Dr John Campbell: A case of “Wood for the trees”
You may wonder why I bother watching or listening to this man because it is excruciatingly irritating, but I do so because, with 3M subscribers on his YouTube channel, I keep wondering when he will, if ever, have the penny finally drop. He talks as if he is stunned by what he is learning while he expounds his “qualitative and quantitative” views based on “authoritative” statistics and then also speaking with “authority figures” (which they are) within the medical field, while he ignores those of us who will simply ‘remove’ the ‘trees’ and show him the ‘wood’.
Here he is speaking with Neil Oliver about the Scottish Covid inquiry and how: 1. “it makes you wonder if there is some common stimulus of these (DNR) phone calls” etc 2. He also wonders if this practice of calling or listing people for DNR was just Scotland or UK wide and 3. He calls for a “qualitative and quantitative analysis” by academics to ‘generate themes’ and try and find out if it was something which was an actual policy from ‘on high’ or not.
Well John, once more, you blether on and on and speak so ‘authoritatively’ while you STILL miss the ball while calling for studies that are entirely unnecessary!!
As I am won’t to do, during the fake Covid “pandemic”, I made copious downloads and bookmarks of a vast variety of documents and articles. Listening to this and the Scottish Covid inquiry itself, I vaguely remembered reading something @2020 regarding a POLICY of the NHS toward Do Not Resuscitate orders so there is NO NEED for a ‘study’ to be carried out! It was, in fact, a UK wide, NHS policy! However, John, you (and all your medical colleagues it seems) tend to stick to reading medical journals whereas I tend to read political ones! You regret taking the vaccine, I don’t because I didn’t take it! Not because I read medical journals but because, for the last 20 years, I’ve been reading political material of all sorts. Does that tell you anything, John? Anything at all?
So anyhow, here is the document which lays it all out clearly for you…
“NHS is being ‘protected’ from those who need protecting most by rationing treatment based on eugenic ‘guidelines“
Read it again, John! Yes it says “eugenics”, which you and so many would consider an old, out of date, dismissed political and philosophical belief which no longer applies or is practiced in our world of today, and that, my medically qualified friend, is where you all miss the ball!
Is the following spelled out clearly enough for you?…
Rationing treatment for covid-19 (from April 2020)
Rationing healthcare increased over the last few years, it has become the norm. Now, it has become very clear that treatment for covid-19 is going to be rationed. We have moved a long way from universal health care.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have already introduced guidelines for establishing treatment ‘ceilings’, based on who they think is likeliest to survive covid-19. However, we have no way of knowing in advance of treatment if someone actually will survive.
Formal guidance says GPs should “proactively complete DNAR (do not resuscitate) forms, in advance of a worsening spread of coronavirus.”
People over 80 years old and ‘high risk’ groups are now being contacted about signing the “do not attempt to resuscitate” forms. This approach is firmly embedded in coronavirus planning and provision amid concerns over a lack of intensive care beds during the worsening coronavirus crisis.
Multiple GPs have said they are talking to patients who are older or in very high risk groups about signing “do not attempt to resuscitate” forms in case these patients were to go on to contract the virus. Some practices have also sent out letters to patients requesting they complete the forms, it is understood.
One leader of a primary care network, who asked not to be named, said: “Those in the severe at-risk group and those over 80 are being told they won’t necessarily be admitted to hospital if they catch coronavirus.”
Guidance issued by the Royal College of General Practitioners last week also touched on the issue, saying: “Proactively complete ReSPECT/ DNAR forms and prescribe anticipatory medications in advance of a worsening spread of disease.”
End of life conversations cover prescribing palliative pain relief, so patients aren’t left without the ‘appropriate’ medicines.
It’s understood these conversations are also being had with people living in nursing and care homes.
Jonathan Leach, a practising GP who helped draft the guidance, told Health Service Journal (HSJ) “We have a huge role as a college [on this] as we see the volume and type of patients we should be sending into hospital and those we shouldn’t be.”
Type of patient? I wonder if I will be the type of patient that doctors will decide to treat? Or will I simply be left to die at home, because I have ‘underlying’ and comorbid conditions?
Leach continued: “If covid-19 gets into a care home because residents are mostly vulnerable, we will see a significantly greater number over a shorter period who need this type of [palliative] care. So, part of coping with that is thinking ahead [about having these conversations].”
I always thought that covid-19 gets into any place simply because of its contagion quality, not because of a particular demographic – it doesn’t have any special preferences towards care home residents because they are vulnerable. Vulnerability doesn’t invite more coronavirus infections. That’s why the prime minister, the health and social care secretary and other non-vulnerable ‘clever’ people among the government have also been infected recently.
Dr Leach called discussing DNARs with people who are not at the end of life but are older or in a high-risk group a “grey area”. He added these decisions “need to be done on a case-by-case basis” but it was “more humane” to do it in advance.
There is no humane way of telling some people that they are going to be left to die.
How can leaving someone to die because of deliberately inflicted government funding cuts, based on an artificially constructed ‘type’, be “more humane”? Leach should have met my grandmother, who, in her 90s was probably fitter and more active than he is. Yet she would have conformed to his ‘type’ of patient to be considered for a eugenics by laissez faire approach, based on just her age alone.
Recent guidance issued to hospitals said palliative care conversations with a patient’s family may have to take place remotely, and skilled palliative care teams may not have the capacity to undertake all conversations themselves.
