From:   MX%"lpb@stratus.swdc.stratus.com"  6-MAR-1992 10:12:20.43
To:     AMBROSEGB
CC:
Subj:   NWO Genocide

There is circumstantial evidence that points to every indication our gvts
(most primary world gvts like usa, canada, germany, australia, japan, etc ....)
1) know the planet goes thru periodic upheavals 2) know that there is a
potential for an asteroid strike in souther hemisphere this decade 3) and
know that the worlds resources can only support so many people if portions of
the planet cannot sustain agriculture.....

Think about it ...... chrinic fatigue syndrome .... voluntary euthenasia......
AIDS.....incurable STDs ......... irrational embargos against destroyed nations
etc ..... what's wrong with this picture?

Len


----- Begin Included Message -----

---------------------------------------------------------------
Article 12542 of alt.activism:
Path: lassie!voder!apple!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.culture.china
Subject: Genocidal Roots Of Bush's New World Order Part 1
Message-ID: <s12g21w164w@ccs.covici.com>
Date: 5 May 91 11:34:51 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 122
Xref: lassie alt.activism:12542 soc.culture.china:45755

The genocidal roots of Bush's new world order
by Kathleen Klenetsky

Millions of people will almost certainly die as a
consequence of Operation Desert Storm. According to some
estimates, one-half million Iraqis were killed in the U.S.
military offensive; the allied bombing raids killed
countless numbers of innocent civilians, while
accomplishing what a United Nations team called the
``near-apocalyptic'' destruction of the country's
infrastructure.
   With its industrial and agricultural base now reduced
to rubble, its sewage and water systems wiped out, it is
feared that the disease, famine, and political turmoil
sweeping Iraq and threatening to spill over into
surrounding nations, will send the death toll soaring into
the stratosphere.
   Yet there is one person who is mightily pleased by
this holocaust of human suffering: His name is George
Bush, and genocide runs in his blood.
   For Bush, the more people who die, the better. Why?
Because he believes that there are too many people in the
world, especially black, brown, and yellow people, and that
eliminating them must be a principal goal of the world's
political leaders. If war helps get rid of some of these
``useless eaters'' efficiently, then so be it.
   To Bush and his elite circle, the growth of the
world's population represents one of the most dangerous
threats imaginable, one that must be met with harsh
measures, including outright mass murder.
   This perverse and profoundly anti-Christian view,
pervasive within the Anglo-American establishment, has not
only been the driving force in Bush's political career. It
was also one of the underlying motives behind his
Operation Desert Storm; and it undergirds the ``new world
order'' which he threatens to bring down upon the world.

		  - Depopulation wars -
   As early as 1969, Bush--who had already declared
himself to be a staunch advocate of zero population
growth--was publicly discussing war as a method of
population reduction. Then a Republican congressman from
Texas, Bush told the House of Representatives on July 21,
1969 that unless the menace of human population growth
were to be ``recognized and made manageable, starvation,
pestilence, and war will solve it for us.''
   In light of the massive destruction wreaked by U.S.
firepower, can there be any question that Operation Desert
Storm was first and foremost a depopulation war--a war
whose primary objective was to kill as many people as
possible?
   National Security Council memoranda dating from
1974-76, which were only recently declassified, should erase
any lingering doubts.
   Written during the period when George Bush was a
high-ranking official in the Ford administration (first as
U.S. emissary to China, then as CIA director), and when
his current national security adviser, Brent Scowroft,
served President Ford in the same capacity, the documents
lay out the rationale for waging population wars
throughout the developing sector.
   One key document which we excerpt in this report,
entitled ``Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for
U.S. Security and Overseas Interests''--claims that
population growth in the Third World represents a threat
to U.S. national security, and further asserts that
slashing population levels in the developing sector is
essential to guarantee the United States unfettered access
to raw materials.
   Given this mentality, it is entirely credible that
the reason the Bush administration decided to bomb Iraq
back to the Stone Age had nothing to do with Saddam
Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, and everything to do with
the fact that Iraq has--or had--the fastest-growing
population in the Mideast, and that it wanted to secure a
decent price for its oil supplies so that it could support
that population.
   The NSC memoranda were part of a process whereby
the goal of population reduction became a leading
objective of both U.S. foreign and domestic policy. This
process began in earnest in the mid-1960s, when
influential layers of the establishment began their
crusade to wipe out the notion of progress and the
sacredness of human life, and replace it with old,
discredited neo-malthusian and utilitarian dogmas.
   The Carter administration's {Global 2000} report, the
Council on Foreign Relations' ``1980s Project,'' and the
reams of propaganda churned out by the major foundations
and zero-growth think tanks screaming about the population
bomb and man as a ``cancer'' destroying Mother Nature,
were all key elements in this drive for genocide.

	       - The same policy at home -
   But it was left to the Bush administration to take
the fraudulent idea that there are too many people in the
world to its logical, murderous, conclusion--not only with
its war on Iraq, but with its implementation of a policy
of ``malign neglect'' toward America's jobless, homeless,
elderly, minorities, and the poor.
   This makes perfect sense. As we document below, Bush
has been in the vanguard of the war against the world's
``useless eaters'' since his first appearance on the
political stage back in the 1960s. He spearheaded the
drive for zero growth while a congressman, and has never
stopped since.
   Can someone who hates people--because that is the
root of the neo-malthusian ideology--possibly run a
government devoted to the welfare of humanity? George Bush
has already answered that question; the question that
needs to be answered next is, how much longer will people
tolerate Bush's ``Texas chain saw massacre'' policies?

>From EIR V18, #17.


Any comments, please send by email, as I get very far behind on this group.

Thanks.

