NO! You CAN'T Have Pills for Pain... But You Can Have...

...pills to kill yourself (or someone):

DC allows doctors to prescribe life-ending medications

Euthanasia Goose-Steps On Down The Pike

Killing the Mentally Ill in Netherlands

"The Netherlands considers itself oh, so rational. Its laws around controversial social issues involve the concept of harm reduction. Harm reduction? Once the country accepted killing as an answer to suffering, it was sure to include the mentally ill. Now a new study reveals the law’s cruelty. From the Reuters story:

Overall, about a third of the people helped to end their lives were age 70 years or older, 44 percent were between ages 50 and 70 and about a quarter were 30 to 50 years old. Seventy percent were women. While fully 55 percent of patients were diagnosed with depression, the others had a number of different conditions, including psychosis, posttraumatic stress disorder or anxiety, neurocognitive issues, pain without any physical cause, eating disorders, prolonged grief and autism.

And now, Netherlands is following Belgium by conjoining euthanasia with organ harvesting, raising the prospect that the mentally ill will come to see their deaths as having greater value than their lives.

Don’t expect this to slow down anything. The only thing that really matters to the Dutch around this issue is transparency.

But what good is transparency when things go from bad, to worse, to evil, and it matters not?

Most people in the Netherlands long ago swallowed the hemlock premise of euthanasia. So I guess we could say about this study and others like it: At this point, what difference does it make?"

Government sanctioned killing, plus organ harvesting: what could possibly go wrong? It is perfectly rational to kill a "lesser" human in order to save a "greater" human; the mathematics is undeniable. But first you must have classes, some of which are deemed "lesser", and others deemed "greater". And who is to decide? Why, the "greater" class, of course.

Finally. A Candidate Who Understands the Eugenics of Planned Parenthood

Ben Carson: Planned Parenthood Clinics Put in Black Neighborhoods to ‘Control That Population’

"Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “Your World,” former Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, a candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination, sounded off on Planned Parenthood, as the so-called women’s health organization has been under fire in recent weeks for a series of videos suggesting they were open to selling aborted fetal tissue for profit.

Carson referred to the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger and her position on eugenics, particularly as it pertained to blacks, which he said may not allow for him to be objective when it comes to Planned Parenthood.

“Well, maybe I’m not objective when it comes to Planned Parenthood. But you know, I know who Margaret Sanger is, and I know that she believed in eugenics, and that she was not particularly enamored with black people,” Carson said. “And one of the reasons that you find most of their clinics in black neighborhoods is so that you can find way to control that population. And I think people should go back and read about Margaret Sanger, who founded this place — a woman who Hillary Clinton by the say says she admires. Look and see what many people in Nazi Germany thought about her.”"
[Emphasis added]

So why aren't blacks protesting this killing instead of rioting in Ferguson? It's a class thing, that's why. Abortion is sold as free sex for the Victimhood Class; Ferguson was sold as racism by the Oppressor Class. The Victimhood Class likes both of those ideas, that narrative, regardless of the lack of any truth value.

As Predicted: Healthcare Eugenics

From the Telegraph:

Elderly face NHS discrimination under new UN death targets

" The NHS could be led to discriminate against the over 70s to meet ‘highly unethical’ UN health targets which seek to reduce premature deaths in younger people, senior medics have warned.

Under the proposed Sustainable Development Goals, UN member states will be given targets to cut the number of deaths from diseases like cancer, stroke, diabetes and dementia by one third by 2030.

However because many are age-related illnesses people who succumb to those diseases from the age of 70 are not deemed to have died prematurely and so are not included in the target.

In an open letter published in The Lancet, an international group of ageing specialists say the new guideline sends out the message that health provision for younger groups must be prioritised at the expense of older people.

Prof Peter Lloyd-Sherlock, professor of social policy and international development at the University of East Anglia, and lead author of the letter, said: “This premature mortality target is highly unethical, since it unjustifiably discriminates against older people.

“We already know that there is age discrimination in cancer care and surgery and these targets give that the stamp of approval.

