How your society
is being destroyed right under your couch-potato nose!
"Question: What about parents
conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill
him, take his organs and transplant them into their ill older
children? Singer: 'It's difficult to warm to parents who can
take such a detached view, (but) they're not doing something
really wrong in itself.'
Is anything wrong with a society in
which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale?
'No.' "
| This
easily happens when elite and so-called intellectual individuals,
strangers to the healthy activity and ethics of the human
spirit, are appointed to positions of power at academic
universities like Princeton University with the goal to
personally encourage exotic changes to the normal evolution
of human thinking. During their leadership, they create
an environment where the abuse of innocent children and
animals is not only found acceptable, but encouraged by
radicals in our media as friends of the university culture,
the ideology welcomed as a Sea Change to the American
culture. |
When Princeton University's President, Shirley
M. Tilghman, allowed the hiring of Professor Peter Singer to
the faculty and staff of Princeton University in New Jersey for
addition
to its Center of Human Values, (almost seeming an oxymoron),
many Americans saw his employment at this established American university
so outrageous it must have taken Princeton's president by surprise.
In writing the defense for her actions in Princeton's Weekly Bulletin
located on the President's
page on December 7, 1998, her response not only explained her
hiring of Singer but showed how far she had jumped off the dock
herself.
Among many things, Professor
Singer had advocated sex between humans and non-humans (animals),
his comments recorded in a piece written for NPR, where Singer had
written:
 |
| MSNBC
- "British woman ‘marries’
dolphin, tying the net after 15-year courtship" |
| Photo
compliments MSNBC. Click
to view video. |
"Galdikas called to her companion
not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her,
and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very
small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest
before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that
struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who
has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one
of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock
or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may
have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making
the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands
very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are
great apes."
To show you how your liberal newspapers view Singer as their new
hero, World
Magazine reported:
"Many readers may
be saying, "Peter who?"—but The New York Times, explaining
how his views trickle down through media and academia to the general
populace, noted that "no other living philosopher has had this
kind of influence." The New England Journal of Medicine said
he has had "more success in effecting changes in acceptable
behavior" than any philosopher since Bertrand Russell. The
New Yorker called him the "most influential" philosopher
alive."
"It's easy to say that becoming
more than friendly with man's best friend is wrong. What's hard
is backing up that statement with a principle, and reconciling
that principle with your beliefs about meat-eating, sexual orientation,
or, in Singer's case, pedophilia."
Singer also got the attention of the Web site, Animal
Rights, their writing the following:
"Singer is basically condoning
rape and molestation as long as one (presumably he?) can find
a way to interpret the situation as being "mutually satisfying."
I suppose Mr. Singer can find a way to justify any base behavior
in his mind via his meaningless hypotheticals. Singer has been
put on a pedestal by the animal rights movement for a very long
time but this essay is a wake-up call to those who have blindly
idolized him. Moreover, since women are often sexually abused
and exploited in conjunction with acts of bestiality, feminists
should be outraged by his position on this issue. Child advocates
should also be alarmed since Singer is condoning sex acts in which
one party is basically incapable of giving consent. Singer is
in dangerous territory here and if he has any sense left he will
realize the potential fallout from this essay and retract his
position."
(Note that Bestiology has been
approved for decades in the ultraliberal Plato-state of Sweden,
with restrictions on child pornography only recently passed
by legislatures as homosexuals have taken their right to child sex
to the extreme . . . only to result in more animals being abused.
Veterinarians
across this sick country furious at what they are seeing
in their offices, that is the animals that live.
And
now Swedish legislatures have approved a tenative law where
any Swedish citizen could go to jail for offending a homosexual, the
man deciding the description of the offensive . . . a word,
a phrase, a joke, a look or body language. During this time
the freedom
of speech of a minister is being terminated, his going to
jail for daring to speak out on the negatives of sex. If
there was ever a sign in today's society of Plato's warning
about the demise of successful societies, it's Sweden.)
"More than 100 protesters denounced
Princeton University on Saturday for hiring a philosopher whose
extreme views include allowing parents to end the lives of their
severely disabled infants.
"Nazi Germany did the same thing
to the disabled, judging their lives not worth living. We object
to that," said John Scaturro, 49, who protested near the
Ivy League school along with his wife and young daughter.
University officials stood by the appointment
of Peter Singer, a professor whose academic work they say will contribute
to scholarship and ethics debates at Princeton."
Singer basically said that if parents felt their newborn child
was too disabled (an obvious abstract conclusion based on the attitude
of the affected parents), they should have a right to terminate
the new life without, of course, the approval of the living child.
In other words, if a child possessed the potential of Steven
Hawkings but also was subject to his disease, Singer would have
proclaimed he was better off dead.
But would he and would we? And could the human race be better off
if a healthy Singer had never been born? Only time will tell.
Consider the tap dancing shown below written by the president of
Princeton University, an excuse for the hiring of Professor Peter
Singer, one you can click on below to see the entire letter provided
to the university's population by its Web site.
Remember that this was written by a highly educated individual
. . . an intellectual. It was the intellectuals who had belonged
to the Third Reich that had subscribed teachers, bakers, and candlestick
makers to sing while the Reich murdered Jews in front of them, a
people the Reich had seen as less than human and similar to Singer's
currently bigotry to the disabled. The people of the Reich were
also arrogant, wealthy, and well educated, their listening to Bach
and Beethoven while sipping the best of wines as six-million human
beings were being exterminated. If the Jews had been smart, they
would have started their own executions ten-years earlier. Then
six-million lives may have been saved and World War II might have
been limited to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
And now it's starting up all over again at American university's
like Princeton, at one time their values based on Christian ethics
that respected all life. Today these universities are diving into
ideals that worship the wonders of the spirits of Halloween, witchcraft,
and the marvels and power gained from the genocide of Christian
values.
