'Reluctant' Boris?
Lockdowns and the goal of depopulation
It is the 20th of September 2019 and on the Channel 4 TV show “The Rob Rinder Verdict” the camera focusses on actress Joanna Lumley as she reads a newspaper headline for her fellow panelists, “A gas explosion tears through a Russian bioweapons lab containing smallpox, ebola and HIV virus sparking a major emergency.”
Stanley Johnson interjects,
“That is absolutely wonderful because as an environmentalist I say to myself the best possible news would be some mega emergency that got rid of huge chunks of the human race.”
The audience laughs, delighted at his outrageous wit.
Johnson’s comment is redolent of words attributed to Prince Philip, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.”
Thankfully, Johnson is only joking. Isn't he?
In a Guardian interview of 12th June 2012, Johnson tells John Vidal,
“You have to get population under control as well, because if you look at it in sheer economic terms how can you sustain increases in per capita income at a time when you have rising population without rising economic growth? Whereas if you have a declining population -which is what I would aim for- then of course even a stable economic situation will give you increase in per capita income. So that's where I stand.”
Vidal asks Johnson, “do you have a sense of what the carrying capacity of Britain is -or of the world as a whole?”
“Well Britain, I put it at 10 or 15 million. I think that'd be absolutely fine. I mean that would do us really splendidly, at a limit 20-25. I think it's complete nonsense that we are now confronted with an island, would you believe it, of 70 million? 70 million people! I wrote a paper, I think it's the only paper the Conservative Party has ever published and it was published as an old Queen Street paper in June 1972, oddly enough, and it was called Britain needs a population policy and-”
“You could still argue that today, I mean, right now?
“I certainly could, I certainly could, but what has happened of course is that we have all been, as it were, shunted aside, shunted off course by what you might call the rise of political correctness...because you can't talk about this now without being saying you're anti-feminist because you're telling women what to do with their bodies, or you're racist because they're saying it's the browns and the blacks or the yellow races who mustn't have um...or you're a left-winger because you're interested at trying to get at, you know, the capitalist society. So it's a very, very difficult one now and I would say that, at the very least, the governments of the world have to start talking, the government of this country has to talk start talking seriously about immigration because if you look at the rise in Britain's population now, you will see that, as it were, there is a really serious differential in the fertility of the immigrant population to the fertility of what you might call the indigenous population. So anyway, but this is…this is very political stuff, not one for Guardian readers.”
Vidal failed to ask what it was that “the browns and the blacks or the yellow races ...mustn't have,” but in the context of a discourse on overpopulation and a “differential in fertility,” presumably Johnson was referring to babies. Vidal might also have asked how Johnson's population plan might have 'got at the capitalist society?' Perhaps by restricting movement, private ownership, and economic freedom?
Anyway the audience of the Rob Rinder Verdict laughed at Stanley Johnson so it seems nobody takes him seriously enough to give him a platform -except for Channel 4, The Guardian, John Vidal and as we shall see next, the BBC. At any rate, surely Johnson doesn't have that low an opinion of people that he would want to get rid of them?
On 29th November 2019, The Guardian reported that “In an appearance on the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire show, the 79-year-old was told that one viewer had called his son “Pinocchio.” Johnson replied: “Pinocchio? That requires a degree of literacy which I think the Great British public doesn’t necessarily have.”
The show’s presenter, Joanna Gosling, standing in for Derbyshire, asked what he meant by that, to which Johnson replied that he didn’t want to go into it.
“That’s quite a pejorative thing to say about the Great British public,” Gosling suggested.
Johnson said: “They couldn’t spell Pinocchio if they tried, I would have thought.” He then challenged Gosling to spell it.
Johnson said he had been trying to make the point humorously, but he thought it was “utterly absurd and wrong that you can read out on air a tweet coming in from one of your readers which calls the prime minister a liar. I think it is amazing you can do that.”
Well, at least he's not in a position to appear on TV calling for state control over people's bodies. Is he?
On GB News Dan Wootton show on October 13th 2021, Emily Carver argued,
“It's absolutely the right of anyone, footballers, public figures, private employees, and I think also care home staff, to make the decisions about what goes into their body and I don't think that they should be put under the spotlight in this way, being asked what their vaccination status is or any other medical status.”
