Islamisation

A poster-boy for the culture of death - Sunday 23rd to Saturday 29th of July

There is really only one place to start in a review of this week, and that is with the most tragic death - in the true meaning of the word tragic - of Charlie Gard. This is one of the saddest and certainly most frightening stories that I have come to know in all of Western history.

If my understanding of the facts is correct, this is what happened:

  • An unwed couple gives birth to a boy with a rare genetic defect, untreatable to date.
  • The doctors decide that the boy's disease is so serious that he will not survive and they want to turn off the life support.
  • The parents then say that he should be able to die at home, in the loving embrace of a loving home instead of a sterile hospital.
  • The hospital refuses to discharge him insisting that he must die there.
  • The parents file a suit to bring him home.
  • The hospital challenges this.
  • In the meantime, this case has brought enough international attention to it that a doctor working in the U.S. proposes to have him flown there for further treatment, insisting that there is a slight chance that he could lead a relatively normal life if the treatment works.
  • The hospital still refuses to dismiss him. The courts still agree.
  • The parents have in the meantime managed to raise the money required to take him to the U.S., almost $2 million at the time of the boy's death.
  • The high court rules that the hospital can keep him.
  • The parents keep fighting.
  • The parents appeal to the EU.
  • The European Court refuses to hear the case.
  • Trump and Bergoglio get involved, with the former saying he is willing to fly the child to the U.S. for help and the latter that he is willing to have him flown to Rome.
  • The court case drags on.
  • The parents give up, having had the U.S. doctor fly in to the U.K. to physically examine the boy and with the doctor concluding that too much time has passed without treatment for there to be any hope. Had the treatment come earlier his chances might have been good.
  • The parents still want to take him to die.
  • The hospital refuses to do that and finally...
  • Little Charlie Gard dies in a sterile and cold hospital, surrounded by his parents.

I'll have to admit that I didn't really follow this story from the start, so some of the details and timeline might be a bit off, but I think I have captured the gist of it.

My readers can rest assured that I shall not insult their intelligence by even entertaining the idea that the state of the U.K. could at any time in these proceedings have been interested in the well-being of Charlie Gard. So we must look at why the state fought so hard to make sure that little Charlie Gard died in a hospital and was prevented from leaving the country to seek treatment elsewhere.

Beneath all the headlines, the principles that the U.K., and EU were fighting for are not that difficult to piece out. They are that the government:

  • Has an absolute right to decide who gets to live or die, depending on what they deem to be a worthy life.
  • Has supreme rights which trump parental rights - primarily the parents' rights to decide what is best for the child. This is in spite of the fact that nobody in the governent will mourn for the child, hold a wake for him, or even attend their funeral - that is, assuming they are generous enough to release the body from the hospital for burial.
  • Decides when you die.
  • Decides where  you die.

I'll simply point out that the reason for keeping him a prisoner instead of releasing him abroad for treatment was because the hospital decided that his life, even if the treatment had worked, would not have been worth living. In other words, if the government determines that your quality of life is low enough, it can keep you locked up in a hospital, preventing  you from seeking treatment from a doctor of your choice anywhere else, and depriving you of any life support.

How is this any different than the most despotic and evil regimes frequently brought up in these conversations? Is it not always the case that the principal at stake for these regimes, and what made their evil snowball, was the very idea that the government assumed the power to decide which lives were worthy of not killing and which ones could be disposed of?

If this doesn't sum up the culture of death, it's hard to think what does. The most startling thing is that the very premise that the government decides what is a life worth living based on its subjective quality measure was not even challenged, as far as I could tell. It has become so ingrained in us that the governnment has absolute power of all within its borders that nobody even notices when a fundamental right is at stake.

I mean, it's so obvious that the government was morally wrong that even Bergoglio intervened on the side of Charlie Gard! In other words, he must have seen it as a very safe space for grandstanding, this being the man who tells us not to obsess with the killing of the unborn, after all.

This is what 3 generations of legal killing of the unborn has led to. We have a society in which children can be killed in plain sight with nobody batting an eyelid. Yes, I know he died naturally, but in preventing him from seeking medical aid which could have saved his life, the government in effect murdered him.

The only other issue of any note is Donald Trump re-introducing the ban on transexuals in the military. What is common sense in every non-Western countries, and what would have been common sense in any...

Keep calm and open the borders - Sunday 21st to Saturday 27th, May 2017

This week I shall concentrate only on 3 events, to highlight the seeds of the West's decline, primarily, although one will touch slightly on Novusordoism, as is par for the course.

