home > archive > 2013 > this article

Chapter Thirty Five of An Ecstatic Loneliness: The "Progressive Vision" for the Future

By Michael Moriarty
web posted April 22, 2013

The Boston Marathon Massacre is now, of course, a symbolic part of this era's increasing disregard for human life. I'm saving my thoughts about April 19th in America till next week.

Why? My deadline for this article is April 19th, 2013.

George Bernard Shaw certainly had his two cents to throw into even our Third Millennium's growing nightmare.

Many decades before this year's slaughter on the streets of Boston, however, George Bernard Shaw's "scientific" vision, the presumptions from a "man-of-the-stage", a socialist, a "Fabian" no less!

Here is a glimpse of GBS at his socialistically royal worst.

"Different people (not just Jews and Gypsies) needed to be killed!"

Shaw newspaper picture

In college, a homosexual Shavian intellectual tried to "befriend" me and now, in retrospect and after 50 years in the theater, I realize it was this man's adoration of Shaw more than his homosexuality that frightened me.

I once suspected that this gay intellectual's scholastic brilliance was because of his high intelligence.

No.  His high grades in college came from having, instinctively mind you, the same political tastes as those of his professors.

Woody Allen has also indicated his preference for dictators.

The dictatorial fraternity of comedians.

Shaw and Allen.

With events like the Boston Marathon Massacre, these two entertaining lovers of dictatorship might get their way. Nothing like Reichstag Fires and wholesale bombings to further empower some not-very-nice and not-even-very-funny people. I'm obviously not talking about either Allen or Shaw.

Socialists in power. How people forget that Nazi stands for German National Socialism.

The Progressive Vision!

Here are the truly "great minds" on the "population problem".

Jacques-Yves Cousteau wanted to go part of the way toward abolishing mankind. In a November 1991 interview with The UNESCO Courier, he said:

[In response to an interviewer's question, "Some snakes, mosquitoes, and other animal species pose threats or dangers for humankind. Can they be eliminated like viruses that cause certain diseases?" Cousteau said:] "Getting rid of viruses is an admirable idea, but it raises enormous problems. In the first 1,400 years of the Christian era, population numbers were virtually stationary. Through epidemics, nature compensated for excess births by excess deaths. I talked about this problem with the director of the Egyptian Academy of Sciences. He told me that scientists were appalled to think that by the year 2080 the population of Egypt might reach 250 million. What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It's a wonderful idea but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it we may jeopardize the future of our species. It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable."

"We must eliminate 350,000 people per day." That works out to 127,750,000 people per year, and 1.27 billion people over 10 years.

Ted Turner, one of the co-chairs of the State of the World Forum, is more patient than Cousteau is. He will allow 80 to 100 years to reduce the population of the Earth from 6 billion to 2 billion. In an interview with E Magazine, an environmentalist publication, Turner explained:

"The simplest answer is that the world's population should be about two billion, and we've got about six billion now. I haven't done the actuarial tables, but if every woman in the world voluntarily stepped up and said, 'I'll only have one child,' and if we did that for the next 80 to 100 years, that would reduce the kind of suffering we're having. ... We could have 10 billion people living below the poverty line, or we could have two billion people living well, and having color TVs and an automobile. The planet can support that number of people, and that's the way it was in 1930. You didn't have the global warming problem then, or all these problems that have occurred since the population has built up. And how you get there is very complicated. It's going to take a lot of education and improvements in health care. Personally, I think the population should be closer to when we had indigenous populations, back before the advent of farming. Fifteen thousand years ago, there was somewhere between 40 and 100 million people. But [population researchers] Paul and Anne Ehrlich have convinced me that if we're going to have a modern infrastructure, with commercial airlines and interstate highways around the world, we're going to need about two billion people to support it."


The whiz kids of the Third Millennium, "giants" of the Progressive New World Order, men like David Attenborough and his belief that "humans are a plague on earth."

Hmmm, indeed.

Yet the "insufficiency" of most human beings, the "Man and Superman" idea? It is certainly as old as George Bernard Shaw and his heroes: Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.

Now, however, it is impressively and disturbingly clear that both Stalin and Mao had a legendarily successful hand in Rainbow Genocide as the only solution to Man's major problem of survival.

Is it authentically Man's problem of survival?

Or is it Marxism's in-bred terrorism?

The latter explanation would justify the growing love affair between "Progressives" and Radical Jihadists.

Now that Marxists – Putin, Obama and the Beijing Politburo – run the three greatest and most powerful capitals of the world – Moscow, Beijing and Washington D.C. – the now, almost one hundred year-old, tightening grip of Communism on the world has made the prospect of Holocausts by dint of World War IIIexceedingly more appealing… at least to the Marxists.

"It's an ugly job… but someone's got to do it, right?"

When comedians like Woody Allen start applauding prospective dictators, not even Charlie Chaplin's socialist satire on Hitler seems sincere anymore.

Chaplin and Hitler
Possibly More Alike Than Their Moustaches

As far as I'm concerned these Socialists are all beyond "too clever by half". They are now, instead of "deconstructionists", "depopulationists".

Most of the human race is obviously too boring for their genius to put up with.

Voltaire described these monsters as "Enlightened Despots". That was almost three hundred years ago.

The "Enlightened Despots" are now more ubiquitously in the halls of power than ever before!!

As with Hitler, Stalin and Mao, these "Progressive Geniuses" have become their own brand of "Socialist".

Maoist, Stalinist or Nazi Socialists.

All a bit different but all of them in major debt to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.

The inevitably hellish "good intentions" of two, diabolically kindred souls: Maximilien de Robespierre and Karl Marx.

Despite appearances, the French Revolution still hasn't ended. Its heads still keep dropping into an infamously Progressive "Commune's" Community Organizing wastebasket.

Or other body parts onto the bloodied streets of the Boston Marathon.

A Muslim version of the French Revolution?

And, for awhile, we we're ordered to not even call it terrorism?! How about "scientifically justified depopulation"?! ESR

Michael Moriarty is a Golden Globe and Emmy Award-winning actor who starred in the landmark television series Law and Order from 1990 to 1994. His recent film and TV credits include The Yellow Wallpaper, 12 Hours to Live, Santa Baby and Deadly Skies. Contact Michael at rainbowfamily2008@yahoo.com. He can be found on Twitter at https://twitter.com/@MGMoriarty.





Site Map

E-mail ESR



© 1996-2024, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.