… at a crossroads of human history
by L. Neil Smith and the Libertarian Enterprise

Excerpt from full article here

I saw a headline the other day claiming that eight out of ten Americans believe that there is inevitably going to be another Holocaust.

The headline was based on a poll reported by Joseph Fara’s World Net Daily, and was conducted on behalf of author Joel C. Rosenberg. I always take anything I read on WND with a grain or two of salt, all the more because I have a couple of highly respected friends who once worked there. I am uncertain whether I ever met Joel C. Rosenberg. In the 80s or 90s, I think, I had a conversation with someone named Joel Rosenberg that only managed to convince me he was a waste of space and oxygen.

Not unlike Joseph Fara.

As we have come to understand since the 1960s, when opinion polls appearing to favor sweeping victim disarmament began to be reported, you can get any result you want, depending how you frame the question: “If universal peace, love, and understanding would rule the world and we could all just get along and live together in a world of unicorns and rainbows—by outlawing guns—then would you favor outlawing guns?”

The Rosenberg/Fara poll was even cruder: “Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘If the world does not take decisive action, and the Iranian regime is permitted to build nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them, the Iranian regime will one day attempt to annihilate the state of Israel and bring about a second Holocaust.’?”

Allow me to state it flatly: Iran is a bloodthirsty religious dictatorship; Israel is a murderous police state. (As with America, the distinction between the two regimes and the people who live under them is of unspeakable magnitude.) As a libertarian—an individual who believes in absolute self-ownership and regards the initiation of physical force as the ultimate crime—I can see no reason to prefer one of them over the other. Tell me, would you rather be hanged or shot?

But we seem to be stuck with one of those cliche elephants in the parlor. It’s unquestionably there. Everybody has to walk all the way around it to get from one corner of the room to another, as it chows down on the prized Bougainvillea and dumps elephant dung all over Aunt Ophelia’s antique hand-hooked rug. But almost nobody wants to mention it, because then somebody might actually have to do something about it.

Here’s what the elephant looks like: since the days when the Rev. Thomas Malthus embarrassed himself by predicting a catastrophe brought about by overpopulation—a catastrophe that has stubbornly failed to happen over the subsequent two hundred years and never will—people who loathe themselves, and are generously willing extend that loathing to the rest of us, have insisted, despite all evidence and experience that the good Rev. Tom was right—and something has to be done about it!

Malthusians have popped up here and there ever since. Baby Boomers will remember The Population Bomb, written by another idiot, Paul Ehrlich—still in the overpopulation mythology business after all these years, where else than at Stanford University—who made all sorts of end-of-the-world predictions that somehopw never came to pass, and were later appropriated by Albert Gore and blamed on an equally imaginary phenomenon, global warming. I often wonder whether, when Algore pays his carbon taxes, he writes a royalty check to Ehrlich.

All this would be funnier, except that, somewhere between Ehrlich bombing out and Waco Willy bombing aspirin plants, various government and quasi-governmental offices began to fill up with highly educated, excruciatingly gullible morons, to whom both the overpopulation myth and global warming became articles of a passionate and unchallengable religious faith rooted in that self-loathing I mentioned, and extended to the families, ethnicities, nationalities, and species of the self- loathers.

These were sorry specimens who shared a common mental illness that nearly everybody mistook for an ideology, who now had the political power to do something about it, or fondly anticipated that they soon would. They are found everywhere today, including corporations and the media, but are concentrated in the Democratic Party and the United Nations.

They started breeding wild bonnet-bees like “environmentalism”, “sustainability”, and “carrying capacity” to justify what they wanted to do to the life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness of their fellow human beings, and somewhere along the line, they started listening to Adolf Hitler’s ghost—only this time we all get to be Jews.

Some parasitic thug high in the UN said he believed that there are about ten times as many human beings on this planet as there ought to be. I have no idea where he got that number; maybe Malthus manifested himself on a flaming pie (an expression I first heard Judy Henske use in the 1960s, Sir Paul Treehugger notwithstanding) and enlightened him. The implication was that adjustments of some kind needed to be made, although the official failed to specify. The sentiment has since been echoed by those close enough to Obama to smell his smoker’s breath.

I have written of this before.

Add another element: Winston Churchill, Charles Darwin, Havelock Ellis, Norman Haire, John Harvey Kellogg, John Maynard Keynes, Linus Pauling, Theodore Roosevelt, Margaret Sanger, George Bernard Shaw, Marie Stopes, Sidney Webb, H.G. Wells, and a legion of “superior” specimens who anticipated Hitler in believing that it was morally acceptable to breed human beings—with or without their consent—like show animals or agricultural livestock, to produce an improved species.

Certainly there are too many people on Earth to be controlled by a Managerial State (which is what we have now) intent on a program like that.