By writing here "look at what they are doing", I am adding myself to the list of crackpots and whack-jobs who see conspiracies behind every tree; but why then do all the pieces fit together so neatly?
People like George Bernard Shaw, Jeremy Bentham, William Petty-the Earl of Shelburne, H.G. Wells and Lord Bertrand Russell are generally credited with setting the wheels in motion for Progressivism. They are generally thought of as thinkers, not rulers, so what was their goal? They were following by less than one hundred years the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus who wrote on over-population and the potential, nay certainty, of ultimately population outstripping the production of food to support them. The Progressives would have undoubtedly been aware of Malthus' work and the Malthusian Trap. And Eugenics was long ago an advocated Progressive idea that is now never mentioned directly.
The presumption of the Glen Becks of the world is that the goal is to rule. To enslave us. But what if ... what if the goal is to thin the herd? To reduce the population. The elimination of a few million, tens-of-millions, hundreds-of-millions, or even billions of us to conserve the resources of the earth. One would presume that they would exempt themselves from this plan, by sheer nature of their importance to the system, just as they can lecture us about driving our family car to the store while they fly a 747 from Washington to Richmond, VA.
What would be evidence of that kind of thought? Of course there were the Jumbo-Wars of World War I and II. Millions killed for little or no reason. What if they had all lived and propagated - now a second or third generation after WWII? Okay, but wars are getting more efficient. They aren't killing off the number they used to.
Abortion? Which side is the pro-abortion side? The Progressives, of course. Suppose that each of the 36 million aborted babies had lived? And bred again (and again)?
Euthanasia? Get rid of more useless eaters.
Homosexuality? Even without AIDS, it is a population reducer. Why else would the schools and the television elevate its position from fringe to normal? Now they are even stressing marriage to encourage a lifetime non-breeding commitment.
Medicine? Ration health care to the old and poor useless eaters and they are gone.
Gun control and crime control? Keep crime out among the masses. Take guns from the honest and law-abiding. No guns to protect yourselves as decreed by the people with armed guards who live in gated communities or estates.
Have the media constantly panic the sheeple, especially about food or health issues. Did you ever know anyone to eat an ALAR poisoned apple? Constant panic on non-issues raises the stress level.
Drugs? By making it a profitable contraband, the use of drugs is actually encouraged and the increased profits increase violent crime. Who is even shocked anymore by the daily inner city drug shooting(s)?
And finally, the wink and nod toward the Muslim countries developing atomic weapons. When, not if, it happens, the blast will be in an inner city killing millions of the people the Progressives would like to get rid of anyway. Endgame. Mostly useless eaters gone.
"The 'surplus population' thus created is targeted for death as 'useless eaters' in terms so clearly expressed in the Global 2000 Report [to the President].
"By the year 2000 the world SHALL have rid itself of at least 100 million 'useless eaters' and by the year 2050, the number culled SHALL amount to not less than 400 million." (Page nine, paragraph four)"
I have long wondered why the Liberal Democrats always seemed to be on the side of death. My problem was that I viewed it as a coincidence. That Perhaps they instinctively thought that if the Pro-Life Republicans opposed an issue then they were obliged to favor it. I no longer think that that ignorance applies to the leaders of the Democratic Party. But how do you explain the millions of people at the bottom of that pyramid - the useless eaters that the Liberal, Progressive, Democrats hold in such disdain? Those millions of people who are voting against their very existence?