Robert Malone’s deep dive.
He’s normally a cautious individual. As here - however as he says, he now “has the receipts”.
Indeed he has.
Nixon, Ford, Kissinger, Schwab, Gates…
Ties up well with recent, and less recent, history.
Malone credits a Mr. Gavin DeBecker as source.
Posted in three parts due to its length.
Comments on the link.
ED
Who is Robert Malone
Population Control and Official USG Policy
Here are the receipts. Not a “conspiracy theory”
25 Jul 2023
Personally, I have been reluctant to wander down the rabbit hole relating to various “depopulation agenda” theories involving the COVIDcrisis. However, the odd concordance between a possible population reduction objective and the dysfunctional “public health” policies is obvious to all open minded thinkers. These policies include that the biologically engineered SARS-CoV-2 virus, the many “public health” policies, as well as the rushed gene therapy-based COVID “vaccines” and their wide range of associated- but rigorously denied - “serious adverse events” (not the least of which are sudden unexpected death and fertility issues) are more consistent with a population control/depopulation agenda as opposed to being effective “public health” interventions.
Buckle up, because this is going to be a deep dive down that very same rabbit hole.
Recently, a respected colleague (Mr. Gavin DeBecker) sent me an email comprising a lengthy analysis and attached documents concerning (formerly classified) National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 titled the “Kissinger Report”. He also provided links to associated supplemental federal government documents including the National Security Directive Memorandum 314 “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests, 11/26/75”. Gavin is a well-published author, including the pivotal work titled “The Gift of Fear : Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence ”, and he had prepared this analysis (below) while preparing a new book. His text, thoughts and analysis are shared by permission of the author.
In considering these documents, it is helpful to keep in mind that Henry Kissinger is a key mentor of Dr. Klaus Schwab, was involved (together with the CIA) in originally creating and continues to consult with the World Economic Forum as well as with the CCP/Xi Jinping.
Reading through the comments, observations, and associated documents I was stunned by the frank, “Realpolitik”-based arguments in favor of a US Federal Government global population control/depopulation agenda, as well as the similarities to various activities known to have been performed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, World Health Organization, United Nations and other non-governmental (and governmental) organizations. I am also amazed by the parallels between some of the proposed and implemented COVIDcrisis policy positions (keeping in mind that NSSM 200 as well as NSDM 314 were formally implemented as US federal policy by Gerald Ford and remain in place as US policy to this day).
It is absolutely true that correlation does not prove causation, and we do not (yet?) have documentation that these official population control/depopulation policy items influenced COVIDcrisis public health policy - as many so-called “conspiracy theorists” have surmised. However, as far as I am concerned, one must recognize and acknowledge the amazing parallels between preceding population policy and many of the “public health” policies and actions which were implemented in USA and most western countries (particularly the “five eyes” nations). As previously covered in this Substack, Ernst Wolff has been one (of many) leading proponents of the theory that the COVIDcrisis was largely driven by an economic/financial agenda. It is always possible, and in this case probable, that many agendas were being advanced during this recent manufactured crisis.
After reading this essay and the supporting documentation, I suggest that each reader should make his/her (they/them?) assessment of the probability that the response to this “public health crisis” was influenced by US Federal population control policy as clearly outlined in the “Kissinger Report”. The report indicates that global population MUST not exceed 8 billion human beings. Is it a coincidence that in 2020 total global human inhabitants reached 7.84 billion?
It all started with a meeting.
June 8, 1973, 10:30 AM, Ambassador Porter’s Office, State Department
COPIES TO: S, D, P, E, M, C, S/PC, S/S, EUR, IO, S/PM, AID
General Draper and his colleagues presented their views that the population explosion in developing countries was not only a threat to US interests in the economics and in the development of those countries but also, more fundamentally, presented a danger to our politico military interests. They referred to the memorandum written by General Taylor on this subject. Ambassador Porter said that he had read General Taylor’s memorandum and asked him to comment on it further if he cared to. General Taylor said he would add only that, although he was a neophyte in population matters, he felt very strongly that, as stated in his memorandum, the rapid growth of populations in many developing countries was a likely source of internal violence and of possibilities of external aggression. He and General Draper asked Ambassador Porter for his advice on how to proceed with the subject. They said they had talked to General Scowcroft in Mr. Kissinger’s office about it in terms of the possibility of a NSC study. General Draper said he had written the President explaining his views that rapid population growth could endanger the concept of a generation of peace and recommending that the President speak out on this subject.
