Root Euthanasia not Nazi Germany, but Democrat Virginia Insurer Life Cheap Assisted Suicide Long Tradition America
Nat Hentoff, esteemed authority on the First Amendment walked out of the ACLU when it came under the domination of callous female Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, another Jew who would have been exterminated had she been in the wrong place at the wrong time. While dean of Columbia Law School she promoted abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. We tried German doctors at Nuremberg War Crimes Trial who before the Holocaust had euthanized mentally defectives, purebred Germans. These Weimar doctors and later Hitler acknowledged their reliance on Virginia’s Sterilization Law and on Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. decision in Buck v. Bell.
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. […] Three generations of imbeciles are enough. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
One wonders who the imbecile was. Holmes already knew that Carrie Buck was an exemplary grade school student who was hardly promiscuous since a member of her family raped her. The trial judge overstepped his bounds because he knew nothing about Carrie since he didn’t even conduct a hearing.
To any decent person this humiliating case stands with Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S.393 (1857) Plessy v. Furgeson (1896) and Roe v. Wade (1972).
Eugenics was practiced in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany, which were largely inspired by the previous American work. Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.
In the wake of the Buck decision, over 62,000 people in the United States, most of them women, were sterilized. California led by far. Wikipedia
How could we try them when we were doing the same thing? The Germans were right. They were tried and punished not for moral reasons but because they lost.
Dr. Leo Alexander, who worked for the chief counsel at the war crimes trial, had interviewed those physicians before the trial. In a prophetic article in the July 14, 1949 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, the magazine itself increasingly a supporter of this death culture, Alexander examined the initial causes of the Holocaust. The beginnings, he wrote, were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as “life not worthy to be lived.” American physicians no longer take the Hippocratic Oath “to do no injury”. Instead they take the Hypercritic Oath and openly admit they deliberately kill patients either because they waste “scarce” resources or on behalf of the family who stand to inherit. And we wonder why in one generation we have become both disillusioned and afraid of “our” doctors. They aren’t even “our” doctors. They are the insurance company’s or the government’s.
Yet Time Magazine made Hitler its 1938 Man Of The Year. No one argues that in the most tragic sense Hitler was probably the defining influence in the 20th century. But that wasn’t Time’s slant. No one ever accused Henry Luce of bearing the burden of heavy thinking.
Politically and psychologically, the most interesting aspect of this world-wide acceptance of the concept of an unworthy life is perhaps the role played by the German authorities in Denmark; their obvious sabotage of orders from Berlin. It is the only case we know of in which the Nazis met with open native resistance, and the result seems to have been that those exposed to it changed their minds.
They themselves apparently no longer looked upon the extermination of a whole people as a matter of course.” Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem, A Report on the Banality of Evil, Viking Press, NY, 1963, p. 157
Such self-styled bioethicists as Princeton’s notorious Peter Singer are leading the feminist drive today as well as getting his philosophy into the 2016 Democratic Party platform. Ironically, Singer is a Australian Jew whose whole family was gassed by the Nazis. Whoever thinks the homo sapiens is a reasoning animal ought to think once in a while of madmen who walk through our society respected and holding the most prestigious positions. Princeton’s President Harold Shapiro appointed and backed Singer against a huge opposition. He may have thought Singer’s blood-curdling ideas appropriate for civil discourse, but apparently no German university agrees. He is banned from teaching anywhere in Germany. Do we have to experience the dredges the Germans did before we understand?
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. King James Bible, Eph.6:12.
Judaism and later Christianity see history as drama improvised for a purpose. This establishes the faith to make it worthwhile for Western civilization to investigate the world because it is morally neutral, not to be worshipped but to be used. Thus science flourished wherever Christianity did.
Intellectuals are attracted to Eastern religions because they’re Utopian. Thus feminists can create out of their minds a better world than reality. Marx did the same thing. He and they ignore human nature. Scientific facts become their enemy. The very meaning of Utopia reveals its attraction to those bored or embittered with life itself. They take out their anger by assuming injustice is social rather than human.
They are blind to the deep truth behind Pogo’s comment that “We have found the enemy and he is us.” Utopia is an “Imaginary and ideal country in Utopia (1516) by Sir Thomas More, from Greek ou not, no + topos place.” Another meaning explains the anti-Western bias.