“The targets are not quite set in stone yet, so we have a final opportunity to impress upon the UN the need to alter this explicitly ageist health target.

“If this doesn’t happen, people aged 70 and over will become second-class citizens as far as health policy is concerned.” "

Britain, like all the civilized world, should tell the UN to die of attrition, and pull the plug completely. The UN is without any redeeming merits which cannot be accomplished in other ways. It gives undue recognition to states which are human rights abusers, and it fails to punish evil, while instead punishing its civilized (paying) hosts with Marxist programs.

Abortionist Morals

From National Review:

Planned Parenthood President: When Life Begins Not ‘Really Relevant’ in Abortion Debate By Andrew Johnson

The president of the country’s largest abortion provider said she didn’t think the matter of when life begins is pertinent to the issue.

“It is not something that I feel is really part of this conversation,” Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood told Fusion’s Jorge Ramos on Thursday. “I don’t know if it’s really relevant to the conversation.”

When pressed, Richards said that in her view life began for her three children when she delivered them.

She explained that the purpose of her organization is not to answer a question that “will be debated through the centuries,” but to provide options for pregnant women.

The total lack of moral concern is blatant. According to this logic, anyone at anytime could fall afoul of the need to be aborted, since the start of life is not an issue.

SLATE: After-Birth Abortion - The pro-choice case for infanticide.

[This has come up before, but it is rattling around the net again.]

There is no "slippery slope", the antithesis demanders demand. Just this one thing; that's all; no more. And we want it to be infrequently used, uncommon (but uninspected and with untrammelled access of course, and without morals attached to it).

 Now this "just one thing" is called After-Birth Abortion because "abortion" is widely accepted, but "infanticide" is heinous, don't you know.  After-Birth Abortion notably includes killing the healthy child when "the well-being of the family is at risk".

Of course.  If the child causes the new boyfriend angst, then kill the child.

These "ethicists" are purely Consequentialists, and obviously Atheist-Materialists, because the human has only the value which they, the elite, place on him/her.  They have assumed for themselves the mantle of moral authority to determine who is killable (just about anyone now, at least under the age of ... X).  In other words, as ethicists, they are temporal gods.  Witness this statement:

"Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

 In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia." 

[Emphasis added] 

There is little more to be said after reading these proposals.  Infanticide, along with fetus-cide, is abominable, pure and simple.  And so are those who support it.  Eugenics is the tool of soulless totalitarians.

Men: For Valentine's Day, Give Your Lover...

An abortion. According to the ghouls at Planned Parenthood,

"For most women Valentine’s day invokes feelings of romance and expressions of love. However, for Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, men can skip the chocolates, the back rubs and the flowers, because what women really need most for Valentine’s day is a “safe abortion.”
[emphasis added]

So I guess there's no longer any thought given to making abortion "rare". That idea was a lie from the start. Eugenics works that way: stacking lies.

Related:

JUDGE REDUCES UNSAFE ILLINOIS ABORTION CLINIC'S $36,000 FINE TO $77

Need To Kill Your Kid? Think "Belgium"!

Headline from Brietbart:

BRUSSELS (AP) — Belgium, one of the very few countries where euthanasia is legal, is expected to take the unprecedented step this week of abolishing age restrictions on who can ask to be put to death — extending the right to children for the first time.

Dawkins, Eugenics, and Evil

Dawkins broached the question of eugenics in the Scotland Sunday Herald, November 20, 2006:

"IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase.

Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.
Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"

Dawkins has further said that it cannot be said that Hitler was wrong, and that killing certain infants is OK.

In response, Wesley J. Smith wrote this:

"Indeed, the fundamental premise of eugenics holds that some human beings have greater value and worth than other human beings, based on their capacities or innate characteristics. Once eugenics consciousness is accepted, who matters and who matters less becomes a matter of raw political power. Moreover, once this pernicious idea is accepted, it becomes easy to justify exploiting and oppressing those now deemed unter menchen".

