That Was No Accident
By Duncan Long
There’s an old story about a cowpoke who was walking alongside
his horse one day when he noticed a movement out of the corner of his
eye. He turned to see a rattlesnake coiled to strike. Thinking fast,
the cowboy jumped out of the way just as the snake struck, barely
Latter, after telling his friends about the incident, one of them said, "You barely missed having one serious accident."
The cowpoke thought about it a moment and drawled, "That wouldn’t have been an accident, that critter aimed to bite me."
That’s the same sort of thing we’re seeing now. The school
shootings and various criminal assaults that are causing so much
national grief aren’t accidents. They’re being done by
people intent on killing and maiming, wanting to harm those around them
in serious ways.
The political actions that have brought this situation are no accident,
either. It’s no accident that these murderers are able to do
their work almost unchecked.
The most recent shooting in LA (on August 10, 1999) is the perfect
example of how our governmental gas bags have betrayed us.
They’ve made it impossible for school officials to carry a gun
for self defense, turning our schools into shooting zones for the
lawless cowards looking for a place to do damage with little chance of
running into any resistance. We should all take a moment to say thank
you to the National Educators Association and gun grabbing politicians
for letting these cowards kill our children.
Am I being too hard on leaders who want to disarm citizens? I
don’t think so. Because most gun grabbers aren’t stupid.
They’ve seen how concealed carry laws reduce violent crime. They
know that the 20th Century’s genocides were all proceeded by
stringent gun control laws. They know all the pro-gun arguments you
could probably make are most likely correct.
Why, then, does the anti-gun crowd continue to call for more restrictions on guns?
The first hint at the awful truth comes when you realize that for the
most part, those intent on taking away our guns are also pro-abortion.
How do these two views fit together and what do they mean?
At first they seem illogical. Wouldn’t you think that someone who
was pro-abortion — especially someone who was pro-abortion to the
point that making partial-birth abortion legal — would also be
pro-gun. After all, if guns really kill people the way the anti-gun
crowd claims, and if we really wanted to reduce the excess population,
surely we would then want to dispense guns left and right instead of
taking them away from people.
Or would we?
Studies show that guns in the hands of honest people reduce crime. And
they do so for the most part without a shot being fired. Guns most
often save lives by preventing the violent confrontation that takes
place when the criminal is in charge, rather than a gun-welding
citizen. Guns in honest people’s hands aren’t often used,
but do stop a criminal in his efforts and force him to flee. Criminals
with guns may kill, but honest citizens with guns seldom do. And honest
citizens with guns often stop criminals before they can kill.
Net result: Citizens with guns prevent deaths of innocent people.
Citizens without guns result in more deaths of innocent people.
If your intent is to reduce the population, then it makes perfect sense to be both pro-abortion and anti-gun.
But are there people who really want to get you or your children killed by violent murderers in order to reduce the population?
What would be gained in doing so?
The motivation for getting the population of Earth from growing is hard
for moral men and women to fathom. But if you throw away morality the
benefits of reducing the population become chillingly logical. In the
words of conservative commentator Lee Bellinger (writing in "Revealed:
Why the Left Push So Hard for Population Control," The American Sentinel, No. 613, April 1998): ;
Growing populations create pressure for competitive economies….
Leftists in general, and environmentalists in particular, favor strong
policies to reduce population growth (hence their anti-family agenda,
including subsidized abortion, partial birth abortion and advocacy of
teenagers being able to terminate pregnancies without parental consent
Consider: Growing populations cannot be fed by socialist economies. As
the leaders of the now-defunct Soviet Union learned, unrestricted
population growth creates unwelcome pressure for social and economic
innovation. Unfortunately for socialists, the only proven system
capable of generating advances in science and technology sufficient to
accommodate global populations is free-enterprise... Were global
population to decline, as leftists want, the sharing-in-scarcity credo
of environmental socialists would become far more manageable (at least
in their view)….
