State Health Care Is Evil

National Help for Satan

It is surprising – and a little disheartening – when we realise how much the modern statalist mentality has bamboozled us into believing that what is deeply wrong can actually be right, because seen as both normal and inevitable. When we have attained a solid Catholic formation we must then, if we are logical, realise that this is not the case.

Let us take health care as an example.

Most Europeans consider it fully normal that health care be a duty of the central government. This is, obviously, because they have never known any other system; and also because they have been led to believe, by the omnipresent statalist mentality, that they would die in a ditch among the indifference of the passers-by if this were not the case. Note here a fundamental trait of statalism: the godless belief in the absence of charity, mutual help, or love of neighbour. Therefore, Nanny must intervene to protect us from ourselves, in pretty much everything, at all times.

This way, charity goes out the window. Its place is taken by a mentality of forced expropriation, which then becomes good because it forces the ruthless savages to provide for each other. Similarly, but from the other end of the equation, a mentality of entitlement is formed. Most people in Europe genuinely believe that they have a right that the Country at large provides for them. No, says the Church, they haven't! Those who have more have a private duty to charitably help those who are in need; but those who are in need have no individual right to receive such help; rather, they accept with gratitude the help offered to them; help extended not because they are entitled to it, but because of love of neighbour born out of the love of God; which is, exactly, what charity means.

The difference between help provided and accepted in charity and an entitlement mentality is like the difference between day and night. Self-responsibility is rejected in favour of the demand that others be made responsible for oneself. Self-organisation is rejected in favour of self-incapacitation. Subsidiarity is ditched for statalism. The principle of entitlement opens the door to a huge confectionery, out of which the arrogantly self-entitled, willingly self-incapacitated man will try to get as much sweets and cakes as he can, by the by demanding Nanny's help once he has become obscenely obese.

There was no National Health Service in the Papal States. There were countless institutions, both religious and lay, who provided charitable work, financed by the charity of people of every class. There were societies of mutual help providing a charitable net inside a community of like minded people. There were strong, extended families providing the same net on a smaller scale. There was, finally, a deeply felt conscience that self-responsibility come first, and is the foundation of all the rest. To the one that does not want to work, you will not give anything to eat.

In Italian there is a word, or an intimation, often used to express this concept of self-responsibility, and which has no easy translation able to render all the depth of its meaning: Arrangiati! You might translate it in English with “(deal with it and) do what you have to do!”, but the genius is in saying it all with one word.

State health care is evil. It promotes the very destruction of charity and its substitution with entitlement mentality and her evil brother, Socialism. We Europeans must all make a conscious effort of re-examining institutions that seem part of our “normality” and reflect whether this normality is not – as in the case of health care it certainly is – pathology.

M

Jimmy Savile: Why Do BBC And NHS Not Get The Church’s Treatment?

The BBC had never noticed this man's look and behaviour...

The ongoing revelations concerning the astonishing abuses and disgusting perversion of Jimmy Savile are most notable in this, that there is of the horizon no form of generalised condemnation of the very institutions that covered him.

It must be clear to the most stupid and ideologically blinded BCC journalist that Savile could remain unpunished only through a decade-long collective blindness within both the BBC and the NHS. Still, I do not detect any call to brand each of these unworthy institutions in any way even remotely comparable to what has been done with the Church.

This is the most absurd, as the NHS is the greatest Nazi mass-murdering organisation in the country (I think we are still north of 150,000 babies murdered a year), and the BBC is the one who has treated the Church with the B2 bomber for decades, as in their very corridors abuses of all kind very simply ignored.

Jimmy Savile should be worth one thousand Cardinal Laws, because no one can say the Church has protected any one priest for decades in an even remotely similar way to how countless BBC employees and managers have chosen to turn a blind eye to what, as it now emerged, was abundantly clear for a very long time.

Still, the BBC, always oh so ready to take the moral high ground, does not proceed to indict itself; nor do the libtards proceed to question their role and their very legitimacy. The same goes for the Mass-Murderers, who will no doubt downplay decades of known and covered abuse as an unfortunate series of single episodes.

The BBC and the NHS represent two of the worst realities in this country; they are two satanical strongholds fully sold to a murderous and/or perverted ideology. No, it does not mean everyone working for them is bad, and heroic battles have been fought by brave doctors and nurses inside the NHS. But again, these heroic battles have become necessary exactly to counter the way the NHS understands itself; a circumstance, this, which today is conveniently forgotten.

Jimmy Savile exposes, with his undoubted evil, the evil of the organisations which allowed him and his perversions to thrive.

But no: the enemy number one, particularly of the BBC, will remain Christian morality and the Church Christ founded.

Mundabor

 

“Beset By Scandals”, My Foot…

Creepy faggot. But hey, he’s not a priest. Simon Hughes.

One of the many things that drive me mad of the secular press is this fashion of never mentioning the Church without mentioning the “scandals”.

Whilst the big problems are now around 30 years past, and the more recent problems (like Vatileaks) are embarrassing but nothing that will make Church history, it seems no journalist worth his hell can write an article about the upcoming Conclave without mentioning a Church “beset by scandals”.

