Guest Post: A Message To The 'Left' From A 'Right Wing Extremist'

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

A Message To The 'Left' From A 'Right Wing Extremist'

Some discoveries are exciting, joyful, and exhilarating, while others can be quite painful.  Stumbling upon the fact that you do not necessarily have a competent grasp of reality, that you have in fact been duped for most of your life, is not a pleasant experience.  While it may be a living nightmare to realize that part of one’s life was, perhaps, wasted on the false ideas of others, enlightenment often requires that the worldview that we were indoctrinated with be completely destroyed before we can finally resurrect a tangible identity and belief system.  To have rebirth, something must first die...

In 2004, I found myself at such a crossroads.  At that time I was a dedicated Democrat, and I thought I had it all figured out.  The Republican Party was to me a perfect sort of monster.  They had everything!  Corporate puppet masters.  Warmongering zealots.  Fake Christians.  Orwellian social policies.  The Bush years were a special kind of horror.  It was cinematic.  Shakespearean.  If I was to tell a story of absolute villainy, I would merely describe the mass insanity and bloodlust days of doom and dread wrought by the Neo-Con ilk in the early years of the new millennium.

But, of course, I was partly naïve...

The campaign rhetoric of John Kerry was eye opening.  I waited, day after day, month after month for my party’s candidate to take a hard stance on the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I waited for a battle cry against the Patriot Act and the unconstitutional intrusions of the Executive Branch into the lives of innocent citizens.  I waited for a clear vision, a spark of wisdom and common sense.  I waited for the whole of the election for that man to finally embrace the feelings of his supporters and say, with absolute resolve, that the broken nation we now lived in would be returned to its original foundations.  That civil liberty, freedom, and peace, would be our standard once again.  Unfortunately, the words never came, and I realized, he had no opposition to the Bush plan.  He was not going to fight against the wars, the revolving door, or the trampling of our freedoms.  Indeed, it seemed as though he had no intention of winning at all.

I came to see a dark side to the Democratic Party that had always been there but which I had refused to acknowledge.  Their leadership was no different than the Neo-Cons that I despised.  On top of this, many supporters of the Democratic establishment had no values, and no principles.  Their only desire was to “win” at any cost.  They would get their "perfect society" at any cost, even if they had to chain us all together to do it. 

There was no doubt in my mind that if the Democrats reoccupied the White House or any other political power structure one day, they would immediately adopt the same exact policies and attitudes of the Neo-Conservatives, and become just as power-mad if not more so.  In 2008 my theory was proven unequivocally correct.

It really is amazing.  I have seen the so-called “anti-war” party become the most accommodating cheerleader of laser guided death and domination in the Middle East, with predator drones operating in the sovereign skies of multiple countries raining missiles upon far more civilians than “enemy combatants”, all at the behest of Barack Obama.  I have seen the “party of civil liberties” expand on every Constitution crushing policy of the Bush Administration, while levying some of the most draconian legislation ever witnessed in the history of this country.  I have seen Obama endorse enemy combatant status for American citizens, and the end of due process under the law through the NDAA.  I have seen him endorse the end of trial by jury.  I have seen him endorse secret assassination lists, and the federally drafted murder of U.S. civilians.  I have seen him endorse executive orders which open the path to the declaration of a “national emergency” at any time for any reason allowing for the dissolution of most constitutional rights and the unleashing of martial law.

If I was still a Democrat today I would be sickly ashamed.  Yet, many average Democrats actually defend this behavior from their party.  The same behavior they once railed against under Bush.

However, I have not come here to admonish Democrats (at least not most of them).  I used to be just like them.  I used to believe in the game.  I believed that the rules mattered, and that it was possible to change things by those rules with patience and effort.  I believed in non-violent resistance, protest, civil dissent, educational activism, etc.  I thought that the courts were an avenue for political justice.  I believed that the only element required to end corruption would be a sound argument and solid logic backed by an emotional appeal to reason.  I believed in the power of elections, and had faith in the idea that all we needed was the “right candidate” to lead us to the promise land.  Again, I believed in the game. 

