What Governments Learned From Hitler and Other Murderous Eugenicists


By Marti Oakley PPJ Gazette copyright © 2019


“Today’s eugenicists are just a little more selective. Zeroing in on the most vulnerable, the elderly and disabled and those with mental illness, a perceived waste population is being systematically obliterated.

Just because they don’t put a bullet in their heads doesn’t mean this isn’t murder.”


If there was one mistake that Hitler made while conducting the holocaust of WW2, it was that if you are going to murder untold millions of people, you shouldn’t do it all at once in full view of the world. In the 70 years or so since the end of WW2, governments around the world took heed and learned that if you are going to commit genocide, you should do it by stealth. That way, there won’t be too many people sounding the alarm, willing to fight to stop you and possibly causing your own demise. This is especially effective if you control the media and what and how they report world events. Now, with the internet, governments around the world plant fabricated stories to cover up their misdeeds, and actually pay people to man computer banks for the purpose of attacking anyone who might question official stories that just don’t add up.

The American Eugenics Society

The blueprint for the Nazi genocide of Europe was provided to them by The American Eugenics Society. Established in 1926 and supposedly closed down in 1972 or thereabouts, the Society had entire lists of people they felt should be either murdered outright, or sterilized. The Society provided the plans for mass exterminations and other methods of ridding a country of those deemed a waste population, to the Nazi’s.

But the genocide and eugenics ideology has never disappeared. Today, here in the US as well as in Australia, England and other supposedly civilized countries, a concerted effort is in progress to purge the elderly, the disabled and the mentally ill. Bills are being passed one at a time in various states so as not to alarm the public too much about the murderous intent of government and those in society who have decided that your life isn’t near as valuable as theirs.

One of the first public efforts to legalize euthanasia was in 1991.

“The right to choose death was called the Patient Self-Determination Act, passed in 1991. This law gave American citizens the right to develop legally binding advance directives that outline whether and which life-sustaining treatments they will accept in dire and difficult circumstances. This can be achieved through documents like livings wills, do not resuscitate orders (DNR), physician or medical orders to end life-sustaining treatment (POLST, MOLST), and others.” This of course has evolved into the Hospice hastening of death of those deemed not worthy of continued care. And the abuse of living wills and DNR orders is now standard practice especially where profits can be affected by allowing the targeted victim to continue to live.”


The Expendables: There’s More to Life than Death

Leave a comment


Contributor & author: Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD, (California) board-certified anesthesiologist and Board of Directors member and President-elect of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons  (see bio at bottom of release)


  • April 16th begins a week of National Healthcare Decisions Day. Hopefully this week will encourage honest discussions not only about a so-called “good death” but the value of an individual’s life.
  • These rationing systems devalue the benefits the disabled, elderly, or others with a lower life expectancy could receive from a given treatment.
  • A nationwide multi-medical center study revealed the inadequacy of written living wills or the generic check-the-box Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST). Based solely on these documents, physicians reached a consensus (95 percent agreement) on code status and resuscitation decisions in only two out of nine clinical scenarios.
  • And to my fellow physicians: ask yourself what you would recommend to the parents of a 19 month old deaf and blind toddler who needed extensive intensive care. Helen Keller’s parents have the answer.


Death Panels Are Already At A Hospital Near You

Leave a comment

strip banner

new-logo25By author/contributor Marilyn M.  Singleton, M.D., J.D. a board-certified  anesthesiologist and Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)  member


When advance health care directives (“living wills”)  were popularized, the guiding principle was to allow patients to choose to “die  with dignity.” But one man’s dignity is another man’s poison. Surveys suggest  that half of those with a serious chronic illness prefer to die at home. The  other half prefer treatment in hospitals.

Advance directive legislation has evolved from a means  to ensure patient autonomy to a license for health providers to ObamacareHurtwithdraw medical  treatment—even against a patient’s wishes. Statutory advance directives provide  that individuals “have the right to give instructions about their own health  care,” but they fail to mention that such instructions may not be carried out if  individuals have chosen life. (See, for example, California Probate Code section  4701).

The Uniform Health Care Decisions Act (UHCDA), model  legislation developed in 1994, has been adopted in whole or in part by several  states. It provides that health-care providers—without legal consequences—may  decline to comply with an individual’s health-care decision that “requires  medically ineffective health care or health care contrary to generally accepted  health-care standards applicable to the health-care provider or institution.”  Not surprisingly, the key term, “medically ineffective” is not defined. Any  attempts at specificity would force an open debate on the morality of rationing  and “playing God.”

Patients must be informed of the rules before the final  seconds of the game. Under state laws, circumstances under which wishes can be  denied range from a terminal condition or permanent unconsciousness (Alabama) to  being permanently unconscious or “an incurable or irreversible condition” that  will cause death “within a relatively short time”  (Maine).

Unbeknownst to patients, many hospitals have policies  that flesh out treatment withdrawal standards. For example, Stanford Hospital’s  “Policy for Medically Ineffective (Futile) Treatment”  states:

Medically ineffective refers to treatment that would not  offer the patient any significant benefit. If an attending physician believes  treatment is not medically ineffective and assumes care of the patient,  treatment is not medically ineffective.

This tortured clarification anoints the physician as the  final arbiter. More

%d bloggers like this: