3 Feb

The Culture of Death [Reader Post]

                                       

is489-013The Left has always had a cavalier attitude toward death. Identified by Sarah Palin as Death Panels in President Obama’s Health Care Legislation; the concept relates to much earlier times in the Leftist philosophy.

From the writing of Chairman Mao, who is a hero of Anita Dunn and Ron Bloom within the Obama Administration, we are left with keys to his much admired Democrat philosophy concerning death for the commoner as opposed to death for the “Great Heroes”, a designation he and most upper level Democrat leaders seem to ascribe for themselves.

Mao, “Human beings are endowed with the sense of curiosity. Why should we treat death differently? Son’t we want to experience strange things? Death is the strangest thing, which you will never experience if you go on living… Some are afraid of it because the change comes too drastically. But I think this is the most wonderful thing: where else can we such a fantastic and drastic change?

We love sailing on a sea of upheavals. To go from life to death is to experience the greatest upheaval. Isn’t it Magnificent?”

Of course Mao thought death to be magnificent for the common people. During his career he used every advantage in his personal medical care and security. Mao’s adage that “Power comes from the barrel of a gun”, didn’t mean his own gun, he never exposed himself to combat.

It’s true Anita Dunn stepped down from her post with the Obama Administration, after her flippant and worshipful Mao remarks and the public outrage they caused; but we must remember the impetus that has gathered this group of Maoist sycophants in Washington: and remember the more intelligent and devious Obama faithful are not so anxious to expose their Maoist convictions.

The truth is that Mao loved the concept of Leninist violence and after being involved in the CCP (China Communist Party), and switching sides to be with the Nationalist Chinese and by living as a bandit and war lord in the mountains; it became obvious that his sense of sadism only contributed to his blood lust in terrorizing his enemies.

In efforts for “Land Redistribution”, a term that is ominously similar to Obama’s “Wealth Redistribution”, Mao recruited the most savage and sadistic henchmen from the peasantry. His instructions for dealing with “stubborn” land owners was “we’ll slit their ankle tendons and cut off their ears.” Again this is the blood thirsty thug that s a hero to members of the Obama hierarchy.

It is interesting to note that in 1926, Chinese Chiang Kai Chek, the number 2 Leader of the Nationalists, a man the Russians considered the Left Wing of the Nationalists and very close to them, visited Moscow for a three month mission and in the process became aggressively anti-Soviet. He was repelled at the insistence of the Russians for him to promote class enmity among the Chinese, a situation that Mao embraced and used as an excuse to execute land owners and sometimes peasants who owned a few chickens or a goat. Again Obama’s insistence that the wealthy must pay for the social programs of the rest of the country relate back to this man who owns two chickens is responsible fro your miserable life so he must pay attitude of Obama. Our Marxists seem to believe that taxing the rich into oblivion will not only “Redistribute Wealth”, but serve to eliminate perceived class structures by identifying the wealthy as being responsible for the plight of the poor and therefore liable to support them.

Mao’s soldiers began to desert and become disillusioned when they heard of their own parents being tortured and killed by the same policies that Mao was promoting in the countryside. Despite his reluctance to expose himself to danger, he was not reluctant to giving a political address standing next to a corpse, hanging upside down from a tree, that had just been tortured and executed by his soldiers.

This is the man who is credited with killing over 70 million of his own countrymen without ever carrying a weapon. Most of these were from the famine that was brought about and manipulated by Mao: but we must remember this Icon for the Obama Administration is, ahead of Stalin and Hitler, the single most blood thirsty mass killer in the history of the world and any political organization that honors his memory is indeed promoting a Culture of Death.

xqsnt76ygqg2qg27

About Skook

A professional horseman for over 40 years, Skook continues to work with horses. He is in an ongoing educational program, learning life's lessons from one of the world's greatest instructors, the horse. Skook has a personal website skooksjournal.com featuring his personal writings and historical novel type stories.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Communism, History, Liberal Idiots, POWER GRAB!, Socialism. Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010 at 8:24 am
| 406 views

19 Responses to The Culture of Death [Reader Post]

  1. Sponge says: 1

    RACIST!!!!!!

