Hitler and Cameron: the mask of two similarities. Why are Tory politicians hell bent on destroying the social structures and the moral fibre of our nation to accept that the poor, the disabled, the destitute the elderly and anyone not towing the line and are nothing more that a drain on the economy? Cameron (a politician) stated “we (the government) have won the moral argument for further and continued austerity” even though austerity is killing our citizens in the thousands. Cameron is the first PM of our country that has actually justified the immoral activities of his government by claiming “the moral high ground”. Reality and legality seem to be worlds apart in Cameron’s mind, the idea of morals and fairness contradict each other in the mans actions as well as his arrogance. For any politician to IGNORE the facts of over 11,000 deaths connected to government policy and the DWP/ATOS, clearly shows the politicians and Cameron in particular, have an absolute misunderstanding and interpretation of the word morality. Thousands of human beings have taken their lives; ATOS are trying to run away from the psychological abuse charges and the psychological torture of the physically and mentally disabled of our nation. ATOS are responsible for thousands of deaths and will never stand trail for those deaths. The conduct and actions of this “Commercial Sonnder Commando” (ATOS) are the result of “orders” and directives from OUR government. OVER 10,000 DEAD SO FAR CONNECTED TO ATOS. ATOS CLAIM THER ARE ONLY“FOLLOWING GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVES”. AND SO THE LESSONS OF THE NAZI’S ARE NOT BEING LEARNT IN THE SLIGHTEST. When government “contractor’s” claim to be “only following orders”, to justify thousands of dead human beings resulting from the conduct of government employees, then a comparison between Hitler and Cameron is justified and necessary. Hitler and Cameron: Both individuals believe wholeheartedly in Darwin’s “origin of the species” and “the decent of man”. Both believed that “morality” is political tool to help politicians ignore immoral actions. Both individuals attacked and cause the death (directly and indirectly) of thousands of humans in very specific and particular parts of society like the poor, the disabled and the destitute etc, (With the exception of the Jews). Both individuals have used issues like “a drain on society” to justify actions. Both individuals used indirect ways of controlling the population by stealth laws. (When the population of Germany realised their error it was already too late.) Both individuals put civil liberties on hold for the duration of their personal convenience. Both brought “personal” morality to the political forum to justify moral/immoral issues like refusing free food to the poor and destitute. Both have criminalised protesters. Both have conducted massive media “morality” campaigns to ease the guilt of politicians in the minds of the voters by blaming every issue except their policies. Both seem to have the same cognitive responses to anyone disagreeing with their PERSONAL MORALITY. (Criminalise the objections) Both made sure all the important “jobs” in government went to “yes men”. Both made sure major government contracts went to “the old boy network” first, before being put out to tender. Both made sure that “official secrets” legislation would silence any decent and remove any accusations or questions. BOTH govern(ed) with fear and the media as the main tool of population control, the only difference is that the Germans FEARED Hitler, whilst we in the UK have nothing but contempt for Cameron. This is not a political comparison of the individuals, but it is a personality comparison, a moral comparison and a human comparison. In understanding the similar mentalities in the two dictators, we have to look for a common denominator: Both believe whole heartedly in Darwin’s “origin of species” and in particular, “the decent of man”. This last theory dictates that if man keeps the mentally disabled and “defective humans” in the gene pool, then eventually they will dilute the intelligence and intellect of man to such a degree that man would decent into stupidity. Whilst one can see the logic of the claim/theory, standing by the claim and actively participate in establishing government policies to suit the removal of these genetic defects is another matter entirely. Anyone with mental health illnesses are the prime target for our government and the Darwinian beliefs of our politicians. You and I look at family control and the cost of living, politicians look at population control and the cost of keeping us alive. You and I look at tomorrow and next week, maybe even next year, politicians, like priests, look a hundred years ahead, a thousand years ahead, Darwin looked 100,000 years ahead with the conclusion of “if we do not remove the defective from the gene pool we all become defective”. The real horror here is not “the removal of the defective humans”, the real horror is why no one asked, what if you are wrong and our intelligence and intellect will dilute OUT the “defective humans”. Darwin made the point that to continue to care for these defections was wrong. It also encourages sympathetic weaknesses in humanity. Neither of were beneficial to the progress of man. Survival of the fittest has no humanity involved. Kill or be killed has no room for sympathy, killing for food has no sentimentality. Darwin understood that human emotions and survival of the fittest were contradicting each other. Soldiers often put their own lives at stake to rescue or help an injured enemy, which is an emotional contradiction to survival of the fittest, which dictates double tap the enemy with live ammo BEFORE you think. So the unbending theory of survival of the fittest has a major flaw. Most human beings react with an emotional response to an issue BEFORE the individual decides to take action and to determine the survivability of the action about to be taken. Irrespective of personal survivability, the emotional response of the individual outranks the self preservation and the survival of the fittest instinct in a heartbeat. One man running into a blazing fire to rescue a child throws drawings theory of “the decent of man” is based on the mathematics of dilution, nothing more, whilst morality is as common as the leafs on a summer tree, personal levels of morality are just as numerable. Both Hitler and Cameron use/used emotional/nationalist/fear mongering and anti disabled propaganda to get the “survival of the fittest” theology to be believed by their respective populations, therefore removing the moral issued involved in the removal of the defective from society. Emotions and morality are a direct contradiction to survival of the fittest. One can teach a man to kill with great skill, but one can’t MAKE a man kill because only that individuals fear, passion or compassion will make the decision to kill possible. Killing is not instinctive unless the individual is suddenly terrified. Once again, an emotional response to being dead, this is not survival of the fittest in the slightest, it is an unconscious and involuntary response to fright. Since the emotional responses of any individual can vary in degree, severity and emotional intensity, it is wrong to speculate the ideology of the origin of the species or the survival/decent of man are correct theories. Because neither theories take into account that man will risk his life to save an enemy, which is so illogical it beggars belief. The decision to risk the sacrifice of oneself is an emotional decision that over rules the basic instinct for self preservation. Survival of the fittest can’t be our basic code of life, because very few humans are that selfish. And now we see the crux of the matter, is selfless or selfish and not “kill or be killed” the predominant in the species? Man can use logic, but can choose not to follow it. Man can have the abilities to kill and still sacrifice himself rather than kill. These are in direct contradiction to all of Darwin’s theory on man. Darwin’s survival of the fittest was never properly based on humans, but on comparisons with lower animals that “appear” to be unemotional yet aggressive in actions and reactions to self preservation. The reason Darwin’s theory is so fundamentally wrong is by the exclusion of illogical decisions of emotions and self survival. Both Cameron and Hitler are identical in the removal of emotions from morality and compassion to dull the normal revulsion of the immoral actions of their respective governments based on Darwin’s incorrect theological dilution of intelligence and intellect and the decent of man. James Anderson.
Posted on: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:00:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015