The Real Overpopulation Problem

by T.P. Wilkinson / Dec 17, 2022

Another bureaucratic war criminal, Robert MacNamara, said in Fog of War that he made it a rule “not to answer the question asked but to answer the question I wished they had asked”. He added that it was a good rule.

It is a good rule of psychological warfare never to acknowledge the obvious messages and questions and to confine one’s own responses to euphemism and circumlocution while always exaggerating — even with expletives — the positions of one’s targets/victims. MacNamara was not only a master of deception but to judge by Errol Morris’ film also a master of self-deception.¹

Naively many readers and viewers — in part due to their own exercises in self-deception — expect that an interview or testimonial will prove the character of the person interviewed and somehow reveal “truth”. Yet the serial presentation of statements presumes that the listener/reader will thus attach objectivity to the interpretation triggered by the astute liar. Details can confuse more than clarify. A certain volume of detail seemingly random (and, therefore, presumably sincere) overwhelms the listener and coagulates to form a cognitive clot, crossing the brain barrier and causing what might be called an intellectual stroke.

James Michener performed this kind of exercise in an interview given not long before he died.² After explaining that he was potentially exempt from the draft in WWII because he was a member of the Society of Friends (the Quakers), he then said he volunteered for the US Navy (implying he was among other ranks, when he in fact was an officer) just as his draft board summons was received. A few other contradictory details leave one entirely unsure how he actually became an intelligence officer in the Pacific. Anyone who saw Robert de Niro’s CIA film, The Good Shepherd, could with patience decipher Michener’s obfuscation.³ He was most probably recruited to the OSS while in college, just like the fictional “Edward”, and told where to go to start his assignment under military cover. The theater commander for the US Army, Douglas MacArthur, was adamant that no OSS officers be allowed in the Pacific. Hence Michener was assigned to the Navy. The interviewer did not attempt to clarify his incoherent recital. The fact that Michener went on to explain how much quasi-official assistance he received in writing his historical novels and the implied intimacy with the CIA did not trigger any questions either. But Michener clearly understood “McNamara’s rule” as much as William Colby did when testifying to the Church Committee. Unfortunately Colby’s bureaucratic enemies, like Richard Helms, did not appreciate such virtuoso obfuscation. They preferred condescending sarcasm and demonstrative silence.

But I wanted to talk about overpopulation here. First however it is important to remind the reader that while well-versed in euphemism I have always preferred explicit language, not to be confused with expletive.

I am old enough to remember when the Limits to Growth was published.⁴ The general milieu into which this pseudo-scientific study was inserted also produced NSSM 200, Kissinger’s manifesto for population reduction in Africa and Asia.⁵ It is frequently ignored that the arch-philanthro-capitalist Rockefeller tax dodges aka known as foundations, funded Kissinger’s NSSM, the Club of Rome and its descendants. There are in fact innumerable writers, lecturers and managerial bureaucrats (elected or appointed) who have pecuniary or social incentives to perform for fashion (fascism). They receive grants, work for NGOs (whose sponsors are taken for granted) and as scriveners are contractually (or implicitly) bound to write nothing that would jeopardize that cash flow.

My mentor, a distinguished professor of literature long deceased, used to say that he had no true objection to selling his soul but that no one had yet offered him a sufficient price. I have always kept a strict separation between writing what I learn and think and producing or editing text for a living. Therefore I believe I can say sincerely that I am neither a propagandist nor a prostitute. (Perhaps that is a deficiency but I have had to live with it.) My objection lies not in that people write for money but that they also preach for money without disclosing their church.

When I attended school, I can recall how much and often “white” people talked about “teen pregnancies” and “welfare moms”. These were ways of expressing the underlying ideology that university professors and cabinet ministers mean when they say the world is suffering from overpopulation. The wealthy — and the spokespersons for the extremely wealthy aka the piratical/parasitic class — have always complained about threats to their comfort, i.e. threats to the unobstructed pleasure of robbing some 90% of the population. Those who are employed by them — Malcolm X called them “house negroes” — feel those threats even more than the masters themselves. They rush to extinguish the flames at the Big House — because that is the only home they have — while the master can just move to another house and buy other help.

This concern for population — for an excess of “field negroes” — is deeply rooted in the obsequious subservience that comprises the central characteristic of the successful bureaucrat, whether he or she is in the civil, military, clerical or academic division of the social order. As George Carlin poignantly explained: the rich take all the money, the middle class does all the work and pays all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the shit out of the middle class.

We have to understand this psychology if we are to grasp the willingness with which writers — even in these pages — threaten their readers with impending doom. These writers are as insensitive to criticism as McNamara. They have a burning mansion to save. They have to assure those gates that protect their physical and intellectual ghettoes are closed, except when they need to fetch something from the fields.

