DEATH BY DESIGN - Examining the Depopulation Agenda of "The Kissinger Report"
"There is no single approach which will 'solve' the population problem," reads National Security Study Memorandum 200.
“The Big D” has been around for a long time.
On December 10, 1974, the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM 200) was officially completed by the United States National Security Council.
A brainchild of mastermind and recently deceased New World Order architect, Henry Kissinger, this directive meticulously and dispassionately laid the foundation for policies to achieve one inarguable goal: human depopulation.
Declassified in 1989, the report is based on the tenet that human population growth outpaces the availability of resources, leading to the destabilization of nations, global conflicts, and eventual mass death.
Kissinger, much in tune with the Malthusian doctrine as applied to geopolitics, saw these principles from a strictly Americentrist perspective. If least developed countries (LDCs) were not ‘corrected’ for their overpopulation woes, the Memorandum implied, then their instability and chaos would pose a certain threat to the United States’ interests domestically and abroad.
“There is no single approach which will ‘solve’ the population problem. The complex social and economic factors involved call for a comprehensive strategy with both bilateral and multilateral elements. At the same time actions and programs must be tailored to specific countries and groups. Above all, LDCs themselves must play the most important role to achieve success…
World policy and programs in the population field should incorporate two major objectives: (a) actions to accommodate continued population growth up to 6 billions by the mid-21st century without massive starvation or total frustration of developmental hopes; and (b) actions to keep the ultimate level as close as possible to 8 billions rather than permitting it to reach 10 billions, 13 billions, or more.”
Now, if we look at our current world population, we’re practically right at that 8 billion number. But, of course, we’re talking about a document drafted roughly 50 years ago. Many detractors of Malthusian approaches will argue that even the greatest thinkers and intellectuals could not have foreseen the increase in food production, and other technological developments for population sustenance.
“Malthus is still wrong,” contend many modern scientists and policymakers. The world can sustain far more than Kissinger in 1974 stated, and it can be done without any of the oft-associated famines, calamities, and wars.
But at the time of Memorandum 200’s drafting, the vision for a New World Order, spearheaded by The World Population Plan of Action, saw only one solution. Framed in benign terms like “fertility control” (today, couched as “reproductive health”), controlling and reducing population growth was of paramount importance.
“Our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two-child family on the average), by about the year 2000. This will require the present 2 percent growth rate to decline to 1.7 percent within a decade and to 1.1 percent by 2000 compared to the U.N medium projection, this goal would result in 500 million fewer people in 2000 and about 3 billion fewer in 2050. Attainment of this goal will require greatly intensified population programs. A basis for developing national population growth control targets to achieve this world target is contained in the World Population Plan of Action.”
In other words, to save people we have to kill them.
Proponents of these so-called “fertility control” and “population programs” would argue that you’re not killing anyone. It’s not death. It’s merely the prevention of life. You’re reducing births, reducing foreseeable issues, and avoiding greater death in the long term.
Others may make a utilitarian calculation to maximize the most good for the most people, claiming that the front-end ‘casualties’ are necessary collateral when faced with immeasurable suffering from forthcoming famines, wars, and lack of resources. Although the death down the road may not be as great as the death at the start, the existential pain and anguish of such a crowded, resource-strapped planet will be objectively worse than any conceivable human loss.
Fortunately, many of today’s greatest minds do not agree.
Even the United Nations Population Division defines sub-replacement fertility as any rate under ~2.1 children born per woman. If we were to use the recommendations of Memorandum 200, we’d be right at replacement or sub-replacement levels. In other words, we’d either fail to achieve the level of fertility at which the world population precisely replaces itself, and begin to depopulate, or we would stagnate.
Is this population control or population reduction?
What if under-population is a greater existential risk to the planet than overpopulation?
Innovator and richest man in the world, Elon Musk, thinks so. According to Musk, who has spent millions in ‘population collapse’ research, “population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming.”
Those like Musk see the advent of incredible technologies and the potential for human invention as pathways to a sustainable, larger, more populated future. Others, however, appear to view many humans as a “useless class,” as commodities, as largely indistinguishable from hackable animals that must be monitored and managed for their own good.
The Kissinger Report essentially reduces childbirth to a decision of quality vs quantity:
“Healthier and better-educated children tend to be economically more productive, both as children and later as adults. In addition to the more-or-less conscious trade-offs parents can make about more education and better health per child, there are certain biologic adverse effects suffered by high birth order children such as higher mortality and limited brain growth due to higher incidence of malnutrition. It must be emphasized, however, that discussion of trade-offs between child quality and child quantity will probably remain academic with regard to countries where child mortality remains high. When parents cannot expect most children to survive to old age, they probably will continue to "over-compensate", using high fertility as a form of hedge to insure that they will have some living offspring able to support the parents in the distant future.”
