MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
Many times, on my radio show Ground Zero, I have talked about “the science” as opposed to science. I hear all the time that it is our patriotic duty as citizens of the United States to follow “the science” when it comes to our health and well-being and when some political pundit rages about the fate of the planet when it comes to Climate Change.
“The science” is becoming an Orwellian term that can easily be seen as a cover word for “the party” which in our case is becoming a technocratic cult that is behind what is called “bioethics.“
I have been reading statistics that the newfound faith of the youth is not faith in God or even a spiritual path of self-discovery and ascension — it is the blind belief in “the science.”
Younger generations in the United States, Canada, and Europe are becoming more secular. Recent polls have indicated that there seems to be a majority of college-aged young adults that have rejected their faith in favor of using science to explain many of life’s mysteries.
The technocracy is boasting that the United States has achieved maybe even surpassed its goals of becoming a secular nation. While the Christian-Right is very vocal about a belief in God in the United States, the secular tsunami is taking over as we edge closer to the idea of A.I. singularity and the scientific establishment’s promoting of Climate Change.
Sociologists have suggested that the reason this is becoming a trend is because of the fanatical ideological extremes that are now invading the social network of our country.
There appears to be a schism that is forming where people with fresh ideological perspectives don’t follow the lines of the two major political parties.
Those that are becoming secular are rebelling against the left and right paradigm. They are rebelling against organized religion – they believe that all of the established groups alienate the order of things and do nothing to establish peace and harmony with the environment.
The truth is that spiritual health is important in finding respect for human life. From that standpoint, we launch into a form of religious affiliation which eventually becomes the most central form of civic engagement…from there, people place themselves in various collectives and develop political views.
Now we are seeing a disengagement taking place; a disengagement from, religion, then the disengagement of traditional civil engagements, disengagement from civic duty, traditional political beliefs and eventually an amoral attitude about human life and the plight of others.
Eventually, there will be no value in the Old Order and the majority will await a New Order.
Those in the older generations will then become insignificant and irrelevant as they hold on to old values and old traditions.
This signals a darker future for older generations.
Even before COVID-19 annihilated much of the world economy, the baby boomer demographic time bomb was discussed by think tanks and policy makers far and wide. During the past 25 years, young people increasingly put off having children with a 4.4% collapse in birthrates during the Dec. 2019-Dec 2020 year of COVID. Today western fertility levels have fallen to 1.7 children/woman which is far below the 2.1 levels needed to replace the population.
During this time, the baby boomer generation born between 1945-1960 increasingly found themselves beset with grey hair, and increased healthcare needs in their old age with the first wave having hit retirement years in 2010. While technological advances has extended average life expectancies from 61 years (in 1935) to 81 years today, the demographic imbalance of young : old means that society will essentially be incapable of supporting itself under current dynamics.
This was foretold by economists for years. i addressed the issue of zero population growth 10 years ago and the effect the aging baby boomer would have on the health care system. Back then I speculated that the extreme attitudes towards the burden of the aging population would lead to Eugenics directives that would be vital in sustaining a fracture economy.
I understood that there were many times in the history of the world where technocrat fascists would convince the population that humans were a menace or a cancer on this planet and that some people that are a burden on the economy will be seen as useless eaters.
That was years ago–and I spoke of extremes because I know how inhumane governments can be, especially when they are advised by technocrats that look at populations as product rather than human beings.
Back then I stated all they need is a plan to convince the population to voluntarily thin the herd. This way those who are a burden to the economy would be eliminated and the Oligarchs would be able to control fewer individuals with threats of scarcity and disease.
I proposed that a comprehensive plan of action would be proposed globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations and various governments, to review ways the world can be a better place for sustainable development.
We discussed that “sustainable development” of the globe consists of a number of suggestions to improve the impact on our environment.
First in the agenda is to establish a group consensus of crises and solutions that include separating the people and eventually culling or removing them.
This proposal would be no different than what was carried out against the Jews in Hitler’s day and they were marked for death because of their ethnicity, bloodline and other reasons that were actually made to fit into a corrupt eschatology.
Hitler had outlined the proposal of the final solution in his book, Mein Kampf. Hitler stated that it is important to “sift the human material” for those who support decisions of the leaders and those who do not support these decisions. He also believed in culling those who were a burden on society.
The agenda of “sifting human material” is also found hidden in the policies of Global Warming Sustainability proposals.
Looking back into the darker annals of history we see that after the Nuremberg Hearings we saw 7 of the 23 Nazi doctors put to death for their role in Hitler’s Tiergarten Fier health reforms, Nuremberg counsel Dr. Leo Alexander wrote in 1949:
“Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed; it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in basic attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick.
Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, then finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the non-rehabilitate sick”
In his essay, Dr. Alexander described the growth of the euthanasia laws in fascist Germany as the concept “lives unworthy of life” was first introduced into health policy. Under the guidance of “expert panels”, the T4 health codes soon became a driving force of eugenics that saw 270,000 non-Jewish Germans killed starting with handicapped children and elderly before the policy was expanded to embrace Jews, Gypsies and other target “unfit” group.
The ghost of Tiergarten Fier or T4 is being revived today and technocrats call it “bioethics.”
