Posted on 11/28/2012 8:41:11 PM PST by Bigtigermike
You do know who wrote that, right?
Ah yes, the coming American Holocaust. The Nazis killed 6m+, the Soviets 3m+ in the Ukraine, and Mao upwards of 25m+ during the cultural revolution. All will be dwarfed by the 75m boomers whose lives will end shorter than expected.
The beauty of the American Holocaust is that there won't be any outrage - after all, it's harder to become upset about someone dying @ 65 rather than 25. And its directed purposefulness is being artfully obscured by the mechanics of how it's being achieved.
Consider the 3 infamous genocides listed above - all required large scale, overt operations. Each required active government and dedicated resources. But with the AH, the exact opposite is true: all it requires is the leverage of a couple of natural trends, assisted by some complex rules & regulations, in order to effect the desired end.
The natural trends are two-fold: exploding demand by aging boomers, combined with a rapid drop-off of qualified health care providers (ie the massive number of MDs either retiring or exiting the marketplace).
Add to this mix the myriad rules, regulations and bureaucratic control embodied in the PPACA, and the die is cast for denial of care and premature death.
One other important component is also present, and is now more than ever being carefully cultivated: hatred of the "other". Hitler, Stalin & Mao could not achieved their goals without at least broad support that the victims either "deserved it" or in some way represented an existential threat to the future of the state. It doesn't take a genius to see who is now considered an enemy of the state, and is thus conveniently labeled as someone who needs to be shown the door.
There are a couple of other elements that need to be considered as well. In each of the big 3, the profit motive served as a great enabler. While the Nazis had to build huge crematoriums (contracted out to private parties), the private build out of highly distributed funeral services in the US will be immense. And since it's already part of an existing system, the net increase won't really be that noticeable.
As I've mentioned before, the only real hope is to out-Alinsky Alinsky himself. Boomers need to carefully evaluate what they have to offer to politicians, in terms of unified votes/money, in order to buy off/forestall full implementation of what is currently being put in place.
“Under the socialist plan she would simply suffer and die young.”
Under the socialist plan she would never be born.
“Fascism” is a political system (dating back to the Roman Empire, if not earlier) that shouldn’t be used interchangeably with “Nazism”; the Nazism survived the ideology of the Judeo-Christian West that allegedly defeated it. The culture of the US of 1940 didn’t last another 40 years.
Fascism itself can be used for good or evil; Franco was painted as a fascist but left his borders open for anyone who disagreed with him to leave. Even Mussolini was mild in comparison to Hitler; all three embraced fascism as a response to communism, but Hitler intertwined it with paganism and racism that created “Nazism”. Mussolini never persecuted Jews (they were rounded up in Italy by Germans after he had fallen from power), and many actually found sanctuary in Franco’s Spain (which was neutral in the war).
Possibly, but it seems I remember more even 30 years ago than I see now.
With today’s pre-natal screening, it must be hard for expectant parents to deal with the problems such children will bring. I assure you from personal experience, doctors are relentless when pushing a mother to “start over” when they think something is wrong with a baby in the womb. We muddled through, and the baby was fine (while we both aged years in the last months of the pregnancy because of how we imagined life would change).
Psychopaths.
The faster we depart the stage, the easier/better life will get for those who follow as demands on public funding will drop.
Your only chance for survival will be to be as independent of any system provided "benefits" as possible.
For the next 30 years for a "Boomer" to enter a hospital will be a suicidal act.
I ultimately believe the REAL American people will become fed up, and storm the beaches of the Potomac. It is just a matter of time...
Good luck even getting into a hospital. The way Medicare cancellations are running through the system today, you won't be able to access a doctor (ie get an appointment), much less receive any care at a dedicated facility (eg hospital, out-patient, hospice).
I think the rate of change is going to surprise a lot of people. Right now, the death rate is around 800 per 100,000 (2.4m deaths vs 310m pop) - but that's because the median boomer age is 55. (1957 was the peak birth year.)