	 John Covici

covici@ccs.covici.com


Article 12543 of alt.activism:
Path: lassie!voder!apple!usc!wuarchive!uunet!ccs!covici
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.culture.china
Subject: Genocidal Roots Of Bush's New World Order part 2
Message-ID: <692g22w164w@ccs.covici.com>
Date: 5 May 91 11:39:52 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 447
Xref: lassie alt.activism:12543 soc.culture.china:45756

Kissinger, Scowcroft, Bush plotted
Third World genocide by Hassan Ahmed and Joseph Brewda

Although U.S. population control studies intended
for public dissemination typically center on the allegedly
dire effect that ``overpopulation'' has on the economic
well-being and stability of the developing countries, this
is not the actual concern of the planners who have shaped
U.S. policy toward the Third World since the Henry
Kissinger era in government. An examination of recently
declassified documents, in particular National Security
Study Memorandum 200, ``Implications of Worldwide
Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas
Interests,'' written in 1974, shows that U.S. government
population policy is motivated by imperial and racial
concerns that differ markedly from those professed
publicly.
   The primary concern of these studies is that the
continued population growth of the ``less developed
countries'' (LDCs) would lead to an increase in the
political, economic, and military power of several of
these states, at the expense of the power of the
Anglo-American oligarchy. The studies worry that
population growth is linked to an increasing tendency for
nationalization of U.S. investments, to demands for
sovereign control of resources, and to the growth of
anti-imperial movements generally.
   For that reason, the studies are devoted to
developing plans to eradicate any ideas which oppose
malthusian population reduction. The documents' authors,
Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, both national
security advisers in the relevant 1974-77 period,
explicitly identify these ideas as then embodied in the
call for a ``New World Economic Order''--a concept
associated at that time with Lyndon LaRouche's call for a
moratorium on the Third World debt and a high-technology
development policy to raise living standards. That,
as LaRouche was telling Third World leaders, is the
solution to the seeming ``population problem.''

	     - The declassified documents -
   On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council
issued a classified 250-page study entitled ``National
Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide
Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas
Interests.'' The study had been prepared by the
Undersecretaries Committee of the NSC under the
supervision of Henry Kissinger, then serving as both
secretary of state and the President's national security
adviser.
   The study had been ordered by President Richard Nixon
in a decision directive signed on Aug. 10, 1970. This is
the first known instance in which a U.S. President defined
Third World population increase as a threat to U.S.
national security.
   NSSM 200, unlike other government documents on the
subject, outlined the ``international political and
economic implications'' of population growth, rather than
its ``ecological, sociological or other aspects.'' It
included recommendations for ``dealing with population
matters abroad, particularly in the developing
countries,'' by relevant U.S. agencies.
   On Oct. 16, 1975, Kissinger sent a confidential White
House memorandum to President Gerald Ford, proposing
that the President authorize an NSC decision memorandum
adopting the NSC study. Following Ford's approval, the NSC
issued ``National Security Decision Memorandum 314'' on
Nov. 26, 1975, which endorsed the study and its
recommendations. The memorandum was signed by Brent
Scowcroft (who had, in the meantime, replaced Kissinger as
national security adviser; Kissinger remained as secretary
of state) and was addressed to the secretaries of state,
treasury, defense, agriculture, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the director of the Central
Intelligence Agency for implementation.
   In May 1976, the National Security Council produced
its ``First Annual Report on U.S. International Population
Policy,'' a classified report mandated by NSSM 200 and
NSDM 314, which summarized the progress in implementing
the earlier adopted plan of action. The report was
addressed to then-CIA director George Bush, among other
intelligence officials, for study and implementation.
   Bush and Kissinger had worked together since at least
1971, when Bush had been U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and
Kissinger was national security adviser. During 1975, when
Kissinger's memorandum was under study, Bush was the first
U.S. envoy to the People's Republic of China, a major
target for birth control. In 1976, Bush became the
director of the CIA, where he worked closely with national
security adviser director Scowcroft and Secretary of State
Kissinger. The threesome constituted a team then, and also
today.
   These studies were quietly declassified in 1989 and
released to the U.S. National Archives in Washington in
1990, where they can now be reviewed by the public.

	     - Kissinger fears `backlash' -
   NSSM 200 cites 13 ``key countries'' in which there is
``special U.S. political and strategic interest'' which
requires imposing a policy of population control or
reduction. The primary reason these states are so defined,
is that the effect of their population growth is judged
likely to increase their relative political, economic, and
military regional and even world power.
   These key states are: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan,
Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines,
Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia. The study
expresses concern that even with population reduction
programs put in place in such nations, ``population growth
rates are likely to increase appreciably before they begin
to decline.''
   So, for example:
   ``Nigeria falls into this category. 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 south of the Sahara.''
   Similarly, Egypt: ``The large and increasing size of
Egypt's population is, and will remain for many years, an
important consideration in the formulation of many foreign
and domestic policies not only of Egypt but also of
neighboring countries.''
   As for Brazil, it ``clearly dominated the continent
demographically,'' the study reports. It consequently
warns of a ``growing power status for Brazil in Latin
America and on the world scene over the next 25 years.''
   Among Kissinger's biggest fears is that leaders of
such states might realize that international population
reduction programs are designed to undermine their
development potential. As he puts it: ``There is also the
danger that some LDC leaders will see developed country
pressures for family planning as a form of economic or
racial imperialism; this could well create a serious
backlash.''
   He adds: ``It is vital that the effort to develop and
strengthen a commitment on the part of the LDC leaders not
be seen by them as an industrialized country policy to
keep their strength down or to reserve resources for use
by `rich' countries. Development of such a perception
could create a serious backlash adverse to the cause of
population stability.''

	 - Ensuring imperial freedom of action -
   Another reason for fostering the population reduction
of the entire Third World is frankly imperial. NSSM 200
pays particular attention to U.S. access to strategic
minerals in the developing countries, and concludes that
reducing the population growth of mineral-rich Third World
states will make continued access to such resources more
politically reliable.
   ``The location of known reserves of higher-grade ores
of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all
industrialized regions on imports from less developed
countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not
in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic
issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation,
and division of the benefits among producers, consumers,
and host country governments.''
   The study forecasts that in the absense of political
stability, i.e., subservience, in these states:
   ``Concessions to foreign companies are likely to be
expropriated or subjected to arbitrary intervention.
Whether through governmental action, labor conflicts,
sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed
materials will be jeopardized. Although population
pressure is not the only factor involved, these types of
frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow
or zero population growth.''
   Consequently, reduction of population increases in
these states is a matter of vital U.S. national security:
   ``Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions
of supply ... the U.S. economy will require large and
increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially
from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S.
enhanced interest in the political, economic and social
stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening
of population pressures through reduced birth rates can
increase the prospects for such stability, population
policy becomes relevant to resources supplies and to the
economic interests of the United States.''
   The study is also worried that population growth in
such states will tend to increase their demands for
economic development. For example, in the case of
Bangladesh: ``Bangladesh is now a fairly solid supporter
of Third World positions, advocating better distribution
of the world's wealth and extensive trade concessions to
poor nations. As its problems grow and its ability to gain
assistance fails to keep pace, Bangladesh's positions on
international issues likely will become radicalized,
inevitably in opposition to U.S. interests on major issues
as it seeks to align itself with others to force adequate
aid.''

