How your society is being destroyed right under your couch-potato nose!


"On the Appointment of Professor Peter Singer to Princeton University."


"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.' "

Source: Townhall, Marvin Olasky, The most influential philosopher alive, Dec 2, 2004


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:

 Click here to read more from MSNBC and to view their video of the wedding.  This must have made Professor Singer's Day, at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University in New Jersey.
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."

While you may think Singer's concept of sex with animals is obscene, there are Americans who see his view as not only welcomed, but embraced it. Consider the contribution to the liberal Web site,

"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.)

On another issue on Singer's beliefs, which had shocked many Americans who were able to read about it through local news stories that had not been edited out by liberal managing editors of their newspaper, a Web site on Euthanasia reported Singer's hiring as follows:

"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 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."

Visit Professor Singer's future for America
Visit Professor Singer's future for you and America.
Compliments of The Island Web site

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

April 26, 2006,
Debra Saunders

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

(For the Center for Humanless Values?)

As written by the President of 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."





"Freedom is Knowledge"