The Egyptians invented contraception.
With that in mind, consider Exodus 1:9-10 (Douay): “Behold the people of the children of Israel are numerous and stronger than we. Come, let us wisely oppress them, lest they multiply: and if any war shall rise against us, join with our enemies, and having overcome us, depart out of the land. “
Now, consider these words by Henry Kissinger in the infamous NSSM-200:
primary emphasis would be placed on the largest and fastest growing developing countries where the imbalance between growing numbers and development potential most seriously risks instability, unrest, and international tensions. These countries are: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, The Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia. Out of a total 73.3 million worldwide average increase in population from 1970-75 these countries contributed 34.3 million or 47%. This group of priority countries includes some with virtually no government interest in family planning and others with active government family planning programs which require and would welcome enlarged technical and financial assistance. These countries should be given the highest priority within AID’s population program in terms of resource allocations and/or leadership efforts to encourage action by other donors and organizations.
Sound familiar, if more long-winded?
The US needs access to the resources of third world nations:
Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply and to develop domestic alternatives, the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.10 That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States. . . .
Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth. (NSSM-200 Ch. 3)
The US needs to depopulate those nations to make them easy to invade:
The 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 — influences blamed for their troubles (NSSM-200, Ch. 5)
Here are some of the alternative “strategies” he suggests (the following several quotations are from NSSM-200 Part 2):
The following areas appear to contain significant promise in effecting fertility declines, and are discussed in subsequent sections.
providing minimal levels of education especially for women;
reducing infant and child mortality;
expanding opportunities for wage employment especially for women;
developing alternatives to “social security” support provided by children to aging parents;
pursuing development strategies that skew income growth toward the poor, especially rural development focussing on rural poverty;
concentrating on the education and indoctrination of the rising generation of children regarding the desirability of smaller family size.
So we’re going to go into religious countries and “indoctrinate” them into our ideology, and we’re going to put women to work.
Now, this part is interesting:
The U.S. can help to minimize charges of an imperialist motivation behind its support of population activities by repeatedly asserting that such support derives from a concern with:
(a) the right of the individual couple to determine freely and responsibly their number and spacing of children and to have information, education, and 1means to do so; and
(b) the fundamental social and economic development of poor countries in which rapid population growth is both a contributing cause and a consequence ofwidespread poverty.
He recognizes that this policy will be seen as imperialistic. He says “we have to avoid that impression.” He has previously talked all about “indoctrination” and other means of coercing these countries to comply.
*Then* he says, “just to make it appear like we’re not imperialistic, we’ll let them think we’re giving them a choice in the matter.”
Then he says that all those suggestions are not enough: “The conclusion of this view is that mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now.”
After the suggestions, he lists a number of point to “consider”, including:
On what basis should such food resources then be provided? Would food be considered an instrument of national power? Will we be forced to make choices as to whom we can reasonably assist, and if so, should population efforts be a criterion for such assistance?
Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?
This is the passage that some refer to as “food genocide”: “If you don’t accept our contraceptives, we won’t give you food.”
NOW THIS IS INTERESTING:
“Improved methods for ovulation prediction will be important to those couples who wish to practice rhythm with more assurance of effectiveness than they now have.”
So, Kissinger actually recommended that the same amount of money be budgeted to NFP research as to research in oral contraceptives and IUDs.
And now, the big one:
“No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.”
So, he admits here what many “Catholics” deny: that if you’re going to have contraception, you need abortion.
It would be unwise to restrict abortion research for the following reasons:
1. The persistent and ubiquitous nature of abortion.
2. Widespread lack of safe abortion technique.
3. Restriction of research on abortifacient drugs and devices would:
a. Possibly eliminate further development of the IUD.
b. Prevent development of drugs which might have other beneficial uses.
An example is methotrexate (R) which is now used to cure a hitherto
fatal tumor of the uterus — choriocarcinoma. This drug was first used as
Here he admits that the IUD is an abortifacient: another fact commonly denied today. (The IUD works by stopping an embryo from implanting in the womb).
Back in 2004, a fellow named Brian Clowes, with Human Life International, wrote a great piece on the 30th Anniversary of the Kissinger Report, along with its dire consequences.
He says in summary form what I quote above.
A few of Clowes’ comments:
While the CIA and Departments of State and Defense have issued hundreds of papers on population control and national security, the U.S. government has never renounced NSSM-200, but has only amended certain portions of its policy. NSSM-200, therefore, remains the foundational document on population control issued by the United States government.
Now, what he says here has been said previously by Pat Buchanan and by many Catholic bishops. However, given today’s economic crisis, which Buchanan and said bishops predicted, let’s look at what Clowes says about the effect of NSSM-200 on the world in 2004:
NSSM-200’s strategies have resulted in regional population growth rates
decelerating so fast that they are already causing severe economic and social
problems in Europe, the former Soviet Union, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong.
Many developing nations are now aging even more rapidly than the developed
world, which foretells of even more severe problems for their relatively
NSSM-200 does not emphasize the rights or welfare of individuals or of nations, just the “right” of the United States to have unfettered access to the natural resources of developing nations. The United States and the other nations of the developed world, as well as ideologically motivated population control NGOs, should be supporting and guiding authentic economic development that allows the people of each nation to use their resources for their own benefit, thereby leading to an enhancement of human rights worldwide and healthier economies for all.
A PDF of Clowes’ full scholarly text can be downloaded here.
Clowe’s document was published by HLI as an appeal to our ex “pro-life” President Bush to officially repeal NSSM-200. He did not do so. Why would he? He was already entrenched in a war to conquer a third world nation for its natural resources.
Still think this country is so great and democratic and all that?