The "Predatory Buccaneer" and the Overpopulation Lie
Printer-friendly version
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by BAR columnist Jared A. Ball, Ph.D.
The logic of the world-stealers leads inexorably to genocide. Thus, the vast miseries that are the inevitable result of imperial mega-theft must be blamed on the victims who insist on continuing to breathe. There is no overpopulation, and "Mother Nature is not the problem. Predators and imperialists are."
The "Predatory Buccaneer" and the Overpopulation Lie
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by BAR columnist Jared A. Ball, Ph.D.
"It has long been an expressed corporate interest that the reduction of populations whose land has been stolen would prevent overpopulation and, ultimately, revolutionary threats."
It is truly dangerous when the richest among us, those who live not off their own blood, sweat and tears but from ours, talk so openly about the presumed horrors over an equally presumptuous situation of "overpopulation." When the world's wealthiest like Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Oprah Winfrey gather in secret meetings, as they did last year, to discuss overpopulation they do so to hide the fact that their hero Thomas Mathus and his followers espouse what is tantamount to a polite Nazi-like genocide based on a lie of resource scarcity which itself only exists to protect an on-going global theft. This lie blames overpopulation in the so-called "Third World" for everything from poverty, to crime to global warming. So their response? Rid the planet of at least one billion people. And, of course, it makes perfect sense. Once you've accumulated your wealth from having stolen their land, labor and resources, why share it? It is absolutely logical to then conclude that fewer of them be here to threaten the luxury you enjoy at their expense. In fact, it has long been an expressed corporate interest that the reduction of populations whose land has been stolen would prevent overpopulation and, ultimately, revolutionary threats from among those whose lives are continuously ruined in order to develop the wealth only a few get to enjoy.
Their problem is that there is indeed plenty of room and sustenance for everyone in the world provided, of course, that current levels of resource distribution are more appropriately adjusted. In other words, myths of overpopulation are generated to protect the imbalance in the world today where, for instance, the U.S. at 5% of the world's population uses 25% of its resources or where 1% of the planet owns 40% of its wealth. Mathus' nonsensical and racist theory that food and other resources are threatened by overpopulation is a white supremacist lie. It excuses the current resource imbalance and supports equally false and constructed notions of Black and Brown inferiority which justifies elite land-grabs while preventing the real questions of why do so few have so much. The fact remains that if every human being on the planet were grouped in to families of four that each could live in a small house with a yard and all within the state of Texas. Mother Nature is not the problem. Predators and imperialists are.
"The nonsensical and racist theory that food and other resources are threatened by overpopulation is a white supremacist lie."
And as a recent issue of Rolling Stone magazine reports these "new capitalists of chaos" cannot wait to benefit from imposed poverty and the conflicts it produces. This particular story focuses on Phil Heilberg, a former Wall Street trader with the now defunct AIG, who one colleague calls a "predatory buccaneer," and who has now become one of the single greatest landowners in Africa. He proudly proclaims to be a net benefit to humanity by backing one Sudanese gangster against another so as to clear land of the Mathusian excess so that he can bring in American agribusiness farming which he says will bring more food to those who need it. In his own words Heilberg says, "the world needs food. Thomas Mathus talked about the problem of finite land but infinite growth... I think people will panic, especially those who have no land to grow on." So he buys it by the millions of acres along with China, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, United Arab Emirates and India, all U.S. allies. And how does he get it? He is very clear. He calls it "going to the guns" and compares himself to a "Mafia head" who funds those who will kill their own so that he may take over their land, because as they say, "those who control the food will control the world." Heilberg denies that this is "colonization" because he does not see himself as imposing his ideals on others. But it is an absolute imposition of ideals when those who might be against your plans of land-grabbing are killed by those you pay. Murder and theft by proxy was described years ago by Kwame Nkrumah as "neocolonialism." Today - and where we agree with Heilberg - it is just "part of the system."
For Black Agenda Radio I'm Jared Ball. Online go to www.BlackAgendaReport.com.