Ambassador Porter said that they were talking to someone who was already converted to this whole idea. He felt that our population programs were not closely enough connected to our overall aid programs but were handled too separately. He believed there was no use pumping in aid funds and food without closer correlation with population programs. They were now much too separate. He felt the relationship needed reorientation. He believed we should not put large amounts of money in aid programs in developing countries without thinking over the long-term consequences. He said he agreed that population growth in developing countries is a definite threat to the peace, not just an economic problem. Ambassador Porter recalled his experience in Korea, where he had first come in contact with a national population control program. He found that at the governmental level there was, at least vocally, a strong program but that when he went to the village level he found that the charts showing acceptors had large gaps. He found that at the ministerial level it was thought that the population program was necessary but at the village level it would not work for the individual family until they had two male children to run the farm. In fact, the government program did not really encourage women to practice birth control until they had two male children.
Ambassador Porter said that fundamentally this is a NSC study. An overall directive for the whole program should come from the White House. He said we will check on what has happened in the White House since the receipt of General Draper’s letter. He said we will try to get something done.
Ambassador Porter brought up the other subject which had been mentioned by General Draper in his correspondence: the Brezhnev visit. He said he thought that the Soviet Union would not be much interested in internal population programs because, although they were interested in birth control for China, they wanted to fill their own empty space in Siberia. He agreed, however, with General Draper’s argument that the Soviets should be interested, as the US is, in encouraging developing countries to reduce their rates of population growth. Ambassador Porter said he would make a formal proposal to Kissinger to put the matter on the agenda for the President-Brezhnev talks.
General Draper said that he has three important steps in mind now:
Talks with the Soviets concerning a positive approach to the World Population Conference.
A statement by the President at the UNGA this fall on the threat which population growth poses for world peace.
The exclusion of oral contraceptives from the 40 percent limitation on AID’s contributions to the IPPF.
He asked if Mr. Claxton and Mr. Porter would agree that this last item was appropriate and, if so, if they would express their views to Dr. Hannah who had it under consideration. Ambassador Porter and Mr. Claxton said they would.
Ambassador Porter again raised the subject of the NSC and felt that the object was to get it involved. Mr. Claxton suggested that it might be useful sometime after the Secretary’s return from Europe to convoke a meeting of the Secretary, Mr. Rush, Under Secretary Casey and Ambassador Porter with Dr. Hannah and members of his staff to take a general, broad, long-range policy look at US interests and programs in the population field. He said he would send up suggestions on this subject.
Senator Tydings said there were several domestic problems involved which related strongly to our international position. He said he believed that State and AID were far ahead other departments of the Government. He said, for example, the present generation of contraceptives is not adequate for the needs of peoples in the diverse rural societies and that there was a great need for research which, however, was not being adequately supported by the US Government. He said he feels there is lacking any sense of urgency anywhere else in the Government. He felt there is a lack of coordination of internal sectors in relation to foreign policy interests in this field. For example, although it is reported that Texas, Minnesota and some other states will have exceptionally large wheat crops, he is not aware of any planning to provide the necessary railroad cars to get the wheat to port. Mr. Claxton added that Senator Humphrey has said he is not aware there is planning to provide the necessary propane or natural gas to dry the large expected soybean crop in the Midwestern states this fall. He also wondered whether there was planning for the necessary ships to carry increased cargoes of feedgrains. Although these were generally considered to be domestic matters, they strongly relate to the success of basic foreign policy interests
Senator Tydings added that he believes the top command of HEW is not only unwilling to expand our national family planning services but apparently is not willing to support what we already have going on. Ambassador Porter and Mr. Claxton both observed that it is important to be able to show abroad that we are not asking peoples of other countries to do more than we are doing at home.