The entire definition of "evil" is inverted in the messy minds of Atheists. I say "messy" because there is no intellectual filter for removing or re-ordering mental confusion under the Atheist Void - so the idea that they can kill whoever they define as killable is called "Moral"; yet they then claim that the Crusades were proof that religion is evil.

That incoherent confusion demonstrates complete poverty of intellectual discipline which inheres in Atheist thought processes.

Eugenics Marches On

Two developments, on in Canada and one in Belgium.

In Canada, there is a bill based on the Ménard Commission's report:

The Ménard commission’s 450-page report (available in French here) said that people’s decision-making autonomy should prevail over the interests of the state.

In the report, the legal experts pointed out the medical and legal differences between the concepts of euthanasia, where a doctor would physically cause a patient’s death, and assisted suicide, where the doctor would simply provide the patient with the means to die.

It underlined a 2012 Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling that didn’t distinguish between euthanasia and assisted suicide, interpreting them both as a single process.

The Ménard commission endorsed the same interpretation.

It also went further to recommend improving Quebec’s palliative care laws and including some forms of euthanasia and terminal palliative sedation in Quebec’s end-of-life legislation.

Euthanasia is defined by the report as the intentional ending of someone’s life at their request as a means to end suffering, while terminal palliative care is defined in the report as a form of euthanasia in which a person suffering from a terminal illness could be sedated and have their water and feeding tubes removed.

Four states have “dying with dignity” legislation: Oregon, Washington, Montana and, most recently, Vermont.

In Belgium, there is a bill to allow euthanasia of children:

The bill, introduced by the Socialist party in December, would lay out guidelines for doctors to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not a child is mature enough to make the decision to end his or her own life, as well as whether a child's health is grave and hopeless enough to warrant euthanasia.

and,

The decision to consider the bill follows months of testimony by medical experts, doctors, clergy members and others, and it marks a turning point in the nation's approach to the rights of young people, some of whom would be able to choose to die if the law were to pass, even while still being legally barred from driving, marrying, voting or drinking liquor until they turned 18.

The bill would also likely allow euthanasia for patients suffering from Alzheimer's and other diseases leading to advanced dementia, who may otherwise be deemed incompetent to make the decision to die. There were 1,133 cases of euthanasia recorded in Belgium in 2011, accounting for about 1 percent of the country's deaths that year, according to AFP.

PZ Watch 01.19.11

Apparently someone created a set of questions that Atheo-Leftists won’t answer:

(a) Do you believe that a newborn baby is fully human? Yes/No

(b) Do you believe that a newborn baby is a person? Yes/No

(c) Do you believe that a newborn baby has a right to life? Yes/No

(d) Do you believe that every human person has a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them? Yes/No

(e) Do you believe that killing a newborn baby is just as wrong as killing an adult? Yes/No

James Randi declared, with PZ’s approval:

”I will not respond to such a heavily biased set of questions, and I could not do so without providing extensive explanations for my answers. The "quiz" is short, but the answers would be far too involved and lengthy.”

So the answer is apparently not “yes”. It is "no, because I have my reasons".

PZ responds thus:

”The dehumanizing aspect of the so-called pro-life position is the flattening of the complexity of humanity and personhood, and its reduction to nothing more than possession of a specific set of chromosomes. To regard a freshly fertilized zygote as the full legal, ethical, and social equivalent of a young woman diminishes the woman; it does not elevate the zygote, which is still just a single cell. It is that fundamentalist Christian view, shallow and ignorant as it is, that is ultimately the corrosive agent in our culture, since it demands unthinking obedience to a rigid dogma rather than an honest evaluation of reality, and it harms the conscious agents who actually create and maintain our culture.

My position is one that demands we respect an organism for what it is, not what it isn't. It recognizes that an epithelial cell shed from the lining of my colon is less valuable than a gamete is less valuable than a zygote is less valuable than a fetus is less valuable than a newborn. It does not imply that one must still adhere to the black & and white thinking of the IDiots and draw a line, and say that on one side of the line, everything is garbage that can be destroyed without concern, and on the other side, everything is sacred and must be preserved at all costs.