Take North Korea — its citizens starve from a "famine," when just
a few miles South of the 38th Parallel the South Koreans are well
nourished. Cuba and the remaining outposts of socialism in Africa have
the same dilemma as North Korea. Their state-run businesses are
incapable of meeting basic social needs.
Totalitarian dictators cannot allow people the freedom necessary to
feed themselves. These rulers correctly see limiting population as
their best defense against social change — a "sharing in
scarcity" regime prescribed by so many environmentalists….
Population control: The left's counterpoint to free-enterprise.
Internationalists know that population growth forces innovation, and
that innovation is best achieved through the hated free-enterprise
system. This is the hidden reason why leftists support policies that
are anti-family and pro-abortion — socialism simply cannot
sustain a growing work force.
Reducing the population can keep the standards of living high for
survivors while keeping the government in control and reducing the
independence of the population. This also explains why the more liberal
a politician is, the more interested they tend to be in taking away
your guns and making sure women have the "right to have an abortion."
To those wanting to cut down on the population, it makes perfect sense
to take guns away from honest people and make sure criminals have guns
and can operate freely without fear of running into an armed citizen.
Think I’m being a little extreme here? Do you think that surely
those anti-gun, pro-abortionists aren’t quite that blood thirsty?
Well, let’s take a look at the founder of Planned Parenthood,
Margaret Sanger, did and said about her goals. While the mainstream
media and supporters of abortion rights have done their best to hide
it, in fact Sanger took Darwinian logic to its extreme, just as the
Nazis did in Germany. Not surprisingly, during the 1930s Sanger openly
supported the Nazi’s goal of achieving eugenics to create what
was supposed to be a "super race." In truth, Planned Parenthood’s
1985 "Annual Report" proclaimed members were, "Proud of our past, and
planning for our future." (reported by George Grant, "Killer Angel,"
Reformer Press, p. 105.)
Among Sanger’s notable goals and sayings:
- She wrote that
society needed to go about the task of the "extermination of
‘human weeds’ ...the ‘cessation of charity,’
... the segregation of ‘morons, misfits, and the
maladjusted,’ and ... the sterilization of ‘genetically
inferior races.’" ("Killer Angels" page 65)
- In "The
Birth Control Review" magazine Sanger threw her support behind the
"infanticide program" promoted by the Nazis during the 1930s. (Margaret
Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, New York: Bretano’s, pp 101, 108,
Sanger publicly lauded Hitler’s theory of Aryan white supremacy. (Pivot of Civilization)
Sanger commissioned Ernst Rudin, a member of the Nazi Party who would
later become a the director of the German Medical Experimentation
Programs; he served Sanger’s advisor until the hostilities
leading to W.W.II broke out. (Pivot of Civilization)
opened one of her early birth control clinics in the Brownsville
section of New York; the reason apparently was because this area was
populated by newly immigrated Slavs, Latins, Italians, and Jews —
groups she considered inferior to other races. (Linda Gordon,
Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right, New York: Penguin Press, p204.)
- In 1939,
Margaret Sanger organized a "Negro project" to eliminate what she
called an "inferior race." She claimed, "The masses of Negroes
...particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously,
with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among
whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and
fit." (Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right, p. 332.)
wrote that she intended to hire three or four Afro-American ministers
"to travel to various black enclaves to propagandize for birth
control…. The most successful educational approach to the Negro
is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we
want to exterminate the Negro population, and the Minister is the man
who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more
rebellious members." (Killer Angel, p. 74.)
also wrote that religious groups should be singled out for destruction
because they were "dysgenic races" which included "Fundamentalists and
Catholics" as well as "blacks, Hispanics, (and) American Indians."
(Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right, pp. 229-334)
wrote, "Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is
calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches. I look
forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity
no less than Capitalism." (Killer Angel, p. 104.)