The problem is, the way the world works and the way we WISH the world worked are not always congruent.  Attempting to renovate a criminal system while acting within the rigged confines of that system is futile, not to mention delusional.  Corrupt oligarchies adhere to the standards of civility only as long as they feel the need to maintain the illusion of the moral high ground.  Once they have enough control, the mask always comes off, the rotten core is revealed, and immediate violence against dissent commences. 

Sometimes the only solutions left in the face of tyranny are not peaceful.  Logic, reason, and justice are not revered in a legal system which serves the will of the power elite instead of the common man.  The most beautiful of arguments are but meaningless flitters of hot air in the ears of sociopaths.  Sometimes, the bully just needs to be punched in the teeth.

This philosophy of independent action is consistently demonized, regardless of how practical it really is when faced with the facts.  The usual responses to the concept of full defiance are accusations of extremism and malicious intent.  Believe me, when I embarked on the path towards the truth in 2004, I never thought I would one day be called a potential “homegrown terrorist”, but that is essentially where we are in America in 2013.  To step outside the mainstream and question the validity of the game is akin to terrorism in the eyes of the state and the sad cowardly people who feed the machine. 

During the rise of any despotic governmental structure, there is always a section of the population that is given special treatment, and made to feel as though they are “on the winning team”.  For now, it would appear that the “Left” side of the political spectrum has been chosen by the establishment as the favored sons and daughters of the restructured centralized U.S.  However, before those of you on the Left get too comfortable in your new position as the hand of globalization, I would like to appeal to you for a moment of unbiased consideration.  I know from personal experience that there are Democrats out there who are actually far more like we constitutionalists and “right wing extremists” than they may realize.  I ask that you take the following points into account, regardless of what the system decides to label us...

We Are Being Divided By False Party Paradigms

Many Democrats and Republicans are not stupid, and want above all else to see the tenets of freedom respected and protected.  Unfortunately, they also tend to believe that only their particular political party is the true defender of liberty.  The bottom line is, at the top of each party there is very little if any discernible difference between the two.   If you ignore all the rhetoric and only look at action, the Republican and Democratic leadership are essentially the same animal working for the same special interests.  There is no left and right; only those who wish to be free, and those who wish to control.

Last year, the “Left and the “Right” experienced an incredible moment of unity after the introduction of the NDAA.  People on both sides were able to see the terrifying implications of a law that allows the government to treat any American civilian as an enemy of war without right to trial.  In 2013, the establishment is attempting to divide us once again with the issue of gun disarmament.  I have already presented my position on gun rights in numerous other articles and I believe my stance is unshakeable.  But, what I will ask anti-gun proponents and on-the-fence Democrats is this:  How do you think legislation like the NDAA will be enforced in the future?  Is it not far easier to threaten Americans with rendition, torture, and assassination when they are completely unarmed?  If you oppose the NDAA, you should also oppose any measure which gives teeth to the NDAA, including the debasement of the 2nd Amendment.

Democrats Are Looking For Help In The Wrong Place

Strangely, Democrats very often search for redress within the very system they know is criminal.  For some reason, they think that if they bash their heads into the wall long enough, a door will suddenly appear.  I’m here to tell you, there is no door. 

The biggest difference between progressives and conservatives is that progressives consistently look to government to solve all the troubles of the world, when government is usually the CAUSE of all the troubles in the world.  The most common Democratic argument is that in America the government “is what we make it”, and we can change it anytime we like through the election process.  Maybe this was true at one time, but not anymore.  Just look at Barack Obama!  I would ask all those on the Left to take an honest look at the policies of Obama compared to the policies of most Neo-Cons, especially when it comes to constitutional liberties.  Where is the end to Middle Eastern war?  Where is the end to domestic spy programs?  Where is the end to incessant and dictatorial executive orders?  Where is the conflict between the Neo-Cons and the Neo-Liberals?  And, before you point at the gun control debate, I suggest you look at Obama’s gun policies compared to Mitt Romney’s and John McCain’s – there is almost no difference whatsoever…

If the two party system becomes a one party system, then elections are meaningless, and electing a new set of corrupt politicians will not help us.

