Replies

Robert Drobot,

On the chance that there may be a trace of sincerity
in your latest effort, I will respond even though there
is not much that invites intelligent discussion. Finding
a platform in your writing is not an easy task because
your jumps of logic are truly dizzying. I can see myself
being forced to conjecture at various turns what your
last moment of lucid thought might have been in a given
instance before you lost the connection.

You say: "Little did I realize that saving Terri Schiavo
was secondary to joining in your extreme Nazi hysteria..."
I am glad that you realized this only little. Alas, it is
still too much, because nothing of the sort should be
realized at all from what I wrote.

The word "secondary" or its underlying concept had no
place in my presentation. What I did say, was: "...while
regarded as crucial and meritorious in its own rights,
Terri's case is merely one item in the discussion of Nazi
parallels to current policy drives." Perhaps an analogous
scenario will clarify nuances that separate your reading
from what I wrote:

While crucial and meritorious in its own rights, the
novel coloring of new twenty-dollar bills is merely one
item in the discussion of a two-tiered denomination model
consisting of an international and a domestic component.

To expand on the analogy, a hypothetical protest against
the colors of the new twenty-dollar bill is its own cause
worthy of support in the minds of some.

At the same time, those discussing the larger hypothetical
issue of a two-tiered denominational system will see the
twenty-dollar bill as an important albeit not exclusive
early manifestation of coming currency moves. Thus all
those studying global currency moves will be aware of the
part the twenty-dollar bill plays, but not all those
questioning the new twenty-dollar bill will comprehend
the larger dynamic of which it is a part. Please do not
bother extracting more conspiracy boo-boo from this. It
is a hypothetical construct illustrating a point.

You compound your error by further extrapolating from my
post my supposed view “that the Terri threads are not about
Terri. Rather, they are about exposing the Hitler agenda
within American policy.” Is your reason really so weak
that you have to stumble like that? How can the Terri
threads not be about Terri? On the other hand, what is
so difficult for you to grasp in the idea that topics of
a wider scope may also include Terri’s situation?

Here is another analogy. Articles by storm chasers are
definitely about tornadoes. Does that mean that articles
about the subject of climatic shifts are an insult to storm
chasers because they include among a wide array of
meteorological topics empirical data about tornadoes? Does
it mean that climatic-shift analysts may not also be storm
chasers?

“Boy am I glad you became a member of FreeRepublic.com.
You've opened my eyes to the real issue here, because
my only motivation has been to prevent Terri's murder. “
First, your statement is bereft of authenticity. You say
that you are “glad” when in fact you are not, and you claim
that your eyes were opened when the opposite is readily
observable. Second, you are not being faulted for reducing
your motivational scope to preventing Terri’s murder. You
should therefore not fault others who are also motivated by
a desire to prevent Terri’s murder, but who still have a
few spare brain synapses to pay attention to some larger
implications of the injustices wrought against Terri.

From here on you keep sliding down the slope of rational
thought with increasing speed. You say: “When do you
suppose Governor Bush become [sic] a card carrying member
of the ultra-secret Nazi Party of America? Do you suppose
the federal government is in on this Nazi plot as well?”

Robert Drobot, could you perhaps raise your reductionism to
the possibility that parallels to one aspect of a distant
set do not bestow the identity of that set? If the eugenics
programs once pursued by the Nazis are now being revived in
a different context, it does not mean that there are also
swastikas, Brown Shirts, Mutterkreuz, Thule mythology, anti-
Judaism and numerous other accouterments of the NSDAP.

If you happen to drive the same model car as your neighbor,
that does not make you your neighbor, does it? If I point
out that you drive the same car as your neighbor, you are
making far too many logical jumps when you assume I am
suggesting by this that you are your neighbor.

I challenge you to find any references to an “ultra-secret
Nazi Party of America” in what other posters and I wrote
in this thread. You will however find references to
similarities in the two eugenics programs. Simply accept
it on faith that there are people with the capacity of
observing similarities between aspects of separate things
without running the risk of confusing the things themselves.

Your deficit in historical perspective bleeds through your
jumbled thoughts. If it were not so, you would know that
the Nazionalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was
merely an organizational network, not an originating
entity. The programs conducted under its auspices were
spearheaded by businesses like Krupp and Deutsche Farben
A.G.

Similarly, the policy drive toward euthanasia in America
does not come from the government but from financial
interest. The public indoctrination campaigns are not
designed in offices on Capitol Hill nor the White House,
but in think tanks paid for with corporate cash. That
well-endowed corporate interests have ways to influence
legislative action and executive directives is too well
known for me to have to address it here.

If you wish to join this discussion on a substantial
level, you first ought to better inform yourself about
sociopolitical, psychosocial and historical trends.
Otherwise you will continue embarrassing yourself with
nonsequiturs like “So it's all about refining and
implementing Hitler's plan.” It is not about that at all.

You ask: “How many countries do you think have secret
cells of Nazi organizations waiting to spring from
under the beds of unsuspecting citizens?” There are
many would-be Nazi organizations in many countries, but
these are merely social carbuncles. They may do damage
on the level of vandalism, but they are not major
players on the stage.

The threats to our society come from an entirely different
quarter, which is not to say that these aberrants will not
be put to good use should the occasion arise. Long before
them, however, consumer citizens in complacent slumber will
osmotically absorb the ideas of their own undoing. They do
this, for instance, by assuming like you that the case of
Terri Schindler-Schiavo is an isolated instance of faulty
jurisprudence.