THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 708, February 17, 2013
The real "progressive" agenda isn't about
gun control, but population control.
They talk a lot about "a really good plague".
Prepared for L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
"It's a mad house! A mad house!"
Like most people reading this, I've spent the past several weeks writing and talking—again—about very little except the most recent effort of collectivist demagogues to illegally suppress the unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right of every man, woman, and responsible child to obtain, own, and carry weapons.
They call it "gun control".
Its real name, as you will see, is "victim disarmament".
We've been through all of this garbage at least a dozen times in the past fifty years. Despite what ought to be widely exposed as the humiliating failure of "progressive" gun laws to affect the violent crime rate (of course this assumes that "progressives" are decent, and therefore capable of feeling humiliation), despite the indisputable reality that the more guns there are in civilian hands, the less crime there is, and despite the fact that gun control is a bottomless moral abyss: an irrational assertion that it's better to see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose, than see her with a gun in her hand, the same old nonsense goes on and on, over and over again.
Are liberals really that stupid? Well, yes, they are. But they're also crazy, and they're also evil. In this case, those attributes are probably a bit more significant than a lack of intelligence on their part so profound that even their enemies often feel embarrassed for them.
That's because, after giving the matter a great deal more thought than I ever really wanted to, mostly lying awake in the middle of the night, and after discussing it with a small handful of individuals who exhibit absolutely no deficit in the intelligence department, I have come to the conclusion that the past several weeks have not really been about victim disarmament at all. The real "progressive" agenda— at least in the short run—isn't about gun control, but population control.
Understand that the villains of the piece, the Feinsteins, Obamas, Pelosis, Schumers, McCarthys. Bloombergs, and DeGettes, are in this game for many reasons, ranging from metal detector company profits, to sneaking into in a warm, dark closet and masturbating, while chanting, over and over and over again, "I control the lives of 300 million people!"
However there is persuasive evidence that the core motivation of this regime's "intellectual" leadership is so unspeakably evil, so preposterously gigantic, and so surrealistically ridiculous, it's all but impossible for any reasonable human being to get their head around it.
It starts with planet Earth, a ball of mostly-molten rock about 8000 miles in diameter—a living entity to the least stable and intelligent among them, a goddess they revere as "Gaia". This wouldn't be so bad—personally I regard all religions as equally absurd, but your mileage may vary—except that the fuel driving this particular crazy-cart to human extinction is a hot, dark, churning, acidic self-loathing.
Mental and moral basket cases of this variety—of which there is an astonishing number, especially in politics, but in the "news" media, academia, and Hollywood, as well—radiate this psychopathetic self-hatred (to coin an expression) of theirs outward, in concentric circles.
They hate themselves above everything else.
They hate their families and their so-called "friends".
They hate their neighbors and their neighborhoods.
They hate their cities and yearn to alter them beyond recognition.
They hate the states they live in and their inhabitants.
Thy hate the country of their birth.
They hate Western Civilization.
They hate everyone and everything everywhere.
Peanuts' Lucy van Pelt, a rather typical "progressive" who always knows better how other individuals ought to live their own lives than they do, confesses, "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand."
In general, they hate their own species.
"Progressives" always accuse others of the very sins they're most guilty of themselves. When it's unconscious, it's called "projection". When it's not, it's called "scapegoating". They're always badgering others not to hate, when they are full of very little besides hate, themselves.
Libertarians and a majority of the Constitutional conservatives I know generally can't be bothered to hate anyone—possibly excepting the "progressive" pests who won't leave them alone to live their own lives.
However to this regime's "intellectual" leadership—the grand champion haters of the world—humanity is nothing more than a kind of skin disease, attacking their beloved deity, the 8000-mile diameter ball of rock. If you doubt me, simply ask your kids or your grandkids. They've heard it all in public school—or something very close to it.