	 - No to a `New World Economic Order' -
   One of the major concerns of NSSM 200 is to check the
spread of ideas which are hostile to population control
and which demand economic development as the solution to
Third World problems. According to Kissinger's definition,
such ideas are a threat to U.S. national security.
   To highlight the dangerous growth of such ideas, the
document presents the case of the World Population
Conference in Bucharest in August 1974, to which ``the
U.S. had contributed many substantive points.'' The
document complains that the conference's proposed World
Population Plan of Action (WPPA or the Plan) was rejected
by many of these states, because of the spread of such
anti-malthusian ideas. The failure of the conference,
which the U.S. government had intended to be epoch-making,
is one of the cited reasons for the drafting of the NSC
memoranda.
   Referring to this conference, the document states:
   ``There was general consternation, therefore, when at
the beginning of the conference, the Plan was subjected to
a slashing, five-pronged attack led by Algeria, with the
backing of several African countries; Argentina, supported
by Uruguay, Brazil, Peru and more limitedly, some other
Latin American countries; the Eastern European group (less
Romania); the P.R.C.; and the Holy See.''
   Kissinger reports that the objections to the Plan
were based on the idea that a ``New World Economic Order''
could be a basis for social and economic development of
the former colonial sector, and also the basis for the
respect for the sovereignty of these states. This would
make population control appear unnecessary or even
harmful, Kissinger worries. He complains about the
``wishful thinking that economic development will solve
the problem'' generated by supposed overpopulation
as an idea necessary to eradicate.
   These ideas had already acquired their most
articulated expression in the writings of Lyndon LaRouche,
whom Kissinger, among others, consigned to 15 years in
federal prison in 1989, following a politically motivated
frameup trial. The Kissinger effort to crush the LaRouche
movement is known to date back to the period in question,
when LaRouche's influence had become a powerful
international factor to reckon with.
   Although the NSC document nowhere mentions this fact,
Helga Zepp, now Mrs. LaRouche, led an intervention
into the Bucharest conference around the ideas of the
``New World Economic Order,'' personally challenging
speaker John D. Rockefeller III with the genocidal
implications of his population reduction policy. The
LaRouches and their associates, through numerous
publications such as {EIR,} have played a central role
over the subsequent years in advocating the ideas
Kissinger defines as a threat to U.S. national
security--meaning the security of his elite power group.
   In order to combat this ``problem,'' the document
stresses the need for ``education'' of Third World leaders
potentially susceptible to such threatening ideas of
fostering economic development: ``The beliefs, ideologies,
and misconceptions displayed by many nations at Bucharest
indicate more forcefully than ever the need for extensive
education of the leaders of many governments, especially
in Africa and some in Latin America. Approaches [for]
leaders of individual countries must be designed in light
of their current beliefs and to meet their special
concerns.''
   Elsewhere, in NSSM 200, Kissinger defines the
acceptance of the supposed need for population control as
vital to the U.S. secret plan: ``Development of a
worldwide political and popular commitment to population
stabilization is fundamental to any effective strategy.
This requires the support and commitment of key LDC
leaders. This will only take place if they clearly see the
negative impact of unrestricted population growth and
believe it is possible to deal with this question through
governmental action. The U.S. should encourage LDC leaders
to take the lead in advancing family planning.''
   To this end, the document outlines various
formulations deemed appropriate in influencing such Third
World leaders, and at the same time blunting the influence
of those exposing the imperial policy behind population
control. For example, the document reports: ``The U.S. can
help to minimize charges of an imperialist motivation
behind its support of population activities by repeatedly
asserting that such support derives from a concern with:
(a) the right of the individual to determine freely and
responsibly their number and spacing of children ... and
(b) the fundamental social and economic development of
poor countries.''
   At the same time, the study recommends a worldwide
propaganda offensive employing diverse U.S. governmental
and international agencies to this end: ``Beyond seeking
to reach and influence national leaders, improved
worldwide support for population-related efforts should be
sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other
population education and motivation programs by the U.N.,
USIA [U.S. Information Agency], and USAID [U.S. Agency for
International Development]. We should give higher
priorities in our information programs worldwide for this
area and consider expansion of collaborative arrangements
with multilateral institutions in population education
programs.''

		  - Food as a weapon -
   While Kissinger cautions, ``We must take care that
our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs
of an industrialized country policy directed against the
LDCs,'' the document also outlines steps to force
countries to adopt population reduction measures if covert
forms of persuasion and education prove ineffective. The
primary weapon seized upon is the restriction of food aid.
   The document states: ``There is also some established
precedent for taking account of family planning
performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID
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.''
   Elaborating on this measure, the document raises the
possibility that ``mandatory programs may be needed and
that we should be considering these possibilities now,''
adding, ``Would food be considered an instrument of
national power? Will we be forced to make choices as to
whom we can reasonably assist, and if so, should
population efforts be a criterion for such assistance?|...
Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help
people who can't/won't control their population growth?''

	     - Progress on implementation -
   As previously noted, in May 1976, the NSC released
its ``First Annual Report on U.S. International Population
Policy,'' a progress report study mandated by NSSM 200 and
related memoranda. The classified study analyzed the
progress made over the previous year in implementing
Kissinger's memorandum, and was forwarded to then-CIA
director George Bush, among other intelligence officials,
for implementation.
    According to the report, the primary resistance to
U.S. efforts to reduce the population of the former
colonial sector was found in Ibero-America, the Middle
East, and Africa--areas dominated or heavily influenced by
either Catholicism or Islam. Both religions are opposed to
birth control, a policy which the NSC condemns as
``pro-natalism.''
   The report states:
   ``LDC countries uncommitted to population programs
include most of Africa, Latin America, and the Middle
East, with a combined population of about three-quarters
of a billion people. Population policies of these nations
range from the pro-natalism of a few to the non-commitment
of most of the others, where, in varying degrees, family
planning is tolerated or even encouraged. Abortion is
generally abhored, and sterilization disfavored.''
   The report complains that this ``relative lack of
concern,'' which should be combatted, can be
``explained by a variety of factors,'' including:
   ``1) no perceived need to limit population growth;
   ``2) or, if there is a perceived need, wishful
thinking that economic development will solve the problem;
   ``3) belief that a large family is necessary for old
age security or to meet needs for labor at certain points
of farming cycle;
   ``4) preoccupation with other, more immediate issues;
   ``5) religious influences; and
   ``6) ignorance as well as racialism, tribalism, and
traditionalism.''
   The report adds:
   ``To the extent family planning is identified with
the Western world, particularly the United States, there
are even greater inhibitions in some countries toward
family planning. This factor may be particularly
noticeable in international conferences where Third World
countries tend to combine against the West, against
capitalism, and in favor of the `New World Economic
Order.'|''
   Then, in typical Washingtonese, the report outlines a
program of subversion: ``It follows that our efforts to
promote family planning amongst uncommitted countries must
be fine-tuned to the particular sensitivities in each of
these countries. This serves to underline the important
role of our Ambassador and his or her country team in each
LDC country in terms of advising Washington on how
commitment can be best achieved in terms of the particular
circumstances of that country being alert to take timely
initiatives on their own to further these objectives.''