Democrats Value Social Units When They Should Value Individuals Instead

Democrats tend to see everything in terms of groups.  Victim status groups, religious groups, racial groups, special interest groups, etc.  They want to focus on the health of the whole world as if it is a single entity.  It is not.  Without individuals, there is no such thing as “groups”, and what we might categorize as groups change and disperse without notice.  Groups do not exist beyond shared values, and even then, the individual is still more important in the grand scheme of things. 

As a former Democrat, I know that the obsession with group status makes it easy to fall into the trap of collectivism.  It is easy to think that what is best for you must be best for everybody.  This Utopian idealism is incredibly fallible.  Wanting the best for everyone is a noble sentiment, but using government as a weapon to force your particular vision of the “greater good” on others leads to nothing but disaster.  The only safe and reasonable course is to allow individuals to choose for themselves how they will function in society IF they choose to participate at all.  Government must be left out of the equation as much as possible.  Its primary job should be to safeguard the individual’s right to choose how he will live.  You have to get over the fact that there is no such thing as a perfect social order, and even if there was, no government is capable of making it happen for you.   

Democrats Can Become As Power-Mad As Any Neo-Con

I think it is important to point out how quickly most Democratic values went out the door as soon as Barack Obama was placed in the White House.  Let’s be clear; you cannot claim to be anti-war, anti-torture, anti-assassination, anti-surveillance, anti-corporate, anti-bank, anti-rendition, etc. while defending the policies of Obama at the same time.  This is hypocrisy. 

I have heard some insane arguments from left leaning proponents lately.  Some admit that Obama does indeed murder and torture, but “at least he is pushing for universal health care…”.  Even if it did work (which it won’t), is Obamacare really worth having a president who is willing to murder children on the other side of the world and black-bag citizens here at home?  Do not forget your moral compass just because you think the system is now your personal playground.  If you do, you are no better than all the angry bloodcrazed Republicans that bumbled into the Iraq War while blindly following George W. Bush. 

There Is A Difference Between Traditional Conservatives And Neo-Cons

Neo-Cons are not conservative.  They are in fact socialist in their methods, and they always expand government spending and power while reducing constitutional protections.  The “Liberty Movement”, of which I am proudly a part, is traditional conservative.  We believe that government, especially as corrupt as it is today, cannot be trusted to administrate and nursemaid over every individual in our nation.  It has proven time after time that it caters only to criminally inclined circles of elites.  Therefore, we seek to reduce the size and influence of government so that we can minimize the damage that it is doing.  For this, we are called “extremists”. 

Governments are not omnipotent.  They are not above criticism, or even punishment.  They are merely a collection of individuals who act either with honor or dishonor.  In the Liberty Movement, we treat a corrupt government just as we would treat a corrupt individual.  We do not worship the image of the state, nor should any Democrat.

Liberty Minded Conservatives Are Not “Terrorists”

There will come a time, very soon I believe, when people like me are officially labeled “terrorists”.  Perhaps because we refuse gun registration or confiscation.  Perhaps because we develop alternative trade markets outside the system.  Maybe because some of us are targeted by federal raids, and we fight back instead of submitting.  Maybe because we speak out against the establishment during a time of “declared crisis”, and speech critical of the government is labeled “harmful to the public good”.  One way or another, whether you want to believe me now or not, the day is coming. 

Before this occurs, and the mainstream media attacks us viciously as “conspiracy theorists” and traitors, I want the Left to understand that no matter what you may hear about us, our only purpose is to ensure that our natural rights are not violated, our country is not decimated, and our republic is governed with full transparency.  We are not the dumb redneck racist hillbilly gun nuts you see in every primetime TV show, and anyone who acts out of personal bias and disdain for their fellow man is not someone we seek to associate with.  We fight because we have no other choice.  Our conscience demands that we oppose centralized tyranny.  We do what we do because the only other option is subservience and slavery.   

Many of the people I have dealt with in the Liberty Movement are the most intelligent, well-informed, principled and dedicated men and women I have ever met.  They want, basically, what most of us want:

  • to be free to determine their own destinies.
  • To be free to speak their minds without threat of state retribution.
  • To be free to defend themselves from any enemy that would seek to oppress them.
  • To live within an economic environment that is not rigged in favor of elitist minorities and on the verge of engineered collapse.
  • To live in a system that respects justice and legitimate law instead of using the law as a sword against the public.
  • To wake up each day with solace in the knowledge that while life in many regards will always be a difficult thing, we still have the means to make it better for ourselves and for the next generation.
  • To wake up knowing that those inner elements of the human heart which make us most unique and most endearing are no longer considered “aberrant”, and are no longer under threat.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Shell Game's picture

"One Party to rule them all, One Party to find them,

One Party to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  Obama is like Bush X 3.  For all of the carping the democrats did about Bush when he was in office, Obama has taken the Bush baton and run full speed with it.  And all you hear now are crickets from the left.....

A Lunatic's picture

Your comment sounds kind of Terroristy and a bit off kilter mentally...........

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Sometimes the truth sounds that way...

LawsofPhysics's picture

The truth is always treason in the empire of lies.

BKbroiler's picture

A message to the Far Right from the left:

We're not all a bunch of commies.  I live in NYC and these new gun rules are nuts.  I have to keep my gun half loaded now? WTF?  Also, we hate the Fed as much as you do, and many of us favor Austrian Economics over anything ever proposed by Keynes.  The reason we get stuck on the "left" is because the "right" is now characterized by an absolute rejection of science, a woman's right to choose, environment stewardship, and the ability for immigrants and minorities to have the same opportunities of advancement as Americans have had over the last generation.  Similarly, a lot of my Republican friends actually believe in evolution, global warming, and a woman's right to govern her own body, but they are no longer represented by their party.  Divide and Conquer, unfortunately, has worked.   

Ident 7777 economy's picture

I don't believe ya BK ... commie/leftie my buttox ...

ratso's picture

Here it is so even you can understand it.  Brandon Smith is writing crap.

strannick's picture

Anyone who'd spent any time in a University over the last 30 years would not be surprized by any of this. The so-called Progressives are bigoted, prejudiced ideologues who rely on slogans and despise reason and debate.

They revel in political dichotomies, pompous sloganeering, revere government, despise economic liberty and couldnt exist without their cynical caricatures of the right. Ironically, despite their self perception of being tolerant, enlightened, ect., they have adopted the exclusionary us/them mindset of the Ku Klux Klan. ''The Closing of the American Mind'' by Professor Allan Bloom is a great work on how this came to be.

Ayn NY's picture

Try going back as an adult, it's quite eye opening to realize that the average professor isn't any more emotionally mature as the 18-22 year olds they teach.

sessinpo's picture


And when you present a logical argument for debate they (liberals/progressives) resort to personal attacks like poster Mayhem_korner did to me. Never actually respond to the post in substance.


Then you also get those liberal progressives that just give you down arrows, but can't respond because they have nothing of substance to respond with.


I go after liberals/progressives with a passion. I love kicking their ass and I've been doing it for some time on ZH. I say bring it!

Flakmeister's picture

Ever thought of applying to be a poster boy for D-K? You'd be a natural...

You and MK are like watching rats eating their own young when their habitat becomes overcrowded...

secret_sam's picture

He seems to have implied that mayhem korner is a progressive/liberal.

I was gonna say "it'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic," but actually, it is funny.

AND pathetic.

Flakmeister's picture

Yep... hence my oft-used comment here for those types "You wouldn't know a Marxist if he pissed in your face..."

secret_sam's picture

I'm struck by the frequency of the use of die-hard liberals in avatar pics and account names.

Frank Zappa's one of the more common avatars.  There's something really disturbing to me about the fact that so few fans here remember anything about the guy's values.

Flakmeister's picture

Good observation...

Then again Ted Nugent is one ugly mofo...

drchris's picture

While I was in grad school at Cornell, occasionally I would have dinner at my thesis advisor's home.  In attendance were other faculty and some select grad students.  Some of the things that I heard at the dinner table bother me to this day.  My favorite was from another professor: "I hate Christians!"  I'm not religious, but to hear that from a person in that position shocked me.  Of course, nothing can be worse than the lying, cheating, and stealing that goes on in academia.  They make Wall Street look like amateurs.  One of the key skills you learn in grad school, after reading hundreds of academic papers, is how to completely dismantle a (published peer-reviewed) paper in minutes.  But I digress...

roadlust's picture

What do you mean?  He makes perfect sense to a high school sophmore who "used to be left wing" until he turned 13, and got all sophisticated and shit.  

rwe2late's picture


Everyone please note that BOTH left and right may embrace totalitarianism.

