is precisely what nonsensical misnomers like ‘oat milk’ seek to undermine.
The assault on language is just the thin edge of the wedge. ‘Tell me what to do’ is the political rallying cry of the middle class. They have really loved Covid-19 and the lockdown that was imposed by the state on the word of politically unaccountable experts who apparently knew what’s best for the rest of us. And they’re expert at that.
The moral complexity of eco-anxiety, expressed so comically by Beddington, should not lull us into a false sense of security. As bonkers as it is, it serves to strengthen the idea of the need for expert diktat.
This has been the message of the high priest of environmentalism, Greta Thunberg, throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. She has not tired from drawing out the lessons that acting on the advice of scientists “should be applied to the climate crisis.”
As we move haltingly towards freedom in the post-Covid-19 era, eco-anxiety is set to fill the authoritarian expert gap that will follow. The battle over the next global emergency – the environment – will make the Covid-19 battle for debate, contestation and anti-state authoritarianism look like a walk in the park.
But it is not all bleak. As one reader, ‘Donercard’, humorously referring to the ‘Ian Rush Accrington Stanley’ milk advert by the Milk Marketing Board in the 1980s, puts it: “You (Beddington) can drink milk and be ethical but you will never play for Accrington Stanley.”
Exactly!
April 14, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Progressive Hypocrite, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Human rights |
2 Comments
The cadence is increasing of jurisdictions introducing, normalizing and expanding laws allowing doctors to help people commit suicide.
Is this purely in the service of relieving unbearable physical or mental suffering? Or do other factors predominate?
I used to believe the former, but my recent re-examination of the issue suggests the latter is more likely.
On March 17, 2021, Bill C-7 came into effect across Canada. The new law significantly increases the proportion of the population eligible to undergo physician-assisted death (PAD). C-7 expands PAD eligibility to, for example, people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.
On March 18, Spain passed federal legislation that for the first time allows PAD there; it goes into effect in June.
The same thing has happened in New Zealand: the federal ‘End of Life Choice Act’ goes into effect in November.
And on April 8 the French federal parliament debated whether to make euthanasia the law of their land. The majority of the parliamentarians favour legalizing euthanasia. However, the law was not passed because there wasn’t enough time for them to go through the thousands of amendments proposed by legislators who oppose PAD.
(Other terms for the act of doctors helping people commit suicide include physician-assisted suicide, voluntary assisted suicide and medical assistance in dying. And the difference between euthanasia and PAD is the latter requires patients to request it.)
Other countries, such as the UK, are similar to France: active euthanasia is illegal but most residents and physicians approve of it. Therefore in these countries many physicians perform euthanasia without being punished and there is a considerable push to legalize it.
Holland and Belgium were the first countries to decriminalize euthanasia and PAD, bringing their laws into effect in 2002. In Luxembourg a similar assisted-death law came into effect in 2009.
All three countries allow people to undergo PAD if they have a serious medical condition, disability or psychiatric disorder, whether their death is imminent or not.
For the last few years years Holland has been moving towards voting on legalizing PAD for people 75 years of age or older who are ‘tired of life.’ And there has been a steady and very significant increase in the overall number of people undergoing PAD in Holland and Belgium.
PAD currently can also be legally performed in five other countries, either across the whole country or in parts of it: Canada, the US, Australia, Germany and Switzerland.
In the U.S. each state can decide whether PAD is permitted there. So far, eight states plus Washington, D.C. have legalized it. Similarly, in Australia it’s a state issue; so far the state of Victoria has brought into effect a law allowing PAD and on July 1 the state of Western Australia will follow suit.
In Canada PAD was first legalized federally in 2016. Now Bill C-7 expands PAD by, among other measures:
- no longer requiring a 10-day ‘reflection’ period between the time a person whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable consents to PAD and when they receive it;
- allowing people who have a very serious illness or disability but whose natural death is not imminent to access PAD as long as they meet certain conditions (previously, PAD was only allowed in people whose natural death was reasonably foreseeable);
- allowing PAD for people who have previously requested it, been found eligible to receive it and their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable but they’ve lost the capacity to consent; and,
- starting in 2023, allowing PAD for people who have a mental illness alone, and no other underlying medical conditions or disabilities.
The government and mass media largely paint all of this as giving more people more right to choose how and when they end their lives.
Pro-PAD groups and opinion leaders refer to it in positive terms such as ‘right to die’ and ‘death with dignity.’
Other institutions have an overt pro-PAD position; among these is the Hastings Center in the US.
And additional influential groups and organizations — Wikipedia, for example — have a more subtle but definitely detectable pro-PAD slant in the information they provide to the public about PAD.
Most of the individuals and groups that oppose PAD do so on religious grounds.
But there are at least three facts that most people don’t know about physician-assisted death.
One
Expanding PAD is a serious potential threat to people with disabilities, dementia and Alzheimer’s.
That’s because what the vast majority of these people want and need is good care and services – but those services are becoming very hard to access, particularly in this era of Covid.
Most countries’ PAD laws require health-care providers to inform people of available services for relieving their suffering as alternatives to PAD and to offer referrals to professionals who can provide these services. But those laws don’t also require that the services be made accessible to all of these people, via increased government funding.
And there already have been documented cases of people with disabilities being pressured to undergo PAD.
That’s why many disability advocates oppose expansion of PAD.
Catherine Frazee, a professor at Ryerson University in Toronto and a leading disability advocate, gave powerful testimony to the Canadian parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights’s Bill C-7 hearing in November 2020.
She told hearing attendees that the Quebec Superior Court’s 2019 decision allowing disabled Quebec resident Jean Truchon to undergo assisted death even though his death was not reasonably foreseeable – which the Canadian federal government used as a springboard to create Bill C-7 — does not in fact translate into the need to make it easier for disabled people to kill themselves.
Frazee said that, rather, “the deprivations of institutional life that choked out his [Truchon’s] will to live [and resultant request for PAD] were not an inevitable consequence of disability.”
Krista Carr, executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, has voiced a similar sentiment.
“This bill has got to be stopped, or it will end the life of people. It will end the life of way too many people with disabilities who feel they have no other options,” she’s quoted as saying in a February 8, 2021, Canadian Press article.
Two
In 2014, Belgium became the first country to expand PAD to apply to people as young as one year old.
In Holland, ever since its PAD law went into effect in 2002, the country has allowed assisted killing of children — in cases where they’re considered to be incurably ill — of as young as 12. And the Dutch government is now considering following Belgium’s lead and lowering that minimum age to as young as one.
This expansion wouldn’t involve a change in federal law in Holland. Instead, it would be done via changes to the ‘Groningen protocol.’ This set of guidelines was created in 2004 for the killing of newborns and infants with very serious illnesses or deformities such as spina bifida.
Three
There is significant controversy about allowing assisted suicide for people who have a psychiatric disorder alone and no other conditions.
Currently only Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg permit this, as part of their original assisted-death laws.
Under Bill C-7, Canada will allow it in 2023.
The Canadian Psychiatric Association (CPA) released a position statement last year saying it “did and does not take a position on the legality or morality of MAiD [medical assistance in dying] as this is a decision reflecting current Canadian ethical, cultural and moral views.”
This prompted two former CPA presidents to post an open letter to Canadian psychiatrists highlighting that the CPA did not engage its membership in a consultation process before releasing its position statement.
The two past presidents asked the CPA to “revisit the Statement by temporarily withdrawing it, to allow for a proper engagement process and development of evidence-based recommendations to inform any future Position Statement on MAiD.”
The CPA did not do this.
The American Psychiatric Association released its PAD position statement in 2016. It states, in whole: “The American Psychiatric Association, in concert with the American Medical Association’s position on medical euthanasia, holds that a psychiatrist should not prescribe or administer any intervention to a non-terminally ill person for the purpose of causing death.”
The American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics states, in part, that “Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life.”
It certainly makes one wonder why the public isn’t given all of this information.
Instead, the rush to expand access to PAD around the world in the name of humaneness is holding sway.
After obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Rosemary Frei became a freelance writer. For the next 22 years she was a medical writer and journalist. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is RosemaryFrei.ca
April 13, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Australia, Canada, Germany, Human rights, New Zealand, Switzerland, United States |
Leave a comment
The stage is set, the plan is in place, and the people are still asleep. The realization that this state has declared war on the American people is unknown to most, and when the killing reaches high levels, the sheep will be told it is due to a mutated virus variant, and it is their fault for not being injected quickly enough with a poisonous ‘vaccine’ administered by this same criminal state.
Make no mistake about it; you are the enemy of the state in this war against mankind. This manufactured pandemic began with lies, and was perpetuated by mass propaganda; so much so as to cause extreme fear and panic out of thin air.
This is what real domestic terrorism looks like, and it is being executed by the United States government under the control of its masters in banking, finance, and corporate America; those at the top of the pyramid of power that make up the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and all the major players in science, technology, the mainstream media, medicine, and the pharmaceutical industry.
This long-planned plot to depopulate the earth and take total control over all of us could be considered ingenious but for the fact that it is pure evil.
What has been foretold and what is coming is what I would refer to as crisis management terrorism. There will be (and has already been) one fake crisis after another, all claimed to be so important and deadly as to cause the government to step in to control all aspects of human life through law, mandates, and lockdowns, with enforcement implemented at every level from the executive branch of federal government down to state and local health administrators.
This will be in essence, a total and saturated form of enforcement with little if any ability of escape. This is by design of course, so that regardless of location or isolation, all will be subject to the propaganda and the long reach of peer pressure and tyranny.
The end game sought by these totalitarian monsters is to inject each and every American with this experimental, mind-altering, body changing, genetic reshaping, and deadly operating system falsely being called a Covid ‘vaccine.’ It is not a vaccine at all, but a control and depopulation tool purposely designed to cause extreme sickness and death. These adverse responses caused by these toxic injections will not be correctly blamed on the shot, but will instead be used to claim that mutated variant expressions of the non-existent Covid-19 strain are the culprit.
This will allow for more fear and panic in order to set up more demand for ‘vaccination.’ These never-ending crises will cause a much higher percentage of Americans to voluntarily seek out and take this virulent injection, and this will of course lead to an unending array of critical dilemmas, just as the state desires.
But it will not end there, as many will still not voluntarily take this toxic poison. The next phase, which is now in the works, will be to require proof of ‘vaccination’ in order to gain access to normal life functions. Currently, this is being called immunity or vaccine passports, and in New York it is already required to enter many venues, and is expanding quickly. Eventually, these passports as they are called, will be required for buying food, going into businesses, attending concerts or performances, banking, and other everyday necessities.
In other words, it could become in the near future impossible to do anything without proof of vaccine. But so-called proof is not the desired outcome, it is only a means to an end, and that end is to vaccinate every single human. Once all are vaccinated, total control will have been achieved, and depopulation by vaccination murder can continue without resistance.
While much of the country is partially opening up, this is only the dangling of a carrot for the very short term before the next planned crisis emerges. Each crisis will bring more closures, lockdowns, stricter rules, and vastly more elevated enforcement. All of this has been telegraphed far in advance, and none of this should be a surprise to anyone, but alas, it seems as if very few have been or are now paying attention. We live in a society that fails to see what is right before their eyes, and intentionally hides from the truth.
This behavior is indicative of a captured people, in what has now become a population of fools ready for their own enslavement. But this is more than enslavement, as the controllers not only want to lord over all of humanity, but they want to eliminate by vaccination murder a huge percentage of it as well. At this point, the people are making this easy to achieve.
This ‘vaccine’ and all the new ‘vaccines’ coming, due to what will be referred to as mutant variants, are killers. No one knows exactly what all the detrimental side effects will be, no one knows exactly how many deaths will occur due to this poison, but it has now become obvious that many adverse effects, many side effects, and much death seem imminent. Those perpetrating this fraud desire democide and world depopulation, and now they have the perfect weapon to accomplish their mission of death and destruction, and that weapon is called the ‘Covid’ vaccine.
With the elimination of huge numbers of people, and the implementation of mass control, every agenda sought by the powerful can be accomplished, from overpopulation, economic collapse, monetary restructuring, gun control, “climate change,” and with this comes what is being described as the “Great Reset.”
From the standpoint of tyrants, premeditated mass murder has its advantages, especially in this new advanced technological world. The only question was how to accomplish this plan without awakening a sleeping giant. The answer of course was to invent a fake killer virus with but one stated cure, that being a ‘vaccine’ that would become the real killer. What a diabolical plot, in that the people would actually kill themselves, and voluntarily for the most part, albeit with the help of their own elected government. This is now a nation prepared to commit mass suicide by injection, with the ‘hope’ of becoming free, safe, and maskless. Irony at this level is astounding to say the least, but it could only be possible in a society that has become dependent on rule, been fully indoctrinated, intellectually castrated, and gullible beyond recognition. Get used to it; this is the new America.
April 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights |
5 Comments
Presenting blood curdling communists, greedy capitalists, brutalism, moral relativism and espionage as expressions of Jewishness is considered anti-Semitic when a Gentile does it, but the newly reopened Museum of Jewish People in Israel sees the above as inspiring expressions of Jewish racial identity.
