The Haig-Kissinger Population Reduction Agenda... (Remastered)

[00:00:00] ...lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and humanity. ...as we go along with cocaine... ...what is at stake is more than one call cut-out. It is a big idea. ...a new world...

[00:00:16] You're listening to the Alchemical Tech Revolution, and I am your host, Wayne McRoy.

[00:00:56] Good evening, everyone. Tonight, we're going to discuss the Haig-Kissinger Population Reduction Agenda. Whenever anybody tells you there's no such thing as a population reduction agenda, remember, it's actually here in black and white. Here in black and white. Reviewed in mainstream sources tonight, we'll be reading from a publication called Executive Intelligence Review.

[00:01:23] And this was a magazine that initially began publishing in 1974. And we will be reading from a 1981 edition of this magazine. And it was a special report. Printed March 10th, 1981, volume number 8, number 10. The special report here. The Haig-Kissinger Depopulation Policy. By one Mr. Lonnie Wolfe.

[00:01:50] So this was a major news reporting source of the time. A little bit right-wing leaning, if I'm not mistaken here by my analysis of this. But at any rate, it was still a heavily respected mainstream source. So that being the case, it's well documented that there are many people in this world that have decided long ago...

[00:02:17] People in positions of power decided long ago that there's just too many people. Too many people. And that we needed to do something about this problem. And of course, central to this were people like Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger. And they instituted some internationalist policies through many other think tank groups and organizations.

[00:02:43] And they instituted policies around the world to stab off the growing population. And that's what we're going to explore here tonight. And we'll see. This has been a long time in the works. And it was exposed here in a mainstream source in 1981. And people still turned a blind eye to all of it and give all the usual excuses for this.

[00:03:11] Many people agree there's too many people. I don't agree with that assessment. In fact, it's been demonstrated that the population is actually dwindling quite a bit. So that being the case, I think there's an argument to be made against these things. But these are the policies that these organizations tended to put forward. These different people in positions of power. People like Henry Kissinger, who had a lot of notoriety around the world.

[00:03:39] A lot of influence in many governmental think tank groups. And in international policy. So it's important that we pay attention to this. So this was an investigation launched by Executive Intelligence Review. So let's get right into the reading here. And of course, I'll pause periodically to give my thoughts on this.

[00:04:02] Investigations by EIR have uncovered a planning apparatus operating outside the control of the White House, whose sole purpose is to reduce the world's population by 2 billion people through war, famine, disease, and any other means necessary. I'm going to pause for a moment here, folks. You see, 2 billion people. They want to reduce the world's population by 2 billion people.

[00:04:31] This was disclosed in this magazine article way back then. And remember, at the time of the writing of this, the population was much less than it is now. I think it was somewhere around maybe 3 to 4 billion, if memory serves me correctly, in the year 1981. So allegedly we have quite a bit more than that now. So let's continue reading and we'll see

[00:05:01] if the author of this article goes into more detail here, as I'm sure he does. This apparatus, which includes various levels of the government, is determining U.S. foreign policy. In every political hotspot, El Salvador, the so-called arc of crisis in the Persian Gulf, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and in Africa, the goal of U.S. foreign policy is population reduction.

[00:05:30] Going to pause for a moment here, folks. So remember, according to the author here, this is a group, a planning apparatus, that operates outside the control of the White House, or the Congress, for that matter, are making these decisions and are implementing this international policy that was the U.S. foreign policy, and a portion of this U.S. foreign policy was all about population reduction. So let's continue reading from there.

[00:06:01] The targeting agency for the operation is the National Security Council's ad hoc group on population policy. Its policy planning group is in the U.S. State Department's Office of Population Affairs, established in 1975 by one Mr. Henry Kissinger. No surprise there, right? This group drafted the Carter administration's Global 2000 document, which calls for global population reduction, and the same apparatus is conducting the Civil War in El Salvador

[00:06:30] as a conscious depopulation project. Going to pause for a moment here, folks. If you were around in 1981, you may remember this whole crisis in El Salvador, the Civil War there. Well, of course, this was instituted by and instantiated and provoked by the intelligence agencies at the direction of this Population Council. So when you understand how far this goes and what's been done

[00:06:59] in the name of reducing population, you might get quite upset about this. That is, of course, unless you're of the mindset that yes, there are too many people and we need to do away with a bunch, which I don't think anybody listening to this program is of that mindset. Probably quite the opposite, really. But these are the people who have developed U.S. foreign policy. These are the people that have put into action these plans.

[00:07:28] And it's all outside the control, the direct control of Congress or the White House. Remember that this is the danger of government. And this is the danger of having lifetime politicians, lifetime political actors in places of power. Because remember, by and large, they're not the ones that get things done. Okay? These Congress people, these elected representatives, they're not the ones controlling things. It's these groups

[00:07:58] that are put in place that direct policies. These unelected groups that put together policies. These ones that are assigned by certain administrations to head up certain departments or to make new institutions, quasi-governmental institutions, that oversee and direct a lot of these things. Now you could trace back the population, the population office a good long way. It's existed under many

[00:08:27] different forms in the U.S., but there's always been, at least since the early 20th century, a population council of sorts that made decisions for U.S. foreign policy. And not just foreign policy, domestic policy as well. Because you see, the idea of eugenics originally started in the U.S. and Nazi Germany was so impressed with the U.S. eugenics program that they adopted it themselves. And of course,

[00:08:56] we all know the ramifications of World War II, don't we? I don't have to go too much further there, but there's always been this kind of a presence within the officialdom of the United States government. So let's continue reading here. So we said here that the group drafted the Global 2000 document, of which conducting the Civil War in El Salvador was a conscious depopulation project. According to the author here. Let's continue.

[00:09:25] There is a single theme behind all our work. We must reduce population levels, said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Department's Office of Population Affairs, also known as the OPA. Either they, governments, do it our way through nice, clean methods, or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires

[00:09:54] authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. End quote there. Gonna pause for a second. So that's Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Department's Office of Population Affairs. That's your government, folks. That is your government, hard at work. These are the people running the show, and they don't make any bones about the whole situation here.

[00:10:24] If these countries, these foreign countries, that don't have the type of military presence the U.S. does, do not follow suit and go along with the policies offered by these various groups, while they suffer the consequences, and El Salvador, and he also lists off here Iran and Beirut at the time, they will be the results. These kind of things. That's the example set here.

[00:10:54] War. Civil war. Bloody war. Terrible war. You see. And he also goes on to say that once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. So these people are not above the concept of installing fascist dictatorships into power just to reduce the numbers of the population of certain areas. And remember,

[00:11:23] this is talking about foreign policy right now. But make no mistake about it, domestic policy is directly tied into this as well. So if they'll do this to other people and populations around the world, what makes you think for one second they don't have a plan for here in the U.S.? They most certainly do. They most certainly do. Let's go ahead and continue here because this Ferguson fellow has a lot more to say. He's a very talkative fellow in this article here.

[00:11:53] Let's go ahead and continue. The professionals, said Ferguson, aren't interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs and we say that this country must lower its population or else we will have trouble. So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis.

