Brain Dead Is A Synonym For Genocide

[Flanders]

The term brain dead was created by Harvard butchers in 1968:

An ad hoc committee at Harvard Medical School published a pivotal 1968 report to define irreversible coma. The Harvard criteria gradually gained consensus toward what is now known as brain death. In the wake of the 1976 Karen Ann Quinlan controversy, state legislatures in the United States moved to accept brain death as an acceptable indication of death. Finally, a presidential commission issued a landmark 1981 report – Defining Death: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Issues in the Determination of Death – that rejected the "higher brain" approach [clarification needed] to death in favor of a "whole brain" definition. This report was the basis for the Uniform Determination of Death Act, which is now the law in almost all fifty states. Today, both the legal and medical communities in the US use "brain death" as a legal definition of death, allowing a person to be declared legally dead even if life support equipment keeps the body's metabolic processe

Brain death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

NOTE: Removing a person from life support equipment that hastens their death is murder when the patient’s condition is diagnosed as a coma.

The word genocide was born in 1943:

Raphael Lemkin (June 24, 1900 – August 28, 1959) was a Polish lawyer of Jewish descent, who emigrated to the United States in 1941. He is best known for his work against genocide, a word he coined in 1943 from the rooted words genos (Greek for family, tribe, or race) and -cide (Latin for killing). He first used the word in print in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation - Analysis of Government - Proposals for Redress (1944), and defined it as "the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group."

Raphael Lemkin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

Calling a medical condition brain dead quickly acquired a precise legal definition insofar as a charge of homicide was avoided when killing someone in a coma. On the other hand the legal definition of genocide remains open to interpretation. The United Nations defining anything is as meaningless as is International law:

While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

It seems to me that killing people who are “brain dead” is genocide within the UN’s definition of genocide. I do not expect the UN’s World Health Organization to agree with my interpretation.

Incidentally, the United Nations is the machinery that will implement population controls after the global government crowd has the authority they seek. I am curious as to the word or phrase they will come up with to circumvent the charge of genocide. If they get stuck they will probably call everyone in the targeted group brain dead.

Aaron Goldstein over at the American Spectator wrote one of the very few articles I have ever seen about the meaning of genocide:

There are some words in the English language that are misused. In the course of such misuse words lose their meaning.

In the misuse of the word genocide its meaning is not only lost, but is being butcher

Does Anybody Really Know What Genocide Is
In current parlance, Israel is its only practitioner
By Aaron Goldstein – 8.11.14

Does Anybody Really Know What Genocide Is? | The American Spectator

​

As far as I’m concerned the word genocide never had meaning in that it is an unnecessary word. I do not think Raphael Lemkin saw it that way, nor did he realize that he opened a can of worms that is causing more problems than he could have imagined.

I say unnecessary because governments were slaughtering their own people decades before Lemkin applied genocide to the Holocaust. Genocide can be applied retroactively to the Ottoman Empire, to the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin. My point: Governments killing their people is not genocide —— it is mass murder pure and simple. Trying to prove genocide only makes it harder to punish government officials who commit those mass murderers.

The details in the following excerpt provide an example of how genocide can be ignored to protect groups, or applied to punish groups attempting to overthrow a government. Clearly, the United Nations meant to exempt governments engaging in genocide from the charge —— specifically Communist governments:

The exclusion of political groups and politically motivated violence from the international definition of genocide is particularly controversial. The reason for this exclusion is because a number of UN member nations insisted on it when the Genocide Convention was being drafted in 1948. They argued that political groups are too vaguely defined, as well as temporary and unstable. They further held that international law should not seek to regulate or limit political conflicts, since that would give the UN too much power to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. In the years since then, critics have argued that the exclusion of political groups from the definition, as well as the lack of a specific reference to the destruction of a social group through the forcible removal of a population, was designed to protect the Soviet Union.

Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

In any event, the legal profession cringes at the thought of challenging the concept of government. Even those WWII War Crimes Tribunals punished individuals because of the deeds their ideology sanctioned; they never said a word about government itself. Had they addressed totalitarian government they would have opened the door to severely limiting every government’s authority to kill.

Finally, if you love individual liberty more than you love government it comes down to solving the riddle Hitler posed:

The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it. Adolf Hitler

In today’s terms, how can governments with limited authority defeat totalitarian governments? One thing is a certain. Global government is not the answer.

Should limited governments come together against totalitarianism, would the inevitable killing be done for self-defense? Would it be called genocide? Or would it be plain murder if they unite and wipe out the people in every totalitarian government?

Should you wrestle with my questions remember that America demonstrated that once a well-intentioned government acquires totalitarian powers over a free people governments always increase those powers under the guise of doing more good. Governments never willing reduce their power.

NOTE: It will be much simpler to prevent totalitarianism from springing up again after every form of totalitarian government is destroyed than it is to destroy existing totalitarian governments.