    ReplyReply
  2. Skookum says: 2

    “He Rises!” Captain Ahab, Moby Dick

    ReplyReply
  3. rumcrook says: 3

    the left is cavalier about death, yes, other peoples deaths, not thier own. they are cowards through and through

    ReplyReply
  4. John Cooper says: 4

    Skookum writes:

    “The Left has always had a cavalier attitude toward death.”

    It’s worse than that. The left is motivated by death. When I see otherwise intelligent people advocate socialism or fascism – philosophies which have always led to decay, destruction, and ultimately death for millions – I can come to no other conclusion that they’re motivated by death.

    Now I’m not a psychologist (and don’t play one on TV), but my theory is that children go through a phase where they need to discriminate “self” from “everything else”. They have to learn that there’s a reality outside themselves that is separate from – and doesn’t care about – the fantasies swirling around in their little heads. As an essential part of growing up, children must learn that they are a unique person – an individual who can have an effect on the world around him.

    That’s why many children in their early teen years have a mean streak…well boys do, anyway.
    They shoot birds with BB guns, torture lizards, light things on fire, bully other kids (if they’re big and strong enough), throw snowballs at cars, vandalize property, and all that stuff.

    Most of us at that age – if we had conscientious parents and teachers – eventually learned the difference between “us” and “everything else”, and grew out of that totally self-centered phase where the entire world was in our heads. We eventually learned respect for others, and – later on – that building something was a lot more difficult than tearing something down.

    After a lot of consideration, I’ve come to the conclusion that some people never manage to progress beyond the adolescent way of thinking. Even as adults, they act like schoolyard bullies, and destroying things to prove that they exist. They’re like an insecure man who has to make his woman cry just in order to prove that he exists, or an insecure women who cheats on her men to prove her self-worth.

    Many say Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit”, but that leaves out an important third possibility: Some people consciously choose destructive policies. (Yeah, I’m speaking of Obama, here.) They’re not stupid, and they they’re not in it for the money. They’re motivated by death.

    It’s difficult for the rational among us to understand that there are people walking (and voting) among us that are motivated by the hatred of life. It’s my belief that they’re the ones who never grew out of adolescence…the ones who kill birds just to watch them die…the ones who beat women just to see them cry…the ones who want to destroy the best Country on earth just to see
    it die.

    Leftists are intellectually stuck in pre-adolescence.

    ReplyReply
  5. Skookum says: 5

    JC, that was powerful commentary. I think if you pursued that idea into 120 pages you would have a book that could blow those psychologists out of the water. Well done my patriot friend, you have given me much material for reflection.

    ReplyReply
  6. pat says: 6

    Skookum,
    I am a psychologist (not the shrinking kind) actually and it is interesting how you come to your vision of the self:other problem which you might say is essential to understanding the world at all. But there is another view about it, that some people do not empathize with the “others” as peers. I’m pretty sure everyone soon develops a map of “my side” and “their side,” but what drives the resulting relationship might be fear or greed or sympathy, and it would make all the difference. So my feeling is that it’s some innate caring (or not) for others. There is room in psychology for everyone’s theory. People who don’t care can recognize their “otherness” and make good use of the distance to dominate or use others.
    As to the Dems, they do (or the left, let’s say, there must have been some good Dems) dwell on death. First there’s the long wrangle over the death penalty. Then whether to have children or abort them–the abortion focus is really beginning to creep me out. What is with that? I can remember the time when it was extremely illegal and disparaged everywhere and yet it was going on; yesterday doing some research on 1930 newspapers I was reading a gripping series about an abortionist, charged with murder after the terrible death of one of his patients due to peritonitis (no antibiotics, and this hurts like hell). Then a previous death turned up–as the story developed it brought up more and more sad things. I haven’t yet found out the end.
    It was, I think, reasonable enough in the beginning to stabilize this chaos by providing a legal means to get abortions for certain reasons, and control the maternal damage. But in the past few years it seems like somehow there’s been a growing background meme that doesn’t just allow, but actually promotes abortions. What is going on? This is really a culture of death, and the victims are totally defenseless. It seems like we’re getting a lot of propaganda messages from the sort of people who go out and kill people to see what it feels like.