To stop this human "disease" from doing further damage, Obama's advisors and cohorts in the United Nations feel that the population must be drastically reduced to the planet's "carrying capacity", most agree by nine tenths, ninety percent. Which is to say, that of the seven billion human beings living today, they want to do away with 6.3 billion. They don't specify how this is to be done, although they must already have ideas—and plans. They talk a lot about "a really good plague".
What we do know—because they feel free to talk openly about it among themselves, and occasionally in public—is that they plan to round up most of the remaining 700 million, "clearing the countryside" so that lovely Mother Gaia might recover from the disease that is ... us.
Every man-made structure will be bulldozed. Humans will be forced to live in camps until a few giant concrete beehive tenements called "arcologies" can be built, and work to feed and clothe the socialist aristocracy—the nomenklatura—who, if the old Soviet model is followed, will enjoy their palatial country estates—or dachas— staffed by the prettier peasant boys and girls they select from the arcologies.
Yeah, I know. All of this sounds like the paranoid ravings of a lunatic. Except that the more publicly palatable portions of the plan—including clearing the countryside—are openly endorsed by the United Nations, where it originated, and by various hangers-on in the Obama regime. It's called "Agenda 21" and you can find it easily online.
So before you resort to the magic mantra "conspiracy theory" to stop thinking about what I'm saying here, answer me the following questions:
Exactly what would you call the criminal, treasonous collection of underground plotters who eventually became America's Founding Fathers?
Or the banker-politicians who gathered secretly on Jekyll Island in 1913 to saddle us with the Federal Reserve System and the income tax?
Or the mercantilists who forced President-elect Roosevelt to shift all of his cabinet appointments to the right by threatening him with a coup?
Or the four-flushers and mass-murderers who arranged for us to enjoy the Spanish-American War, World War I, spent years provoking the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, and lied us into the war in Vietnam?
Believe me, I appreciate that it is supremely difficult for those who are sane to grasp the profound depths of megalomaniacal insanity. Today confront a Presidential administration composed almost entirely of dementedly evil creatures, who, moved by the convenient mythologies of over-population and global warming, and by the United Nations' open advocacy of worldwide genocide, have forfeited their own humanity by plotting to murder nine tenths of the rest of us simply for being alive.
Still, there are things to be wondered about. If you simply want to get rid of nine tenths of humanity, and return the Earth to nature, why not just nuke the right number of cities to reduce the population to the desired level? Since the 1960s, there have been weapons— neutron bombs—fully capable of killing living things with minimal lingering radiation or damage to inanimate objects, real property, or infrastructure.
And then, after a long telephone conversation with my old friend Ernie Hancock, the energetic genius behind Freedom's Phoenix and many other libertarian undertakings, certain pieces began falling into place.
Ernie is very deeply concerned over a phenomenon presently going on all around us, of which relatively few individuals realize the ominous significance. Everybody that we have to do business with, one way or another, banks, grocery stores, gunshops, doctors, dentists, pharmacists, and most of all, the IRS, the department of motor vehicles, and every other unit of government at every level, collects as much personal information as they can from us and puts it in their databases.
As the increasingly open War on Freedom grinds on, all of these databases are starting to merge, so that not long from now—maybe within the next couple of years—humanity's one natural enemy will possess a highly detailed dossier on each and every one of us: our likes and dislikes, our practices and preferences, what we've done, what we are, what we think, what we want, where we live, and what we own.
Ernie believes the present flap over gun ownership is a feint. The real objective of our would-be masters isn't to steal our weapons, not yet. What they really want is data, and there are those, nominally on our side, who are so pathetically stupid, so contemptibly incapable of learning from their own experience, let alone that of others, that they're willing to offer that data to our oppressors in exchange for a moment of apparent peace, an interval when the political pressure lets up.
Okay, okay, they tell the enemies of liberty, we'll register our weapons, just as long as we're allowed to keep them ... for a while longer.