[00:12:22] The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it. There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there. End quote. That also was this Thomas Ferguson speaking there. So you see, folks, this is not conspiracy theory.

[00:12:53] It's not some wackadoodle conspiracy theory as most of them would like you to believe. They most definitely did back then and still do today have population reduction policies in place. There still exists in some form or another a population council in the United States and what they do largely goes unnoticed by the public. I assure you they have many things planned

[00:13:20] not just in terms of foreign policy but domestic policy as well. Let's go ahead and we'll continue on and we'll see what else we can garner from the article here. Civil wars are somewhat drawn out ways to reduce population the OPA official added. The quickest way to reduce population is through famine like in Africa or through disease like the Black Death all of which might occur in El Salvador. Going to pause for a moment here, folks.

[00:13:49] I don't know if the post their civil war in El Salvador that's how things shook out or not. I'll be honest here I haven't studied that part of the world or that particular historical period to the extent to be able to add to this. So at any rate I don't know if they had famine and plagues in El Salvador after their civil war or not but you get the idea don't you? So they talk about all these means

[00:14:19] to justify the ends here because it's what they're looking for. The ends always justify the means. That's always the way they work things. They'll use whatever means necessary to get the goal that they want. So let's continue reading. Ferguson's OPA monitors populations in the third world and maps strategies to reduce them. Its budget for fiscal year 1980 was $190 million. For fiscal year 1981 it will be

[00:14:48] $220 million. The Global 2000 report calls for the doubling of that figure. Gonna pause for a moment here folks. So they're spending an awful lot of money to figure out ways to reduce the population in certain areas of the world aren't they? I mean you're talking in 1980 dollars $190 million went a lot further than it does today. I don't know what the side-by-side comparison would be

[00:15:18] today to 1980s money but I would imagine that would probably be a figure close to a billion dollars. A billion in modern terms if you wanted to go there. And I'm not sure what exactly they're spending on similar programs today. There's no way we may ever know that. Simply because well they're very loose with their accounting aren't they? Especially in the Pentagon where they lost six billion dollars. Again of our money somewhere in the Ukraine don't know what it went to.

[00:15:48] They have no idea they dropped the ball somewhere. All I know is if you know I was doing my job and somehow I lost track of six billion dollars in my job I would not have a job. But yet these people continue to do the same things. I mean they lost 2.3 trillion dollars on September 10th 2001. They reported that in the mainstream. Nobody lost their jobs did they? Nope of course not.

[00:16:18] The next day a tragic event happened a world shaking gateway event happened instead to cover their tracks. This is what happens when you put unelected people in charge of various things and give them responsibility for a lot of these things. When there's no accountability involved things happen. Bad things happen. And often times they get unmarked monies that go towards these programs.

[00:16:49] Anyway enough of my little diatribe there. Let's continue reading here because there's a lot more to cover here tonight. The Sphere of Kissinger In 1975 OPA was brought under a reorganized State Department Borough of Oceans International Environmental and Scientific Affairs a body created by Henry Kissinger. The agency was assigned to carry out the directives of the NSC ad hoc group. According to an NSC spokesman, Kissinger

[00:17:19] initiated both groups after discussion with leaders of the Club of Rome during the 1974 population conferences in Bucharest and Rome. The Club of Rome, controlled by Europe's black nobility, is the primary promotion agency for the genocidal reduction of world population levels. Going to pause for a moment here, folks. That's probably still the same today. The Club of Rome, you're talking about these same royal families. In Europe,

[00:17:49] these are European family bloodlines that go way, way back. The ones that steer and control and direct things. This is where they institute policy. And, this is what's been done here. And, when you look at this, this whole OPA, this population organization here, directed by

[00:18:18] Kissinger, was part of an ad hoc group put together by the NSC, the National Security Council. So, this falls under the umbrella of national security. So, therefore, much of what they do, in their view, is justified because it's about the security of this nation. It's about maintaining the national security. And, therefore, a lot of the things that they plan and they do could remain locked up in secret programs. And,

[00:18:48] justifiably so in their view, because they wouldn't want this stuff getting out, would they? Could be a threat to the nation if it does. I mean, wouldn't you be pretty ticked if you found out that some foreign nation targeted you for destruction and genocide simply based upon the fact that you exist? And, they had the power to do so and were instituting ways in doing it. Well, I got news for you folks. We should all feel that way because, like I said,

[00:19:18] this goes beyond just what they call foreign policy. This is domestic policy as well. It's rolled over into domestic policy. Now, it may have been a pretty covert thing like that, but I think the evidence is all around us. Look at what's been done in the world in the past several years here. Look at what's been done domestically, not just talking about in foreign lands,

[00:19:49] U.S. policy in foreign lands, U.S. policy as well. Look at how they've targeted their own populations here. We have open borders, so we have a crisis of people crossing the borders illegally, and who knows how many are here. Who knows? Not only that, they instituted these, well, let's be

[00:20:18] honest about it, these eugenics, active eugenics programs that they called vaccines that they unleashed on the public and almost coerced or forced them, many people, essentially forced them to take this, and we're seeing the harms every day coming to light now. It's a total population reduction

[00:20:48] program. That's what it is. Eugenics ties hand in hand with it. These population councils have always had that type of a priority. Let's go ahead and continue on though. So we see here that they have very close ties to the Club of Rome, not just the Club of Rome, but we'll see there's other places involved too. Other organizations, international organizations, that are not directed by any particular world government

[00:21:17] or national government. They don't have sovereign national interests in mind. They're doing what they want and directing world affairs from behind the scenes, all these non-elected, unelected officials that don't have our permission to act on our behalf in these ways, but yet they do, and they have no accountability to anybody, and they act in these ways, and they institute these policies,

[00:21:46] and of course they try to disguise them as something good. They always do. They always have justification for their actions. Let's go ahead and continue though. The ad hoc group was given high priority by the Carter administration through the intervention of national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretaries of state Cyrus Vance and Edmund Muskie. According to OPA expert Ferguson, Kissinger initiated a fool about

[00:22:16] face on U.S. policy toward the third world. For a long time, Ferguson stated, people here were timid. They listened to arguments from third world leaders that said that the best contraceptive was economic reform and development. So we pushed development programs and we helped create a population time bomb. Gonna pause for a moment here, folks. Did you ever hear the term population bomb? It was a famous book written in

[00:22:46] the post-World War II era that very much pushed all this fear of overpopulation and there wouldn't be enough resources. And all these Malthusian ideas, these ideas that could be traced all the way back to 1797 to a man named Thomas Malthus who came up with a lot of this scarcity agenda, this artificial scarcity agenda. The whole population notion, the notion that populations once they grow to large enough size,

[00:23:15] they tend to put a burden on the resources and the population growth becomes exponential and the resource growth is only linear. So the exponential rise in population causes the diminishment or depletion of the resources and so he figured out various checks as he called them to maintain balances in populations to stab off the loss of resources, to stab