General Taylor said he thought that any NSC study should include a sudy of the domestic scene viewed from the standpoint of the effects of family planning programs. Senator Tydings emphasized that logistics in the US are essential to getting food abroad for family planning purposes.
Ambassador Porter asked if anyone knew what China is doing in population control. General Draper said he had spent three weeks recently in China and had testified before Senator Kennedy’s Health Subcommittee. He would send Ambassador Porter a copy of that testimony. Ambassador Porter said he would be very glad to have it. General Draper outlined very briefly what he had seen in China.
General Draper then brought up his concern that the amendments to the AID bill proposed by 22 members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee would be harmful because: 1) they authorized funds for population and broad health subjects together and authorized only $150 million for both; and 2) as he understood it, the earmarking for population funds which had been essential to the success of the program was being dropped. He asked the Department’s consideration of this subject and support for retaining the earmarking. He said he would testify before the Foreign Affairs Committee next week and would urge the Committee to leave $125 million earmarked for population programs alone and to transfer the health subject with $25 million to the food and nutrition section.
Concerning the President-Brezhnev meeting, Mr. Claxton said he had already prepared a paper for the President’s use and that he would get it to Ambassador Porter to send to Mr. Kissinger. Ambassador Porter said that he would also include in his memorandum to Kissinger a suggestion that the population subject be taken up by the NSC in its broad aspects.
Kissinger Report and Subsequent US Population Control Policy
The classified National Security Study Memo known as The Kissinger Report, undertaken at the direction of President Nixon, laid out detailed plans for population reduction in many countries. These plans became official US policy in 1975 though National Security Decision 314, enacted by President Gerald Ford.
The policies developed from the report were seen as a way the United States could use human population control to prevent undeveloped nations from gaining substantial political power. Believing that future generations birthed throughout the world posed a danger to wealth accumulation, the policy was backed by wealthy individuals in the US. The policy was also expected to protect American businesses abroad against interference from nations seeking to support their growing populations.
Historically, war was required to reduce an adversary’s population; the Kissinger Report proposed a more strategic and well-disguised approach aimed at countries that could pose long-term risk to U.S. economic and military interests.
From Wikipedia: “NSSM200 was reworked and adopted as official United States policy through NSDM 314 by President Gerald Ford on November 26, 1975. It was initially classified for over a decade but was obtained by researchers in the early 1990s. The memorandum and subsequent policies developed from the report were observed as a way the United States could use human population reduction to limit the political power of undeveloped nations, ensure the easy extraction of foreign natural resources, prevent young anti-establishment individuals from being born, and to protect American businesses abroad from interference from nations seeking to support their growing populations.”
From the Kissinger Report Executive Summary:
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
This major objective –to not exceed 8-billion– combined with the fact that we hit the 8-billion mark in 2022 might help explain the intense urgency of so many planned and organized actions during the past three years.
When we set aside Covid/virus/pandemic (the ostensible rationale for everything that’s been done since 2020), and focus instead on plans that were developed and enacted by USG over decades, and when we focus on actions that have been taken on those plans, and when we focus on the effects that have been caused by those actions, it emerges that population reduction, population control (and control of the population) has resulted. This is expressed without judgement about good or bad motives, and without reference to specific people – simply looking at what has resulted.