The fact that the organizations promoting the rise of this eugenics policy throughout Nazi Germany and North America included such powerhouses as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Human Sterilization League for Human Betterment (today renamed “Engender Health”) which have all taken leading roles in the World Health Organization over recent decades is more than a little concerning.
The fact that these eugenics organizations simply re-branded themselves after WWII and are now implicated in modern RNA vaccine development alongside the Galton Institute (formerly British Eugenics Association), Oxford’s AstraZeneca, Pfizer and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation should give any serious thinker pause as we consider what patterns of history we are willing to tolerate repeating in our presently precarious age.
I was recently sent an article by a listener who encouraged me to research the plot to kill the elderly and to render sterile the younger population by rewiring their DNA through vaccines.
After all, it was Bill Gates that stated that vaccines would be effective in reducing populations in some countries.
Now that the vaccine is being administered worldwide, scientists are boldly proclaiming and explaining to the “Deer in the headlights” population that they are reprogramming the DNA of each person who gets the shot .
Recently at a TED Talk, Tal Zaks, the Chief Medical Officer of Moderna Therapeutics actually stated that that they are hacking the software of life and rewriting genetic code.
The question is what does that mean for human life in the future?
Does this mean that the vaccines are transforming humanity into walking, talking operating systems?
Will they enhance life expectancy — or will they diminish it — or will it reduce population over time?
Jonathon Porritt, who at one time chaired the now defunct the Sustainable Development Commission, stated that curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He stated that political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.
Porritt, championed family planning, even if it meant shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.
Many of these policies were part of the charter of the Tri-lateral commission. Zbigniew Brzezinski Barack Obama’s foreign adviser was the co-founder of the Trilateral commission along with David Rockefeller.
The original stated purpose of the Trilateral Commission was to create a “New International Economic Order.” Its current statement has morphed into fostering a “closer cooperation among these core democratic industrialized areas of the world with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system. The global plan is for all countries to live on the level of third world nations.
Economic sustainability they believe could be be achieved through a process known as “end game” strategies. these strategies include controls on ecological systems such as food, water and air. The agenda would severely limit water, electricity, and transportation–and would also eventually eliminate those who are a burden on resources demands and health care systems.
To them it is all about the numbers– for example:
By 2030, it is currently estimated people over the age of 85 will triple while seniors between 65-85 will double. The financial costs of sustaining this demographic will skyrocket as healthcare services double from their currently massive $1.4 trillion/year to $3 trillion/year by 2050 (in the USA).
As cost-effectiveness experts look at this dismal trend, all they can see is a cold numbers game.
These experts don’t tend to see humans with cognitive powers and souls and they certainly don’t recognize the existence of such immaterial notions as the “sacred” which might prevent the culling of lives in order to satisfy monetary constraints.
They certainly don’t recognize the injustices of a system that allows trillions of dollars to be spent for Wall Street bailouts and Middle East wars but which fails to provide the medical resources to service its own population fairly.
These experts can only think in terms of adapting to scarcity and supposedly “fixed limits” but never eliminating scarcity through systemic changes that place human life and creative thought on a higher priority than mere money.
When Joe Biden was busy creating his cabinet and advisory board on COVID-19 he called upon a man by the name of Dr. Eziekiel Emmanuel to be part of his medical advisory board.
While acting as Obama’s health advisor from 2009-2011, Ezekiel Emmanuel wrote a bone chilling study called “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions” in the Lancet.
In this revealing document, Ezekiel’s vision for a new ethic of healthcare management was enunciated with the “Complete Lives System” that would be used to justify who among the needy of society competing for scraps of the shrinking pie, will receive care (i.e: expensive cancer screenings, treatments, drugs), and who will be left to die when he wrote:
“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 to 40 years gets the most substantial chances, whereas the youngest and the oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”
Overthrowing the entire edifice of Judeo-Christian values that defined human life as sacred as well as the pesky Hippocratic oath which prevents physicians from doing any harm willfully to their patients, Emmanuel describes exactly what he intends by his “priority curve” and “attenuated chances” for the young and old saying:
“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life.
The 20 year old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as yet-unfulfilled projects… adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investment that will be wasted without a complete life: infants by contrast, have not yet received these investments… it is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three year old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent dies.”
That’s right: Emmanuel’s “cost-effective” curve asserts that the life of a 20-year-old is more worthy of life than that of a 3-year-old, or 75 year old. In the latter two cases, society has invested either too little to make that young life worth saving or has invested too much already relative to the financial worth of the low quality senior.
In a more recent 2014 article published in the Atlantic, called, Why I Hope to Die at 75, Emmanuel explained his belief that anyone attempting to prolong their life beyond 75 is delusional, selfish and pathetic stating:
“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.”
Ezekiel Emmanuel made the point in his 2009 report that the key to cost-cutting in health care would be found in the application of Quality Adjusted Life Years under the control of independent panels of experts.
If you recall this is where we got the term “death panels’ something that was said to have been debunked by the mainstream media.
Now it appears that populations are now being targeted and are being reduced. There is really no need for death panels when the population can reduce on its own with the aid of science that basically uses Eugenics disguised as bioethics to meet the goals of reducing the population with plausible deniability.
What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics.
With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent.