Friday, March 2, 2012

"The [Very Lethal] Values of a Liberal Society"

"Ethicists" declare the killing of this child "permissible,"
its potential "morally irrelevant."

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? is the title of an article in the current issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics by Alberto Giubilini, of the Universities of Milan and Melbourne, and Francesca Minerva, of the Universities of Melbourne and Oxford.

The paper is summarized thus:
By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
The feeble-mindedness and moral nullity of this argument is established by the use of the term "after-birth abortion," a contradiction in terms introduced to establish the moral equivalence of abortion, which is now legal throughout the "liberal" Western world, and infanticide, which is still deemed to be murder.

But this crass effort to manipulate opinion by the misuse of words is totally unnecessary. Self-evidently, it makes no significant moral difference whether a human being is killed immediately before, or immediately after, birth.

But by resorting at the outset of their argument to philosophical fraud, the authors accomplish something that they should, given their beliefs, have avoided at all costs, which is to draw attention to the moral equivalence between the killing of a perfectly healthy infant and the practice of abortion.

As it is, they have succeeded in creating a surge of opposition to the extraordinary evil of murdering, yearly, literally millions of perfectly healthy human beings, with the sole justification that their human potential is of "no moral relevance" -- a morally depraved nonsense that reveals the banality of the evil espoused by the liberal-left that dominates the thought of the Western establishment.

The argument is framed in a vacuum.

No consideration is given to religious scruples, for in the "liberal" West, religion is dead and all but the unenlightened are atheists like the evolutionary biologist and Oxford University professor of the Public Understanding of Science, Richard Dawkins, for whom Christianity is a contemptible delusion

No consideration is given to the propagation of the race, for in the "liberal" West, there is no such thing as race, the difference between a Chinese and a Zulu being a purely social construct, notwithstanding the liberal's professed delight in human diversity

No consideration is given to the broader implications of declaring the murder of a newborn child "permissible." Yet if a newborn child lacks "morally relevant" potential, how many of us can truly claim to be different?

But though the case for child murder is made in isolation, one should be under no illusion about what is to follow. As the corpses of little children pile up, the lack of a "morally relevant" potential will be advanced to justify slaughtering the occupants of every mental hospital and every geriatric ward. This has long been the goal of the Fabian left: to exterminate the halt, the sick, the maimed, and every other kind of "useless" eater. 

What passes for "liberalism" provides justification for all the horrors of Nazi and Communist totalitarianism. As they plan for the installation of diminutive gas chambers in every maternity ward, the medical "ethicists" are surely already working to justify the profitable recycling of tissues and organs of those of no "morally relevant" potential.

What distinguishes the vileness of this Western liberalism from the vileness of Nazism is that its racism is the the self-hating racism of a dying civilization rather than the predatory racism of an empire. The West has been turned upon itself for the greater enrichment of a plutocratic and globalist elite.

That the liberal-left program for the  the annihilation of Western civilization and its people is based on no ethical system whatever, is evident from the way in which its proponents respond to their critics. Thus, according to the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Prof Julian Savulescu, referring to death threats received by the authors of "Why should the baby live?"
... those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society."
Bravo. An exemplary refutation of every argument: find a few nutters threatening violence, preferably skinheads with "fuck off" or "Heil Hitler" tattooed on their foreheads, and use them as a pretext for smearing all opponents as far-right-wing extremist Nazi, fascist, racists.

Which explains why the liberal-left cannot do without the fringe right-wingers, such as Britain's BNP, EDL, British Freedom Party, and the dimwitted knuckle-dragging oafs that these parties attract.

But the vast majority of ordinary people who have never acted in an abusive or threatening manner are in total opposition to the legalization of infanticide and the destruction of their own race and nation by a liberal elite that sanctions the slaughter of millions of healthy humans in utero while condemning as racists those who oppose the replacement of their own people and the destruction of their culture through a combination of state promoted abortion, psychological manipulation under the guise of K to middle-age education and mass immigration of people differing from the indigenous population in race, culture and creed.

Italian Fertility Rate (Replacement rate = 2.1)
The recent rise in the Italian fertility rate reflects the fertility
of the philoprogenitive immigrants from North Africa and else-
where who are replacing the indigenous Italian population. Image source.
But the conclusive ethical case against the authors of "Why should the baby live?" is to be found in their names.

Their names are Italian and Italy, with a birth rate barely half the replacement rate, leads the World in the globalist-driven program of national self-destruction.

Italy, will endure, and it will be occupied by people calling themselves Italians. But these will be "new Italians," not the descendants of the now dying generation. They will be the descendants of people from Africa, Asian and the Middle East, a mongrelized population whose "morally relevant" potential will be defined not by a religion or a culture, but according to the needs of a globalist elite.

This is a point one might have expected the public intellectual (or at least the publicly funded intellectual), Richard Dawkins, to have considered and discussed. But apparently, it is a point too abstruse for Oxford's present-day successors to such moral and intellectual heavyweights as Bishop Robert Grosseteste and C.S. Lewis.

But things may yet go astray. The Muslims who seek to settle and occupy the West could yet come out on top. On top, that is, of the plutocrats now seeking to remodel the World in their own interest. In which case, we can look forward to a future when the Atheist dons of Oxford are replaced by God-fearing mullahs who understand that their powers and privileges depend on caring for, not destroying, the people.

But by then, rather sadly, the European peoples will have been submerged and largely displaced by others.


  1. Highly informative. The film with B. Shaw is jaw-dropping to say the least. Since I was born several years after WWII you have me utterly shaking my head and reconsidering things -- what were the pre-war components of the western 'intelligentsia?' I've heard much about this through books by Edward Black and others, but the way you present it is without equal, and I thank you.

