Yes I know. The question was rhetorical.

Point is, don't entrust any second-hand source to paraphrase Malthus. They have pretty much universally been twisted into unrecognizably distorted strawmen.

As I said, this is one of the historically verified perils of going against the intellectual grain. Even if you're right, your opponents will rewrite history (including your own thesis!) to make you "wrong" in the end.

Caveat cogitatoris, friends...