Wednesday, February 11, 2009


The de facto Dear Leader of the Republican-centered conservative movement:
Rush Limbaugh, seen here in front of a large portrait of the object of his greatest affection.

"Kto kogo?"

"Who/whom," or "Who does what to whom?" -- the central question of politics, according to Vladimir Lenin.

A nineteenth century pundit wearily observed that British political parties behaved like competing carriage drivers, energetically splattering each other with mud while frantically pursuing the same course to the same destination.

An unknown Russian long ago devised the now-familiar joke in which a bright college student, drowning in inpenetrable ideological cant, asks the smug Party hack posing as a professor to explain, in easily understood terms, the material difference between capitalism and socialism.

"Oh, that's easy to explain," replied the professor, his face twisted into a triumphant smirk. "Capitalism is based on the exploitation of man by man; socialism works exactly in the reverse!"

Granted, the latter gibe ignores or misrepresents the ideal of free market capitalism. But it is part of a large and ancient literature of wisdom -- much of it encoded in humor -- regarding the myriad ways that embittered enemies who supposedly represent diametrically opposed principles can wind up mimicking each other even as they seek to annihilate each other.

A suitable, if simplistic, depiction of this tendency is found in the classic Star Trek episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," a Civil Rights allegory from the series' notoriously uneven third and final season.

The story, which is told with an unusually clumsy narrative touch, has the crew of the Starship Enterprise, en route to aid the victims of a planetary ecological disaster, intercepting a fugitive named Lokai, who had commandeered a Federation shuttlecraft. Lokai is given medical care and taken into custody as a suspected hijacker. Although nobody comments about the matter, Lokai's skin is black on one side and white on the other.

Subtlety wasn't this story's strong suit:
Frank Gorshin (left) steps out of his Riddler costume to play an even campier role in an even more embarrassing outfit in one of Star Trek's more heavy-handed theme episodes.

Shortly thereafter, the Enterprise encounters a second ship, which -- owing to a depleted production budget -- is said to be "invisible."

That remarkable craft carries personage nearly identical to Lokai, who identifies himself as "Commissioner Bele" from Charon (a mythical planet found in "the southernmost part of the galaxy," nudge-nudge wink-wink, not the
then-undiscovered moon of Pluto). Bele demands that Captain Kirk surrender Lokai into his custody, claiming that the fellow Charon native is a terrorist, seditionist, and mass murderer whom he had pursued for centuries.

At one point Bele surprises Kirk and Spock by referring to Lokai as the obvious product of a "lesser breed." Nonplussed, Kirk points out that Bele and Lokai are obviously members of the same race. This prompts an offended and incredulous Bele to elaborate: He and his people are black on the right side; Lokai and his followers are all black on the left side, and thus inferior. This supposedly critical difference provoked a conflict that was literally millennia old.

Bele demands that Lokai be turned over to him for trial and execution. Lokai demands that the Enterprise crew rally to his defense and kill Bele. Kirk and his colleagues, who have better things to worry about, can't wait to be rid of both of them. But the particulars of the plot don't matter much here. Suffice it to say that Bele, whose request for custody is turned down (there's the matter of the stolen shuttlecraft to deal with), eventually hijacks the Enterprise and sends it to Charon, where he believes he will at long last be able to bring Lokai to justice.

Upon the ship's arrival it is learned that the inhabitants of the planet had long since exterminated each other. Rarth than extinguishing Bele and Lokai's murderous mutual hatred, this revelation prompts them to flee the ship and return to their dark and lifeless homeworld to finish their struggle.

Unbearably campy today, this episode must have had some resonance when it was first broadcast in 1968: The description of the burned, ruined cities littering the surface of Charon would carry some emotional weight during a year that saw flames erupting in riot-torn American cities.

But when the unwieldy racial metaphor is dropped, the story actually works as an allegory for any supposedly irreconcilable conflict in which hate-motivated factions seek to exterminate each other over differences only they can discern.

Recently in this space I described how the "progressive" and "conservative" factions in our political system are working, in dialectical symbiosis, to build a totalitarian Homeland Security State, each of them foolishly assuming that the apparatus of regimentation and coercion would be used to punish the other. There is a desperate need, I wrote, for people of all political persuasions "to decide that they love liberty more than they despise their political enemies...."

At the very least, people have to be willing to repudiate the operational principle of mass politics since Lenin, the idea that the fundamental question of politics is "Who does what to whom."

Well, as a friend of mine might put it, that's a whole lot of "Ain't-gonna-happen."