A seed is not a tree. That doesn't imply that I'm on a crusade to destroy seeds.”

The question was not about seeds, it was about saplings. And even then the eugenists cannot acknowledge anything other than their right to assign value to humans at every point along the natural human journey (this particular point being a newborn baby).

"To regard a freshly fertilized zygote as the full legal, ethical, and social equivalent of a young woman diminishes the woman".

This is only true in the judgmental world of PZ. And what about older women? Or just-born women (that's what the questions addressed). Or Judeo-Christian Women? I doubt that many people, even Atheo-Leftists, want PZ to assign them their value as human / not human / part human, and whether they are disposable under his judgment of their personhood. I suspect Judeo-Christians in particular would not fare well in the rankings. After all, PZ eschews tolerance of such inferior beings.

An interesting thing about Atheo-Leftists. They shriek about inequality and demand egalitarian reduction so that everyone (the masses anyway) are equal. Then they declare that they can determine the changing value of every human as that human proceeds through the human life cycle. There is no rationality whatsoever in the progressive struggle for power. Nor is there any morality that can't be changed in a flash, depending on the need, for example the concept of what constitutes "dehumanizing", and "flattening the complexity" of what is allowed to be called personhood.

I was recently given a single apple seed by an acquaintance. He said,

“it is easy to determine how many seeds are in an apple. It is impossible to determine how many apples are in a seed.”

Or, one might add, how many future trees, or how much nourishment they might provide.

Man in 23 Year Coma Was Conscious All Along

The Mail On-Line reports that the man was evaluated several times and that his consciousness was declared “extinct”. Yet Dr Steven Laureys evaluated him again with new brain scan techniques and found him to be functional. He was given therapy – how wasted his muscles must have been! And he now converses by tapping on a computer screen, and he reads books with a special device that allows him to read from a horizontal position.

This leads one to wonder, if his condition can be found and localized, can stem cell therapy renew his injured system?

This is not the first time that a long term coma patient has returned to animation. The Mail On-Line cites another case, and I have heard of others, too.

Given this, why is it not murder to remove life-support from such patients? Do not injured people deserve care? At what point is their human-value less than the dollar-value of their care? And who is allowed the hubris to make that decision concerning another persons value?

Adult Stem Cells From Fat Cells

The arguments for embryonic stem cell research are long gone. There are so many nails in that coffin that it should never rise again. There is no longer a bleating chorus of eugenicists claiming that opposition means denying cures to disease, or that fertilized embryos are not "persons", feel no pain, so it's OK to kill them for their contents.

Stem cells have been made from all sorts of adult human tissue. Advances in the creation of adult stem cells include making the process simpler and more efficient. The need for embryonic stem cells no longer exists (yet the research continues under government funding).

Now National Geographic reports that adult stem cells have been made from fat tissue that has been removed by liposuction: waste. (Recycling of such waste should get support from Greenies, one would think.) Every person has reservoirs of fat, even the six-pack body models that work for TV advertising.

According to Joseph Wu, senior author of the study, the fat cell conversion process is twice as fast and 20 times as efficient as the process for skin cell conversion. The fat cell conversion process involves using programmed viral introgression into the fat cells to reprogram the fat into "induced Pluripotent Stem Cells", (iPS).

The fat cell iPS process has the speed advantage that might be life saving in the future, allowing rapid growth of high volumes of new, compatible tissue for repair of failing organs.

Science is great!

Eugenics and Obamacrats

Just as Obama suddenly disavowed the pastor and church he attended for nearly two decades, Obama’s choice for “czar” of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, has suddenly disavowed his three decades of eugenics writings and support for forced population control.

John Holdren’s inspiration and mentor, Harrison Brown, along with apocalyptic acolytes Paul and Anne Erlich, have created a paper trail of writings that firmly associate them with Holdren and forced population control methods.

