"Do you still think there's no eugenics
The Health Ranger discusses the new TIME Magazine issue entitled, "How to Die!" which promotes
death panels, killing the elderly to save money (and earn bonuses!), and even yanking feeding tubes out of the
mouths of your own dying parents!
Disgusting eugenics agenda from the dying dinosaur
Right-to-Die, Death Panels, Neo-Eugenics and the
Transhumanist Club You Aren't In
Published on Nov 6, 2014
The bar keeps getting raised on "the right to
die" versus the right of the system to convince people their lives are worth little in the face of artificial
scarcity otherwise known as "finite resources" as Bill Gates calls them. Now we've moved to a place where
bioethicists are arguing it should be legal to kill live, otherwise healthy children after they are born and courts
have allowed a mother to starve her disabled 12-year-old daughter to death.
But you see, the whole system and everything it's made of is completely made up. Fake boundaries
within an evil system. It's a false debate centered around a false reality. They are attempting to put a price tag
on the value of your life through the lens of their ridiculous bureaucracy and a society built on industrial
complexes that live, breathe and feed on human suffering.
The Obamacare architect says we should only live to 75, that it shouldn't be our choice. Unofficial
death panels absolutely exist. It's a Soylent Green society in its infancy. They act like spending the dough to
give your grandma a few extra months to live at the end is simply too expensive and too much of a drain on their
system, but they have no qualms about going $17 trillion dollars into debt fighting endless wars and all the rest
of the wasteful, stupid nonsense our government is involved in day after day. Behind it all at the top of the
pyramid, the important life-saving, life-extending technologies continues to be suppressed from general public view
as they have been for decades now.
The whole thing is a bullshit sham, and when you hear what elitist billionaires like Bill Gates
have to say about who should be allowed to get what treatment and that we should be "careful about whether you want
to make those innovations available to everyone," and then you realize those rules don't apply to him and his
family only you and yours, you'll understand why this entire thing is just new eugenics with a trendy technocratic
overlay. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
This isn't about someone's right to take or end their own life. This is about everyone's right to
live in a world where that decision isn't made by government bureaucracies or elitist, eugenicist billionaires who
would never make that same choice for themselves that they can so nonchalantly make for everyone else.
When we devalue one person's life, we devalue all our lives.
Bill Gates' Rolling Stone interview from March 2014 (there's a lot more ridiculous, creepy stuff
going on in there if you want to read the whole thing): http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/n...
Professor Pullicino said he had returned to work after a weekend
to find the patient unresponsive and his family upset because they had not agreed to place him on the
‘I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant
resistance,’ he said.
‘His seizures came under control
and four weeks later he was discharged home to his family,’ he said.
Professor Pullicino, a
consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of
Kent, was speaking to the Royal Society of Medicine in London.
Distressing: The professor has claimed an approved technique of looking
after the terminally ill is not being used in all hospitals
He said: ‘The lack of evidence
for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway makes it an assisted death pathway rather than a care
‘Very likely many elderly
patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.
‘Patients are frequently put on
the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition.
‘Predicting death in a time
frame of three to four days, or even at any other specific time, is not possible
This determination in the LCP
leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. The personal views of the physician or other medical team members of
perceived quality of life or low likelihood of a good outcome are probably central in putting a patient on the
He added: ‘If we accept the
Liverpool Care Pathway we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated
with 29 per cent of NHS deaths.’
The LCP was developed in the
North West during the 1990s and recommended to hospitals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical
Excellence in 2004.
Medical criticisms of the
Liverpool Care Pathway were voiced nearly three years ago.
Experts including Peter Millard,
emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University of London, and Dr Peter Hargreaves, palliative care
consultant at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, Surrey, warned of ‘backdoor euthanasia’ and the risk that
economic factors were being brought into the treatment of vulnerable patients.
In the example of the
71-year-old, Professor Pullicino revealed he had given the patient another 14 months of life by demanding the
man be removed from the LCP.
