Since the evidence is overwhelming, it’s a simple matter to convince people, including statists, socialists and so-called liberals and progressives, that governments are largely run by liars, thieves, warmongers, murderers, assassins, torturers, drug and gun runners, peeping Tom’s, sexual perverts and, basically, total scumbags. Yet, the same people want to entrust totalitarian control over healthcare to them, supremely confident that everything will be hunky dory. Go figure.
Of course, awake people know why the elites want totalitarian control over health care. It’s because he who controls health care, especially when all moral restraints have been removed, enjoys total and arbitrary control over every aspect of life – birth, work and recreation, and death. Now, the ultimate goal of the elites, as stated in many works of their fiction and non-fiction, is to use health care to “scientifically” create drones, train drones, and kill drones, all for the glory of the queen. To get to that secular nirvana, moral boundaries must be gradually and subtly transgressed, philosophical, theological, legal, and medical precedents carefully established, language corrupted, and historical memory gradually erased. Put differently, the hive framework must be gradually built up such that the drones – to paraphrase Aldous Huxley – are made to celebrate their degradation and enslavement as empowerment and freedom.
Already, many key precedents have been set and tipping points reached, as the elites and their useful idiots guide us, with increasing determination and speed, from the culture of life to the culture of death.
Now, a favorite tactic of the elite is to use “complicated” cases that pit families against the state, and to publicly decide against the former, always depicted as emotional and ignorant, in favor of the latter, always depicted as scientific, objective and compassionate. The sad case of Charlie Gard illustrates all of this:
The elites are also masters of controlling the terms of the debate and distracting people away from alternative assumptions and conclusions. This is illustrated by the unthinking use of poorly defined terms like “quality of life”, etc. It is also illustrated by things that were omitted from the discussion. For example, in a rational and compassionate world, where all viable options are on the table, four months ago the US doctor would have been able to FedEx the oral medicine to the UK doctors where they would have been able to administered it to Charlie, without having to disturb him, and used standard medical procedures to try and manage and minimize side effects, etc. After three months on the medicine, Charlie’s parents and doctors would have had clarity about the success or failure of the medicine and would have been in a much better position to decide on the morally and medically right thing to do for Charlie.
Instead, an inherently simple case – a patient who’s rightful guardians would like to to try an experimental, oral and presumptively safe medicine on him for three months in a hospital setting – is made “complicated” and dragged out for four months, ultimately giving Caesar final authority in the matter. Heck, in a rational world they could have tried the experimental medication in the UK hospital, potentially helped Charlie and advanced the cause of medicine, while fighting in court.
But Caesar wants things “complicated” because he wants ultimate control over thumbs up or down for his drones and, moreover, he wants the drones to thank him for being so objective and looking out for everyone’s best interests.
All hail Caesar!
PS My title is taken from the following post at the American Catholic: