Continued from Part 2
The first part highlighted the cover letter signed by Henry Kissinger:
Continuing with comments on the actual report:
From point # 4 of the Executive Summary:
Most demographers, including the U.N. and the U.S. Population Council, regard the range of 10 to 13 billion as the most likely level for world population stability, even with intensive efforts at fertility control. (These figures assume, that sufficient food could be produced and distributed to avoid limitation through famines.)
Note the existence of the U.S. Population Council.
Note the intention: “intensive efforts at fertility control.”
The report estimated the population at the time (1974) was about 4 billion and they expected it to be 6 to 8 billion in the year 2000.
I think the figure of “10 to 13 billion” for stability (or 12 billion for 2075) may have been their projection, but the idea that they saw it as a stable number is probably misleading in retrospect because I don’t believe that they want to let it get that high.
The current population as of May 2020, according to worldometers.info is 7.8 billion.
Possibly their policies have already slowed down the growth.
I don’t buy their scare premises about “famine.” People have plenty of capacity for feeding themselves if they are left alone–but wars and instability interfere with that.
I believe these are aggressive policies–not peaceful ones. This is all misleading.
Point #6: I don’t believe countries needed to transform “traditional agriculture” or that they would have any trouble feeding growing populations. I think these were mostly outside interventions by a global elite that had already begun decades earlier–which create greater dependency on international banks and corporations (as per Confessions of an Economic Hit Man)–and dependency on harmful chemicals and eventually genetically modified foods.
8. Rapid population growth is not in itself a major factor in pressure on depletable resources (fossil fuels and other minerals), since demand for them depends more on levels of industrial output than on numbers of people. On the other hand, the world is increasingly dependent on mineral supplies from developing countries, and if rapid population frustrates their prospects for economic development and social progress, the resulting instability may undermine the conditions for expanded output and sustained flows of such resources
I think this basically means that if there are strong families and strong cultures, then these nations might decide to do something else with their fossil fuels and mineral resources.
Notice that point 9 mentions “financial support” from the U.S. but why is there any such thing in the first place? That’s just interference.
So “economic development and social progress” means being dependent on the U.S. and other globalist powers who are building a tightly integrated global order, and following in lockstep.
There is just a lot of nonsense about how they’ll have trouble supplying themselves with food and all the same old B.S. It must sound so scientific to many people. Domination and dependency is “scientific.”
Point #10 (p.6): They express concern about population growth limiting “economic and social progress.”
Point #12: mentions the “oil crisis” of the time. It’s the same people back then shaping events and creating artificial scarcity.
Point #13: I am skeptical of their concept that increased population would help these countries economically. I don’t believe it.
. . . economic and social progress will probably contribute further to the decline in fertility rates
I think this is mostly due to modern industry being pushed on them along with birth control, toxic chemicals that come along with the industrial food, and industry pulling people out of the countryside and into the factories, including women. I think this is what they mean by “economic and social progress.” It’s a tautology. It’s equivalent to “decline in fertility rates.” People slaving in factories aren’t having children.
If significant progress can be made in slowing population growth, the positive impact on growth of GNP and per capita income will be significant.
I have doubts that they really want an improvement in per capita income because I think there could be just as much “instability” (that was their overall concern in the first place) politically speaking from prosperous individuals even if they have less children.
High birth rates appear to stem primarily from
a) They complain there is not enough info on fertility/birth control
b) They complain there is a lack of motivation to reduce the number of children–they disapprove of the motivation that people “need support in old age.”
Think about that. Are families supposed to support each other in old age? Or not? What do you believe about that? As in what do you BELIEVE about that and WHO gave you your beliefs?
My belief is that in a world left alone by people like this, we would have to look after our own family members in their old age–to a large degree but hopefully there is a wider community.
Is there something out of sync? Yes. Something that takes us out of a natural way of being? Yes. Is that OK? No.
By the way, could we still use support from family members now, even in our “advanced” society? Yes. They mostly sell us a lot of false promises. The “utopia” they promise isn’t here yet. There is all this chaos we have to go through-as people in Vietnam or in Central America or in the world wars for that matter-or in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eventually some day, after there are no more crises, yes, sure, we’ll have a utopia where someone looks after us properly in our “old age” except that, it seems more like their intended utopia is Brave New World where, in that novel, they don’t let people live past 60.
It would be good to look at recent statistics over the last ten years for life expectancy. I am using this document as evidence that we need to be concerned about downward pressure on population, and maybe the recent introduction in Canada of medically assisted dying is evidence of this.
The third point:
c. the slowness of change in family preferences in response to changes in environment
The U.S. and world government is trying to alter “change in family preferences.”
“Most experts” in herd management of humans “agree that . . .”
expenditures on effective family planning services are generally one of the most cost effective investments for an LDC country [Less Developed Country?] seeking to improve overall welfare and per capita economic growth. We cannot wait for overall modernization and development to produce lower fertility rates naturally since this will undoubtedly take many decades in most developing countries, during which time rapid population growth will tend to slow development and widen even more the gap between rich and poor.
That’s how they paint the picture as they pose as humanitarians. I don’t believe it at all. I think a people prosper when they have more children–most countries have plenty of resources. People have had less children in western countries for a long time, because of people like this and Charles Galton Darwin’s ideas (https://canadianliberty.com/the-next-million-years-by-charles-galton-darwin-1/), so we have forgotten what it was like.
With all the debates over the years with “conservatives” arguing against socialism, here is a Republican appointee’s report justifying spending American taxpayers’ money–by “helping” foreign countries deplete their population.
And Canadian governments have had similar policies all along for global development, all these decades since–as time as gone by there has been more emphasis on the environmental arguments.
(Also domestically, since about the same time, we’ve had tax-subsidized family planning and abortion.)
How can anyone justify the foreign part of this democratically? Have people voted on this? This is an elite’s agenda. When the elites complain about “populists” they are referring to people who haven’t been to their meetings and don’t share their obsessions.
Point 16 illustrates the nature of all this. These people–these Fabian socialist types running America for decades–they think they have a right to get right in there and down and dirty–and meddle thoroughly in peoples’ lives-and treat them like chess pieces or farm animals. This is exactly the attitude in Fabian literature such as Crome Yellow by Aldous Huxley.
And Canada is the same way – these governments are just the same with their domestic populations!
Read this and think about the role of government as you perceive it and compare that to what it is really involved in:
. . . The World Population Plan of Action adopted at the World Population Conference recommends that countries working to affect fertility levels should give priority to development programs and health and education strategies which have a decisive effect on fertility. International cooperation should give priority to assisting such national efforts. These programs include: (a) improved health care and nutrition to reduce child mortality, (b) education and improved social status for women; (c) increased female employment; (d) improved old-age security; and (e) assistance for the rural poor, who generally have the highest fertility, with actions to redistribute income and resources including providing privately owned farms. . . . For example, we do not yet know of cost-effective ways to encourage increased female employment, particularly if we are concerned about not adding to male unemployment. . . .
But they kept working at it.
Some of that sounds good, but do they have a right to use anyone’s money that way to manipulate societies?
They know how to sell this.
All of this has intensified in the last decade or two.
I consider this level of interference to be totalitarian in nature. And this is the world we live in.
That’s who our “God” is–this group knows what is “best” for everyone supposedly.
To be continued