[00:23:45] off the possibility of not having enough resources to support the population. And that's where all these ideas come from but of course this was popularized post World War II in a book titled The Population Bomb. I think it was actually written somewhere around 1970 when it first came about. But this had everything to do with this whole global 2000 plan that was initiated during the Carter administration and put forward by

[00:24:15] these very people, Kissinger, Alexander Haig, and others operating under the guise of national security and administering these ideas that were handed to them, lock, stock, and barrel from groups like the Club of Rome and probably the Rhodes group. I don't know if he mentions that in here but we'll see as we continue on the Rhodes group, the Rhodes round table group. Now this is going to be

[00:24:44] again this Ferguson fellow speaking. He says quote, We are letting people breed like flies without allowing for natural causes to keep population down. We raised the birth survival rates, extended lifespans by lowering death rates, and did nothing about lowering birth rates. That policy is finished. We are saying with Global 2000 and in real policy that you must lower population rates. Population reduction and control is now our primary

[00:25:14] policy objective. So, let's repeat that last sentence again just to drive the point home for you folks out there. Quote, Population reduction and control is now our primary policy objective. Then you can have some development. End quote. These are the people

[00:25:43] running things in this world. Do you think their attitude has shifted or changed since then? Do you think they're good with the large number of people that there are now? When they were talking about reducing the population in 1981, they were talking about reducing the population by 2 billion people in 1981. Do you think they're good with the nearly

[00:26:12] 9 billion people that there are now, allegedly, or whatever the number is? I think it's surpassed 8 billion, according to the official statistics, but I take umbrage with some of those numbers as well, because we've actually looked at the population problem here in the past, and it would seem that the populations are actually dwindling rather than growing at a large rate, especially in many of the western nations.

[00:26:41] But anyway, let's go ahead, we'll continue reading here, and you'll see, there's more to this. Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans International Environmental and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the third world, denying developing nations access to nuclear energy technology, the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population.

[00:27:11] According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Hegg is a firm believer in population control. Quote, we will go into a country, said Ferguson, and say, here is your goddamn development plan, throw it out the window, start looking at the size of your population, and figure out what must be done to reduce it, end quote. So this Ferguson guy sounds like a real gem, doesn't he?

[00:27:40] really does. And keep in mind, he worked for guys like Kissinger and Alexander Hegg. Can you imagine what those guys were like behind closed doors? I've heard some stories about Kissinger, about Kissinger threatening people, and oftentimes those people would wind up having the threat carried out on them if they didn't follow suit and do what Kissinger told them.

[00:28:11] So this guy was no nonsense, and this guy is still alive and still has some influence, political influence in the U.S. today, and across the world really. Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, these two guys were very key players in foreign policy and domestic policy as well, but mostly foreign policy, and they were of the mindset that there's too many people and that they wanted

[00:28:40] to reduce the population, and we see here this Alexander Haig, same way, he was a firm believer in population reduction, and this Ferguson guy, especially here now, seems to be as well. Let's continue reading. If you don't like that, if you don't want to choose to do it through planning, then you'll have an El Salvador or an Iran or worse, a Cambodia, end quote. Once again, that's that Ferguson guy speaking. Cambodia, comparing it

[00:29:10] to Cambodia. So pretty much, this is a veiled threat when you really get down to brass tacks. So this is what they tell these foreign lands. Here's what you need to do. You need to reduce your population, find a way to do it. If you do not, we'll do it for you the hard way, and you'll end up with a situation like El Salvador, Iran, or Cambodia. not the type of threat I would want to receive

[00:29:39] from a representative from a dominant world superpower with a military that I would stand no chance against. Is that the kind of message you would want to hear from them? So many countries fell in line with some of these policies and went ahead and did these things, didn't they? And a lot of it comes down to do you want to do it through certain other

[00:30:08] population checks, or do you want outright war, civil war and bloodshed, or do you want to do it in more subtle ways? So this is what's been instituted around the world, and especially in U.S. domestic policy, the soft kill methods. That's what's been done here. Let's continue reading here though. According to an NSC spokesman, the United States now shares the view of former World Bank president Robert

[00:30:38] McNamara that the population crisis is a greater threat to U.S. national security interests than nuclear annihilation. Going to pause for a moment here folks. Were they letting us know back in the 1980s that the nuclear threat was not what it's all cracked up to be? Was that a veiled admission here? Or were they really more concerned about population numbers going too high? Gotta wonder these things. Or is it a combination of both of those things?

[00:31:08] Anyway, let's go ahead and continue reading. Every hot spot in the world corresponds to a population crisis point, said Ferguson, who would rename Brzezinski's arc of crisis doctrine the arc of population crisis. This is corroborated by statements in the NSC ad hoc group's April 1980 report. There is an increased potential for social unrest, economic and political instability, mass migration and possible international conflicts over

[00:31:37] control of land and resources, says the NSC report. It then cites demographic pressures as key to understanding examples of recent warfare in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, El Salvador, Honduras and Ethiopia, and the growing potential for instability in such places as Turkey, the Philippines, Central America, Iran, and Pakistan. Through extraordinary efforts, the ad hoc group and OPA

[00:32:07] estimate that they may be able to keep one billion people from being born through contraceptive programs. Going to pause for a moment here, folks. Did you ever wonder what the true nature of the abortion push is? And the push for contraceptives and all of these different methods. They wanted to keep one billion people from being born through contraceptive programs.

[00:32:37] And that's deceptive language. We're not just talking about perhaps education like they would like us to believe. Education programs teaching people that you need to use prophylactics and this kind of thing. pushed in the schools. That's all part of it, though. That's all part of it, but the contraceptive programs they're talking about run way deeper than that, as we'll

[00:33:07] get to here. Let's continue. But as the ad hoc group's report states, the best efforts of the Shah of Iran to institute clean programs of birth control failed to make a significant dent in the country's birth rate. The promise of jobs through an ambitious industrialization program encouraged migration towards overcrowded cities like Tehran. Now, under Ayatollah Khomeini, the clean programs have

[00:33:36] been dismantled. The government may make progress because it has a program to induce up to half of Tehran's 6 million residents to relocate. Now, under Ayatollah Khomeini, the clean programs have been dismantled. The government may make progress because it has a program to induce up to half of Tehran's 6 million residents to relocate, as well as possible measures to keep rural migrants from moving to cities.

[00:34:06] So, next, we're going to look at Ferguson's statement here about El Salvador and this Ferguson guy. So, this Ferguson says, kill more child bearers. In the past year, 13,000 people in El Salvador have been killed in the civil war that has gripped the country. To the U.S. State Department and its Office of Population Affairs, that is not enough. To accomplish what the State Department deems adequate, population control, the civil war would

[00:34:35] have to be greatly expanded, according to Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the OPA. El Salvador was targeted for population control and war in an April 1980 population report published by the National Security Council. El Salvador is an example of a serious country with a serious population and political problem. The report states, rapid population growth, the birth rate, has remained unchanged in recent years. Aggravate its population density, which is already

[00:35:05] the highest on mainland Latin America. While a population control program exists on paper, it has not been pursued with a strong commitment and contraceptives remain unavailable. The population program really did not work, OPA's Ferguson said this week. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too many people. If you want to control a country, you have to keep the population down. Too many people breed social unrest and communism.