Michelle Malkin takes on this issue as does zombietime.com, where images of the actual published writings are posted. Forced abortions and sterilization via chemicals in the water supply are suggested.

As might be expected, the radical conclusions include global governance, a “Planetary Regime” complete with a global police force and a “partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization”.

The efforts of zombietime.com include analyses of the purported refutations and denials issued by both Holdren and his apologists.

But the obvious eugenics contained in the national health plan show that there is no friction between Obama and death-control. Removing funding from the existing Medicare program to fund government insurance for the more healthy is proof of that, as is his funding of international abortion.

How many of Obama’s czars have refuted their prior behaviors just in time to be appointed to the very seats of control for the bad behaviors that they exhibited? I’d wager that most of them are now the foxes in the hen house. How much damage they will do to the ethics – however much remains – of the national government in the next 3 years remains to be seen.

History: Created or Discovered?

When it comes to history there is a modern tendency to create it rather than research it. This despite the huge resource that is the internet, which can lead to primary sources previously available only to researchers travelling to the source or to those wealthy enough to afford a huge library. Yet the tendency to make history out the way you prefer it to have been is a rising characteristic that fits right into a valueless, truthless, relativistic mindset, a rising trend in our world. But if one wants to actually have the facts before making a personal decision, the hard, annoying work of finding them rather than creating them is required.

One of the best posts I have read in some time is now up over at Vox Day's blog. Day responds to a critic who claims the Pope was complicit with NAZIs, an onerous charge, one worth looking into - and Day responds. Because I strongly recommend that it be read over there, I won't repeat it here.

The tendency to rationalize a false history is a big step into irrationality. If one believes one's own fables, what then? It was, in fact, fables and rationalizations that drove the engines of the great 20th century tyrannical mass murderers. Living inside fables is living in a fantasy world. It need not happen, and those of us who are fact-based must guard against the influence of those who are not.

Another issue, one that the Atheist community also takes seriously, is their assertion that the eugenics program of the NAZIs did not come from any association with the science of evolution. This is necessary for the Atheist community to continue their pretense of having a superior morality, one driven by evolution (another fact-free assertion).

If history is created by rationalization, it is just another fiction. In order to come to grips with actual facts, one must do the hard work of finding them, questioning them, and accepting those that are incorrigibly valid. But this is a pursuit of truth regardless of what the truth might be; it is diametrically opposed to creating a fiction to fit one's agenda.

The question of the link between Darwinism - Evolution by Natural Selection - and the totalitarian regimes of the NAZIs as well as those of the Soviets is documented for those who wish to know the facts. There are three books that I can recommend that are scholarly works by historians, which are fully annotated and documented, and address this very issue.

First is "Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution", by Himmelfarb.

Next is "The Origins of NAZI Genocide", by Friedlander.

And, "From Darwin to Hitler", by Weikart.

There are other books on the subject that I do not have and have not read.

These three books refer to multitudes of documents that one could check if one felt the need.

The fiction of Darwinian egalitarianism is easily broken. Natural selection of the fittest is a direct assertion of inequalities, inherited both individually and as a group. The already endemic racism of the 1800's was bolstered by the science that supported it: Darwinian evolution. Eugenics was a child science of Darwinian evolution; it explored ways to make the race better at first, then it moved into ways to prevent the inferior races from expanding too rapidly, and then it explored how to eliminate them. The natural inequality of men was considered fact. Because there was no longer any set of values (God was Dead), evolving a better race became the only virtue; not pursuing it, the only vice.

For the documentation supporting this, read the books, and go to the sources. But don't make up fantasy histories - it is not good for your mental health.

It's Odd...

Obama urges fairmindedness on the abortion debate.

Here's the Lefts position as best that I can see: Before birth, the mother is the victim of the baby (Obama's position); after birth, the baby/infant/child is the victim of the parent(s) (U.N. position).

It is interesting and odd that the scissors-through-the-skull death of an unborn human does not create any "victimhood" in the ever victim-vigilant mores of the Left. Nor does the removal of parental rights at the whim of the state.

