What bores you?
Mainstream media, NPR, NGO, government and academic lies, disinformation, omission and coverups on human-CO2-caused climate change as well the Covid-19 fraud, as well as the massive illegal alien invasion, as well as the giant grift corruption by governments, NGOs, mainstream media and academia … for the last 50 years…almost worldwide.
Bud: The Trump administration as promised has designated the cartels of Mexico and other countries as terrorist organizations. If you were ever uncertain whether the drug and human trafficking cartels in Mexico are in control of Mexico’s government, these statements and actions by Sheinbaum should end your uncertainty. For an example, let’s say a terrorist drives a car into a crowd of people, killing and injuring many, as has happened recently in multiple countries. President Sheinbaum’s policy would file suit against the car manufacturer and/or seller and ignore the killer.
Also, contrary to David Saucedo, claimed to be expert in the article, let’s see the audit and receipts to prove his statement, “So far the government of Mexico and Mexico as a whole, is the one paying for trying to provide security to the Americans.” An investigation of Saucedo would be interesting as well.
Decades ago, in person when I lived and worked in Mexico, I saw armed and uniformed Mexican military and military vehicles guarding marijuana fields in Mexico. Since then I have never been uncertain on this subject.
Bud: a recommended read.
RFK Jr: The war in Ukraine is a money laundering scheme for BlackRock. “They’re doing this right in front of us. They don’t even care that we know anymore, because… they have a strategy.” “And that strategy is an old, old strategy, which is they keep us at war with each other… They keep the Republicans and Democrats fighting each other, and black against white, and all these divisions that they sow.”
As discussed in my previous post, one of President Trump’s first-day Executive Orders — the one entitled “Unleashing American Energy” — directed a reconsideration of EPA’s so-called “Endangerment Finding” (EF) of 2009. The EF is the EPA regulatory action where it claimed to determine that CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” qualify as “pollutants” under the Clean Air Act because they are a “danger to public health and welfare.” President Trump’s January 20 EO directs that EPA, within 30 days, submit “recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings.”
Since the EF is the foundation underlying all the Biden-era regulations restricting and suppressing fossil fuels, you can be sure that any attempt to eliminate it will be met with a full-bore litigation attack from the forces of the crazy left. Can the EF really be rescinded in a way that will stand up to these attacks?
Absolutely, it can. Let me address a few of the issues.
Massachusetts v. EPA
This is the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision that held that EPA was required to make a determination as to the status of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as “pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. Here is a link to the Supreme Court’s opinion. Some commenters have suggested that Mass v. EPA must be reversed before the EF can be undone.
I disagree. I’m not saying that Mass v. EPA is a model of clarity, and there is some language in it that would suggest the opposite. However, I think that the language at the very end of Justice Stevens’s majority opinion is the holding:
We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPAís actions in the event that it makes such a finding. . . . We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.
Thus Mass v. EPA did not determine that CO2 was a “pollutant” as defined in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, but only directed EPA to determine whether it was or was not. Thus a new well-reasoned determination by EPA that CO2 and the other GHGs are not pollutants would not violate that case.
West Virginia v. EPA
The other important Supreme Court decision bearing on the EF is West Virginia v. EPA, the 2022 decision where the Supreme Court held that EPA’s Clean Power Plan was beyond its regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. The basis for the Court’s decision was what it called the Major Questions Doctrine, by which it held that a “transformative expansion” of EPA’s regulatory power would require a clear direction from Congress, which had not been given.
In 2024, despite West Virginia v. EPA, and without any further clear direction from Congress, EPA went ahead and finalized two gigantic new regulations to restrict use of fossil fuels, one regarding power plants and the other regarding automobiles. They essentially decided to dare the Supreme Court to try to stop them (much like Biden with his repeated efforts to forgive student loans).
West Virginia v. EPA did not explicitly overrule Massachusetts v. EPA, but the two are fundamentally in tension. The big difference is that the Court that decided Massachusetts v. EPA has since been largely transformed in personnel. Of the nine justices on the Court in 2007, only three remain — Roberts, Thomas and Alito — and all of them dissented in Mass v. EPA. The five justices in the majority plus Scalia have been replaced by three conservatives (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett) and three liberals.