Dr. Jared Ball can be reached at jared.ball@morgan.edu.
Email this page
Comments
Essencial George Carlin
"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else."
"But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.
"You know what they want? Obedient workers people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club."
"This country is finished."
-- George Carlin
Essential Karl Marx..
"The... theory... which is also expressed as a law of nature, that population grows faster than the means of subsistence, is the more welcome to the bourgeois as it silences his conscience, makes hard-heartedness into a moral duty and the consequences of society into the consequences of nature, and finally gives him the opportunity to watch the destruction of the proletariat by starvation as calmly as other natural event without bestirring himself, and, on the other hand, to regard the misery of the proletariat as its own fault and to punish it. To be sure, the proletarian can restrain his natural instinct by reason, and so, by moral supervision, halt the law of nature in its injurious course of development." - Karl Marx
""Big industry constantly requires a reserve army of unemployed workers for times of overproduction. The main purpose of the bourgeois in relation to the worker is, of course, to have the commodity labour as cheaply as possible, which is only possible when the supply of this commodity is as large as possible in relation to the demand for it, i.e., when the overpopulation is the greatest. Overpopulation is therefore in the interest of the bourgeoisie, and it gives the workers good advice which it knows to be impossible to carry out. Since capital only increases when it employs workers, the increase of capital involves an increase of the proletariat, and, as we have seen, according to the nature of the relation of capital and labour, the increase of the proletariat must proceed relatively even faster." - Karl Marx
"Capitalistic accumulation itself... constantly produces, and produces in the direct ratio of its own energy and extent, a relatively redundant population of workers, i.e., a population of greater extent than suffices for the average needs of the valorisation of capital, and therefore a surplus-population... It is the absolute interest of every capitalist to press a given quantity of labour out of a smaller, rather than a greater number of labourers, if the cost is about the same... The more extended the scale of production, the stronger this motive. Its force increases with the accumulation of capital." - Karl Marx
As capitalism develops, the organic composition of capital will increase, which means that the mass of constant capital grows faster than the mass of variable capital. Fewer workers can produce all that is necessary for society's requirements. In addition, capital will become more concentrated and centralized in fewer hands.
This being the absolute historical tendency, part of the working population will tend to become surplus to the requirements of capital accumulation over time. Paradoxically, the larger the wealth of society, the larger the industrial reserve army will become. One could add that the larger the wealth of society, the more people it can support who do not work.
Great quotes.
Thank you.
Thank u 4 your contribution 2 the infowar against the devils
Who want to kill us!
Another good article I read on this subject is here:
Food and Depopulation: The Rockefeller Family
By Cassandra Anderson - BLN Contributing Writer
The purpose of this article is to give a brief outline of how the elites, and the Rockefellers in particular, are using food as a weapon. Since the Rockefeller family came to power (especially after gaining a monopoly in 1914 with Standard Oil) they have manipulated our government into ruining our financial system by way of the Federal Reserve, energy through oil dependency and food with GMOs (Genetically Engineered Organisms). The intention is to rob us blind and kill us. It's time to wake up.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-9149-0-5-5--.html
Eugenicist Bill Gates To Attend 2010 Bilderberg Conference
Microsoft founder who bankrolls sterilization vaccine programs to give speech on global warming agenda and “the needs of the poorest.”
http://www.infowars.com/eugenicist-bill-gates-to-attend-2010-bilderberg-...
Research Links Genetically Modified Food To Long Term Sterility
http://www.psfk.com/2010/06/research-links-genetically-modified-food-to-...
CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM
Please don't take this as an insult, but I don't think that this is really a useful debate. It reminds me of "discussions" of class or about political labels in this country, since no one has a common definition, things mean whatever the speaker wishes them to mean. For example, the enemies of socialism can ignore the successful models of socialism which have long been practiced in most Nordic, as well as in other non-Nordic countries by choosing to define all forms of socialism as if they only exist in one form, the one which exists in in modern North Korea or in the nations of the old Communist bloc. The enemies of capitalism often do the same, ignoring the positive role of capitalism in helping to create societies as diverse as modern Japan, Singapore, Germany, and Brazil while focusing on its (genuine) excesses in places such as apartheid South Africa, modern America (and early America)and in many Latin American torture states of the 20th century. The reality is that neither system is perfect, and that the most successful societies are those which blend them in the proportions which their culture finds beneficial.
In this world, this is a debate between two non-answers to real problems. The real issue is many people that live in rich countries, whatever their stated economic ideology, accept the fact that they inhabit a finite planet which does not contain infinite resources, but do not see their own systematic overconsumption as the dire threat to the planet that it is. They find it easier to toy with fantasies of ridding the world of "excess" people as long as no one defines them as such, and as long as they are not expected to change their ways, or to lower their expectations. They despise the people of the so-called third world, yet crave the things that they have; their raw materials, their tropical produce, the pharmaceutical wonders lurking undiscovered and untapped in living DNA of their rainforests, the brain power of their best and brightest and, perhaps most of all, their endless resevoir of cheap labor with which to replenish the workforce that the rich nations no longer have the time or interest in reproducing for themselves. This is a sad, sick, dydfunctional philosophy born out of a group of people blinded by their sense of entitlement and the selfishness that comes with it.
Confusion VS Clarity
PEASEHEAD,
I was responding to the question of a fellow nationalist (though with obvious libertarian politics) who asked “why do we need socialism?” I argued for socialism because I don’t believe the goals of Black Nationalism (self-determination, land, and sovereignty) can be attained with the Amerikkkan empire standing. The goals of the Black liberation movement: freedom, dignity and the right of every individual to develop their human potential (mental, physical, artistic, and spiritual) to the fullest extent possible is not achievable under any type of capitalism.
In my humble experience the simplest way to discuss this question is to contrast human needs (goals) verses the needs of profit (obstacle); from here you can tell what the people want and who is standing in the way of them getting it. From there you can map out a theory of situation and operationalize it into a practical political program aimed at removing the obstacle and achieving the goal. What else is the purpose of theory?
I deliberately avoided “examples” because they always take the focus off of us. Socialism is not a they discussion, it is a WE discussion. We can be inspired by, proud of, or in solidarity with any given socialist revolution in the world. The only thing that we can actually do for such a socialist nation however is to get the imperialist monkey off their back by defeating the empire whose belly WE live in.
Your discussion of other countries demonstration of a “positive role of capitalism” is devoid of two important, nay decisive, concepts: 1) actual historical context and 2) imperialism. But I will say this; the Swedes attained some pretty impressive concessions from the Swedish ruling class by way of social democracy. However it is as inaccurate to label those concessions “socialism” as it is to label the civil rights gains of our people as “freedom.” Once the Swedish and American ruling class recovered, recuperated and regrouped what did they do? They waited until everyone was passive and then they took the reforms back. Civil rights? Gone say hello to the white nationalist Reganites. Social Democracy? Gone say hello to Milton Friedman and neo-liberalism.
Furthermore you seem far too charitable in dealing with the eugenics/white supremacist/demographic war movement. I don’t think it is about “people in rich countries” so much as it is a dangerous clique of elitists with verifiable intentions of genocide. They try to pull off the same programs against women of color in rich countries as they do in “third world” nations.
ACHIEVING CLARITY
The power of globalization in its current, pro-Neo liberal form probably means that socialism as you define it is not achievable anywhere on earth without a fight. That said, trying to make some progress by blending socialism with existing norms isn't a bad idea. I did not mean to imply that any of the capitalist or socialist "success stories" which I used as examples were in any way, perfect, or that they could or should be tranferred lock, stock and barrel to other regions or cultures. I think that Africans and others seeking freedom as they define it, should be able to examine and to take what "works" from as many sources as possible. It is impossible to unwind modern capitalism from all of the negative "isms" such as racism and colonialism which created it, yet it exists, and we are engulfed by it. I think that the best we can do is to try to limit our role as both victims and as victimizers of those who have even less power. I have no use for appeals to non-racist class solidarity. I have spent far too many years living among members of the white middle class, upper middle class, working class, and among members of both white and non-white immigrant groups to buy the idea that it is only the rich people in rich countries which seek to eliminate the poor and those whom they perceive as useless.
