Twentieth Century Biggest Killers

Name The Top 4, if you can.

Right about now you're thinking someone like Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson, or some other similarly deranged and disgusting sub-human.

But you'd be wrong.  You have to think bigger.  Much bigger.

Let's start the list with the biggest killer of all, according to accepted research, and work our way down.

1.  Mao tse Tung  -  China  -  70 million in various purges, exterminations, etc.
2.  Rachel Carson  -  America -  50 million, give or take a few tens of millions, through publishing a fantasy and false alarm.  Her fantasy is still killing millions, with no end in sight.
3.  Joseph Stalin  -  Soviet Union  -  30 million in various purges and exterminations.
4.  Adolph Hitler  -  Germany  -  10- 15 million through purges, exterminations, cleansings, etc.

Of the above 4 above, only one is still killing.  She's long dead, of course, but her work is still killing.

What else do the above have in common?  Christianity, or more properly the lack of it.  None of the above had any significant connection to any mainstream religion, much less Christianity.

Other things we can learn from Rachel Carson:
1.  Words kill.
2.  Governments won't act to correct an obvious wrong, out of fear of being thought badly of by envirowackos and other uninformed do-gooders.  Including, and especially, the United States government.  No matter the consequences of continuing that wrong.  PC, political expediency and faux science win over clarity of thought and action based on actual science.

All of us should be - there has to be a word stronger than 'ashamed' to express it.  Worse, most of us are unaware of what Rachel Carson has done - all with the best of intentions, of course - results don't matter, only intentions do if you're an envirowacko / progressive - and, in fact, most of us probably saw her name in the above list and immediately thought "Who?"

I need another cup of coffee.

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOW 'CLIMATE CHANGE'

The envirowacko fringe has apparently adopted a new tactic in the face of growing skepticism over human-caused global warming: they've de-emphasized the 'human caused' part of their rhetoric, and they've changed the concern to 'climate change.'

Convenient. Now no matter which way the climate changes, they can say they warned us.

New flash: the climate is always changing. Never in the history of this planet has it just sat there, twiddling its thumbs. No, sir. It's always changing - sometimes fast, sometimes slow, but always. So announcing that the climate is changing is comparable to announcing that the dead vegetation littering North America right now will start to turn green in a few months. Both climate and foliage greening are cyclical, and just as certain. And both will take place with or without Man's impact, if any.

So why the big concern by these envirowackos? The short answer is, it isn't about climate at all. It's about sucking tens of trillions of dollars out of the world's productivity in order to create a global serfdom, dependent upon government benevolence for simple subsistence; enslaved to work but not excel; survive but not thrive; obey but not dare to challenge. A humanity of that sort can be easily ruled. So - you think your Ostrich Killer is paranoid again? Well maybe so, but that doesn't mean I'm not right about this. Want proof?

Think for a moment: do you REALLY think that these envirowackos will call for more SUV sales should climate change mean cooling? You remember that these envirowackos and their pet 'scientists' have hammered at us for years that carbon emissions were heating up the planet. So wouldn't it be logical, if we discover we are actually cooling, to want to increase those carbon emissions in order to slow or reverse that cooling? Build more coal-fueled power plants. Burn more wood openly. Oh, there are many ways to increase carbon emissions. But have you heard even one of these guys suggest anything of this nature?

You can certainly think of many more things they've said or pronounced as gospel that they simply will not reverse, no matter whether the climate is cooling or warming. That's because the goal is not reducing the rate of climate change, it's eliminating profit and productivity, thereby 'taming' the human population so that it depends on government for meals and health and transportation and entertainment, which of course means they'll be easily ruled. Got unclean, anti-government thoughts in your head? Your food ration will be cut. Say anything the government might not like? Avoid the hospital . . .

Energy drives the world's economies. Energy comes from coal and wood, nuclear fission, hydroelectric, and oil. All other sources of energy combined make up about one percent of output. But the envirowackos will tell you that coal and wood, nuclear reactors, hydroelectric and oil are unacceptable. So what does that leave us with to drive the world's industries, to light the world's cities, to heat the world's homes, to fuel the global transportation grid?

Exactly. I think you're beginning to get it. Without access to cheap energy, we grind back into a pre-industrial revolution agri-economy. A massive, global feudalism similar to that which existed in King Arthur's time. It would almost seem that the envirowackos are targeting energy on purpose, wouldn't it? What better way to lower productivity than to deprive it of energy? What better way to eliminate profit than to make industry impossible due to lack of energy?