A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association, which also co-drafted the GP work prioritisation document, said: “Considering, and where possible making, specific anticipatory decisions about whether or not to attempt CPR is part of high-quality care for any person who might be approaching the end of life or who might be at risk of cardiorespiratory arrest.”
That decision – choosing who is and who is not going to be given CPR- isn’t ‘care’, high quality or otherwise.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE) role more generally is to improve outcomes for people using the NHS and other public health and social care services.
Yet the NICE guidelines concerning treatment provision for covid-19 are founded on a distinctly eugenic rationale: ensuring the ‘survival of the fittest’ only.
A GP practice in Wales sent out a letter which recommended patients with serious illnesses complete “do not resuscitate” forms in case their health deteriorated after contracting coronavirus. Llynfi surgery, in Maesteg near Port Talbot, wrote to a “small number” of patients on Friday to ask them to complete a “DNACPR” – do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation – form to ensure that emergency services would not be called if they contracted covid-19 and their health deteriorated.
Also see: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/do-not-resuscitate/93223/
So what’s with the questioning, guessing and raised eyebrows as if it is all a revelation to you? Too busy reading statistics?
Meanwhile, your thinking that eugenics is an 1800s/early 1900s discarded philosophy, is based on your political ignorance while you continue to try and ‘resolve’ what “Covid” and the vaccines were all about. It is that ignorance which causes my continuing exasperation.
Dirty little secrets (Guardian 1997)
They will be searching their souls in Stockholm tonight. And in Oslo, Helsinki and Copenhagen, too. All over Scandinavia, people are facing up to the stain now spreading across their snow-white self -image, as they discover that their governments spent decades executing a chilling plan to purify the Nordic race, nurturing the strong and eradicating the weak. Each day victims of forced sterilisation, now deep in middle age, have stepped forward to tell how they were ordered to have “the chop”, to prevent them having children deemed as racially defective as themselves.
Branded low class, or mentally slow, they were rounded up behind secure fences, in Institutes for Misled and Morally Neglected Children, where they were eventually led off for “treatment”. One man has told how he and his fellow teenage boys planned to run away rather than undergo the dreaded “cut in the crotch”. Maria Nordin, now seeking compensation from the Swedish government, remembers sobbing as she was pressed to sign away her rights to have a baby. Told that she would stay locked up forever if she did not cooperate, she relented – spending the rest of her life childless and in regret.
In Sweden the self-examination has already begun. A government minister has admitted that “what went on is barbaric and a national disgrace”, with more than 60,000 Swedish women sterilised from 1935 until as late as 1976. What has shocked most observers is that all this was committed not by some vile fascistic regime, but by a string of welfare-minded, Social Democratic governments. Indeed, the few voices of opposition came from Swedish conservatives.
Read the rest….
The even dirtier secret is that they haven’t stopped and “Covid” was just another aspect of it. You simply can’t grasp the fact there is a global elite who want you dead. Not just you but your entire future lineage. You simply refuse to accept it and that is why they will achieve it because, before you can stop it, you have to acknowledge it. You CANNOT fight an enemy you don’t even know exists!
Bertrand Russell:
In private, when writing to his fiancée Alys in 1894, Russell speculated about granting marriage certificates to those prospective couples who would make good parents. And in 1907, in his first published paper on eugenics, he advocated that the state should pay “desirable” parents by awarding scholarships for their children’s education. In an article of 1928 he even proposed that if scientists knew more about heredity “we could improve the breed indefinitely” in successive generations by having 25% of the women mate with the best 1% of men — conjectural figures which he amended in the 1950s to 30% of women and 5% of men. Perhaps, too, Russell predicted, mankind may one day be transformed by genetic engineering:
“If science continues to advance as fast as it has done recently, we may hope, before the end of the present century, to discover ways of beneficially influencing the human embryo, not only as regards those acquired characters which cannot be inherited because they do not affect the chromosomes, but also as regards the chromosomes themselves. It is likely that this result will only be achieved after a number of unsuccessful experiments leading to the birth of idiots or monstrosities. But would this be too high a price to pay for the discovery of a method by which, within one generation, the whole human race could be rendered intelligent?”
At the other end of the scale Russell also wanted undesirable people to be prevented from becoming parents, as he explained in an article for the progressive Jewish Daily Forward in 1927:
“By sterilizing the feeble-minded of two generations, feeble- mindedness and idiocy could be almost stamped out; but here religious scruples intervene, and even humanitarian feelings which lead to the opinion that one man must not be made to suffer for the good of others except as a punishment for sin. Scientifically-minded people naturally grow impatient of these restrictions upon their activities.”
Later that year, when an Indian magazine interviewed Russell, he reiterated the need for sterilization:
“Our only hope now lies in America, which has already started artificial sterilization of the feeble-minded in the States. That is already a great step forward in the right direction.”
Writing in 1928, however, Russell saw any prospects for wide-ranging eugenic reform in America and Europe hindered by political and religious prejudices:
“In America and Great Britain, the fetish of democracy stands in the way; in Russia, the Marxian disbelief in biology. Wherever the Catholic Church is strong, mere quantity tends to be thought alone important. In France, the economic system that has grown up around the Code Napoléon makes any eugenic reform impossible. Probably the best chance is in Germany, but even there it is small.”
