Why do “good people” wish to deny a reality that is almost laughing at their willful ignorance? Open conspiracy is an oxymoron, but this is the best description. It is “open” only because most of us will go out of our way to rationalize, compartmentalize or totally ignore overt, public statements, over many, many years by many leading politicians, corporate leaders and other thought setting personages, of an agenda that we find too objectionable to our sensibilities.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized … … In almost every act of our lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.
—Edward Bernays (1891-1995),‘Father of Public Relations
“Let me give you my big idea,” as Roosevelt explained it to Henry Morgenthau, Jr. According to Morgenthau, Roosevelt pictures himself as being called in as a consultant of the various nations of the world. He said, “Maybe I can prescribe for their ailments or, after making a study of their illnesses, I will simply turn up my nose at them and say, ‘I am sorry—I cannot treat them.’ For example I would tell England that she had too many people and she should move out ten million of her population. I would take a look at each country and, of course, when we made them disarm we would have to find new work for the munition workers in each country and that is where this international cartel would come in and your job would be to handle the finances.”
—New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America (Burton W., Jr. Folsom)
Environmentalists have compared the human race to an infectious disease; a “super-malignancy on the face of the planet”; and “the AIDS of the earth.” Sir Crispin Tickell, a former British diplomat and a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, described “constantly increasing growth” in human population as “the doctrine of the cancer cell.”
Thus according to the dramatist and animal rights activist Carla Lane, “If you harm an animal you might as well harm a child. There’s no difference whatsoever.”39 For Ingrid Newkirk, director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, “When it comes to feelings, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy,”40 and the millions who died in the Nazi Holocaust were equivalent to broiler chickens dying in slaughterhouses.41 Yet while animals apparently deserve our protection, people apparently do not. Newkirk said, “I don’t believe that human beings have ‘the right to life.’ . . . This ‘right to human life’ I believe is another perversion.”
—The World Turned Upside Down (Melanie Phillips)
As economist Ross McKitrick of the Competitive Enterprise Institute points out, the only way to meet this goal is to reduce the American population from 300 million to 170 million people.
This goal is illustrated by the former Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives’ Energy Committee, Henry Waxman, who wants a government-mandated per family living space quota. This quota is not based on how many people are in the family, but is designed to make certain there is no space for children.
–Totalitarianism: How the Socialist Faith is Destroying America (Ray Peach)
The progressives were the real social Darwinists as we think of the term today—though they reserved the term for their enemies (see Chapter 7). They believed in eugenics. They were imperialists. They were convinced that the state could, through planning and pressure, create a pure race, a society of new men. They were openly and proudly hostile to individualism. Religion was a political tool, while politics was the true religion. The progressives viewed the traditional system of constitutional checks and balances as an outdated impediment to progress because such horse-and-buggy institutions were a barrier to their own ambitions. Dogmatic attachment to constitutions, democratic practices, and antiquated laws was the enemy of progress for fascists and progressives alike. Indeed, fascists and progressives shared the same intellectual heroes and quoted the same philosophers.
Today, liberals remember the progressives as do-gooders who cleaned up the food supply and agitated for a more generous social welfare state and better working conditions. Fine, the progressives did that. But so did the Nazis and the Italian Fascists. And they did it for the same reasons and in loyalty to roughly the same principles.
–Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Jonah Goldberg)
General Smith adopted the policy of killing “everything over [the age of] ten.” General Smith was also stern about his “take no prisoners” policy, and instructed soldiers to kill and burn everything on sight. General Shafter, the US Field Commander, quipped, “It may be necessary to kill half the Filipinos in order that the remaining half of the population may be advanced to a higher plane of life.” (1898 Philippine uprising against American rule)
—Land of Hypocrisy (Kennie Anderson)
To sum up, the appalling total killed deliberately during this century—not in actual combat but in cold blood, for various ideological or religious reasons—comes to upward of 80,000,000 lives. Thus, during the twentieth century, no less than 167,000,000 lives—and quite probably in excess of 175,000,000—were deliberately extinguished through politically motivated carnage. That is the approximate equivalent of the total population of France, Italy, and Great Britain; or over two-thirds of the total current population of the United States. This is more than the total killed in all previous wars, civil conflicts, and religious persecutions throughout human history. These horrendous though dry numbers are also a reminder of what can happen when humanity’s innate capacity for aggression becomes harnessed by dogmatic self-righteousness and is enhanced by increasingly potent technologies of destruction.
–Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century (Zbigniew Brzezinski)
“The production of human beings is the result of very localized human actions; corrective action must be local….Globalizing the ‘population problem’ would only ensure that it would never be solved.” Hardin does not shrink from the startling implications of his argument, as he criticizes the shipment of food to overpopulated regions and asserts that coercion in population control is inevitable. But he also proposes a free flow of information across boundaries, to allow each state to help itself. “The time-honored practice of pollute and move on is no longer acceptable,” Hardin tells us. We now fill the globe, and we have no where else to go. In this powerful book, one of our leading ecological philosophers points out the hard choices we must make–and the solutions we have been afraid to consider.
–LIVING WITHIN LIMITS Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos, (Hardin)
Last week the Atlantic published an essay by Emanuel titled, “Why I Hope to Die at 75,” wherein he avers that “families — and you — will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly.” Note the words “you” and “families.” Its title notwithstanding, Emanuel’s article isn’t really about himself. It is actually a none-too-subtle attempt to make us feel guilty for burdening our families, and society in general, by clinging to life past what he considers the optimum age to die. In other words, it is you whom he hopes will go gentle into that good night after three-quarters of a century.
Emanuel is a notorious proponent of medical rationing, and has long advocated denying care to the elderly. In fact, just prior to his 2009 appointment to President Obama’s Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, he co-authored an article in the Lancet which promotes allocation of health care resources according to the age of the patient. In its introduction, he and his co-authors recommend a rationing system that would prioritize “people who have not yet lived a complete life” yet go on to claim, “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination.”
Long yes, but willful ignorance will deny our children and their children of their freedoms and very possibly their lives.