YOU ARE COVERED
MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
The other night, I did a show about how it appears that those who wish to push the new green deal are also pushing towards a lifestyle of where authorities expect you to accept the wisdom of repugnance in order to fight scarcity – it is the idea that in order to reduce carbon we must be forced into eating like peasants with as protein sources will diminish by mandate and soon we will be eating insects and as some scientists suggest eating human flesh.
The idea of eating crickets and cockroaches, of course, doesn’t sound all that appealing but make it into flour and put it in a biscuit or cracker and it soon will be seen as cool cuisine. The terrifying part is that if we can grind insects into flour for consumption – humans might not be too far away, thus, the concept of Soylent Green is not at all out of the question.
I mean, what is anyone to do with the bodies that need to be culled in order to curb overpopulation?
We do know that there are certainly “population overgrowth” concerns expressed by so-called philanthropists like Bill Gates and one answer according to extreme environmentalists is to somehow initiate a culling process that arguably can be carried out through scarcity, plague, and war.
We certainly live in a time where abortion seems to be a part of the culling process.
Bernie Sanders during a town hall meeting that he would support the idea of poorer countries using abortions as a form of population control as giving these women access to birth control.
He couched it in the doublethink of woman’s right to choose.
But how many women in these poor developing countries really have a choice when it comes to having babies, having them aborted, or even killed?
What kind of choice do they have when it comes to health care for the child?
While controversial ideas have always plagued Bill Gates, there have also been under-reported activities that question whether or not his foundation is implementing a modified Malthusian approach to global sustainability.
Back in 2011 the Malawi Voice, reported that at least 131 Malawian children were vaccinated at gunpoint after having previously fled the country with their parents to avoid them because of religious beliefs.
Reports indicate that a number of children and their parents belonging to Zion and Atumwi Churches fled the southeast African country of Malawi to neighboring Mozambique in order to avoid a measles vaccine campaign.
Upon returning, officials apparently learned of the unvaccinated children’s whereabouts and, with the help of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation forcibly injected them at gunpoint with the vaccines.
Bill Gates once spoke at TED Talks that we can reduce the carbon footprint in many areas using vaccines and selected health care for developing countries.
Again, the idea that the “Soylent Green” scenario is the science fiction—nightmarish version of the Socialist Green Deal does not seem too farfetched at least this is what I am seeing.
Of course, cynics will say that what comparing this to a dystopian story is an alarmist political move and I can acknowledge the appearance but we must confront how science fiction is now becoming precautionary revelation demonstrating what extremism has embraced and how human behavior has turned into dark desperation because of apocalyptic climate and overpopulation fears.
I have done this before with stories like 1984 and Brave New World which certainly were never meant to be blueprints for the way we live now.
Soylent Green coincidentally has “green” in its title and so the comparison to a desperate Green Deal in a dystopia seems to fit for the moment.
I first saw Soylent Green when I was about 9 or 10. It was one of those forbidden films that we are told we are not supposed to see because PG or back then GP films were not for us kids. Where I was from the film rating system was enforced. That is of course if you were to see it in a theater. My parents only did drive-ins when I was a kid; in fact, the first film I saw in a theater was Star Wars in 1977.
Soylent Green was a dark and terrifying movie. It certainly gave me the impression that everyone in the future would be stuck in a rut of sweaty desperation. There were riots in the streets and people fighting for food. It was like a zombie film but the people were not looking for brains—they were fighting for the crusts of bread and the green crackers that had that secret ingredient we talked about a few days ago.
What I thought at the time was quite disturbing was the character Solomon Roth played by the aged Edward G. Robinson who was laying in a bed at a Euthanasia Center.
In Soylent Green’s near future, euthanasia is legal and it’s implied it’s even encouraged.
Sol decides to visit a clinic where he can simply sign in, lie on a table, be injected with euphoria-inducing drugs, listen to classical music and view scenes of nature from his past which no longer exists before the fatal injection.
Before he takes his last breath Sol complains “How can anything survive in a climate like this? A heatwave all year long, a greenhouse effect. Everything is burning up.”