Professor Pullicino said the patient was an Italian who spoke poor English,
but was living with a ‘supportive wife and daughter’. He had a history of cerebral haemorrhage and subsequent
Professor Pullicino said: ‘I
found him deeply unresponsive on a Monday morning and was told he had been put on the LCP. He was on morphine
via a syringe driver.’ He added: ‘I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant
The patient’s extra 14 months of life came at considerable cost to
the NHS and the taxpayer, Professor Pullicino indicated.
He said he needed extensive
support with wheelchair, ramps and nursing.
After 14 months the patient was
admitted to a different hospital with pneumonia and put on the LCP. The man died five hours
A Department of Health spokesman
said: ‘The Liverpool Care Pathway is not euthanasia and we do not recognise these figures. The pathway is
recommended by NICE and has overwhelming support from clinicians – at home and abroad – including the Royal
College of Physicians.
‘A patient’s condition is monitored at least every four hours and,
if a patient improves, they are taken off the Liverpool Care Pathway and given whatever treatments best
suit their new needs.’
Has anyone else noticed that most professors of ethics aren’t
exactly…ummm…ethical? At least the ones who get quoted, anyway.
A professor at the highly esteemed Princeton University doesn’t want his Obamacare premiums to increase because
of caring for severely disabled babies. Dr. Pete Singer, who teaches ethics (but perhaps needs a little refresher on what the
word “ethics” means) argued during a radio interview on Sunday that America should be more accepting of
“intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.”
Ethics: that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness
and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
In the famous words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
Singer, a longtime mouthpiece for eugenicists everywhere, has previously drawn fire for his belief that the right
to life is directly related to a person’s intelligence and ability to feel pleasure and pain, is back in
the spotlight. In 1993, wrote a treatise called “Practical Ethics: Taking Life: Humans.”
Singer argued for the morality of “non-voluntary euthanasia” for human beings not capable of understanding the
choice between life and death, including “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness,
or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.”
For Singer, the wrongness of killing a human being is not based on the fact that the individual is alive and
human. Instead, Singer argued it is “characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that
make a difference.” (source)
He clearly hasn’t changed his mind. During the interview he argued that it was “quite reasonable” to ration
healthcare for disabled infants:
I think if you had a health-care system in which governments were trying to say, “Look, there are some things
that don’t provide enough benefits given the costs of those treatments. And if we didn’t do them we would be
able to do a lot more good for other people who have better prospects,” then yes.
I think it would be reasonable for governments to say, “This treatment is not going to be provided on the
national health service if it’s a country with a national health service. Or in the United States on Medicare
And I think it will be reasonable for insurance companies also to say, “You know, we won’t insure you for this
or we won’t insure you for this unless you are prepared to pay an extra premium, or perhaps they have a fund
with lower premiums for people who don’t want to insure against that.”
Because I think most people, when they think about that, would say that’s quite reasonable. You know, I don’t
want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have
expensive treatments. (source)
Is anyone else chilled by the fact that people like Singer are the ones teaching the next generations about
Short Film Looks Deeper Into The Euthanasia
A fictional story, 'The Unproductive' is a provocative look at effects of the euthanasia
debate on a relationship: how it can divide and devastate, as well as create a sense of helplessness at having to
make a life or death decision. The story also touches upon the ever-increasing competition between independent and
established news media; that is, the conflict this causes between two cousins whose perceptions of reality are
shaped by quite different news media sources. 'The Unproductive' was somewhat influenced by the Terri (Schindler)
Schiavo saga, which occurred in 2005. http://theunproductivefilm.com/
However, when you look at the facts, in other words how much space there is on our ‘overcrowded’
planet things suddenly appear very different. The article below goes through the whole overpopulation myth in
simple terms to make it obvious that ‘overpopulation’ is an outrageous lie.