Last time I looked, the last not one, but two German President had to resign due to a corruption scandal (Wulff) or grave controversies (Koehler). If this is not “beset by scandals”, I don’t know what is, and right at the top of the Institutions. 

Or we want to say that the oh so anointed President of the United States is the political son (erm, bastard) of the most corrupt political machine existing in the United States, without any of his many admirers ever mentioning that he hails from Chicago, a town clearly “beset by scandals”. 

In the meantime, France has a former President (Chirac) condemned to two years in prison (suspended, I grant, but you get the drift). 

I will, for a human sense of patriotism, say nothing about Italy.

Summa summarum, it is not clear not me why the magic locution “beset by scandals” is almost never applied to the democratic institutions of modern abortionist Democracies, but is considered de rigueur whenever the Vatican is mentioned.   Nor is this adjective applied very often to the BBC (whose men, women and people in the middle take the biscuit without discussion), or to the English educational system (worse percentage of suspected child abusers than the Church) or the so-called of England (same ballpark) or the NHS beset by malfunctions, scandals, and homicidal nurses. I will not even bore you with the Liberal Democrats, a party who seems to have made sexual perversion, creepy behaviour or perversion of justice a prerequisite to obtain positions of responsibility.

No, the NHS is such a great achievement of Socialism that it makes it to the opening ceremony of the Olympic games, but the Vatican can’t be mentioned without the “scandals” making it to the very same sentence.

I am, I must say, rather fed up. Particularly because this soundtrack will accompany us through the conclave, the election and the Easter celebrations which this year will, you can bet your pint, attract huge curiosity from the secular world because of the brand new Pope.

Seriously, the press office of the Vatican should say a couple of things on this, before the conclave begins.

I truly am sick and tired. Are you?

Mundabor

The Hospital and the Priest

In case you think that Catholic priests are dangerous for your child....

Please look at this Guardian article. It deals with the rather shocking episode of a hospital in which, through massive failing at all levels (and, more importantly, failing to correct what was clearly going wrong), more than one thousand people “died of preventable causes”.

Now this is an NHS hospital and public health care is one of the pets of the secular left anywhere from Cuba to London. This might be the reason why the tone of the article is so, well, clinical. So calm. So absolutely dry.

Notice that there is no generalisation here, no process to entire institutions. The existence of the NHS is not called into question. The morality of doctors or nurses as a body is not criticised. It is about making things better, isn’t it…

Also please notice that the scandal here is multi-faceted, as it appears that executives of the relevant NHS were subsequently hired in very well paid quango jobs, of which Labour seemed to have an inexhaustible, ever-expanding reserve. Therefore we have all the ingredients here: a) obvious mistakes on the ground; b) people in the know who have no guts to open their mouth; c) controllers who fail to control; d) when the scandal erupts, hierarchies who protect those who are involved and move them to other, comfortable positions. The similarities with the (homosexual) pedophile priest scandal are therefore remarkable, the biggest difference being that the number of the dead is vastly superior in the case of the hospital.

What is very different, is how the leftist press reacts. The savage attack not only to single priests, but to the priesthood as profession has no parallel here. We see no attacks to the profession of medical doctor, or nurse. Very strange, because in the case of the Staffordshire enquiry the failings to report the conditions of the hospital seem to have been generalised. Many knew, no one has spoken, people continued to just die.

In addition, it is clear here that there was a clear failing of control mechanisms on a grand scale, for several years. Look, I must have heard this already. Then why there is no condemnation of the NHS system in its entirety at least vaguely comparable to the lynching of the Vatican? If single cases of bad behaviour and failed oversight are enough to question, say, priest celibacy, why should a massacre of such proportions not be enough to question, say, the existence of a publicly funded healthcare system in the UK?

This the more so, as this expensive giant seems to have contracted all the … diseases of your typical big organisation: big cost, inefficiency, failing oversight, no accountability, inability to admit mistakes, protection of its members no matter what.

In the case of the (homosexual) paedophile priest scandal, many lefties had no problems in accusing the Pope of covering it all. In the case of the Mid-Staffordshire enquire (up to 1200 dead more), the Labour government at the top remained blessedly exempt from demands of PM resignation.

There are many parallels between this scandal and the failings within the Church to properly protect children, put adequate protection mechanisms in place, deal with problems swiftly and efficiently. There are even more parallels in the tendency (typical of every organisation, let us not forget this) to cover failings, avoid scandals, protect and “recycle” some who have paid a higher price and were possibly asked to offer themselves as scapegoats (or perhaps were just better connected). Finally, there are parallels in the ethical questions that it opens about entire categories, when generalised failings are seen by everyone but no one reacts.

What is surprising (or perhaps not, as we talk about secular lefties here) is that for the NHS an entirely different approach is used than the one used against the Church.

1200 children prematurely dead in five years in Catholic schools because of massive failings systematically undetected.
Imagine that, and what would happen.

Mundabor