Russell had to face the inevitable problem of what a eugenic state might achieve in practice. In the 1930s he regretted that the study of heredity was still in its infancy, and so any application of eugenic ideas would be unscientific:
“Among men of science there is a natural tendency for heredity to be emphasized by geneticists, while environment is emphasized by psychologists. There is, however, another line of cleavage on this question, not scientific, but political. Conservatives and imperialists lay stress on heredity because they belong to the white race but are rather uneducated. Radicals lay stress on education because it is potentially democratic, and because it gives a reason for ignoring difference of colour.”
After the Second World War, Russell was increasingly convinced that the solution to many eugenic problems lay in a world government. Only then could sperm banks be created, enabling a significant proportion of women to bear the offspring of geniuses, and only then could politicians tackle the problem of global overpopulation:
“The population of the world is increasing, and its capacity for food production is diminishing. Such a state of affairs obviously cannot continue very long without producing a cataclysm. To deal with this problem it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilence, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling.”
Russell died in 1970.
The New Statesman 2022:
The sinister return of eugenics
Eugenicist thinking was rejected after the Holocaust, but in the era of Big Tech, the idea that humans can be “engineered” has resurfaced in a new guise.
In July 1912 800 delegates met at the Hotel Cecil on the Strand in London for the First International Eugenics Congress. Some of the foremost figures of the day – including the former and future British prime ministers Arthur Balfour and Winston Churchill – were there. The delegates represented a wide spectrum of opinion. Not only right-wing racists but also liberals and socialists believed eugenic policies should be used to raise what they regarded as the low quality of sections of the population.
The Liberal founder of the welfare state, William Beveridge, wrote in 1906 that men “who through general defects” are unemployable should suffer “complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights – including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood”. In Marriage and Morals (1929), Bertrand Russell, while criticising American states that had implemented involuntary sterilisation too broadly, defended enforcing it on people who were “mentally defective”. In 1931 an editorial in this magazine endorsed “the legitimate claims of eugenics”, stating they were opposed only by those “who cling to individualistic views of parenthood and family economics”…………
There is a direct line connecting early 20th-century eugenics with 21st-century transhumanism. The link is clearest in the eugenicist and “scientific humanist” Julian Huxley (1887-1975). In 1924 Huxley wrote a series of articles for the Spectator, in which he stated that “the negro mind is as different from the white mind as the negro from the white body”. By the mid-Thirties, Huxley had decided that racial theories were pseudoscience and was a committed anti-fascist.
He had not abandoned eugenics. In a lecture entitled “Eugenics in an Evolutionary Perspective”, delivered in 1962, Huxley reasserted the value of eugenic ideas and policies. Earlier, in 1951, in a lecture that appeared as a chapter in his book New Bottles for New Wine (1957), he had coined the term “transhumanism” to describe “the idea of humanity attempting to overcome its limitations and to arrive at fuller fruition”.
Huxley is a pivotal figure because he links eugenics with its successor ideology. Rutherford devotes only a sentence to him, noting that he advised his friend Wells on the 1932 film adaptation of The Island of Dr Moreau. But Huxley merits more extensive and deeper examination, for he illustrates a fundamental difficulty in both eugenics and transhumanism. Who decides what counts as a better kind of human being, and on what basis is the evaluation made?………
This is where transhumanism comes in. It is not normally racist, and typically involves no collective coercion, only the voluntary actions of people seeking self enhancement. But like eugenicists, transhumanists understand human betterment to be the production of superior people like themselves. True, the scientific knowledge and technology required to create these people are not yet available; but as Rutherford acknowledges, someday they may be.
The likely upshot of transhumanism in practice – a world divided between a rich, smart, beautified few whose lifespans can be indefinitely extended, and a mass of unlovely, disposable, dying deplorables – seems to me a vision of hell. But it may well be what is in store for us, if the current progressive consensus turns out to be as transient as the one that preceded it.
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2022/02/the-sinister-return-of-eugenics
Your mistake is in thinking that this eugenics issue only relates to the late 1800s/early 1900s. Oh you are so wrong!
So for God’s sakes man! Broaden your reading!! You might get some concrete answers without calling for unnecessary “qualitative and quantitative studies” by academics!
The odd thing is, John, is that you seem to suffer from the very same ‘disease’ as the people who call for and implement the very policies you are calling out. You tend to listen to nobody unless you deem them ‘worthy’ and academically/medically qualified. THAT, John, is the very definition of ELITISM!
I just happen to be qualified in Physics and Business. That’s not medical though is it? But again, who took the vaccine and regretted it, John? Not me!
One final thing to chew on John: The Hippocratic oath.
What happens when the elite decide to apply the Hippocratic oath to the Earth itself? Ever thought about that?
I’ll give you your answer:
World Economic Forum
First do no harm. Why healthcare needs to change
Sep 16, 2019
“If I’ve learned one thing working in the healthcare sector, it’s the earlier you can diagnose a disease, the better chance you have of curing it – or at least mitigating its impact on the patient. When it comes to the health of the planet – on which all human health ultimately relies – the symptoms and the scientific evidence already point to a clear diagnosis: anthropogenic global warming.”
Ok, now really digest the above. “Anthropogenic global warming”. What does that suggest, John? It’s obvious isn’t it? Anthropogenic = Human caused. Yes I know you know this but it appears you haven’t let it fully sink in. If humans are the cause of the earth’s problems then, like a disease, it is humans (carbon) which require significant reduction.