“Utopia is also defined as an imaginary and indefinitely remote place.” Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary 3rd. ed. The less we know about a place or time the more we can imagine it fulfills our own desires. i,e. “the Golden Age.”
Feminism is a façade. The final confrontation between all the really powerful male forces behind it will defeat Christianity. Feminists want this. This is not the same as saying they know what they are asking for. Feminism is not the end of the road. It will quickly either be destroyed by aggressive Islam which is the most primitive of the three Western religions or the resurgence of a now aware Christian belief and science.
Feminism is the last stop on the continuously battered railway of a dying civilization. What its spokesmen say is merely surface symbolism; what they wipe out has transcendental meaning for those with a wide historic and anthropologic view enabling them to see beyond immediate political evasions.
It is easy enough for the individual to adopt a negative attitude of critical skepticism. But if society as a whole abandons all positive beliefs, it is powerless to resist the disintegrating effects of selfishness and private interest. Every society rests in the last resort on the recognition of common principles and common ideals, and if it makes no moral or spiritual appeal to the loyalty of its members, it must inevitably fall to pieces. What Has Grown Old Will Be Made New, Christopher Dawson, Chair in Catholic Studies, Harvard University
This theme and later talks to teachers was the core of Jacques Barzan’s project From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present, (Harper Collins). an encyclopedia of 896 pages by the now 92 year old former provost of Columbia College who helped develop its core curriculum in Western Civilization in 1921. Barzan emphasizes that the answer to first questions which are essentially religious are the vital heart of the brick and mortar of every civilization.
After World War II the feminists along others continuously attacked Columbia’s Western Civilization content, totally ignorant of cultural history and the books on the reading list.
There has been a modern illusion that women have been oppressed until the last fifty years. No such thing took place in the Roman Empire or in the Byzantine Empire. In many other times and places, women have been, one might almost say, dominant. Quite often the husband, who might have the title, was a do-nothing character or feeble-minded or the women ruled in the name of their son. One must know a bit of the details before one makes a generalization about oppression or superior opportunities. Excerpts for an interview with Jacques Barzan in the Journal of the Independent Women’s Forum, Autumn 2000
It is surprising to us today that before the Holocaust was known the sons and daughters of recent Jewish immigrants also cherished this depository of Christendom. The most enlightening comment is from Norman Podhoretz absorbing Western Civilization at Columbia. Until recently Podhoretz headed Commentary, the most influential Jewish intellectual magazine today.
There is no doubt that Columbia left me with a reverence for Western civilization — and by extension for its great heir, defender, and new leader, America — that was nothing short of religious in intensity and that has remained alive all my life, including that part of it I spent in the camp of the radical Left….In other words, it was not, as the radicals claimed in their original assault, because the great books were “irrelevant” that they should no longer be studied; it was because they were all too relevant. Excerpt from Norman Podhoretz, My Love Affair With America.”
In dismissing this claim as made in bad faith, Podhoretz could speak from his own experience as a Jew. The texts in question included very few by Jews, and whenever they referred to Jews or Judaism, it was more often than not in an unfriendly and even hostile spirit. Yet working through the two reading lists as a Columbia student, he felt that an inheritance of indescribable richness which in the past had been inaccessible to his own people (because of a combination of actual — that is, legal — exclusion and voluntary isolation) was now his for the taking. Far from being left out, he was being invited in, and he looked upon the invitation as a great opportunity and a privilege.
Drawing on the work of Herbert Marcuse and Antonio Gramsci, Mari Matsuda condemned the neutrality of the First Amendment, arguing that free speech serves the dominating white elite.(Matsuda 1989, p.2358) Katherine MacKinnon has taken Matsuda’s theories to court and found surprising success among largely White Men. We see here the confluence of interests between men who want to expand government and feminists whose self-argued dependency requires more government power. These White Men have willingly stirred the gender wars in sexual harassment cases, although there have been some noticeable rebuffs, as in attempts to impose speech codes on municipalities like Indianapolis and Minneapolis. On the other hand, the Canadian Supreme Court has incorporated MacKinnon’s tyrannical theories into their constitutional framework.