AUN, the museum’s acronym in Hebrew, recently invested $100 million dollars into tripling the size of its exhibits. The Israeli government sees the institution as a time capsule of 4,000 years of Jewish achievement, an endeavor it believes will strengthen the racial identity of both Israelis and visiting diaspora Jews.
One of its permanent exhibits is called “Heroes – Trailblazers of the Jewish People.” Some of the figures celebrated in the exhibit are standard fare for a national heritage museum, such as famous entertainers, Israel’s early founders, poets, prophets and scientists.
But there are also many historical figures that are lauded by Jews that are known for little more than their brutality, deception, and socially corrosive effect in Western nations.
Leon Trotsky, listed by AUN as a heroic Jew, was a prominent cutthroat in the Bolshevik revolution. Many of the barbaric practices credited to Joseph Stalin, such as putting political opponents in the gulags, were pioneered by Trotsky.
In 1918, Trotsky drew up a plan to use POW camps that were housing foreign soldiers released under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to imprison intellectuals, clergy and political figures (including on the left) that did not support the Soviet government. By 1919, the “gulags” were officially opened and loaded with dissidents.
Other Soviet policies that provoke universal disgust, such as killing the family members of dissidents and deserters, were started by Trotsky according to the Jewish Virtual Library itself.
Historians differ on the exact death toll under Trotsky’s “Red Terror,” but estimates are in the millions. That curators at the museum meant to represent Jewish people are proud of this suggests that they have a radically different moral system than European Christians.
Even more mind boggling is the exhibit’s inclusion of Schmuel Azar and Moshe Marzouk as Jewish “trailblazers.”
Azar and Marzouk were part of a Mossad sleeper cell in Egypt that in 1954 sought to murder American and European civilians in multiple terrorist attacks that they would frame Muslims for. The goal was to spark a civil war in Egypt and isolate the country’s Arab nationalist leader Gamal Nasser internationally.
The Egyptian government foiled the plot and put Azar and Marzouk to death. The incident, known as the “Lavon Affair,” was an embarassing moment for the state of Israel, yet the two terrorists are commemorated as national martyrs today.
There are numerous spies spanning the ages and conflicts on the list. Many of the men and women glorified were operating as traitors in their host nations.
Bankers known for their evil and greed, such as Mayer Rothschild and 19th century global drug kingpin David Sassoon are taught to Jewish children as their people’s heroes.
Frank Gehry, the most famous brutalist architect to ever live, is featured despite broad hatred of his awful buildings. Claude Levi Strauss, who invented the idea of “Othering” that Israel doesn’t apply to itself, is named. Jacques Derrida, Sigmund Freud, Milton Friedman, Betty Friedan, Mark Rothko and scores of others whose ideas — instituted by the Jewish community’s enormous financial and institutional power in liberal plutocracies — have done significant harm to humanity and Western civilization are also present.
While Jewish “heroes” in the West preached suicidal levels of tolerance, the AUN sees no contradiction in including them beside Ovadia Yosef on the list of Jews to emulate. Rabbi Yosef, who was so bigoted even the Anti-Defamation League had to pretend to distance themselves from him, was known for his genocidal hatred of all non-Jews. The Sephardic leader famously said in 2010, “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel” and “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why gentiles were created,” among other hateful words during his long career as a prominent Jewish spiritual leader.
Tying Jews to Bolshevism or the Rothschilds or Talmudic teachings about killing and enslaving Gentiles are perceived by speech regulators in America and Europe as crass and even criminal anti-Jewish canards. But the fact that an anti-Semite could’ve easily compiled the “heroes” exhibit at the Museum of Jewish People shows that hate speech laws and pathologizing of political opponents are nothing more than a tactic to keep historical truths Jews embrace out of the hands and minds of those they want to control.
March 15, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Israel |
4 Comments
A county prosecutor in Michigan has warned that he may criminally indict Governor Gretchen Whitmer for reckless endangerment after she forced nursing homes to accept Covid-19 patients last year, allegedly causing more deaths.
“If we find that there has been willful neglect of office, if we find that there’s been reckless endangerment of a person’s life by bringing them in, then we would move forward with charges against the governor,” Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido said Monday in an interview on Detroit ABC affiliate WXYZ. “Of course we would. Nobody’s above the law in this state.”
Lucido said patient confidentiality laws prevent him from gathering medical information on Covid-19 victims, but he said Macomb County residents who lost loved ones in nursing homes should gather information about the circumstances of their deaths and file a wrongful-death complaint with local police.
Whitmer’s office issued a statement to WXYZ, calling Lucido’s comments “shameful political attacks based in neither fact nor reality.” The administration’s policies “carefully tracked CDC guidance on nursing homes, and we prioritized testing of nursing home residents and staff to save lives.”
But Lucido has been clashing with Whitmer over Covid-19 policies since last spring, when, as a Republican state senator, he called for state and federal prosecutors to investigate the governor’s directive on nursing homes. Like New York’s Andrew Cuomo and three other Democrat governors around the country, Whitmer came under fire for orders requiring nursing homes to accept patients infected with Covid-19.
Those orders were blamed for causing more Covid-19 deaths, and Cuomo is under FBI investigation for his handling of the pandemic, including an alleged cover-up of nursing home deaths. New York has had more than 15,000 nursing home residents die from Covid-19, and until a month ago, it had been undercounting the death toll by about 6,500. Cuomo aides reportedly doctored a Covid-19 report last July to undercount nursing home deaths by using a misleading methodology.
Michigan still hasn’t released enough nursing home data to satisfy some observers, including Republican lawmakers in the state. Investigative journalist Charlie LeDuff told Fox News last week that he’s suing Whitmer after trying for months to get accurate statistics on the Covid-19 death toll in Michigan nursing homes.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office is reportedly looking into requests to investigate Whitmer’s order on nursing homes, but Nessel said she needs to see evidence of a crime to launch a full-fledged probe.
March 9, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, United States |
1 Comment
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science fiction like scenarios. What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics. With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent.
Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
TRANSCRIPT
Bioethics is the study of the moral issues arising from medicine, biology and the life sciences.
At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science fiction like scenarios.
PAUL ROOT WOLPE: Imagine what’s going to happen when we have a memory pill. First of all, you don’t have to raise your hand but let’s be honest: who here’s going to take it?
SOURCE: Memory Enhancing Drugs: Subject of “Arms” Race?
MICHAEL SANDEL: I’ve read of a sport—it’s a variant of polo that is I think played in Afghanistan if I’m not mistaken—where the people ride on horses. Is it horses or camels? I don’t know which. And they use a—it’s a dead goat or something—to, I don’t know, whack the polo ball or whatever it is. Now it’s a dead—I think it’s a goat. Maybe someone knows who studies sociology about this. So it’s not that the goat is experiencing pain. It’s dead already. And yet there is something grim about that practice, wouldn’t you agree? And yet it’s not that the interests of that goat are somehow not being considered. Let’s assume it was killed painlessly before the match began.
