It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kissenger's 1974 plan for population reduction using food supply

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   
www.tehrantimes.com...

Here is an interesting article that has some very interesting parallels to todays current food crisis (see Loam's most recent thread).


On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine.



Kissinger also predicted a return of famines that could make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary. “Rapid population growth and lagging food production in developing countries, together with the sharp deterioration in the global food situation in 1972 and 1973, have raised serious concerns about the ability of the world to feed itself adequately over the next quarter of a century and beyondhe reported

And here we are a quarter of a century later and the entire world is facing skyrocketing food prices. Many nations will not be able to sustain themselves.



The cause of that coming food deficit was not natural, however, but was a result of western financial policy: “Capital investments for irrigation and infrastructure and the organization requirements for continuous improvements in agricultural yields may be beyond the financial and administrative capacity of many LDCs. For some of the areas under heaviest population pressure, there is little or no prospect for foreign exchange earnings to cover constantly increasingly imports of food.


I know that there are people out there who thinks that the government doesn't want depopulation, but here is a document that says otherwise. It shows that our government views world population as a threat to national security. Yes it is over 20 years old, but Kissenger is still involved in the government and I seriously doubt that we have changed our stance on the issue. It is fairly disturbing to see us in the early stages of his plan.

While it may not be as outright genocidal as the article suggests, it is obvious that they saw it coming and view this as a method of population control.

One final quote I found interesting.


Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?




posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
On his DVD (Behold a Pale Horse), Bill Cooper spoke at length about the Club of Rome and its "Limits to Growth" report. Incredibly interesting and scary. If I recall, he mentioned that the curtailment of the population boom by restricting future births was cancelled in favor of a mass cull or something to that effect.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
"In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion."

en.wikipedia.org...

In other words, the memo did not advise a coercive policy.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Is depopulation a bad thing?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


On a voluntary scale, maybe not. Then again, the way birth rates are headed, it's entirely possible the human race could be extinct by the year 3000!



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 

I'd say by reducing food supply it is.. people will starve to death than. That is depopulation in a very cruel way.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Purposeful starving is just cruel. If de-population is to be such an issue, then some sort of method of mass sterilisation would be far more humane, albeit morally wrong.

The tough thing is to decide which nation is the one sterilised, who can really make that kind of judgement? It would probably end up in that nation being wiped off the planet in a matter of a few generations.

But I guess drastic situations call for equally drastic measures.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
It worked well for Russia.

I am not advocating it.. but I cannot deny depopulation is appealing to me.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I think population control is a real issue. Kissenger brings up a good point. If a country isn't responsible enough to control their own population growth, should the US be forced to ration their own food to allow the irresponsible country to grow even further?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


It really all does boil down to smart allocation of resources. If the US was spraying pesticide on foreign wheatfields, however, then I'd be concerned.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


"An evil deed is as sweet as honey in the mouth of the fool but when the deed comes to fruition the fool comes to grief "so said Buddha. Nothing good well come of population control. Especially when population control arises because some neglected unloved rich brats never learned the virtue of generocity.The world will not be saved by population control. Humans will one day be extinct.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Is depopulation a bad thing?


Are you willing to lead the pack of those who are murdered in the name of depopulation? Are you willing to be starved to death in the name of depopulation?

Who gets to choose who lives and who dies. What makes a Kissinger or Rockefeller a more important member of society than you or I?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Who decides who lives and who dies? Why.. the mighty do of course. History would allow no other alternative.

The strong will do what they can, the weak will suffer what they must.

Depopulation sounds bad, poor starving babies and the likes.. but the fastest growing populations are those that are artificially kept affloat. Indonesia for instance cannot produce enough food to support its population. It imports large amount of food.. the reason rice is so expensive and so many countries stopped sales of rice is because Indonesia put in a massive back order to feed her own people.. trying to stock up cheap because they saw in the future a few months down the road they where #.

So why should we fly food from America and other nations that produce large abundances of food and send it to Africa, Asia or South America? .. If we do.. we let the population expand. When that happens it takes more resources, and the population expands. Because the people are ignorant and all they can do is make babies.. we have a perpetual cycle.

Remove artificial feeding and allow nature to regulate the amount of souls in one location depending on the population and what the Earth can sustain.

People will die. Boohoo. People die anyways, kids born to starving mothers to wither away, die, then their ignorant mother has 2 more kids and maybe they survive to have 6 kids by 20 years old and have half die.

If they all died to begin with, there would actually be less death because they wouldn't be starving to give birth to starving babies who would give birth to even more starving babies.

All because they cannot sustain themselves.

The longer its held off the bigger the chaos in the end.. if the famines pass this year, 20 years from now the famine will take 50X the resources had we allowed nature to take her place in the world and regulate the eco system.

Yes.

HUMANITY IS APART OF THE ECO SYSTEM. And artificially allowing Human growth to expand unchecked is a violation.

You say, who says who lives and dies. The strong do. Always has it been that way. you say why does Rockefeller or Kissinger have any more of a right to live? they don't. But they have the resources, they control the resources. I wouldn't die. Hell I'd shoot someone and munch on their leg before that happened. I'm sick SOB, but hey, I'd survive the rest.

Humanity is not God. Humanity is a mockery of God. We think we are God when in fact we truly ignorant. We will defeat disease, and Humans will decay longer and experience longer lives until the ripe old age of 100 where they will continue to use resources and # their pants while consuming, consuming, consuming. We may end wars, have peace, and grow as a worldly population perpetually with no end in sight. And we may conquer natural disasters by fleeing the area, then using vast resources to rebuild in the same location just to repeat the process in another four years. We may end hunger by flying genetically engineered food all over the world and assist in the growth of third world countries until the population exceeds are rational. And we may keep people around forever. Shoot, we may just find the cure for death and become immortal in our own way and just reproduce without death.

But in the end a new virus will kill us all. Over population will excite wars and death will mount in the millions. A drought will kill the crops, a flood will wash away farm land, and millions upon millions will die. The rain will be acid from the manufacturing and the animals will die because they ate genetically altered plants. We won't escape our world.. the Human fear of death and the Human fear of seeing death will ultimately lead to more death.

If that makes sense.

I don't mean to sound like an ass. But there are to many people in the world. We need to stop finding ways to keep people alive, to cure disease and to end wars, famine, natural disasters. We need a return to the status quo.

In my opinion, be it dark, morbid and twisted that it is.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 

I agree with you that this world is out of balance and overpopulated. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

I understand that the natural selection proccess is the most natural way to deal with that, but maybe people can live with that if it takes places far away from them. When your own childeren will starve to death than natural selection becomes a whole different thing.

The way you speak about it is very theoretical, but I my eyes too cruel for people to undergo.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Depopulation is an excellent idea if its not happening to you.

Thanks for the document. I'm sure The Dick has no qualms running this proposal through his head. We live in interesting times.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   
On one hand I think that Kissneger is right. Countries should have an obligation to not grow their population beyond what they can naturally sustain. The problem is when corporations such as Monsanto get involved and make it so they can no longer sustain themselves by their own means. When it seems like corporate greed is altering food supplies unnaturally, then something is wrong and it feels more sinister.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join