    ReplyReply
  7. Pingback: Stunning Admission: Glenn Beck Reveals That One of Anita Dunn’s Favorite Philosophers Is Murderous Mao Tse-Tung (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone

  8. why would the culture of death be in the mind of a 7 year old child ? i always wonder that as i was telling my sister who was crying after being assaulted by my uncle she was 15 and i was 7 and i told her stop crying because i will make a plan to kill him and she stop crying and look at me horrified i never forgot that and i always thought i was a potential killer it stay with me all my life are we born with the knoledge of death being the end of a problem?

    ReplyReply
  9. pst314 says: 8

    “It’s worse than that. The left is motivated by death.”

    The Left is “The Beast That Shouted Love at the Heart of the World”–a story about, as best I remember from decades ago, a psychopathic mass murderer who shouts “I love you” while killing people. Author Harlan “death to Republicans” Ellison may resent my appropriating his story title, but :-D

    ReplyReply
  10. Skookum says: 9

    Bees, it is a multifaceted tragedy that befell you and your sister; a tragedy that happens daily around the world. I am not trained in this area nor any other related area of psychology other tha the standard basic classes in college.

    But the urge for a young male to protect his family is innate and normal: it probably relates back to the time when we traveled together in hunting and gathering groups and clothes were not a feature of society. I think the bond of protection towards female members f a family still exists in the normal male psyche and to cross that line can invite death.

    The ‘Death Culture’ of the Left is far beyond those normal feelings, these are the feelings or lack of feelings to others whom you may or may not know, whose lives become insignificant in the realization of goals and dreams; even if those goals are for the so-called betterment of the general population. The concept of ‘this is what you need, if you don’t like it, we will kill you’ is the philosophy of the Left or at least the philosophy of the heroes of the Left. We as individuals are meaningless in the betterment of the common good.

    Although the Elite or Great Heroes as Mao referred to them did matter because it is their exalted position to lay down the plans for a more perfect society: consequently, the Pelosi’s, Frank’s, Reid’s, and Obama’s are too important to be ground underneath the iron heel of Totalitarianism. However if we use history as our template, the early leaders of Communism in Russia and China were paid for their efforts with a bullet in the brain and only the most radical, manipulative, blood thirsty thugs like Mao and Stalin survived. I doubt that our Stalinists and Maoists in our federal government are even aware of this uncomfortable issue. The are more likely believing the propaganda that has been churned out for 70 years. They are like Stalin classified them, “Useful Idiots.” While they pose and speak with the slogans of Communists who have already been ground up and tossed away, the real monsters with ambition and drive, await the opportunity to spring into positions of power, at that time these petty ideologues will receive their just reward of a bullet in the head like all the other Useful Idiots of history.

    ReplyReply
  11. Skokum thank you i personaly think that you always use a lot of psychology evry time you write some answers to anyone and this above story that you begin with is very telling and we seldom think of Death being another power in our life but it is ,bye

    ReplyReply
  12. Skookum says: 11

    Pat, I am sorry to say I pondered a long time over the significance of ‘shrinking’, I get it finally! How embarrassing to take so long.

    My experience with the psych types is through my own extended family. Overall, I have not been impressed, not to say that they don’t provide support for weak and damaged people. Not meaning to sound dismissive there.

    You have interesting ideas, I wish you would post them with a reader submission. As you know, most psych people tend to be Leftists. This has confused me for decades; how people who supposedly are caring and loving toward their fellow man can belong to a group whose founders have committed genocide or murder on a scale the earth has never seen before and think they are contributing to the good of humanity. Surely you have wondered about the convictions of your peers and the sincerity of their logic.

    I hope you can shed some light on this issue, because I am at my wit’s end trying to figure the intentions of the Leftist and their motivation. How do they deny history and the obvious results and still regard homicidal maniacs with providential reverence?

