The organisation to which The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) would like to entrust the “government of the world” is now proposing to reassess the value of human life based on strictly Nazi criteria. I am not surprised; nor, I think, is Francis himself.
The purely secular view of the world unavoidably leads to a Nazi mentality by which human life is subordinated to the usefulness it can give to the Great World Beehive. The life of the single individual will be weighted according to strict cost/benefits comparisons. If it is deemed that the available resources are better spent on younger worker bees, who can give a better utility to the Beehive per pound spent, then the worker bee will have to die for the good of the Great World Beehive.
We, born and bred in a still Christian environment, call this behaviour inhuman. But the Nazi nannies, to which Francis undoubtedly belong, never think in terms of Christianity, of even humanity. They think in terms of social grievances, and are completely focused on improving the Beehive. How many bees have to die in the process is not really relevant and can be dismissed as collateral damage. He who wants to build a new world cannot afford the luxury of counting the dead of the old one. He will simply crush everything and everyone that stays in his way. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all knew this. The UN does too. To disregard human life and let the weak die is in the logic of the Social Grievance Machine.
This obsession with the “improvement of social conditions” whilst not caring I do not say for the health of the souls, but for basic feelings of human decency, is a mark of the Nazi Nanny. Francis does not say so explicitly, but he is a Nazi Nanny through and through, as not only his obsession with social issues but also his demand for a world government led by the UN shows. The man has no Christianity in him. Christianity is a thin veil of trite slogans with which he tries to embellish his real agenda, Global Socialism. The Weltanschauung, the methods, and the rhetoric are the same of cruel atheist dictators the world over.
So, enjoy a rapid glimpse of what these people, if they were to run the planet, would do to you, and notice that they are doing all in their power to run your life already. Francis is their sponsor. And he the Pope.
St Michael the Archangel, please free us from this man.
Jack Kevorkian has gone to his Creator or – much more probably, though we can’t know for certain – to Hell.
The National Catholic Register (which is the good “NCR” one) has an interesting article shedding some light into this very, very disquieting personality. The stated aim of the article is to avoid that Kevorkian be, after death, transformed in a kind of gentle soul, an atheist “Father Teresa” ooh so concerned with those who are suffering. Instead, it turns out that Kevorkian was not only in favour of suicide, but also displaying some (very predictable) Nazi traits in the following:
1) the strange (for anyone who is not a Nazi) concept of “obligatory assisted suicide”. This is very interesting. When someone has no choice whether to die or not (say: condemned prisoner), Kevorkian is in favour of forcing him to commit suicide. The man is truly excited at the idea of suicide, one must say. Besides the strange notion of forcing one to commit suicide who doesn’t want to (what sanction can you give to him in a Western country? Execution?), I note that this is, even, beyond Nazism. I mean, Hitler gave Rommel & Co. the choice whether they wanted to commit suicide or undergo public trial and, in theory, Sippenrache (the extermination of one’s family members), he didn’t force them to commit suicide, nor did he oblige them. Perhaps, is Sippenrache the key of how Kevorkian would have forced people to “obligatory suicide”? Questions, questions…..
2) the outlandish “optional assisted suicide”. This is the suicide of someone who really would want to commit suicide, but doesn’t have the gut to do it. Therefore, a sadist will do it for him without, in Kevorkian’s world, having to go to jail for that. Sadly for Kevorkian, in the real world he did have to go to jail for that. Nazis did that too if the person was ill or otherwise not really useful. They didn’t lack sadists, either. A world made for Jack Kevorkian….
3) then there is the concept of “suicide by proxy”. The thinking goes that in certain cases you must assume that the person, if he could express himself, would want to commit suicide; say, a gravely handicapped child. The decision is not taken by him, but by people who, so to speak, think for him (the parents, say). This is another thought that would move Hitler, Dr Goebbels and Dr Mengele to tears of joy, with the vision of all those children with malformations and their parents deciding that hey, he does not want to live, so let’s kill him now.
4) Going on along the Nazi path of this truly diabolical chap (as they say in Italy, “speaking as if he was alive”, of course) we have the desire of getting all the organs of the thus, how should I put it, ” forcibly suicided” people to make various medical experiments. In his own words, suicides should be, erm, executed within special suicide clinics that would
make the quantum leap of supplementing merciful killing with the enormously positive benefit of experimentation and organ donation
Note how good “quantum leap” sounds. You read these words and you know the man would have asked to be sent to Auschwitz, just to “mercifully” help people who, hey, would have to die anyway in the end, at the same time making a “quantum leap” in medical research…..
5) But don’t think Kevorkian would have admitted to enjoy killing. He paid attention to describe the act of killing as “distasteful”. Distasteful. A bit like squeezing a spot, I suppose. Instead, he pretended to see the main advantage of the exercise as follows:
What I find most satisfying is the prospect of making possible the performance of invaluable experiments or other beneficial medical acts under conditions that this first unpleasant step can help establish.
At this point, his identification with Auschwitz doctors has become complete. They too, certainly, experienced as “satisfying” to have so many organs with which to conduct “invaluable experiments” and “other beneficial medical acts”, whilst the fact that these people were dying was dismissed as something already decided elsewhere and that therefore didn’t have to concern them (though, no doubt, “unpleasant”); exactly the same as our nazi-hero happily experimenting with the condemned criminal.
This has made for depressing reading, I know. But depressing as it is, I think that it is right to delve at times into the cruelty of human nature; particularly when, as in this case, the monstrous nature of such people is disguised under the cloth of “humanitarian” thinking.