Marcuse sought to demolish Western Civilization by attacking its rationality and by extension scientific objectivity. Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), One-Dimensional Man, ch. 5 (1964). But the whole point of this deconstructionism is not to tell the truth, but to weave myths that cannot be proven or disproven. It isn’t really reason he is attacking but reality itself because the underpinning of this civilization is not primarily reason but faith. These forerunners of today’s cultural confusion are not preaching a free-standing reason. Marcuse here is preaching nihilism, that is, that nothing has meaning. Feminism traces its roots back particularly to the founder of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci.
He was the first to suggest that the application of psychology to break the traditions, beliefs, morals, and will of a people could be accomplished quietly and without the possibility of resistance. He deduced that
- The civilized world had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years…” and a culture based on this religion could only be captured from within. What is the Frankfurt School? Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson CDR USN (Ret.)
- That is why it were better if the mainstream Protestant denominations didn’t exist. They give legitimacy to such unchristian behavior as infanticide, assisted suicide and pedophilia. Liberal and Conservative Judaism do essentially the same thing as does the more marginalized self-styled Catholic liberationists.
Of course, Christianity had ceased to be alive and became a museum icon long before Nazism arose. Remember that what preceded the Nazis was not a Catholic or Lutheran confessional society, but the Weimar Republic which was nearly as atheistic as the Soviet Uniion. But this is the self-hatred feminism plays on anyway.
The Podhoretz experience explains in part how Hitler lost a physical confrontation but won the mental ground by making Jews hate Christianity as they never had before and making sensitive Christians embarrassed because Christianity was the civilization’s cultural wellspring and erstwhile religion. The purposeful spreading of such propaganda intrusion into voluntary associations and the creation of scapegoats and victims, the scapegoats now not Jews but Christianity and by implication Judaism, white boys and men and the victims, not Germany surrounded by enemies but homosexuals, pedophiles, female murderers and the richest women in our society.
The collapse of Communism strengthened feminism by picking up the tatters of every movement that fought to defeat Western Civilization in this century, including the ideas of Nazism, which is why feminism reveals all the tendencies of fascism, like codes of acceptable speech at our universities, isolation of the few professors who will not submit, interruption of intellectual inquiry,
On the PBS show “Think Tank,” Ben Wattenberg asked Richard Dawkins–the Carl Sagan of politically correct Darwinism–for his response to Professor Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and skeptical of evolution studied at the cellular level as Einstein was of Newton studied at the galactic level. Behe notes “With his trademark charm, Dawkins choked that Behe was being “cowardly” and “lazy” for invoking a designer. Nonetheless, he admitted that since he wasn’t a biochemist, he couldn’t answer the argument.
If he doesn’t know how evolution might have made the basic machinery of life, how can he be sure that Darwinism is a complete explanation for life? And if Richard Dawkins doesn’t know, who does? And if nobody knows, why teach children that we do?”
Richard Delgado himself was called upon by the University of Wisconsin at Madison to help draft their speech code in 1987. (Kors & Silverglate 1998, p.167) Many more universities followed suit and today having a speech code is the rule rather than the exception, which is why feminists are justifiably called the “new totalitarians.”
Males far outweigh females on the scale of power in promoting the feminist agenda not necessarily because they agree with feminism’s adolescent self-pity but because their interests momentarily intersect. Corporations favor world government, “the transvaluation of values” and the loosening of family ties for their own reasons. The feminists propel this process which the uncharismatic corporations never could do openly. The contributions that non-profits must report to the Federal Government tell the entire story.
The media itself dominated by feminists depicts these corporations as conservative not liberal or radical. Most support the Republican Party not the Democratic Party. When jobs are handed out based on affirmative action rather than merit we should not be surprised that these media analysts are so little informed about the reality of American politics or any other complex subject that takes time and discipline to master.
The two party system is not traditionalists v. iconoclasts except as a shadow-boxing of words. The real agenda leaves very little difference between the major parties. Feminists do the job of propping up the fiction and causing people to take elections seriously by their fanatical attachment to the Democratic Party. Men, families and values fared no better under Bush than they did under Clinton. In fact, only the names have changed.
Ironically, the feminists can only control what they are destroying so long as there is a society left to control. As Dawson says Christianity is dying, but not dead yet. Once it dies, what the feminists have fought so hard to possess will crumble into dust.