The modern state considers the removal of its existence, and reducing the land to waste: to some fantasy where humanity have left but noble ruins, as a good thing. For they know that they cannot continue as they are.
When you have the dynamic — of continually subsidizing the official victims — continuing (and I write this at a time when the Tories in NZ have just increased the dole for the poor, despite being in deficit), then you are setting up a Ponzi scheme that will fail.
Evemtually. And this is a feature, not a bug.
The current Progressive State cannot possibly endure because it totally demotivates the productive classes who the State needs to keep paying for its own perpetuation. But it is clear from Greece and Venezuela that the Progressive State will take everything and everyone down with them rather than admit they were wrong. I don’t know what that spells for the next 10-20 years in what was formerly a free republic. But it took 70 years for the USSR to collapse. Although I always maintain that the Soviet Communist Party did not “collapse” – it just moved to the US.
It is not enough to subsidize the feckless. We must, in this rush to destruction, remove all sense of traditon and fairness. Because equality. Even if this cripples us.
I would suggest that, instead, many of those people who are well-paid and intelligent aren’t really all that motivated or dedicated to keeping the show going, when the show pays out less and less, and expects more and more bizarre behavior and prolific expressions of belief from the people dedicated to upholding it.
The focus should more be on demoralizing the higher order, ordinary, mercantile defenders of Progress, rather than the highly motivated, underpaid, but religiously devout progressives. The focus tends to be on people like the Social Justice Warriors, most of whom make little money, contribute little materially to the state, and are themselves repulsive to the enormous numbers of normal people who are otherwise loyal to the established order of things.
And this now leads to the reuntroduction of that evil doctrine of the NSDAP: that some lives are not worth it. That it far better to ease people into death. As if this life is but all there is, and there is no more: no accountability, no judgement.
And if we can micromanage and control our circumstances from birth to that final lethal injection.
An entire Country sinks into the deepest pit of atheism, and a chap who apparently has the title of bishop finds he must go to the press to express a purely secular grievance: that this army of atheists runs some risk of not going to hell in sufficient comfort.
The article – published in a Catholic weekly, and therefore not suspect of having kept out the spiritual part – has only the vaguest mention of “spiritual care”, but the fact that the vast majority of people doesn’t ever think of dying with any sort of sacrament – real, or Protestant – or even the slightest sort of preparation (as in “forgive me, Father, because I have sinned”) does not register at all with the bishop. Does he have idea of how many people die in utter atheism? Of course he has! He just doesn’t care! But look, that chap there died suffering! How horrible!
It all makes sense, of course. If the bishop believes in God, it is obvious he has no thought of hell. If you are not worried about hell the immense drama of all those people dying in their atheism is just nowhere to be found; but let an ombudsman whose existence many of us did not even know make some noise with some extreme and isolated cases, and there you have the man on the barricades.
The bishop complains people can’t die well anymore. What he does not say is that in order to die well you need to think well; which is something he is unable to do in the first place, but demands from other that they get it out of he does not say what; because hey, damnation and hell are taboos in modern Catholic publications.
But hell is exactly the matter: once upon a time people knew how to die because they accepted the brutal reality not only of life after death, but of an irrevocable judgment to be passed immediately after death. This obvious knowledge coloured their entire existence, and obviously greatly influenced their way of dying.
The bishop asks people to die better, but does not even mention what radical re-thinking is necessary in order to be able to do so. Worse still, he sinks himself into the same pit of wordliness by making of a purely wordly concern the main reason of his intervention.
Mundabor (who I have just quoted) is a faithful son of the Roman Church. He’s not a knuckle-dragging Calvinist who looks somewhat like an Orc, as your bloger is. So I say, in commentary: is this Bishop Catholic? Is he a Christian?
For I signed up to Medicine and took those oaths not to kill people, but to cure them. Not to destroy their existence, but to comfort: I’m appalled by abortion (knowing full well that my birth mother had a most inconvenient pregnancy) and disgusted by the suggestion that we should medicalize suicide. I spend a fair amount of my days persuading the despairing to live. For many interventions I do, I look at the death rate — by suicide — as an ‘outcome’ — noting that this is reduced by this medication and not that.
But the SJW and the state honour not the bleak courage of the mad, nor allow one to die as a Christian. It’s cheaper to encourage euthanasia: which is suicide dressed akin to an angel.
In this, for the sake of your soul, go not. Do not fall in love with easeful death. Reserve, instead, your wrath for that last enemy, and rage against the minions of death, who the spirit of this age encourages.