This is a perfect example of why my old friend Aaron Zelman, the late founder and director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, called the National Rifle Association "the world's oldest and largest gun control organization". The NRA doesn't really oppose regulation of a supposedly inalienable right, he maintained, they want to be the regulators. They've already compromised away two thirds of our rights for us. Now they're going to bargain for us once again. They're going to wheel and deal like the clueless, incompetent clucks they are, and compromise away what ragged remnants of our rights are left.
For Aaron, JPFO was (and remains) in the genocide prevention business. I never knew a man more bitterly opposed to any form of compromise. It was Aaron who had discovered an historic correlation between sweeping gun control laws such as those being demanded now by the most obvious fascists in the government, and the phenomena of genocide and democide, the mass-killings of millions that will mark the century we've just lived through as one of the darkest in human history.
Unless this one turns out darker.
If they get our data—the serial numbers of our rifles, pistols, and shotguns, the amount of ammunition we keep for them, whether or not we reload that ammunition—the government will put it all in the database. The machines will quickly discover, largely thanks to Obama's Marxist medical system, that you once had a medical marijuana card, or that you've been prescribed Prozac or Ritalin, or that you're a combat veteran who's needed a little professional help dealing with the horrors that the government subjected you to, or that you once raised your voice to your spouse, or that you were once mistaken by the police for a criminal and put in handcuffs. It will use all or these little bits of data to deny you your rights. After all, stopping crazies from getting guns is vastly more important than the quaint old and outdated notions of dead white European males about freedom, isn't it?
Meanwhile, government will continue watching you constantly with its cameras mounted everywhere, its drones, its satellites, even the little CCD eye on your own computer. It will track your every move, exploiting your own telephone and car (which they are lobbying for the power to control remotely). And if you vary from your established routines, somebody, alerted by the machines, will want to know why. And in the name of National Security, you will be obliged to tell them.
Of course government will define "crazy". With the enthusiastic assistance of the whorish American Psychological Association—the Southern Poverty Law Center of medicine—a group that invents a new mental "disease" every day (even now, anyone who may mistrust the government is said to be suffering "Oppositional Defiance Disorder"), they will diagnose away your rights, including the one to own and carry weapons, or even buy a box of .22 cartridges at the hardware store. Never forget that if someone wants to take your guns away, it's because he wants to do things to you that you wouldn't let him do if you had your guns. And those who think they own us have lots of plans.
In time, the electronic checkout system at the grocery store will take a look at what you're attempting to purchase, and forbid you to buy a T-bone steak if you're overweight or have had a heart attack, or candy, cake, or Coca-Cola if you're diabetic. God help you if you try to buy a bottle of whiskey. Not even the black market can be counted on because governments around the world are now doing away with cash altogether.
So there's the real mystery: why are the enemies of freedom, our would-be slavemasters—or more correctly perhaps, herdsman—going to all this trouble, if they're planning to kill nine tenths of us anyway?
And then I started thinking about labels. Labels were a very big deal, back in the 60s, when I was in college, during the glory days of Paul Erlich and Chairman Mao. Labels were quite politically incorrect (although that phrase hadn't yet achieved currency). The very same "progressives" we're opposing now (at the time, some called themselves liberals, while others professed to hate liberals and liberalism) didn't like labels. They didn't want to be labeled, they complained, whenever I laid my cards on the table as a libertarian. As it turned out, that was because they didn't want to be correctly identified as what they really were: left wing larvae—nasty little baby murderous collectivists.
For years, I've said that they had to abandon the good old word "liberal" because they'd soiled it so badly they didn't want to be seen wearing it in public any more. And to a degree, that's true. But their adoption of the word "progressive" also signifies a kind of coming out. They are continuing the objectives first established in the 1870s, by a movement that reached its peak in the 1920s, then seemed to fade away following World war I, with events like the Great Depression.
Of course "progressivism" didn't really fade away at all, it simply assumed different trappings, terminology, and mannerisms, and went on in the guise of the "New Deal" and similar socialist undertakings.
