Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List
 

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=5870&start_row=1


Kissinger: Population control through famine

1 - 4
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: JAH Child Sent: 11/1/2014 10:41:09 AM
Reply

Thanks to Idren Ras Jon Far I for leading Iwombman to search up this article.
Originally published in 1985, written by Joseph Brewda:
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 targeted 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 infrastructure 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.


URL: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2249_kissinger_food.html





Messenger: JAH Child Sent: 11/1/2014 10:57:32 AM
Reply

Some solutions Iwombman think I&I have the full Ibility work toward, to combat this devil:
-clean and unlimited water supplies for all humans
-natural, pesticide-free land for all humans
-non-GMO, pesticide-free, multi-crop agriculture training for all humans, Incouragement and Iducation to the people as to why this is the most sustainable route and also has the highest yields overall
-sex education for young people that includes the real information about contraceptives - the enormously increased risk for heart attack in healthy young wombman using "the pill"; the holistic impact of condom on the body (latex in porous flesh areas); the implant devices that people use to prevent pregnancy, both in arm and in uterus, and how these foreign objects harm the body; etc.

Some of these things need to be approached from political angles, others from educational angles, others from scientific/engineering angles; as allways, there is a place for everyOne to fullfill the Iyest purpose. More Ites of JAH people, more and more love Itinually.


Messenger: Black Christ Salvation Sent: 11/1/2014 12:44:23 PM
Reply




Messenger: Eleazar Sent: 11/1/2014 1:37:47 PM
Reply

-----------------------------------------
Noam Chomsky maintains the rage
Tue, 5 October 2010

Duch Trial: The Verdict
Remembering the correspondents of the Indochina war

"Henry Kissinger would certainly be brought to trial for his role in the bombing, if the world were governed by justice, not forces"

PHILOSOPHER and linguist Noam Chomsky says the United States owes Cambodia not only an apology but massive reparations for the B-52 bombing campaign called Operation Menu that killed up to a million people.

The campaign lasted from March 18, 1969, to May 26, 1970, destroyed an estimated 1,000 towns and villages, displaced 2 million people and, Chomsky says, and helped bring the Khmer Rouge to power.

Chomsky’s comments come after the US last week ruled out a plea from Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen to forgive a US$317 million debt to the US accrued by the Lon Nol regime during the 1970s.

In the interview, Chomsky said: “Henry Kissinger would certainly be brought to trial for his role in the bombing, if the world were governed by justice, not forces.”

Considered a father of modern linguistics, Chomsky is the author of more than 100 books about language and international affairs.

He’s also one of the world’s most-quoted living scholars. Much of what he says in speeches, interviews and scholarly works is quickly translated into scores of languages.

As Chomsky approaches his 83rd year, he is still a professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, considered one of the best technical universities in the world.

Chomsky has taught there for more than 50 years.

His work on how the brain deals with language changed how the world’s professors think about psychology, behaviour and a whole range of studies of the human mind. Chomsky has at least 36 honorary doctor’s degrees, two of the most recent of which were given by universities in China, where he travelled earlier this year to acknowledge the accolades.

The Chomsky approach to science and mind studies takes the view that humans are given remarkable genetic endowments by their parents – systems so complex they are impossible to duplicate even with a room full of computers – and that’s what makes people so precious.

Chomsky’s theories of universal grammar and generative grammar are now accepted by scholars around the world and encompass the idea that all human languages are based on underlying rules that every human baby is born with, which explains why children, wherever they are, quickly acquire the language that is spoken to them.

Chomsky says that if an alien visited Earth, he would observe that all humans speak the same language with only slight variation. Chomsky’s approach to understanding language at MIT has enabled computer scientists and researchers in many others fields to apply mathematical-style rules to language.

British professor Dr Niels Jerne won a Nobel Prize in 1964 by applying Chomskyan theories to the human body’s immune system with a paper called The Generative Grammar of the Immune System.

In addition to his linguistic and philosophical pioneering, Chomsky was an early opponent of the Vietnam War, dating back to France’s reappearance in Indochina following the conclusion of the second world war in 1945.

He was one of the intellectual forces behind the antiwar movement in the US during the 1960s and early 1970s.

Chomsky is also famous for his criticism of the foreign policies of states, especially the US, where he lives and has nationality.

He helps people practise what he calls “intellectual self-defence” by pointing out the difference between words spoken and deeds done by politicians, governments, religious or corporate officials – so that the average citizen can look at the world more accurately as it applies to him or her – rather than as part of the agenda of a state, a religion, a corporation or some other power centre, as Chomsky calls them.

Just as in his reasoning that the Vietnam War was not in the interest of the American people, so does Chomsky reason that Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza are not in the interest of the Israeli people.

Though Chomsky is a Jew and a Hebrew scholar, he nevertheless criticises Israel’s military actions, which he says are more dangerous to the population of Israel than they are helpful.

You could say Chomsky is an equal-opportunity critic of all groups with power, regardless of ethnicity and national origin – which is probably what makes him so popular and welcome in so many places – and so controversial.

Chomsky has been watching the events that have occurred in Cambodia since the end of the second world war.

He took time to answer some questions about significant events in the Kingdom’s history that have helped shape Cambodia today.

The historic enmity between Vietnam and China goes back a millennium. In 1978-79, Cambodia was a Chinese ally and Vietnam was linked to the Russians....