Now, read the following…
“Hospitals, health services and medical supply chains across the world’s major economies currently generate around 4% of global CO2 emissions. They are also a significant emitter of short-lived yet potent climate pollutants such as black carbon, methane, hydrofluorocarbons and anaesthetic gases. For an industry based on the principle of “first do no harm,” it’s therefore imperative the healthcare industry acts quickly, collectively and globally to mitigate its own climate impact.
We cannot wait for national policies, which will inevitably develop at different rates with different agendas, to set the pace of change. We need to globally unite, quickly, and lead by example, developing best-practice international guidelines and standards for sustainable, climate-resilient healthcare development in the same way our healthcare professionals develop best-practice guidelines for treating patients. It’s going to require technology innovation, outside-the-box thinking and multi-disciplinary multi-sector collaboration, the like of which has not been seen before in the industry.”
It’s all written in a fashion which suggests it’s all for the good of the many (“Public Health” is not about individual patients by the way. It’s synonymous with the “Public good” or the “National Interest”) however, the “first do no harm” principle they call on (the Hippocratic oath) is now being applied to the care ‘we’ and the health professionals specifically, should give the earth. Now digest that for a moment.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/health-climate-change-sustainability/
Hopefully you’ve now digested it.
So to “first do no harm” applied to the earth means make every effort to remove what is ailing it. What/Who (according to these people) is doing harm to the earth?
Too many people using too many resources!
What do “Do Not Resuscitate” orders achieve? What do still ensuring access to abortions while stopping people from accessing much needed cancer and heart etc operations and care?
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations.
“Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire, to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would not we shatter it to bits and then, remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.” Omar Khayyam
Shatter it to bits before BUILDING BACK BETTER!
But unfortunately, John, you dismiss what is staring you in the face because you cannot (or refuse to) grasp the full enormity of the evil we are faced with. The same evil which attacks farmers, increases fuel and food bills, undertakes geoengineering, develops mRNA “vaccines”, wishes to remove meat and dairy (protein) from our diets while substituting other proteins in fake meat and “vaccines”, wants total control of movement with 15 minute cities and increasing the cost of air travel enormously while also reducing space in the cabin and food/drink to make it so we don’t wish to travel by air anymore. I could go on and on.
Smell the bloody coffee man!
Antimicrobial resistance: The next “pandemic” (Part 2)
The narrative has already been created. They have a perfectly justified reason for allowing (or creating) more deaths.
If you are considered invalid (i.e. not valid), they have created a perfect excuse.
Personally, I question the reality of this ‘threat’ and the ‘superbugs’ they are saying can evade the drugs.
Here’s a scenario: For a number of different ailments, they can simply say “the drugs no longer work due to AMR”. The drugs are then taken off the market and there is no access to life saving treatments. Except, pharma then introduce new drugs that do work but at a much higher price and the reality is that they are, essentially, the same drugs. But, if you’re poor (or have an ‘inappropriate’ genome). you don’t get the drug. The wealthy do who can afford to pay for it. This further reduces the earth’s population and eradicates the ‘useless eaters’.
It is Eugenics on steroids.
What’s easier? To murder a Human or murder a Person?
HOW MANY YEARS HAVE I BEEN “RANTING” ON ABOUT THIS ISSUE FROM SO MANY ANGLES?
WILL THIS CONVINCE YOU? (Will ANYTHING convince you?)
“Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.”
Does it ever sink in with some people? Read it again (and again if necessary).
The main point is “are human beings” but only “potential persons”. Until you are a PERSON you have NO MORAL RIGHT TO LIFE. However, the LIE here is using the word MORAL which is substituted for LEGAL. What they are saying is, until that newborn child is recognised LEGALLY, there is no MORAL need to keep it alive. Yet, that child is a fully formed (and birthed) HUMAN BEING yet, as such, it has NO RIGHTS. THEREFORE, where is all this “Human Rights” business coming from? It is, in fact, and always has been, a deception of the very first order. Not one “PERSON” on this planet has “Human Rights” because you do NOT receive them UNTIL you are recognised as a PERSON.
IS IT NOT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO USE YOUR MIND THAT “GOD” GAVE YOU TO EXTRAPOLATE FROM THAT FACT WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS AND ALL THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT? If not, then type into my search bar “legal person” or “human rights” and learn about it.
DO YOU REALLY HAVE NO CLUE AS TO HOW THEY USE THIS AGAINST US ALL EVERY SINGLE DAY IN LIFE?
DO YOU REALLY HAVE NO CLUE AS TO WHERE THIS CAN (AND WILL) LEAD?
(and where it has been leading since its invention)
Columbia Law Review: Concept of “the PERSON”: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/columbia-law-review-supports-earthling-re-human-rights-and-persons/
“The value of birth registration continues to be overlooked, according
to the report. It says that registration is a critical measure to
secure the recognition of every person before the law, to safeguard
the protection of his or her individual rights, and to ensure that
any violation of these rights does not go unnoticed.”
This Digest examines the situation of children who are denied a fundamental human right and who, in legal terms, do not exist.
BUT,,,, DO NOT make the mistake of thinking that registering your child (therefore, creating the person) is doing them a service. IT IS NOT!
You MUST understand the game being played here and, for that, I ask you to read my blogs on the subject. ALL of them!
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/the-human-rights-act-deception/
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHO AND WHAT THESE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PEOPLE ARE?
Coronation Street: A vehicle to promote eugenics and societal change
What TV PROGRAMMING do you watch?