It is later discovered that the “surplus population” is being fed by recycled deceased humans, not a few of which are generated by the euthanasia clinics.
I hope that in 2022, we never have to live through these extreme conditions but if we leave it all to the extremists and to the uncaring bureaucrats that simply wish to eliminate the surplus population with their lack of concern for the sick and afflicted.
Today, I was reading about the case of 41-year-old Canadian Sean Tagert who was killed by assisted suicide after health officials decided to cut the funding for his in-home care hours.
Mr. Tagert suffered from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). His illness reduced his ability to move his body, eat or speak, however his mental awareness remained unaffected. Doctors recommended 24-hour in-home care to support Tagert.
However, Vancouver Coastal Health, initially only offered Tagert 15.5 hours of care a day, which was then raised to 20 hours a day, meaning that Tagert was forced to pay $263.50 a day for the remaining care that he needed to survive.
On social media, Mr. Tagert wrote a status which explained that two Vancouver Coastal Health officials visited his home and confirmed that they were cutting funding for his already inadequate care hours.
After receiving this news Mr. Tagert wrote a number of devastating social media status’s which read: “So last Friday I officially submitted my medically assisted death paperwork, with lawyers and doctors, everything is in proper order. It’s been a month since I submitted my appeal to the Vancouver Coastal Health patient care quality department. They didn’t even respond….Welcome to the great Canadian healthcare system.”
Mr. Tagert was killed by assisted suicide on August 6th.
It has been said that Canada has some of the most sinister euthanasia laws and assisted suicide laws.
As even those without a terminal illness or those suffering from a mental illness are eligible to be killed by a medically assisted death.
Since Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016, there have been at least 6,749 cases of medically assisted deaths, with over 803 dead in the first 6 months of legalization. 2018 saw Canada’s euthanasia figures soar with over 3000 Canadians killed by their doctor.
In England, a poll was taken that showed nearly half of the British population is concerned that if the option of ending one’s life was made legal, some people would feel pressured into killing themselves.
It is becoming increasingly evident that suicide laws could lead to vulnerable people seeing suicide as a treatment option, so as not to be a burden to others or even a burden on the environment.
It’s a disturbing thought but not a new one. State-assisted mass suicide has been a recurring motif of postwar science fiction. As the impacts of pollution and resource pressures multiplied, it became easy to imagine a future hostile to the comforts and pleasures of old age – a future where the young see the old as a liability to climate and the survival of the planet.
The novel upon which “Soylent Green” is based, Harry Harrison’s 1966 “Make Room! Make Room!” depicts a state of open generational warfare.
Its opening pages find a gangland version of the AARP called “the Eldsters” marching in protest from Madison Square Garden to Union Square. Their 65-year-old leader, Kid Reeves, urges militant protests against cuts to their rations of plankton-protein stores. Food riots in the city ensue and the older generations feel that they are being singled out for death because of resource depletion.
Overpopulation didn’t turn out to be the Bomb some predicted in the 1970s. But the steady extension of life spans now have created dilemmas that lurk in the growing national conversation about assisted suicide.
Even as our natural environment is allegedly caving, we continue to make medical advances lengthening human life.
As our bodies are fixed up and kept charging by one intervention after another, often the mind continues to decay.
There are some that believe that excessant experimental processes to extend life is not worthy of the investment and that people who are using these treatments to extend their lives should consider compulsory euthanasia as a way to make room for the rest of us.
There was a controversial article that showed up in the New York Magazine written by Michael Wolff – in it he openly wished for the death of his demented mother.
He basically opened the taboo subject of saying that there are people that he calls “the stub” population. By 2050 there will be 50 million Americans that will be living in what he calls “the stub” period in their lives.
The stub period according to Wolff is where human beings are given the provision of basic, often zoo-like care that will cost $1 trillion dollars annually, which he says will consume an ever-greater share of the federal social budget, more than half of which currently goes to those over 65. Wolff ends the piece by stating his intention to plan and execute a timelier exit. He pleads others to do the same.
He encourages people that have illnesses that will put a burden on resources to voluntarily check out in order to leave room for others.