       - The need for police-state `discipline' -
   In contrast to the ``uncommitted'' countries, which
are subject to special covert targeting, the
progress report cites countries allegedly committed to, or
at least not opposed to birth control. These countries
include most of Asia, notably the People's Republic of
China. The study claims that ``almost one-half of the
world's population live in developing countries whose
leaders are committed to population policies and programs.
This represents roughly two-thirds of the developing
world.'' This account contrasts with statements made in
the 1974 Kissinger memorandum, in which hostility toward
population control by such states was considered far more
prevalent.
   However, the study notes that even in these nations,
population reduction is often difficult to implement
without an appropriate form of government, even if public
education, dispension of birth control devices, and other
measures are vigorously pursued:
   ``Many leaders recognize that all these measures,
significant as they are, will not help reduce population
growth rates sufficiently to avert major disasters.
Prerequisites for real success are likely to involve three
approaches that are interrelated and have proved highly
effective, as follows:
   ``1) strong direction from the top;
   ``2) developing community or `peer' pressures from
below; and
   ``3) providing adequate low-cost health-family
planning services that get to the people.
   ``With regard to 1), population programs have been
particularly successful where leaders have made their
positions clear, unequivocal, and public, while
maintaining discipline down the line from national to
village levels, marshalling government workers (including
police and military), doctors, and motivators to see that
population policies are well administered and executed.
Such direction is the {sine qua non} of an effective
program. In some cases, strong direction has involved
incentives such as payment to acceptors for
sterilizations, or disincentives such as giving low
priorities in the allocation of housing and schooling to
larger families.''
   Thus it can be said that by 1976, the U.S. government
was committed to an imperial policy which had the
following components: a plan to enfeeble the power of the
developing sector through fostering population decline; a
plan to undermine states opposed to population control; a
plan to create or strengthen Third World police-states as
a means of enforcing population control. A central
principle of this policy was the idea that Third World
economic development represents a threat to U.S. national
security, and that those advocating such development
policies had to be crushed.

>From EIR V18, #17.


Any comments, please send by email, as I get very far behind on this group.

Thanks.

	 John Covici

covici@ccs.covici.com


Article 12544 of alt.activism:
Path: lassie!voder!apple!usc!wuarchive!uunet!ccs!covici
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.culture.china
Subject: Genocidal Roots Of Bush's New World Order Part 3
Message-ID: <8e3g21w164w@ccs.covici.com>
Date: 5 May 91 11:43:30 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 451
Xref: lassie alt.activism:12544 soc.culture.china:45757

Bush backed Nazi `race scientists'
by Kathleen Klenetsky

On Aug. 5, 1969, George Bush, then a Republican
congressman from Texas, invited William Shockley and
Arthur Jensen to testify in front of the Republican Task
Force on Earth Resources and Population.
   The two men had triggered an international furor by
insisting that blacks are inferior to whites in the domain
of intelligence. Despite the blatant fraudulence of their
claims, Bush did not utter a peep of criticism; instead, a
month later, he presented a summary of their testimony to
his colleagues, ``so that all Members of the House can
share the information we heard.''
   Explaining that his hearings had centered on three
subjects, including ``the hereditary aspects of human
quality'' and ``the environmental problems created by our
rapid rate of population growth,'' Bush described
Shockley's comments in the following words:
   ``Dr. Shockley stated that he feels the National
Academy of Sciences has an intellectual obligation to make
a clear and relevant presentation of the facts about
hereditary aspects of human quality. Furthermore, he
claimed our well-intentioned social welfare programs may
be unwittingly producing a down-breeding of the quality of
the U.S. population.''
   Shockley and Jensen offered specific proposals to
deal with the ``down breeding'' caused by blacks' alleged
inferiority. Shockley campaigned for a Sterilizations
Bonus Plan, under which those with low IQs, drug addicts,
and those with diabetes, epilepsy, and similar diseases
would be paid for submitting to sterilization.
   Shockley was especially concerned about the black
reproduction rate. ``If those blacks with the least amount
of Caucasian genes are in fact the most prolific and also
the least intelligent,'' he claimed, ``then genetic
enslavement will be the destiny of their next generation.''
   Shockley and Jensen were both highly critical of U.S.
social programs, especially welfare, claiming that they
``may be encouraging dysgenics--retrogressive evolution
through disproportionate reproduction of the genetically
disadvantaged,'' as Shockley wrote in 1979.

	       - Bush: an enemy of life -
   Bush's promotion of Shockley and Jensen's
Nazi-style crackpot genetic theories was no aberration.
It was part and parcel of his devotion to the
cause of neo-malthusianism, which, by definition, is a
eugenics program directed at wiping out the ``unfit,'' the
``racially inferior,'' and the ``useless eaters.''
   Despite his convenient conversion to a ``pro-life''
position during his 1980 presidential campaign, Bush's
record reads like the implementation of Hitler's {Mein
Kampf.} Over the course of his political career, Bush has
played a critical role in the war on human life which the
establishment, through the Club of Rome and other
neo-malthusian outfits, has been waging for the past three
decades.
   Jessica Mathews, vice president of a key zero-growth
think tank, the World Resources Institute, attested to
Bush's yeoman's work on behalf of the neo-malthusian agenda
in a {Washington Post} commentary published last year.
``In the 1960s and '70s,'' she wrote, ``Bush had not only
embraced the cause of domestic and international family
planning, he had aggressively sought to be its champion.''
He ``shepherded the first major breakthrough in domestic
family planning legislation in 1967'' and ``later
co-authored the legislation commonly known as Title X,
which created the first federal family planning
program.''
   ``On the international front,'' she continued, Bush
``recommended that the U.S. support the United Nations
population fund.... In his defining maiden speech as U.S.
representative to the U.N.,'' he ``named population and
environment as top priorities.''