In most cases, in the United States, whites place their tribal, ethnic identity ahead of any so-called class interests or class solidarity. Therefore, there is no real difference between the level of hostility expressed towards racial minorities, especially poor ones, and towards people living in the so-called third world by poor whites versus that which is routinely expressed by rich or middle class whites. In general, most whites support the goals/agenda of the "dangerous clique of elitists", because, either they feel that they gain status or power from the elites remaining in power, and the existing system remaining in place, or because they think that someday, either they or their children will become members of that elite. Just as it was in Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, and in Jim Crow America, if order to exterminate is ever issued by the "dangerous elites" most of those in lower classes will "do their job" and obey and make their excuses for their actions after the fact. As a process, Black liberation can work with allies when it is possible, but it should not be crippled by a belief in waiting for the day when everyone in the white middle and working classes values black freedom as much as they do their own.
Clarity Achieved
I don’t have any disagreements with you at all. Just for the record my comments on your phrase “people in rich countries” was based on my own misunderstanding of what I thought it was you were saying. Malthusianism is just as much a part of the eugenics movement as it is the environmental movement. For the latter “people in rich countries” (or even just “people in countries”) was used for a long time as a cover to deflect from the corporate interests who are responsible for the pillage of the biosphere. While I may agree with you about the cross-class racial solidarity of settlers I still think it is important to draw a distinction at this point; as the links by Cynical Negro show the elites are the ones who are conspiring to make “vaccinations” for trick sterilizations against women of color worldwide among other things they are up to.
wedding
supply in stock and custom lace front wigs, full lace wigs, lace wigs, human hair wigs, remy lace front wigs, cheap wigs, cheap, buy, celebrity full lace wigs lace wigs lace wigs sale lace front wigs synthetic front lace wigs Full Lace Front Wig, Long & Short Hair Wigs: 80% OFF at Celebrity Wigs. We ensure 100% customer satisfaction with our Long & Short Indian Remy Hair Wigs. wedding dresses evening dresses prom dresses
Why do we need Socialism
Polemical,
Please give me examples where socialism works where the malthusian families like Rockefellers and Rothchild families and their foundations are not funding it.
The question is, why do we need capitalism?
We need socialism because we need a system that allows us to collectively make economic decisions and priorities on the basis of social need and not on the basis of if someone is going to get rich from it or not. For example if hood A desperately needs a hospital with a trauma center (a need) yet the corporate medical industry feels it cannot make a profit from such a hospital; under our capitalist system the hospital will not be built. With socialism the productive capacity of a society is in the hands of the people and that productive capacity is devoted to meeting the needs of the many and not the profits of the few (like the people that Brother Ball discussed in this article). Under capitalism the Black mis-leadership class, in places like Atlanta and Detroit, attack the living standard of residents to make the area attractive for investments (investors’ priorities and a community’s priorities are not the same thing). Still the investors don’t invest. They won’t invest. It is time to stop waiting and begging them to invest. So the community must invest itself and create jobs, housing, quality education and health care and orient themselves to develop their human potential to the fullest. They need capital to do that. The only place to get it is to take it from the type of people that, as Brother Ball pointed out, are having secret meetings with the Rockefellers and planning what is in essence genocide (simply so they can continue accumulating profits). Obviously it is time for them to go and for humanity to step forward; capitalism is returning bounced checks with “insufficient moral character” written on them.
Not Answering My Question.