    The context of 314’s has merit also, that the Left is motivated by Death. A statement that ties into your views on abortion. I remember the days when there were deaths from illegal abortions, and it is true that under certain special circumstances, abortion needs to be performed. Yet using state funded abortion as a means of birth control is an effort to further erase the responsibilities of life away from an ever larger gene pool of dependent people.

    Not to put you on the spot Pat, but you can help us here!

    ReplyReply
  13. pat says: 12

    Well, Skookum, I am a general and learning theory psychologist, because I decided many years ago that a great deal of psychology is BS, especially the clinical stuff, and good thing, because it’s all different now. :) I did a good thing concentrating on statistics! Sadly the main application I can see of learning psych, and my own specialty, measuring opinion, is to influence other people against their wills. This is the foundation of marketing. Marketing psychology is propaganda of the most refined sort. Politics is like real-time marketing with a little combat thrown in.

    In some ways you could say all people in the “helping” professions are “left,” in the sense of wanting equal outcomes for everyone as a cultural value. When I studied Community Health, which is really about politics, writing grants, and community organizing, we used to agonize over ethical dilemmas all the time. We quickly dispensed with the notion that “health is a right.” Obviously, people are born unequal and fate takes health where it will. But it would be hateful to treat similar pains unequally–what to do. We settled for “access to health care should be a right.” Not the greatest improvement in thought because again, we come up against inequalities or “barriers” to accessing health care. What to do, again.

    A division occurs between ideals and reality. Today I noticed an article about cuts in Medicare reimbursement affecting chemotherapy. It’s such an expensive protocol that providers lose money. It’s especially bad in rural areas. Things are always worse in rural areas. What to do–can’t force doctors and nurses to work in the boonies. It’s easy to see how a person trying to provide care conscientiously starts to get bitter about it and start thinking “if only there was a single payer and universal coverage and standards, we wouldn’t see these inequities.”

    The bottom line is, there really are not enough resources in the world to give everyone everywhere equal care and especially not to give everyone all-out, damn the expenses if we can add a few minutes of life care. It is an impractical ideal, sorry. In a practical sense every care moment is triage, and beneficence rules, in theory (the greatest good for the greatest number, the principle by which resources are doled out). Obviously this doesn’t really solve anything because of who makes the decisions: they can’t know every circumstance that will happen in the future if they do or don’t give care, so they have to fall back on their own inner values and hopes about what will be the greatest good, and pretty soon the rationing panels come along. But it’s the best principle anyone can come up with. Other ways of allocating resources might be: first come, first served; oldest gets first priority; youngest gets first priority; richest gets first priority; friend of the doctor gets first priority; all resources divided equally even if some need more or less than the average. If there is a more useful ethical principle than beneficence to work from when you have to be equally available and non-judgmental to whomever comes along with their crisis, and resources are finite, no one knows what that principle is, because the others are so much worse.

    This is why this whole “healthcare reform” is a sick, sick joke. The system is not fair, it is expensive, it is full of fraud and mistakes, it is weighted down with entitlements and history and habit, and changing the insurance policy won’t help. Some of us think it might help a lot if there weren’t a large % of people who are so sure that medicine can help make everything perfect (tort reform, anyone?). We are dying from the moment of conception, you know. It’s how we spend the time dying that is important. Some people think others ought to go sooner and stop hogging the resources.

    ReplyReply
  14. Skookum says: 13

    Pat, I love reading your notes. One suggestion, exercise your rights for the freedom to use paragraphs at your own discretion. Seriously, it helps the reader categorize his and your thoughts.

    This problem of care is perplexing. There is the instinct in all of us to help the unfortunate, but how many f us are willing to help the drug addict or the prostitute who is dieing in the winter cold and invite them into our home?

    It is much more practical to give money to the agencies who specialize in that type of care and walk away feeling “Good”. If we are great care givers and lovers of humanity, why don’t we invite the drunkards, the diseased prostitutes, and addicts into our homes to die in comfort?

