John Simpson reveals he is stockpiling 'suicide pills' so his son does not have to see him become a 'gibbering wreck' … BBC journalist John Simpson has said he would rather commit suicide than have his son see him become a "gibbering wreck" in old age. – UK Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: Let us die well and peacefully, at our own hands.
Free-Market Analysis: John Simpson has a prestigious job as the BBC's world affairs editor but like most people he is worried about mortality. Unlike most, Simpson has announced he plans to do something about it – he's going to kill himself at some point.
This article announcing his ambition actually appeared in June. It was ostensibly triggered by a news assignment that saw the 67-year-old moving in with a "pensioner" and visiting a "care home for dementia patients" for a BBC series.
Of course, we're not surprised that the Beeb is devoting considerable time and resources to profiling the lives and conditions of elderly people. While it could be said that such coverage holds little in the way of unique insights – except that things get increasingly tougher for old people – reporters like Simpson are busily at work supporting a larger agenda.
What's that agenda? Well, it's an increasingly transparent one at this point and has to do with the power elite's campaign to create conditions under which the elderly will be mercifully euthanized once they are no longer useful to society.
Simpson, of course, won't come out and explain it this way, though there is almost no doubt he harbors such sentiments. The BBC is an instrument of public policy and such policy in Britain is determined by those elites that have been trying to instigate ritual killing of the elderly for decades.
It has to do with a larger eugenics movement that has been popular in power elite circles and was actually put into practice in Hitler's Germany – which the elites supported before the war.
Hitler's ideas did not develop in a vacuum, nor were they especially German. In the US and Britain, top families were interested and involved in eugenics and funded research and development, especially early in the 20th century.
Such funding fell out of favor, formally, after World War II but continued nonetheless surreptitiously. The larger issue – a kind of dominant social theme – remains prevalent within the mainstream media and Simpon is merely giving voice to it. Here's some more from the article:
Appearing on BBC1's forthcoming show When I Get Older, he said: "I've made no secret of the fact that I would rather just sort of take a pill and end things rather than live in misery and be a nuisance to people.
"Life is a wonderful thing, but life just in its most technical sense with just the heart still going is not worth having."
Simpson, who has a six-year-old son with second wife Dee Kruger, said: "If it were me and I saw which way the wind was blowing, I would try and find a way of avoiding it."
He said he did not see why politicians should prevent him from taking his life. "I'm already working on ways of ensuring that I don't end up dependent on someone else. I have a couple of bottles of pills handy. I'm not advocating it for anyone else.
"I don't want my 6 year-old son to have his only memory of me as a gibbering wreck. I'd rather take an early 'out' than just hang on for the sake of keeping on breathing and all the other bodily functions."
What is ironic about this above narrative is Simpson's statement that he believes politicians are standing in the way of his intention to take his own life at some point. It is somewhat incredible that a sophisticated communicator could say something so, well … dumb.
Dumb. Does Simpson really believe that politicians as a class are averse to killing-for-cause? Is he not aware of the wars that Britain has fought and continues to fight? Does he not recall the millions mowed down on the bloody fields of World War I? He is casting politicians as peaceable types, those who are extraordinarily reluctant to authorize the rote deaths of the elderly and infirm.
If there is any reluctance it is probably only because such pols are well aware that support for voluntary killing of the elderly may eventually subject them to the same. In fact, that is the way such programs work. They start small and end up big.
Once you have justified killing as a social good, there is only a question of qualifications not of morality. And because it is government, you can bet those qualifications will grow.
Where does it stop after all? Once a person's life is subject to a cost-benefit analysis, the possibility of ghastly crimes grows exponentially. What is to stop government from deciding that people with disabilities are a drain on society's coffers and ought to be done away with? What is to stop government from deciding that even young people with certain diseases or syndromes are candidates for extinction?
The most interesting thing that can be said about this Simpson article is that it positions euthanasia as something of which the government is unnecessarily standing in the way. This is part and parcel of the elite's larger promotional agenda – that government be seen as the merciful ward of the injured and infirm.
But actually, it doesn't work that way. Government was responsible for the deaths of something like 150 million people last century. Government, actually, is the provenance of those vastly wealthy elites that stand behind it and are trying to create, apparently, world government.
The idea, perhaps, is to create a lush global society populated by more animals than people. Within this environment, mile-long, elaborate keeps containing all the riches of the world will be constructed. A blood nobility will emerge to rule over All.
Here addled, lobotomized, chipped and mechanized serfs will serve at the beck and call of the handful of ennobled elites. Just not too many of them.