[00:35:36] Something had to be done, the OPA official said. The birth rate, he reported, is 3.3%, one of the highest in the world. Its population, he complained, will double in 21 years. The Civil War can help things, but it would have to be greatly expanded. And next it talks about the Vietnam lesson. In making sure that the population falls in El Salvador, Ferguson said, the OPA has learned a lot from its experiences in Vietnam. Quote,

[00:36:06] we studied the thing. That area was also overpopulated and a problem. We thought that the war would lower population and we were wrong, end quote. According to Ferguson, the population in Vietnam increased during the war, despite U.S. use of defoliation and a combat strategy that encouraged civilian casualties. To reduce population quickly, said Ferguson, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and kill significant numbers of fertile

[00:36:36] childbearing age females. He criticized the current civil war in El Salvador. You are killing a small number of males and not enough fertile females to do the job on the population. If the war went on 30 to 40 years like this, then you might accomplish something. Unfortunately, we don't have too many instances like that to study, end quote. So this Ferguson guy seems like an ultra scumbag to me.

[00:37:07] Sounds like an ultra scumbag to me. This is what he was saying in 1981 about the Civil War in El Salvador. Wasn't good enough. There weren't enough childbearing age females. dying. That's what this guy was saying. Does this sound like someone that you want to put in charge of anything? Like, seriously.

[00:37:37] These are the people calling the shots on a lot of this stuff. So he says here, need famine and disease. However, said Ferguson, the population might weaken itself, especially if the war drags on, and you could have disease and starvation like what happened in Bangladesh and Biafra. Then you can create a tendency for population to fall very rapidly. This could happen in El Salvador. When that starts happening,

[00:38:06] you have total political chaos for a while, so you must have a political program to deal with it. I can't estimate how many people might die that way. It could be a great deal, depending on what happens. The preconditions for the Holocaust Ferguson hopes for now exist in El Salvador. The New York Times reports that the country's small and medium-sized villages are already depopulated by 50%. El Salvador survives on exports of sugar, cotton, and coffee.

[00:38:36] This year's coffee crop has been cut more than half. Sugar is down by over 20% and coffee by 7%. These facts spell mass starvation in the near term for the war-weakened peasantry. As the war intensifies, the population is being herded into strategic hamlets like those run in Vietnam by U.S. military advisors. The Jesuit-run guerrilla movement is also destroying all internal infrastructure in the countryside, burning bridges and

[00:39:05] power stations. Fully one-third of the country suffers week-long electricity blackouts. As the war intensifies, the mass murder of the El Salvadorian people is becoming a reality. And that's the end of that portion here. So you see, these are the people who control foreign policy here in the U.S. and sadly, they're also the same people who decide domestic

[00:39:35] policy as well. Of course, they're a little bit more subtle about it here on the home front. They don't care when they're speaking about third world countries. This is what they think of us. They think of you as little more than a commodity. You see, this guy, this Ferguson guy, is not pleased about the lack of people dying in portions of the El Salvadorian

[00:40:05] Civil War. He says there's not enough of childbearing age dying. That's his complaint. There's not enough people dying there. These people are scum of the earth. And this is who institutes our foreign policy. Is it any wonder the rest of the world hates the U.S. countries as much as they do? This is what they see as their reality in a lot of these third world nations. That's why when

[00:40:34] they see some kind of a Red Cross event or something coming and vaccinating people, many of the villagers, they flee. They don't want any part of that. If they see some vaccination program or something coming, they know what's up. They know what it's about. It's not about their health. Never was, never will be. Do you really think these people give a crap about your health? Here they're talking literally, seriously, about reducing world population by 2 billion people

[00:41:03] in 1981 in public, public media like this. Mainstream, mainline media this came out in. That's what they talk about. And yet, they want us to trust them and think they have our best interests in mind? really? And people get behind this and they line up like sheep

[00:41:33] to go get their vaccine when there's a quote-unquote new novel virus or something out there. And they'll line up like sheep and go down and get the experimental jab that turns out to be much deadlier than the actual threat itself ever was. And this is what we wind up with. Because people blindly trust their government,

[00:42:02] they think that it stops at the people that they elected. They truly think that these are the people running the show. Do you think Biden runs anything? Let's be honest here. I don't know if the guy could even like, the dude publicly shit his pants at the Vatican. Do you really think he can run anything? Seriously? Do you think he's got enough wherewithal to be in charge of anything? Really? This is a figurehead

[00:42:32] escape goat. Really is. And this is much of what government is. This is what Congress is. It's all for show, folks. Those people that you elect to office, all they do is get rich off of the public dime. Do insider training and serve special interest groups and get a pat on the back and a little bit of fame and notoriety for it and a whole lot of money and set up for life.

[00:43:03] But they don't actually institute any policies. They don't draft policies. Are you kidding me? They have cabinets, unelected cabinets and stuff that do that. These ones that have been in these various governments for longer than the candidates themselves have been in office. You have these same groups in government running things. This is where the real power is. It's not in elected officials. Never was. It's all for show.

[00:43:32] It's all political theater. These people don't do anything. You think Alexandria Cortez, whatever her name is, Ocasio-Cortez or Occasional Cortex, whatever her name is, you think she's got enough brains to run anything? Do you really? Nancy Pelosi, do you think this woman has any kind of ability to run anything big like this? It's a joke and it's

[00:44:02] a public joke now. They laugh at you. The real people running the show laugh at you that you think that this mockery that's up there on stage, this clown world that they've put in place, you really think these people run things? Get real. They don't. Let's go ahead and continue on with this portion of the article here now that gets past this

[00:44:31] whole El Salvador bit. So this next portion is titled Behind the Back of the President. Ferguson and others involved with the OPA and NSC group maintain that the United States will continue a foreign policy based on genocidal reduction of the world's population. We have a network in place of co-thinkers in the government, end quote, said the OPA case officer. That's this Ferguson again. So they have people, they have a network in

[00:45:00] place of co-thinkers in the government. Co-thinkers. So these aren't actual government people, they're co-thinkers, they're the ones that institute and put together these policies that your lovely government goes out there and institutes. We keep going no matter who is in the White House, but Ferguson reports that the White House does not really understand what they are saying, and that the president thinks

[00:45:30] that population policy means how do we speed up population increase? As long as no one says differently, said Ferguson, we will continue to do our jobs. Going to pause for a moment here, folks. So Carter was either a blooming idiot or he was in on all of it. This guy seems to think he was a blooming idiot. Reagan either was in on it or he was a blooming idiot. Either way you look at it,

[00:46:00] these people aren't running anything, and maybe they're told the opposite of what they think is really going on just to give them plausible deniability should these people ever get called on the carpet for it like they are in this article. Gives the president and gives the figurehead, the public face of government, plausible deniability about these things. So if they find out, they'll either deny or say, oh, that's misconstrued, that's a crazy conspiracy theory.