Stanley Johnson replied,
“I just totally disagree with that. You cannot be too ruthless in making people get vaccinated.”
Still, nobody actually takes his ideas seriously. It's not like the government has a national plan to control the population.
On November 12th, 2022 Stanley Johnson appeared on GB News with Nana Akua to promote Net Zero policies, saying,
“Actually it means that countries need to divvy up this carbon budget between them and they need to divvy up the sectors and then they need to have the measures which deal sector by sector with getting the...If that means, actually, some of us are told, well you can't go on a plane, that's fine. That's part of the national plan.”
Fellow guest Lois Perry argued that Net Zero policies were anti-capitalist.
A few days later on November 19th 2022, Stanley Johnson was again pushing the Net Zero agenda to GB News' Mark Dolan with whom he had the following exchange.
MD “Might we all have a carbon allowance in which if we've heated the house too many days of the year, we've driven our car too much, we can't fly away on holiday?”
SJ: “There could well be.”
MD: “I mean there is a thought, but do we want to live in that kind of world and who decides how much we get?”
SJ:“Well if you want to have a world to live in that's the route you may well have to do, if you see what I mean. This is what we're trading off here.”
MD: “The elite will still get their holidays and their flights won't they, in their second homes?”
SJ: “They may or may not but you might still have a world to live in, and at the moment there is no doubt about it that some serious measures have to be taken in lots of these styles.”
The following extract is taken from the introduction to Stanley Johnson's book The Population Problem, of 1973.
“Action on the population front means somehow trying to slow down or even halt this rate of growth by reducing the number of babies who are born each year. The alternative to this, both pessimists and optimists are agreed, is inevitable. If the number of new births cannot be reduced, the number of deaths each year must increase until the net growth of the world’s population is cut down to a more manageable number. This business of an increase in the death rate is not, of course, attractive. The recipes – which include thermonuclear war, global famine, plague and a newly discovered horror called ‘ecocatastrophe’ are all unpalatable. At the same time, the task of achieving a reduction in the global birth rate (which I call population control for the sake of simplicity) though clearly more death is also a form of population control.”
Well it's not like Stanley Johnson has any real power. It's not like he is the father of the Prime Minister. At least not any more. Anyway, they are two different people and sons don't always share the same ideas as their fathers. Boris Johnson doesn't necessarily agree with Stanley. Does he?
Boris Johnson wrote on his blog on October 5th 2007
“The world's population is now 6.7 billion, roughly double what it was when I was born. If I live to be in my mid-eighties, then it will have trebled in my lifetime.
The UN last year revised its forecasts upwards, predicting that there will be 9.2 billion people by 2050, and I simply cannot understand why no one discusses this impending calamity, and why no world statesmen have the guts to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves.”
“It is time we had a grown-up discussion about the optimum quantity of human beings in this country and on this planet. Do we want the south-east of Britain, already the most densely populated major country in Europe, to resemble a giant suburbia?
This is not, repeat not, an argument about immigration per se, since in a sense it does not matter where people come from, and with their skill and their industry, immigrants add hugely to the economy.
This is a straightforward question of population, and the eventual size of the human race.
All the evidence shows that we can help reduce population growth, and world poverty, by promoting literacy and female emancipation and access to birth control. Isn’t it time politicians stopped being so timid, and started talking about the real number one issue?”
Curiously, the policies of lockdown seemed to serve the depopulation agenda. Instilling the fear of one another into people, keeping them apart, stunting the emotional development of the young, retarding their learning and socialisation, necessitating a technology interface and dependency in life, the masking of facial expressions and the promotion of restrictive physical and sexual contact, all contributed to curtail the forming of relationships and reproduction.
The alleged overprescription of midazolam and morphine, the isolation of the elderly, the denial of healthcare, the missed diagnoses, the implementation of deadly health protocols, the Do Not Resuscitate orders, the instruction to stay at home, the attendant limitations on exercise and sunlight, the dining and queuing outside in the cold and wet, the opening of wintry windows for ventilation, the masks, and the endless bombardment of fear -these measures all served to lower the population by increasing stress, sickness, and deaths.
