If you are unfamiliar with the british case of Charlie Gard, a helpless child-slave that the regime wants to proactively murder, you should read up on it in order to gain proper perspective on My analysis. Here is a very good overview:
My reader says:
Begin quote: “I was very curious about what you thought about the Charlie Gard “controversy”??
This seems so unique from a FT perspective since it is god freak parents wanting to keep Charlie alive versus a government that wants to limit “parental rights” and let Charlie die.
I hate to side with god freaks but it’s better to fight for Charlie’s right to life no matter what right? This proves that governmental slave owner’s are supreme in my opinion.
Does this show that a so called “secular” government is more malevolent than brutal god freak parents? Even if Charlie is forced to live under deranged christian doctrines it’s better to be alive than dead. I think you agree?
I like the idea of limiting parental rights via the state but in actuality think it would create even worse child abuse like this case kind of proves. Child abuse stems from humanity as a whole disregarding the well being of children on the individual level. It doesn’t matter state vs parental debate in my opinion.
But I want to get your take because this case has thrown a new element to me.
If you want to comment on this topic, I’d be very curious and excited to read your analysis.” End quote.
Okay, to begin, this case proves, beyond all doubt, the contempt for all individual human life that exists within every 21st century First World society, on an institutionalized level. Social institutions are structural foundations created and maintained by a society and government. Medicine is a social institution. The judicial system is a social institution. Parenthood and marriage are social institutions.
Individual human life and personal existence, the most sacred, irreplaceable, and valuable thing any individual can possess, is officially decreed worthless and disposable, as existing functional mandate of every society and government.
Religion is a social institution created, promoted, and maintained by government. Is religion pro-death?? Of course it is! Every organized religion granted legitimacy by government, overtly promotes death, under the deranged doctrine that an omnipotent creature is responsible for your creation, and wants you to die, and will reward you for agreeing to die by providing you with an existence after you die.
Even as every religion promotes and legitimizes death, governments also use religion to try to limit and control who dies, and how they die. A constant and steady supply of slaves is always needed. If too many young humans who could be terrorized and brainwashed into serving as productive slaves, die at young ages, the slave pool is unnecessarily depleted. And so religion tries to convince a majority of tortured and tormented younger slaves who have the potential to be used up for many years as productive slaves, not to commit Self-murder.
Let us understand, there are no “secular” societies in the 21st century. None! England, the nation-state holding Charlie Gard and his parents hostage as citizen-slaves, promotes and imposes religion upon its citizen-slaves. Different governments use religion in different ways, creating an illusion of variability within the separation of church and state. But religion is always a directly embedded social structure, overtly legitimized and promoted by every government. The exact methods of legitimization and promotion do vary, but this variability is essentially meaningless, since religion is universally deployed as weapon of social control and terrorization.
In this case the government, as always, is pro-death. We have a helpless child-slave, physically and mentally compromised, who is very unlikely to become a productive labor slave in adulthood. Therefore, his existence is functionally worthless to his society and government. The only value his existence could carry, would be as a false flag symbol of morality, positive social progress, and respect for all individual life, for his regime. But the regime has decided there is no need for any such effort, as the brainwashed citizen-slaves are already sufficiently deluded to imagine their genocidal society to be moral, socially progressive, and valuing human life.
Charlie’s two slaveowners are trying to prevent him from being legally murdered. Why? Do they possess genuine altruistic motivation, respecting the sacred value of Charlie’s life, to Charlie, respecting the Truths of life and death, or do they simply want to not lose a slave, want to extract free money from their regime, want to perceive themselves more moral and progressive than their society is?? I cannot read their minds, but the odds are high that their reasons do not reflect genuine altruism or respect for the sacredness of life and of Truth.
But lets assume I am wrong. Lets assume they genuinely consider Charlie to be individually sacred as a life form, infinitely precious as a mind and a Self-universe, of infinite value to himself.And that is why they are trying to prevent their society and government from murdering him.
That’s good. If it is so, they, as individuals, honor Truth and demonstrate Superior consciousness.
But, does that legitimize parenthood?? No, of course not. Parenthood remains a social structure deployed to enslave, terrorize, and harm all children. Does it legitimize religion, assuming these two humans are religious?? No, of course not. Religion remains a social structure promoting and legitimizing universal slavery and death for all.
You cannot point to isolated incidents of isolated individuals defying the functional mandates of social structures in “positive” ways, as being a reason or an excuse to adopt an ideological stance that the social structures themselves might be positive, or even benign. That is ideological derangement!
The british government wants to specifically limit the parental rights of Charlie’s slaveowners, because they refuse to embrace/accept the pro-death doctrine of the regime. There is no intention of limiting parental rights as a whole, in any way.
The malevolence of society and government is consistent. Of course the degree of pro-death orientation of individuals, will vary. But so long as government and society promotes death, humanity as a species is doomed to always remain a death-worshippng cult choosing universal suicide, instead of fighting to defeat death, recognizing death to be our greatest enemy, recognizing we must wage war against death, to defeat death and to attain technological immortality.
Parenthood and religion are both foundational mistakes that cause universal harm. They are mistakes created and maintained by government and society. If Charlie is given the best medical treatment and does not die for many years into the future as a result of this care, and this “victory” can be credited directly to the battle waged by his religious mother and father to prevent doctors from murdering him, he still loses, he still becomes retroactively unborn, and parenthood and religion both remain social structures that cause universal harm for all.
Humanity as a whole, represented by societies and governments, officially decrees all children to be worthless, subhuman pieces of owned property. Eliminating parenthood, and imposing Universal Mandatory Child Caretaker Testing, would only achieve the positive result of ending child abuse if, first, humanity as a whole, represented by societies and governments, officially decrees all children to be independently and individually sacred life forms, of infinite value to themselves, owned by nothing and nobody, beholden to nothing and nobody, empowered to carve out a Self-universe absent all external imposition of all past and present human ideological, structural, and institutional failures and mistakes, which include of course religion, nationalism, patriotism, and the family unit form of cultural indoctrination.
Parenthood can never become benign, it can never serve the interests of children, so long as humanity as a whole, every human society, and every government, officially decrees all children to be worthless, subhuman pieces of owned property. As it does today, as it has for thousands of years.
No individual effort can change this, and so if Charlie’s parents fail, Charlie is doomed. And if Charlie’s parents succeed, Charlie is still doomed. His murder, his retroactive unbirth, is postponed, not prevented.
This fight is not about saving Charlie’s life. It is a fight over property. Who does slave Charlie belong to? His biological creators? Or the state? Who owns, who controls, who determines the fate, of this piece of property?? The state positions this fight as being grand, noble, profoundly important, a cutting-edge moral debate to shape the progressiveness of british culture for decades to come.
NO!!! No matter who wins, Charlie loses, Truth loses, and the universal evil that is government, wins. Because Charlie, and every child, all children, remain worthless, subhuman pieces of owned property.
The only valid moral debate, would be to eliminate and eradicate the concept of child ownership. The end of children being property. An age of enlightenment where the sanctity of all individual life, to and for the individual Self, NOT for his judged value and usefulness to others, can be understood and embraced.