July 16

lessons on eugenics, part 2 (kill your children [so we don’t have to])

in 1974, the eugenicist Henry Kissinger (National Security Advisor at the time) published National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200). this study was adopted as official U.S. policy in 1975. as the title implies, the report discusses the need for population control in developing countries. the main form of “population control” endorsed is, of course, abortion.

Kissinger supported an interesting method of encouraging countries to engage in abortion, as seen in part 2 of the study:

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 relationships, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.

in case you missed it, let me spell that out for you: we should give preferential treatment with regards to food and aid to countries which are committed to using abortion as a method of population control. but, we should be sneaky about it!

it is important to note that the US refuses to rescind this policy, even after being called upon to do so ever since the report was made public in the early 90s. if something seems familiar about this, it’s probably because one of Obama’s first moves in office was to reinforce this policy of providing aid to abortion-happy African countries.

and if you still think this is all in the past, I refer you to a chilling statement made by our current National Security Advisor, James Jones to the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations): “As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger”.

hopefully this also gives some insight into why violent wars are perpetuated by the US. they are not meant to be won, only sustained, for the optimal amount of death and financial gain.


Tags: , , ,
Copyright © 2014. All rights reserved.

Posted July 16, 2009 by calenfretts in category "politics

3 COMMENTS :

  1. By Allison on

    I don’t understand how you’re drawing these conclusions from those documents. I have to be missing something. I sat down and read all of these at work this morning and I drew the complete opposite conclusion.

    The provision states that “None of the funds made available to carry out this part (Part I of the Act) shall be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.”

    Part 2 of the NSSM states:

    “In order to comply with Section 114, A.I.D. has determined that foreign assistance funds will not be used to:

    (i) procure or distribute equipment provided for the purpose of inducing abortions as a method of family planning. ”

    The article continues to list more ways in which foreign aid funds will not be used to fund abortions.

    Can you elaborate on this issue? I hadn’t heard anything about this prior to reading your website and I think it’s extremely interesting. I’m just very confused on what’s what. A lot of the sources I’ve seen are conflicting. I’d like to sort fact from skew and opinion. A good bit of the information I’m finding is fused with 12 kinds of polarization. What is actually going on when religious/personal skewing is removed? It seems like the information is being reworked to fit individual ideologies and purposes.

  2. By frettsy on

    Allison, you’re right – the funds themselves cannot be used to *directly* fund the abortions. the money is used for aid given to these countries – the catch is that “preferential treatment” with regard to the aid is given to countries engaged in population control via abortion, etc. does that clear it up?

  3. By Allison on

    Yes! Thank you. I was so confused. I knew there was some kind of huge connection I was missing.

Comments are closed.