Erasing the Concept that Human Life is Sacred -- A Recap

After republishing Malevolent Misleadership yesterday, it would be a good idea to recap some other essays that will help readers who want to understand why the Progs believe they are doing good -- at the core of their religion -- as they actively set up conditions for unprecedentedly deadly conflicts worldwide.


The first of these was a republication of another 2006 essay which explains why Judeochristian ethics need to be destroyed. It laid out how civilization only began to grow when ethics began to eliminate human sacrifice as a state sponsored religion.  The last paragraphs read as follows.

Our secular world has been indoctrinating the whole globe with the notion that the world is endangered by it being burdened by too many people. It does not see that human intelligence is our greatest resource. It sees greater and lesser lights. It decides who is better and who is worse. Its influence has redirected society's concerns: from discouraging people from harming themselves and others into encouraging the human to explore wherever he feels inclined; it tries to belittle or obscure histories that warn of consequences from poor or risky choices. It shrugs at NAMBLA and is angered by the Boy Scouts. It decides who should be saved and who should not be. It decides whom to come to the aid of and whom should be abandoned. [The question of] who is innocent and who is not becomes one of being deemed so by those who play god, not by anything nonthreatening the subjugated creature chooses to do or not do. Those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [and thus Jesus Christ] clearly pose an obstacle to those who don't believe that such a God exists. “Since no such God exists, who will do the providing? No. NO. Stand aside. Let us brilliant ones, unencumbered by an outdated morality, take on the role of God. Someone must!”

These two messages are incompatible.

There will be conflict over this. It has already begun. [emphasis altered Aug 2017]

  As usual with their commandeering the meanings of words, the "Progressives" are really Regressives. Read the whole thing to gain a grasp of why the religions which are not dangerous have been made the target while the religions that are dangerous have been embraced by the Progs. There are a couple of follow-on links published a number of years after 2006 that helped tie in new developments.

The second old essay is from 2013. It provides a personal warning of the dangers once Sustainability becomes an unofficial state religion. The following excerpt is emphasized where two important aspects of what the common man faces were written.

Thomas Malthus' theories arose about 50 years after Pascal's death. The Age of Reason was beginning to undermine the Ancien Régimes. Many rulers saw and welcomed the benefits of liberty. But two kinds [of rulers], both powerful, hated it. Those who hate the common man, and those who love concentrated power. Sometimes they're the same, and sometimes not. Malthus provided a "moral" cloak to hide both the explicit and implicit hatred of humanity -- even from themselves. By being able to convince even themselves that their vision is righteous, they can remain calm and seemingly benign as they convince large numbers

"Leave it to us boys. We know what needs be done. Really."

(The ancient Sophists understood power and how to get and keep it. One of their chief ways of keeping it was through fostering ideas that attract casuists -- men who sought the moral path based on studying cases of conduct -- and let them do the heavy lifting, often with little expense or risk to the Sophists' masters, spurred by a few demagogues, and fueled considerably by the zeal of the useful idiots. Eric Hoffer, by popularizing the more easily understood term of "true believer,"  did us a disservice by disconnecting the Greek designation for them, and thus their historically implied connection to the power seeking schemers. The humanity haters may believe they now have sufficient armies of those who are enthralled by the indirect means  to achieving a new (old) religion (see below). It is one that will provide them moral authority to achieve their goals. The real powers only have to support the activists when things get tough. Mostly they have historically chosen to be silent partners. Today -- not so silent.)

What this exposes is that only some of the rulers are themselves religious zealots. This provides the patriot with the possibility that the ones who want only power could be persuaded to turn against their current allies.

But it's the second kind, the seemingly benign but odd casuist, the common man type zealot who poses the most danger to the common man. Because they are the natural local double agent to aid global authorities who, with every passing day, gain ever more ability to track who poses danger to its hegemony.

What this last essay lays out for you is what the first essay only only hinted at: how the globalist has the means by which to find and persecute all who still abide even a little to Judeochristian ethics. It has the latest ethics and it thinks it is in total control. Hence my repeated request that you pray. A lot.

BTW, this situation is what the antiabortionists warned about from the start. Back then the pro-abortionists had to argue that the baby, renamed fetus, was not yet human, so not entitled to protection.

Now that we've gone well past that -- the "prevention" of over 50 million new Americans from reaching the human stage -- the idea of human of worth and worth how much is now the next hurdle. Hardly a hurdle at all when the body parts of recently "departed" have a value that exceeds the perceived value of the whole human.  My advice -- become an avid smoker. Take your chances with death from cigarettes versus being bumped off because of the value of your smoke-free liver.