It is no accident that most of the writers at the “Big House” are among the “English-speaking peoples”, Cecil Rhodes’ kind of folks, from all those white dominions now euphemistically called “Commonwealth” and of course among the cohorts of the fourth Awakening in the United States.⁶ These descendants of the last surviving “piratical race” share the same insecurities as their masters. Every night they imagine their rooms in the “Big House” aflame. “Massa” saddles up. His womenfolk aboard the brougham and the family treasure in a wagon following. Meanwhile these academics, journalists, NGO fetishists and servants of corporate misanthropy, grovel begging to be taken with the lord of the manor. Instead he says calmly, “Hunny or Binny or Jane, you just keep those field folk from getting to the house. We’ll be sendin’ some militia round to give you a hand. After all they’re your people too. Get them to listen. Promise them medical attention if they help you put out the fire. We left some medicine for you to use.” Then with a crack of the driver‘s whip the wagons pull out and the master on his great steed salutes the heroic servants he leaves behind.

You think I exaggerate. That was the substance of the environmental, socio-economic and political deluge that has inundated us for the past nearly three years. The master took all the wood too. So no arks can be built — unless of course the big house is saved and the wood stripped. But the problem arises then, the shipwrights are in the field! The passengers in the house — and ne’er the twain shall meet.

In 1972, Dr Henry Kissinger, and other courtiers of the unnamed aristocrats that dominate the Anglo-American Empire, were well aware that the Big House was endangered. It was time again to put the “house negroes” to work building a firewall. It is easy to focus on Henry Kissinger because he obviously enjoyed — more than his patron — becoming a celebrity. However he is just one of many in the grand court of Anglo-American Empire. Harvard University (MIT and Yale of course) — which some wag fondly called “a hedge fund with a university as tax dodge” — has always been a logical place to find cult members to cast the necessary spells. Dennis Meadows was just one of those warlocks who could be so engaged.

Goethe’s “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” — rendered in cartoon by Disney with Mickey Mouse — cast a spell to make his work easier but failing to learn the whole lesson unleashed a monster. Meadows and his like were no Mickey Mouse academics. They cast spells using technology that had been conceived already in order to annihilate civilians with incendiaries or atomic bombs. Yet being “house negroes”, they were accustomed to the euphemism of the court and salon. So when they discussed how to prevent or extinguish the fire threatening the Big House they preferred the polite, indirect language to the forthright and explicit terms, which everyone in the field would understand.

Kissinger, Schwab, Harari or Meadows, they are all interchangeable, liveried servants. They have all been indoctrinated more or less in the same way. Kissinger is certainly the most eclectic (not particularly intelligent but extraordinarily vain and obsequious). Klaus Schwab got his indoctrination through the NSDAP, Harari through the Middle Eastern branch of the same movement, Meadows from the Round Table (the so-called Chatham House clubs, e.g. RIIA, CFR et al.) — wittingly or unwittingly. However these are only the notorious courtiers, the servants to the servants of greed. They occupy places close to the top of the household. Below the rank of chamberlain there are dozens and dozens of footmen, chambermaids, polishers of silver and pressers of linen. The court is enormous. It feeds innumerable scribes and minstrels, too.

Yet in all the interviews and articles read or lectures and talks heard or seen, the really important questions are missing, the obvious questions — once one gets beyond, “and who pays you?” or “what do you get out of this?” These questions may be seen as an invitation to breach some promise of confidentiality to a third party.

No, when I read articles or hear speeches about how we have to save the planet (whereby I agree with Carlin, “the planet is not going anywhere — we are”), how COP is failing to reach the needed agreements (on how to defraud the world’s population with ESG-based financial derivatives etc.), or how some policy developed by the parasitic class is not been truly embraced by the masses, or how “disinformation” or “misinformation” can be prevented? I could go on. When I read or hear all this stuff from the servile “house negroes” funded by the Big House NGOs and tax dodges, I want to ask just two questions:

When are you going to be sterilized — along with the rest of your family?
When and how are you going to do your part for reducing population by relieving the planet of your life?

Nobody seemed to think that this question was important to ask Dennis Meadows. Or maybe he just followed McNamara’s Rule.

Subscribe to Dissident Voice

1. Errol Morris, The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara (2003).
2. James A. Michener, What It Takes, American Academy of Achievement.
3. Robert De Niro, The Good Shepherd (2006). Edward is a Yale student and Skull and Bones member who is recruited from college into the newly founded OSS before US entry into WWII. His recruitment is under US Army cover. He later becomes a senior CIA officer.
4. The Limits to Growth was written by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows (who appears in the video), Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III, published by the Club of Rome in 1972. Like the work done in East Anglia (climate change) or at Imperial College (Neil Ferguson, pandemics), the forecasting upon which Meadows et al. based their claims were computer models and not real data. The assumptions upon which the underlying programs were based are highly contentious to say the least.
5. “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For US Security and Overseas Interests” (The Kissinger Report) National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200), 10 December 1974.
6. See Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment (1981). Quigley’s posthumous book sympathetically describes the origins of the so-called Chatham House institutions and other efforts to transfer the fulcrum of the British Empire to the US, while arresting the centrifugal forces in the white dominions (South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) to keep the empire together.