Kissinger's 1974 Plan for
Food Control Genocide
by Joseph Brewda
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. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture.
The bogus arguments that Kissinger advanced were not original. One of his major sources was the Royal Commission on Population, which King George VI had created in 1944 "to consider what measures should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend of population." The commission found that Britain was gravely threatened by population growth in its colonies, since "a populous country has decided advantages over a sparsely-populated one for industrial production." The combined effects of increasing population and industrialization in its colonies, it warned, "might be decisive in its effects on the prestige and influence of the West," especially effecting "military strength and security."
NSSM 200 similarly concluded that the United States was threatened by population growth in the former colonial sector. It paid special attention to 13 "key countries" in which the United States had a "special political and strategic interest": India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. It claimed that population growth in those states was especially worrisome, since it would quickly increase their relative political, economic, and military strength.
For example, Nigeria: "Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria's population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million. This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa." Or Brazil: "Brazil clearly dominated the continent demographically." The study warned of a "growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years."
Food as a weapon
There were several measures that Kissinger advocated to deal with this alleged threat, most prominently, birth control and related population-reduction programs. He also warned that "population growth rates are likely to increase appreciably before they begin to decline," even if such measures were adopted.
A second measure was curtailing food supplies to targetted states, in part to force compliance with birth control policies: "There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion."
"Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now," the document continued, adding, "Would food be considered an instrument of national power? ... Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can't/won't control their population growth?"
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 century and beyond," he reported.
The cause of that coming food deficit was not natural, however, but was a result of western financial policy: "Capital investments for irrigation and infrastucture 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."
"It is questionable," Kissinger gloated, "whether aid donor countries will be prepared to provide the sort of massive food aid called for by the import projections on a long-term continuing basis." Consequently, "large-scale famine of a kind not experienced for several decades—a kind the world thought had been permanently banished," was foreseeable—famine, which has indeed come to pass.
The Future of Food: What Every Person Should Know with Deborah Garcia
The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods
http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey.htm
Outside the Box #105 (Featuring Jeffery M. Smith)
Genetically Modified Food - Panacea or poison
A very interesting documentary on genetically engineer food or GE, GMO. GE food raise serious concern about its safety because it is not ... all » properly regulated in North America yet. Primary research on rats feed with GE food show modifications to their internal organs.
WE must show to our government that we don't want GE food.
- BUY ORGANIC FOOD - is the best way to protect ourself and give money to small farmers who produce GMO free food and not Mossanto that produce GE crops and the terminator gene.
Get information about organic food over here:
www.organicconsumers.org
GO over here to protest against the terminator gene [go to section: take action]:
http://www.banterminator.org/
If you like the documentary, go and support the people who did the work so they can keep working on exposing the truth. You can buy the documentary here: http://oneheartbooks.com/books/misc_titles/genetically_mod_food.htm
Even the Egyptians practiced special diets for the slaves. If they wanted them to be fit and healthy physically but not too fit, they would walk off elsewhere or walk outside into another country and escape. They didn't want them too bright so they knew the combinations of foods to give them, which would feed the body to an extent but not the mind. They were rather slow you might say. Look around you today. Everything that you eat has been under attack. All of the food you're buying is processed. It's grown by big agri-businesses and it's all genetically modified, which is to modify you.
Will Genetic Engineering Kill Us?
By Mark Baard
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,58467,00.html
02:00 AM Apr. 16, 2003 PT
BOSTON -- Bioethicists and scientists contemplating the future fear that genetic engineering and other technologies are going to divide human beings into classes that may one day try to destroy one another.
Rich, powerful people will use technology to make their kids smarter, they say. The poor and the disenfranchised, meanwhile, will become a kind of subhuman servant class, like the Yahoos in Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels.
If humans create an offshoot of their own species, said evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis, that act would represent a dramatic turning point in the evolution of homo sapiens.
"Such a split would necessarily mark the end of our species," said Margulis, who teaches at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Margulis was speaking at The Future of Human Nature symposium, which was sponsored by the Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University.
Some bioethicists envision a scenario in which humans with so-called germ-line enhancements, who have had traits such as higher IQ and superior strength spliced into their DNA, retain just enough of their ancestral human nature to become belligerent toward those they perceive as being inferior.
"We might create a group of people much smarter than us, that might want to kill us," said bioethicist George Annas, chair of the Health Law Department of Boston University School of Public Health. "Or we might want to kill them."
Annas recalled humanity's dismal record of racism and genocide in the 20th century and suggested the story could get much worse with the help of new technologies like genetic engineering.
"If we can't go 100 years without a genocide, then we have no business altering the species," he said.
Annas cited the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? as an example of how genetically enhanced humans might one day be seen as too dangerous to keep around. He proposed a worldwide treaty organization that would ban germ-line genetic engineering and force scientists to prove the safety and efficacy of their discoveries.
Annas' plan, which includes putting rogue scientists into prison, rankled those who heard him speak at the event, attended by a small group of well-known thinkers, including Dorian Sagan, son of Lynn Margulis and Carl Sagan, and the chaos theorist Mitchell Feigenbaum.
"I question the idea of increasing government power with appeals to science fiction," said Steven Pinker, a professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "You're proposing committees that could easily stifle scientific research."
Pinker said a worldwide government body may be unnecessary. One major reason: Futurists, who are rewarded by the media for making alarming predictions, are failing to grasp the major scientific roadblocks that will make life in the next 10 to 20 years very much like it is today.
He argued against the inevitability of germ-line genetic engineering and the creation of designer babies.
"Don't hold your breath for a musical talent gene," he said. "The brain is not a bag of traits. It's startlingly complex. There are few or no single genes with a consistent effect on the mind."
Pinker said the dangers of genetic engineering alone should be enough to prevent most parents from contemplating such an agenda. If the addition of a few IQ points comes with an increased risk of paralysis, will it be a risk worth taking?
"Parents' desire to not harm their children is probably going to outweigh their desire to enhance them," he said.
If we do manage to create a new species, it may be difficult to determine which are human, and which are not.
Anthony Gottlieb, author of The Dream of Reason, a history of philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance, said humans change their view of humanity with every major technological development.
Gottlieb traced the history of human nature from the divine craftsman in Plato's Timaeus, which was influenced by the potter's craft, to Descartes' notion that animal and human bodies are machines, an idea that Gottlieb connected to Descartes' fascination with clockworks.
"Now we think of our minds, and even our genes, as if they were computers," said Gottlieb. "But is this the end of the road? Maybe other technologies, quantum computers or string theory, perhaps, will have us thinking of ourselves in another way."
Unfortunately, we will have to make some choices based on what we know about human nature today, said Lee Silver, a Princeton University professor of molecular biology and author of Remaking Eden.