The Memo goes on to explain that “in most LDCs, many couples would reduce their completed family size if appropriate birth control methods were more easily available... Therefore, family planning supply (contraceptive technology and delivery systems) and demand (the motivation for reduced fertility) would not be viewed as mutually exclusive alternatives; they are complementary and may be mutually reinforcing.”
None of this has really changed today. With Planned Parenthood clinics performing 133 abortions for every one adoption referral in 2019, “family planning” is an interesting term for sure.
Where have we heard that before?
It doesn’t matter where you look these days. If your eyes are seeing, your ears are listening, and your mind is open, you know. They don’t even hide it anymore. Perhaps they speak in conversational, innocuous tones. Perhaps they have all sorts of fancy statistical extrapolations and nuanced justifications. Maybe they use academic terms and watered-down euphemisms, but at the end of the day, many of them are saying the same… damn… thing.
Not a New Thing
Depopulation, population control, fertility control, family planning, reproductive rights, birth control - they all share an obvious outcome.
You can look at them for all their purported reasons. From ancient attempts to appease the Gods to geopolitical calculations, scientific experimentation, personal sovereignty, social engineering, and deeper, darker, nefarious acts, the effective reduction of a given or expected population has more than enough historical precedents.
Whether it’s the Georgia Guidestones declaring the need to “maintain humanity under 500 million in perpetual balance with nature,” or a Supreme Court ruling contributing to 70,000 forced sterilizations of the “mentally deficient,” the case of eugenics is nothing new.
In fact, many would argue we are in the smack-dab middle of a depopulation cycle right now, perhaps the most sinister and undeniable in modern human history.
Is it any coincidence that the same people who push transhumanist takeovers, pandemics, mass vaccination, and Climate Change “solutions” all think the world is overpopulated?
Is it any surprise that those who repeatedly fear-mongered Climate Change apocalypses for 50 years are the same class of people restricting our freedoms and controlling our lives in the name of saving the planet?
But what’s really causing depopulation, more than ever, when we look out at the world today?
According to many, like former Pfizer vice-president Michael Yeadon, the roll-out and continued push of the mRNA injections are inescapable proof of a planned depopulation:
And it’s not like there isn’t ample evidence for such claims. We’re slowly but surely reaching epic proportions of awakening. People are looking at old documents, public speeches, conference transcripts, anomalous anecdotes, and of course, statistical analyses revealing not only an increase in infertility that would make Kissinger blush, but more alarmingly, an increase in all-cause mortality and morbidity.
The studies are piling up, and the critics are beginning to scratch their heads. How could this all be still going on if the governments know?
Why are they actively suppressing the data? Is it mere pharmaceutical avarice? Is it a combination of deep psychological defense mechanisms preventing people from seeing what’s right in front of their faces? Is it just sheer incompetence and a burgeoning fear of being legally responsible?
Are people hiding - like certain scientists and bureaucrats - because they know they did something bad? Or at the very least, because they realize they pressured people into something that harms them?
Or is it something more, something more profound - like a Global Depopulation Agenda that has killed at least 17 million thus far?
In just a recent analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, US disabilities during November increased by ~300,000 for ages 16 and over, and by ~200,000 for ages 16 and over in the civilian workforce. This excess disability notably precedes excess mortality, and unfortunately, shows no sign of dropping off.
Of course, we’re told none of this is related to the shots. It’s just “long Covid” and certainly has nothing to do with the post-vaccination syndrome recently uncovered and admitted by Yale researchers.
So clearly, people are dying. And with fertility rates dropping and excess mortality rates increasing, we have a kill-off on both ends. Further life is being prevented while existing life is being cut short. More existing life is being cut short. More and more all the time, and while we can act like it’s not happening, the evidence is everywhere for anyone with an open mind, tough stomach, and steeled heart to observe.
What ostensibly was about ‘saving’ populations and preventing crises appears to have evolved into the exact opposite.
Is this really about helping people and bringing in a happier, more prosperous future through needed, albeit controversial measures?
And if we somehow did encounter that sudden precipitous population drop - due to rapid population growth - as implied in the Kissinger document ~50 years ago…
Would it be because of resource shortages? Or because the so-called solutions engineered the collapse?
Will stern, tough protocols and policies save us all?
Or are we all being slowly played by the Devil’s golden fiddle?
Having been nudged all my life, (1960-), to diminish myself because 'too many people, too little resources' psyops, I can see the grand scheme to install the thoughts, 'You deserve less, you're taking up too many resources.'. It is impossible to underestimate the effect this has on the human soul, which are historically programmed to get along with other humans. Learning to hate the glass walls of the aquarium, the jumping gerbil escapes.
I’m with Elon Musk ❤️
“ Those like Musk see the advent of incredible technologies and the potential for human invention as pathways to a sustainable, larger, more populated future”
Have a Beautiful and Blessed day, Erik and readers ❤️