Isn’t it interesting that one of the longest running series on TV anywhere in the world, is a PROGRAMME entitled “Coronation Street”? Think of all the PROGRAMMES which have been broadcast on the BBC/ITV and other stations over the years. Many excellent dramas etc but only ONE remains and just keeps going. Yes it’s because it gets the audience. Of course. But there are others which got audiences just as big for the time they were broadcast. The establishment maintain Coronation Street because it does its job excellently. The writers for it keep churning out the stories and plot lines that keep so many watching and those watching will support the series as being “current” and full of plot lines which make you think. Yes indeed. That is precisely what they intend it to be. Through those story lines, they embed within your mind what subjects should be considered by you. They even make certain subjects taboo or not taboo just by the way they are presented. The sheer fact some ARE presented suggests to the mind of the observer that “this is acceptable”. Gay is acceptable, transsexualism is acceptable, SUICIDE is acceptable, wanting to die so as not to be a burden on your loved ones or society is acceptable and noble! Just keep feeding it all in and, eventually, that acceptance will be achieved.
But very few give any consideration to the agenda which is being promulgated in all of this. They just view it as “entertainment” while being a statement, at times, on present society. They cannot even fathom that it exists as a solid society changer within a far bigger picture. That’s just “crazy talk” and taking things too far.
No dearies, it’s not.
In the early 1900s Fabian Society members advocated the ideal of a scientifically planned society and supported eugenics by way of sterilization[citation needed]. This is said to have influenced the passage of the Half-Caste Act, and its subsequent implementation in Australia, where children were systematically and forcibly removed from their parents, so that the British colonial regime could “protect” the Aborigine children from their parents. In an article published in The Guardian on 14 February 2008 (following the apology offered by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to the “stolen generations“), Geoffrey Robertson criticised Fabian socialists for providing the intellectual justification for the eugenics policy that led to the stolen generations scandal.[31][32] Such views on socialism, inequality and eugenics in early 20th century Fabians were not limited to one individual, but were widely shared in the Fabian Society and throughout a broad political spectrum.
While living and working in Singapore for over 5 years, the following has been of no surprise to me whatsoever considering that Singapore is, effectively (and very definitely) a “Labour camp” which does not even recognise itself as such. If you are an outsider looking in however (and I don’t mean a hop-over for a few days on the way to Australia when all you appreciate is what is on show on the surface while you do not have a clue about the undercurrent of sheer misery) it is as close to communism for the masses who then work for Singapore PLC while the elite sit in their ivory castles and decide at what age and under what circumstances people are allowed a home for themselves to live in – it is what is coming in the west, slowly and gradually……
Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore, stated in his memoirs that his initial political philosophy was strongly influenced by the Fabian Society. However, he later altered his views, considering the Fabian ideal of socialism as impractical.[20] In 1993, Lee said:
“They [Fabian Socialists] were going to create a just society for the British workers – the beginning of a welfare state, cheap council housing, free medicine and dental treatment, free spectacles, generous unemployment benefits. Of course, for students from the colonies, like Singapore and Malaya, it was a great attraction as the alternative to communism. We did not see until the 1970s that that was the beginning of big problems contributing to the inevitable decline of the British economy.”
—Lee Kuan Yew interview with Lianhe Zaobao[20]
Singapore not a country one would want to live
Ladies and Gentlemen,Singapore is just one big fraud. And underneath all that glitter, it is really not a place someone who had a choice would want to live.
On the outside Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew paints a picture of a modern first class city. You have TV newsreaders who try to speak good English imitating someone from any other city like London, but with one difference. Those in London are free of government censorship while the Singaporean specimen reads out prepared texts vetted by government agencies. You have newspapers published in glossy paper just like in London, except in Singapore they are state owned and controlled, where journalists report to government ministers on what they have plan to write. You see lawyers all dressed in black dragging modern briefcases with books overflowing with wisdom, but in actual fact they are more afraid of the government than their clients ever were.
If you fall into hard times you starve unless you go to some government minister’s office and beg on all fours for a handout. In the west there are established procedures for welfare for the unfortunate in society to live with their heads up.
Singapore has no place for people who want to better society towards a more humane and compassionate one. The political philosophy is that of Lee Kuan Yew which is not very different perhaps from how the Chinese peasants lived under the Ming or Tang Dynasty many centuries ago. Which goes something like this. You wake up in the morning, go to work, be respectful towards your rulers and superiors, don’t think you know any better than your masters and work your way up the ladder through the recognition of your superiors. Of course above all your superiors there is the great master or leader who is better and wiser than all. In the case of the Chinese Dynasty, it was the Ming or Tang emperor. In the case of Singapore, it is Lee Kuan Yew and in his absence, his son.
I am sorry but this is not the way I like to live. And neither do I think anyone who has an understanding of the way things are going on in the island and has the means to live somewhere else.
So what is left of native Singaporeans are those who simply cannot leave because of lack of skills or an understanding of their plight or those who are not concerned about living as free men an women as long as they earn sufficiently large amounts of money. In this group are the Lee Kuan Yew minions who stay behind.
You have of course the foreign Western businessmen and professionals who do business in the island. For them it is only a case of making money. They are naturally not concerned about how they live their lives since it is not their country and they are there for short periods, when they will go hone to France, Germany or the USA. Most of them leave their families at home in the West and even if they bring them here, they study at foreign schools with their German, Italian or American teachers. As far as they are concerned, they despise Singaporeans for a cowardly people, willing to live as slaves in Lee Kuan Yew’s island, which they would not in America, Germany or France.