Q&A with Noam Chomsky

How is it that people got the idea you were soft on Khmer Rouge atrocities as a result of your 1988 book with Edward S Herman, Manufacturing Consent?
In our 1988 book, Herman and I reviewed the way the horrors in Cambodia had been treated through three distinct phases: the US war before the Khmer Rouge takeover in April 1975; the Khmer Rouge period; the period after Vietnam invaded and drove out the Khmer Rouge and the US and Britain turned at once to direct military and diplomatic support for the Khmer Rouge (“Democratic Kampuchea”). By the time we wrote, it was known that the pre-1975 US war was horrendous, but it is only in the past few years that more extensive documents have been released.

We now know that the most brutal phase began in 1970, when Henry Kissinger transmitted President Nixon’s orders for “massive bombing of Cambodia, anything that flies on anything that moves” (Kissinger’s words, to General Haig). It is hard to find a declaration with such clear genocidal intent in the archival record of any state. And the orders were carried out. Bombing of rural Cambodia was at the level of total Allied bombing in the Pacific theatre during World War II. The

Khmer Rouge, as we now know, expanded to about 200,000, largely recruited by the bombing.

During the first and third period there was quite a lot that Americans – more generally Westerners – could do. During the second period no one even had a suggestion as to what to do. The coverage is exactly the opposite of what elementary moral considerations would dictate. During the first period, there was some protest, but coverage was slight and it was quickly forgotten. The new revelations have been almost entirely suppressed. During the third period, coverage again was very slight and the history has also been almost entirely forgotten.

Our accurate review of these facts did lead to considerable outrage, and massive lies, such as what you mention. That was even more true of our 1979 two-volume study, Political Economy of Human Rights, which provides extensive documentation to show that this pattern was (and is) quite generally, extending all over the world. Most of the study concerned US crimes, so it was therefore unreviewed and unread, confirming our thesis.

One chapter was about Cambodia. In it, we harshly condemned Pol Pot’s crimes, and also revealed extraordinary fabrication and deceit. We wrote that the crimes were horrible enough, but commentators ought to keep to the truth, and to the most reliable sources, like State Department intelligence, by all accounts the most knowledgeable source at the time – and also largely suppressed, apart from our review, because it did not conform to the image that was manufactured. That image was important.

It was exploited quite explicitly to whitewash past US crimes in Indochina, and to lay the groundwork for new and quite awful crimes in Central America, justified on grounds that the US had to stop the “Pol Pot left”, We compared Cambodia to East Timor, accurately: two huge atrocities in the same time period and same area of the world, differing in one crucial respect: in East Timor the US and its allies had primary responsibility for the atrocities, and could have easily brought them to an end; in Cambodia they could do little or nothing – as noted, there was scarcely even a suggestion – and the enemy’s atrocities could be and were exploited to justify our own.

We showed that in both cases there was massive deceit in the US and the West, but in opposite directions: In the case of East Timor, where the crimes could have easily been terminated, they were suppressed or denied; in the case of Cambodia, where nothing could be done, the fabrication and lies would, literally, have impressed Stalin.

What we wrote about East Timor was entirely ignored (except in Australia), along with the rest of what we wrote about US crimes and how they were covered up.
What we wrote about Cambodia, in contrast, elicited huge outrage and a new flood of lies, as we discussed in our 1988 book. And it continues. In general, it is extremely important to suppress our own crimes and to defend the right to lie at will about the crimes of enemies. Those are major tasks of the educated classes, as we documented at length, in these books and elsewhere.

It is a rare study that does not contain errors, but our chapter on Cambodia seems to be an exception. Despite massive effort, no one has found even a misplaced comma, let alone any substantive error. We would be more than happy to concede and correct any error, but despite Herculean efforts, none have been found. Please don’t take my word for it, of course. Check and see for yourself.

When you look at the genocide under the Khmer Rouge that occurred in Cambodia, do you put the blame on the American bombing of Cambodia for creating the conditions that brought Pol Pot to power, or is it more complex than that?
Two leading Cambodia scholars, Owen Taylor and Ben Kiernan, point out that when the intense US bombing of rural Cambodia began, the Khmer Rouge were a small group of perhaps 10,000. Within a few years, the KR had grown to a huge army of some 200,000, deeply embittered and seeking revenge. Their recruitment propaganda successfully highlighted the US bombing. Pentagon records reveal that the tonnage of bombs released on rural Cambodia was about the same as total US bombing in the Pacific during World War II, and of course far more intense. But that was surely not the only factor.

In your reading of history, why do leaders of states go so terribly wrong as to slaughter anyone who had ever been to school or who wore glasses? Can you imagine the intellectual or emotional basis for how perpetrators of mass killings are able to blithely live with themselves as instruments of mass killing?
It’s a good question. We can also ask similar questions about our own society, which we should be able to understand better. Just keep to Cambodia. The intense bombing began under President Nixon’s orders, which Kissinger loyally transmitted to the US military with these words: “Massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves.” That’s the kind of call for genocide that one rarely finds in the archival record of any state. The statement was published in The New York Times, and there was no reaction among its mostly liberal intellectual readers, few of whom even remember it.

Should the perpetrators of genocide in Cambodia be tried and executed or imprisoned? Why?
I am opposed to the death penalty, but I think they should receive fair trials and imprisonment. No one asks that question about Nixon and Kissinger, or about the rich and powerful generally.
-----------------------------------------


1 - 4

Return to Reasoning List




RastafarI
Email
Haile Selassie I