Death of Life

Hide the eyes of the chillen--this ain't fare for the faint-of-heart.

Aunty asked a colleague to have a looky at some recent blog posts, an' mebbe respond to the question: What trend can be discerned?

Forthwith, this is what Aunty received:

Aunty, I looked at your friend's blog and some of your own Back Porch posts. The topic is too complicated to examine in any depth but I've sent you this quick sketch. It's a brief outline of how the Swinton layout mirrors the philosophy of Agenda 21. You can add more, of course, if you're inclined.

* * * * * * * * *

A recent spread in W, the high fashion magazine, featured popular actress Tilda Swinton in a succession of gender blurred layouts. You can read more about "The Culture of Death Has it's Muse" at the "sparring" blog of a gifted illustrator and Atlanta artist. SparringK9 links the "anti-human" Swinton layout to Agenda 21.

Aunty's blog addressed elements of Agenda 21, the United Nations population control prescriptive for the world of the 21st century.

Is there a discernible thread between the two?

The W Magazine cover glorifies fashionable androgyny against the backdrop of sterile, denuded outposts: You have reached the very edge of habitation. The barrenness of the setting reinforces
the symbol of a de-gendered, sterile humanoid model. The message is not fashion's future but ritualized costuming that forecasts the chosen demise of humanity. Death as desire, the ecstasy of extinction, these are signified by the prosthetic leg, choker wear and various hand signals of aberrant proclivities.

A nihilistic background frames the identity void of the model whose expressionless face is seen, but shielded. It's not personal style but styled EverywoMan.

1972: The United Nations instituted UNEP, the UN's Environmental Program. Ten years earlier quiet proponents of population control and eugenics programs had begun to outline a public rationale for control of world population. During the 1960s The Rockefeller Foundation
( an investor in The Pill) pushed the states to abandon prohibitions against contraceptives. They won Griswold vs. Connecticut in 1965. Earlier still, in 1952 Rockefellers formed the Population Council along with several other wealthy "conservationists." Concern for the environment lent a certain sacrificial gloss, a moralistic tone to pleas for "planned population growth." In 1968 David Rockefeller helped form the think tank, The Club of Rome (CoR). among its members are U.N. chiefs. It is an organization known for this comment:

"The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

For the elitist conservationists, the earth's "carrying capacity" would soon be exceeded unless nations took immediate measures to curb their populations. Under Lyndon Johnson, US foreign aid programs insisted on population control programs in recipient nations, including Food for Freedom programs. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb and the culture was persuaded that unless pro-creative sex was curbed, the planet would soon be overrun with crime and human waste.

Various social policy foundations funded by "conservationists" issued grants and served as investors or sponsors of numerous art and cultural events that carried an underlying message of free sex, guiltless sex, aberrant sex, any sex as long as it is sterile sex: Oh Calcutta, Hair, Rocky Horror Picture Show. In 1973 abortion was legalized.

Wealthy think tanks and quiet planners agreed that stopping people from having sex was not possible, but, if sex could be directed toward practices that were sterile, population growth could be curbed. The sexual revolution was an orchestrated movement. Movements move a society: The culture is pried loose from one set of cultural standards to a new cultural norm. It is not difficult to manipulate the masses by manipulating their passions. Bread and circuses.

The early 80s brought a wide range of taboo breaking, transvestite, gender bending, homosexual themed movies, rock bands and fashion. (Tootsie, Victor Victoria, La Cage Aux Folles, Boy George, Alice Cooper, David Bowie, Michael Jackson, unisex clothing, de-feminized Twiggy models, KISS). By the 1990s there were TV series that included various forms of gender confusion or promoted homosexuality and casual "linking up." While some observe that the entire point of the sexual revolution was to free people from the traditional gender roles and sexual taboos, others make an equally cogent case that the underlying motivation was to control population. Where aberrant sex and confused gender roles are promoted, the procreative family model declines, and so does population.

Professors of "gender studies" praised the torn social fabric of the 20th century as a necessary disruption caused by successful dethroning of traditional religious values. Little heed was given, however, to the disruption of the course of nature. In their haste to unhorse traditional models of human relationships, the gender benders assumed that those models were "patriarchal, artificial and oppressive." It seemed inconsequential to them that traditional models reflected nature's biological recipe for species survival.

There are volumes of examples from pop culture to support that thesis. A glance at the 100+ gushing comments after publication of the Swinton photos indicates how effectively pop culture has been bent. A typical response to the "anti-human" layout? "OMG! A sexy androgynous alien."

By definition there is nothing of sex in androgyny. And that conceptualization (pardon the pun) is certainly alien. Classically, androgyny reflects a fear of sex. Androgyny denies the biological purpose behind sexual desire. It is an attempt to re-create personhood without the responsibility to gender and gender's function. In a quirky aside, take note that those who worship nature and demand public policy that protects snail darter habitats to the detriment of human needs, these nature lovers are vociferous defenders of androgyny that is itself an abuse of nature.

Modern population control policy stems from the U.N.'s Agenda 21. It is a charge that has been substantiated in numerous documents. Begin with this statement by Maurice Strong, the U. N. Secretary General for Agenda 21 at the 1992 Rio summit:

“Isn’t the only hope for this planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

(Irony? Billionaire Maurice Strong owns a thousand acre ranch in Colorado where the planned collapse will not affect him)

Once you assimilate Agenda 21's "responsibility" and its major theme that the "only hope" is "industrialized civilization collapse" the balance of the information below is definitively anchored.

The tenets of Agenda 21 include sustainable populations and sustainable medicine and sustainable communities.( Congratulations to Carroll County Maryland who withdrew from Agenda 21's community programs in February 2011) Agenda 21 calls for the restructuring of the family, government control of all housing units, and global control of textbooks to insure education for sustainability, including "voluntary" sterilizations at World Health Organization "free" clinics set up all over South America, Asia and Africa.

The World Bank loans money to nations for infrastructure projects with the proviso that, over the life of the loan, that national population is controlled. Increasingly there are phrases that offer approaches to euthanasia, always promoted as "merciful" or "choice." In the UK a proposal to allow children as young as 12 to "choose" assisted suicide, even when not suffering from a serious malady,was narrowly defeated.

Despite weeping celebrity pleas for understanding the plight of AIDS victims, there is less than a fig leaf covering the reality that AIDS patients continue to have sex, unprotected sex. But, the cynical note, AIDS kills, and the population is reduced. There is no serious attempt to stop AIDS carriers from infecting others. The rate of AIDS in Africa is tragic. The U.N. shipped 1,000,000 free condoms to Uganda. Uganda returned the shipment because, when examined, the condoms were found to be perforated. Accident? Malicious design? Had Ugandans relied on the condoms, many more would have become AIDS victims. Interestingly, condoms cannot prevent AIDS, only pregnancies. The AIDS virus is many times smaller than sperm, and escape the microscopic perforations.

In numerous initiatives the implementation of Agenda 21 calls for the promotion of voluntary human depopulation, even to the point of glorifying death as a right.