On today’s Court, I think it highly likely that a majority will uphold a well-reasoned rescission of the EF, and will not think it necessary to overrule Mass v. EPA.
Substance of the rescinding determination
Three main points need to be made in an EPA regulatory action rescinding the EF: (1) Empirical evidence accumulated since the original EF invalidates the finding and makes it impossible to conclude that CO2 and other GHGs constitute a “danger” as required by the statute; (2) due to huge increases since 2009 in CO2 and other GHG emissions outside the U.S. and thus outside the ability of EPA to regulate, no regulations promulgated by EPA could have any meaningful impact on the overall atmospheric concentrations of the gases, and (3) efforts by EPA to control the climate by restricting CO2 and other GHGs, by contrast, would almost certainly have drastic adverse effects on public health and welfare by, for example, destabilizing the electrical grid and causing blackouts, driving up the cost of electricity or mobility, bringing about massive battery fires and explosions, and lots of other such things.
Only the first of these three points deals with the “science” of whether GHGs do or do not cause any significant global warming. Most important is that this argument needs to be written carefully to not take on more than needs to be taken on. To rescind the EF, EPA does not need to contend that GHGs will not or cannot cause any global warming. Rather, they can put the burden of proof on the other side to show that GHGs emitted under EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction will inevitably cause dangerous warming. EPA need only conclude that there is no sufficient proof of that.
Framed in that way, this is not a complicated or difficult task. There are hundreds of scientific papers in the peer reviewed literature since 2009 accumulating empirical evidence that the dangers predicted 15 years ago have not happened. For example:
EPA can just create lists of dozens or hundreds of such scientific papers, and perhaps add a quote of a line or two from the abstract for each.
Points (2) and (3) are actually more important to the rescission than the point about the science of atmospheric warming. Trying to replace the fossil fuel energy system with something untried and untested actually does pose many real and immediate dangers — far more real, immediate, and dangerous than anything that might result from a hypothetical warming of a degree or two a hundred years from now. California is only up to about 30-40% of its electricity from wind and solar, and yet has suffered multiple instances of rolling blackouts. The extent of these blackouts has been relatively small only because California has the ability to import fossil-fuel-generated power from neighboring states like Arizona and Nevada. If EPA eliminates that safety valve by banning fossil fuel power plants in all the states, the blackouts will become lengthy and catastrophic. Similarly, batteries are proposed as the backup for intermittency of wind and solar generation. California and New York have both begun building massive battery farms to serve this role, although neither state has yet reached nearly 1% of the battery capacity they would need to back up a predominantly wind/solar generation system. But even with that small amount of batteries, both have suffered massive and explosive fires at their battery facilities. California had such a fire just last week at the facility known as Moss Landing in Monterey County. This was the fourth large fire at the Moss Landing facility over the past few years.
I actually have a high degree of confidence that a reconsideration of the EF will be successful. Likely, that will sweep away all of the restrictions on fossil fuels that have been put in place via regulation during the Biden years. One more thing: Once CO2 and GHGs are declared to no longer by “pollutants,” all of the billions of dollars of government grants under the Inflation Reduction Act to “reduce GHG pollution” can be suspended and never spent.
UPDATE, January 27, 2025:
Some commenters raise the issue of whether something in the Inflation Reduction Act of August 2022 may have changed the playing field. I don’t think so. The summary of the reason is that the IRA does not amend Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, let alone even attempt to provide the clear direction from Congress necessary under West Virginia v. EPA to enable EPA to transform the economy by severely restricting CO2 (let alone other GHGs).
Here is the text of the IRA from the Congressional website. You need to go all the way to the end, in Sections 60101 to 60108, to find the language that people are talking about. These sections of the IRA add new sections 132, et seq., to the Clean Air Act, which new sections provide funding and grants (aggregating in the tens of billions of dollars) for various sorts of “greenhouse gas” reduction programs. The language in question appears in a definition of the term “greenhouse gas,” which is repeated word for word in each of the sections:
“GREENHOUSE GAS. — The term ‘greenhouse gas’ means the air pollutants carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, per fluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.”