    Why do we leave them to die alone, shivering in a night mare of un-imaginable horror.

    Yet we all read of heroes who jump into raging torrents to save puppies of dubious usefulness and regard these heroes as if the were victors of ancient arenas.

    Why is it that a hospital will take in a man who was once wealthy and still manages to maintain an estate, but has no health insurance and give him premium care, while a homeless person will be given minimum care until he dies?

    Why is it that a man who is struggling to maintain a business and is facing bankruptcy will be forced by the courts to pay for hospital services, while a degenerate from the ghetto who has never worked a day in his life will be excused from the cost of all care?

    ReplyReply
  15. Skookum says: 14

    Pat forget the comment about paragraphs, I was reading from another blog and had two posts confused. A post that was one continuous paragraph, please forgive me.

    Thank you for your input. Late at night, it sometimes all runs together, especially my typos, it might have something to do with wine, but I am not convinced.

    ReplyReply
  16. pat says: 15

    Skookum, no problem. :) lol at the late night and wine, I was ranting a little too.

    It’s a constant conflict trying to be “good” and it’s confusing too. You hit the nail when you say it is easier to throw money and let other people take care of it. This is a symptom of confusion–and then there’s burnout where you just say it’s all hopeless, the hell with it, someone else is going to do this, not me. I would not diss the public hospitals though. I’ve worked there and it’s frustrating to have a very unhealthy patient population and be at the mercy of the government funding program, BUT… when the staff cares, they do their best, and imo it’s the human caring that is the healing factor.

    I could really run on about hospitals then and now, but this recent immersion in the 1930s reminds me that in so many ways, when one thing is lost another comes. Like the antibiotics. I read these tales of old deaths, eighty years ago, and much of that stuff would never happen now. On the other hand, nurses and doctors were trained to have noble standards first and foremost (not enough medical knowledge to have to worry about?). Nowadays they are trained to get people out of the hospital as fast as possible without actually incurring a malpractice suit. In the many debates I’ve read the favorite cost-increasing villains are doctors, insurers, big pharma, and lawyers. They’re all in it! They have all coevolved to a situation where they maximize their returns, like symbiotic life forms. There can’t be any “reform” until everything is scrapped down to the base and a few good thinkers can construct an entirely new system, sort of like the founding fathers writing a new constitution. I’m not holding my breath because of too many quasi-living corporate entities who won’t let that happen.

    ReplyReply
  17. pat says: 16

    PS. Flash! This totally validates the idea that health care (some parts anyway) has a left bent.

    This is the home of the American Public Health Association. Basically a collection of health professionals and ACADEMICS and lobbyists, but what can you do, it’s an anagram on a resume.
    http://www.apha.org/

    Anyway, I just got their print version of the news. Check out the House voting record on positions which APHA took (and btw every profession has at least 3 organizations like this that somehow are playing politics, but also controlling the scientific literature so you have to pay attention–hmm, where was that strategy used before?).

    It is clear that the APHA is 100% in the progressive camp. These people are controlling medical education and the allocation of resources, you know. Sort of like CRU.

    ReplyReply
  18. Skookum says: 17

    Pat from your Link of dedicated Marxists within the health industry

    “While the political dynamics of passing a bill may be challenging, we cannot allow politics to derail the much needed reform the American people need and deserve.

    Healthcare is so important, that relying on what people want is creating roadblocks for what the Progressive Socialists want for us. How utterly Marxist, Stalin would be so proud of these dedicated Useful Idiots.

    Is this a condescending attitude? Mao considered voting a bunch of nonsense. Its obvious the Progressive Socialist may change their outer appearance but inside they are totalitarian and dictatorial.

    ReplyReply
  19. pat says: 18

    It’s the typical academic attitude, just like the Zero’s ivory tower finance advisors. Righteous. The thing is, in our society the scholars are authoritative. In other societies religious people are the authorities and it doesn’t work out any better. Ditto for places where might makes right. So I think it is something authority does to people, at least to people who willingly seek it out. Makes them aloof from the little people.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>