As this bulge becomes progressively older, we can expect to see the death rate surpass 1,000/100,000 - and that's assuming existing levels of care. Add in planned service restrictions, and who knows how high the death rate per 100k might go.
To get even more detailed, once we hit 3.65m deaths per year, that's 10k per day. Right now, 33% are being cremated - if that goes to 50%, then we're looking at ovens turning out 5k cremations per day.
Obviously, this is going to be a very big task. At its peak, the Nazis could hit 20k per day, but that was only during the latter part of a pretty short 3 year period. In addition, they were dealing with maybe 10m targets max - the American Holocaust is much more ambitious @ 75m.
The question I find interesting is to how to inform people of what is in store for them and perhaps help get them to act.
Darwinism proclaimed the ultimate doom of the "unfit", and Darwinists stated the 'unfit' would perish anyway in the struggle for existence. Some thought natural selection could be helped along, not only through sexual or marriage reforms (another story) but also by killiing those deemed 'inferior', 'unfit', 'worthless', or of 'negative value'. Since most Darwinsts and many early eugenicists were critical of JudeoChristian virtues of compassion and pity for the weak and sick, they led the attack on Judeo-Christian prohibitions against killiing innocent life.
Prior to the advent of Darwinism in the latter half of the 19th century there was no significant debate in European thought and law over the sanctity of human life. Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. The ideology of 'right to life', according to John Locke, was one of the supreme rights of the individual. Until the last half of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century most liberals upheld these ethics.
Darwinism played a very important part over the early debates of right to life. Haeckel, an ardent devotee of Charles Darwin's theory, proclaimed the creation of a new worldview and ethic, in the debate on the value of life. Darwinian monists and materialists led the public debate and led the movement for aboriton, infanticide, assisted suicide, and compulsory and involuntary euthanasia. The earliest, significant German advocate for euthanasia and the killing of the unfit was Ernst Haeckel (the same Haeckel who falsely drew misleading sketches of various embryos at different stages of developnment to deceive students), whose views of killing the weak and sick were, in his estimation, "a logical consequence of his Darwinian monistic worldview, and wrote about it in his book, The Natural History of Creation (1870). He prclaimed, in legitimating his postition he used evolutionary 'scientific' arguments. One of Haeckel's own contributions to evolutionary theory, now completely refuted, was the claim of ontology recapitulating phylogeny. This meant each individual developed from a single cell (feritilized ovum) to adulthood. As it does, he said, it allegedly traverses the evolutionary stages of its ancestors. The newborn, he stated, "not only possesses no consciousness and no reason, but is also numb and only gradually developps the activity of the senses and of the mind." Newborn infants, thus, have no soul, so killing them is no different than killing other animals (sounds familiar) and cannot be equated with murder. He used similar justification to legitimate abortion. Not only did Haeckel justify infanticide, abortion and assisted suicide, but he also supported involuntary killing of the mentally ill. he condemned the idea that alll human life should be preserved, "even when itis totally worthless".
Thus the leading Darwinist in Germany gave his scientific imprimatur to murdering the disabled, both in infancy and in adulthood.
These are the fruits of the Darwinian theory as applied societally and medically. There is a huge body of literature on the effect of the Darwinian ethic and how it was applied during the period leading up to WWII in the Rhineland. Nazism in full pearl, influenced (not caused) scientists, doctors, politicians, educators, and sociologists to give us 14 million dead innocents. We thought as we defeated Hitler, his ideology would likewise die. It has not died. It has flourished under the same wouldbe keepers of our culture. It is here and now. One needs to go no further than some comments on this very thread to see it insinuated, in full fluorish, garnished with the very same euphemisms, in the United States of America, where we hold these TRUTHS self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable right....LIFE.