Then there are the middle level professionals, some from England, Australia, India and other places. For a variety of reasons, they spend some time in Singapore working as engineers, bank officers, and executives. They too are totally unconcerned about how Singaporeans have to live their lives since they are here temporarily. In 6 months, if they got a better job in Rangoon Burma, they would spend some time there if possible.
In the end, all you have in Singapore at the upper levels is the revolving door phenomenon. People come in for a time, and then leave, only to be replaced by other people who come in and who themselves leave too.
If there are going to be anyone left behind to run the place, it is the handful of sycophants and crawlers who willingly take orders from above as to what to do, regardless of right or wrong. And their numbers are shrinking too, as Singapore students leave for a foreign education and opt to remain where they are. Singapore is reaching a point where it cannot find sufficiently capable people to run the show and this is entirely because of what Singapore is today, a life of submission and obedience, which people with an education find unacceptable.
Unless the native Singaporeans who have a stake in the country take drastic real earth shattering action to demand a democratic system of government, literally taking Lee Kuan Yew to task, I don’t see him doing anything to arrest the decline into which Singapore is sliding.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
Disbarred from practicing law in Lee’s Singapore, imprisoned and refused entry to the island for criticizing Singapore’s judiciary in this blog (see blogpost May 29, 2008 Singapore. Judge Belinda Ang’s Kangaroo Court)
Actively practicing law in California and in good standing at the California Bar.
Member in good standing as a lawyer in England and Wales (Barrister).
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
This leaves us with a further problematic interpretation of the stakeholder concept – that related to the welfare state. No sooner had Mr Blair sat down in the Far East than maverick Labour MP Frank Field was claiming the speech heralded a root and branch reform of pensions and benefits. It is certainly true that the present welfare system does not protect workers from summary restriction of pension and unemployment insurance “rights” which they believed the state had bestowed. While it is unthinkable in a free society for the state to rescind individual property rights – indeed they are so deeply-rooted that they have often re-emerged in eastern Europe after 50 years of communism – the same is not true of the communal pension and benefit rights bestowed under a democratic welfare state.
One way of remedying this problem is to require individuals to build up their own “provident accounts” on the Singapore model of forced savings. These can be used for unemployment insurance, education, pensions and even housing. Since they are individually assigned accounts, and fully funded by supporting investments, they cannot be lightly cancelled by the state, and would certainly be compatible with a stakeholder economy. But would a generation which is already heavily taxed to pay for the unfunded pensions of its parents now vote for a second dose of forced savings to pay for their own pensions as well? It seems rather doubtful, to put it mildly. This may be another area where New Labour needs to proceed cautiously as it puts meat on the bones of the stakeholder idea.
Then we have the following from the book: ” Autobiography and Decolonization- Modernity, Masculinity, and the Nation-state” By Philip Holden
Do you see it? I have been saying to people for some years now that the way the UK is going is precisely what I saw when I lived in Singapore. Gopalan Nair is precisely correct when he speaks about the expats having disdain for the slaves who make up the populace in Singapore. I did at the time but I was unaware and ignorant of what I know now about the world because I was just too busy making a living until what happened to Gopalan happened to me and the corruption, which lay underneath the squeaky clean pavements you thought you could eat your dinner off, hit you right between the eyes.
But then you also have this, from the CFR and Henry Kissinger re Lee Kuan Yew:
So why diverge into all of this stuff about Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew and fabianism when the post is meant to be about Coronation Street for god’s sakes?
Well, it’s simple really. To achieve what Lee Kuan Yew achieved takes decades and it will take decades here too. What needs to be done is create, over time, and entirely multi-cultural society (that said, Singapore isn’t quite as multi-cultural as it likes to portray itself. It’s still 80% chinese and the rest (Indian and Malay in the main) are second and third class citizens. The expats are a little “oasis” of their own and Singapore does its best to make them feel “at home” and comfortable BUT, you hit any issue (as I did) and the vultures come out to tear you apart because you’re “making money” and they see a way of getting it back while why would a Singaporean lawyer and judiciary give a damn about what they did to you and your family? It’s just business and you’re primed to be stripped of whatever they can get their hands on – with no jurisdiction, it doesn’t matter, they’ll fuck you over and over.
Anyhow, there’s the multiculturalism to cause even more division in the populace – therefore there is no one voice shouting at our corrupt government – plus there is the total change of the benefits and pensions structure. You see most people are squealing at the conservatives for the austerity measures and the benefits issue but, in fact, it all started a very long time ago and, to give the creep his due (David Icke that is) it has been a totalitarian tiptoe to where we are now. Again, it doesn’t matter who’s in power – Labour, Tory or Libdem – because they don’t create the policy, they just implement it. It’s the Crown which dictates from the shadows and the Crown like Lee Kuan Yew because they see he’s created that slave driven powerhouse on an island no larger than Greater London.
Now, you have a massive proportion of the UK who regularly and faithfully tune into Coronation Street (Coronation? Crown? Indeed!) and that one long time serial drama has fed (but, in many respects, created) the morality of this nation while they now have another vehicle, long standing, which doubles that effort called “Eastenders”. Both drip feeding into the collective consciousness almost night after night. Most thinking they are just reflecting society as they go along. Wrong! They are, in many respects, creating society by colouring stories the way the establishment want them coloured. Have you also noticed another thing about these series? They tend to be pro monarchy all in all. Coincidence? Not at all. And just like the Queen’s celebrations and the Queen’s speech, Lee Kuan Yew has his “Singapore Days” where he has his media create a celebratory atmosphere of pride in the country tied into “democracy” (a joke) and all thing wonderful and historic. Precisely what we do here. And it works and always will.
