Life and Anti-Life (was:Re: the WAR has begun]
- lilolemissy@... writes:
Requiem for Terri, and the nation
Terri Schiavo passed away a few minutes ago.
Hitler is laughing.; That is, if laughter is possible at his new address.
In the spirit of Nazism, our nation has now executed a disabled
person.; The brave new world is here.;
We now qualify as full-fledged members of the New World Order.;
The U.N. Committee on the Disabled in February 2005 drafted language for
an international treaty on human rights that left the door open for mercy
killing of the disabled.
Terri Schiavo committed no crime; she was not on life support; she was
not comatose; she was not terminally ill.; She was just
impaired.; But this living person was executed by the state
because of her disability, to the glee of the pro-death, liberal
crowd.; Dr. Kevorkian, with his rude attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, and the New York
Times and its clones must be doing a death dance, celebrating another victory.
The camel's nose is under the tent.; The application of this
judicial precedent will spread. No disabled or infirm person is now
safe.; Maybe it will spread enough to eventually engulf the
ones who caused it.;
No judge wanted to entertain the compelling evidence, including broken
bones, that her abusive husband caused her condition, and her death.
This explains the husband's obsession to have her killed.
No judge wanted to consider a physician's report that Terri was hit on
head between day 2 and day 6 after her so-called collapse in 1990.;
She reportedly suffered intracranial hemorrhage while in hospital. A
neurologist who examined the timeline of Terri's brain scans found
that for the first three days of her initial hospitalization in 1990, her
brain scans were normal.; Then suddenly, on the sixth day, her
scan showed evidence of a massive injury.;
No judge wanted to entertain the evidence that Terri was cognizant,
would smile, would interact, and would even try to make words, such as one
witness reported shortly before her death, an attempted, "I want to
live." Forget the evidence; the judge had made up his mind.;
The $1 million plus awarded by a jury for Terri's care and rehabilitation was instead used by her husband to pay silver-tongued, right-to-die, ghoulish lawyer George Felos to orchestrate her death, with full court approval.; It is not surprising that Judge George W. Greer received a contribution for his 2004 re-election campaign from this same George Felos.
Unlike terrorist murderers with mere underwear placed over their heads,
the cause celebre of the mainstream media, that same media would
not take up this innocent woman's cause, much less with the same
investigative zeal as they defend terrorists.
Shame upon this nation!; Shame upon our institutions.
******* If many anthroposophists on this list, who historically have tended to be liberals, expect me as the moderator to disagree with these sentiments expressed, I'm afraid they will be doomed to be disappointed. The only thing I could agree with is that speaking of absolutes easily becomes one-sidedness. However, that being said, I find it hard to see any "other side" to the question of the sacred value of human life. Any point of view which does not see that every individual human life is of infinite value, does not seem to me to be one which respects human beings.
Rudolf Steiner, as someone here has pointed out, was once asked about an elderly woman and whether it would be better to put her out of her misery. He replied that every moment she was alive was important for everybody on earth. It's hard to believe that such a simple point of view, merely affirming the infinite value of each human life, has come, and the short space of 80 years, to be one that arouses hatred on the part of people with some political cause, makes them accuse others of being "fanatical." What is even more incredible is that many people who consider themselves followers of Steiner not only do not take a stand against this moral and ethical degeneration, but have been fooled into thinking they are the ones being ethical by taking a point of view diametrically opposite to Steiner's. But as I see it, this is just the result of the clever work of Ahriman and so many people falling victim to the Ahrimanic deception.
Only a few years after Steiner's death, a doctor in Germany published a book called something like "The Extinction of Worthless Life." In it, he argued that there was such a thing as "a life not worth living." This was gradually accepted by the intelligentsia as the Nazi party was coming to power. Within a few more years, elderly people in nursing homes and retarded people were being referred to as "useless eaters." It was only a few more steps to the forced euthanasia of the retarded, etc.--- and then of course it was pointed out that Jews "weren't really human", and so had NO "quality of life", and within a single generation we had this spectacle of German doctors performing their horrifying quote experiments unquote in the concentration camps, without the slightest feeling for the inhuman pain, suffering and death they were causing.
