Category Archives: Moral Clarity

LiveLeak, Fitna, and the Base

This is an open letter to LiveLeak.

In these days of the globalized Jihad everyone must choose their allies, their customers, their base with care. Choices not made still have consequences.

A few days ago, Fitna hit the Internet. LiveLeak, which hosted it, became the target of threats and rage. About 12 hours after posting the movie, LiveLeak took it down.

This is quite ironic because LiveLeak, hosted in both the UK and USA, has long been one of the most reliable places to find jihad terrorist propaganda videos. For the past couple of years, YouTube and LiveLeak have hosted hundreds, thousands of terrorist propaganda videos featuring such horrors as Juba’s sniper attacks on American and British soldiers, IED and VBIED explosions, torture murders of captives, etc. YouTube initially resisted requests to take the videos down, but eventually began to comply. On the other hand, when requested by American and British citizens to remove the terrorist propaganda movies, LiveLeak always used free speech as a defense for letting the movies stay.

For several years, against the opprobrium of patriots from the English speaking countries, LiveLeak stood firm in its stand for the free speech rights of those who were profoundly opposed to free speech for those who were not as them. Its reputation grew among the terrorists and the terrorists’ fans, both from idolaters of Jihad and those with a nihilist, post-modern, Gramscian hatred of ordinary British and American culture. LiveLeak developed these haters of Britain, America, Christianity, Jews, and capitalism into its base.

So when Geert Wilders came along with his well-publicized project to face Islam with the idolatry of Jihad within it, it seemed like a perfect opportunity for LiveLeak to poke a stick in the eye of a new target. LiveLeak exists to stir things up like this. But this time it backfired. LiveLeak was threatened, not with scorn and indignation, but with bloodcurdling threats of violence against employer, employees, and their families. The threats were believable because the evidence that violent Muslims would carry them out was in color on LiveLeak’s very own site. Worse yet, the base of haters that LiveLeak had built up with great care was the heart of the revolt against it. Now LiveLeak felt the hatred and threat of violence that it had gleefully helped its own base aim at others for years.

It spooked LiveLeak. The company threw in its cards. It banished Fitna with the cynical excuse that the price of free speech was too great.

Now it was apparent to everyone what LiveLeak was. Its ethical stance was revealed as a rotting corpse. LiveLeak turned out to be a feckless organization that cheered on murderers against its employees, their neighbors, and the countries in which they lived. Were any LiveLeak employees killed in the 7/7 bombings? Were the brothers of any LiveLeak employees killed in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan? Perhaps not, but they very well could have been. But when LiveLeak itself faced a few threats it quickly gave up and censored one, carefully chosen video that it hosted.

A few days later, LiveLeak restored Fitna. But it does not help LiveLeak, which now stands exposed as a cowardly, rabble-rousing, self-loathing organization without even the courage of its convictions. LiveLeak’s way forward will either be to self-destruct, or to take sides. Will it recruit its base from the peoples of the countries that nurtured it, that provided the environment in which the technology that allows it to exist was developed, countries that send brave young, all-too-young, men to dangerous places to protect LiveLeak from morally retrograde murderers and slave-takers, or will it recruit its base among those who would overthrow free speech, democracy, women’s and gay rights, scientific discovery, secular law, who would reinstate slavery and impose the burka, honor killings, second class citizenship, and clitorodectomies on women? That is the choice before it. The result of no choice will be a slow death of nihilism and irrelevance.

LiveLeak, it is time to choose. This is the moment that will make or break you. Take your stand or slowly wither away.


Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Democrat = Socialist, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, D equals S, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, McCain Blogs, DragonLady’s World, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Rant It Up, Tilting At Windmill Farms, Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

David Mamet: the ideological journey of a former “brain-dead liberal”

But for the fact that I am not a famous and wealthy writer-director for stage and screen, who mostly works in iambic-pentameter, David Mamet’s story of his ideological awakening could be my own. This is how he describes his initial realization of where his long-established assumptions had been wrong.