Much of this information is difficult to swallow for those who are introduced to it for the first time. However, the patterns are not hard to discern once the basic premise is understood. The movement (there is that word again) of sustainability, as defined by elitists, views humans as the problem, ergo, fewer humans equal a better world. Minus population control, the world faces a barren, resource-raped uninhabitable landscape where you gird yourself against any other human competitor for your food, water and warmth. In short, the landscape against which Swinton was photographed.


moi said...

VERY interesting post, Aunty.

Here's the thing. The planet's resources ARE finite, and it seems only logical that an ever-increasing population will eventually have a detrimental effect on the quality of life on this planet. Go long enough and far enough and it will happen -- it will become impossible to ensure a first world lifestyle for everyone on the planet.

So while I am definitely against any government agenda that forces population control, I am not against private citizens thinking -- and acting -- mindfully about population and our species's growth.

But in the end, whether we grow or maintain, whether we are the cause of our own destruction or whether mother nature smacks us down with viruses and natural disasters, the truth is this: our planet is OLD, our species but a blink of an eye, our solar system temporary. The sun, a star that currently gives us the gift of life, will one day go super nova and then it will be an agent of death and destruction.

K9 said...

Once you see it, you can never not see it again.

Great post. brave post. because you know, questioning peoples sexual practices is modern heresy and bigotry. no value judgements may ever be made unless you choose to drive something other than a prius, eat meat or home school. Oh, and you can rip on fat white rural people all day long too -without condemnation.

The thing about AIDS in Uganda is telling. Africa is resource rich. It would be great to have a broke down sick population to swoop in on and offer some eco-development - kinda like what I was saying to Troll about predatory capitalism in rural america. I love how libs are always talking about loving the brown people - but they champion organizations that -as the writer said, really intends to wipe them out -or create the order out of chaos scenario. I think thats what is actually up with Gaddafi. you know, he isnt under the thumb of a Rothschild bank and Libya is the richest african nation.

but back to fashion. I was disappointed to see that Mois remarks on that FUG page did not spark an authentic conversation. in fact one of the following comments was something about how she (swinton) would make a great vampire in the remake of an old vampire movie -because, vampires are sooooooo hot right now. I say this kind of thing all the time, but there isnt going to be any revolution because so many of our people are vacant and superficial. and I think you are right -leave people to their fake freedoms "hey! I just married a porpoise!" and take the real ones away and you got your totalitarian NWO.

Did you give the writer of this piece credit? I did not see it. or does your colleague want to remain anon?

Karl said...

Good afternoon Aunty Belle,

I've never put the same sex issues together with population control. (yeah I know thick as a brick) however the concept could explain a lot. The constant media bombardment for same sex this or same sex that. And the media is one of the primary sources for the dumbing down of the populace. I do believe that we need to reduce the population 30 to 50% would be a good number to shoot for. The rate were consuming is unsustainable. As is the rate we're polluting our own environment. The increasing size of the dead zones the collapse of fish stocks are prime examples.

Am I willing to buy into a U.N. plan for utopia no I'm not. Definitely not in the U.S. But I do believe in aggressively teaching people how to not make more people.

Aunty Belle said...

Moi, Cherie,

Thanky, I agree it is interestin', but more than that, the subject matter is delicate but crucial fer the way forward.

Yore response is good standard fare. It's the stuff folks is worriet about when they hear the line on why we "must" control the population: we's facing limited resources, that the planet is in peril...all them points.

Most of which ain't accurate.

But few folks will ever know it from the news or the journals or takin' a college course, even the hip heads up sort like yoreself.

[ all, the comments from this point on can make some of y'all very angry. I ain't aiming these remarks to no one, no group. still they will hurt some an' so I'se askin' ya' to keep in mind that Aunty is not intendin' to hurt no one, these ain't opinions of mine, but data.)

Moi, usin' yore comments as a spring board lemme add to the info in the post:

First, the point is NOT about the state of the planet. Thas' jes' the marketing yammer so the masses will go along wif' draconian control measures. Despite the insistence that no one should be *forced* to control births, people are in fact forced into sterilizations, unknowingly accept "medicine" thas' anovulants, an' are given baby formula that causes intestinal blockages and the chillens die in the first year.

The problem is, onc't ya accept the rationale (the earth is over-crowded) ya find a forced choice: limit people or prepare for life as ya' know it to die--an' that is the precise message of the layout in W. The idea is that because thar's so
many of us'uns, "planet tilda" is a depleted, inhospitable pollution dump.

Here's the citizen's dilemma --"acting mindfully" be near 'bout impossible when the mindful part is deprived of the info that the mind needs to choose the correct acts. Thought precedes action. Wrong thoughts= wrong actions. Hence the cleverness of the 60 year long PR "movement" to promote:
destruction of marriage

of course, some will look at that list an' dismiss it as "right wing religious fundmentalist stuff" but even that comment is more propaganda. Say what ya will, even if the world had never had the first religious impulse, that same list is a death knell for humans--it is self annihilation.

Then, they insure that AIDS is not curbed by addressing the behavior--imagine how quickly AIDS would vanish if the behavior stopped? But public policy is not allowed to suggest that a protected category of behavior is wrong because it is unhealthy, dangerous or even murderous.

None of this is "religious" it is merely factual.

(continued below)

Aunty Belle said...

Even the idea that life ain't worth livin' unless it is at "first world" standards is an idea we's been sold. It is a form of arrogance (unintended on yore part!) to assume that a lesser lifestyle ain't worth living. If today a decree were handed down to Moi and SB that tomorrow y'all must be shipped off to a village in Costa Rica where yore house is only 900 sq ft of new construction, but ya can grow a garden an' fish, an yore income is the Costa Rican national per capita average, or ya can swallow arsenic, what would ya choose?
( we'll send ya some shoe coupons)

As for the thorny issue of population numbers--the world is at 6 billion. Most decently credited studies show we can comfortably feed an' house 10 billion. Notice, I ain't suggestin' we should git to 10 billion--not at all (see post Karl below)

The point is we ain't overcrowded in reality only in the hysterical literature of the Paul Ehrlich's of the world. A visual on this is that France is the 7th largest economy in the world, she has 68 million people and France covers the same land mass as Texas, which has just 25 million people.

We also have the resources--looky, jes' think, 200 years ago the world did not know it needed oceans of oil. In another 200 years we will use friction or somethin' to power thangs--humans is amazingly innovative, an that is part of our survival genius.

The plain fact is that the world is DECLINING in population. A recent U.N. warning was OPPOSITE it's 1990 prediction--that is,by 2150 (140 years) the earth's population will be HALF what it is today.

Why? because we have more grey heads than babies--worldwide nations are not reproducing themselves. but old people are living longer--when the elderly bubble dies off, there are less that 1 baby for each old person--
Here is an article in

Foreign Policy Magazine that explains the new fear--UNDER population:

"Eventually, the last echoes of the global baby boomers will fade away. Then, because of the continuing fall in birth rates, humans will face the very real prospect that our numbers will fall as fast -- if not faster -- than the rate at which they once grew."


synopsis: 1) we are not overcrowded in terms of the earth's carrying capacity. 2) we face depopulation and economic failures, as well as loss of entire cultures (Japan, Russia)3) population control is the lever for global governmental control.4) this plan has appeared to be a cultural movement, but is in reality a planned PR campaign by globalists who like Khrushchev said, are selling us the rope by which we will hang ourselves.

moi said...