Years ago, a free-market economist named Friedrich Hayek, who had to flee when the Nazis came to power, wrote a book called "The Road to Serfdom", in which he said that as he watched the debates among intellectuals in England, he had the nauseating feeling of having witnessed it all before. In other words, he saw a different people starting to make the same mistakes that had led to the loss of freedom and the rise of a dictatorship. I have had for many years now a similar feeling, of watching this country go faster and faster down the same "slippery slope" towards Nazi-style eugenics and medical "experimentation." The moment one deviates from the position of the ancient physicians like Hippocrates, namely that all life is sacred and no physician will give anything that will cause harm to a patient, how can one keep from sliding down to the same conclusion? If doctors, for whatever reason, are given permission by the state to take away a patient's life, then they are no longer practitioners of the healing arts. (I have a manifesto issued some years ago by anthroposophical doctors on the same theme. I'll see if I can find it and post it here.)
It puts things in perspective that physicians no longer take the Hippocratic oath. It was discontinued sometime in the 1960s or 1970s. It's no accident that right around this time, nine old men on the US Supreme Court struck down all the laws regulating abortion in all 50 states, many of which went back to before the United States even existed. The Hippocratic oath specifically forbade any physician to give a patient anything which would cause an abortion.
The present spectacle of some judge's interpretation of the law requiring the state to prevent every citizen from trying to even give a drink of water to a woman in a hospital bed, is the outgrowth of the same insane way of trying to balance the freedom of individuals with this sacredness of life. The balance scale has been tipped far over against all recognition of the sanctity of life for a long time now. Here is how I think of the matter. An individual is entitled to have his or her freedom of action up to the point his actions would harm another. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, is the way one wit put it. It's very simple, called the social contract. So, if I want to drive my car fast down the street, I have the right to do so until someone is trying to cross the street in front of it. Then I have no right to consider the person an inconvenient obstacle preventing me from having my fun, and refuse to hit the brakes; the social contract requires me to recognize the value of the other person.
This contract started to break down in Europe in Steiner's time: he spoke often about how it what had begun in Russia in 1917 were to spread, it would mean the end of European civilization. It accelerated in Germany when the mouthpiece for the fallen Archangel, whom Steiner had warned about, took over instead of those who spoke for the true one, whose Waldorf schools were all closed down. This cancer spread to America after World War II, and it reached critical proportions in the 1960s, when the base desire to enjoy unlimited sexual adventure without consequences led to the legalization of abortion. In order to continue to believe in this Hugh Hefner fantasy without any feelings of guilt, it is necessary to refuse to look at the reality of life. The developing embryo and what it really is like is forbidden knowledge. A mere abstraction, a blob of tissue, a thing of matter below the threshold of Life, must be kept in its place.
Mother Teresa years ago, in her speech accepting her Nobel prize, said that, of all the wars and tragedies in our time, the worst one was abortion, because it teaches us that it is all right to use violence to get what we want, and especially poisons what should be the most loving of relationships, that of the mother to her child.
Terri Schiavo had to die in order to try to keep this truth hidden. For several weeks now, we have had insane voices on talk radio saying that dehydration and starving a person to death was a "painless" death, preaching that we should not have the natural feelings we have when seeing or thinking of a person being killed that way. The other day, a friend of mine who is against all right-wing and conservative Christian ideas was so appalled at the spectacle that he said, why don't they just give this woman an injection if they want her dead, why are they killing her in this horrible way. He doesn't want to agree with the right to life ideologues, but he couldn't ignore his feelings.
A few years ago, when I first appeared on the Internet, I joined an alleged anthroposophist discussion list that had been started by people who felt stifled on the other lists, and where they proclaimed that they would have free speech. The first time the question of people having a right to life came up, I was astounded to find that the majority supported mothers killing their own children while still wishing to think of themselves as 'spiritual ' people who were 'ethical'. I was eventually removed from the list for exercising my right to free speech by the very people who were calling everyone else hypocritical.