Thus they have, in a definition, applied the word “pollutant” to the six gases. But here’s what they did not do:
Also, note that the IRA was a so-called “reconciliation” bill that was able to clear the Senate with only 51 votes (one of which was a tie-breaker from VP Harris) only because it was not allowed to contain anything but financial and budgetary provisions. Thus an amendment to the Clean Air Act to give EPA explicit new authority to regulate the six GHGs would clearly have been non-germane and not allowed into the statute.
Our excellent commenter Beta Blocker points to an article from the Environmental Law Reporter from 2023 titled “The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2022: Clean Air, Climate Change, and the Inflation Reduction Act,” by Greg Dotson and Dustin Maghamfar (D&M). In the article, D&M take the position that the sections of the IRA that amended the Clean Air Act “to make explicit that GHGs are air pollutants and that reducing them is a core objective of the Act.” In my opinion, that is D&M engaging in wishful thinking and attempting to create a record, not found in the statute, to try to “Trump-proof” the EF.
Note that a footnote on the first page of the article identifies Dotson and Maghamfar respectively as having been the Chief Counsels to the Senate and House Committees that developed the language of the Clean Air Act amendments included in the IRA. In other words, they are giving their partisan version of something they were trying to sneak through in the IRA which the rules of reconciliation specifically did not allow to be included.
Finally, there is no way that these definitions of the term “greenhouse gas” constitute the kind of “clear direction” from Congress for EPA to engage in “transformational change” of the economy, that would be required for EPA to suppress the use of fossil fuels in the economy.
So I say to Messrs. Dotson and Maghamfar, good try, but the odds of your sneaky gambit succeeding in saving the EF are slim to none.
Read the original post by Francis Menton here: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-1-26-how-to-rescind-the-endangerment-finding-in-a-way-that-will-stick
You can read about Francis Menton here: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/about
EXECUTIVE ORDER
January 20, 2025
WITHDRAWING THE UNITED STATES FROM THE WORLD
HEALTH ORGANIZATION
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The United States noticed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020 due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states. In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.
Sec. 2. Actions. (a) The United States intends to withdraw from the WHO. The Presidential Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations signed on January 20, 2021, that retracted the United States’ July 6, 2020, notification of withdrawal is revoked.
(b) Executive Order 13987 of January 25, 2021 (Organizing and Mobilizing the United States Government to Provide a Unified and Effective Response to Combat COVID–19 and to Provide United States Leadership on Global Health and Security), is revoked.
(c) The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall establish directorates and coordinating mechanisms within the National Security Council apparatus as he deems necessary and appropriate to safeguard public health and fortify biosecurity.
(d) The Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall take appropriate measures, with all practicable speed, to:
(i) pause the future transfer of any United States Government funds, support, or resources to the WHO;
(ii) recall and reassign United States Government personnel or contractors working in any capacity with the WHO; and
(iii) identify credible and transparent United States and international partners to assume necessary activities previously undertaken by the WHO.
(e) The Director of the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy shall review, rescind, and replace the 2024 U.S. Global Health Security Strategy as soon as practicable.
Sec. 3. Notification. The Secretary of State shall immediately inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations, any other applicable depositary, and the leadership of the WHO of the withdrawal.
Sec. 4. Global System Negotiations. While withdrawal is in progress, the Secretary of State will cease negotiations on the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the amendments to the International Health Regulations, and actions taken to effectuate such agreement and amendments will have no binding force on the United States.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 20, 2025.
“We are literally faced with a choice of life or death, not only of ourselves and those we love but civilization itself.”