Perhaps the most obvious result of COVID lockdowns and the interruption of commerce is the current record number of people at risk of starvation: Before COVID lockdowns and all their results, the number of people at risk of starvation was 135-million. By the end of 2021, that had increased by another 135-million people, and in 2022, it then increased another 67-million. The result is currently about 10-million deaths from starvation, 3-million of them children. (World Hunger Facts & Statistics | Action Against Hunger)
The classified Kissinger Report set forth a strong belief system that population must urgently be reduced (a belief that many reasonable people support and many reasonable people oppose). The Kissinger Report created a template and spending plan that includes items I’m quoting directly:
… fertility and contraceptive research
… biomedical research would be doubled
… field testing of existing technology
… development of new technology
… oral contraceptives (optimal steroid hormone combinations and doses for populations)
… intra-uterine devices of differing size, shape, and bioactivity should be developed and tested to determine the optimum levels of acceptability
… Sterilization of men and women has received wide-spread acceptance in several areas. Female sterilization has been improved by technical advances with aparoscopes, culdoscopes, and greatly simplified abdominal surgical techniques… the use of tubal clips, trans-cervical approaches, and simpler techniques can be developed. For men, several current techniques hold promise but require more refinement
… Leuteolytic and anto-progesterone approaches to fertility control including use of prostaglandins
… injectable contraceptives for women … administered by pare-professionals. Currently limited by their side effects and potential hazards… can be overcome with additional research
… male contraceptive, in particular an injection which will be effective for specified periods of time
… injection which will assure a woman of regular periods. The drug would be given by pare-professionals once a month or as needed to regularize the menstrual cycle
The budget for each intended/recommended action in the report gives insight into the level of priority and commitment assigned to each item.
The report proposes the (then-innovative) idea of incorporating birth control into “the context of broader health services” in order to help make reductions in population “more acceptable to leaders and individuals who, for a variety of reasons (some ideological, some simply humanitarian) object to family planning.”
The report recommends population control only in Least Developed Countries (LDC), and cautions that “We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs,” though the policy was precisely that.
The report stresses more than once that weaving the concepts of family planning into health programs is a strategy for gaining acceptance, and will:
“help the U.S. contend with the ideological charge that the U.S. is more interested in curbing the numbers of LDC people than it is in their future and well-being. We should recognize that those who argue along ideological lines have made a great deal of the fact that the U.S. contribution to development programs and health programs has steadily shrunk, whereas funding for population programs has steadily increased.”
The report proposes recruitment of “traditional medical practitioners,” and reaches the conclusion that “the commercial approach offers a practical, low-cost means of providing family planning services, since it utilizes an existing distribution system.” (Mass vaccination is an example of this.)
The report explains that the International Planned Parenthood Federation and USAID were “testing commercial distribution schemes in various Least Developed Nations to obtain further information on the feasibility, costs, and degree of family planning acceptance achieved through this approach.” The work was to be “aimed at simple, low-cost, effective, safe, long-lasting and acceptable methods of fertility control.”
Note: USAID (10,000 employees, $27bn budget) figures most prominently in the report, and was a co-author, along with CIA and Dept of State.
“A growing number of experts are of the belief that the outlook is much harsher and far less tractable than commonly perceived… the conclusion of this view is that mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now .”
Note from Gavin : This next section of the classified document written by CIA and USAID is uncomfortably close to other global ambitions in world history. The proposal asks if the U.S. should:
“make an all out commitment to major limitation of world population with all the financial and international as well as domestic political costs that would entail ”
“Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth ?”
“Would food be considered an instrument of national power?”
“Are mandatory population control measures appropriate for the U.S. and/or for others?”
“Should the U.S. seek to change its own food consumption patterns toward more efficient uses of protein ?”
Note: During the COVID pandemic, the FDA began a $5-billion program related to this, and the Gates Foundation has funded several projects along these lines. (While these pursuits are certainly not all bad, they are science-fiction projects that will change the natural food supply, and it might be too much to expect they will great care.)
The report proposes the commercial approach in which USG uses “big-medical research to improve the existing means of fertility control and to develop new ones .” (Note that this project was a National Security Directive, not inspired to to improve reproductive freedom – quite the opposite. There is no reproductive freedom when one can’t have children.)
The report favors “large-scale programs that will induce fertility decline in a cost-effective manner,” and enthusiastically describes controversial examples, such as what it calls “the remarkably successful experiments in India in which financial incentives, along with other motivational devices, were used to get large numbers of men to accept vasectomies.”
“Only a concerted and major effort in a number of carefully selected directions can provide the hope of success in reducing population growth…”
The report states that primary emphasis on “population moderation” should be applied to “the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special U.S. political and strategic interest .” In 1974, the named countries were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Columbia.