So what exactly does "fairminded" mean? Clearly it means: see it my way; I am the moral standard of fairness.

"The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
Saul D. Alinski; Rules for Radicals, 1971; pg 36. [emph added]

Addendum:I forgot to mention that contrary to Obama's call to reduce unwanted pregnancies, the Obama administration drastically cut funding for such education at the same time it drastically increased funding for unlimited, unmonitored abortions, including huge amounts of taxpayer cash to Planned Parenthood. The funding for anti-pregnancy education is now negligible.

The name "Planned Parenthood" is a false name; Planned Parenthood (and the Left in general) have no problem with sexual adventurism. Their business model is based on a steady supply of pregnant young women and girls. What they do want is to make sexual adventurism unsullied by unborn humans causing the victimhood of the sexual adventurous. Abortion is and always has been the basic product of eugenics; Planned Parenthood is the major supplier of those eugenics.

Fetal Farms: Abortion Is Moral

The next embryonic stem cell eugenics phase is already in the Leftist gunsight. Fetal farming is declared both acceptable and moral, not to mention beneficial to women.

Wesley J. Smith, at firstthings.com comments on the recent promotion of fetal farming at Leftist huffingtonpost.com.

Quoted from the huffingtonpost.com:

“Opponents of reproductive choice will object to such a market on the grounds that it will increase the number of abortions—which will indeed be the logical result. However, such a market might also bring solace to women who have already decided upon abortion, but desire that some additional social good come from the procedure. Like the families of accident victims who donate the organs of their loved ones, these women could well find their decisions fortified by the public benefit that they generate. An additional economic incentive would further assuage any doubts, and might even make the procedure more palatable to otherwise equivocal spouses or partners.”

“Someday, if we are fortunate, scientific research may make possible farms of artificial “wombs” breeding fetuses for their organs — or even the “miracle” of men raising fetuses in their abdomens. That day remains far off. However, the prospect of fetal-adult organ transplantation is a much more realistic near-term possibility. A market in such organs might benefit both society and the women who choose to take advantage of it.”
Jacob Appel, Huffingtonpost.com

Smith:

“Again, I think it would be a mistake to react to every Appel column because that would support his business model. But that the Huffington Post considers this a legitimate and acceptable argument to run on its site—it would never countenance a racist utilitarian rant—shows precisely the dark place where the utilitarian left is more than happy to go. And it reminds me of the wisdom of the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, who once wrote:”

“Thousands of 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 unexceptional.”

The Left loves embryonic stem cells and ignores adult stem cells. The reason is obvious. The elitist feels the power when playing God with the lives of others. It is exhilarating, self-fulfilling the presumption of absolute superiority of oneself over the lesser creatures of humanity. It is inescapably a part of the totalitarian Left, which endeavors to appear more omnibenevolent than any God they can conceive. Having safely achieved Obama's recent Hegelian synthesis, they immediately propose a further antithesis, dragging the unimaginably unethical into the realm of the "debatable". One thing about Lefitist socialists: they never resolve toward an ethical stasis. One other thing about Leftist socialists: once in charge, they usually annihilate each other. It is merely implementing post-natal abortion as pragmatic for the success of ever futher Hegelian antitheses.

Rosanne and the Grand Mufti

Sometimes the Left can't hold back its ignorance and lets fly with complete inanities. Rosanne Barr, queen of filth stand-up comedy and dysfunctional family TV, has proclaimed that Israel is a Nazi state. This is so preposterous that most Leftists will probably buy it. The Left is anxious to dump on Israel despite the obvious news that the elected terrorist government of Palestine, Hamas, has attacked Israel first, and well, they are addicted to attacking Israel and just can't seem to stop.

In fact the Arab word, "hudna", is said to have two meanings. First it means cease-fire when used in communicating with the enemy; second, for internal use it means regroup, rearm, restock, and prepare for more attacks, to be mounted at leisure.