In the same week that one of the Establishment's dying newsweeklies giddily proclaimed that "We Are All Socialists Now," Rush Limbaugh, speaking on behalf of the conservative movement he now leads, effectively admitted that "We're all Leninists now."

Lenin wedded the exterminationist principle
kto kogo ("who/whom") to the totalitarian formula for a "scientific dictatorship," which he defined as "Power without limit, resting directly on force."

During the Bush era, conservatism was reduced to nothing more than a set of rationales for the centralization of unlimited power in the executive branch.
I had long wondered how conservatives would react when that power was transferred to someone who is not of their tribe: Would they cynically re-discover the dangers of executive tyranny, or would they simply entrench themselves and wait until they were restored to power, confident that they could use it to avenge themselves on their enemies?

In a protracted rant delivered to his audience yesterday (February 11), Limbaugh made it clear that he was choosing the latter option.

"We lost the election," eructated the self-worshiping* radio blatherskite who now serves as the
de facto head of the Republican Party. "But they're going to lose down the road. They will not control government forever, and when our turn comes, we are going to turn the power of government against the left.... We're going to build and use the big government that they have built and turn it right against them. We are gonna turn the power of government agains the left, and against Democrats in ways they cannot imagine.... We are going to use the power that the left is centralizing in the federal government to punish them, to break 'em up, and to make them pay for this.... It's time they got a taste of their own medicine, and it's going to happen folks, because they're not going to hold power forever."

Addressing those on the Left, Limbaugh warned that they are "creating a monster that you will not be able to control forever.... We are taking names. We are taking names now. We are monitoring who on the Left is going to deserve payback, and it's going to be hell. This much I promise you."

"If [those on the Left] are going to bastardize the American system, if they are going to make this government large and powerful and intrusive, someday they're going to lose it," continued the founder and president of the Flatulence in Broadcasting Network. "But they are going to lose it after having amassed all this power. We will control it.... We're going to use the power of government just like the Left is using the power of government.... It's going to be a bigger, more powerful, stronger government -- and we're going to turn it against the Left in ways they could never have imagined."

Unlike his lemur-browed, synapse-deprived imitator Sean Hannity, Limbaugh is intelligent enough to know that the Democrats inherited a central government that had been gorged on power during the eight years of Bush the Dimmer's reign. The fact that the final consequential act of the Bush Regime was to create an economic dictatorship headed by the Treasury Secretary has not evaded Limbaugh's notice. The creation of a huge apparatus of regimentation, surveillance, and detention under Bush took place with the active support of Limbaugh and his ilk. So he is lying when he imputes sole responsibility for all of this to the Democrats.

But rather than urging that this edifice of tyranny be demolished, Limbaugh counsels his followers to be patient in the expectation that they will soon occupy its commanding heights, from which they can proceed with the extermination of their political enemies.

How it was:
In Utah County, the country's most Republican voting district, a Red State Fascist expresses his political loyalties with all the gentility we've come to expect from his faction.

During the eight years of Bush the Destroyer's rule, the
bully-boy Right consistently condemned the Left not for embracing the State, but for impeding the growth of the State when it was under Republican control.

Every expression of skepticism about the Regime's foreign wars or the expansion of its power at home was treated as a form of sedition. (The mush-mouthed cretin Michael Reagan, a third-tier pseudo-Limbaugh,
actually called for critics of the Iraq War to be taken out and shot.) Perhaps the one good thing about Limbaugh's revanchist rant was the fact that he's now dropped the pretense of believing in limited government.

As luck or something else would have it, Limbaugh chose to unbosom himself of his exterminationist sentiments on the same day that James Adkisson was
sentenced to life in prison for his murderous shooting rampage at a Knoxville, Tennessee Unitarian Universalist Church last July 27. Adkisson, a 58-year-old unemployed veteran, wrote a four-page manifesto prior to the assault describing the shooting as an act of politically motivated suicide terrorism: He wanted to conduct a "symbolic killing" of people he held responsible for support in the "damn left-wing liberals" in the media, government, and the Democratic Party leadership.

James Adkisson, would-be suicide terrorist, following his attack on a Unitarian Church in July 2008.

"I'm absolutely fed up," wrote Adkisson. "So I thought I'd do something good for this country [--] kill Democrats til the cops kill me..... Liberals are a pest like termites. Millions of them. Each little bite contributes to the downfall of this great nation. The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like-minded people to do what I've done. If life ain't worth living anymore don't just kill yourself do something for your country before you go. Go kill liberals."