[00:46:30] Is it really? The older I get, the more I find that many of these quote-unquote crazy conspiracies of the past are factual, real things going on. Sad to say. Sad to say. Let's continue reading here though and see, we'll find some more official documentation of things here. The NSC report. In April 1980, the National Security

[00:47:00] Council's ad hoc group on population policy issued an overview analysis on U.S. population policy. The document lays out the basis for all U.S. policy from the global 2000 perspective. The State Department Office of Population Affairs helped draft the report. An excerpt follows, On a planet which has numbers of

[00:47:30] these dimensions have pretentious implications. Already during the 1970s, much of the economic gains of the Third World were cancelled out by the steady rise of population. Food production is not keeping pace with the population growth in most parts of the world. Moreover, rising food demand must now compete with increasingly higher priced energy imports. Norman Borlaug, pioneer of the Green Revolution has cautioned that innovations

[00:47:59] in agricultural technology can only buy limited time with which to control population growth. Going to pause for a moment here, folks. The Green Revolution. The Green Revolution. The New Deal. The Green New Deal that we have today. It's all the same old, same old, same old New World Order as I've been telling you all along. They just put new lipstick on the pig and call it something different. It's the same

[00:48:28] policies still being instituted today and it has nothing to do with clean energy. No, they don't want you to have energy. Period. Because you're a useless eater in their eyes and they want to reduce the population. They don't want you to flourish. They don't want you to reproduce. They just want you to quietly go away and die. die. I'm not kidding, folks.

[00:48:58] This is what the policy is in place. They want you to shut up, take your shots, go eat your poison fast food, and go away and slowly die. Don't produce anything. Don't reproduce. Don't have children. Go do whatever it is that you want to do for the short time that you are here. Do whatever it is that you will that's harmful to yourself. They're good

[00:49:27] with that. Go do that which is unnatural. Then they push things, agendas like the LGBTQ agenda. Why do you think they're pushing that? Well, this is all about reducing population. They're just doing it in a more subtle fashion here in the Western world. They don't want to let on that they have this same policy in place domestically here.

[00:50:00] They just want people to slowly go away and die quietly without any fuss or fight or any striving for anything better. You will own nothing and you'll be happy. You won't know what you are. You won't even know what bathroom to use, but you'll be happy. This is what they envision, folks. This is all about population reduction.

[00:50:30] All of it. All the social engineering. It's all part and parcel of it. But anyway, let's go ahead and continue on. So you see how the idea of the Green Revolution and all of that nonsensical liberal talk is attached to this as well. All of this nonsensical we need to conserve our resources and save the planet. What are we saving it from exactly? Nature always self corrects. We don't have to worry about that. If we screw it up, it will heal itself.

[00:51:00] Much like the human body. If you get injured, you will heal. Your body will naturally heal itself through its own natural mechanism. The earth is the same way except to a grander scale and a grander degree. It will heal itself. Nothing mankind can do to the earth will destroy the earth, I assure you. The earth will heal from it. May take some time, but it will heal from it and it will self correct. You've heard the expression nature abhors a

[00:51:30] vacuum. Well, this is true. This is very true. Life always flourishes, nature always self corrects. This is demonstrable. We can prove this. We can look back and see this. Go look at Chernobyl. Didn't they say it would be a desolate wasteland for thousands and thousands of years? Well, it's overgrown life.

[00:51:59] Flourishing life. Don't we see that? The proof is in the pudding, so to say. That's what we have. But of course, these people want you to think otherwise. We need to stave the planet because we've done such destructive things just by existing here. We're a burden because there's not enough resources. We're a burden because we pollute the planet. We're a burden because we exist. You breathe, you

[00:52:30] carbon dioxide, that's a greenhouse gas. That's a burden on the planet. This is how they think. Anyway, that's enough of my two cents on that little side notion, but it does directly tie to what we're talking about. All these things are interlocked. Let's continue. The International Labor Organization, the ILO, estimates that in the next two decades, approximately 700 million people more will enter the labor

[00:53:00] pool of developing countries. This is more than the total current labor force of the industrially advanced countries. The amount of investment required to put these people to work is astronomical. A recent World Watch Institute study estimated that the number of rural people who are effectively landless would approach one billion over the next two decades, countries, and predicted that conflict rooted in inequality of land ownership

[00:53:28] is apt to become more acute in country after country. Already the estimated proportion of rural families who are landless or nearly so is over 80% in such countries as El Salvador and between 70 and 80% in Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bangladesh, and the Philippines. As rural population growth increases, the fractionalization of the land holdings as croplands are depleted due to over-intensive

[00:53:58] farming and as job opportunities in the countryside diminish, the third world is experiencing a virtual urban explosion. The UN estimates that in only 20 years some 40 less developed countries, cities may contain over 5 million inhabitants. Provision of jobs, housing, social services to numbers of this magnitude over such a short period of time will present difficulties hitherto

[00:54:27] unimagined by town planners and governments. The potential susceptibility of urban unemployed youth to extremism and violence will grow. Then a pause for a moment here, folks. Enter the terrorist notion. They always have to go there with this stuff, don't they? So, yes, it'll be strife. It's because there weren't any jobs. So the youth get restless and they start to become extremists and terrorists. Really?

[00:54:58] I think that's a bit of a stretch, but okay, let's give them the benefit of the doubt on this. Let's continue reading. Some recent studies suggest that the contemporary phenomena of worldwide inflation are being influenced by rising demand associated with vast increases in population. Commodities become more costly as supplies dwindle or fail to keep pace with rising demand or as they become more expensive to obtain. Population growth has

[00:55:27] also been linked to pressure on energy and raw material supplies. A recent World Watch study concludes that, everywhere one turns, limits are being encountered and the effects are being compounded. It seems clear that the world is entering a new period of scarcity. Going to pause for a moment here, folks. I call poppycock. Remember, this was 1981.

[00:55:56] 1981, the world's entering a new period of scarcity. Oh, I think not. I think not. Any type of scarcity that's pushed is artificially induced scarcity. Make no mistake about that. Man's capacity to produce resources, essential resources, through the use of innovation

[00:56:25] is demonstrable here. If you look back to this time frame, this was written in 1981. 1981. And of course, back then they were predicting this new period of scarcity. Do we have scarcity, folks? Certainly not, especially not in the western world here. There is no lack of abundance here. We live in a society of abundance. This world is abundant in all the resources we could need.