So back to the eugenics message Coronation Street has just fed you.
Here is George Bernard Shaw, a fabian just like Kuan Yew and Blair (and quietly our entire establishments):
Got that? Now please don’t think or consider this is just one very “mad” man from many decades ago. If you do so then you’re just allowing yourself to be wilfully ignorant of everything going on around you. Shaw’s words reflect Singaporean (and soon British) society to a T. Singapore is an economic slave camp where anything but democracy exists and yet the British government treat Singapore as an exemplary example of democracy and success at work yet families have to stay together in small HDB flats because there is no welfare state (all tax receipts are for the top echelons) and they must support each other through their entire “lifecycle” and I use the term “lifecycle” because singaporeans are nothing more than products/resources to keep the machine running. There is no quality of life in Singapore (but they have been taught/conditioned to believe there is and be intensely proud of their achievements – which are all economic but not for them personally rather than simply for the singaporean elite to tell them “how lucky they are” and they believe it. Some don’t however but their lives can become very difficult (just as Gopalan’s did). The same thing is happening with those of us who speak out too loudly in the UK now too.
“Done very gently”…. i.e. humanely not cruel while Hesmondhalgh herself is a member of the Humanist society. A society which pitches itself as being pro human but is as much pro human as the World Wildlife Fund is pro wildlife.
Then we have to remember Newsweek and Time magazines in the last couple of years presenting us with these articles:
So a little more on eugenics:
“Oh that’s about a century ago!” I hear you say. God! You just don’t get it do you?
What about this then….
Which all leaves the question……
Answer: Well, for one thing, ask Lloyd……
The Prince, a “D.J” and a very “holy” Reverend!
First there was Savile.
In the family, there was Louis Mountbatten, the “Greek’s” Uncle. The “Greek” meanwhile wants to eradicate half the world’s population (or more) by coming back as a virus once he dies (his words and they were not in jest) – The Nazis were eugenicists – our Royal Family and their friends – The Rothschilds etc – are the real Nazis and always were. Just read the history!
And Prince Andrew and his paedophilic friend.
NOW, we have Prince Charles giving refuge to a PAEDOPHILE PRIEST!
HOW MUCH WILL THIS COUNTRY’S POPULATION CHOOSE TO IGNORE? WHAT THE FUCK IS THE MATTER WITH PEOPLE?
Police investigating complaints of sexual abuse in the Church of England have arrested a former bishop and ”loyal friend” of Prince Charles.
The Right Reverend Peter Ball, a “loyal friend” of Prince Charles – has been arrested by Police investigating child abuse in the Church of England. A church which is headed by our Monarch!
The Rt Rev Peter Ball, 80, was detained at his home on suspicion of abusing eight boys and men ranging in age from 12 to their early twenties.
The alleged incidents are thought to have taken place during the late 1980s and early 1990s at addresses in East Sussex and elsewhere.
Ball, the former Bishop of Lewes and Gloucester, was arrested following a “comprehensive” three-month investigation into the Chichester Diocese.
The intelligence contained “reviews of church files relating to certain child safeguarding issues within the Chichester diocese from between 20 and 25 years ago”.
They also reviewed internal church files containing details of clergymen’s careers in the diocese, including Ball’s.
Detective Chief Inspector Carwyn Hughes of Sussex Police, who is in charge of the investigation, said; “We make it clear that the force will always take seriously any allegations of historic sexual offending, and every possible step will be taken to investigate whenever appropriate.
“Allegations of historic offences are treated just as seriously as any more recent offences.”
Ball, of Langport, Somerset, resigned as Bishop in 1993, only two years after he was appointed.
He quit after receiving a police caution for committing an act of gross indecency against a trainee teenage monk.
Shortly afterwards he was given sanctuary by the Prince of Wales who personally invited him to live in Manor Lodge, in the village of Aller, Somerset, a Duchy of Cornwall property.
St. Andrew’s church in Burgess Hill, Chichester, which is one of the churches in the Rt Rev Peter Ball’s diocese. There is no suggestion that St. Andrew’s is linked to the abuse (file picture)
But it is thought after living in the property for more than a decade he moved to another house in the same village last year.
Ball, who has previously described the Prince as “a loyal friend”, is thought to be the most senior member of the Church of England to be arrested after investigations started.
Speaking at the time he was given the house, Ball said: “He [The Prince of Wales] has been wonderfully kind and allowed me to have a duchy house.
“The prince is a loyal friend. I have immense admiration for him, he has been through horrific times and is a great person.”
Sussex Police said another unnamed 67-year-old retired priest, was also detained at his home this morning near Haywards Heath, West Sussex, on suspicion of separate sex offences against two teenage boys in East Sussex between 1981 and 1983.
They added that: “There are no allegations of recent or current offending and police emphasise that there is nothing to suggest that any young people are currently at risk.
“Police also stress that the allegations are being treated separately and do not involve the two men allegedly acting together.”
A Sussex Police spokesman said Bishop Ball, and the unnamed man were currently in custody pending interview and further inquiries.