Here's some history to consider. There is a direct connection between Hamas and Adolf Hitler through the Grand Mufti of Jeruselem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini (1895-1974). Al-Husseini used suicide bombers against moderate Muslims to gain power in the 1930's and wound up in Hitler's confidence, being made in charge of Bosnian Muslim Nazi troop training and much more. There are many photos of him reviewing "his" Nazi Muslim Troops.

After the war the British made him Grand Mufti of Jeruselem against the protests of both Jews and moderate Muslims.

The Grand Mufti perpetuated the Nazi doctrines and methodology after the war. He ruthlessly purged dissenters and influenced the overthrow of moderate Muslim governments. He brought Nazism to Egypt, and moved on to other nations including Iraq, where he influenced the uncle of Saddam Hussein. The Grand Mufti is widely rumored to be the uncle of Yasser Arafat, and is shown in photos together with him.

The fascist methodology and the hatred of Jews with the intent to purge then from the earth is a continuation of Nazi policy, via the Grand Mufti. It's justification as a moral tenet of the Qur'an is a cover for the Nazi worldview.

For a detailed view of this, the book by C. Morse, "The Nazi Connection To Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini" is an invaluable resource, with documentation from many sources including the Nuremburg Trials, the Eichmann Trial, etc. There is also considerable information available on the web, of course. The Leftist bent to fascism is outlined in a book by Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism".

If you see Rosanne, ask her for the sources of her information. Or better still, just walk away.

Pig-Human

This week the British have approved the creation of an egg containing pig DNA and human DNA. The combination will produce some sort of scientific advance we are assured. The result will be killed.

The ethics of this is a settled issue in Britain. The government has decided in favor of those who believe that there is no value in a fertilized human egg. They have taken upon themselves the right to define the point in human development where a progressing human does in fact have value as they decide to define it. In embryonic form it has no value. This is firmly established in the abortion laws.

This is a direct outcome of Philosophical Materialism. Humans are just so much molecular stuff. As such they have no rights guaranteed by any non-existing "sky-daddy". So the folks in charge are at liberty to define the value of human life as is convenient for themselves. In completely materialist societies this has been extended to all those humans who are not in charge.

Britain has taken the fateful step. But Britain is increasingly Muslim. Will Britain be able to cater to its diversity while continuing down the path of wilful destruction of human life and the creation of obscene hybrids just to kill them for profit?

All of Europe, so proud of its secularism, is in danger passing into the penumbra of tyranny again. Those countries who are voting themselves out of the EU will be assaulted with re-votes until they get it right. It should come as no surprise that secular governments are not bound to any particular ethic; they are free to make up their own as is convenient. The loss of ethical barriers to the abuse of certain segments of humanity generally spreads fairly quickly to other segments, until only the chosen segment is left. This is the lesson of history which must be learned over and over, because some refuse to hear it, much less learn it. Those are the ones with the flexible ethics, the "consequential ethics" where the end justifies the means as is shown on Atheist websites.

When Atheists deny this, the denial is just another flash of intellectual dishonesty. It is denial of the obvious in the service of a chosen objective, the back half of rationalization (the front half of rationalization is choosing only evidence that supports the objective, or making the evidence up). After all any tactic is acceptable if the objective is suitable to the Atheist; it is the very definition of "consequential ethics". Denial of it means nothing.

It is only a short step now to producing the pig-man as a real entity. The antithesis has dragged the thesis into the vortex. There appear to be no rational Brits to put a stop to it.

Freewill, Culture and Genetic Law.

Freewill is not generally believed to be absent in humans, yet there is a persistent nagging that insists that freewill is a “partial” phenomenon, that mentally we are captured and imprisoned, products of our genetics and our culture of birth. Let’s take a look at that theory, and for the reasons behind it.

Partial Freewill: We are free only within our genetic bondage and our inherited, cultural belief system.

Is this falsifiable, or is it a law of mental behavior, unbroken and undeniable in the sense of laws of physics? Are there no instances of humans acting against their own best interests, acting against the genetic directive to reproduce oneself as many times as possible? Is it not possible, even common, to limit reproduction or even never reproduce, out of selfish desire to accommodate ones own fancies? Is every human behavior inevitable?