You certainly make some good points, Aunty, but I will dispute you on the lifestyle issue. Fifteen years ago, the Chinese commuted everywhere on bicycles. Now, they're rapidly becoming a top user of oil for cars. And the Japanese, a culture that used to be nature-based and non materialistic, are now responsible for nearly 40 percent of the sale of luxury goods world wide. They are literally flown in in droves to Duty Free shops in Hawaii—they never tour the island, they just shop! How do you tell someone in the emerging third and second worlds that they can't have what others have?

I'm not saying this lifestyle is right or wrong, I'm saying it's the lifestyle that now dominates.

As for oil, etc., I agree that we humans are nimble enough to come up with alternatives, but those alternatives have impact as well. For instance, electric cars are great—how do we dispose of all those batteries safely?

Mind you, I'm not in favor of force or mandated controls and I don't tow the standard environmentalist line. Unlike the Agenda 21ers, I believe humans belong on this earth and are a vital part of its systems. But I'm realistic in terms of the math, which seems pretty simple to me: more people mean the use of more resources and those resources are finite. We can come up with alternative energy sources, yes, but can we create water? Fertile soil?

Aunty Belle said...


As the Pup said, once ya see the pattern, then ya cannot not see it everywhere--ask yore bride--when she wuz first pregnant suddenly it seemed there were so many pregnant people--same as there always were, but now she wuz noticin'...ya know how that works.

Yore an' Moi's concerns about resources an' pollution are valid of course! Thang is, we's fed erroneous impressions--the info is out thar', but ya really have to dig to find the truth of it--the Movies, TV, CNBC and NYTimes is major DISinformation organs.

On resources--heah's one example from the 1980s:
India is facing a famine from crop failure. The US ships thousands of tons of wheat. The Indian government sells the wheat to Russia fer MIGS. See? Short of invading a nation an' distributing the food ourselves, what is we to do while people starve? Much of the resource crisis is in fact political control or mismanagement. It's not that we doan have the capacity to feed, but that tyrants and greedy politicians use food as a weapon.

On pollution, that is more of a lazy cheap policy problem than overpopulation problem. Pollution IS very alarming, but even a reduced population cannot undo what a wanton lazy/ignorant/ greedy government or companies do to the oceans/ lakes/rivers/ forests/ swamps.

Here is a quote from the Foreign Policy Magazine article (see link in comment above)

Once, demographers believed, following a long line of ancient thinkers from Tacitus and Cicero in late Rome to Ibn Khaldun in the medieval Arab world, that population aging and decline were particular traits of "civilized" countries that had obtained a high degree of luxury. Reflecting on the fate of Rome, Charles Darwin's grandson bemoaned a pattern he saw throughout history: "Must civilization always lead to the limitation of families and consequent decay and then replacement from barbaric sources, which in turn will go through the same experience?"

Aunty Belle said...

--chuckling heah-- the way we "deny" the Japanese lifestyle to any other nation is the same it is denied to ME--I doan have the bullion to fly to Hawaii fer a day of shopping.

In the same way that China's folks is drivin' not pedaling, whatever country in the "developing" world that can git their economy flush can have the lifestyle--we ain't supressin' them--we need 'em fer customers.

Please take a look-see at that Foreign Policy link. It answers yore questions about the math/ numbers of people, etc. Bottom line is population is trending down, an will soon plummet. But--thas' the whole idea fer them global controllers--what is easier to control, 2 billion or 7 billion?

I wager they only shoved enough seeds in their Norwegian food vault to feed 2 billion--100,million of 'em will eat like kings while the remaining serfs serve.

Aunty Belle said...

An' one more illustration:

Think of the Asian Tigers--look how quickly their economies grew from war ruins. The secret wuz education an' capitalism, not bemoaning each new chile as a mouth to feed, but as a new (an' needed!) engineer, programmer, doctor, inventor...

Aunty Belle said...

thanky Pup. Is I jes' an idjit fer sayin' this stuff out loud? Reckon Aunty will git the freeze now?

I do wanna say that in this post I ain't judgin' nobody's personal practices. I most definitely is linkin' certain practices to modern cultural approval because those practices is sterile. it's that idea I is tryin to make clear--the under-the-radar- plan of promoting any an' all forms of sterile sex in order to reverse population growth.

Sorry to sound jaded, but why are we so worried about people having their "fair share" of cars an' oil when most just want a few chillens. Moi's example of the Japanese remind me of that post I did some time back about Japanese women carrying around baby dolls. The sad horror of the modern Japanese culture is that it is culturally sanctioned to gorge on luxury goods--that IS the cultural message. I bet most Japanese ladies would gladly trade in their closets of Hermes for a baby sister or brother fer the one lonely chile they do have.

Moi an' me did chew this over 2 years ago

As fer the numbers/ resources question? Harvard Center for Population Studies reported that the world's current agricultural resources is plenty for decent diet for *eight times* the world's current population!

As fer yore observation on Africa? oh YES, thas' the pattern--yore glasses ain't fogged up one l'il ole bit. They almost pulled that off in India but the Indians wised up.

On the gofug website, after comment 56 I knowed the average commenter wuz 27 year ole para-legal temps. The more savvy readers knew whar' that curve wuz headed so they din't even go thar'. But I give Moi top marks fer tryin'. You too. Boxer too.

Oh, an the colleague is allergic to exposure.

moi said...

Well, I don't think our differences on this issue are so much vertical, as they are horizontal.

I agree with you that most of the current environmental flap is bunk and that, as you so perfectly put it, much of the resource crisis is in fact political control or mismanagement.

Nor do I disagree that most environmental policies are controlled by interests that are not in the least concerned with the over all propagation of a healthy human race, because that would run counter to their desire for control of that race.

And much of the impact we've already had on the planet is not going to be undone by our paltry efforts to drive a Prius or switch off a light bulb.

But I am saying that the lifestyle I spoke of--and not the bloated excess of the Japanese, but the simple life of plenty led by me and you--is going to be demanded by upcoming second and third world citizens and that population growth is only good if the people who are growing are not starving and slogging it out in a slum.

How do we ensure a simple life of plenty? The life a population chooses to live and one that isn't forced upon it by a tyrannical government, religious oligarchy, or dumb bad luck of inhospitable geography? With oil, gas, and coal. THAT'S why we're "concerned" with people having access to a car over a baby. Because energy equals freedom, i.e. a life defined not just by existing, but by THRIVING.

So now I'm going to say something that might freeze me out: why are we encouraging baby-making among the planet's populations LEAST able to take care of them? And I'm not just talking second and third world. When I was going to high school in the early '80s, it was considered a scandal if a girl got pregnant. She was, in fact, kicked out of school. It's not that we weren't sexually active as teens, it's that we had education around and access to birth control and we had the smarts to use it. We knew we had no business having babies at that age and our main goals were good grades and getting into a good university. Today? Teen baby mamas are all the rage here in the U.S. We craft TELEVISION SHOWS around them and we send our tax dollars out to support them.