I had been listening to NPR and reading various organs of national opinion for years, wonder and rage contending for pride of place. Further: I found I had been—rather charmingly, I thought—referring to myself for years as “a brain-dead liberal,” and to NPR as “National Palestinian Radio.”This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong.

But in my life, a brief review revealed, everything was not always wrong, and neither was nor is always wrong in the community in which I live, or in my country. Further, it was not always wrong in previous communities in which I lived, and among the various and mobile classes of which I was at various times a part.

And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it?

Read all about it at the Village Voice, David Mamet, Why I am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal’


Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, McCain Blogs, A Newt One- Chris Hill on tonight, DragonLady’s World, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , ,

The Role of Christianity in Abolishing Slavery of Blacks and of Islam in Perpetuating it

Robert Spencer enlightens his readers just in time for National Black History Month:

Slavery was taken for granted throughout Islamic history, as it was, of course, in the West as well up until relatively recent times. Yet while the European and American slave trade get lavish attention from historians […], the Islamic slave trade actually lasted longer and brought suffering to a larger number of people. It is exceedingly ironic that Islam has been presented to American blacks as the egalitarian alternative to the “white man’s slave religion” of Christianity, since Islamic slavery operated on a larger scale than did the Western slave trade, and lasted longer. While historians estimate that the transatlantic slave trade, which operated between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, involved around 10.5 million people, the Islamic slave trade in the Sahara, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean areas began in the seventh century and lasted into the nineteenth, and involved 17 million people. […]Slavery is still practiced openly today in two Muslim countries, Sudan and Mauritania. In line with historical practice, Muslim slavers in the Sudan primarily enslave non-Muslims, and chiefly Christians. According to the Coalition Against Slavery in Mauritania and Sudan (CASMAS), a human rights and abolitionist movement founded in 1995, “The current Khartoum government wants to bring the non-Muslim Black South in line with Sharia law, laid down and interpreted by conservative Muslim clergy. The Black animist and Christian South remembers many years of slave raids by Arabs from the north and east and resists Muslim religious rule and the perceived economic, cultural, and religious expansion behind it.”

One modern-day Sudanese Christian slave, James Pareng Alier, was kidnapped and enslaved when he was twelve years old. Religion was a major element of his ordeal: “I was forced to learn the Koran and re-baptised Ahmed. They told me that Christianity was a bad religion. After a time we were given military training and they told us we would be sent to fight.” Alier has no idea of his family’s whereabouts. The BBC reported in March 2007 that slave raids “were a common feature of Sudan’s 21-year north-south war, which ended in 2005. . . . According to a study by the Kenya-based Rift Valley Institute, some 11,000 young boys and girls were seized and taken across the internal border—many to the states of South Darfur and West Kordofan. . . . Most were forcibly converted to Islam, given Muslim names and told not to speak their mother tongue.” Yet even today, while non-Muslims were enslaved and often forcibly converted to Islam, their conversion does not lead to their freedom. Mauritanian anti-slavery campaigner Boubacar Messaoud explains that “it’s like having sheep or goats. If a woman is a slave, her descendants are slaves.”

Anti-slavery crusaders like Messaoud have great difficulty working against this attitude, because it is rooted in the Qur’an and Muhammad’s example. Particularly when the slaves are non-Muslims, there is no verse of the Qur’an corresponding to Lincoln’s favored Bible verse, Genesis 3:19, that anti-slavery Muslims can invoke against those who continue to approve of and even to practice slavery.

Read the rest.

For more on the state of Liberty around the world, see here.


Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog’s Weblog, A Newt One, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Death, False Imprisonment, and Persecution

We shall all die some day. That is the fate of all mortals. Before that day of destiny it is our task to scatter the moments of a life well lived, of a God truly worshiped, a spouse well loved, children lovingly corrected, friends appreciated, the helpless defended, parents honored, benefactors thanked. When our souls pass on, if those who mourn our passing can recall the good memories like snapshots scattered on the ground before them in their daily walks through the world then they will be comforted. That is how we can prepare for inevitable death. Not that we shall seek out our death, or kill ourselves like devil-worshiping pagans, but face the future bravely after considering what is necessary to be done and what is not.

In order of increasing solemnity, here are the stories of three bloggers who have ventured to do that which they determined to be necessary and faced the consequences.

First, Right Truth spreads the word about Lionheart, who has had a warrant filed for his arrest in England on hate speech charges.

Fellow blogger Lionheart sent me an email this morning to let me know a warrant has been issued for his arrest. Why? Because he blogs about Islamic terrorism. He says:

I am currently out of the Country and on my return home to England I am going to be arrested by British detectives on suspicion of Stirring up Racial Hatred by displaying written material” contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986.

This charge if found guilty carries a lengthy prison sentence, more than what most paedophiles and rapists receive, and all for writing words of truth about the barbarity that is living in the midst of our children, which threatens the very future of our Country.

This, the prosecution of citizens for blogging the truth about what is happening in their own communities, is what comes of hate speech laws. They are supposed to soothe hurt feelings, but end up destroying free speech and turning law-abiding adults into mewling infants able to only cry for succor from the teat of the socialist nanny government. Hate speech laws do nothing to restrict criminals who never intend to act within the law. They only restrict those who are basically law abiding, and they turn law abiding citizens into sheep. Hate speech laws are an abomination and must be abolished everywhere.

Also on it: Bournemouth Nationalist; Song Dong Nigh; Wheat and Weeds; Terry Morris; Gates of Vienna; Old Atlantic Lighthouse; Vanishing American; Dinosaur; Stix Blog; Atlas Shrugs; Always on Watch; Wake up America.
Google search here.

Next, Fouad al Farhan, probably the best known Saudi blogger, has been arrested in Jeddah.

Saudi blogger Fouad Al Farhan was arrested on Tuesday December 11 after his office was forced into in Jeddah, located in Western Saudi Arabia. He was detained without an explanation or reasons for his arrest. Fouad Al Farhan is considered among the first Saudi bloggers to blog using their real names and his blog discusses social problems and tackles national issues frankly.

See also: Google search, CNN, WaPo 1 & 2.

Finally, in the saddest news for our trio, Maj. Andrew Olmsted who blogged at Obsidian Wings and formerly did the Iraq Report for Winds of Change, was killed in Diyala province in Iraq on January 3. From hilzoy at Obsidian Wings:

Andy was a wonderful person: decent, honorable, generous, principled, courageous, sweet, and very funny. The world has a horrible hole in it that nothing can fill. I’m glad Andy — generous as always — wrote something for me to publish now, since I have no words at all. Beyond: Andy, I will miss you.My thoughts are with his wife, his parents, and his brother and sister.

What follows is Andy’s post: a bit here; the rest below the fold. [UPDATE: I’m adding links to Andy’s last post at his Rocky Mountain News blogs, from about a week ago, where friends and family are expressing support in comments; to an article from yesterday that I believe is about his death; and to a post he wrote on his reasons for going to Iraq last June.]

Read an extract from the comments at Rocky Mountain News Blogs.