While you may ask about all the references above to Singer's views
on the American society, this page written January 2006, they were
all written between 1998 and 2001. So you if you do nothing about
evil and those who applaud it, it's just allowed to go on and on
until society says, "enough is enough." America
seems to be rapidly approaching that point of no return, waiting
for that special flame that will ignite the fuse.
Finally, one article was found written on Professor
Singer on Townhall.com published on December 2, 2004, and by the
author Marvin Olasky, titled The
most influential philosopher alive. This one will raise
the hairs on the back of your head, making Hitler look like a kinder
and gentler soul, proving again the legacy of the Clinton years
to be "I did it because I could."
For example, when I asked him recently
about necrophilia (what if two people make an agreement that whoever
lives longest can have sexual relations with the corpse of the
person who dies first?), he said, "There's no moral problem
with that." Concerning bestiality -- should people have sex
with animals, seen as willing participants? -- he responded, 'I
would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?'
(but) it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense.'
If the 21st century becomes a Singer
century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who
are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts.
Question: What about parents conceiving
and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his
organs and transplant them into their ill older children? Singer:
"It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached
view, (but) they're not doing something really wrong in itself."
Is anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for
spare parts on a massive scale? 'No.'
American vampire
|
Two years ago, The New York Times ran a story about a 48-year-old Brooklyn woman who, facing death after years of dialysis treatments and failing health, received a kidney from a Brazilian peasant who was paid $6,000 for the organ. The chilling story bared the human misery that surrounds the black market on human parts. Some donors faced ill health and even (unlike the recipients) prosecution. The kidney recipient talked to the Times reporter, but felt enough shame that she did not want her name in the newspaper. Last week, The San Francisco Chronicle ran a story by reporter Vanessa Hua about a San Mateo, Calif., man who flew to Shanghai and paid $110,000 for a liver -- with nary a thought about human-rights activists' contention that China has executed prisoners in order to harvest their organs. Not only was Eric De Leon's name in the paper, he even has a blog about his Shanghai transplant. The man clearly is not ashamed. Last year, the Chinese deputy health minister admitted, as he promised reform, that the organs of executed prisoners were sold to foreigners. This month, the South China Morning Post reported that a leading Chinese transplant surgeon estimated that more than 99 percent of transplanted organs in China came from executed prisoners . . . read more
Webmaster's note: Professor Peter Singer of Vampire land, Princeton University and its Center for Human Ethics (I kid you not), proposed only a few years ago it would not be immoral for American parents to create a baby for the sole purpose of using its organs to repair a sick sibling . . . shades the movie The Island. Also, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family had already reported these events in the mid 1990's, his being sent pictures of ambulances at Chinese executions, the mainstream press uninterested, some of its editors probably customers. What this columnist missed is the Chinese prisoners also include persecuted Christians that have been place in jail and also shot for their organs. It's perfect for the new Pagan rich in America. |
The citizens of this country in mass need to bring their leaders
and educational community onto their radar scope, revealing Clinton's
legacy to really read, "I did it because no one around me
had the balls or conviction in their own values to made me stop."
___________________________________
On the Appointment
of Professor Peter Singer to Princeton University
Paragraph below
is taken from Princeton Weekly Bulletin, December 7, 1998, The
President's Page. Click the above link to read entire release.
"But the test
in making any faculty appointment is not whether we agree with the
findings of a professor's scholarship; the test is the power of
the professor's intellect and the quality of his or her scholarship
and teaching. An important part of our purpose as a university is
to ask the most difficult and fundamental questions about human
existence, however uncomfortable this may be.
We search for truth, new
knowledge and better understandings through scholarship, research
and teaching, even as we also convey our society's cultural inheritance.
In these ways we challenge students -- and others -- to think critically,
to examine their beliefs and assumptions, to hone their abilities
to identify and assess ethical issues of various kinds, and to develop
both a capacity for independent thought and a set of moral values
to guide them through their lives."
The above evolution of our society, which
can be seen in the words from the president's letter representing
the new Princeton University, was already noted by Plato.
Plato was born about 600 years before the birth of Christ.
It seems to prove again that humans never, ever learn
from their own mistakes.
Plato observed that
no "successful" democracy like America's
could ever survive. He believed that strange ideas would
always entered into the new diverse culture through its
arts and literature, eventually invading the government
where those destructive ideas would be forced upon the
society, becoming mainstream.
You might see it in today's terms as if
a syringe filled with lead poisoning had been inserted
in the human body and allowed to drip until madness set
in.
Plato had one obvious sign you could count
on to test to see if your democracy was heading south
to the trash heap. He believed that as ultraliberal ideas
took over even puppy dogs would be seen to stand on their
hind legs in an effort to demand their freedoms, too.
He then observed that the normal population
of the society would become so offended by the ethics
of their own civilization, they would do anything to return
it to the way it was . . . even at the expense of their
freedom.
Note
as you read Princeton University president's reasoning
for the hiring of Professor Singer in 1998, you might
suddenly realize that she had made the statement so
broad to cover her approval of Singer's behavior and
beliefs even Adolph Hitler could have been welcomed
to Princeton University as a faculty member and participate
in its laughable Center
for Human Values.
We
would like to think of it instead as the Center
for Humanless Values, but what do we know.
"You
can't make this stuff up."
|
|