       - The genocide lobby's man in Washington -
   Bush deserved every word of Mathews's accolade.
During his two terms on Capitol Hill (1966-70), he
belonged to a small group of congressmen who successfully
conspired to force a profound shift in the official U.S.
attitude and policy toward population expansion. Embracing
the ``limits to growth'' ideology, Bush and his coterie
labored to enact legislation which put population control
at the center of U.S. domestic and foreign policy.
   Bush arrived in Congress just as the neo-malthusians
were girding themselves for the final assault against the
Judeo-Christian concept that every person possesses a
divine spark through which he is capable of making a
unique contribution to the welfare of humanity. In
contrast, the zero-growthers claimed that man is a
``cancer'' who is uncontrollably devouring the world's fixed
resources, and who must be stopped at any cost.
   The battle was fully joined in 1968, when Pope Paul
VI issued his enyclical {Humanae vitae}, which excoriated
the neo-malthusian mentality and its goals:
``Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon
would be placed in the hands of those public authorities
who take no heed of moral exigencies.... Who will stop
rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their
people, the method of contraception which they judged to
be most efficacious?'' As for poor countries with a high
population rate, the encyclical said: ``No solution to
these difficulties is acceptable which does violence to
man's essential dignity.... The only possible solution is
one which envisages the social and economic progress both
of individuals and of the whole of human society....''
   Bush was squarely on the other side. Just days after
{Humanae vitae} was issued, he announced, ``I have decided
to give my vigorous support for population control in both
the United States and the world,'' adding: ``For those of
us who feel so strongly on this issue, the recent
enyclical was most discouraging.''
   Bush pushed, prodded, and cajoled his fellow
congressmen into enacting legislation that contributed to
bringing about the kinds of ``1984'' horrors of which Paul
VI warned. ``He was really out front on the population
issue,'' a zero-growth activist recently said. ``He was
saying things that even we were reluctant to talk about
publicly.''
   Prior to the mid-1960s, the U.S. government had
refused to become involved in population control. As late
as December 1959, political opposition to population
control was so strong that President Eisenhower said,
``Birth control is not our business. I cannot imagine
anything more emphatically a subject that is not a proper
political or governmental activity ... or responsibility.''
   But within a few short years, U.S. policy had
undergone a 180-degree turn. No longer was it taboo to push
population control; it was taboo to oppose it!
   Bush played a pivotal role in this shift. Shortly
after arriving in Washington, he teamed up with fellow
Republican Herman Schneebeli to offer amendments to the
Social Security Act which placed priority emphasis on what
was euphemistically called ``family planning services.''
Their avowed goal was to reduce the number of children
born to women on welfare.
   The Bush-Schneebeli amendments were largely prompted
by Dr. Alan Guttmacher, president of Planned Parenthood,
and a prote@aage@aa of its founder, Margaret Sanger. Years
before Hitler's rise to power, Sanger was leading the
charge for wholesale sterilization of ``unfit'' and
``inferior races'' in the name of ``race betterment.''
   Although Planned Parenthood eventually toned down the
racist rhetoric, claiming instead that ``family planning''
was a boon to the poor, its basic goal of curbing
procreation among ``undesirables'' never changed.
   Bush was a big fan of Planned Parenthood. Like his
father, Prescott, whose affiliation with the group cost
him the Senate race in 1950, Bush championed Planned
Parenthood at every opportunity. In 1967, he urged
``government agencies [to] work even more closely with ...
Planned Parenthood.'' A year later, he called on those
interested in ``advancing the cause of family planning'' to
``call your local Planned Parenthood'' to offer your ``help
and support.''

	       - War on the poor, blacks -
   The Bush-Schneebeli amendments were aimed at reducing
the number of children born to blacks and poor whites.
They required all welfare recipients, including mothers of
young children, to seek work, and they barred increases in
federal aid to states where the proportion of dependent
children on welfare increased.
   Reducing the national welfare bill was a prime Bush
concern. Talking about rising welfare rolls, Bush lamented
in July 1968 that ``our national welfare costs are rising
phenomenally.'' Worse, ``The fastest-growing part of the
relief rolls is aid for dependent children (AFDC).''
   He frequently motivated his population control
crusade with thinly veiled appeals to racism. Like
Shockley, Bush worried publicly that blacks had more
children than whites. Blacks must recognize, he said,
``that they cannot hope to acquire a larger share of
American prosperity without cutting down on births.''
   In 1970, Bush spearheaded the fight for President
Richard Nixon's Family Assistance Program (FAP). Falsely
billed as a help to the poor because of its income-floor
provision, the measure mandated every able-bodied welfare
recipient, except mothers with children under six, to take
a job. Bush liked FAP since it would force the lazy to
work: Whereas ``the present welfare system encourages
idleness by making it more profitable to be on welfare
than to work, and provides no method by which the state
may limit the number of individuals added to the rolls,''
under FAP, ``if an individual does not work, he will not
receive funds.''
   This was just the beginning of Bush's efforts to
eliminate the world's ``useless eaters.'' Over the next few
years, the zero-growth gang jacked up its crusade for
radical population control, and Bush goose-stepped right
along. In rapid succession, he proposed bills to create a
National Center for Population and Family Planning and
Welfare, and to rename the Interior Department the
Department of Resources, Environment, and Population.
   In the foreign policy arena, he helped shift U.S.
foreign assistance away from funding development projects,
to underwriting population control. ``I propose that we
totally revamp our foreign aid program to give primary
emphasis to population control,'' he stated in the summer
of 1968. ``In my opinion, we have made a mistake in
our foreign aid by concentrating on building huge steel
mills and concrete plans in underdeveloped nations.''
   On the domestic side, one of his more important
initiatives was his sponsorhip of the Family Planning
Services and Population Research Act of 1970, brainchild
of Sen. Joseph Tydings, a key zero-growther.
   Signed into law by President Nixon on Dec. 24, 1970,
the Tydings-Bush bill drastically increased the federal
financial commitment to population control, authorizing an
initial $382 million for family planning sevices,
population research, population education and information.
Much of this money was funneled through private
institutions, particularly local clinics run by Planned
Parenthood. The Tydings-Bush measure mandated the
notorious Title X, which explicitly targeted ``family
planning'' assistance to the poor.
   Bush and his fellow neo-malthusians talked constantly
about the importance of disseminating birth control to the
poor. They claimed there were 5 million poor women who
wanted to limit their families, but could not afford birth
control. In introducing the House version of the Tydings
bill, Bush ally Rep. James Scheuer (D-N.Y.) ranted that
while middle-class women ``have been limiting the number of
offspring for years, women of low-income families'' were
not. ``If poverty and family size are so closely related we
ask, `Why don't poor women stop having babies?'|''
   The Bush-Tydings measure took a giant step toward
getting them to do so. An analysis by the Alan Guttmacher
Institute found that since Title X went into effect, ``2.3
million unintended births were averted and that each
dollar invested in family planning by government yields a
savings of $2.00 in health and welfare costs alone.''
Others put the ``cost-benefit'' ratio much higher. A 1975
study estimated that every dollar invested in ``family
planning'' saved $25-70 in welfare and other costs.