It would seem that those of the left who oppose totalitarianism, and those of the right who oppose also COULD and SHOULD find enough common ground to agree on a mutually satisfactory political program.

The so-called left/right debate within the US is mostly confined to neoliberals vs. neoconservatives.


The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the

French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly

divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.

There is general consensus that the Left includes

progressives, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, civil-libertarians (as in "social-libertarians"; not to be confused with the right's "economic-libertarians"), secularists, communists, and anarchists


and that the Right includes

conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, capitalists, neoliberals, economic-libertarians (not to be confused with the left's "civil-libertarians"), social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, Nazis (including neo-Nazis) and fascists


- Wikipedia



flacon's picture

Wikipedia has it wrong, Nazi and Fascist is hard left. 


Anusocracy's picture

I would say that fascists are cultural descendants of the pharaonic culture. They had a better concept of property, although the ruler and state were really the owners of property. Just like now.

The left-progressives came earlier,  basically having little in the way of property, and lived in a small communal society.

Flakmeister's picture

This is truly bizarre bullshit, even for you...

lewy14's picture

That's where they started, not where they ended up.

Fascism started as a left wing movement - Mussolini was a communist, Hitler was sent to the NSDAP to inflitrate it, because it was socialist, etc...

...but in contrast to (internationalist) socialism, fascism was always nationalist (traditionally associated with the right)...

...and finally they became co-opted by traditional right wing elements.

In particular, the German industrialists/crony capitalist types and the Junker aristocrats who controlled the German military gave Hitler an ultimatum: purge the SA (the brownshirts, the millions of street thugs who were the original muscle behind the Nazi party and the die-hard leftist revolutionary element within the Party) or be removed as Chancellor. This was 1934, before Hindenburg died and well before Hitler had consolidated a dictatorship.

Hitler complied, and the result was the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler betrayed a number of his old colleagues. Many went before the firing squad swearing their allegiance to Hitler. Again, these were people who were true revolutionaries and leftists.

The Right thought they'd won, and that Hitler was "their man". Didn't work out so well for them of course...

So while I'm sympathetic that fascism is "hard left" in origin, the Right embraced it wholeheartedly.

Pox on both.

Diogenes's picture

Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' Party (I looked it up).

Fascist = National socialist

Communist = International socialist.

writingsonthewall's picture

I have never read such nonesense in my life - the right like to MASUERADE as the left you dumb shit - to get the proles to support them.


America has named it's new fighte aircraft the 'Hawk' - does this mean it has wings and eats small mammals?


You're a credit to the failed education system of America - and who do you embrace? - the very people who took your education from you.

rwe2late's picture

 Apparently, all Obama need do to win the support of some commentators at ZH is to change the name of his party,

perhaps to  

"Democratic Libertarians" ?

Of course then the other party would have to rename itself also,

"Republican Constitutionalists" ?

sessinpo's picture

Until you read your own thoughts, right?


Facts are facts. It's not just about the name used, but the ideology those parties expressed and history says you are nonsense.

Flakmeister's picture

Wow, now that was a deep analysis...

Would you like to discuss the lefttist credentials of guys like Gregor Strasser and Drexler and the orginal NSDAP platform?

And you do know that the "Night of the Long Knives" dealt with the original leftist core of the party... Don't you?


rwe2late's picture


you fail to understand

why there is a dictionary---

so people can communicate using words with the same meaning.

Look up the definitions for the various political creeds

then, if you want to introduce your own personal definitions,

introduce them with your newly invented words also

don't try to hijack words with accepted usage to sow confusion.

we'll see if your new words with new definitions catch on.

Uchtdorf's picture

Seriously, how can a Nazi (or a fascist) be on the right? Draw a horizontal line. The left end you label as Absolute Tyranny. The right end is labelled as Complete Anarchy. Now mark the exact mid-point of the line. Are you going to tell me that Naziism goes to the right of that line? The government that controlled almost every aspect of the German citizens' lives...? Your momma didn't do a good job teaching you the difference between left and right.