Commentary The pattern is now all-too-familiar. Some disaster strikes. On closer examination, it should have been anticipated. Not only that: prior terrible policy decisions made it inevitable. The jaw drops and the mind reels. Officials don’t admit what they have done, however, but instead make excuses and blame everyone but themselves. Incompetence and corruption make a clown show out of the response to the crisis. Then comes the resulting solution: transfer wealth, always from us to them. How many times have we been here? We’ve lost count. The horror of the fires of Los Angeles inspired deep sadness for the victims and a desperate public desire to help and to know how this came to be. Fire control has been a priority of civilized living since the ancient world. How could history’s richest and most highly educated population areas have failed so completely and so miserably? We can count the ways: 1. Fire control officials and leadership were mostly DEI hires, people put there not due to knowledge or experience but demographic choices. Box-checking for virtue signaling. In their earlier interviews, they spoke mostly about intersectionality, not fire control. That’s how crazy this ideology has become. Not even the imminent threat of death by fire could shake woke towns and cities from prioritizing postmodern obsessions over race, gender, and sexual identity. 2. There is a huge shortage of actual fire control workers, mostly due to vaccine mandates that caused thousands of people to leave the profession entirely. This not only weakened firefighting forces but health care and transportation workforces too, displacing multitudes from jobs they love to something else. This is another point that everyone knows but the corporate media is afraid to admit. They ended up with a firefighting force dominated by compliant supplicants. 3. The empty fire hydrants (they were just there for the designer dogs to use on walks) and water shortages shocked everyone. Upon closer examination, the governor of the state had made videos already about dismantling dams that provide city water so that fish could live a happier life. There was no drought to scapegoat either: rainfall had been at normal or above-normal levels. Meanwhile, mission-critical reservoirs were drained for maintenance, closed for the season of high winds when the water is most needed. 4. Officials in California have long restricted controlled burning, which is absolutely essential for fire control. Otherwise nature creates a tinderbox. One never worries about this in a state of nature: fires come and go but once you build and civilize, you need some other plan besides issuing a fatwa on all burning forever. California residents can tell you stories: property owners can hardly get permission to remove a felled tree. 5. Fire insurance premiums had been controlled in their pricing by the government, driving out many insurance companies and leaving homeowners in a lurch. It’s been known for thousands of years that price control leads to shortages. Leave it to the wealthiest and most educated cohorts to imagine that they are smarter than the whole of human history. As a result, taxpayers are going to foot the rebuilding bill. The list stops there but we could probably add a zero and not get to the end of the outrages.  (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images) I offer you a news item from March 18, 2022, in which an LA County fire official bragged about sending firefighting equipment to Ukraine. “While the L.A. County Fire Department has sent donations for tsunamis, hurricanes and other disasters, Chief Daryl Osby believes this is the first time the department has sent donations to a country in times of war. “We are extremely proud to help our brothers and sister firefighters in Ukraine …” Then you have the looting problem, which until recently was mostly legal in California (Proposition 47, passed in 2014). The governor actually opposed the repeal of the law that forgave thefts of less than $950. The criminals did not get the message and took advantage, creating a hellscape of stealing anything not burning amidst an inferno of destruction. That only scratches the surface of the particular problems of a larger one, which can be summarized by the ideological penchant to live in a dream world. This is the essence of the dominant tendency of California’s political leadership. They have come to believe that they can create any reality they want by their own imaginings, never having to defer to forces of nature, human experience, or economic realities. Anything that contradicts the fantasy is dubbed “misinformation.” And sure enough, even with fires raging and people dying, California officials have taken the time to rage against Alex Jones and whatever random X accounts for supposed inaccuracies on the conditions there. They have spent more time fighting free speech than raging fires. If we thought the out-migration from California was high before, we haven’t begun to see what this latest calamity will bring. Anyone who can will escape. It is now obvious that the ruling elite in the state is nowhere near prepared to deal with any real crisis, and, moreover, many of the crises are created by the elite themselves, from water shortages to electricity rationing to impossible home prices. Have you ever tried to build a home in California? It’s just short of impossible. I spent some time looking through past, present, and future laws concerning residential building in California. It’s completely mind-boggling. The Soviets had fewer laws concerning grain production. It’s hard