"Someone had to get the ball rolling," Adkisson insisted. "I volunteered. I hope others do the same, it's the only way we can rid America of this cancer, this pestilence."

The two most urgent complaints against liberals listed by Adkisson were that they were "tying our hands in the war on terror" and opposing the war in Iraq -- that is to say, that they were impeding the exercise of government power, not that they were abetting its growth. His
home library included screeds written by (or at least on behalf of) Sean Hannity, Michael Weiner (aka Savage, and Bill O'Reilly, all of whom spent the years 2001-2009 promoting the Regime's foreign wars and domestic crimes, and execrating those who opposed the onslaught.

Adkisson appears to be the incarnation of what Lew Rockwell calls "Red State Fascism" -- an aggressive strain of embittered, totalitarian nationalism that has infected the Republican-aligned conservative movement.

His ideological derangement propelled him to carry a shotgun into the sanctuary of a church, where he unloaded on congregants as they watched a children's play. He managed to murder two people and injure six others before he was disarmed and subdued by three unarmed men who acted with courage and composure that command the respect of those of us who do not share their political and theological views.

Left-leaning blogger Sara Robinson makes a compelling point when she describes Adkisson's crime as "exactly the kind of rancid fruit that would inevitably take root in an American countryside thickly composted with two decades of hate radio bulls**t, freshly turned and watered with growing middle-class frustration over the failing economy." She, and others of her persuasion, are likewise on firm footing in predicting that other acts of theatrical political violence by people of Adkisson's ilk are likely to follow.

But then, as it always does, the polarity of this conflict shifts
, with self-described liberals dropping pregnant hints about government action to reclaim the "public airwaves" from the Right Wing and issuing dark warnings about prosecuting their political rivals for expressing opinions that incite others to violence.

Neither side seeks to de-fang the "monster" described by Limbaugh; each seeks to be its master and use it to destroy the other. Bele and Lokai swap roles, with the prey becoming the predator, and the conflict continues -- a self-sustaining cycle of mutually reinforcing hatred that will eventually be consummated in mass bloodshed.

Bele was black on his right, Lokai on his left. The Democrats are the party of the welfare/warfare state; the Republicans, on the other hand, are the party of the warfare/welfare state. And both of them are tools of an entrenched Power Elite that is delighted to cultivate the collectivist hatreds from which totalitarianism is sprouting even now.

*Limbaugh is currently unmarried and, by choice, has no children. (On several occasions he's made it clear that he never had any desire for children.) The very first thing one sees in his living room, according to this account, is a "life-size oil portrait of El Rushbo, as he often calls himself...." What kind of person chooses such a work of art as the centerpiece of a home he shares with nobody else?

My thanks to Mike Tennant at the blog for bringing Limbaugh's putrid peroration to my attention.

On sale now!

Dum spiro, pugno!


Bill McGonigle said...

There's a bit more subtler shade to it even - I happened to flip by his show in the car the other day, and he was describing himself as the target of Obama attack, for being the spokesman for the conservative movement, not the Republican party (and then ticked off some libertarian values to illustrate the difference). He continued that his audience hadn't left the party, but rather that the party had left his audience. He may be an egoist, but he's not wrong that the weakness Obama should seek to defend against is the American public's demand for freedom and self-direction.

liberranter said...

Will, it goes without saying that you've once again painted a portrait of painful realism. However, I simply have to ask: Why on earth would you, of all people, dignify with reason-based rebuttal anything spewing forth from the mendacious pie hole of that lard-besotted megalomaniac pillhead Limbaugh? Doing so only lends legitimacy to his self-appointed role as "head" of the "Conservative" movement, a title that I believe a growing number of his now erstwhile followers, having seen past the curtain and smoke, are now willing in ever-growing numbers to dispute (latent intelligence can indeed manifest itself, even in the Conservative movement). In short, he and his pseudo-political drivel are simply not worthy of your time and talent.

The only proper reaction to anything with which this fraud pollutes the airwaves is to reach for the radio's tuner or O-F-F switch, followed by a good dousing of the surrounding air with Lysol.

Bob said...

On too many occasions, Michael Savage comes across as a Lincolnian/Wilsonian fascist. I remember after the 9/11 attacks, he had demanded that the government step in and close down CNN.

Lee Shelton said...

Once again, Mr. Grigg, you absolutely nailed it. Excellent job, sir!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Adkisson was a disturbed individual, even a monster, but here is where I have a problem with the "non-aggression principle"; When IS the line crossed, when jack booted thugs conduct a dynamic entry raid of your house? Or, when those on the right and left take small steps every day to slowly chip away at what freedoms we have left?