SOURCE: The Ethical Use of Biotechnology: Debating the Science of Perfecting Humans
MOLLY CROCKETT: What if I told you that a pill could change your judgement of what is right and what is wrong. Or what if I told you that your sense of justice could depend on what you had for breakfast this morning. You’re probably thinking by now this sounds like science fiction, right?
SOURCE: TEDxZurich – Molly Crockett – Drugs and morals
But the bioethicists cannot be dismissed so lightly. Their ideas are being used by governments to assert control over people’s bodies and to enforce that control in increasingly nightmarish ways.
ARCHELLE GEORGIOU: Lithium is a medication that in prescription doses treats mood disorders in people with bipolar disorder or manic-depressive illness. And what these researchers found in Japan is that lithium is present in trace amounts in the normal water supply in some communities and in those communities they have a lower suicide rate. And so they’re really investigating whether trace amounts of lithium can just change the mood in a community enough to really in a positive way without having the bad effects of lithium to really affect the mood and decrease the suicide rate very interesting concept.
SOURCE: Lithium May Be Added To Our Water Supply
GATES: You’re raising tuitions at the University of California as rapidly as they [sic] can and so the access that used to be available to the middle class or whatever is just rapidly going away. That’s a trade-off society’s making because of very, very high medical costs and a lack of willingness to say, you know, “Is spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient—would it be better not to lay off those 10 teachers and to make that trade off in medical cost?” But that’s called the “death panel” and you’re not supposed to have that discussion.
SOURCE: Bill Gates: End-of-Life Care vs. Saving Teachers’ Jobs
Even a short time ago, talk about medicating the public through the water supply or enacting death panels for the elderly still seemed outlandish. But now that the world is being plunged into hysteria over the threat of pandemics and overburdened health care systems, these previously unspeakable topics are increasingly becoming part of the public debate.
What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics. With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent.
This is a study of Bioethics and the New Eugenics.
You are tuned in to The Corbett Report.
On November 10, 2020, Joe Biden announced the members of a coronavirus task force that would advise his transition team on setting COVID-19-related policies for the Biden administration. That task force included Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
JOE BIDEN: So that’s why today I’ve named the COVID-19 Transition Advisory Board comprised of distinguished public health experts to help our transition team translate the Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan into action. A blueprint that we can put in place as soon as Kamala and I are sworn into office on January 20th, 2021.
SOURCE: President-elect Biden Delivers Remarks on Coronavirus Pandemic
ANCHOR: We’ve learned that a doctor from our area is on the president-elect’s task force. Eyewitness News reporter Howard Monroe picks up the story.
THOMAS FARLEY: I know he’s a very bright, capable guy and i think that’s a great choice to represent doctors in general in addressing this epidemic.
HOWARD MONROE: Philadelphia health commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley this morning on Eyewitness News. He praised president-elect Joe Biden’s transition team for picking Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to join his coronavirus task force. He is the chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
SOURCE: UPenn Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel To Serve On President-Elect Biden’s Coronavirus Task Force
That announcement meant very little to the general public, who likely only know Emanuel as a talking head on tv panel discussions or as the brother of former Obama chief of staff and ex-mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel. But for those who have followed Ezekiel Emanuel’s career as a bioethicist and his history of advocating controversial reforms of the American health care system, his appointment was an ominous sign of things to come.
He has argued that the Hippocratic Oath is obsolete and that it leads to doctors believing that they should do everything they can for their patients rather than letting them die to focus on higher priorities. He has argued that people should choose to die at age 75 to spare society the burden of looking after them in old age. As a health policy advisor to the Obama administration he helped craft the Affordable Care Act, which fellow Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber admitted was only passed thanks to the stupidity of the American public.
JONATHAN GRUBER: OK? Just like the people—transparency—lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really critical to getting the thing to pass.
SOURCE: 3 Jonathan Gruber Videos: Americans “Too Stupid to Understand” Obamacare
During the course of the deliberations over Obamacare, the issue of “death panels” arose. Although the term “death panel” was immediately lampooned by government apologists in the media, the essence of the argument was one that Emanuel has long advocated: appointing a body or council to ration health care, effectively condemning those deemed unworthy of medical attention to death.
ROB MASS: When I first heard about you it was in the context of an article you wrote right around the time that the Affordable Care Act was under consideration. And the article was entitled “Principles for the Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions.” I don’t know how many of you remember there was a lot of talk at the time about [how] this new Obamacare was going to create death panels. And he wrote an article which I thought should have been required reading for the entire country about how rationing medical care—you think that that’s going to start with with the Affordable Care Act? Medical care is rationed all the time and it must be rationed. Explain that.
EZEKIEL EMANUEL: So there are two kinds of “rationing,” you might say. One is absolute scarcity leading to rationing and that’s when we don’t simply don’t have enough of something and you have to choose between people. We do that with organs for transplantation. We don’t have enough. Some people will get it, other people won’t and, tragically, people will die. Similarly if we ever have a flu pandemic—not if but when we have a flu pandemic—we’re not going to have enough vaccine, we’re not going to have enough respirators, we’re not going to have enough hospital beds. We’re just going to have to choose between people.
SOURCE: Dr. Zeke Emanuel: Oncologist and Bioethicist
When the debate is framed as an impersonal imposition of economic restraint over the deployment of scarce resources, it is easy to forget the real nature of the idea that Emanuel is advocating. Excluded from these softball interviews is the implicit question of who gets to decide who is worthy of medical attention. Emanuel’s various proposals over the years, and those of his fellow bioethicists, have usually supposed that some government-appointed but somehow “independent” board of bioethicists, economists and other technocrats, should be entrusted with these life-and-death decisions.
If this idea seems familiar, it’s because it has a long and dark history that harkens back to the eugenicists who argued that only the “fittest” should be allowed to breed, and anyone deemed “unfit” by the government-appointed boards—presided over by the eugenicists—should be sterilized, or, in extreme cases, put to death.
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW: [. . .] But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. Not in any unkind or personal spirit, but it must be evident to all of you — you must all know half a dozen people, at least—who are no use in this world. Who are more trouble than they are worth. And I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just as he might come before the income tax commissioner, and, say, every five years, or every seven years, just put him there, and say: “Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?”
SOURCE: George Bernard Shaw talking about capital punishment
This is the exact same talk of “Life Unworthy of Life” that was employed in Nazi Germany as justification for their Aktion T4 program, which resulted in over 70,000 children, senior citizens and psychiatric patients being murdered by the Nazi regime.