Flakmeister's picture

Another bit of shockingly naive fluff...

Anarchy is the center, the state plays an increasing role as you migrate left or right.... As a *simple* rule of thumb, you are on the right if banks control the state, on the left if the state controls the banks... 

For example the US is clearly to right of center, Canada to the left....

Obviously things are more complex and pigeon-holing political economies is a pointless exercise, but you clearly needed a very simple explanation of things...

secret_sam's picture

   The left end you label as Absolute Tyranny. The right end is labelled as Complete Anarchy.

No, wrong, that's the authoritarian scale you're talking about.  Authoritarianism is NOT part of the left/right spectrum.

I always assume people would realize (it just seems incredibly obvious) that you can't really encompass all shades of political opinion on a single dimensional scale.  It's as stupid an idea as if you could rate every pro athlete from top to bottom in direct order of "talent."

There's not really a good way to rank the relative skills of a guy like Peyton Manning to LeBron James, is there?  I mean, can you easily say which one is a better athlete?

If you think you can, more power to you, but I think most folks understand that such a comparison just CANNOT WORK.

It's the same with the left/right concept.  There are left-oriented thinkers who are ANARCHISTS and there are right-oriented thinkers who are big-gummit Statists.

Anyone who hasn't looked at the yet should take a few minutes and try the test to see where they end up.  (Personally I don't think a 2-dimensional map is adequate either, but it's a major improvement, at least.)

Ghordius's picture

+1 well said. though I have one comment: is this not all related to one little point everybody is missing here?

your long list of ideological positions is typical of existing parties wherever there is a representational democracy based on "multiple-winner" voting systems - for example in continental europe. another word for it is proportional representation

in the UK and the US you'll find "single-winner" voting systems, and they famously favour two major parties

so imho all those labels don't make sense, in your system. they can't be applied

Yes We Can. But Lets Not.'s picture

Message to the Far Left from the Right: science is great, global warming is a hoax based on junk science/propaganda...women who in governing their bodies get pregnant and then kill, govern poorly

The King of Divide presently lives in the White House...divide on race, ethnicity, culture, gender, is what the guy does for a living

RockyRacoon's picture

    A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
       ..or in 3 syllables or less:
    Science advances one funeral at a time.  -- Max Planck

Substitute the word "science" with many others and we still get a valid argument.


strannick's picture

Progressive science advances one (100,000) abortion funerals at a time (per day -including Obamas macabre partial birth abortions).

Progressive scientists like these are the best friends gendercide ever had.

The inexorable march of Science, advancing one black booted goose step at a time.

F. Bastiat's picture

Self-proclaimed "progressive" science progresses right to the abolition of man. 

Make no mistake - socialism, marxism, liberalism, communism - whatever you want to call it - is simply organized evil. A macro manifestation of a primitive suicidal instinct.

The acceptance of today's liberalism ushers in the complete destruction of any organization so foolish to embrace it.

hankwil74's picture

global warming is a hoax?  Gotta love these people... 99% of climate scientists agree, but it's a hoax

A Lunatic's picture

And the only thing that will save us from the ravages of said global warming is the purchase of these here carbon credits which I just magically pulled out of the thin air of my vacuous ass............It's no wonder they want us disarmed........

A Lunatic's picture

Get em while they're hot.........

knukles's picture

Now that's funny....

GetZeeGold's picture



A room of clowns that agree with themselves is still a room of clowns.

Flakmeister's picture

Referring to the libtards here? Hey, if the shoe fits...

I mean if people are so fucking stupid to confuse bogus Carbon Credits with the science of AGW then anything is possible...

GMadScientist's picture

You don't have to bury your head in the sand with respect to a problem just to recognize one faulty solution, do ya?

Flakmeister's picture

Nice... I might use that some time...

redpill's picture

You mean 99% of the guys who make a living off of grants based on the notion that the warming is continuing and man made?  Could you ask for more of a conflict of interest?

Regardless, the human race will be eliminating itself with machetes long before our fossil fuel burning does us in.  And frankly, I wouldn't mind it being a few degrees warmer, beats the hell out of the humanitarian nightmare that would result from another ice age.