to imagine the teams of lawyers one would need just put up one structure. Most of the tens of thousands of homes that were destroyed long predated this insane regulatory machinery. They could not and would not exist today. They were owned by old money, for the most part, and those same owners could never get into the wildly inflated market today. There is simply no way to rebuild them under the current thicket of laws. It’s the California regulatory code that should have gone up in flames, every rule and regulation imposed for decades, probably since the Second World War. Otherwise we are going to end up with a tax-funded, big-developer bonanza of huge housing structures like we saw in Eastern Europe when socialism was the rage. The masters of concrete will collaborate with government to move billions from the people to the elites, resulting in structures in which no one would ever want to live. The combination of folly, tragedy, and suffering is painful to watch. Here we have a state with beauty like few places in the world and weather to match. It’s hard to imagine a set of conditions that would make such a place unlivable. Somehow, the educated and wealthy elite of this coastal utopia managed to do it. It now occupies the ignoble status of history’s exhibit A of how bad decision-making, messed up priorities, the exaltation of incompetence, high taxation, hyperregulation, and rule by woke bureaucracy end up creating apocalypse. Many of us have wondered for years what it will take for the media and Hollywood elite to become aware of the errors of their thinking and their ways. One suspects that this might finally be the moment. When you see a parade of know-nothings giving press conferences with no content, and leaders running for cover in the face of unspeakable calamity, it is highly likely that change follows. All of which gets us to the key lesson of the last five or so years. These debates over freedom, property rights, rule of law, and the liberty of the citizens are not merely intellectual parlor games. They are not just for faculty lounges and dorm rooms. They are not merely for entertainment on social-media groups and debate societies. We are literally faced with a choice of life or death, not only of ourselves and those we love but civilization itself.Jeffrey A. Tucker is the founder and president of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press, as well as 10 books in five languages, most recently “Liberty or Lockdown.” He is also the editor of “The Best of Ludwig von Mises.” He writes a daily column on economics for The Epoch Times and speaks widely on the topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture. |
January 7, 2025
Read the original at the link below.
https://canadafreepress.com/print_friendly/a-matter-of-life-and-death
“Life in itself is good and pleasant” (Aristotle —“Nicomachean Ethics“)
“The purpose of the state is good life” (Aristotle — “Politics”)
The world has entered a very dangerous path. The civilization of life affirmation, of assigning the highest value to life and its protection, has been replaced by a mad pursuit of depopulation and its resulting philosophy and strategy, devaluing life and creating a social and political system that praises destructive forces, completely changing the hierarchy of values.
Politicians, scientists, philosophers, artists, and activists participate in this reconstruction of civilization’s principles and its rebuilding, jointly creating a new world order.
The path on which humanity carefully moved is slowly turning into a wide highway that leads nowhere and from which there is no return.
The philosophical signposts, representing the legacy of great Western civilization thinkers, have been abandoned by the wayside, and in their place, misleading directions of reset propaganda ideologues are being installed. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas emphasized the natural dignity of human life, which was to be the goal and meaning in itself. Contemporary followers of posthumanism view humans as a “project for improvement” or even overcoming. In classical philosophy, life was seen as a gift and a task, while transhumanism sees it as a limitation to be transcended through technology. These dangerous philosophical deviations aim to turn societies away from humanistic values, from the affirmation of life’s beauty, towards suspicious ideologies leading to self-destruction. Considered Klaus Schwab’s right hand, Yuval Noah Harari believes that “human life has no meaning whatsoever” and predicts a future where technology will transform humanity into “homo deus,” meaning a new kind of human capable of transcending biological limitations. This idea has been implanted in the minds of contemporary world reconstructors who dream of playing God, deciding about the life and death of ordinary mortals whom they try to herd into a humble flock of obedient slaves.
The education system has become a tool for indoctrinating the young generation. Traditional humanistic values are being systematically replaced by the ideology of posthumanism and moral relativism. The curriculum increasingly focuses on shaping “appropriate” attitudes rather than imparting knowledge and critical thinking skills. Teachers are forced to promote gender ideology, ecological alarmism, and program children to accept a transhumanist future. Classical literature is being removed from curricula or presented in a distorted manner. History is being reinterpreted according to current ideological trends. This is an exceptionally perfidious strategy of censorship and soul engineering.