For example, did you know that everyone on the planet could live in an area the size of Texas? Yep
that’s right and it’s not a difficult arithmetical problem to solve. You simply divide the landmass by the amount
of people on the planet.
Now I’m sure some will state quite rightly that not all the land in Texas for example is habitable
but we should remember we’re only talking about Texas here. There is ample habitable land in other states or
countries which could adequately cope with every person on Earth with enough space to not only have a sizable home
but also enough space to grow their own healthy food.
This fact also destroys the myth that too many people will lead to a world food shortage. The only reason there will be a food shortage is if it’s
artificially created. This process of artificial food scarcity is actually ongoing as more and more farmers are put
out of business through government regulation or are being paid not to grow food.
The United Nations itself has said in their own documents that Africa could feed the world so why
are Africans starving?
The truth is that the Irish Times is simply another rag pushing the myth of overpopulation to promote a eugenics agenda. In their intelligence
insulting article they stigmatise the elderly as a drain on the finances of the state. I’m sure it won’t be too
long before they start publishing articles on euthanasia. Watch this space! Newsweek’s been at it already.
The article also pushes the notion of China’s one child
policy although in a remarkable blunder or example of double speak, they state that China’s population,
despite a one child policy will increase by 10%. Now surely simple arithmetic shouldn’t be beyond the Times but
apparently they can’t seem to work that a one child policy will ultimately lead to a 50% decrease in population but
never mind, it’s in the Times so it must be true.
They also suggest that Africans are to blame for the growing world population
despite famine and drought killing millions every year, not to mention the sterility brought about by covert
vaccination programs from the likes of Bill Gates and his
cronies who seem overly obsessed with sterilising people.
I’ve posted the video below in a number of articles but will keep posting wherever it’s relevant
because those who are hard of thinking or simply don’t understand the English language, he’s actually talking about
sterilising people against their will and basically murdering people by poisoning them with his Rockefeller funded pharmaceuticals.
Keep that in mind when you buy Microsoft products because you’re funding this psychopathic lunatic
in his sick project to kill people in the Third World. I guess
they can’t afford his products so they’re just ‘useless eaters’ as fellow psychopath Henry Kissinger would call them.
Back to the Times. The Times is nothing more than a propaganda
tool. It always has been for the elites as has every other newspaper and media outlet including Hollywood to
push the agenda of whatever plans they have, in this case depopulation. This
has and always will be the job of the media, the ‘media’ meaning the middle. They do not want you thinking outside
the box so they keep you not thinking in the middle of any topic they give you to ‘think’ about already knowing
that you’ll come to the conclusion they want you to.
This quote from David Rockefeller spells it out:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great
publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty
“It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to
the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards
a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual
elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
And you wonder why we have a banking crisis?
In the case of the Times article they know that the average reader will immediately come to the
conclusion that we need to control the populations of the Thrid
World and in particular Africa.
However, even although they admit that the West is dying, nowhere in the article is this deemed a
problem and it’s even touted as a positive sign that the West is doing the right by basically commiting cultural
Of course, immigration is signaled as the great
population problem facing the West thus further stigmatising foreigners who I’m sure in future articles in the
Times will be accused of crime waves and ‘stealing’ the jobs of native peoples thus creating an enemy for the
disenfranchised to target.
All segments of society must understand that all of them are being used in a massive chess game
internationally being played out by the elite in a multifaceted divide aqnd conquer technique to destroy all of our
societies by bring us all into conflict with a manufactured foe.
The real enemy however are the power elite themselves. We must stand together to confront
the beast and destroy it before it inevitable destroys human life as we know it. There are not too many people.
There are simply a few psychopaths playing us for fools.
As Americans fret about the Obamacare website and
wonder how the country became enslaved to the highest healthcare costs in the world, we turn back the pages to
look at how the modern medical paradigm came together in the early 20th century, courtesy of the Rockefeller
Foundation and their cronies. Join us this week as we explore the real history of modern healthcare and the
real motivations behind the family that brought it to you.