If we have genetic bondage, it is limited to physical features and capabilities. Few humans can run at 40 mph. Or fly unaided. Or sound to the depths of the ocean for an hour at a time, without technical assistance. Our physical limitations are ameliorated by our mental expansiveness. We can see things no eagle can see; we can move faster than sound; soar into space; dive to the bottom of the sea. We can do this because of our minds’ abilities to move unrestricted, within the space-time, mass-energy continuum that is our environment.

In fact we can move beyond our environment, into zones that we cannot physically explore, but which we can predict, mathematically. We can and do posit overlaying dimensions that are beyond our senses. We can and do hypothesize dark masses and dark energies that are beyond our current ken. We can and do propose time schemes that include negative time, and imaginary time. We can propose imaginary constructs, and then construct them.

Because our minds move outside and beyond our environment, ranging further than our bodies can ever manage to go, there is no cause to declare that our minds are genetically bound. Mentally we are genetically free.

But don’t we believe only that which we are taught to believe? Isn’t that a universal law? We are culturally bound, if not genetically bound? Children born to Muslims become Muslims; Children born to Christians become Christian.

Once again, is this Truth, or is this falsifiable? Are we predestined to become that which our culture makes us? Is this a universal law, in the sense of an incontrovertible law of physics?

Does it take much investigation to learn that some Christians have become Muslims; that some Muslims have become Christians; that some of each have become Atheists; and that some have turned back from Atheism after having examined it fully? There are so many examples of people changing cultures that the idea of being culturally imprisoned is seen to be absurd. It is not an immutable law of physics or science in any manner. Mentally we are free to accept or reject the culture into which we are born. If we were not, the culture would never change, or even have come to pass in the first place.

It is not possible to rationally conclude that humans do not have freewill. Aside from the above arguments, the rational argument goes like this: Whoever says that humans have no freewill would be demonstrating either freewill to make that statement, or the statement would not be freely made, but would have to have been genetically or culturally forced. In the first case freewill exists, despite the denial, which is false. In the second case the statement would be meaningless since it is a forced result of a captured mind; but even more disastrous for the concept, such a statement would fall on captured ears, deaf to nuances outside the programmed capabilities of their imprisoned minds. No such statement would be required, much less investigated, in a society of genetic and cultural automatons.

To say that humans have no freewill, or have only partial freewill, is push the outer limits of absurdity. Not only do humans have freewill, they have free choice and the capacity to differentiate between good and bad as well as discriminate between ethical and unethical. There would be few humans who cannot discuss why fire is both bad and good; and why using fire to burn something could be either ethical or unethical.

Given that we have – and use - choice making capabilities, freewill is an inevitable axiom.

Why, then, would freewill be denied? I see three possibilities.

First, Philosophical Materialism needs for the mind to be material. For the mind to be just the brain and nothing more, it is necessary to consider the possible operation of the brain to be completely constrained by physical attributes, and like computer software, to function within defined parameters. This would certainly make things easier for artificial intelligence enthusiasts, who need to persuade the holders-of-purse-strings that they are seeking an accomplishable objective. Hence statements such as “a brain is just a meat machine”. This derision seems to lower the boundaries of the objectives for AI, does it not?

Second, there is an elitist camp that feels itself to be more evolved than the rest of humanity. What applies to the lower humans does not apply to the elitist, so to say that humans demonstrate a lack of cultural and genetic freewill applies only to the herd, not to the elitists.

Third, there is a hedonist camp that insists that there is neither freewill nor personal responsibility; that self-serving wanton lust-fulfillment is as rational as personal restraint. It is genetically driven and impossible to control using personal willpower. Culture must adapt and accept that this is an evolutionary, genetic truth.

I am sure that there are more reasons, but these suffice to see that the denial of freewill produces a positive benefit for certain sectors, whether it is a rational denial or not. The denial is calculated, not empirical. It is self-serving. And….

It is false.