[00:56:56] There is plenty to go around for everyone. This is an excuse. An excuse. A justification for doing nefarious things. That's all this is. All in the name of the quote-unquote greater good. Of course, they always try to frame everything in that type of a mindset for people. Of course, it's for the greater good. Or they also like to frame it as science

[00:57:25] when nothing could be further from the truth. There is more than enough abundance of resources in this world to maintain the population. To maintain the population. And were there to be a problem with this, mankind has the power of innovation to create

[00:57:54] new solutions to arising problems. This is something that was never taken into account by the likes of Malthus or these other population crisis pushing people here. The ones that seem to think there's too many people and do everything that they can to reduce the numbers of people and they justify it through trying to quote statistics and stuff

[00:58:23] that may not actually even be true. They've always pushed this notion scarcity. It's an artificial notion. Scarcity. But anyway, we'll go ahead and let's go ahead and continue reading here. Problems of water pollution, soil erosion, and deforestation are becoming major international issues as a consequence of over-intensive farming, grazing, encroachment

[00:58:53] of cities, and uncontrolled industrialization. All of these factors add up to an increased potential for social unrest, economic and political instability, mass migration, and possible international conflict over scarce resources. It is admittedly difficult to be analytically precise in pinpointing exact causes for the breakdown in domestic or international order. Nevertheless, it is hard to avoid inferring some connection between the instabilities

[00:59:22] and frustrations caused by absolute and relative poverty reinforced by the demographic pressures discussed above. The examples of warfare in recent memory involving India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, El Salvador, Honduras, and Ethiopia, and the growing potential for instability in such places as Turkey, the Philippines, Central America, Iran, and Pakistan surely justify the question being raised. Do they really?

[00:59:54] Do they really? So, of course, they come up with the excuse, yeah, well, you know, I mean, we've got reason to be concerned, even though it's never truly been demonstrated that Malthus' theories were correct, never been proven correct, just a theory and a bad one at that, that the exponential rise in population would cause depletion of resources and therefore lead

[01:00:23] to some of these countermeasures that nature would take to reduce populations, things like spread of disease and starvation and infighting between peoples. These are the things that Malthus proposed. Sounds logical on paper, right? That if the population grows at a rate that it surpasses the reproduction of

[01:00:53] resources, that it would begin to cause problems, there would be inequalities among people, imbalances, lack of resources to support or maintain everyone, sustain everybody, so therefore this will invariably lead to overpopulation, overcrowding, and therefore disease and sickness and death and people getting frustrated with one another and angry and fighting,

[01:01:22] maybe one person wanting something somebody else has because there's not enough resources to go around. So this is the kind of thing that's been proposed. So this is what they take into account here and they want to reduce populations so they don't have those problems. At least that's what they say on the surface. But let's go ahead and we're going to look at this next portion here which this was written by Lydia Schulman and this is called the Global 2000 Approach.

[01:01:52] The Global 2000 report issued in spring 1980 was the culmination of a three-year study directed by the U.S. State Department and the White House Council on Environmental Quality. As the first study of global ecological trends by the U.S. government, the report does not make policy recommendations per se, but claims to objectively project the impact of current 1977 trends in population growth and GNP

[01:02:21] on the global resource base and environment. Going to pause for a moment here folks. So understand what was done here in 1977 they started doing this report and they decided to theorize essentially that's what they're doing. They're theorizing what the future can hold based upon certain numbers that they had at that time. So let's go ahead and continue reading. The authors

[01:02:51] of the report state that it was intended to provide the basis for long-term planning by the U.S. government and to create a permanent institutional capability, skilled personnel, data, and analytical models. For spinning off future studies and analyses, they state further that the report was intended as a guide in U.S. foreign policy, quote, we are working with other nations bilaterally, building concern for population growth,

[01:03:21] natural resources, and environment into our foreign aid programs and cooperating with our immediate neighbors on common problems ranging from the cleanup of air and water pollution to preservation of soils and development of new crops, end quote. A statement strongly suggesting that foreign aid henceforth be tied to population control and related measures. So let's see what it says in this global 2000 model. Here's the

[01:03:51] premises right here. And remember, this is all the same old new world order. Now we have the, we had the, this global 2000 policy first, right? And then we later had agenda 21, which morphed into agenda 2030, and I'm sure will morph again because I don't think they're at the point they want to be right now to align those 2030 goals

[01:04:20] by 2030. It's all the same thing, just the reestablishment of the same policies under a different name. New lipstick on a pig, like I said, same old new world order. So here's the premises in the global 2000 model, and let's see how readily they align with its predecessor, the agenda 21, and then the agenda 2030, which we have now. Let's see how it all aligns, and let's see how it aligns with things the World Economic

[01:04:50] Forum is saying currently. As in all global models of this type, what counts are its underlying assumptions? Going to pause for a moment. It's all based on assumptions and not necessarily correct assumptions ever. But let's continue reading. We'll give them the benefit of the doubt. The gross incompetence of this report and its doomsday predictions stem from the total denial of the transforming effects of science and technology.

[01:05:19] The projections depict conditions that are likely to develop if there are not changes in public policies, institutions, or rates of technological advance, and if there are no wars or other major disruptions, emphasis added. One of the most telling points of the report's flawed methodology is the assumption on nuclear fusion. The projections assume no revolutionary advances such as immediate wide scale availability of nuclear fusion for energy production. Given the

[01:05:49] premise of no change in the rate of technological advance, the report predicts that the projected growth of the world's population from $4 billion in 1975 to $6.35 billion in the year 2000 will lead to severe regional water shortages, extensive deforestation, irreparable deterioration of agricultural soils, and other horrors. The conclusion a policymaker is supposed to draw is that these consequences must be forestalled by

[01:06:18] stopping population growth short by whatever means. And I'm going to pause for a moment here, folks. So, dude, we see all these things happen in the year 2000. Certainly not. They were wrong like they always are with all of this. It's all this artificial scarcity notion that they push and promote with this stuff. Let's continue reading. As authority on demographics, Global

[01:06:48] 2000 cites a 1969 U.S. Academy of Sciences report, Resources and Man, which concluded that a world population of 10 billion is close to, if not above, the maximum that an intensively managed world might hope to support with some degree of comfort in individual choice. Going to pause for a moment here, folks, to call poppycock on all of that. Once again, they don't know. They simply don't know.

[01:07:18] They simply do not know. They make a lot of assumptions, and like I said, they're mostly incorrect assumptions about things. Let's read on. The Global 2000 report warns that if currently projected fertility and mortality rates were to continue unchanged into the 21st century, the world's population would reach 10 billion by 2030, and nearly 30 billion, the number the NAS

[01:07:48] cites as the Earth's maximum carrying capacity before the end of the century. Get a pause for a moment here, folks. So now, now these people know that the Earth's maximum capacity that it could carry are 30 billion people. How they know this is beyond me. 30 billion people. Don't get me wrong, that sounds like a lot of people, but I'm pretty sure the Earth can handle whatever winds up being here.