Wouldn't it be best, as Karl suggests, if we begin to educate our population about the alternatives to popping out one baby after the other? A child is only a blessing if the parents want it. If they are prepared at some level for the challenges and the joys of rearing a child. Wouldn't it be best if those children actually have a chance at growing up to become the doctors, engineers, artists, etc. that are going to propel us forward?

Quality over quantity, so to speak.

czar said...

Two points:

1. If all these people are in some grand cabal to run the world and population control is at their core -- and they've been doing it for 60 years -- I don't think anyone's got anything to worry about. Seems like they are abject failures, if, uh, population statistics have anything to say about it.

Quoting UN population statistics? Great. I hope you also fall in with the UN stats on climate change.

AIDS behavior and HIV growth these days is mostly based in heterosexual practices in Africa -- based much on indigenous religious beliefs. I agree that if we take religions and their influence out of the picture, the AIDS situation could improve tremendously. But people love them some religion. From what I've seen, the very churches and religious organizations most involved in trying to stem the continuing AIDS crisis are the very ones involved in extensive social justice work, but to so many people "social justice" is considered like "socialism." It becomes a useless epithet for the uninformed.

Eco-development in Africa? Aren't the Chinese doing that? Ooh, those evil communists.

2. I was visiting some site a few months back after the big fishkill off of the Pacific Coast. A few of the posters claimed that these were just experiments for the big Rockefeller/Turner/Illuminati/Davos/whoever population control movement. One response I loved: "These people are concerned with population control, and they're starting with anchovies?"

The Phosgene Kid said...

looks as though Agenda 21 was conceived in Area 51, what a load of pale white crap

xl said...

Thank you for visiting the other day!

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Aunty Belle said...

Moi--SO glad youse in it--I always worry that contentious topics on the BACK PORCH will upset folks or shy 'em away from FRONT Porch. Thar's *no way* youse gonna git a "freeze out" back heah.

I really do hope fer good debate back heah. Love the give an take. new angles--make folks think an' rethink issues--an I rush to say I ain't personally trying ter badger nobody about nuthin'. Rather, my hope is to add in perspective / data that sends folks off to do their own research.

The one idea of yore last comment I wanna zap is the notion that without a car (and the resource guzzlin', pollutin' effects of same) life cain't "thrive." Ya wrote:

"THAT'S why we're "concerned" with people having access to a car over a baby. Because energy equals freedom, i.e. a life defined not just by existing, but by THRIVING."

Moi, even in the glorified West, millions of happy thrivin' folks doan have no car--an' doan need no car. I'se been in so many French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian villages whar' a bicycle is PLENTY of transport for daily life an the bus service is reliable. Therse people live in lovely cottages, have storybook gardens, enjoy their neighbors, are physically fir, educated an' consider themselves happy, even thriving.

I suggest the idea of a car as freedom is a uniquely American concept. Mebbe the definition of "thrive" is also over-American-ized. Doctors who donate skills in more remote places remark on the happy satisfied people they visit in all ranges of "rich/ poor" locales.

I jes' cain't go along wif' the notion that only "first world" standards equal quality. That--to me--is rich nation angst an' hubris, an' most prolly a good dollop of guilt. Developing world people in decent conditions
(sufficient food, clothing, shelter) would be aghast at the idea WE think their lives lack quality. Or worse, that their lives are so meager that they should not have been born. They might ask us,
Is it OK wif' y'all that we live? or do we an' our chillen need to expire so you folks doan feel bad fer us?

Reckon mah idea is to imagine life from their vantage, not ours. I doan wanna impose our idea of "quality" on them. The world over thar's a vast middle ground--not starving, but not first world--but they's pretty content.

Ya know...I'se seein' a philosophical divide in this--Ain't it odd how only in the thriving west a notion like assisted suicide can rear it's ugly haid? In the un-thriving world they still appreciate life, even life with huge challenges has meaning to them.

Aunty Belle said...

Wade on into the fray--ain't we havin' a good jaw back heah?

To yore points:
1) Naw, I ain't into the cabal conspiracy angle.

I'se jes' into quoting their own stated goals, why they instituted their institutions in their own words. So, what does ya think, Czar? If Rockefeller hisself said he's got world population control in his sights, he an' his dumps their own hundreds of millions into it fer 60 years--Who is Aunty to argue wif' him about what he aims to do?

I'se persuaded they have been very successful--the anti-life meme is loosed onto the world in every cultural/ social policy/ political venue.

As for quoting UN stats, I gits corroboratin' back up others, includin' from CIA fact book plus Stratfor--they doan support the UN stats on climate.

Right click the link below to open that Foreign Policy magazine article which is a good look at how the DE population figures indicate how we will be only 3 billion in 2150. That's some comfort to the depopulators, I reckon.


As fer the AIDS issue particular to Africa--I doan think I made no distinction between heterosexual or homosexual carriers--promiscuity is promiscuity. In Africa some tribal or religious customs encourage multiple wives. Add to that men who leave villages for cities, are promiscuous, then take AIDS home to their village. My point is that the rush to assist Africa to cut AIDS infection rate is a failure because the BEHAVIOR (promiscuity) is never addressed--only more "safe sex" blather. Safe sex isn't safe with ANY AIDS victim no matter what the method may be.

As fer them religious moralizing yahoos ya think is part of the problem, I ain't shure who ya mean--an it is OK to say out loud who it be. What I can offer is the US CDC's own info on condom efficacy. What we need to keep in mind is that heat perforates latex --how many refrigerated warehouses ya reckon is dedicated to keepin' African condoms cool? Western population wonks know this, Czar. Uganda wised up.

Aunty Belle said...


Ha!!Thanky, I needed a good laugh!!

Aunty Belle said...


Mah Mama-in-law luved Pogo. How DO them cartoonists cram so much irony into their cartoons?

moi said...

This is certainly great food for thought, Aunty. I do need to clarify a few things, though.

Re: freedom equals automobile. Maybe not in France etc., but certainly in the US, where I personally live in a state that's larger than the majority of this world's countries. If I want groceries, I have to drive to get them. Walking isn't an option, nor is bicycling.

Also, freedom isn't just freedom of movement. It's freedom from the bondage of slave labor (we no longer have to do our work soley in the daytime or by candlelight at night), and we can live without freezing or broiling to death.

I'm also not saying that the First World West's lifestyle is better than any other. I'm just saying it's what I see people in the second and third world wanting to achieve. That our population is marching towards this kind of lifestyle, not away from it. If we're going to talk conspiracies, here's one: look at LVMH and Bernard Arnault's relentless bid to bring luxury goods into every community in the world.

I would LOVE to live a quiet little French countryside lifestyle, where I bicycled everywhere and bought fresh food at market every day and never had to give a thought to traveling somewhere awful for work on a big ol' stinky jet plane, but that's not my reality nor the reality for the world's vast majority.