Polemical,
While I may agree with you that the GLOBALIST/CORPORATIST/FASCISTS attack the living standards of residents in the inner cities and rural areas. This standard of living was done in collusion between your government and big business (ie: NAFTA, GATT). Now how many HOOD A's own televisions, cable television with 1000's of channels, the newest clothing, the newest cell phone gadgets and technology? How much does HOOD A spend on drugs and alcohol? HOOD A has money. The hospital is not it's priority. Now if HOOD A thought it best to build a hospital in their HOOD they should pull their money together (self reliant, self determination) and build their own hospital, using their own labor. We both agree on this. Wicked men like Rockefellers need to be outed for who they are and what they do and the people need to cease doing business with them altogether. Once people of color get it together and start building it's self up who's to say that your property and hard work cannot be seized for THE GREATER GOOD. Captialism is not bad. It's when we see the evil cycle of corporate interest and government cycling in and out between business and government serving it's own self interest. It's the people who need to take back their government and allow people to live for themselves by bringing business back by doing away with NAFTA and GATT, levy huge taxes on imports, breaking up the big zombie banks, and investment houses, and taxing them to the hilt (ie: Tobin Tax).
Babies and Bathwater
kiddwee,
I am completely with you on the need to build self-reliant institutions and an attitude of self-determination among our people. Especially as acts of resistance, survival, and where possible even development. So I will focus on where we disagree:
Now how many HOOD A's own televisions, cable television with 1000's of channels, the newest clothing, the newest cell phone gadgets and technology?
You forgot to mention whips n’ rims along with grills and ice on the wrist but yes you are correct we waste a lot of money. Saying that however we should keep in mind that finance-monopoly capitalism is dependent on a huge sales effort that is based on billions of dollars and the latest scientific techniques in mass psycho-manipulation (psychology has a subfield called marketing psychology). It affects everyone under capitalism and even distorts the nature of our culture; if the advertisers can’t compel you to buy something your community or co-workers will. We cannot expect that our people will be immune from this, no one on the planet is. One historian, who I respect a little bit, said that capitalism creates an imperative; it forces you to participate if you live in it. It is not a choice that you can opt in or out of.
Captialism is not bad. It's when we see the evil cycle of corporate interest and government cycling in and out between business and government serving it's own self interest.
The problem is not “a few bad apples” in the capitalist barrel it is the capitalist system itself. Capitalism by its very competitive nature leads to the concentration of capital and hence the creation of monopolies and “zombie banks.” Even if you broke them up but still allowed the system of accumulation and private profit to remain it wouldn’t be long before they reproduced the monopoly system all over again. There are no short cuts, no way to keep the capitalist baby while throwing out the monopoly bath water, in short there is no way to avoid a political confrontation with the white power capitalist state apparatus. Laissez-Faire capitalism cannot come back. Even when it existed we were slaves; there is no reason for any of us to feel nostalgic for it.
It's the people who need to take back their government and allow people to live for themselves by bringing business back by doing away with NAFTA and GATT
This government was made of, by, and for white money makers, slave holders and anti-Indian land grabbers. It is run by their corporate descendants today. “The people” never ran any government in the first place; what is there to “take back?” Semantics aside, what you are proposing is against the class interests of the upper class. It will take a revolution to get rid of NAFTA and GATT along with the other things that you mentioned. So why have a revolution just to put the same people in charge again (the capitalists?)
The foremost authority on the American upper class is UC Santa Cruz professor G. William Domhoff. He has bad liberalish politics (supports the dems even though he knows who calls their shots) but that should not keep you from appreciating his empirically backed contributions. If you have not done so already check him out and then tell me if you still believe that the government is corrupt only because of some “bad” capitalists. (his books are preferable but you can get much from his website): http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/
White Supremacy’s Big Lie
Malthus’s theory that population growth could not maintain equilibrium with the rate of food supply has been disproven long ago. I thank Brother Ball for taking this issue on. I knew that the Rockefellers have been on this “overpopulation” nonsense since the mid-20th Century. It is news to me (but not surprising) however that Oprah is now involved. The Black elite are completely in the bed with the enemy (besides being some blood sucking capitalists on their own). Aside from that the white middle class dominated environmentalist movement is also a bunch of Malthus groupies. A few times now, the Sierra Club has had a resolution on immigration and overpopulation circulated at their national conferences.