In 2009, author and researcher Anton Chaitkin confronted Ezekiel Emanuel about this genocidal idea.
MODERATOR: So we’ll do the same format. It’ll be three minutes and then time for questions. We’ll start with Mr. Chaitkin.
ANTON CHAITKIN: [My name is] Anton Chaitkin. I’m a historian and the history editor for Executive Intelligence Review.
President Obama has put in place a reform apparatus reviving the euthanasia of Hitler Germany in 1939 that began the genocide there. The apparatus here is to deny medical care to elderly, chronically ill and poor people and thus save, as the president says, two to three trillion dollars by taking lives considered “not worthy to be lived” as the Nazi doctors said.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and other avowed cost-cutters on this panel also lead a propaganda movement for euthanasia headquartered at the Hastings Center, of which Dr. Emanuel is a fellow. They shape public opinion and the medical profession to accept a death culture, such as the Washington state law passed in November to let physicians help kill patients whose medical care is now rapidly being withdrawn in the universal health disaster. Dr. Emmanuel’s movement for bioethics and euthanasia and this council’s purpose directly continue the eugenics movement that organized Hitler’s killing of patients and then other costly and supposedly “unworthy” people.
Dr. Emanuel wrote last October 12 that a crisis, war and financial collapse would get the frightened public to accept the program. Hitler told Dr. Brandt in 1935 that the euthanasia program would have to wait until the war began to get the public to go along. Dr. Emanuel wrote last year that the hippocratic oath should be junked; doctors should no longer just serve the needs of the patient. Hoche and Binding, the German eugenicists, exactly said the same thing to start the killing.
You on the council are drawing up the procedures to be used to deny care which will kill millions if it goes ahead in the present world crash. You think perhaps the backing of powerful men, financiers, will shield you from accountability, but you are now in the spotlight.
Disband this council and reverse the whole course of this nazi revival now.
SOURCE: Obama’s Genocidal Death Panel Warned by Tony Chaitkin
It should come as no surprise, then, that Emanuel emerged last year as the lead author of a New England Journal of Medicine article advocating for rationing COVID-19 care that was later adopted by the Canadian Medical Association. The paper, “Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19,” was written by Emanuel and a team of prominent bioethicists and discusses “the need to ration medical equipment and interventions” during a pandemic emergency.
Their recommendations include removing treatment from patients who are elderly and/or less likely to survive, as these people divert scarce medical resources from younger patients or from those with more promising prognoses. Although the authors refrain from using the term, the necessity of setting up a “death panel” to determine who should or should not receive treatment is implicit in the proposal itself.
In normal times, this would have been just another scholarly discussion of a theoretical situation. But these are not normal times. As Canadian researcher and medical writer Rosemary Frei documented at the time, the declared COVID crisis meant the paper quickly went from abstract proposal to concrete reality.
JAMES CORBETT: Let’s get back to that question about hospital care rationing, which is such an important part of this story. And it’s one of those things that when you read it at a surface level at first glance sounds reasonable enough, but the more that you look into it I think it becomes more horrifying.
And you quote, for example, specifically a March 23rd paper, “Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19,” which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, which calls for “maximizing the number of patients that survived treatment with a reasonable life expectancy.” Which, again, I would say sounds reasonable at first glance. Yes, of course we want to maximize the number of patients that survive. What’s wrong with that?
So what can you tell us about this paper and the precedent that it’s setting here.
ROSEMARY FREI: Well it’s all of a sudden changing the rules in terms of saying, “Well, the most important thing is that it’s the older people get a lower place in terms of triaging.”
And I point out in my article, also, that Canadians have a lot of experience with SARS because we had that—there were a significant number of deaths in Ontario because of it. And there were people from Toronto who had direct experience with SARS—which of course is (ostensibly, at least) a cousin with the novel coronavirus—who wrote triaging guidelines, or at least an ethical framework for how to triage during a pandemic—this was in 2006—they didn’t mention age at all. And here we are 14 years later, every single set of guidelines, including this really important New England Journal of Medicine paper say, “Well, age is an important criterion.” And this is what’s interesting.
So this paper is really important because—and also the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is the official organ, I would say, of the American Medical Association says the same thing: it’s age. So they’re all stepping in line and then the Canadian Medical Association said, “Oh, we don’t have time to put our own guidelines together so we’ll just use this one from the New England Journal of Medicine.” To me, that’s astonishing.
When I was a medical writer and journalist, I did some work helping various—one particular organization: the Canadian Thoracic Society, which does, you know, chest infections and stuff. I helped them put together guidelines. There’s a whole big set of organizations for every single specialty for creating guidelines. Yet, “Oh!
We don’t have time to put together this—” And also, I mean Canada had a lot of experience with SARS, so we had a lot of this background. Yet, “Oh, we can’t do so it!” So they gave totally—they, quote, they said we have to go with the recommendations from the New England Journal of Medicine.
SOURCE: How the High Death Rate in Care Homes Was Created on Purpose
That bioethicists like Emanuel are writing papers that are changing the rules for rationing health care in the midst of a generated crisis should hardly be surprising for someone whose brother infamously remarked that you should never let a good crisis go to waste.
RAHM EMANUEL: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
SOURCE: Rahm Emanuel on the Opportunities of Crisis
But from a broader perspective, it is not at all surprising that the concept of “death panels” has been effectively smuggled in through the back door by the bioethicists.
In fact, when you start documenting the history of bioethics, you discover that this is exactly what this field of study is meant to do: Frame the debate about hot button issues so that eugenicist ideals and values can be mainstreamed in society and enacted in law. From abortion to euthanasia, there isn’t a debate in the medical field that wasn’t preceded by some bioethicist or bioethics institute preparing the public for a massive change in mores, values and laws.
That research into the history of bioethics leads one to the doorstep of the Hastings Center, a nonprofit research center that, according to its website, “was important in establishing the field of bioethics.” The founding director of the Hastings Center, Theodosius Dobzhansky, was a chairman of the American Eugenics Society from 1969 to 1975. Meanwhile, Hastings cofounder Daniel Callahan—who has admitted to relying on Rockefeller Population Council and UN Population Fund money in the early days of the center’s work—served as a director of the American Eugenics Society (rebranded as The Society for the Study of Social Biology) from 1987 to 1992.
As previous Corbett Report guest Anton Chaitkin has extensively documented, there is a line of historical continuity connecting the promotion of eugenics in America by the Rockefeller family in the early 20th century to the creation of the Hastings Center in the late 20th century. The Center, Chaitkin points out, was fostered by the Rockefeller-founded Population Council as a front for pushing the eugenics agenda—including abortion, euthanasia and the creation of death panels—under the guise of “bioethics.”