Mainstream media has become a propaganda mouthpiece for forces seeking to destroy traditional civilization. They systematically promote disinforming narratives while simultaneously censoring or discrediting voices of dissent. They employ psychological manipulation techniques to shape public opinion. They create artificial social divisions, fuel conflicts and fear. They remain silent about inconvenient facts, such as the rising number of excessive deaths or vaccine side effects. Journalists critical of the dominant narrative are marginalized or lose their jobs. Social media actively censors content that challenges the official narrative line. The work of mainstream media can hardly be called journalism—it’s usually just manufacturing content to order for the prevailing propaganda. And the goal of propaganda is to muzzle the truth.
Depopulation, which once passed for an extreme conspiracy theory, was previously confirmed by careless statements from activists associated with the World Economic Forum, such as Jane Goodall (recipient of the American Medal of Freedom in 2025, presented by Deep State president Joe Biden), who admitted that the goal of the new world order is a population not exceeding 500 million people (sic!). Today, the depopulation agenda is almost obvious in light of the unambiguous tendencies to shorten human life in the name of “the general good of humanity.”
It’s not difficult to notice that the depopulation plan is truly satanic and relies on a consistent method of “small steps” which, when accumulated, can constitute a great leap toward the intended goal. Their list seems endless and is constantly growing. Wars, artificially induced cataclysms, health-damaging geoengineering experiments, exposure of populations to increasingly strong radiation and harmful substances, pandemics and mass vaccinations supposedly meant to protect against disease but in reality causing side effects, sudden deaths and the puzzling phenomenon of their excessive numbers—this is just the tip of the iceberg hidden beneath manipulative propaganda. The propaganda promoting healthy food actually conceals a food production industry containing a whole litany of harmful substances, preservatives, and additives that create dependency on health-damaging products.
However, the harmful nature of the food industry is surpassed by the activities of pharmaceutical companies producing medications and supplements containing substances and agents with effects difficult to comprehend. Big Pharma collaborates with healthcare services, forcing doctors to use specific drugs and even manipulating medical school curricula. The “depopulation” list must include transgender and LGBT ideologies which, under the guise of affirming gender identity, limit reproductive capabilities and contribute to the erosion of tradition and cultural identity. The list goes on: typically, whatever is harmful gains legal approval and enters common use. Mainstream media avoids these forbidden topics, so to avoid falling into propaganda traps, one must independently analyze these intensifying pathological phenomena.
The retreat from the civilization of life is evidenced by the abandonment of fundamental principles in approaching patient treatment and care. The former cornerstone of medical ethics, the Hippocratic Oath, has become an archival document of the beauty of providing unconditional care. The key differences between the new Medical Ethics Code and the Hippocratic Oath should raise concern and opposition:
The new MEC has removed the provision stating that a doctor must “serve human life and health from the moment of conception.” This change can be seen as a negation of the Hippocratic Oath’s fundamental principle, in which the protection of life was a basic value.
The new MEC doesn’t contain provisions prohibiting doctors from taking actions solely at the patient’s request, which contradicts medical ethics that should be based on medical art indicators.
No obligation to resuscitate: The MEC states that doctors have no obligation to perform resuscitation on terminally ill patients. The decision to cease resuscitation belongs to the doctor or team of doctors and is based on arbitrary assessment of treatment chances.
Futile therapy: The Code prohibits the use of therapy deemed futile. The decision about whether therapy is futile should be made by the treating team, taking into account the patient’s will [but is a patient in severe condition capable of expressing their will?]
Patient assessment: Doctors have the right to decide to discontinue treatment in cases where further treatment provides no health benefits and shows no prospect of improving the patient’s condition.
Most dramatic is the grim evolution in the moral and ethical assessment of euthanasia. The historical approach to euthanasia was unequivocally negative—it was treated as a form of murder. However, in recent decades we’ve observed a radical change in this position:
The Netherlands became its precursor, where initially euthanasia was permitted only for terminally ill persons in the final phase of life. Gradually, the criteria were expanded to include psychological suffering, dementia, “life fatigue” in elderly people, and since 2023, consideration is being given to allowing euthanasia for children under 12 years of age.