There were many significant events no doubt but 3 caught my attention more than anything else. The most significant event, bar none was Donald Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia, on his first foreign trip, then the Manchester bombing. As Donald Trump made his way to the Vatican - a side-issue for his part - I shall touch on that a bit as I noticed something worth commenting.

The trip to Saudi Arabia was indeed very disturbing on many levels, and should not be defended by anybody who supports Trump - as I do. Selling $350 billion dollars worth of weapons to the main supporter of ISIS and Jihadis is surely no way to bring peace, or to help out the Christians of the Middle East, as Donald Trump pledged to do during his campaign.

It was clear to anybody who put some thought behind Donald Trump's actions that the sole purpose of the trip was signing that mega-deal. Having visited the Muslims, he then had to visit the Jews and having visited both the Jews and the Muslims, it would have looked bad had he not also visited the Christians, who believe it or not Bergoglio and his cohorts in the Vatican are supposed to represent.

The absurdity on show in Saudi Arabia was breathtaking. Here we had Donald Trump speaking out against Islamic terrorism in the home of the financiers of much of it, targeting Iran which actually allows Christians in its lands - something Saudi Arabia does not - as some kind of terrorist mastermind even though Iran is possibly the most peaceful nation in that region, and the one  actually helping Assad fight ISIS and other Jihadis, while at the same time also attacking Assad, as though the people Assad is fighting in Syria are not the very same terrorists that Trump claimed needs to be fought. There was not a word of condemnation for Saudi Arabia or Israel, both countries which have been instrumental in terrorism over the past 2 decades, and here I do not only count state terrorism, in which table both those countries make the top 5 list globally.

In other words, Donald Trump has no intention whatsoever of helping the Christians in Syria or anywhere else against Jihadis. That is the conclusion we must draw from these.

The only good thing I can say about Trump with regards to his trip to Saudi Arabia and Israel is that he is at least not ashamed of humiliating himself for the sake of his countrymen as I sincerely doubt that Trump cares much for the Saudies, but he was willing to go through all the shenanigans on account of all the jobs the weapons contract will creat in the U.S., and he was willing to put up with zionists in order to keep his place as president in the U.S., since it seems impossible to be elected in the U.S. while opposing the zionist project.

While in 'the Holy Land', there was a terrorist attack in Manchester, and it would seem as though the media in the U.S. was so focused on demonising Trump that they did not even bother to switch towards covering it until it got embarassing. To be fair, I cannot blame them, since terrorist attacks of various kinds in Europe have become commonplace and are barely worth reporting on anymore.

In fact, the only reason I bring it up is because this attack once more exposed to anyone willing to see why the emotionalised, secularised, contracepted, aborting, irrationalised West is on a path to self-destruction.

First we had the 'shock'. "Oh, think of the children!", as if there is anything shocking about Islamists attacking children at a rock concert. Of course, even before the shock, I am sure we had been treated to cries of "this has nothing to do with Islam", no doubt before anyone had even confirmed that it was an Islamist attack. So we don't know anything about it, or about the one who carried it out, but the only thing we can be sure of whenever a bomb goes off, is that it has  nothing to do with Islam, even when those carrying it out specifically claim to be doing it in the name of Islam.

Then we had the hypocrisy: We are supposed to get all up in arms when British people get killed, when the U.K. is supporting and arming Islamists in Syria to do the very same thing that took place in Manchester. Oh, irony of ironies, it turns out that the father of this particular Jihadi had actually fought against Gaddafi in Libya as part of an Islamist outfit funded by the British. In other words, the mentality is: It's okay when we arm Jihadis to main and kill children in North Africa and the Middle East, and anywhere we damn well please, but if they turn against us, we must pretend to be shocked!

You will forgive me if I have no sympathy for the British, whose government has no problem paying for the killing of untold unborn children in the U.K. or the killing of untold born children abroad - these are the same people who arm and train the Saudis so they can kill poor Yemeni. As if that was not enough, the response by the rulers of that Atlantis-to-be then have the nerve to attack those who point out that the Islamisation of the U.K. is not the way to bring about order. They claim that these terrorists "want to divide us". One would have thought that if you live in a country in which one of your citizens is willing to blow up a concert full of children at a decadent rock concert, the country is pretty much already divided. According to these mindless rulers, one...

Pages

Subscribe to Islamisation