Call it a conspiracy theory if you like, but expect to think about this as you listen to the news about climate change. If you don't believe in this conspiracy now, just wait.

SOME THINGS I'VE BEEN ITCHING TO SAY

- - - THE ELECTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
Okay, so enough of you ostriches pulled your heads out of your holes to elect Barack Hussein Obama. And now he's doing his damndest to dismantle the United States, if not economically then militarily. He wants a weaker, more humble and vulnerable United States - not the baddest dog on the planet that he inherited. He wants our enemies to love us. He doesn't care what our late friends might think of us. I think there's an ancient Arab saying . . .

I guess he never saw Shaka Zulu, who at one point pronounced that it was prudent to 'leave no live enemy behind you.' I'm absolutely certain that he never read Sun Tzu. I'm even more certain that he hasn't read the Tenth Amendment, or for that matter much of the rest of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, I'm sure he has personal staff whose primary duties are to find ways to circumvent it. Never a day in the military, and he's Commander in Chief. A rabble rouser - oh, I'm sorry, I meant Community Organizer - in Chicago, to 141 days in the US Congress, to President. And you ostriches elected him.

I will graciously point out that not one of my previous political predictions or pontificatorial blatherings came to pass; I attribute that to the surprising number of ostriches out there.

So okay, you ostriches: you won one. I am sincere when I say that I pray that we all don't live to regret it more than we already do. While I would normally be pleased that McCain did not get elected, the alternative is worse. Way, way worse. And uncharacteristically, I hope I'm wrong about this too.

- - - RIGHT WING RADICALS
See how cleverly the left, especially Barack Hussein Obama and his Homeland Security bitch - hey, isn't that a rock group? You remember, BO and the Bitch? - I digress. Back to the point: see how cleverly the left has linked the words 'right wing' and 'radicals'? As though they are synonymns. Right wing? Then you're a radical. Radical? You must be right wing. And look at how they describe them - let me lift directly from their words: you might be a right wing radical if you ". . . are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or illegal immigration."

Damn, I'm in both those example groups. They said they'd be watching people in those groups.

More: if you're part of a group that ". . . reject(s) federal authority in favor of state or local authority" you're probably a right wing radical. I guess only right wing radicals have read and understand the Tenth Amendment.

Crap. Now I'm three for three. I guess that means I'm being watched.

The report from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) goes on to say that 'extremist' groups are using the election of Barack Hussein Obama as a recruiting tool - they imply that it's a successful technique.

The musket-armed farmers of the Colonies were 'extremists'. They founded the finest, freest country in the history of the world. It isn't beyond imagining that their descendants might do Americans a similar favor, given enough reason. That's the point of the Second Amendment - to make sure an armed citizenry is capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment is not about making sure we can go out and shoot Bambi, or ward off the boogy man in our houses. It only takes a moment of reflection upon the times during which the amendment was written to understand perfectly what it's about.

But again I digress. Next topic:

- - - GOING GREEN
Spare me! You want me to cooperate in 'green'? Then make it more cost effective; show me how it reduces the rate at which the green leaves my wallet. Don't blow 'future savings' vapor in my face (or anywhere else) if you want me to play along. Show me how it saves me money at the cash register this month. Until then, color me CARBON POSITIVE and proud of it. And why not? What's wrong with carbon? It's a large fraction of what we're made. Carbon dioxide is necessary for healthy plants. Without it they die, and so do the rest of us.

What's the worst global warming (a myth, but allow me this) can do? - - answer: green the snow-covered northern reaches, creating more arable ground for raising crops and feeding the hungry.

Is that such a bad thing? With so much of our global food crops being burned as fuel instead of turned into Hamburger Helper, wouldn't more arable land be welcome? You bet!

Don't tell me I can't crap in the ocean; whales and fish and birds do it. Why not me? Why should I only be able to crap on the one third of the earth that is dry land? Go ahead, explain that logically.

Recycle: the dirty truth is that it costs more to recycle than to use raw materials. No one counts the cost of the work it takes for individuals to sort and package and deliver recyclable items to processors. That's free, I guess. Sort of a Good Citizen contribution. Gets them off the couch, out from behind that TV set. Good for their health, right? But why not put it all into the landfill, so that future generations of land fill miners can make a living?

Okay, so I'm having too much fun. But it's so easy to poke fun at the envirowacko green left. They're such easy, uninformed illogical targets.

Your Ostrich Killer must now leave this missive to refill his cup with fossil-fuel heated coffee. MMM, Good! While I'm gone, you can read one of my poems: http://blizzardguy.com/microbus.htm

Out for now. Enjoy.