The majority of us are engaged in a mercantile lifestyle at some level, because at this point in our evolution that's what humans are: makers, marketers, purveyors, and buyers.

As such, our problems are problems of consumption and population.

Aunty Belle said...

shure now--I appreciate yore clarifications. Still, I think youse makin' mah point fer me.

The vast majority of the world would not expect (nor want) to live as ya describe yore own life. For YOU it is imperative to have a car. For most in the world it is not.

An' it's all them "not" folks that the de-populators have taken aim at, because, without THEM, the rest CAN and WILL have first world lifestyles. An' have it guiltlessly.

Most folks in the world would rather have a family than a car--if the choice were put to them that bluntly.

As fer our stage in evolution--I reckon we's been makers, marketers purveyors and buyers from the git-go. The ancient (B.C.) caravan routes indicate that all manner of goods wuz made, bought an' sold among various tribes/ civilizations.

It ain't the level of commerce that is at issue fer me, but the attitude on the part of the population controllers that only one style/ level of existence is valued. Consuming less plastic junk ain't really that much of a hardship. Is life really worthless if ya never cross the threshold of MOMA? or have season's tickets to the Lakers? Or never tasted of Foie Gras? Never wore a pair of Levis? Doan know that Al Gore invented the internet?

Let's face it, Moi, at the rate the US economy is goin', we may soon find out how much consumption we really can do without. And be happier fer it.

Anonymous said...

Schools in the UK now offer "being happy" as high school course.

Anonymous said...

May I aunty?

@ Moi

What is the connection between your life and the "reality for the world's vast majority"? I didn't get it.

curious lurker

moi said...

@ Lurker: I made that statement based on Aunty's assertion that there is a way to lead your life without using energy, i.e., like someone in a quaint European village who gets about solely on foot or on bicycle, who has the good fortune to purchase locally produced or caught foodstuffs on a daily basis, who has no need for the so-called trappings of the modern Western lifestyle.

My response was based on the fact that while that IS possible, it is not the reality for most of us. Most of us need cars (or planes) to move us to and from our jobs; we shop at supermarkets where food is trucked in from many states over; we come home to blaring televisions, screaming children, and the imperatives of cooking and cleaning. And then when we finally do rest, we plug into something electrical or electronic. All things that require energy, both literally and figuratively. At the opposite end of the spectrum, those who live in abject poverty or inhospitable environments.

Aunty Belle said...

Lurker an' Moi

I see mah mistake--Moi, I din't mean to indicate that thar's only two poles: them wif' gobs of energy( like ya' outlined) them wif' none (abject poverty.)

Mah idea is that simply because a nation/ people doan have first world level of energy it doan mean that

1) they will come demand it from yore stash
2) they think the their lives is useless misery (abject poverty)

Mah point is that it ain't either or--it ain't either first world standards or war (or poverty).

I ain't talkin' about takin' any of first world energy to spread it over the globe. I'se in favor of usin' all manner of ingenooity to create all the energy we need. Meanwhile, plenty of folks is real happy in midground lives, not poverty, not first world. Jes' standard village life like ya see in Costa Rica, Uruguay, Philippines, Uzbekistan....they doan need our gew-gaws to know their lives have meanin' an purpose.

besides, folks, it is moot now--global population controllers need to quit sterilizin' abortin' an' penalizin' folks who want chillen. The population is plunging in many parts of the world--

not ONE Western Nation excpet USA is at replacement levels--in 200 years thar' will be NO Germans in Germany--they's aborted an contracepted theyselves out of existence. Russian too--well, akshully the rooskies is doin' a wee bit better in last decade, but demographers think it may be too late. Even India will have a debilitatin' drop in population next century.

If youse one who thinks we need to cull the human herd to 3 billion people, take heart--google Depopulation an' read wif' glee.

Aunty's entire message is that to ignore the draconian measures taken against humans all over the globe is to empower the globalist mindset--do we REALLY think they woan then control every facet of OUR lives too?

Boxer said...

I come for the topic and always stay (and return) for the comments.

foam said...

interesting topic..

concerning the W spread: I agree to a large extent with your colleague in this statement:

"....You have reached the very edge of habitation. The barrenness of the setting reinforces
the symbol of a de-gendered, sterile humanoid model...."

In a comment I left on k9's blog I tried in my own clumsy way to briefly state a similar sentiment.
As far as birth control is concerned. Personally I'm very glad to have the choice to use birth control or not. I could not see myself birthing 15 children the way my paternal grandmother did in MS. I cannot see myself choosing no sex as a form of birth control either (although I understand that the argument here concerns sexual promiscuity). I'm also grateful to have had the choice to have 15 children if I wanted too (ugh .. I'm tired just thinking of that though).

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the sexual revolution was planned. Is Agenda 21 the ultimate conspiracy theory?

About sustainability ... I don't mind sustainability. There are so many definitions and theories surrounding that term.
I see our sparring dog as living a sustainable life.

I'm going to have to read all of the UN's Agenda 21 to form my own opinion. Much of what I read in your blog post (not the comments) I read with a raised eyebrow.

Karl said...

Good afternoon Aunty Belle,

Little late getting back to this, a couple of comments. I agree that media organizations skew the impressions of many. I also know that with any study or survey you have to be careful about who's taking the raw data and who's paying for the final product. That said, much of the pollution information I see is not sourced from the media. I've watched the fish kills happen and witnessed the decline in fish stocks front and center. I've seen the increasing the size of the dead zone in the Chesapeake personally I work in it. Is the pollution stoppable much of it is. As the population on the Chesapeake watershed has grown, so has the pollution. Industries that are much cleaner than they ever were are less of a problem than the general populace. And by their sheer numbers the pollution increases. The constant flow of litter(there are already tough laws against this) the runoff from the highways every time it rains. All of the jerks that feel the need for green grass and fertilize without testing their soil for nitrogen. The agricultural demands of feeding all these extra people are also part of the problem.

As the population grows the overcrowding causes a lowering of the standard of living. I know it's changed my habits. There are lots of places that I don't go to any longer simply because there are too damn many people. Moi's term quality not quantity applies here. The Foreign Policy Magazine states that much of the increase in the U.S. population is from immigrants both legal and illegal. While legal immigration is one of the things this country's based on. Illegal immigration may be increasing the population, but in doing so it creates a burden on the rest that have to support the many services that they received without paying taxes for. Better to have the population drop.

As far as the U.N. designing this population drop. Let them do it, elsewhere. I could see ways in which the U.S. could take advantage of the situation.

I mentioned the idea of increasing the population to Mrs. K. And told her that since she was such a fine homeschool teacher I thought it might be a good idea to start my own harem and she could teach all the kids. That's when I got the dope slap!

Aunty Belle said...

heh....the comments is pretty coolio back heah--I know BACKPorch is fiesty, an jes' hope it doan shy none off.


Thanky fer them thoughtful comments. The idea on the Back Porch is to provoke more than a offhand comment.

One thang I need to rush to say--

Dear Mercy!! Is ya thinkin' Aunty is advocatin' 15 chillen fer yore family?? How did I leave that impression?