	     - Bush's task force from Hell -
   One of the main outlets Bush used for his zero-growth
agenda was the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources
and Population, which he founded and chaired. This is the
panel to which he invited Jensen and Shockley. Comprised
of over 20 congressmen, the group functioned as a bloc to
promote the zero-growth cause; its hearings provided a
public forum to nearly every neo-malthusian around.
   For example, on July 24, 1969, it heard from Gen.
William Draper, then national chairman of the Population
Crisis Committee, and a close friend of Bush's father,
Prescott. According to Bush, Draper warned that the
population explosion was like a ``rising tide,'' and called
for using ``our God-given brain power to bring back a
balance between the birth rate and the death rate.'' Draper
also lashed out at the Catholic Church for frustrating
population control efforts in Ibero-America.
   A week later, Oscar Harkavy, chief of the Ford
Foundation's population program, testified. Bush
summarized his remarks thus: ``The population explosion is
commonly recognized as one of the most serious problems
now facing the nation and the world. Mr. Harkavy suggested
. that we more adequately fund population research. {It
seems inconsistent that cancer research funds total
$250-275 million annually, more than eight times the
amount spent on reproductive biology research}'' (emphasis
added).
   At the same hearings where Shockley and Jensen
testified, Bush also heard from Paul Ehrlich. Founder of
Zero Population Growth and author of the 1968 bestseller
{The Population Bomb,} Ehrlich urged the government to
institute ``drastic policies'' to ``establish a reasonable
population size,'' such as ``the addition of ... mass
sterilization'' agents to U.S. food and water supplies.
   In February 1969, Bush and the task force proposed a
Joint Committee on Population and Family Planning, to
``focus national attention on the domestic and foreign need
for family planning.'' ``We need to make population and
family planning household words,'' Bush told the House. ``We
need to take the sensationalism out of this topic so that
it can no longer be used by militants who have no real
knowledge of the voluntary nature of the program but,
rather, are using it as a political steppingstone.
   ``A thorough investigation into birth control and a
collection of data which would give the Congress the
criteria to determine the effectiveness of its programs
must come swiftly to stave off the number of future mouths
which will feed on an ever-decreasing proportion of food,''
he added.

       - Opening the door to legalized abortion -
   On July 18, 1969, President Nixon, responding to the
urgings of Henry Kissinger and the Rockefeller family,
called for a blue-ribbon Commission on Population. Bush
was ecstatic. This was something he himself had proposed
numerous times; on July 21, he issued a statement to
``commend the President.'' ``We now know,'' he intoned, ``that
the fantastic rate of population growth we have witnessed
these past 20 years continues with no let-up in sight. If
this growth rate is not checked now we ... face a danger
that is as defenseless as nuclear war.'' Within weeks,
Bush's task force had introduced the requisite
legislation, and the Commission on Population Growth and
the American Future quickly got under way.
   Headed by John D. Rockefeller III, the commission
represented a radical, government-sanctioned attack on
human life. Its final report, issued in 1972, asserted
that ``the time has come to challenge the tradition that
population growth is desirable: What was unintended may
turn out to be unwanted, in the society as in the family.''
   Not only did the commission demand an end to
population growth and economic progress; it also attacked
the foundation of Western civilization: man's reason.
``Mass urban industrialism is based on science and
technology, efficiency, acquisition, and domination
through rationality,'' it said. ``The exercise of these
same values now contain the potential for the destruction
of our humanity. Man is losing that balance with nature
which is an essential condition of human existence.''
   The commission made numerous recommendations to curb
both population expansion and economic growth, among them,
liberalizing laws restricting abortion and sterilization;
having the government fund abortions; and providing
birth control to teenagers. Its impact on American
attitudes on population growth and personal morality
cannot be underestimated; it certainly accelerated the
plunge into outright genocide. One of its immediate
effects was to break down the last barriers to legalized
abortion. Just one year after its final report, the
Supreme Court delivered its {Roe v. Wade} decision.

	       - Weeding out the `unfit' -
   The drive for population control which surfaced in
the 1960s amidst a stream of propaganda about the
``population bomb'' and the ``limits to growth,'' was merely a
retooling of the old eugenics movement, which had been
forced underground temporarily when the world recoiled in
horror at its logical culmination in the Nazi movement.
   By the mid-1960s, the eugenicists had resurrected
themselves as the population-control/ecology movement.
Planned Parenthood was a perfect example of the
transformation. Rather than demand the sterilization of
the ``inferior'' races, the newly packaged eugenicists now
talked about giving the poor ``equal access'' to birth
contol, and ``saving the environment.'' ``Welfare recipients''
became the new codeword for the ``genetically unfit.''
   But nothing had truly changed--including the use of
coercion. While advocates of government ``family planning''
programs insisted that these were strictly voluntary, the
reality was far different. By the 1970s, the number of
involuntary sterilizations being carried out, by programs
which Bush helped set up, had skyrocketed, especially
among blacks and other minorities.
   In a 1974 court ruling, U.S. Judge Gerhard Gesell
found, ``Over the last few years, an estimated 100,000 to
150,000 low-income persons have been sterilized annually
under federally funded programs.
   ``Although Congress has been insistent that all family
planning programs function on a purely voluntary basis,''
he wrote, ``there is uncontroverted evidence ... that an
indefinite number of poor people have been improperly
coerced into accepting a sterilization operation under the
threat that various federally supported welfare benefits
would be withdrawn unless they submitted to irreversible
sterilization.'' He concluded that the ``dividing line
between family planning and eugenics is murky.''