"Progressivism" had a lot of bad habits. It wanted to measure everything and everybody, especially all of those things that can't be measured. It wanted to tell everybody the best and most efficient way to do things. Everything they could get their nervous little hands on—cars and drivers, for example—had to be serial numbered and duly licensed. Even worse, "progressivism" begat expertism, the absurd belief that we're all too stupid to live our own lives, to house, clothe, feed, and especially to defend ourselves, and must be watched over and protected, mostly from ourselves, by certified minions of the state.
However the "progressives'" most repulsive obsession was—and remains—a prurient wish to selectively breed human beings to their notion of perfection. This bonnet-bee, and the pernicious movement it spawned, is called "eugenics", a word coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton. Eugenics has had many enthusiastic advocates over the years, including such kindly, humane, and enlightened individuals as Winston Churchill, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Clarence Gamble of Proctor and Gamble, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, James (t-shirt) Hanes, Obama's adviser on pseudoscience John Holdren, John Kellogg, W.K.Kellog, John Maynard Keynes, Linus Pauling, Theodore Roosevelt, Margaret Sanger, George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, H.G. Wells, and the ever-popular Adolf Hitler.
Every single "progressive" advocate of sweeping victim disarmament in American politics has a strong association with the United Nations, whose "small arms treaty" was deliberately designed to render every one of us helpless, and whose Agenda 21 is the blueprint for "clearing the countryside, drastically reducing human population, and using the remainder of our species as breeding stock in the massive eugenics experiments that "progressives" have longed for more than a century to conduct.
That only scratches the surface. In an intelligent, rational, decent society, such specimens, and their enablers in Congress, the courts, and the media, would be wearing straitjackets and gibbering away at themselves in an institution for the criminally insane somewhere.
In the short run, we must stop their attempts to disarm us cold, and repeal, nullify, or otherwise dispose of every gun law that already exists. The very survival of the human race, as we know it, depends on it.
In the long run, we have no remaining choice but to denumerate our civilization completely, to remove from every individual and every object the alphanumeric designations that permit a government with murder on its mind to count us, track us, find us and our belongings. No drivers' licenses. No Social Security or Taxpayer Identification numbers. No license plates or vehicle identification numbers. No street address numbers. No serial numbers on weapons or anything else. For a while, before we sort it all out again (the way it was only 150 years ago), this may create chaos, but there is safety to be found in chaos.
A first clue might be found in the way Robert Heinlein did phone "numbers" in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress—your number was your name.
We also need "fire-breaks" between data bases held by various corporate parties like insurance companies and banks. Should these data bases happen to meet online, they both get encrypted or otherwise scrambled, with extreme prejudice, right back to the file allocation table.
A century after the invasion by Mongols from the north, the Chinese got their civilization back because their oppressors couldn't figure out their complicated writing and mathematics and had to hire Chinese scribes and accountants to run the empire. There is something extremely important Americans can learn from that. Among other things, we must hold onto the complicated English system of weights and measures, and the English should return to their old, undecimalized currency.
However in the final analysis, the one central, unavoidable fact of the matter is that anybody who wants to take your guns away from you is planning to do something to you that you wouldn't let him do, if you had your guns. Barack Obama is a dictator. There can be no question about it. He and his vile, disgusting minions—Michael Bloomberg, Diana DeGette, Diane Feinstein, Eric Holder, John Holdren, John Hickenlooper, Carolyn McCarthy, Nancy Pelosi, Jared Polis, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, and a cast of endless thousands—desperately want to disarm you because they want to feel that it's safe to kill you (nine tenths of you, anyway) and breed your children like farm animals.
If, at one time or another, the British, Mexicans, Spaniards, Germans, North Koreans, Russians, Chinese, and Muslim Jihadists have been regarded as our mortal enemies, then what, exactly, are these people?
Was that worth reading?
Personal Liberty & Constitutional Liberty in 2013 What did the