CHAITKIN: Eugenics practices that we saw and discussions and preparations for eugenics, which were going on in the United States in the early 1920s and earlier going back to the late 19th century—those discussions were carried over—and the same discussions and preparations in England—were carried over into Nazi Germany. After the war—after World War II—people who had participated in these movements wanted to keep the eugenics idea alive and with the backing of particularly the Rockefeller Foundation—which had backed Nazi eugenics before World War II in Europe—they set up a population control movement that overlapped with the Eugenics Society and with eugenics ideas. And out of that combination of eugenics and population control was born the institutes and programs which are today at the heart of what’s called “bioethics,” where you decide—so, supposedly decide—ethical questions in a medical practice based on supposedly limited resources.
So it’s a completely phony and morally disgusting field in general. It’s ill-born at the root of it and it’s a practice which has never confronted—in the medical community and in the academic community that has this as part of its, you know, its practice—they’ve never confronted the basis for the existence of this “bioethics.”
SOURCE: Anton Chaitkin on the Eugenics / Euthanasia Agenda
The history of bioethics connects the Rockefeller funding behind the first wave of American eugenics, the Rockefeller funding behind the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes and the Nazi-era German eugenics program, and the Rockefeller funding behind the Population Council, the Hastings Center and other centres for post-war “crypto-eugenics” research. As a result, it is perhaps not surprising to find that many of the most well-known and most controversial bioethicists working today are associated with the Hastings Center.
Take Ezekiel Emanuel himself. In addition to being a senior fellow at the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress—which was accused in a 2013 expose from The Nation of maintaining “a revolving door” with the Obama administration and running a pay-for-play operation for various industry lobbyists—Emanuel is also a Hastings Center fellow. In fact, Emanuel’s career as a bioethicist was kickstarted by a November 1996 article in The Hastings Center Report, which—after praising Daniel Callahan’s attempts to inject a debate about the goals of medicine into the discussion of health care—highlighted a point on which both liberals and communitarians can agree: “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.” For “an obvious example” of this principle in action, Emanuel then cites “not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”
Just last year, The Hastings Center hosted an online discussion about “What Values Should Guide Us” when considering COVID-19 pandemic restrictions in the United States, during which Emanuel opined that big tech was not doing enough to share data about users’ movements with governments and researchers:
EMANUEL: I have to say I’ve actually found Big Tech totally unhelpful so far in this. It’s hard for me to see that they’ve done something really, really helpful in this regard when it comes to COVID-19. They have lots of capacity. Believe me: Facebook already knows who you interact with on a regular basis; how close you’ve gotten to them; when you leave your house; which stores you go into. Google does the same. And they have not used this data. Maybe they’re afraid that people are going to be all upset, but they haven’t even been willing to give it to someone else to use in an effective manner. And I think either they’re going to become irrelevant in this process or they’re going to have to step up and actually be contributory to solving this problem.
SOURCE: Re-Opening the Nation: What Values Should Guide Us?
Or take Hastings Center fellow and University of Wisconsin-Madison bioethics professor Norman Fost, who, in addition to questioning whether it is “important that organ donors be dead” in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, made the case for involuntary sterilization—the hallmark of the now universally denounced American eugenics program—at a 2013 panel discussion on “Challenging Cases in Clinical Ethics.”
NORMAN FOST: On the sterilization thing, if his sexual behavior can be attenuated so that he’s not a risk of impregnating anybody that would be the best thing. But I don’t think we should rule out sterilization as being in his interest also, as well as potential victims of his sexual assault.
I think sterilization has a bad reputation in America because of the eugenic sterilization of a hundred thousand or more people with developmental disabilities, most of them inappropriate. But the overreaction to that . . . and Wisconsin leads the way at overreacting to that. We have a Supreme Court decision that says you can never sterilize a minor until the legislature gives us permission to do it and they never will and that’s not in the interest of a lot of kids with developmental disabilities for whom procreation would be a disaster—that is pregnancy or inflicting a pregnancy.
So if it’s the case that this fella is never going to be capable of being a parent . . . and I can’t tell quite that from the limited history here and it may not be the case—but I just want to say that the country’s overreaction to sterilization—like it’s wrong, it’s always terrible to involuntarily sterilized somebody—is not true and it ought to be at least on the table as something that might be in his interest.
SOURCE: A Conversation About Challenging Cases in Clinical Ethics
But these discussions are not limited to the ranks of the Hastings Center.
Take Joseph Fletcher. Dubbed a pioneer in the field of biomedical ethics by both his critics and his apologists, Fletcher was the first professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia and co-founded the Program in Biology and Society there. In addition to his position as president of the Euthanasia Society of America and his work helping to establish the Planned Parenthood Federation, Fletcher was also a member of the American Eugenics Society. In a 1968 article in defense of killing babies with Down’s syndrome “or other kind[s] of idiot[s],” Fletcher wrote:
“The sanctity (what makes it precious) is not in life itself, intrinsically; it is only extrinsic and bonum per accident, ex casu – according to the situation. Compared to some things, the taking of life is a small evil and compared to some things, the loss of life is a small evil. Death is not always an enemy; it can sometimes be a friend and servant.”
Or take Peter Singer. If there is any bioethicist in the world today whose name is known to the general public it is Peter Singer, famed for his animal liberation advocacy. Less well known to the public, however, are his arguments in favor of infanticide, including the notion that there is no relevant difference between abortion and the killing of “severely disabled infants,” positions which have driven his critics to call him “Son of Fletcher.”
Although Singer is extremely careful to frame his argument for infanticide using the least controversial positions when speaking to the public. . . .
PETER SINGER: . . . So we said, “Look, the difficult decision is whether you want this infant to live or not.” That should be a decision for the parents and doctors to make on the basis of the fullest possible information about what the condition is. But once you’ve made that decision it should be permissible to make sure that the baby dies swiftly and humanely, if that’s your decision. If your decision is that it’s better that the child should not live, it should be possible to ensure that the child dies swiftly and humanely.
And so that’s what we proposed. Now, that’s been picked up by a variety of opponents, both pro-life movement people and people in the militant disability movement—which incidentally didn’t really exist at the time we first wrote about this issue. And they’ve taken us as, you know, the stalking horse—the bogeyman, if you like—because we’re up front in saying that we think this is how we should treat these infants.
SOURCE: The Case for Allowing Euthanasia of Severely Handicapped Infants
. . . his actual writings contain much bolder assertions that would be sure to shock the sensibilities of the average person if they were plainly stated. In Practical Ethics, for example, intended as a text for an introductory ethics course, Singer dispenses with arguments about severe handicaps and birth defects and talks more broadly about whether it is fundamentally immoral to kill a newborn baby, noting that “a newborn baby is not an autonomous being, capable of making choices, and so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the principle of respect for autonomy.”