J.Budziszewski tells us there are things which we can't not know. They are part of our nature. They define use as rational. He says as soon as we make peace with basic evil, even a movement for a good end becomes evil. Human beings can't not know it is wrong to kill innocent life. Go to an abortuary and speak with the nurses who have to piece together the parts of a morcelated baby. They will not tell you it does not have an effect on them. Go to a neonatal intensive care unit which stops fluids and nourishment of a "defective" infant and ask if it is without effect to watch for the ensuing week as a baby dies slowly, painfully, crying, desperate for any comfort. Those who sit in a sterile academic enviroment and makes pronouncements that the myelin sheath of the baby in not fully developed and therefore feels little pain. I tell you to take a pin and prick its tiny finger and see if you observe an avoidance reaction. Watch a hysteroscopy as a baby is 'torn' as it pushes against a stainless steel currett trying to rip its legs from its torso. You will see a desperation rarely seen by human adults. Take the time to watch Silent Scream and reflect on the torture we impose to diminsh the "suffering" of others. Then, if you want the trifecta, watch as a 'Healer" prevents the delivery of the head from the vaginal vault (to prevent birth) as he stabs the back of the neck of a baby whose legs and arms are pink and flailing, inserts the scissors into the foramen magnum, then spreads the scissors, with a twist, then inserts a canula into the cranial vault as suction the brain, collapsing the cranium, as the legs go limp, as the tiny toes slowly turn blue, as the recepticle fills with the brain and blood of what was, just moments before, a thoroughly healthy baby.
What sort of human could make their peace with those types of evensts which occur 1.5 million times per year in the United States of America.
We have embraced Haeckel and Darwin and Ploetz. An entire generation has now come of age taking for granted the liberty to kill one's children in the dim, soft refuge of what was once the safest place on earth, the mothers womb. We have embraced, by extension, other killings of infanticide and euthanasia. If we are to kill with impunity, our own offspring, flesh and blood, we need it to be as painless on the killers as possible. We must make it less distressing. There are many reasons given. "I won't be a fit mother." A delivery at that time will disturb a planned vacation." After all, babies are replaceable. Life is replaceable.
Truly this is the abolition of man, to arrive at such a depth of depravity that we chose to kill our children, just as Haeckle prescribed, undergirded with the new Darwinian ethic.
You have embraced their false choice. There are other ways to care for these little patients.
The saddest thing is how these things have changed so quickly; so many of those people from WWII are still around (I find it even worse that we normalized relations with North Vietnam so shortly after the war was over).
It is up to us to preserve the cultures of our forebears, and we have nobody to blame but ourselves if we fail. People who can’t even be bothered to breed can rest assured that their families’ “tale” will soon be forgotten.
Richard Lamb=Richard Hamm (sorry for the misspelling) Mispellers of the world - UNTIE!
I know a person who works in healthcare who moved here from England because of the way it’s run there. He’s all for obamacare. See how liberals think? Actually they don’t think. There’s a T.V. show about them on TCM. It’s called “THE WALKING DEAD”.
I haven’t embraced anything. I can’t force them to quit, and my comment was obviously tagged with sarcasm.
Look up "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift.
My son had to read that in Jr. High school.
Midgets are gone entirely except for some middle aged ones.
That is because they can fix the problem. One of my childhood friends was a midget. He was almost too old for the therapy so it only help him grow about 10 inches.
Not quite normal size but much taller then he was.
Don’t put the blame of all the evils of society on a scientist who merely put together a theory to describe a process that was noticed at least back in Greek times.
In a scientific context, “survival of the fittest” means only that an organism that survives can reproduce. Any sort of “master race” consideration has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, and everything to do with a human idea of what the ideal human is. In the evolutionary sense, people who kill off babies for selfish reasons are working against survival of the fittest. You don’t leave a maximum of offspring when you kill them all. You also enhance your own survival (and thus your fitness) by assisting others to survive. Altruism is a survival trait; selfishness is not.
It is evil people who decide that they should have control over who lives and who dies. Even if they blabber about a master race or whatever, they aren’t working within any scientific context. They are acting according to their own evil nature. Unfortunately, sociopathy is one of those anti-survival traits that, for some reason, has not yet eliminated itself from the gene pool.
That’s incredible; I didn’t know that. Glad he could benefit from it at all!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.