Metaphorically, it could be argued that the immediate space around a trash can has too many homeless people foraging for the same food and recyclables; while of course ignoring that the restaurant behind the trash can wastes a lot of food. The point, as Dr. Ball points out, is that resources, land, food, etc. are distributed on the basis of capitalist tyranny and not justice. Another argument for why we need socialism.
Obamacare death panels
If you don't think socialized health care has contingencies for keeping costs down, including refusing care to those considered nonproductive, you're nuts. Just wait til you get put on a waiting list for dialysis and tell me how great Obamacare is.
Glad you addressed this . . .
I have had heated arguments with my friend(who is a grad environmental studies student) about this very thing. I generally have taken the stance that Dr. Ball has taken in this article. It is actually refreshing to see someone actually write an article that articulates much of what I have been thinking about on this issue.
Having further understood the position of the overpopulation theorists though I do see the logic as to just WHY there is overpopulation. Vandana Shiva is someone who is an expert on this topic. She states this:
"London: The most urgent ecological issue facing the planet today, by many accounts, is overpopulation. The issue is often framed, particularly here in the West, as a "third world problem" since the birthrate is highest in poor countries. What is your perspective?
Shiva: The people who see the population explosion in the Malthusian way — as a geometric progression — forget that population growth is not a biological issue. People are not increasing in numbers out of stupidity and ignorance. Population growth is an ecological phenomenon linked very intimately to other issues, such as the usurpation of the resources which allow people to live.
In England, the population explosion can be linked very clearly with the enclosure of the commons that uprooted the peasants from their land. In India, it was the same thing: the population increased at the end of the 18th century when the British took over and Indian lands were colonized. Instead of the land feeding Indian people it started to feed the British empire. So we had destitution. Destitute people who don't have their own land to feed themselves can only feed themselves by having larger numbers, therefore they multiply. It's the rational response of a dispossessed people.
The population explosion is an ecological phenomenon of displacement. Unless we solve that ecological problem of displacing people - to build huge dams, to build motorways, to take away what people need in order to survive — we will keep pumping more and more money into population programs. We will have more and more coercive and violent methods through which women's bodies are treated as experimental grounds for new contraceptives. Yet we will not have a solution to the problem of numbers.
London: How do we address the problem?
Shiva: The problem of numbers can only be dealt with by recognizing that people have a fundamental right to economic security. If you provide them with economic and environmental security, the population will stabilize itself. The example of Kerala shows this very clearly. Kerala is a state in south India in which the trends are the absolute opposite from the rest of the third world and from the rest of India. There are two or three reasons. There is tremendous equality between genders in Kerala. Also, there has been a very strong land reform program in the state so that even the poorest of people own the plot of land on which their hut is built. For example, landless laborers might not own the land on which they do their agricultural work, but they own the land on which they have their hut. That resource-guarantee has tremendous implications for the security of the people.
When I was in the capital of Kerala state, I remember some rich people telling me, "You can't get the maids to come every day out here. They have a house and don't need to work every day because if they stay home they won't starve."
That is where the population control issue needs to be addressed. Population control is not an issue involving contraceptives for third world women. It is an issue of ecological justice."
source: http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/shiva.html
SMALLPOX VACCINE
A system of winners and LOSERS is unsustainable when the LOSER to winner ratio increases every day, week, month, and year. There are two responses one can make when trying to decrease the LOSER to winner ratio: The immoral response is to reduce the population. The moral response is to change the system.
On Fire
Man oh Man!!! You guys are on Fire!!! Foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also contribute to this genocidal, anti-human culling of the UNWASHED through their fake humanitarian efforts to eradicate diseases among the poor and disenfranchised people of color through their vaccination programs. God only knows what's in those vaccinations.