Note: 33 years later, in 2021, the US donated millions of mRNA vaccines to the following countries, all of which were specifically named in the Kissinger Report: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, Thailand, Ethiopia, and Columbia.
None of the countries listed are predominantly Caucasian.
The report states it is “desirable in terms of U.S. interests” to work with the U.N. Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), which already had projects in more than 70 countries.
Pressure to develop a global strategy of population reduction was advanced to the Nixon Administration by Major General William Draper, who had been instrumental in establishing UNFPA and also co-founded the Population Crisis Committee. The Population Crisis Committee encouraged population reduction “so that humanity and the natural environment can exist in balance with fewer people living in poverty.” It’s more accurate to say their goal was “fewer people living,” period.
UNFPA ran programs described by critics as forced abortions and coercive sterilizations . Naturally, UNFPA describes its mission quite differently:
“To deliver a world in which every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe, and every young person’s potential is fulfilled.”
It’s clear that the lofty goals of every young person’s potential being fulfilled applies only to young people who are actually born, since the first item listed by UNFLA under WHAT WE DO is “ensuring a steady, reliable supply of quality contraceptives… including pills, implants, intrauterine devices, and surgical procedures that limit fertility .”
The UNFPA gave money from the US to support the People’s Republic of China’s birth control campaign, widely accused of major human rights violations, mainly on women and girls. Likewise, UNFPA provided funding for the forced sterilization program promoted by the Indian government, exposed in 2014 when dozens of women died in “sterilization camps” to which they were lured in exchange for social benefits.
The program also received funds from other governments and various US organizations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Kissinger Report And The World Population Control | The Wolf Report
Major General Draper, arguably the most effective early proponent of reducing population, gave a presentation to senior staff at the Department of State in 1973, in which he said population growth in Least Developed Countries “fundamentally presented a danger to our politico military interests .” Within a year of this meeting, the Kissinger Report would state:
“A growing number of experts believe the population situation is already more serious and less amenable to solution through voluntary measures than is generally accepted… even stronger measures are required and some fundamental, very difficult moral issues need to be addressed.”
According to the report, reducing the number of people in other countries applied methods considered extreme enough to invoke fundamental and “very difficult moral issues.”
The report offered the President a choice about which arm of the US Government should have authority over the world population issue: the National Security Council (Option A), or USAID (Option B). Not surprisingly, Option A was supported by the National Security Council and the CIA, as well as “State, Treasury, Defense, Agriculture, HEW, and Commerce.”
Main observations advanced by NSSM200:
Population growth of foreign nations provides more geopolitical power and possible opposition to US interests
- The United States relies on countries being underdeveloped in order to easily obtain natural resources
- American businesses are vulnerable to interference by foreign governments that are required to provide for growing populations
- High birth rates result in more young individuals who oppose established governments
“Young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the establishment, imperialists, multinational corporations, or other, often foreign [meaning U.S.] influences that are blamed for their troubles.”
The idea of having fewer young people could be embraced by almost any power structure, and venturing into dystopian territory it is (perhaps inadvertently) a consequence of the Covid mass vaccination policy. Working-age populations in mass-vaccinated countries are in decline – again perhaps inadvertently.
From NSSM 200 and National Security Decision 314:
“The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.”
“In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.”
“No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion…”
The National Security Council recommended that world-wide support for population reduction should be sought through “increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA, and USAID.”
The policies adopted from NSSM200 and NSDM 314 expanded even further in 1976 after the National Security Council advocated for the use of withholding food as a strategy of influence (food power), and using military force to prevent population growth.
“In some cases, strong direction has involved incentives such as payment to acceptors for sterilization, or disincentives such as giving low priorities in the allocation of housing or schooling to those with larger families. Such direction is the sine qua non of an effective program.”
These exact kinds of incentives and disincentives, and increased use of mass media were applied during the push for mass vaccination, presumably with different intent.
A December 1974 memo from the National Security Council to President Ford explained that “All U.S. efforts should be undertaken in such a way as to minimize criticism that they are directed against the interests of the developing countries,”
[Continued below…]