Major Olmstead,

My name is Jeff Casey and I am CAPT Tom Casey’s younger brother. Three army guard members arrived at our door today to tell us that Tom was killed in small arms fire today (1/3/08). They also told us that both his wife and my mother had already been notified of which neither had actually occoured. I am writing to you to determine if my brother has actually fallen in small arms fire like they said or if the army got that piece of information wrong as well. If you get this and the information turns out to be false, please have Tom contact us as soon as possible. Thank you

Posted by Jeff Casey on January 3, 2008 04:09 PM


From what I can piece together, Major Olmstead and my brother CAPT Thomas John Casey were the 2 soldiers killed in Diyala province yesterday. I can only assume that they took the lead when the team was ambushed, and are the true definition of heros. Tom was one hell of a brother/soldier/father/friend and I will miss him dearly. My condolences go out to Andrew’s family, we know exactly what you are going through-jjc
Posted by Jeff Casey on January 4, 2008 05:42 AM

Major Andrew Olmsted and Captain Thomas Casey were both killed when we were ambushed. They both displayed tremendous courage under fire. I am proud to have served with them. They will be greatly missed. We were all blessed to have known them. They will always be my brothers in arms.Captain John Thompson
Nightmare 3
Posted by John Thompson on January 4, 2008 06:37 AM

Dear Reader, cry if you must. Rest in Peace Andrew Olmsted and Thomas Casey.

More at memeorandum.

Trackposted to Allie is Wired, third world county, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, , Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, and Big Dog’s Weblog, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Hillary, Bonhoeffer, and Lies

In his seminal work on Ethics the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote that “it is worse for a liar to tell the truth than for a lover of truth to tell a lie.”

Read it all.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Antifa’s Fascist Aunty

Who are the Antifas and Antiras? Wikipedia describes them as militant anti-fascists.

Militant anti-fascism is a form of anti-fascism that advocates the use of violence against fascism. Within the anti-fascist movement, the term militant anti-fascism is often used in contrast to liberal anti-fascism.Fascists often use violence and depend on a physical presence in the streets, and militant anti-fascists believe that an equal counterweight is essential to stop fascism. […]

Militant anti-fascists are usually supporters of class struggle, and view fascism as an anti-working class political system. Militant anti-fascists tend to promote radical anti-capitalist transformation of society, rather than defending the status quo of liberal democracy. This often translates into support for some form of socialism or anarchism.

As John Jay Ray points out, Fascism was not a right wing perversion that sprang from untrammeled capitalism, but a progressive movement with the intention of forcing or tricking people into giving up their liberty to a perfected society, all for their own good.

If the term “Fascism” means anything of itself it means “Groupism” — as the fasci of Italy at the time were simply groups of political activists. The fasces of ancient Roman times were of course the bundles of rods carried by the lictors to symbolize the great strength of the organized Roman people. The idea again was that people were stronger in groups than as individuals.

Mussolini got his ideas for fascism from the most prominent groupthinkers of his day: Woodrow Wilson and the American Progressives.

“Upon taking power in Washington, Wilson and the many other Southerners he brought into his cabinet were disturbed at the way the federal government went about its own business. One legacy of post-Civil War Republican ascendancy was that Washington’s large black populace had access to federal jobs, and worked with whites in largely integrated circumstances. Wilson’s cabinet put an end to that, bringing Jim Crow to Washington. Wilson allowed various officials to segregate the toilets, cafeterias, and work areas of their departments”.

There is more.

the more one reads about the American “Progressives” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the more parallels one finds between them and the Fascists. For instance, particularly prominent on the American Left were the Bellamys. Edward and Francis Bellamy actively promoted what they called “military socialism” and, largely under their influence, loyalty oaths, flag ceremonies, racist preaching and even the straight-armed salute were all common in America long before they were adopted by Mussolini and the Nazis.

This speech from the era of WW2 is pure fascism.

“If we are to go forward we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because, without such discipline, no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good”.

The speech was given by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, progressive icon.

Why have I done this? To smear Democrats and liberals? On the contrary, I have done it to awaken the reader to the fact that fascism is not only of the right, but that fascism can be of the left, and has been leftist for most of the 20th century.

So what we have in antifa is a militant group movement that seeks to bully and physically attack those who it perceives as being of the right, precisely because they are of the right and hold with capitalist or counterjihad principles. The Nazi party was the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. Antifa is a violent socialist group intent on suppressing others by violence. In other words, the antifa movement is by no means anti-fascist, but actually is exactly as fascist as the Nazi SS Brownshirts.