I'm not condoning what Adkisson did. He entered a church and started shooting people whom he assumed were culpable for what he thought were crimes. In effect, he murdered innocent people. But what about those who are not innocent? What about a-holes like Limbaugh, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, Schumer, Waxman, Pelosi, ad nauseum. What about politicians who engage in active measures to subdue the citizenry? What about the journalists and media personalities who are the mouthpieces of those politicians?

Clinton adopted this policy in the Balkans. All media editors and personalities, as well as politicians, were made into legitimate targets of war. Why can't we adopt the same policy once they cross the line?

Jim Wetzel said...

Bravo, Mr. Grigg! Your gift for the felicitous phrase just keeps on giving.

As you suggest, there is essentially no principle at all on either side of the false left/right distribution of what is sometimes laughably called "political thought." There is only the grunt-grunt concept that those guys in the other-colored jerseys must be made to hit the ground, hard. The economic meltdown is probably the closest thing to "hope" in this poor dead republic. The Reds and Blues are fighting frantically to control an enormous tank that happens to be sputtering along on its last couple of drops of borrowed/stolen fuel. And not a moment too soon, either.

Anonymous said...

For my sake, your blog ought to bear a warning label. The text would be something along the lines of "Warning! You have to get up for work in two hours!"

Anonymous said...

Great stuff. I appreciate your writing. With Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin the de facto heads of the Republican party there sure is much to look forward too in the days ahead. Not!

By the way, "El Rushbo" may not be married, but he certainly doesn't live alone. Trust me. Google it :-)

Anonymous said...

I recall hearing somewhere Limbaugh admitted it was more about entertainment and making a buck than about actual political convictions. I suspect that's true of any prominent figurehead on every side of the political arena. I doubt you can get on the air any other way. True believers don't care whether it is theirs or some other voice which promotes the cause, as long as the cause is promoted.

In the midst of your hopes for Justus and your other children, you must sorrow at knowing he'll inherit something too much like the final end of Star Trek's Charon, Will.

Anonymous said...

Nice name calling fest, both parties are dipped in "it" and smell much the how to fix it?
A "Tea Party"? What's your plan? How does one break the stranglehold?
It won't happen peacefully.

Anonymous said...

Michael Savage is in deep need of psychological help along with.... a healthy dose of sedatives. As for Limbaugh that rotund boor doesn't believe in anything except for his own fat ass. Principles what principles - hell say whatever needs to be said to gain fame and fortune. Pathetic111

Anonymous said...

@Pat H. - The non-aggression principle is not the same as pacifism. The difference is that if an aggressor hits a pacifist, the pacifist will not hit back nor use force to defend himself.

I never have started a fight and hope to live out my life maintaining that record. However, anyone who ever harms or threatens to harm my family or myself will quickly learn that while I am never an aggressor I am also anything but a pacifist.

As for what to do with aggressive government, my conscience would not even quiver a little bit if I were to use force against them for they are the ones who started the fight. I am not stupid or suicidal, however, and won't act violently unless I have reason to believe I'll achieve an outcome better than the one I would get by not acting violently.

Anonymous said...

I was trying to explain exactly this concept to friend a couple of days ago, but, as always, you did it a lot better than I can; I gave up and sent him a link to your blog.
Congratulations on the new family member.

R. Cozine

Anonymous said...

For wicked men are found among my people,

They watch like fowlers lying in wait;

They set a trap,

They catch men.

Like a cage full of birds,

So their houses are full of deceit;

Therefore they have become great and rich.

They are fat, they are sleek,

They also excel in deeds of wickedness;

They do not plead the cause,

The cause of the orphan, that they may prosper;

And they do not defend the rights of the poor.

"Shall I not punish these people?" declares the Lord,

"On a nation such as this

Shall I not avenge Myself?"

An appalling and horrible thing

Has happened in the land:

The prophets prophesy falsely,

And the priests rule on their own authority;

And my people love it so!

But what will you do at the end of it?

Anonymous said...

". . . a self-sustaining cycle of mutually reinforcing hatred that will eventually be consummated in mass bloodshed."

Not meaning to be overly dramatic, but I wonder if mass bloodshed will be directed by Warshington at a certain region of the country, namely the South. After the indigenous population (and they have been dealt with), the South seems to be Warshington's most enduring and hated enemy, and like native Americans, southern people are expendable; the word "exterminate" seems always on the tip of somebody's tongue.

Ken said...

"The Sneetches" wasn't Dr. Seuss's best work, either. Maybe civil-rights allegories just naturally tend to veer into ham-handedness.

Just when I was thinking there might be some hope for Limbaugh -- the other day, he used the corporate-jet situation to make the case for "that which is not seen" almost worthy of Henry Hazlitt himself. I reckon every blind pig finds an acorn, now and then.

Kto kogo, indeed. Perhaps there is something we who love liberty more than power can use in that thought: as the Professor once put it, "That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind."

Be of good cheer, and alive to opportunity.

Anonymous said...

Limbaugh's hatred of the left is as rooted in principle as the Nazi's hatred of communists in the 1920's. Although he only advocates wiping the competing gangsters politically rather than physically he then invokes the threat of using "big government" as a useful thug once it has been recaptured by his fellow Republicrats. He has always been a blowhard but has apparently crossed the line into lunacy. Perhaps he will start doing Ghost Dances to bring all the dead Republicans back as voters. His entire show is based on the nickel's worth (if that) of difference between the two gangs, excuse me, parties.

Anonymous said...

Rush Limbaugh used to do really funny imitations of Bill Clinton, which had me howling.

George Bush, who was short thirty if not fifty IQ points on Clinton, should have been even easier to mock. But Limbaugh held his fire, revealing himself to be merely a brittle ideologue, rather than the witty and versatile political commentator which he so convincingly impersonated during the Clinton years.

Isn't Congress going to hold hearings on talk radio? If so, there could be no better proof that talk radio is now dead and irrelevant.

Not only will the Revolution not be televised ... it might not even be broadcast. The important chatter is surfacing from the bottom up, not from the top down. Jowly, white-bread, Boomer-going-to-seed Rush don't have a clue. Probably nobody under 40 has even heard of him.

Anonymous said...

Will, thanks for writing this. I think you've written before about the Hegelian dialectic somewhere; currently, we are seeing the results of such a perverse system. This should be a reminder of the harmful effects of political parties on our system. Many who read this blog should be thankful for the spirit of independence imparted by their Creator and the judgment to call evil by its name.

Anonymous said...

The system has several names: "Ubiquitous Computing"; "Internet of Things"; "Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing"; an Internet of Senses.

A search of today's news stories revealed that it was known as an EPCglobal network.

They're closing the noose.

Anonymous said...

Rush Limbaugh - How Talk Radio Works

Anonymous said...

"The moment the minority becomes the majority, it ceases to reason and persuade, and begins to command and enforce and punish." --Benjamin R. Tucker (1854-1939)

I guess that explains our non-reaction to the news that America now imprisons more people than any other nation for mostly invented crimes; everyone is just waiting his turn to punish and imprison.

This country stands for truth, justice, and liberty, as long as truth equals lies, justice equals injustice, and liberty equals power, punishment, and war.

Anonymous said...

MY COMMENTS are a bit off topic
but well done Bill on your
appearance on the Dr Chris show
Its the first time I ve heard you
and I was impressed.
You re a great speaker
.. I just don t know why you ve not got your own radio show !
After all, you ve got all that time on your hands !!
( I think at the time of the show you were just expecting your 6th child !! )

But yes Bill, I was impressed by your speaking skills, you spoke extempore on the French Revolution
.. showing that you have an amazing in depth grasp of that revolution and pivotal epoch of world history.
Keep up the good work Bill
and why not tell us in advance about any radio appearances ?
In the case of Dr Chris you could even link to the audio file !
Hope to hear you on the air waves a lot more in the near future
Best wishes

Anonymous said...

The most salient point made here is the comment about both parties being just 2 puppets of the Power Elite, fighting a circus dance to keep our eyes off the real thing.
All the commentators you mention, from both sides, are just ringmen, nothing more.
BUT, if you think that limited government, libertarian values, AynRandianism, etc are the cure against this Power Elite, you are sadly mistaken.

They rule by fragmenting their true opposition, and it is the wonderful values (no sarcasm intended) of individuals' rights, libertarianism, that sadly cement this fragmentation amongst those capable of perceiving it.

THEY believe in their group identity, and persue a group strategy. Individuals can not fight this.
The Power Elite can bamboozle the mass of people, who sadly, will never be smart enought, or educated enough, to see the real playing field.
Ask any of them "why wouldn't you open your trunk if you've got nothing to hide", and they will say "true, only a guilty person will refuse". They will consider any good argument against that mere unintelligible sophistry and never be converted.
"Liberty rather than security?" They will choose the latter.