The Green Way of thinking is not to participate in what is called “Death Terror Management.”
It is said that when confronted with a terminal illness people facing the terror of death will demand costly emergency techniques for survival. It has been reported that the irony is that those who allegedly believe in an afterlife seem to be the most hostile when confronted with the advice of allowing for death to come without costly life maintenance.
You may remember the controversial plan in Obama Care where people were terrified that in it were also mentions of end of life counseling and the fear of death panels were part of the political conversation.
It is also interesting to note that end of life issues also include DNR requests from people who tell doctors that if reviving them meant a bad quality of life – that they are not at all supposed to attempt to revive the patient.
That is how my father passed away – he was told that he needed a feeding tube and a tune to help him breathe in order to survive. He told the doctor’s he did not want to live that way and that he opted to take his chances. The doctors told him that without the assistance he could die within an hour. When the tube was removed he called me to say goodbye. I told him I loved him and he said he loved me too. When my uncle arrived to give a family prayer my father joked “With all of this fanfare I hope I die quickly.” He died twenty minutes after they removed his tube.
I really don’t have a problem with the end of life choices, especially when it is voluntary and the quality of life is in question.
There are liberal euthanasia laws in Oregon and Washington, and in the mainstreaming of hospice care.
Many people do not know that Hospice care used to be a fringe idea in the medical profession. Before, Americans were expected to stay in the hospital until the end, stuck full of tubes.
Few people left the hospital or forewent staving interventions to enjoy the last moments with family.
At some point, the euthanasia conversation will expand to include healthy people who do not suffer from terminal illness – people who voluntarily check out in order to curb the public surplus.
This is something that I believe will probably be an issue in the future. If a person just wants to check out without any health malady – should he or she have a right to do so and should a doctor assist in the death procedure?
Science fiction anticipated all of this.
In the film, Children of Men, there are ads for a suicide aid called Quietus. In the book, elderly and infirm citizens have become a burden; nursing homes are for the privileged few.
The rest are expected and sometimes forced to commit suicide by taking part in a “quietus” (Council-sanctioned mass drowning) at the age of 60.
The issue is actually more of a drug that is recommended by the government.
A man named Theo visits his old friend Jasper. We are then introduced to the blue kit, open on the coffee table between them. Theo reads out of a booklet that comes with it, “Is there a chance it will not work for me? There have been no cases of anyone surviving who has taken the preparation.”
In the subsequent scene, when Theo is woken up by an alarm on his television, an ad for Quietus is playing. In it we read the tagline, “You Decide When,” and read three benefits being sold by the ad.
The Quiteus Company will pay Up to £2,000 to your next of kin if you take it.
Painless transition guaranteed. Illegals are welcome to use it as well.
The visuals include a man determinately drinking some clear blue liquid in a glass with a Quietus logo, before standing up and walking across a beach toward the surf, only to fade away.
In a deeply moving scene among many in this film, Jasper eventually uses the kit to kill his longtime-unresponsive wife Janice.
Quietus is a narrative prop that helps us understand the world of the story. It helps us to understand that people are so desperate and depressed they are willing, at a mass scale, to consider suicide. It helps us to understand that the government is facing such a terrible lack of resources that it has to incentivize this suicide to keep its population to some manageable level, to those who can still press on.
In the Soylent Corporation’s government contract there was a clause that encouraged people to commit suicide to reduce their “carbon footprint” was, of course, a satirical observation on the outrageous lengths people would go when swayed by ideology.
Is it too far off the mark?
Back in 2008, a study from the Swedish Ministry of Sustainable Development argues that males have a disproportionately larger impact on global warming because “women cause considerably fewer carbon dioxide emissions than men and thus considerably less climate change.”
The answer was to find ways to eliminate men and reproductive restrictions on male babies.
Being obese and having children also increased people’s carbon output.
These behaviors obviously have to be curtailed, if not voluntarily, then at some point by force – the force of law, of course.
It is chilling to think that there might be enough deeply concerned volunteers to pull the load for the rest of us.
Until then we will have the pushers of the green government demanding that we eliminate our carbon footprint and none of them are willing to fall on their own sword for the cause.