When the leather-jacketed, jackbooted antifa horde charges at jews and counterjihadists, iron bars swinging, it is accurate to compare the attack to Kristallnacht and the attackers to the Nazi Party, which was after all a party of Socialist Fascists just like the Antifa. Anti-fascist? How about Aunty Fascist instead?

Or just leave Aunty at home and call them Fascists, since that’s what they are.

Trackposted to Blog @, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Mark My Words, Allie is Wired, The Pink Flamingo, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Is This the New Normal?

Charles Johnson shares a death threat from an Omani adherent of the Religion of Peace. (h/t: Robert Spencer)

Allah Willing, thetime will come when flashes of fire will burn your belly to ash, your wife(your yahoodi whore) shall be a slave for the pleasure of the Al-Muslimoon. Inshallah, I will find yuo and killed you SOMEDAY YOU KUFFAR PIG, YOU SON OF THE APES AND THE SWINE ALLAH TA’ALLA SHALL ROAST YOUR ORGANS FOR THE PLEASURE OF THE MUSLIMS YOU SCUM FILTHEIR THNA THE COCKROACH, YOU K A F I R

Just a few days ago, Larry O’Donnell revealed to Hugh Hewitt that he would rather slander a presidential candidate’s religion than say anything bad about Islam, because he is scared of Muslims.

HH: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?

LO’D: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.
Continue reading

Larry O’Donnell Sure Sounds Like a Leftist Coward and Bigot

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Larry O’Donnell, ending with O’Donnell’s startling admission of his own cowardice and bigotry.

HH: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?

LO’D: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.

HH: Well, that’s candid.

LO’D: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…

HH: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.

LO’D: They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.

In case you don’t know who Larry O’Donnell is, see Wikipedia and MSNBC.

Now the way that instead of opposing the real bad guys the left attacks American Republicans, who are on the left’s side against the real bad guys, makes sense. They have the repulsive mix of bigotry against all people conservative and cowardice toward the true fascists who would as soon behead them as look at them. They are shaking like coward-flavored jello in their cha-cha heels.

h/t: Dissecting Leftism

Trackposted to Pirate’s Cove, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Leaning Straight Up, Allie is Wired, Chuck Adkins, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven

Technorati Tags: , , ,

That which must not be said: On censorship

From the Belmont Club on the “anti-fascist” students who stormed the Oxford Union like a bunch of Nazi brownshirts.

Proposition: some persons and ideas are so reprehensible that even a society which espouses “free speech” cannot allow them expression.

On first thought I stood opposed.

Keep the pickpockets’ hands where I can see them, put things in context, allow those with new and valuable insights to persuade others, allow falsehoods to be exposed brutally, mercilessly, to the light of reason.

Then I asked myself if there were any speech I could posit that might need to be treated as a criminal act.

Suppose that a speaker rises in front of a high-school assembly and proceeds to give a simple explanation of how anyone, with common household items and no special skills, could create a bubonic plague/ rabies/ anthrax/ smallpox aerosol in five minutes. It is an idea. It is stupid and incredibly dangerous to give this talk. But at least in this case the speaker knows, more or less, the people to whom he speaks, and can estimate their future actions beforehand.

Now suppose that instead the speaker publishes his instructions on the internet with diagrams, quicktime demonstration, and links to suppliers. He can no longer predict the actions of readers. But is there really a difference when the speaker’s audience could have all blogged about the speech and put the information on the internet anyway?

I conclude from this that there are certain facts and procedures that should be kept secret as a matter of national security. Publishing or publicly exposing official secrets should be prevented, and punished if prevention doesn’t work.

Treason as defined in the US Constitution is a similar issue. I’ll get back to treason later.

