Allan J. Feifer – Twenty-five years ago, I told a friend that we would likely bear witness to the acceptance and even protection of several abhorrent social or political practices.  That came true, but it didn’t stop there.  We’ve witnessed a disturbing sea change in how we view these new social norms — norms at which we once shook our heads.  How could I have predicted this?  I simply recognized the downward trajectory of what used to be considered normal to surmise what could be next.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the social norms listed below were largely unacceptable; eventually the practices became mainstream through the strident promotion by activists and ineffective pushback by traditional institutions:

♦ Open homosexuality, coupled with the very public promotion of the lifestyle

♦ Gay Marriage

♦ Transgenderism

♦ Sex by consenting children with young adults

♦ Open Borders

♦ Anti-Capitalism

♦ The acceptance of recreational drug use as acceptable behavior

♦ Rampant crime and reduced punishment

♦ Society no longer requires work to live

♦ Single-parent constructs as equal to two-parent families

Take a moment to reread this list.  Nothing surprises us anymore.  History teaches us that radical social change usually ends badly, even for progressives.  All of the above continues to have a significant stigma for many Americans.  There is general agreement that promoting negative moral or societal values can and usually will have a deleterious effect on society.  With no national debate, the redefinition of our country has almost been achieved.  Today, our ability to be shocked must surpass a very high threshold.

The philosopher Allan Bloom once lamented:

There is one thing a professor can absolutely be certain of.  Almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.

Within this nugget is contained the oxygen, gas, and rocket fuel for everything that has happened to our old values and aspirations.  One of my editors told me yesterday, “you have your truth; I have my truth.” Could that be right?

Unequivocally, unabashedly, and frankly, “no!” — truth is truth.  1+1 equals 2.  Our society must be based on the acceptance that life is not situational.  Run faster than the tiger chasing you, or you die.

We sometimes find the truth we believe is ultimately incorrect, but it does not change the premise that some things are unequivocally true.  Though very much in vogue today, we must reject moral relativism.  (I had to go to an Australian source to find an original definition that Woke revisionists had not yet sanitized with Newspeak language.)

The next great anti-leap for society is just around the corner and coming sooner than you might imagine.  What do you think that might be?

Consider forced suicide of the old, sick, mentally impaired, or others who are voraciously consuming the resources meant for a youthful, Woke society? (In decades past, these members of society have been called “useless eaters.”)  Several recently published articles appear to be preparing for the impending shift to a new norm — similar to the chain of events with the societal pivots notated above.

Certain writers, those with a nihilistic and leftwing worldview, are sowing seeds for what should be a revolting idea — exterminating costly citizens.

Exhibit One

A Yale professor of economics suggested that older people in Japan should die by mass suicide; from The New York Times:

In interviews and public appearances, Yusuke Narita, an assistant professor of economics at Yale, has taken on the question of how to deal with the burdens of Japan’s rapidly aging society.

‘I feel like the only solution is pretty clear,’ he said during one online news program in late 2021. ‘In the end, isn’t it mass suicide and mass ‘seppuku’ of the elderly?’ Seppuku is an act of ritual disembowelment that was a code among dishonored samurai in the 19th century.

Indeed, we may see that idea already becoming a reality here; 18% of all suicides are committed by older adults.  Narita rationalizes the need for older people to kill themselves by making an economic argument, noting that Japan’s shrinking population cannot easily feed, support, or care for its elderly and still provide everything the younger generations demand.

 This professor is pushing nothing less than genocide.

Exhibit Two

Preparing the ground.  Campaigns designed to change attitudes and demonize those opposed precede every societal change of view.  Here’s an example of an article that made an elderly suicide pact somehow romantic, practical, and uplifting.

It may seem practical on some level, i.e., to end pain or escape the financial limitations of living.  But the ultimate effect on society by debasing life is devastating.  Such abdication of a family’s responsibility to care for our elderly should make us feel evil and selfish.  Civilization should delegate, even demand, the responsibility for eldercare be carried by our children.

Exhibit Three

Created as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Great Reset is an initiative by the World Economic Forum to, “urgently build the foundations of our economic and social system for a fairer, sustainable, and more resilient post-COVID future.”  The problem is that the WEF sees overpopulation as a problem, particularly when individuals are unproductive.  Davos’s ante chambers and side rooms discuss population control, and have discovered that manipulating health care is a viable way forward.

If you are 65 and older in the U.S., you already know about denied services like colonoscopies beyond a certain age — remember Obamacare was infamously panned for its Death Panel association?  Routine denial of needed procedures, especially for the elderly today, seems to validate the assertion.  The reasons have more to do with economics than medicine, as many women have discovered when seeking lifesaving mammographies past 40, or even 80.

Efficacy and safety were always our standards.  But today, federal officials develop “budgets” each year for healthcare that reflect choices that are then restricted by government policies and Medicare.  Private insurance looks carefully at what restrictions the government mandates and gladly agrees to save “their” bucks.

Already in Europe, assisted suicide is routinely practiced for non-life-threatening conditions such as depression, psychiatric disorders; even when the patients are teenagers!  How this fact strikes you is telling.  You have a debased view of life if you think this is not abhorrent.  If you have never heard of this, it’s happening more frequently than you can imagine…and no doubt, Wokesters in the U.S. see this as the next step in their long march to their vision of a “just” and “equitable” society.

I am Jewish, and I have been taught specific values about family and the selfishness of suicide.  It has been said that “Suicide is the cruelest skeleton in a family’s closet.” I believe there is no comparison between voluntary assisted suicide of an individual versus state-sponsored or endorsed suicide, ostensibly professed for the betterment of society.  This amounts to nothing more than genocide.

Talking of an individual’s responsibility to the state or endorsing some ethical imperative to remove oneself from this earth to appease the hoard is morally reprehensible.  That is nothing more than another notch in the belt of some true believers who seek a “just” society based on theories of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity which spells DIE.  These monsters are a death cult that sees everyone as fair game for elimination in the name of societal progressiveness.

SF Source American Thinker Mar 2023