Our founders knew full well what they were doing when they limited the suffrage to those whom they perceived capable of exercising it. (of course Hamilton's presence was all around then too.) That is also why the Senate was indirectly chosen.

Libertarians are so steeped in their mode of thought, that they fail to see the most egregious lie of Star Trek and other Sci-Fi shows: while these show the future in 300+ years, the majority of people shown are always white, yet simple factual demographics prove that in much less time than that, this earth will be anything but primarily white, it is not now. And neither will USA and Europe be, just visit SoCal.

When some members of the Power Elite also preach libertarian values, then it is not because they have renounced their membership, but because advocating for these causes helps further the Elite's ultimate goal.
And this Power Elite is an elite of common thought and values only second, the primary binding element is much stronger than that.

Anonymous said...

Hey will, I wanted to bring something to your attention rather immediately which fully deserves your well thought raking over, and apologise for it being slightly off topic.

Two PA judges have recently been convinced of sending kids to those cursed behavior-mod cesspools in exchange for bribes from such, for such "crimes" as writing a prank note or mocking their assistant principal.

You needn't actually post this comment, but in light of just how horrific our system is to those below the age of majority, who are regarded with less merit than livestock or pets, as the FLDS case showed in spades, I thought you would want to have at a system where kids can be sent to hell on earth, for naught more than being kids.

And you as well as any know that term is not an exaggeration when it comes to behavior mod and boot camp facilities.

Thanks, and good fortune.


Anonymous said...

On "Who does what to whom"...

Jim O'Connor
The Colony, Texas

Anonymous said...

"They will not control government forever, and when our turn comes, we are going to turn the power of government against the left.... We're going to build and use the big government that they have built and turn it right against them."

Every single time GWB rammed some more police state legislation through congress, with Democrats EAGER help, I said that the Democrats were going to get control of those mechanisms one day.

Rank and file repubs are misled sheeple. They are truly victims of decades of brainwashing by what they thought were patriots.

The neo-conned GOP is not a party of patriots.
They are, with rare exceptions, swine.

When Newt and the GOP revolution effectively ruled the roost did they play hardball with Billy The Kid Killer Clinton?


Democrats play hardball politics, ANYTHING GOES, from vote fraud on.

Bad as GOP was and is they didn't have the stomach to really play poltiics.

Felix Dzerzhinsky now that is the true soul of the Democrats in charge.

GW BUSH was, in my opinion, a person who violated the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Court rulings on War.

Yet the Red Terror is coming and for the American patriot that is going to be a million times worse than the failed president who was son of a president.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Mr. Grigg,

If you are serious, as in walk your talk, or practice what you preach, serious about your contempt for the hegelian dialectic left blame the right; vs. the right blame the left system of political discourse paradigm; or put differently 'In Search of Enemies to Scapegoat', while avoiding addressing the root causes of the problems; what exactly have you done to attempt to inform, educate or englighten your devotee fanclub, of some of the root causes of the socio-economic, socio-political, psycho-emotional, financial, etc. consequences of exponentially increasing populations, and exponentially decreasing finite and scarce resources?

Perhaps you attempted to educate on issues (starting with yourself and your family, and your African Slave and Cannon Fodder Breeding culture) such as 'The greatest tragedy of the human races is their inability to understand exponential functions'; and how exponentially breeding results in more people fighting over less resources; what I call exponential yewgenics.

Or how often when referring to the 'War on Terror' have you also included the information that, according to Vice President's Task Force on Terrorism, 1986: Terrorism is caused by overpopulation and is a result of overpopulation colliding with scarce and diminishing resources?

And in a world where people -- such as yourself, prefer that 'Dimmer' Bushes don't speak plain and simple, brutal English -- how long is it going to take you to put two and two together and conclude that the 'War on Terror' is about 'Terrorism, resulting from exponential increasing pop8ulations collidding with exponential decreasing resources'?

Your personal total disregard to procreate with consideration for future generations, is noted.

When you personally in your own life practice 'conquer and multiply $lave and Cannon Fodder Breeding' dogma ideology; I consider your criticism of the 'Conquer and Multiply $lave and Cannon Fodder Breeding' Paradigm, in the context of a Pastor spending his Saturday nights in a whorehouse, and preachign to his church on 'morality' on Sunday Morning.

Put bluntly: You are a two-faced hypocrit.


Lara Johnstone
JAG 07-146 Pro Se Plaintiff

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...


As for "tying our hands in the war on terror", did you ever perhaps think that there could be a different interpretation, than the one you decided was certifiably correct?


