---

1.0

Continued from Part 1

The first part highlighted the cover letter signed by Henry Kissinger:
http://powerandreality.com/documents/nssm200coverletter.pdf

I’m just going to start commenting on the actual report:

http://powerandreality.com/documents/PCAAB500.pdf

The Table of Contents is quite clear about the subjects being covered.

The Executive Summary starts off by complaining about the rate of population growth (not assuming that’s correct) and it focuses on the different rate in growth between rich countries and poor countries.

The doctrine being followed here is the same one that elites have consistently followed and which they have spread far and wide among the general public over many decades–that the earth has limited resources and that these resources are under pressure from increased numbers of people. I reject this doctrine. It’s just a dogma. The elite keep pushing it so many people believe it. I believe human life is valuable–all sorts of human beings have value–and I also believe that there is plenty of room and plenty of resources and plenty of intelligent capacity for people to deal with problems if they are left alone. But what I try to do is to expose the fact that NOBODY IS EVER LEFT ALONE by these people–with intervention after intervention. Nobody is left to sort out their own problems on their own. They are always interfered with by outside revolutionary insurgency–creating wars–and and these kinds of population control measures which people haven’t been informed about by the mainstream media and their education system. We have been taught to think in terms of other people having too many babies because they “don’t have reproductive rights.” Well, here is the world power’s motivations

This report is presented to whoever reads it as if it is advocating the best interests of Americans somehow and people might find that believable. But I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. That’s just the way someone could justify a report like this. Nowadays, decades since then, and after the elites started dominating the environmental movement and creating Agenda 21 and climate change treaties, they have hammered away at every other justification that many of us have been sold on–justifications to “save the earth” that wouldn’t have convinced as many people back in the 1970s.

My view is that there is an elite–the same elite which sponsored Thomas Malthus when they were building the British Empire–who see the majority of the population as competing for resources that they want to maintain for themselves–in order to maintain and gain ultimate power and control–as crazy as that sounds–that’s the way the later document “Agenda 21” reads. When policies such as “smart cities” and “Internet of Things” are being carried out and the earth is surrounded by satellites, that’s because they see things in that way. That’s the way they talk now–May 2020–and that’s the way William Conqueror took over England after 1066 with his Domesday Book program of counting every pig and chicken.

When the other “classes” have access to various forms of wealth–the elites feel the need to create artificial scarcity and monopoly–through various interventions, controls and through propaganda. If this hasn’t always been happening, the world would be a completely different place. It would be like paradise compared to the way it is.

It’s very similar to how they sell wars to the public. They sold the Vietnam War to the public–which Kissinger was famous for and McNamara before him–both sides of the political spectrum. And the Vietnam War was sold to the public as a good thing–as an effort to defeat communism–but it was so horrendous and destructive in the evil it caused–and war after war since then. We think there’s a different elite? Not at all. McNamara advocated for population control at the World Bank after he left office.

Point number 3 in the Executive Summary (p. 4):

. . . Policies to reduce fertility will have their main effects on total numbers only after several decades. However, if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Moreover, programs started now to reduce birth rates will have short run advantages for developing countries in lowered demands on food, health and educational and other services and in enlarged capacity to contribute to productive investments, thus accelerating development. . . .

Here we have good and bad mixed together. Nobody can sell a destructive idea unless its mixed with a plausible expression of good intentions. When I look at the reasoning in that paragraph, I think someone could read through that and take it for granted that not having as many children in the third world would naturally lead to more resources for everyone and accelerated “development” but I really don’t see why that necessarily follows from having less children. If you have more children or the same number, why wouldn’t that lead to more prosperity and development–since as they grow up, they contribute to agriculture and innovation–unless they have to fight constant wars. Think of the reality historically and not just the intentions. The reasoning doesn’t seem obvious to me. More likely it means that someone is going to buy them off with subsidies and set up western companies overseas and pay for abortion clinics and birth control chemicals and modify their ways of life completely. Is that what they mean by “development”?

In any case, notice how the policies are long term–these American-based elites are thinking in decades. The memorandum mentioned the year 2000.

And the main point is that it is clearly advocating “policies to reduce fertility” and they felt they needed to begin right away.

This paragraph is just an encapsulation of most of the subsequent policies produced since then that claim that human beings are a threat to the environment. It’s just harsher language. This was a declassified report because it wasn’t acceptable to Americans at the time to talk about “measures to reduce fertility” even if they were in foreign countries. And I still think it’s not acceptable to large numbers of Americans and Canadians, etc. I doubt that election campaigns were run with this policy being expressed.

There have been terrible incidents of forced sterilization since then (and earlier) in the world. It’s the same pattern again and again. People are not very well informed about it but the information is available.

Now the big foundations and international agencies based in countries like America have new terms like “reproductive rights” and “maternal health.” They call it “equality” when they give microloans to women because they don’t want them having families and children. That’s what is happening now. Campaign after campaign we have seen relates to this issue of population.

continued Part 3