Not far “behind” is Belgium, which in 2014 removed age restrictions, permits euthanasia in cases of depression, and expanded criteria to include “unbearable psychological suffering.
Canada (since 2016) started modestly, allowing it only for the terminally ill, but is considering expanding the practice to people with mental health problems, discussing the possibility of euthanasia for economic reasons, and often suggests it through government agencies in difficult psychological and life situations.
Switzerland, in turn, has created a specific model of “euthanasia tourism” and through organizations such as “Dignitas” offers services to foreigners as well, with an increasing number of people traveling there to end their lives.
Analyzing these terrifying trends in assisted suicide, one can notice dangerous patterns: the transition from “right to die” to “duty to die” for persons considered a “burden,” the economization of end-of-life decisions, social pressure on elderly and sick people, blurring the line between assisted suicide and euthanasia, and expanding criteria to increasingly younger people and milder conditions.
This transition from exceptional last resort to “normal medical option” reflects a deep degradation in the perception of human life’s value.
A separate issue is the aforementioned wars. Data concerning the number of deaths resulting from wars are generally hidden and difficult to estimate accurately. The number of fallen soldiers is much higher than officially reported. Some estimate that in Ukraine over a million, or even two million soldiers have died, but even inflated statistics cannot move public opinion, or most importantly, politicians, media, and institutions unconditionally supporting the war, sending weapons, ammunition, and inexhaustible financial resources to the front. No one bends over the tragedy of the fallen and the despair of families who have lost their loved ones on the front. Peace movements don’t exist, there are no mass demonstrations, and politicians taking peace initiatives can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Additionally, they are exposed to ostracism, assassination attempts, and slanderous campaigns by media kangaroo courts.
Is it not puzzling why so much energy is devoted to unleashing and conducting wars, lately even downplaying the threat of nuclear weapons and provoking their use? This is an alarm signal that should bring all people of good will and strong character to their feet before the civilization of death takes us under its black wings.
We are accompanied by a sense of hopelessness and conviction about the futility of any action. Everywhere we hear: I can’t do anything, I won’t change anything. Are we really helpless?
Success in fighting the “civilization of death” depends on grassroots actions and building conscious communities. Systemic solutions are currently impossible to implement due to the dominance of destructive forces and ideology in mainstream institutions.
Changes cannot be made through democracy either, because the forces of evil—the black character with tail and horns controls legislative institutions, governments, and former free and democratic elections.
However, we can create a positivist plan to counter these totalitarian tendencies through:
To save life, we cannot remain inactive and fear action. Only we, increasingly enslaved and deprived of rights, can oppose and fight for the future of coming generations.
View Comments
Alek Rybczynski, CFP’s Poland Reporter——Bio and Archives
I am a Polish Canadian poet, writer, journalist, editor and videographer. I have published many poetry books, and received prestigious awards, including best poetry book debut in Poland. In Canada, I published the literary and arts magazine “Oceanic Letter” for almost ten years. Now I am publisher and editor-in-chief of the online magazine Polska Canada. I interviewed Nobel Prize winner Joseph Brodsky, Canadian composer Marjan Mozetich and many others. My journalism is devoted to subjects silenced in the mainstream media. I have written articles on Freedom Convoy for readers in Poland, and I am publishing summaries of uncovered news which matters to our freedoms and fight against a liberal, globalist agenda and political correctness narrative. In 2018 together with Canadians Captains Barry and Matt Sheehy and Paul Sheehy I went to Poland, invited by Polish Government officials, to honour Polish and Canadian soldiers, who fought in WWII. I have made a video, documenting the trip.
Right now I am in Poland for personal reasons, but also to cover the dangerous pro-war propaganda and Poland’s involvement in the conflict in Ukraine. I would love to contribute to Canadian independent media coverage of the complex situation in Europe, and share my experiences with my fellow Canadians. I am thinking of short video presentations and brief articles, written from the point of view of a Polish Canadian, who has roots in European culture.
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.