    Was it Nietzsche who prophesied back in the 19th century that the 20th century would see man made horrors more awful than anyone could yet then conceive -- while at least when it was all done being able to look back and acknowledge them as horrible -- while the century to follow --the 21st-- would commit horrors even worse while passing them over as sane, acceptable, progressive or however?

    1. Nietzsche became insane, not surprising, really, considering the horrific future he anticipated.

      Unfortunately, he seems to have got it right, as discussed in this essay, from which the following is a quote.

      "Nietzsche predicted that it would be well into the 21st century before Western thought fully confronted the crisis of nihilism. It would thus far appear that he was correct. Western thought since the Enlightenment has attempted to compensate for the loss of the old faith by replacing the discredited Christian worldview with new faiths and new pieties. As these have become increasingly difficult to justify within a framework of rationality and a belief in inevitable “progress,” Western intellectuals have increasingly retreated into the irrational. This is illustrated by the curious phenomena of the present efforts by Western intellectual elites to embrace postmodernism, with its accompanying moral and cultural relativism, while simultaneously embracing the egalitarian-universalist-humanist moralistic zealotry popularly labeled “political correctness” and espousing with great piousness such liberal crusades as “human rights,” “anti-racism,” “gay liberation,” feminism, environmentalism and the like. Such an outlook, which combines extreme moralism in the cultural and political realm, complete moral relativism in the philosophical or metaphysical realm, and at times even falls into subjectivism in the epistemological realm14, is fundamentally irrational, of course. That such an outlook has become so deeply entrenched indicates that Western intellectuals are desperately working to avoid a full confrontation with the crisis of nihilism.

      Pareto argued that civilizations die when their elites lose faith in their own civilization to such a degree that the will to survive no longer exists. Western political and cultural elites presently exhibit abiding contempt for the legacy of their civilization, as demonstrated by their attachment to anti-Western ideologies such as “multiculturalism” and support for political policies, such as permitting mass immigration into the West from the Third World, that ultimately mean the demographic overrun and death of Western civilization."

      Europeans killing their own babies will, marginally, at least, hasten the achievement of the demographic overrun and death of Western civilization.

    2. But the failure of the intellectuals to deal effectively with "the crisis of nihilism" reflects their subordination, via the publicly-funded educational system, to a corporate elite operating through the Council on Foreign Relations, corporate owned governments and their security services, and other mechanisms of more or less covert control.

      See: The beautiful people who control the World


      The New American World Order: How It Works

  2. Very much appreciate the wealth of insight you've provided with just these few links.

    Not to play the devil's advocate by any means, but your pointing to Michio Kaku had me find this Youtube piece of his on Type 0, 1, 2, and 3 interplanetary civilizations.

    A bit far-fetched, anyone might be forgiven for saying, but he clearly believes that multiculturalism must prevail if humanity is to make the jump from 'Type 0' to 'Type 1' (complete planetary control) which he sees as very possibly occurring within the next 100 years.

    I'd venture his study of physics may have gone a bit too far (or that it is mere self-promotion) -- just thought you might find it amusing. If one doesn't inquire, one might never suspect what unusual ideas are being taken seriously by some people. My guess in this case would be intentional disinformation, perhaps with the noblest of misconceived intentions.

  3. Kaku is a propagandist or a nut.

    He talks of the inevitability of the transition from a Type Zero to a Type One civilization in the absence of the slightest evidence that there is any civilization at all, other than our own, anywhere in the universe.

    Then, for lack of anything more credible to support his wacky projection of human social development, he offers as proof of concept Star Trek and Hollywood fantasy movies.

    Then, as evidence that this wondrous transition to a "higher and better civilization" is already underway, he offers the mainstream media:

    "Every time I read the newspaper I see evidence of this historic transition from Type Zero to Type One ...."


    This new civilization will be characterized, so he says, by the universal recognition of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Madonna (will it be Madonna people will recognize or Madonna's crotch, or maybe just a gristly septuagenarian considering marriage to a 24-year old?).

    Then he says:

    "Some people don't want it. Those are the terrorists."

    Yeah, he surely is a shill, maybe for the CFR, or is it the CIA?

    In fact, there's no reason to suppose that global governance will do any thing for the technological advancement of human civilization. In the past it was competition that drove technology, not imperialism.

    Rome sank into decadence and stagnation, as did the Turkish Empire, the Soviet Union and all the other empires that have been and gone.

    A global empire is likely to stagnate around some cult such as foot binding, Madonna's crotch, or if it's American-inspired, Christmas beginning in June and breast enhancement.

    1. Yes. And notice he says that Nafta and the EU trading blocs are 'signs' or 'evidence' that a transition from 'type 0' to 'type 1' is occurring. Aside from the sheer propoganda-like nature of such, he seems to think that gullible laymen will take it as though pointy-heads at Cal Tech or Los Alamos have calculated all this with computer simulations or some such thing. Real nonsense.

      So here we have a supposedly reputable scientist acting like a palm-reading charlatan of medieval times. Why be shocked or surprised at such a thing -- were those wretches bound to disappear simply because Francis Bacon proposed something like 'the scientific method?'

      The NY Times has an article today on statins and type II diabetes which is perhaps believable because it is so hard to imagine such broad and systemic incompetence involving what is essentially experimentation on hundreds of millions of human beings:

      Maybe it is like one of the scenarios in one of your links -- a dystopic feudal plutocracy where, for example, simply to perhaps prolong the life of a family of inbred billionaires such experiments were done on all humanity. And profit greatly while doing so.