There are other acts of speech that society should not tolerate: sedition; slander; libel; fraud; shouting fire in a theater. Now are these ideas to be expressed or are they hostile, harmful acts to be prevented and/or punished? They all cause measurable harm, while ordinary ideas do not. I conclude that, seeing as how most of them are already crimes under the statutes or constitution, harmful acts of speech can be criminalized.


I agree that there are criminally harmful objects and acts that should be forbidden. Certain scientific facts should be secret for national security purposes. Treason should not be allowed. Waging war against one’s own nation should not be allowed. Shouting fire in a theater, libel and slander should not be tolerated.

Let’s take the case of Treason: waging war against one’s own country or giving comfort to the enemy. Is an Idea War against the nation a type of war that should be subject to the same legal instruments as traditional war, including charges of treason? How about if there is no fighting between armies, and if there is no formal declaration of war?

Giving comfort to the enemy in a time of war is treason. But it is not in a time of peace, for in a time of peace there is no declared enemy. In a war fought without a formal declaration is treason meaningful? Certainly it does not seem to be possible to punish it in 2007 as even the most egregious exposure of national security secrets in national publications has not been punished by charges of treason. So there must be drawn a legal line in the sand to make treason a meaningful definition.

Is it the same for the definition of criminally harmful speech and action? Is criminal harm something that must be defined in legislation? I think it must. We know that any speech that is prohibited by legislation is speech that the sovereign of this nation (We the people) determined harmful. If legislation goes against the people’s God-given conscience then the people have the ability to repeal it. The sovereign people agreed with legislation defining harm when it was passed and they agree now, so the legal definition of harmful speech or action is satisfactory.

For the proposition itself I would draw the same sort of line between criminal and protected speech. I agree with the proposition concerning harmful speech that is criminal. But I do not agree when it comes to non-criminal speech. On balance I am forced to agree, but with misgivings. I realize this traps me in legalities. I realize that this line of reasoning would defend the Turkish government’s policy of prosecuting people for insulting Turkishness and could be used by people in favor of hate crime laws (which I think are ridiculous, as if the murderer never feels hate except against members of designated victim groups). What legality does is allow for the rule of law and the coherence of a single nation instead of its fracture into a balkanized mess.

What legality does not do is guarantee goodness and truth. That is up to the sovereign people in the exercise of their God-given conscience. And that is a different proposition entirely.

Nor does this respect of legality extend to laws that were not legislated but decreed from the bench or imposed by anonymous bureaucrats. Such illegitimate extension of the law must be prevented and punished vigorously, as it undermines the legitimate sovereignity of the nation and causes people to despise the law.

On balance, if the choice is between allowing criminality and punishing or preventing it, I’ll take sides against anarchy.

So as a requirement for the continuation of national existence, I would have to support the proposition as written.

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog’s Weblog, Chuck Adkins, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

To Clone a Savior Sibling

In the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) there is a row of large machines, approximately the same size as vending machines. The parents of very sick children are pleased to have access to these machines, for each one is a savior to a sick child. The Voltaire family’s new girl child, Candy, is sick. She is in renal failure. Her heart has two damaged, barely functioning ventricles. She would have been allowed to die if it were not for the machine. Inside the machine is her clone, called an eidete. Grown from her own cells, her eidete is in every respects a living girl, genetically identical to Candy though 9 months behind in development. But her eidete has been kept unconscious by powerful drugs and will continue to be kept unconscious for the rest of her life, until she (the eidete) either dies from surgery or is put to death with a pain-free form of euthanasia. The eidete’s only purpose in life is to grow organs to be transplanted into Candy. Once the heart and kidneys are developmentally ready, they will be removed from the eidete and transplanted into Candy. This will mean death for her eidete. Hopefully this will save Candy’s life. If it doesn’t, then the doctor’s plan to grow another clone from Candy and try again. If, later in her life, more vital organs fail, then the doctors will grow another clone of Candy and take vital organs as needed to restore Candy’s health.

Continue reading