	 - Bush and genocide: a family affair -
    If you believe--as Bush does--in the pseudo-scientific
genetic theories promoted by Shockley and Jensen (not to
mention Hitler), you might argue that Bush is genetically
predisposed to genocide. After all, he does seem to have
inherited his obsession with population control and racial
``down-breeding'' from his father, Prescott.
   A staunch supporter of Planned Parenthood, Prescott
Bush was a top partner in the Brown Brothers, Harriman,
investment bank. The Harriman family (including Averell,
the late Democratic Party elder statesmen), along with
other leading establishment families, created the eugenics
movement in the United States, which instituted the mass
sterilization of the ``feeble-minded'' and ``racially
inferior'' in the 1920s--practices the Nazis later copied.
   The Harrimans helped organize a series of
international conferences which brought together all the
leading lights in the eugenics movement. At the Third
International Eugenics Conference in 1932, the guest
of honor was none other than Dr. Ernst Rudin, head of the
German Society for Racial Hygiene, who a few years later
drafted the Nazi miscegenation laws against the Jews.
   One of the U.S. eugenicists who rubbed shoulders with
Rudin at the conference was Gen. William Draper, a New
York banker and close friend of Prescott Bush, who later
became a top population control crusader, and helped
organize the Population Crisis Committee/Draper Fund.
   Draper summed up his attitude toward the human race
in a 1971 article, in which he compared the developing
nations to an ``animal reserve,'' where, when the animals
become too numerous, the park rangers ``arbitrarily reduce
one or another species as necessary to preserve the
balanced environment for all other animals.
   ``But who will be the {park ranger for the human
race?}'' he asked. ``Who will cull out the surplus in this
country or that country when the pressure of too many
people and too few resources increases beyond endurance?
Will the death-dealing Horsemen of the Apocalypse--war in
its modern nuclear dress, hunger haunting half the human
race, and disease--will the gaunt and forbidding Horsemen
become Park Ranger for the two-legged animal called man?''
   Draper and Bush collaborated closely during the
latter's congressional career. Bush invited him to testify
to his Task Force on Earth Resources and Population;
Draper helped draft the Bush-Tydings bill. In September
1969, Bush gave a public tribute to Draper for his
relentless pursuit of zero-growth (see {Documentation}).
   Draper's son William III has enthusiastically
carried out his father's genocidal legacy--frequently with
Bush's assistance. In 1980, he served as national chairman
of the Bush presidential campaign's finance committee.
During the Reagan-Bush administration, Bush had his friend
appointed to key government positions, including
Export-Import Bank head, and administrator of the United
Nations Development Program, which post he still holds.
   This past January, Draper gave a speech to a
conference in Washington, stating that population
reduction is the core of Bush's ``new world order.''

     - From population control to depopulation war -
   In 1970, Bush lost his race for the U.S. Senate. But
that did not deter him from carrying on his campaign
against the human race. Appointed by President Nixon as
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Bush used that post
to promote zero growth on a global basis. In 1973, he
became U.S. emissary to communist China, where he gave
100% support to China's savage population control program,
which includes sterilization and abortion, as well as
infanticide.
   Now, as President, Bush has taken his zero-growth
insanity to its ultimate conclusion, using the instruments
of modern warfare to kill countless numbers of people in
the Third World, while simultaneously sabotaging domestic
programs on which the lives of millions depend. If Bush is
allowed to continue his policies unfettered, there won't
simply be zero growth; there will be zero people.

>From EIR V18, #17.


Any comments, please send by email, as I get very far behind on this group.

Thanks.

	 John Covici

covici@ccs.covici.com


Article 12545 of alt.activism:
Path: lassie!voder!apple!usc!wuarchive!uunet!ccs!covici
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.culture.china
Subject: Genocidal Roots Of ush's New World Order Part 4
Message-ID: <kH3g22w164w@ccs.covici.com>
Date: 5 May 91 11:44:55 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 150
Xref: lassie alt.activism:12545 soc.culture.china:45758

Documentation

{From George Bush's foreword to the book }World
Crisis: The U.S. Response,{ by Phyllis Piotrow, 1973:}
   The population problem is no longer a private matter. In
a world of nearly 4 billion people, population growth and
how to restrain it are public concerns that command the
attention of national and international leaders.... It is
quite clear that one of the major challenges of the 1970s
will be to curb the world's fertility....
   One fact is clear: In a world of nearly 4 billion
people, with some 150 independent governments, myriad
races, religions, tribes and other organizations, major
world problems like population and environmental
protection will have to be handled by large and complex
organizations representing many nations and many different
points of view. How well we and the rest of the world
can make the policies and programs of the United Nations
responsive to the needs of the people will be the test
of success in the population field.

   {From George Bush's testimony before Senate Government
Operations subcommittee hearings on the population crisis
(the Gruening hearings), Nov. 2, 1967:}
   With the pill and other devices, we have made great
strides in [the population control] field. But even though
all government programs in this field, to my knowledge,
are voluntary, I get the feeling that we are still
tiptoeing cautiously around the edge of the problem....
   I get the feeling that it is a little less
unfashionable to be in favor of birth control and planned
parenthood today than it used to be. If you will excuse
one personal reference here: My father, when he ran for
the U.S. Senate in 1950, was defeated by 600 or 700 votes.
On the steps of several of the Catholic churches in
Connecticut, the Sunday before the election, people stood
there passing out pamphlets saying, ``Listen to what this
commentator has to say tonight. Listen to what this
commentator has to say.'' That night on the radio, the
commentator came on and said, ``Of interest to voters in
Connecticut, Prescott Bush is head of the Planned
Parenthood Birth Control League,'' or something like this.
Well, he lost by about 600 votes and there are some of us
who feel that this had something to do with it.
   I do not think anybody can get away with that
type of thing any more....
   There is a troubling resistance from some of the
more militant civil rights groups. Again this is
considered hush-hush, but like many of the things in this
field, we ought to discuss it. I thing there is some
feeling among some of the more militant civil rights
people that any effort in planned parenthood is going to
be to try to breed the Negro out of existence.

   {From Bush's statement on ``Population Control and
Family Planning,'' }Congressional Record,{ July 30, 1968:}
   The problem of population growth is skyrocketing....
Our national welfare costs are rising phenomenally,
prompting me to wonder how we can take basic steps to
arrest it.... The fastest-growing part of the relief rolls
everywhere is aid for dependent children: At the end of
the 1968 fiscal year, a little over $2 billion will be
spent for AFDC, but by fiscal 1972 this will increase by
over 75%.... [These] children are often unwanted ...
two-thirds of them come from families where the father is
absent.... If past trends continue, they will pass on the
curse of poverty to their children. It has been shown that
of all the families living in poverty, 33% have five
children and 43% have six children. Seventy-one percent of
the non-white poor families have five or more
children.... Birth control must come swiftly to stave off
the number of future mouths which will feed on an
ever-decreasing proportion of food.
   The Federal Government, along with many State
governments, has taken steps to accelerate family planning
activities in the United States, but we need to do more.
We have a clear precedent: When the Salk vaccine [for
polio] was discovered, large-scale programs were
undertaken to distribute it. I see no reason why similar
programs of education and family planning assistance ...
should not be instituted on a massive scope. It is
imperative that we do so: not only to fight poverty at its
roots, not only to cut down on our welfare costs, but also
to eliminate the needless suffering of unwanted children
and overburdened parents.
   I propose that we increase and earmark appropriations
for our already existing family-planning services in all
areas.... Money spent toward family planning is a good
investment, since, in the long run, it will save on such
costs as aid for dependent children....