How curious that Boris Johnson should be Prime Minister at this time?
In an age in which government uses behavioural insights teams and psychological manipulation to engineer public responses, people were led to believe that Boris Johnson was a reluctant hostage to circumstance when he imposed lethal lockdown restrictions upon the nation, three times. The fact that he supposedly repeatedly caved into the pressure of 'the science” reinforced the idea that lockdown was a necessary approach and that there was a threat to public safety. Neither of those things were true. In 2020, publications as diverse as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, CNN, and the left-wing Canary discussed whether Boris Johnson and others cared more about the economy (or liberty) than lives. His purported opposition to lockdown increased conviction among his opponents of its moral rectitude.
It is a coincidence that Stanley Johnson wrote about a similar crisis nearly forty years earlier. His website relates that,
"Initially published in 1982 as The Marburg Virus, Johnson's The Virus reveals uncanny zoonotic parallels with the current corona virus: the outbreak of a mysterious and deadly disease, the origins of which are traced to a medical student infected by a green monkey. It features an epidemiologist as its hero and a desperate search for a vaccine.”
Is it not strange that both Stanley and Boris Johnson, both of whose stated goal is to reduce the population should, in the covid era, care so much about saving lives?
“In the afterword to his re-released The Virus Johnson, 79, says, 'Will the fight against COVID-19 be as successful as my fictional hero was in fighting the Marburg Virus?...Thinking back to my own book, and its eventual happy ending, I can't help feeling that Governments around the world, our own included, need to be ruthlessly focussed on the search for an antidote or a vaccine. Without in any way diminishing the importance of precautionary measures of containment or mitigation, mass immunization would surely prove a crucial factor in stopping the spread of COVID-19 or in preventing further outbreaks, e.g. the "second wave" we are hearing about.'"
Such was Stanley Johnson’s concern for the population he wants to decrease that he explicitly stated that “You cannot be too ruthless in making people get vaccinated.” The warnings that the injections can affect fertility and are contributing to increased sickness and deaths have fallen on deaf ears. This calls to mind the fact that both Johnsons sought to achieve “a reduction in the global birth rate,” and that Stanley noted that “death is also a form of population control.” The legacy of Boris Johnson's Premiership has so far been continually increasing excess deaths.
Addendum: For the reader’s interest the following related extract is included from a previous article entitled Is the Freedom Movement Together?
In March of 2020 the British public was informed that the Prime Minister, the Health Secretary, and the Prince of Wales, had all contracted the alleged novel coronavirus in the week that the country was asked to lockdown. The lockdown officially began on the 23rd March. Charles returned a positive test on the 26th, with Johnson and Hancock reporting theirs the following day. This remarkable turn of events presented something of a publicity coup for advocates of the lockdown, reminding the public that nobody was immune from the much vaunted pestilence. Furthermore the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was admitted to St. Thomas Hospital in London and reported to be in intensive care.
On April 12th, 2020 Johnson made a video statement asserting that “the NHS has saved my life, no question.” On May 2nd, 2020 he told the Sun on Sunday newspaper that doctors had “prepared to announce his death as he battled coronavirus.” This does not appear to have been true. As Johnson made this comment in the public domain, investigative journalist Marcus J Ball was able to query it by FOI request. St Thomas Hospital confirmed that no preparations had been made to announce Johnson's death.
After Johnson became aware of Ball's investigation and St Thomas Hospital's FOI response, he described his illness as “really mild,” when talking to Esther McVey and Philip Davies of GB News in April 2022.
In a document dated 22nd March, (a few days before the beginning of the spate of illnesses among high profile british political figures), SAGE had discussed how “A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened” and advised the government to “use media to increase sense of personal threat.”
From this document alone, it is clear that the public were being monitored and that it is possible that there were plans to manipulate their responses.
Besides the facts that Malthusianism has no scientific foundation, and that the Western world is facing a birth rate crisis, it's interesting to note that Johnson senior has sired 6 offspring, while his son has an incredible 8 by 3 different partners. It's incredible that no interviewer has picked them up on this.
Many thanks for your post. Stanley Patrick Johnson, his full name, contains both 'Satan' and 'hypocrite' at the same time.