[01:08:18] No doubt in my mind of that, but they're claiming that the population, if they hadn't tried to do anything, would reach 10 billion by the year 2030. I don't know if we'll get there or not, but even so, do we see all of this scarcity that they promised us happening right now? Do we really? I don't think so. But at any rate, let's go ahead

[01:08:48] and continue reading. Among the report's other doomsday projections are, on population, new data on the decline in fertility rates in areas such as Indonesia and Brazil due to unanticipated poverty and malnutrition suggests that world fertility rates will drop by more than 20% over 1975 to 2000 from an average of 4.3 children per fertile woman to 3.3. In addition, shifts in public policy

[01:09:18] will provide significantly increased access to family planning services in less developed countries. The majority of people in large LDC cities are likely to live in uncontrolled settlements, slums, and shanty towns where sanitation and other public services are minimal at best. Oh, San Francisco. Anyway, I digress on that. Let's continue. On food, assuming no deterioration in climate or weather,

[01:09:47] food production is projected to be 90% higher in 2000 than in 1970. In the LDCs, however, that would be less developed countries if you're keeping track, in the less developed countries, however, rising food output will barely keep ahead of population growth. Per capita consumption in the sub-Saharan African LDCs is slated to decline. On forests, both forest cover and stalks of woods in the LDCs will decline by 40%

[01:10:17] by 2000 due to the reliance on wood for energy. On water, due to rapidly increasing demands for water, in particular to its highly consumptive use in irrigation, regional water shortages, and the deterioration of quality are likely to become worse by 2000. Many LDCs will also suffer the destabilization of water supplies as a result of deforestation. On energy, no early relief from the world's energy problems. In the

[01:10:46] LDCs, the demand for wood fuel will far outstrip supply, expanding deforestation. On agriculture, greater soil erosion, loss of nutrients, and compaction of soil, increasing salination of irrigated land, crop damage due to increasing air and water pollution is projected. An epilogue entering the 21st century warns that without a halt in population growth trends, the world will be more vulnerable both to

[01:11:16] natural disaster and to disruptions from human causes, including wars over increasingly scarce fresh water supplies. Going to pause for a moment here, folks. Fresh water supplies. So, of course, they're always predicting a scarcity of water. We have desalination plants, folks. We could put them right on the ocean and have an endless supply of water.

[01:11:46] It's not a problem. There is no reason why there would be a water shortage. Maybe in a specific geographic region, but we can get it there. No reason if you want to be honest about it. There's no scarcity of water in this world. We can build desalination plants. You can get as much water as you want from the oceans will never run out. Never.

[01:12:17] Of course, they don't take that kind of thing into account, do they? But anyway, let's continue on here. Next, it has a portion here where it's a question and answer portion where it's talking to a fellow named William Paddock. An interview with a gentleman named William Paddock on extermination.

[01:12:46] Paddock, where have I heard that name before? Hmm. You have to wonder about these things. I don't know, maybe this guy is a relation to that Stephen Paddock who allegedly was responsible for that mass shooting event in Vegas a couple years ago that has never been adequately explained what his motivation or anything was or how he got all of these weapons

[01:13:16] silently to his hotel room and acted on his own to do all of this unabated and not to mention his ties to the intelligence community and all these things. And perhaps I don't know if this William Paddock is relation or not, but I find it interesting the names here in the article. But let's read a little portion of this before we wrap it up. So the following is excerpted from an interview with William Paddock made available to EIR, the Executive Intelligence Review.

[01:13:46] Paddock is an outspoken proponent of global population reduction and a self-professed supporter of the Global 2000 Doctrine. Paddock is best known for his plan to reduce the population of Mexico to less than 35 million from its present 65 million level. He is the founding member of the Environmental Fund whose goal is to stimulate thinking about the unthinkable and the forced reduction of the world's population.

[01:14:15] The Environmental Fund and Paddock both directly played a role in the shaping of the Global 2000 document. Paddock had significant input into State Department policy planning during the Kissinger and Carter tenures. His plan for Mexico was endorsed by National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. At the time of the interview, Paddock was preparing to make a presentation at the Georgetown Center for International and Strategic Studies where Kissinger currently operates

[01:14:45] on the effects of population on revolution in Central America. The meeting was to be attended by key policy planners from the Hague State Department. So here's the questions. We have the questions and answers here given by the interviewer and of course this William Paddock guy giving the answers. So the first question here is what are your views on the Global 2000 document to which Paddock answers? It's a wonderful thing and I'm absolutely amazed

[01:15:14] at the publicity it's received. Gerald Barney, director of the Global 2000 Project, had done it single-handedly. It's excellent and it's got far more publicity than most studies commissioned by the White House that wind up on the shelves and are never read. And it's an idea whose time has come. Now we need a U.S. 2000 and a Florida 2000 and a New York 2000, one for every state to start planning and adapting to this situation that's coming. Going to pause for a moment here folks just

[01:15:44] to point out that remember in the beginning here I told you this was about foreign policy but also about domestic policy. Well there you go right there. This guy is talking about the United States. Each state needs to have its own population reduction plan. That's what this guy is saying. Let's continue though. So the next question by EIR is looking at El Salvador from the standpoint of what was said in Global

[01:16:13] 2000, it seems to be a model country for disaster, landlocked, limited infrastructure, etc. etc. And the answer Paddock gives is he says that's an advantage you know but go ahead. So then the questioner asks well it has limited infrastructure and a population growth that's almost out of control that would double in 20 years. What do you do in a situation like that, in a situation like El Salvador? Paddock answers there's nothing you can do, nothing. Question

[01:16:44] What is going to happen then? And the answer Paddock gives total chaos, anarchy, or of one kind or another. Continuing military government may be rightist or leftist but a military government. You can't expect stability where you have such turmoil and stress generated by so many people. Why do you have military governments in Latin America? They've always had one form or another of it. I was in Honduras in 1957 when they had their 75th revolution.

[01:17:13] They've had a lot of practice. Why is that? Well, it's simply because, as far as I'm concerned, the land is poor. They got a poor piece of real estate. It's nobody's fault. It's just the way God passed out the resources. Every single country in the world is overpopulated, but some are more so than others. Now, why is that? Because El Salvador happens to have some of the finest land in all Latin America. And you can take a world population map where you

[01:17:42] have one dot for every 100,000 people. And except for some cities like New York, London, and Tokyo where it'll be black, of course, wherever you have high concentrations of those dots, you have pretty good soil. And that's true in Latin America. You have it in Java, in El Salvador, in Haiti. Why? Because they've got good land. Some good land. Unfortunately, some modern technology in the form of medical missionaries or medical doctors of one kind or another got there

[01:18:11] before there was any other technology that reached there. And the population explosion took place before they could develop any other resources and get their agriculture more efficiently used. And it just exploded. It exploded faster than any other place because they had more food. They had better land. And now they've grown well past the capacity of that land to take care of them. I'm going to pause for a moment here, folks. So that was kind of a wordy answer here by Paddock. But you see what

[01:18:41] he's claiming. And I don't accept that his point of view is necessarily correct in a lot of these things. But let's continue on. So next the questioner asks, so in El Salvador are we eventually going to see a rollback of the population? And the answer is it will happen somehow. So the question is then you mean famine, disease, and the answer one of the four horsemen, and now the fifth one, which is the bomb. Going to pause

[01:19:10] for a moment here, folks. So now Paddock is talking about bombs, warfare, in addition to the four horsemen. Of course he's referring to the four horsemen of the apocalypse. So the questioner from EIR asks, can it be done without the pain and suffering? And Paddock answers, I don't think so at all. I don't think so for a couple of reasons. First of all, speaking of the population growth rate to level off or drop, the problem is that the people who are going

[01:19:40] to cause the stress in the next 20 years are already here. They're born, they're walking around. Half the population is under the age of 15. It would be well if no one had any more kids between now and the year 2000, but the big problem's already there. The other reason is we don't know how to motivate people to want to have fewer children. We just don't know how to do it. Malthus, in his dismal theorem, said that the only check on population growth

[01:20:09] is starvation and misery, and no matter how favorable the environment or how advanced the technology, population will grow until it is miserable and starved. That's what he said, all right? That's an economist at the University of Colorado, a very famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, who has what he calls his utterly miserable theorem, and his utterly miserable theorem is that if the only check on the growth of population is starvation and misery, then any technological improvement will have the ultimate

[01:20:38] effect of increasing the sum of human misery because it permits a larger proportion to live in precisely the same state of misery and starvation as before the change. And this, of course, is what we're trying to do with our foreign aid program in sending food and improving the agriculture of the area. We're making it possible to sustain more people. Going to pause right there, folks. So do you understand the attitude here?