Rockefeller EUGENICS (A Nazi in disguise as a philanthropist)
Lily E. Kay:
Dr. Lily E. Kay, a visiting scholar in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society (STS) and one of the outstanding historians of biology of her generation, died on December 18 2000 of cancer.
Dr. Kay’s work drew from multiple disciplines to understand science in its many social and cultural dimensions. Her most recentbook, Who Wrote the Book of Life? (Stanford University Press, 1999), traced the efforts of biologists, biochemists and information scientists to explain the genome as an information system written in DNA code. Dr. Kay showed how the “code” is not really a code and thus why cryptoanalytic techniques failed, and how the genetic “code” was eventually broken instead by biochemists who only reluctantly translated their work into the metaphor of code because that language had become the only way to get a hearing.
Her earlier book, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rise of the New Biology, has become a classic account. When it first appeared, it too was controversial but also received accolades from scientists such as Joshua Lederberg and Linus Pauling. Her views were always sharply argued, holding to account both extreme biologial reductionism and legacies of eugenicist views in contemporary biology.
Born in Krakow, Poland in 1947 to concentration camp survivors, Dr. Kay moved with her parents to Israel and then came to the United States in 1960. After she graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 1969, she taught high school physics in Pittsburgh and was a research associate in biochemistry at the University of Pittsburgh from 1974-77. In 1977 she became a senior research assistant at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, CA, working on the molecular biology of viruses. She earned a PhD in the history of science from Johns Hopkins University in 1986.
After two years as a postdoctoral fellow at the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, she joined the history of science faculty at the University of Chicago, and in 1989 she began an eight-year stint on MIT’s faculty in STS, which had just established a new PhD program. In recent years, she worked as an independent scholar, with guest appointments at Harvard University and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin.
When she died, Dr. Kay was working on a book on the MIT neuroscientist Warren S. McCulloch and the fields of research he helped spawn: serial computing, artificial intelligence and models of brain function.
One can read most of the book, “The Molecular vision of life…”, here:
However, let me offer you just ONE small section taken from Page 9:
I’m sure you will recognise that Dr. Lily E. Kay was as far removed from “Conspiracy theory” as one would wish to be. It is simply this: When you LOOK, you FIND and there are masses of absolute facts proving who and what the Rockefeller family is and what it’s agenda is.
So, with the very best intentions of not hurting anyone’s feelings: Shut your ignorant mouth if you are, once more, going to throw the pathetic “Conspiracy theory” insult at any of this for if you do, it is this simple, you are insulting yourself by displaying your own incapacity for logic and understanding. Of being able to see what is right in front of you!
While isn’t it interesting to note:
Rockefeller Foundation: 1913
Federal Reserve Act: 1913
Founding of the ADL: 1913
Founding of the IRS: 1913
This is all ridiculous right? Of COURSE it is!
While the NHS is being pressurized by Doctors and government suggest it should have a renewed “Constitution”. Don’t heal the sick from lifestyles which have been pushed on people as A-OK and have, in fact, provided the government with huge sums of tax income while they still legalise it. BUT they criminalise such things as medical marijuana.
Yes yes, it’s all a ridiculous fabrication indeed!
‘Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people’s “responsibilities” as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restrictions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments’.
Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy-say-doctors.html
‘Patients would be handed “NHS Health Miles Cards” allowing them to earn reward points for losing weight, giving up smoking, receiving immunisations or attending regular health screenings.
Like a supermarket loyalty card, the points could be redeemed as discounts on gym membership and fresh fruit and vegetables, or even give priority for other public services – such as jumping the queue for council housing.
But heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could be denied some routine treatments such as hip replacements until they cleaned up their act.’
article-23410977-nhs-should-not-treat-those-with-unhealthy-lifestyles-say-tories.do
So, we’ll push the drugs. We’re admitting they kill people (just like illegal drugs but the legal ones kill even more) but what we’ll say in our and the tobacco and alcohol industry’s defence is that it is a choice and choice is a cornerstone of peoples human rights and freedoms. However, we will remove such rights and freedoms (therfore proving we’re a crock of shit) when it comes to those drugs which grow freely on god’s earth. There, we say you have no rights (because that’s just too lucrative a business for us).
So while we offer SOME rights that we know kill you, what we won’t now provide is your right to healthcare. It’s a LOVELY genocide tactic isn’t it?
Meanwhile we government, banking and other corrupt bastards with money which we control the issuance of, have our private health and no matter WHAT we do to our bodies WE will get that healthcare – a healthcare which is, in fact, funded by you the taxpayer (Yes, even though “private” it STILL gets funded by the tax you pay) who perhaps can’t afford it yourselves!
“Trusts are being encouraged to concentrate on profitable areas of work rather than the most essential … like mental health, accident and emergency and care for the elderly. These are not profitable. But heart operations for wealthy Arabs will be.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/01/nhs-plans-put-wealthy-first
What did he just say????…. Ah! Wealthy Arabs he said not Wealthy Jews. I guess that’s not anti semitic or racist then huh? The ADL won’t be chasing after his ass then! Funny the double standards we have isn’t it? And it’s like a one way street: Say whatever you want about any other religion and no-one gives a toss but if you mention a political ideology such as Zionism (which is actually the most anti semitic ideology on this earth) then, ironically, you’re treated as if you are some form of jew hater! I wonder what the Scottish judiciary think of the substantial number of jewish people who are anti Zionist?
I say: Get a fcuking brain and learn something!
We’re just brilliant aren’t we? Brilliantly Evil!
Earthling 
leave a comment