After conceding that “It would, of course, be difficult to say at what age children begin to see themselves as distinct entities existing over time”—noting that “Even when we talk with two or three year old children it is usually very difficult to elicit any coherent conception of death”—we could provide an “ample safety margin” for such concerns by deciding that “a full legal right to life comes into force not at birth, but only a short time after birth—perhaps a month.”
Singer is by no means alone in his profession in discussing this subject. In fact, he’s just part of a long line of bioethicists musing about exactly where to draw the line when discussing infanticide.
Take Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, two bioethicists working in Australia who published a paper titled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” in The Journal of Medical Ethics in 2012. In that paper, they explicitly defend the practice of infanticide on moral grounds, claiming that “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus,” and thus “the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.” Lest they be mistaken for forwarding the same old argument on killing severely handicapped newborn babies that bioethicists have been making for decades, the two are careful to add that their proposal includes “cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
Unlike so many other academic papers on this subject, however, this one was picked up and widely circulated in the popular press, with even establishment media outlets like The Guardian insisting that “Infanticide is repellent. Feeling that way doesn’t make you Glenn Beck.”
Seemingly taken aback by the strong negative reaction to a scholarly article about the moral permissibility of killing babies, the authors of the article responded by accusing the general public of being too ignorant to understand the complex arguments made in the highly academic field of bioethics:
When we decided to write this article about after-birth abortion we had no idea that our paper would raise such a heated debate.
“Why not? You should have known!” people keep on repeating everywhere on the web. The answer is very simple: the article was supposed to be read by other fellow bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our arguments. Indeed, as Professor Savulescu explains in his editorial, this debate has been going on for 40 years.
Whatever else may be said about the researchers’ response, this was not a dishonest defense of their work. Julian Savulescu, the editor of The Journal of Medical Ethics that published the article, did point out in his own defense of the publication that the scholarly debate about when it is permissible to kill babies goes back to at least the 1960s, when Francis Crick—the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and an avowed eugenicist who proposed that governments should prevent the poor and undesirable from breeding by requiring government-issued licenses for the privilege of having a baby—proposed that children should only be allowed to live if, after birth, they are found to have met certain genetic criteria.
Indeed, the pages of the medical ethics journals are filled with just such debates. From Dan Brock’s article on “Voluntary Active Euthanasia,” published in The Hastings Center Report in 1992, to John Hardwig’s 1997 article in the pages of The Hastings Center Report asking “Is There A Duty to Die?” to Hastings Center Deputy Director Nancy Berlinger’s 2008 pronouncement that “Allowing parents to practice conscientious objection by opting out of vaccinating their children is troubling in several ways,” these ethics professors toiling in a hitherto unknown and unremarked corner of academia are having a greater and greater effect in steering the policies that literally mean the difference between life and death for people around the world.
In his prescient 1988 article on “The Return of Eugenics,” Richard J. Neuhaus observed:
Thousands of medical ethicists and bioethicists, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable until it is finally established as the unexceptionable. Those who pause too long to ponder troubling questions along the way are likely to be told that “the profession has already passed that point.” In truth, the profession is usually huffing and puffing to catch up with what is already being done without its moral blessing.
Indeed, bioethicists are not, generally speaking, trained doctors, researchers or medical workers. As academics, they are forced to take the word of doctors and researchers at face value. But which doctors? Whose research? Inevitably, it will be that of the WHO, the AMA and other organizations whose work—as even those within its ranks admit—is not solely dictated by medical need, but by the arbitrary whims of the organizations’ billionaire backers.
We are feeling the effects of this now, when these bioethics professors are held up as gurus who can not only provide medical advice, but actually lecture the public on which medical interventions they are morally obligated to undergo regardless of their own feelings about bodily autonomy.
*CLIP (0m35s-1m27s)
SOURCE: Emanuel: Wearing a mask should be as necessary as wearing a seatbelt
JULIAN SAVULESCU: It’s important to recognize that mandatory vaccination would not be anything new. There are many mandatory policies, other coercive policies—taxes are a form of coercion. Seatbelts were originally voluntary and they were made mandatory because they both reduce the risk of death to the wearer by 50% and also to other occupants in the car. But importantly some people do die of seat belt injuries, but the benefits vastly outweigh the risks.
Some countries in the world already have mandatory vaccination policies. In Australia the “no jab, no pay” policy involves withholding child care benefits if the child isn’t vaccinated. In Italy there are fines. And in the US children can’t attend school unless they’re vaccinated. All of these policies have increased vaccination rates and have been implementable.
SOURCE: “Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination: the arguments for and against”: Julian Savulescu & Sam Vanderslott
KERRY BOWMAN: Some form of vaccination passport is almost inevitable. With travel it’s virtually a given. And you look at countries like Israel is now introducing the green card. And all this is going on the assumption that people that have been vaccinated are not going to be able to spread the viruses easily, meaning they can’t transmit it and it’s kind of looking like my read on the science is it’s looking like that is the case with most of the vaccines. So that would be the question.
Now some people say we absolutely can’t do it, like, it’s just not fair in a democratic society because there’s people that refuse—don’t want vaccines—and there’s people that can’t have vaccines. But here’s the other side of the argument: Is it really fair to the Canadians that have been locked down for a year when they are vaccinated—they’re no longer a risk to other people—is it really fair to continue to limit their freedom?
So you’ve kind of got those two sides of it colliding.
SOURCE: ‘Vaccination passports’ a near certainty says bio-ethicist | COVID-19 in Canada
From its inception, the field of bioethics has taken its moral cue from the card-carrying eugenicists who founded its core institutions. For these academicians of the eugenics philosophy, the key moral questions raised by modern medical advances are always utilitarian in nature: What is the value that forced vaccination or compulsory sterilization brings to a community? Will putting lithium in the water supply lead to a happier society? Does a family’s relief at killing their newborn baby outweigh that baby’s momentary discomfort as it is murdered?
Implicit in this line of thinking are all of the embedded assumptions about what defines “value” and “happiness” and “relief” and how these abstract ideas are measured and compared. The fundamental utilitarian assumption that the individual’s worth can or should be measured against some arbitrarily defined collective good, meanwhile, is rarely (if ever) considered.
The average person, however—largely unaware that these types of questions are even being asked (let alone answered) by bioethics professors in obscure academic journals—may literally perish for their lack of knowledge about these discussions.
All things being equal, these types of ideas would likely be treated as they always have been: as a meaningless parlor game played by ivory tower academics with no power to enforce their crazy ideas. All things, however, are not equal.