I am NOT suggestin' that birth control as Westerners themselves us it should be any topic heah. Not at all.

I am speaking of the norplant shot into the arms of trusting Peruvian women without their knowledge or consent--African women who frequent "free" clinics only to have IUDs inserted without their knowledge or consent.

Foamy, in the early 90s the Peruvian gubmint introduced voluntary family planning clinics... Then, after the International Conference on Population and Development (U.N.)in 1994 the UNFPA went into Peru and in 8 years sterilized 300,000 women without their knowledge or consent.

Thas' a WHOLE other matter, wouldn't ya say?

Please do read up on Agenda 21. Sigh...of course, the IMPLEMENTATION manual ain't available to the public. However, Aunty do have a copy of the implementation manual on the U.N.'s RIGHTS OF THE CHILD--which would curl yore toenails. Someday I might post on the provisions in the Rights of the Child treaty then post the implementation procedures alongside it. Yore eyes will bulge. Point? The U.N. implements its initiatives wif' in a wholly other manner than is proposed in their public hearings.

'afternoon, good sir.

I is so pleased somebody read the link--thanky. The folks at Foreign Policy ain't my types--ain't conservative--so I hasten to note that the link is not hand picked, but rather reflects growing concern that in fact our coming problem may be depopulation.

As for the issues of pollution, I do not disagree at all with you. it IS a problem. The dead zones are alarming.

An' onc't more, I'se hurrying to say Aunty is NOT in favor of open immigration.. Iffin' ya read back in these BACK Porch posts, ya know I'se got a real tough stance on immigration. I WOULD round up all the illegals an' send 'em home. I WOULD prosecute severely all illegal entries. An' I would not open legal immigration to anyone who did not have a needed skill to contribute to the overall good , an' a full background check.

As fer yore missus, she knows youse a tease.

Aunty Belle said...


I is thick, ain't I?

Mebbe some of ya' doan have no problem wif' population control as a concept for sustainability.

I think I failed to make a clear distinction that what I'se worriet about is FORCED and stealth controlled population reductions. Not worriet about anyone's personal full consent to their own fertility.

An' I failed to make the case that the problem of population ain't births but longevity. When a nation as so few young people that more than half the population is over 35 it is a death knell for that culture. In 3 generations it is lights out. Is that ok? Mebbe so.

Please, if some of y'all think that it's a good plan to use population control measures --including stealth policies--in order to reduce world pollution an' conserve resources, I would sincerely invite ya to make yore case.

Fer instances, I kept thinkin' some one would mention the Chinese one child policy--do ya' find this a wise use of gubmint authority?

Does it bother anyone that Chancellor Merkel said Germany wuz done--the birth death spiral has such momentum that Germany cannot recover--no Germans in 200 years? Or, is it that ya' jes' cain't see how that could be true?

Anyhoo, Iffin' ya wanna make a case fer population control, please do--I'se interested.

Karl said...

Aunty: We are of a like mind regarding immigration. As you know some my ancestors failed to control immigration and lost all they had. I believe in learning from the past, so that I don't have to repeat it.

SophieMae said...

Aint B, Idano if I need to get out more or if I am just overly blessed to be so ignernt of so much of today's entertainment 'culture'. I had to look up Tilda S. Reckon I know much as I need to know. I will say, those pichers are plain creepy.

At this point, I should confess to an exponential shortening of attention span with each recently passing year. So I find myownself skimming after a certain point. That said, please bear with my stream of conscious-esque expositorial.

First, I must say, my spirit finds roborant in commentary such as your own, so that I begin to entertain the notion that, mayhaps, my inclination to despair the future of the human race is a tad precipitous.

On another note, I do, on occasion, find distinctive generational differences 'interesting'. When I was in school - as a part of that final generation to be actually 'schooled' - a girl who got pregnant was ostracized, not because she was too stupid to take advantage of the birth control programs offered - particularly as there were none - but because she was 'easy'. She was in a minuscule minority.

Another idea I find 'interesting' is that all humans on the planet are entitled to a 'first world lifestyle'. Our Declaration of ndependence states that all men are created equal (few of us remain as 'equal' as He made us)... endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights... We all have the right to pursue happiness, not to have it distributed equally by a benevolent big brother. Oh, but that notion hints of having to EARN something, which requires WORK. Why on earth would we do that when our gummmit is clamoring to hand us someone else's hard-earned money?

Dawg, I sat down here with the intention of merely saying I agree with you and next thing ya know, here comes a nit-picky tangent. (Why use four words when forty will do?) Reckon I oughta get me a t-shirt that reads, 'don't EVEN get me started!' 8-}

foam said...

of course, i agree, forced sterilization and birth control without knowledge is a different matter. it's immoral. when i mentioned liking having the choice as to how many children i have or don't have i was actually thinking about the chinese. (ack, convoluted sentence) we probably all know parents who have adopted unwanted baby girls.

Aunty Belle said...

Do I? what country is yore folks from?

yes, I does know folks who adopted the Chinese girls--an that be a WHOLE other topic--thinkin' on what ya do wif' 50 million young men wif' NO HOPE of ever havin' a bride or a family? Heh--I'se a cynic, but that looks like a 50 million man army to me--why not channel all that frustrated testosterone into soldiers?

Sophie Mae!

Welcome to the fray. Yes, the Tilda Swinton thang is a shock to a sheltered system. The photography is fantastic, but the subject matter is creepy. An' perhaps prophetic--are we headed to that horror?

Yore tangent is fine--so's yore mind/ attention/ memory. An' I again need to clarify mah own position --

Aunty is NOT sayin' everybody should live as first world lives. No no---that as ya point our perfectly--is a matter for nations to do on their own. Some will, some woan.

But....jes' because they live in second world standards is that a cause to exterminate 'em generation by generation?

Aunty Belle said...


In case ya missed this observation from Darwin's kid in the Foreign Policy article, here it is again:

" Reflecting on the fate of Rome, Charles Darwin's grandson bemoaned a pattern he saw throughout history: "Must civilization always lead to the limitation of families and consequent decay and then replacement from barbaric sources, which in turn will go through the same experience?"

Karl said...

This country.

No gov't should be in control of contraception. Governments should only protect, defend and educate.

Aunty Belle said...


I'se confused. This country?

Ya wrote:
"As you know some my ancestors failed to control immigration and lost all they had."

SophieMae said...

Aint B, it weren't your own commentary to which I referred in my statement 'bout lifestyle. Just heard tell of lotta people out there with the notion that everybody on the planet could, and SHOULD, live just as we do. It's my own not-always-quite-so-humble opinion that quite a few Amurcans is livin' much TOO opulently, to the point of obscenity. Howsomever, if it's all their own money, and they come by it honest-like, it's their right to live as high on that ol' hog as they can get. When it comes to robbin' the rich to give to the poor, that should be left to Robin Hood, not our gummit. I am all for equal taxation. No more tax shelters, no legalistic mumbo-jumbo, no annual returns, just one specific percentage for everybody straight off the top of their paychecks. Of course, that would put a lot of tax specialists and lawyers on the dole. Might even lead to the abolishment of the IRS. Heavens, could we stand it?