This realization that the pro-abortion gun-grabbers are motivated by a
need to see more people dead explains a lot. It explains why the US and
UN often are slow to act when there’s any hint of genocide going
on somewhere in the world — especially if it involved Africans
and/or Christians. By waiting until the deed has been completed, there
are that fewer "human weeds" to content with. Thus American leftists
turn a blind eye toward infanticide and persecution of Christians in
China and mass killings in any given African nation can be all but
ignored until the killing stops. The "inferior population" is reduced
and more is left over for the elite to enjoy.
No wonder the mainstream press and anti-gun politicians pretend to
overlook the JPFO contention that most 20th Century’s genocides
started with gun control measures that disarmed the population.
Disarming the population will achieve the goals of these political
snakes all the quicker.
Rwanda is a good example of how this works. First the UN disarmed the
population, then between April and July of 1994 the Hutu-led military
systematically killed the Tutsis tribesmen (who also just happened to
be Christians — the group Planned Parenthood’s founder so
hated). When the UN convened hearings on the genocide, the US
Ambassador, Madeline Albright, argued that "genocide" was the wrong
term for what was happening; rather what was going on was a civil war
so no intervention should be undertaken. This was an important
distinction because it made it impossible for any nation including
those neighboring Rwanda, to intervene and stop the killings. (Peter
Hammond, Holocaust in Rwanda, Touch Mission Int’l (ITMI), Tempe,
So UN troops stood by while 750,000 people were hacked to death in
Rwanda. But it went even beyond that. Occasionally UN troops even
handed helpless Tutsis over to Hutu militia members. UN soldiers
watched victims being slaughtered with machetes right before their
eyes. In 1994, after the carnage finally came to an end, the Clinton
administration handed over millions of dollars in foreign aid to the
Hutu government. Meanwhile, Madeline Albright was elevated to Secretary
of State on Clinton’s cabinet.
Albright's boss is Bill Clinton. He's also a big supporter of abortion
rights. And gun control. Following the latest shooting of Jewish
children in LA, the President very piously remarked about "another
senseless act of gun violence" and told Americans that "once again our
nation has been shaken and our hearts torn." Just like with the other
shootings brought about by the gun grabbers and just like the killings
made possible by the Clinton administration’s intervention at the
UN during the Rwanda slaughters.
In the late 1990s, Dr. Stanley K. Monteith, after investigating Planned
Parenthood and those who are intent on reducing the world’s
population, came to an alarming conclusion (Stanley K. Monteith, M.D.,
"The Population Control Agenda,"
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Realm/9485/NWOhorror.htm, April 11,
1999). He wrote:
One of the most difficult concepts for Americans to accept is that
there are human beings dedicated to coercive population control and
genocide. Many readers will acknowledge that our government is helping
to finance the Red Chinese program of forced abortion, forced
sterilization, infanticide, and control of the numbers of live births.
Most readers will accept the fact that our nation is helping to finance
the United Nations’ world-wide "family planning program," a form
of population control. Most rational men and women, however, find it
impossible to believe that such programs are really part of a "master
plan" to kill off large segments of the world’s population.
I shall have to admit that I studied the politics of AIDS (HIV disease)
for over a decade before I finally came to a horrifying conclusion. The
real motivation behind efforts to block utilization of standard public
health measures to control further spread of the HIV epidemic was
"population control." That was not an easy concept for me to
acknowledge, despite the fact that I had long recognized that the
twentieth century has been the bloodiest hundred-year period in all
recorded human history.
Next time you hear a politician advance the idea that we need to
support Planned Parenthood, that we must defend the right for women to
have abortions, or that we need more gun control, ask yourself why he
thinks we need that. Is it for your children’s good, or so he and
other racists can get rid of more "human weeds" like you and your
neighbors to make way for the elite to continue their socialist agendas?
And next time you see the news about another school shooting, remind
yourself that it wasn’t an accident. Most likely it is part of
the gun grabbers’ agenda. Like rattlesnakes, these people
don’t cause accidents. They aim to do serious harm.
Copyright © 1999 by Duncan Long. All rights reserved.