Perhaps taking a page from the notebook of his brother, Rahm, about the utility of crisis in effecting societal change, Ezekiel Emanuel declared in 2011 that “we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest.” He didn’t add “pandemic” to that list of excuses, but he didn’t have to. As the events of the past year have borne out, the public are more than willing to consider the previously unthinkable now that they have been told that there is a crisis taking place.
Forced vaccination. Immunity passports. The erection of a biosecurity state. For the first time, the eugenics-infused philosophers of bioethics are on the verge of gaining real power. And the public is still largely unaware of the discussions that these academics have been engaged in for decades.
At the very least, Bill Gates can relax now: We can finally have the discussion on death panels.
March 6, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular, Video |
Leave a comment
The Public Prosecutor’s Office on Monday supported the charges against Peru’s former President Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000) for the forced sterilizations of at least 1,300 Indigenous women.
Besides Fujimori, the imputations include former Health Ministers Marino Costa, Eduardo Yong, Alejandro Aguinaga, and the ex-officials Ulises Aguilar and Segundo Aliaga.
The accusations are for the crime of “serious injuries followed by death” against five women and serious injuries against the victims.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office claims that the first cases of forced sterilizations took place 22 years ago when the procedure was performed on 1,307 Quechua-speaking women in Ayacucho, Cusco, Piura, and other regions.
The forced sterilizations were carried out as part of the National Program of Reproductive Health and Family Planning (1996-2000) whose purpose was to apply the surgical intervention as a contraceptive method.
One of the first cases to be publicly denounced was that of Victoria Vigo, an Indigenous woman who underwent contraceptive surgery without her consent when she went to the Piura Hospital to give birth to her third child.
After several proceedings, the Prosecutor’s Office decided to include Fujimori and his ex-ministers in the investigations in 2013. A formal accusation was filed against them in November 2018.
March 2, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Human rights, Latin America, Peru |
Leave a comment
Hundreds of thousands of Indigenous women and men were the victims of forced sterilizations in the 1990s. At least 18 of them died during the surgery.
Peru’s Congress this week passed a law that will allow the compensation of victims of forced sterilizations that occurred during President Alberto Fujimori’s administration (1990-2000).
The law, which was promoted by Indigenous activist Tania Pariona, is part of the 2006 Integral Reparation Plan (PIR) created to compensate victims of human rights violations.
“We have fought for many years to demand justice, truth, and reparations,” said Esther Mogollon, the advisor of the Peruvian Women Affected by Forced Sterilizations’.
“The new law is a big step, although there is still a long way to go to achieve justice,” she pointed out adding that the news comes to light just days before Fujimori faces justice over forced sterilizations.
On March 1, a judge will decide whether he will open criminal proceedings against Fujimori, who is currently in prison for crimes against humanity.
Over 350,000 women and 25,000 men were sterilized against their will during his administration as part of a plan to reduce the birth rate in the country’s rural and Indigenous communities. At least 18 people died during the surgery.
For these crimes, authorities will also bring to Justice former Health Ministers Eduardo Yong, Marino Costa, and Alejandro Aguinaga.
February 25, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Latin America, Peru |
1 Comment
‘Only the strong will survive’
The now former mayor of Colorado City, Texas, Tim Boyd, has resigned after two Facebook posts telling people needing help and without electricity that they are on their own.
“No one owes you are your family anything; nor is it the local government’s responsibility to support you during trying times like this! Sink of swim it’s your choice!” Boyd said in the now deleted post, which was riddled with grammatical errors.
Unusually cold weather conditions in the state of Texas have left millions without power and over 20 people dead.
For those without electricity, Boyd encouraged them to “step up and come up with a game plan to keep your family warm and safe.”
No water? The mayor told his constituents to “deal without and think outside the box.”
“If you are sitting at home in the cold because you have no power and are sitting there waiting for someone to come rescue you because your lazy is direct result of your raising,” he wrote.
Boyd said only the “strong will survive” the storm, the “weak will parish,” by which he apparently meant “perish.”
The mayor resigned from his position on Tuesday and made another post backing off on his earlier statements, saying he would “never want to hurt the elderly or anyone that is in true need of help to be left to fend for themselves.”
Boyd said his statement was directed at those folks that are too lazy to get up and “fend for themselves.” Those people, according to Boyd, do not deserve a “handout.”
He also revealed his family had received “undeserved anger and harassment” following the post and even claimed his wife was laid off based on her association with him.
“I admit, there are things that are said all the time that I don’t agree with; but I would never harass you or your family to the point that they would lose there livelihood such as a form of income,” Boyd wrote.
With more than four million homes and businesses without power in some of the worst weather Texas has seen in decades, Boyd’s statements haven’t found all that much support on social media.
February 17, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Environmentalism, Supremacism, Social Darwinism |
1 Comment
Since being forced out of his senior role in No.10 Downing Street, Dominic Cummings has largely disappeared from the public spotlight. However, frustration over his repeated breaching of the COVID-19 lockdown still lives on among many Brits.
Boris Johnson’s former chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, will not be prosecuted following his breaching of the COVID-19 lockdown back in March, according to revelations by The Mirror.
Mr Cummings, who was ultimately forced out of No.10 by Boris Johnson in November 2020, came under heavy public fire after making a trip to a family home in county Durham in April 2020, during the height of the UK’s first nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. He had also taken a separate 60-mile journey from Durham to the town of Barnard Castle, despite admitting that he had coronavirus symptoms.
Subsequently, the former prosecutor for northwest England, Nazir Afzal, submitted a 255-page dossier of evidence of Cummings’ lockdown breach to detectives in Durham, and urged them to investigate and take action against against him for breaking the law.
According to The Mirror, however, Durham Police Deputy Chief Constable David Orford has now written to lawyers representing Mr Afzal to inform that they “will be taking no further action”.
“We do not consider the relevant tests are made out in relation to any potential offences raised within your submission”, the letter seen by The Mirror reportedly elaborates.
Mr Afzal is reported to have provided the police with detailed allegations against Mr Cummings, which included location data from number plate recognition of his car filmed by CCTV camera footage, as well as footage of the former government adviser wandering around Barnard Castle. Mr Afzal later claimed that the “legal test” for prosecution against Mr Cummings had been met, given the substantial evidence proving his breaking of the legally mandated COVID-19 lockdown.
Since learning that Durham police will not be acting against Mr Cummings, Mr Afzal told The Mirror that he found it “hugely disappointing”.
“I am considering with my legal team what further avenues to pursue because millions of people would want us to. This is also going to form part of my recent decision to examine the legal implications of the whole extent of the government’s failures on COVID”, he added.
In his own defence, following the revelations that he had breached the COVID-19 lockdown in April, Mr Cummings gave what was widely seen as an unrepentant press conference in May, in which he claimed that he had always behaved “reasonably and legally”.
February 6, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | UK |
1 Comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 