Ya know, I've been told I'm quite radical, which makes me laugh, as I'm not, in 'real life', very outspoken or even outgoing. Never thought of myownself in those terms, but reckon there's some merit in the label. If I were a bolder sort, I'd be rabble-rousin' to beat the band. 8-]

moi said...

Nope, I'm not for forced sterilization. Just as I'm not for governments—or churches—preventing people from using birth control.

Also, another clarification. I do not believe that anyone has the RIGHT to anything, much less a first world lifestyle. I'm saying that as the world's population grows and countries like China begin to self actualize, more and more people are going to have the ability to EARN that lifestyle. So, more and more people are going to be competing for limited resources and polluting the planet even further as a result.

Which will lead to government enforcement of policies dictating who gets to breed and who gets what.

So in my mind, it would be better if we all become more MINDFUL of how we're living and open ourselves up to alternatives: i.e. small families, child free marriages, smaller homes, local sourcing for foods, etc.

But do I advocate the force of that? No.

If we the people want to be stupid and hasten our decline, well, that's called, oh, I dunno, evolution :o)

Everything ends.

Karl said...

I was referring to my Native American ancestors.

Anonymous said...

Moi wrote:

"If we the people want to be stupid and hasten our decline, well, that's called, oh, I dunno, evolution :o)"

No, that's called devolution.

Anonymous said...

I did some minor research Aunty and found the US population war against developing nations from Wiki entry:

The policy gives "paramount importance" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries, to control rapid population growth which the US deems inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States, since the "U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad", and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States. It recommends the US leadership to "influence national leaders" and that "improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the U.N., USIA, and USAID."


Curious Lurker

Aunty Belle said...


No need to worry that China will self actualize and suck up all the goodies--this report from Asia Times on why depopulation an' aging nations is an economic crisis:

"China's adult population will fall from 915 million in 2010 to only 682 million in 2050, by more than a third.

The euro zone will lose 30% to 40% of its potential taxpayers by mid-century. And at some point, today's Italian and Spanish government bonds will have about as much value as obligations signed by Emperor Romulus Augustus in the year 475 CE. "

Aunty Belle said...

oh. oooohhh. Whar' wuz mah mind?

Yes, live an' learn. that is, iffin' ya DO live through it all.

Curious Lurker,
thanky much. It do spin the angle of view some. I'se remiss in not mentioin' how the population problem of the very near future is that thar' ain't enough young folks to support the ole folks--we's not HAVING the young folks, so thar' woan be many workers to pay taxes to keep the Depend set in dry diapers.


Curmudgeon said...

The thing is that population control has already worked. Baby boomers are the largest segment. As long as the population shrinks the economy will get worse. Less building, fewer jobs, less demand side. Supply will need some control to sustain the economy, and then It's a very temporary fix. It's a conundrum. I will not vote for any one who runs for president as just running assures me they are already insane. I've never heard of a plan that wasn't a bandaid. I know what I'll do! get circumsized again. I suppose I should stay away from this blog as I do not have the capacity to be serious.I'll go back to the front porch and smoke my pipe now.

Curmudgeon said...

Do not draw any conclusions about me from this. It is just an interesting fact. I read it in a book called freakonomics. When clinton became pres everyone raved about how he got the crime lowered. Roe vs wade was eighteen yrs earlier and the people who were getting abortions were people who lived in environments that produced a majority of criminals. Like I said I am not implying anything. I is just an observation made by an author and not necessarily pertinent to this conversation.

czar said...

How to blow up a discussion even further:

Now didn't all this start out with individuals and associations and BigMoneyOneWorld types who want to depopulate the earth so they don't have to expend too many of their ill-gotten gains keeping a slave labor force of 7 billion as opposed to 2 billion?

Eventually it just turned into the standard goobermint-is-evil stuff.

Now if I take where all this started, I could argue that such power and such greed are the inevitable (highest and best?) results of the insane accumulation of wealth and promotion of the individual that an unfettered free market will eventually lead to. We can read about these individuals operating to wipe out the rest of us, and we can read elsewhere, I think on this blog, about the evils of GMOs (am I right? did I read this here)? So am I to conclude that the government is really the problem with all this? That people left alone and agricultural companies left alone and the health care system left alone are just going to work harmoniously and productively in the general public interest? That government regulation is the source of all this evil?

No, eventually -- well, it might take four or five generations for market forces to come to bear to weed out all the bad applies -- the population will be culled anyway . . . scratched out like a cheap lottery ticket, just with a different side of the coin.

(Hey, I just made that up.)

The problem is not government. The problem is not the free market. The problem, people, is people.

Either way, looks like we're screwed (pardon the language, Aunty; I know I'm on genteel turf).

Aunty Belle said...


I woan draw no conclusions from yore citations of Freakonomics, though the abortion culling of future inner city criminals has been somewhat debunked.

I could make a case that the whole DE-population mania is akin to the whole Global Warming mania. These is natural ebb an' flow of Mama Earth herself. The truth is that climate should not be measure in years but eons. An' populations are not somethin' Mama Earth cain't decrease when she's feelin' overburdened.

As the data indicates, China will soon have 1/3 fewer adults because there are not enough toddlers today(roughly 330 million fewer) which will translate in the followin' generation to another steep decline simply because fewer women are born, and to regain old territory each Chinese woman of 2050 will have to have 5.3 kiddies. Ain't happenin'. Ask Russia--a depopulation spiral.

But these numbers is fluff--not the point. We use these numbers to allay the fears of those who think 6-7 billion bodies on earth is oppressin' them somehow,

The hard question is reduced to morals or ethics: Does any group of people have a right to deny another group their children? However noble we imagine our reasons to be, do we have the right to tell others who /how many children they may have?

In the end, Curmudgeon, I'se persuaded that even good intentions create horrors, monsters--when those intentions intentionally break ethical bounds as a part of their "new normal."

When Dr. Frankenstein --with all the best intentions--sought to reconfigure life in order to cheat death, he went beyond ethics. I fear that when we, with whatever degree of good intentions (save the resources, stamp out poverty) seek to preserve our lives by denying life to others, we overstep serious boundaries. What we reap will not be peace an' prosperity.

Aunty Belle said...


ain't ya' clevah to recall us to the original subject of the post--we done got ourselves far afield.

The original intent was to note the cultural shift toward glamorizin' death, wif' that Tilda Swinton slick layout at the startin' point of the discussion.

Aunty meant to connect dots that are underneath the 50 year march toward death as a cultural good thang. How voluntary death/ sterility is a subliminal message in fashion, song lyrics, movies, plays, billboards, TV series, an' public policy.

I also meant to indicate how gubmint an big bidness cabals unnerstan the Marquis' insight that iffin' ya allow folks their libido in any form they can conjure up, ya' can then throw a saddle over that people an' put a bit in their mouths an' they will not realize they's been corraled. Now, ya can herd them whar' ya' may. The "sexual revolution" was a directed movement. It's aims have been achieved, more than not.

Aunty doan posit that Gubmint is de facto evil. Every tribe needs an authority less it fall into Hatfield an' McCoy spiral.