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size
version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK
HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
The Keynesian economist and New
York Times columnist Paul Krugman said back in February that in order for the collectivist welfare state to run
smoothly higher taxes and death panels will be mandatory.
Krugamn makes his death panel comment around 2 minutes and 20 seconds into
Krugman made his comment at a
time when the existence of death panels were steadfastly denied by Democrats and before Obamacare was brought to
its knees by the pathological ineffectiveness of the state.
Sarah Palin and others were duly roasted for even suggesting that a communist-style
system – where some individuals are sacrificed for the greater good of the collective – would comprise the essence
In 2010, Media Matters for America, the propaganda mill devised by Democrat political operative and
journalist David Brock with help from the establishment’s Center for American Progress (funded by
the globalist George Soros), trashed a Washington Examiner column for daring to compare Obamacare to
“The government will use the ‘science’ of comparative effectiveness research to
achieve cost savings the only way government can: denial of care. The Soviet medical system kept down the heart
disease caseload by placing cardiac care units on the fifth floor, walk up. Death panels, anyone?”
Democrats know Obamacare hinges on the existence of death panels. That’s the only way
rationing will work, as it does in nature – weed out the weak and vulnerable.
On the other hand, it remains to be seen if Obamacare will in fact get off the
ground. As it now stands, it appears the program will arrive stillborn due largely to the inability of government
to deliver. It can’t even get it together to build a website for enrollees.
Democrats who said Sarah Palin is a lunatic and death
panels don’t exist are uniformly silent
November 25, 2013
Mark Halperin, a senior political analyst for Time
magazine, told Newsmax TV that Democrats and the corporate media did not level with the public on death panels
built into Obamacare.
DEATH PANEL DISCUSSION STARTS @ 08:08/12:53
Mark Halperin makes his
remarks on death panels at 8 minutes into the video.
Halperin said the death panel concept is a cornerstone of
Obamacare. “It’s built into the plan. It’s not like a guess or like a judgment. That’s going to be part of how
costs are controlled,” Halperin told Steve Malzberg. Halperin makes his comments eight minutes into the above
Democrats have used the term “death panel” as a pejorative after the former Republican Governor of Alaska, Sarah
Plain, used it in a debate on Obamacare in 2009.
Democrats and the corporate media boast they have “debunked” the claim and insist eugenics practices are not
part of Obamacare. PolitiFact characterized the term as its “Lie of Year” in 2009 and FactCheck said it represents one of its “whoppers.”
Democrats and supporters of the Obamacare fiasco have fought a running battle since the Keynesian economist and
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said in February that in order for the collectivist welfare state to run
smoothly higher taxes and death panels will be mandatory.
“Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising,” Krugman
said, admitting that “there is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs… So the snarky version…
which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble, is death panels and sales taxes is how we do
This article was posted: Monday, November 25, 2013 at 6:29 pm
When the government is in charge of health care, rationing
happens, and some people are handed death sentences. The ObamaCare Left would prefer that this reality remain
hidden for as long as possible, submerged in a warm bath of “healthcare for everyone” sentiment, but Sarah Palin
eloquently summed up the actuality with the expression “death panels.”
Here is how it works in the Mother of All Nationalized Healthcare Systems. From Jenny Hope of the UK Daily
Pensioners with cancer are being written off as too old to treat, campaigners said yesterday.
They cited figures showing survival rates for British patients aged 75 and over are among the worst in
Young lung cancer sufferers are only 10 per cent more likely to die within five years than their continental
The EPA is testing dangerous cancer causing substances on the elderly and children. They
are writing draconian policies to curb natural human off the grid activity in an effort to push people off their
land and into compact cities. Infowars reporter Rob Dew lays out a mountain of evidence that proves the EPA is out
to kill your grandma.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, says that
society would be far better off if people quit trying to live past age 75. His new article entitled “Why I Hope To Die At 75” has the following very creepy subtitle: “An argument that society
and families—and you—will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly”. In the article,
Emanuel forcefully argues that the quality of life for most people is significantly diminished past the age of
75 and that once we get to that age we should refuse any more medical care that will extend our lifespans. This
is quite chilling to read, considering the fact that this is coming from one of the key architects of Obamacare. Of course he never uses the term “death panels” in
his article, but that is obviously what Emanuel would want in a perfect world. To Emanuel, it is inefficient to
waste medical resources on those that do not have a high “quality of life”. So he says that “75 is a pretty good
age to aim to stop”.