What Every Boy and Girl Should Know:
It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. (Margaret Sanger)


Freedom to Breed is Intolerable
If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if thus, over breeding brought its own "punishment" to the germ line -- then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families. But our society is deeply committed to the welfare state, [12] and hence is confronted with another aspect of the tragedy of the commons.

In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts over breeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement? [13] To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action. (Tragedy of the Commons)

Finally; Mr. Grigg,

You are allegedly a 'libertarian'; yet you appear to deny the reality that 'true libertarian culture and values' cannot exist where 'pretend libertrians' do not practice libertarian carrying capacity procreation principles; and contribute to overpopulation and the overuse of the commons.

Dauvit Balfour said...

@Psycho-eugenicist-/word for a female dog/

Words - at least words that won't keep this from getting posted - fail me. Please, please, please for the love of God (whom, if you are serious, you probably don't worship) tell me you are joking.

My stomach turns at your words, and my mind whirls about in wonderment that you assert an exponential population growth when that is by far one of the most simplistic and silly population models. Anyone with a basic introduction to differential equations knows that there are several suitable models for population, whose usefulness depends on the information being sought with the model. The thoughtless assertion that population growth is exponential is unsubstantiated, silly, and...

Oh, forget it, it's not worth it to me to dig through a lot of mathematics that is rusty for me and probably incomprehensible to you, just to demonstrate that you are full of piles of steaming Stierscheisse.

I seriously hope that I tick you off, and that you are so disgusted by my Catholic approach to over-breeding (oh God grant me many wonderful children that I may raise them to walk in Your ways and serve You, that is, assuming it's in Your will for me to marry) that you spend the rest of your days fuming and plotting ways to rid the world of me. Only please, please don't respond in words to what I've written, lest I die of aural torture before you have the chance to remove this future papa rabbit from earth.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

'Mr.' Dauvit Balfour

I imagine with: "@Psycho-eugenicist-/word for a female dog/"; you were attempting to call me a 'bitch'?

If so; thank you! In Australia being called a 'bitch' to your face, is a compliment.

And, no Mr. Dauvit, I was not joking. The God that I serve, gave me a mind, with the capacity to reason for myself. Carrying capacity, and population vis a vis resources, ain't difficult to understand, if reality and living in harmony with nature as a human, (as opposed to being a 'brain washed debt inslaved, fiat currency believer consumer') is important to you.

As for exponential population growth, perhaps you did not follow the links; I provided. Here are a few more: Population Explosion Time Bomb and Consequences, by Money and Markets/Dept. of Navy Long Term Study; Exponential Yewgenics (includes: Arithmetic, Population and Energy, by Al Bartlett), and Crash Course, by Chris Martenson; CIA & Pentagon on Population and Resource Wars;

The population model I most subscribe to is carrying capacity organic farming one; as applied to politics, here is a brief excerpt: It is essential to understand the reality of the world: When you look at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms.

It is important to understand the reality of ideologies: State capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy – these are all livestock management approaches.

Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train children to “love” the farm, and to fear true freedom and independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of human ownership. Furthermore, they create jobs for the intellectuals that state propaganda so relies on.

Re your statements:

I seriously hope that I tick you off, and that you are so disgusted by my Catholic approach to over-breeding (oh God grant me many wonderful children that I may raise them to walk in Your ways and serve You, that is, assuming it's in Your will for me to marry) that you spend the rest of your days fuming and plotting ways to rid the world of me. Only please, please don't respond in words to what I've written, lest I die of aural torture before you have the chance to remove this future papa rabbit from earth.

You don't tick me off at all. Mr. Balfour; nor do I have any desire to exterminate you. I was only sharing an observation, about addressing root causes of problems. I am well aware that most men are so indoctrinated and brainwashed by Phallic Masonic worship $lave and Cannon Fodder dogma, which enables their Jesuit and Catholic Masters to continue living off their slavery and cannon fodder breeding habits.

If it is your choice to become, be and remain an ignorant slave, and sperm donor; I support you in being all you want to, and perhaps can be.

I don't doubt you shall find for yourself a suitable brainwashed slave sperm recipient breeding cow; and I wish you both all the best.

Interesting though. Not one of the men whom was surprised by my kinesthetic Parenting Test, and all of whom subsequently declined that they had been seriously committed to sincere libertarian fatherhood; have called to complain about my Fatherhood Parenting Test.