So I will not be surprised if many of the people reading this strongly disagree. I will just spell out exactly what I think in full so that, if people want to debate it, at least they'll have the entire thing there. Let's go back to fundamentals. The world does not have only a material side, but a spiritual one, and the human being is not only his material body but also his spiritual essence. We anthroposophists are striving to know and manifest that essence. To awaken the Spirit requires walking the spiritual path, and we are warned about the many illusions on that path. And the most dangerous illusions are deliberately caused by the being we call Ahriman. All forms of materialism are caused by him. To him, man must be pictured as only a material being. He is behind our materialistic science. Look at the so-called life-sciences today, which no longer even have a definition of life, where high school students are told that crystals are just as "alive" as plant and animal cells. This is deliberate illusion. Living beings are reduced to machines and mechanisms only, by a form of thinking which stamps out all the direct natural perception of life that we are born with.
This is not only something which Rudolf Steiner saw. Wilhelm Reich identified the extreme form of this as a neurotic fear and hatred of one's own life forces, self-hatred intertwined with our sexuality; he called this Anti-Life mentality and its consequences "the murder of Christ" anew in each generation. Dr. Albert Schweitzer, as the fruit of a lifetime of service alleviating the suffering of his fellow men, saw the common denominator of all good in all religions and philosophies as the degree to which they had reverence for all life. Mahatma Gandhi walked the path of "ahimsa", the Hindu term for not causing harm to other living creatures, and Martin Luther King took his idea of exclusively nonviolent civil disobedience from Gandhi, just as Gandhi had originally been inspired by Henry David Thoreau. Every good man has respect for all the living creatures around him; every evil man sees them only as tools and instruments can be used or disposed of as he wishes.
The Anti-Life philosophy is the creation of Ahriman. It is a brainwashing which destroys the sense for the life in other creatures. In Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment, we are told that to walk the spiritual path we must constantly increase our sensitivity to our fellow beings and purify our own moral code, or else we will fall victim to illusions. No one on the spiritual path can say I don't feel like hitting the brakes because another living creature just walked in front of my car. And that's just what happens if we say well it's really inconvenient for me to have a baby right now so get rid of it, or I won't get Grandma's inheritance if most of it has to go to pay her nursing home bills so let's get rid of her.
If you think you have not been caught in the Ahrimanic deception, just look at how the public debate was framed in the case of Terri Schiavo. Everyone's feelings of horror at being kept half alive hooked up to some machines was played to the hilt, to the point where hardly anybody knew that she wasn't hooked up to any. 20 years ago, when the case of Karen Anne Quinlan was being discussed, it was all about whether to disconnect her from her respirator. Her parents eventually won the right to do so, and she lived for quite some time afterwards; but no one at that time ever suggested not feeding her. No one was insane enough to consider that "artificially" keeping somebody alive. Terri Schiavo was fed by a feeding tube simply because she had trouble chewing and swallowing. So what's next? Now we're going to stop feeding people in hospitals or nursing homes? Are prisons next? If so, you'd better hope you don't wind up in one.
Instead of going along with the terms of the debate as they are framed by Ahriman, we need to recognize where he is leading us. Life is either something given to us by powers higher than the government or any powers in this world, or else we are merely interchangeable parts of a vast machine like the human beings used as batteries in The Matrix. The reason why each of us must come down on the side of an absolute value for life, is that, if we do not, then we are siding with a philosophy that could negate our existence at any moment. Without the right to life, no other rights have any meaning whatsoever. Someone once said that you should pity the man who believes in fascism because he believes in something that doesn't believe in him. In the same way, if we are deceived by Ahriman's siren song into thinking that life is not something sacred that should always be defended, we should not be surprised if we find there is no one to come to our defense when it is our lives that are at risk. Like in the old poem "The Hangman", we will turn and cry out to an empty square, because as each step down the slippery slope was taken, we didn't stand up for all the others who were taken to their deaths.