[01:21:09] They think that increases in technology and the increases of availability of things to people, potentials to people, causes an elevation in human misery. So why would they want to do that? It would be much more merciful to let them starve to death, wouldn't it? That's the attitude they take with this stuff. So why should we keep pouring all this money and infrastructure into there and

[01:21:39] feeding these people when all we're doing is we're elevating their misery, we're compounding their misery? That's what the attitude is here for the justification of this type of thing. So let's skip down to the bottom here. There's a couple more questions that they ask, but I want to wrap it up because we're running out of time here. So the next question that we

[01:22:07] can add is the question is you could have millions of people dying and the answer that Paddock gives is well you're going to have millions of people dying certainly for lack of food in the third world and certainly in the next 20 years, no shadow of a doubt about it. Famine is absolutely totally inevitable. There's no way to stop it. We've had good crop years that last three to four, so people feel pretty comfortable. Though we're going into 1981 with the lowest reserves the world

[01:22:37] has seen since the last 10 to 15 years, you've had the population of the world growing at an average rate of 1% faster than food production has grown since 1975. And then the interviewer asks, and that's going to produce the effect you're talking about? And Paddock's answer is, well one of these days as long as the weather is good we can squeak by, but the trend is always more and more on the brink. If the monsoon is two or three weeks late in India this year,

[01:23:06] it will be a very bad thing. We'll know that by July 10th or so. And our Middle West is very deficient in subsoil moisture right now. A dry year last year, the U.S. may very well be quite unable to ship the wheat, soybeans, and corn the world is counting on. And if this should happen two years in a row, there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it. But that's the trend. If it doesn't happen in two

[01:23:36] years, it will happen in three or four. Absolutely positively fact. If you can blame anybody, it's the medical profession. So then the last question that the interviewer asks this Paddock guy is, because they've kept so many people alive? And Paddock's answer is absolutely. They've given the world death control without birth control. Two-thirds of the world is living on very marginal subsistence

[01:24:05] and that's three billion people. And that's the end of the interview here and the end of the article altogether. So essentially what this guy is saying is because of science, our medicine, keeping people alive, this is what's causing the overpopulation problem. So did you ever wonder why it is that they want to centralize medicine?

[01:24:36] Ever wonder why it is they want a social medicine system, a centralized social medicine system? Why they've established this in many countries around the world? Why they're pushing for that here in the U.S.? why they're centralizing all of this into world databases and coming up with different policies here? Why the insurance companies cause misery for people by denying them access to certain medical treatments

[01:25:06] on the basis of whether you can afford it or not or whether the insurance company wants to pay or not? You ever wonder why the medical model is in the shape that it's in? Why we seem to be deteriorating? Why the average lifespan dropped? It dropped over the course of the past three years, the average lifespan. This is absolutely why, because they see this as being a contributing factor to the population problem,

[01:25:36] and they want to reduce the population. You ever wonder what the whole vaccine campaign was about, what the whole COVID nonsense, what all of this was about? Well, it's a corrective measure that they're taking for their policy plan. They want to eliminate the useless eaters, as they call us. They don't want the medicine to keep you alive longer than you absolutely have to be.

[01:26:06] That, that's the key there. So we see they've actually rolled this into an active eugenics program right now. And you'll always have these types of policy think tank groups making contributions to various foreign policy and domestic policy types of agendas. That's absolutely what's going on. So we see there's a clear delineation of things

[01:26:36] that have been done in the past. If you think that these things are not going on now, still to this day you are sorely mistaken and you're just not paying attention. That's the problem. Most people don't pay attention to these things because this is what goes on in meeting rooms that you're not aware of. I mean, it's out there in the public domain. They certainly acknowledge that these policy, population policy groups exist and they do delineate

[01:27:06] certain agendas and put forward certain policies, institute certain policies. They do acknowledge that, but many people just don't pay attention to that because that's not what's in your face 24-7 on the news media. Instead, you're giving Joe Biden falling down the stairs and Trump out there with secret documents in his house saying stupid crap and tweeting mean messages out to people. This is what

[01:27:36] you're handed and you're told these are the people in charge that are running the show. They have your best interest in mind. And if things aren't going the way you like, well, just vote harder next time. And in the background you have these scumbags running things, actively trying to kill you off, essentially. Let's not mince words about this. And people don't even bother to look into

[01:28:06] any of this stuff. They just accept carte blanche. Okay, so there's this population council. overpopulated. That's what the average response is to that type of information. They'll agree, yeah, there's too many people. Well, do you want to be the one that volunteers to be gone so that you're not a burden in the world? And sadly, there's probably a lot of people that would volunteer for that at this point, the way the social engineering has gone, the way they've

[01:28:35] expanded the misery of people to make them believe that they're a burden in this world, rather than that they have some special place in this world. They have a plan that God has a plan for them in this place. They're here for a reason. The enemy of your soul, folks, would like you to think otherwise. And these people, whether they realize it or not, they work for the enemy of your soul. They don't want you

[01:29:05] to acknowledge that you are special, that God has a unique plan for your life, that you are here for a reason. I assure you, you are. If you've ever struggled with understanding what's your purpose here, know that God the Father, the creator of this world, he put you here for a very specific reason. And he knows that plan and reason, and you just have to sort that out with him. That's all. But these

[01:29:34] people don't want you to think in those terms. They want you to think that all of this world, this reality, came about by some grand accident. And that you're a burden on this world. That you are just a useless eater. You use up the resources. You're burdensome, you're troublesome, you're not necessary.

[01:30:06] That's the notion they would like you to have. And that's the types of policies that they implement, as we've seen here. And this is a well-documented thing, this Hague-Kissinger depopulation policy. If you go and look at the foreign policies that were put forward from those years, you absolutely see they were telling other countries, hey, you need to reduce your population. They started planning with other groups, other non-governmental groups, to establish

[01:30:35] ways in which to control populations and reduce populations. this has been done and this is well documented. And perhaps some other day, we'll take a look at the Population Council and their connections to Planned Parenthood. Yes, there's connections there in case you had any doubts. But anyway, folks, I want to thank you all for tuning in.

[01:31:05] I appreciate each and every one of you. We'll catch you next time. Have a good night now. We lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and humanity. What is at stake? It is more than one thought. It is a big idea. Because of oppression has been wrong for the faithful.