You may remember a Damon Knight science fiction story, which appeared as an episode of “The Twilight Zone” It’s about aliens who come to Earth, intent, they say, on giving humanity “the same peace and plenty which we, ourselves, enjoy, and which we have in the past brought to other races throughout the galaxy.”
According Wikipedia, “The aliens soon supply Earth with cheap unlimited power, a device that suppresses explosions [presumably to make war and violent crime more difficult — LNS], and drugs for prolonging life. As a further token of friendship, they allow humans to visit their home planet via ten-year “exchange groups.”
Each of the kindly, gentle aliens carries with him what appears to be a holy book of some kind, written in their own script and language. When a U.N. translator manages to get his hands on one, he discovers that its title is “To Serve Man,” and, horrifyingly, that it’s a cookbook.
You may also remember a 1968 bestseller, “The Population Bomb,” written by Stanford University professor Paul R. Erlich and his wife, Anne. Their basic notion was that there are too many human beings on this planet, busy making more and more human beings, and, as a result, billions of them would be starving to death — by the 1980s.
Of course the 18th -19th century writer Thomas Malthus predicted pretty much the same thing, and was proven wrong by history. What he hadn’t foreseen was advances in agriculture and other technologies. He actually championed legislation that would have crippled their beneficial effects. The fact that the Erlichs’ book has turned out to be wrong, as they claim with typical progressive “logic,” doesn’t mean their theory is wrong.
The Erlichs’ and Malthus’ perverse viewpoint is that of the modern Management State, can only perceive the prospect of more people as a liability, rather than an asset.
More people would actually mean more production, more markets, and more ideas. Homo sapiens, in fact, alone among the species on this planet, both deliberately and accidentally, create more resources than it consumes. The only “population explosion” I can see is that of the crows and seagulls snatching up French fries in the parking lots of fast food restaurants.
In order to satisfy their crackpot theories, and assuage their deeply seated hatred of their own kind (which stems from a pathological hatred of themselves), creatures like this want you dead.
They’ve cooked up a pretty intimidating excuse. They proclaim that the human race has exceeded the planet’s “carrying capacity”, a phrase which means absolutely anything. It’s pretty hard to argue with a phrase that doesn’t mean anything.
Therefore, “some of the Earth’s population has to go.”
“Go where?” Wherever millions of Jews and Gypsies went when Adolf Hitler decided they were a problem that required a Final Solution. Wherever a third of the Cambodian people went when Pol Pot marched them to death.
And how much of the human race is too much? The general consensus among population and environmental “specialists” in the United Nations and number of leaders within the Obama Administration Audrey F. Tomason, (Director for Counterterrorism for the National Security Council), is nine tenths. That’s ninety percent of our species, or about six billion, three hundred million individual human beings who must die to satisfy these ghouls.
That, and to save the Earth, of course — our lovely Mother Gaia — since “for the children” no longer seems to work as an excuse for anything they want to do. This especially so, if it involves murdering most of them.
Now at this point, especially if you haven’t been keeping up on this subject, you’re going to be thinking that Neil is “jumping the shark”, and that a conspiracy among the highest leaders of the planet to kill off nine tenths of the human population is just too extreme to believe.
If that’s what you’re thinking, I urge you to check out, “population control” or “UN population policy” or “Audrey F. Tomason” or “Agenda 21” (their name for a vast and evil program of which reducing the population is just a small part) or anything else I’ve mentioned here, and see what you get.
Naturally, a hundred million gun-toting North Americans or more, in the United States, represent an obstacle to their plans. You can’t very well kill people who are prepared to “rise up quickly and kill” you and your minions first. Therefore, they must all be disarmed, the chosen means being an “international small arms treaty” cooked up by the UN and being pushed on Americans by Hillary, among others, in the name of preventing war (when it’s actually rebellion against tyranny that they wish to prevent.)
Seizing your means of self-defense is an important first step toward their objective. To answer my own question, civil argument is not possible with a gun-grabber. They aren’t prepared to quibble about it. They may pretend otherwise, they may play at democracy or the rule of law, but plain and simple, they want you dead.
Will it fall to us to prevent another Holocaust? Are we up to the task?