Emanuel believes in this philosophy so much that he says that he would like to die at age 75. Of course he has
no intention of committing suicide, but if he happened to drop dead once he hits his 75th birthday he would be very
happy about that. The following is an excerpt from his new article…
I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent
to after 75. Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and
protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to
cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural
type: what I call the American immortal.
I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and
potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop.
And so Emanuel plans to start rejecting pretty much all medical tests and treatments that will prolong his life
once he reaches that age…
At 75 and beyond, I will need a good reason to even visit the doctor and take any medical test or treatment,
no matter how routine and painless. And that good reason is not “It will prolong your life.” I will stop
getting any regular preventive tests, screenings, or interventions. I will accept only palliative—not
curative—treatments if I am suffering pain or other disability.
This means colonoscopies and other cancer-screening tests are out—and before 75. If I were diagnosed with
cancer now, at 57, I would probably be treated, unless the prognosis was very poor. But 65 will be my last
colonoscopy. No screening for prostate cancer at any age. (When a urologist gave me a PSA test even after I
said I wasn’t interested and called me with the results, I hung up before he could tell me. He ordered the test
for himself, I told him, not for me.) After 75, if I develop cancer, I will refuse treatment. Similarly, no
cardiac stress test. No pacemaker and certainly no implantable defibrillator. No heart-valve replacement or
bypass surgery. If I develop emphysema or some similar disease that involves frequent exacerbations that would,
normally, land me in the hospital, I will accept treatment to ameliorate the discomfort caused by the feeling
of suffocation, but will refuse to be hauled off.
A couple of decades ago, an article like this would have sparked mass public outrage.
But today, this article hardly even gets any attention.
That is because this kind of philosophy has spread everywhere. It is being taught at colleges and universities
across the United States and it is even represented throughout the ranks of the Obama administration.
For example, Barack Obama’s top science adviser John P. Holdren believes that implanting sterilization capsules under the skin of women could be a way to reduce the
size of the population and increase the quality of life for everyone…
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty
of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when
pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be
implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.
Yes, this guy is a total nutjob.
But he also has the ear of the man occupying the White House.
And we are not just talking about a few isolated crazies like Holdren. This agenda have been fully embraced by
our politicians in Washington.
U.S. taxpayers are paying for all of this, but most people don’t even know that it exists.
Of course this agenda has been moved forward by both Democrats and Republicans for decades.
And the woman that is very likely to be our next president is also a very strong proponent of this
When Hillary Clinton accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award back in 2009, she spoke glowingly of Sanger…
In a speech to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Awards Gala, US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton said that she admires “Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision.” Secretary
Clinton said she is “really in awe of” Sanger for Sanger’s early work in Brooklyn, New York, “taking on
archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions.”
But the truth is that Sanger was deeply racist and was determined to do whatever she could to help control the
population growth of the poor. The following is one of her most famous statements…
“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Hillary Clinton is also a huge supporter of the United Nations Population Fund. If you are not familiar with the United Nations
Population Fund, it is an organization that funds abortion, forced sterilization and brutal eugenics programs
throughout the developing world.
Population control advocates such as Emanuel, Holdren and Clinton are fully convinced that they are doing the
They actually believe that the world will be a better place if less people are born and if the elderly do not
live as long.
So what do you think? Please share your thoughts…
why one prominent doctors says i hope to die at