Here it is:

I am 41 years old, I have no children, although more than a few men have wanted me to bear their children; they failed to pass my commitment test for how much they love children, as opposed to how much they just want a woman with good genes to spread their sperm around the planet without being willing to give their lives for the children they want to procreate.

So they failed the commitment test: a very simple kinesthetic learning test. You see it is my opinion most of the men on the planet have imaginary fantasies about what excellent fathers they are, and how much they love children, and are committed to their children; and that 'fatherhood' is nothing but a 'little boy toy soldier' fantasy. So as an educator (most people learn better kinesthetically, i.e. by action, than by reading, or listening, whereby they only absorb a theory in their HEAD, kinesthetic learning is learning a principle IN YOUR GUTS, IN YOUR BONES, IN EVERY SINGLE CELL OF YOUR BEING). So my test is not an intellectual test (intellectual tests don't help children to know they are loved by their fathers), it is a kinesthetic test.

The man has to play Russian Roullette with me, 3 bullets each, to demonstrate that he is willing to risk his life, to demonstrate his commitment to emotionally, psychologically and spiritually BE THERE FOR THE CHILD HE INTENDS TO PROCREATE.

Anyway, Mr. Balfour, no doubt the $&CFB faction in the Catholic Church and Jesuit Society shall be only too pleased, they have yet another obedient, docile, submissive breeding debt slave... ; and if that makes you happy. I support you in doing whatever makes you happy.

Kind Regards

Lara Johnstone

Anonymous said...

Yo, Will, Flush Lumbaugh is bad enough, but then you had to go and let Ms LJ post. Wow, a scientific and self righteous enthusiastic malthusian cross with the Margaret Sanger herself.
But to the neanderthals and luddites of a different school and hobby horse,this can't be happening because we're all supposed to be smothered to death under horse manure, i.e. Henry Ford is not possible.
Not to mention, China is starving and rations children, while Hong Kong and Taiwan with infinitely less resources, prospers. Go figure.

And the Lord God said, Be fruitful and multiply.

Anonymous said...

"You are allegedly a 'libertarian'; yet you appear to deny the reality that 'true libertarian culture and values' cannot exist where 'pretend libertrians' do not practice libertarian carrying capacity procreation principles; and contribute to overpopulation and the overuse of the commons."

Did you seriously just call yourself "libertarian"?

Well, I suppose you could be right, but only if you acknowledge that you cannot force anyone to adopt "carrying capacity procreation principles".

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Pat, Hi.

Not exactly sure what you mean -- imagine you are implying something, not sure what, so shan't assume; -- with:

"Did you seriously just call yourself "libertarian"?

Be happy to answer if you are more specific.


Well, I suppose you could be right, but only if you acknowledge that you cannot force anyone to adopt "carrying capacity procreation principles".

Indeed I would agree, and do acknowledge that I cannot -- nor would I want to -- force anyone to adopt "carrying capacity procreation principles".

I can choose for myself 'to practice what I preach' and I can discuss the issue with others interested therein; if only theoretically, or practically.

My point is htat in the absence of addressing root causes of any problem; simply sitting around playing the blame game, regarding the symptoms, is a little like applying bandaids to a braintumour.

So my attempt is usually to find out how serious anyone is in addressing root causes, and if so, then I take them seriously, in terms of THEY REALLY GIVE A SHIT, not just intellectually, but emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, etc.. and so any investment into the conversation is of the same calibre. Where however individuals are more interested in simply playing bandaid to braintumour blame game; I filter the quality of their comments thusly. They ain't committed to the conversation, they are only passing time, or finding an excuse to insult or so on. And that's okay, and just receive within that context.

Anyway, not sure if that provides any further clarity to your question.



Anonymous said...

That right wing hooey just won't go away. Hard call on which is worse reichwingers or bleeding hearts and their savior economy where they aim the money firehose at every human problem and let it rip. Some great articles of late the one on the cesspool on Lake Michigan was good as well. I learn something all the time here from administrator and observer comments. The agitprop nazi propaganda poster done up GOP style was good for a laugh. I am always thankful for a laugh in these interesting times.

Anonymous said...

Exhaustion of resources can only occur when property is made "common" rather than private, and when technology is outlawed. State subsidization of debt creation encourages unsustainable population growth. It seems that the state is the problem for those with a "voluntary population management" agenda as in every other sphere of non-coercive activity.

Rich said...

A more accurate transliteration of the Russian phrase you cited in the article would be "kto kovo (ka-VOH)". The typically "g" sounding character in the Cyrillic alphabet that appears in the ending of the word for "to whom", takes on a "v" sound in this case of the word.