Aunty Belle said...

More to Czar:

But, as our own Founders warned, gubmint must be kept CONTAINED or it becomes the enemy--an' we's thar', in mah view. Gubmint is now so UNcontained that the poor walnut growers wuz told thos month to stop promoting walnuts as good fer yore heart since that was a health claim the FDA ain't ruled on yet. Ya kiddin' me? UNcontained --this is what ya git.

As fer GMOs and big agri, or big pharma, (yes, addressed on this blog ad nauseum) lemme go all Catholik on ya'.

UNfettered capitalism ain't capitalism. This is on account unfettered, it seeks monopoly via the use of force (gubmint), not free markets. When big bidness appropriates various tentacles of gubmint to do its biddin' it is A form of COMMUNISM--not capitalism.

In Centesimus Annus, John Paul II clearly states that a free market economy serves both the broadest freedoms of a society an' permits the individual the space for exercise of his or her talents in support of the society.

This same pope also notes that a savage materialism maims a soul. It is in fact an idol. When markets and moeny and power are the goal, when they become the primary measure of the person, the soul is lost. This is exactly the feelin' ya see in the Tilda Swinton barren sterile glossy mag layout. Soulessness--a living death.

Hyper capitalism is at work in most of the parties ya attend these days--every chance encounter is an opportunity to press yore bidness card into another's palm, a bid to see how can I git a buck or two from this association? The luxury of a friendship based on shared interests ( art, books, travel, train collections, antiques, roses, historical sleuthing) is eradicated in the frantic scramble to make another buck. Is THIS life? no wonder thar's such malaise upon our land. Does EVERYThang have to be about $$? see?

$$ as the idol. An' surpise! when $$ is idol--cause wif' it we can have us'uns a big ole orgy of consumption--then of course, the corollary is diminished resources an' a continental pile of garbage.

The classic Catholic (NOT "progressive," read marxist, Catholic) view is not all that different from the classic Southern view--thar's a higher calling than work. To BE or not to Be-- as distinct from to DO or not to Do. The totla worth of a person is NOT their high standin' in the "asset class."

The classic Catholic view --as stated by both Wojtyla an' Ratzinger-- is that large gubmint welfare states is antithetical to man's freedom.

"Laborem Excercens...[outlines]two dimensions to human work. The first is the objective-transitive dimension:the effect of an act of work upon the world. The second is the subjective-intransitive dimension: the effect of the same act of work upon the person who initiates it. It can either promote virtue or vice.

From a Catholic standpoint, there is nothing especially new about this idea. [Paul VI’s encyclical] Gaudium et Spes and many popes have said the same thing. It also tracks closely Thomas Aquinas’ treatment of human action. But in Laborem Exercens, John Paul II uses it to underscore the Marxist and materialist error of conceptualizing work purely in its objective-transitive sense."

(http://www.acton.org/search/node/subsidiarity )

The proper organization of any gubmint structure is based on the principle of subsidiarity-- that is, let the people do it fer themselves, when they cain't they git local neighborly hep, or if need be, regional--but faceless jackbooted dominance of local life by gubmint force is not only freedom sapping, it is ineffectual. As we see.

I like yore lottery ticket simile! Very nice.

Aunty Belle said...


As fer Czar's observation --people bein' the problem--Amen.

What do that tell us? A people wif'out morals cain't run a democracy any better than Marxists run a market economy. When, in the name of the economy, or in the name of a false compassion, we use force against our fellow citizens, we are the problem. The reason WHY gubmint is the locus of that problem is that one or two fellows against the two folks across the road is a minor personal issue. But when a few fellows appropriate the arm of the gubmint to force the fellows across the street to submit, you have tyranny of the Robber Barons.

When an immoral mob demands more an' more bread an' circus in the name of "the people" or else the poobahs will come tumblin' down, then it is mob rule (1789 anyone?)

If it weren'r fer livin' in its midst, I could make light of this bein' "interesting times."

Curmudgeon said...

Yikes! looked up and found levines confession of his error about abortion. I try to keep my head firmly in the sand nowdays. Don't even watch TV.
For better or worse the human race is more connected everywhere. We see and hear about atrocities. We say "when I was a kid we didn't have these prob etc." Truth is they have always been there. Before our current media technology We weren't subjected to world wide terrors. I guess my comment about not voting for a president is a reflection of the apathy created by hopelessness. I'm certainly not immune. Maybe the gender issue and worship of death are psychological biproducts of that hopelessness brought about by awareness. Truth can be overwhelming. Lately I've been finding out things about my family. Many were murderers, child abusers and overall evil. I suspect many or even most people's history is that way. A man that worked for me for fifteen years was recently convicted of molesting his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. He was kind of a hero to me. Had it not been for the media I would have never known. We are no longer insulated from these types of atrocities. We were always in danger of these things but didn't know it.Now we are aware on a global level of human nature and becoming paranoid and these may be manifestations of culture shock and yes people can manipulate and take advantage of this condition. It scares me how smart and more educated these people are. God was never needed more. but like I said, I'm kinda ignorant and prone to conjecture.

Aunty Belle said...

thas' very rough...makes me wanna git a baseball bat...

I hate to hear this--your "hero" is a loss far grater than some weird cat on the nightly news--a SHOCK!

An yes, history shows us our horrors are nuthin' new. It's a fallen world. When folks say thar's no such thang as evil, only moralizin' definitions, I know's they's been in the kool-aid.

Anonymous said...

[url=http://remroom.ru]квартиры в железнодорожном с отделкой[/url] Реставрация и отделка помещений, комнат или загородных домов – это насущная на сегодня проблема большинства людей, решившихся, наконец, отремонтировать свое жилище. Мало того, что улучшение – это процесс трудоемкий и напряженный, еще и найти заслуживающую доверия организацию, занимающуюся улучшением квартир или загородных домов сегодня почти нельзя. Дело в том, что все меньше и меньше в нашей стране есть компаний, делающих свою работу хорошо, эффективно и недорого. [url=http://remroom.ru]дизайн проект квартиры 3[/url]
Однако наша фирма является приятным исключением из этого неприятного правила. Мы вот уже несколько лет занимается улучшением офисов, комнат, дач и еще ни разу нам не приходило от наших клиентов ни неприятных отзывов, ни каких-либо жалоб. [url=http://remroom.ru]ремонт квартир московская область[/url] Богатый опыт наших специалистов, а также высокий профессионализм всех без исключения наших работников, поможет сделать хорошо, качественно и – главное - доступно как косметический, так и капитальный ремонт. [url=http://remroom.ru]сроки ремонта квартиры[/url] Современное оборудование, новые технологии планировки и дизайна, а также индивидуальный подход к каждому клиенту и гибкая система скидок сделали нашу фирму самой успешной на сегодня фирмой, оказывающей услуги реставрации и отделке офисов, комнат или загородных домов. [url=http://remroom.ru]найти ремонт квартиры[/url]
[url=http://remroom.ru]ремонт квартир[/url] [url=http://remroom.ru]ремонт квартиры[/url]