   {From Bush's call for a National College of
Ecological and Environmental Studies, May 28, 1970:}
   The Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and
Population of which I am chairman has been studying
environmental problems for the past year. We have become
acutely aware of the urgency of these problems and the
need to employ the creative talents of our concerned young
people. This is one of the reasons that I introduced H.R.
16847, a bill to establish a National College of
Ecological and Environmental Studies. The college would be
funded with seed money from federal funds, but the bulk of
the cost would be provided by the private and commercial
sectors of the country. It would provide for an organized
non-political youth forum where needed communications can
be channeled into solving environmental problems.

   From Bush's tribute to Gen. William Draper,
printed in the }Congressional Record,{ Sept. 18, 1969:}
   Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to a great
American, William H. Draper, Jr.... I am very much aware
of the significant leadership that General Draper has
executed throughout the world in assisting governments in
their efforts to solve the awesome problems of rapid
population growth. No other person in the past five years
has shown more initiative in creating the awareness of the
world's leaders in recognizing the economic consequences
of our population explosion.
   Fortunately, we will be hearing more from Bill
Draper as he is now the honorary chairman of the
Population Crisis Committee, and will continue to be
available for consultation on world affairs for which
he is so well qualified.

   From General Draper's testimony to the Democratic
and Republican presidential conventions, summer 1968:}
   The age-old method of higher death rates--nature's
way of keeping the balance--must give way to deliberate
and massive birth control by all the world's people.
That's the only humanitarian, the only possible solution.
In the U.S., the government should encourage and support
the establishment of voluntary family planning services
in every suitable publicly assisted health facility
throughout the country. Abroad, our economic assistance
program should encourage developing nations to recognize
that high rates of population growth mean lower rates
of individual betterment. The Pope has missed one of
the greatest challenges of our time. He has turned
his back on the desperate need of the 20th century.

>From EIR V18, #17.


Any comments, please send by email, as I get very far behind on this group.

Thanks.

	 John Covici

covici@ccs.covici.com


Article 4899 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: lassie!voder!apple!amdcad!decwrl!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!swift!peg!lacc
From: lacc@peg.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: US PLUTOCRATS PLOTTED GENOCIDE
Message-ID: <606300017@peg>
Date: 4 Jun 91 02:52:00 GMT
Lines: 429
Nf-ID: #N:peg:606300017:000:20907
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!lacc    Jun  3 22:52:00 1991


[THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS FROM "THE NEW DAWN", VOL. 1, NO. 1, MAY
1991. $25 FOR 12 ISSUES. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION WRITE TO: THE NEW
DAWN, AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE'S CONFERENCE, GPO BOX 3126FF, MELBOURNE,
3001, AUSTRALIA. ARTICLE MAY BE REPRINTED PROVIDED THAT SOURCE IS
CREDITED TOGETHER WITH FULL ADDRESS. * ALL COMMUNICATION SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS *]

U.S. Plutocrats Plotted Third World Genocide by Hassan Ahmed and
Joseph Brewda.

Although U.S. population control studies intended for public
dissemination typically centre on the allegedly dire effect that
"over-population" has on the economic well-being and stability of
the developing countries, this is not the actual concern of the
planners who have shaped U.S. policy toward the Third World since
the Henry Kissinger era in government. An examination of recently
declassified documents, in particular National Security Study
Memorandum 200, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for
U.S. Security and Overseas Interests," written in 1974, shows that
U.S. government population policy is motivated by imperial and
racial concerns that differ markedly from those professed
publicly.

The primary concern of these studies is that the continued
population growth of the "less developed countries" (LDCs) would
lead to an increase in the political, economic, and military power
of several of these states, at the expense of the power of the
Anglo-American oligarchy. The studies worry that population growth
is linked to an increasing tendency for nationalization of U.S.
investments, to demands for sovereign control of resources, and to
the growth of anti-imperial movements generally.

For that reason, the studies are devoted to developing plans to
eradicate any ideas which oppose Malthusian population reduction.
The documents' authors, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, both
National Security Council directors in the relevant 1974-77
period, explicitly identify these ideas as then embodied in the
call for a "New World Economic Order"

The Declassified Documents

On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council issued a
classified 250-page study entitled "National Security Study
Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for
U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." The study had been prepared
by the Under-secretaries Committee of the NSC under the
supervision of Henry Kissinger, then serving as both secretary of
state and the President's national security adviser (NSC
director).

The study had been ordered by President Richard Nixon in a
decision directive signed on Aug. 10, 1970. This is the first
known instance that a U.S. President defined Third World
population increase as a threat to U.S. national security.

NSSM 200, unlike other government documents on the subject,
outlined the "international political and economic implications"
of population growth, rather than its "ecological, sociological or
other aspects." It included recommendations for "dealing with
population matters abroad, particularly in the developing
countries," by relevant U.S. agencies.

On Oct. 16, 1975, Kissinger sent a confidential White House
memorandum to then-President Gerald Ford, proposing that the
President authorize an NSC decision memorandum adopting the NSC
study. Following Ford's approval, the NSC issued "National
Security Decision Memorandum 314" on Nov. 26, 1975, which endorsed
the study and its recommendations. The memorandum was signed by
Brent Scowcroft (who had, in the meantime, replaced Kissinger as
national security adviser; Kissinger remained as secretary of
state) and was addressed to the secretaries of state, treasury,
defense, agriculture, the director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency for
implementation.

In May 1976, the National Security Council produced its "First
Annual Report on U.S. International Population Policy," a
classified report mandated by NSSM 200 and NSDM 314, which
summarized the progress in implementing the earlier adopted plan
of action. The report was addressed to then CIA director George
Bush, among other intelligence officials, for study and
implementation.

Bush and Kissinger had worked together since at least 1971, when
Bush had been U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and Kissinger was NSC
director. During 1975, when Kissinger's memorandum was under
study, Bush was the first U.S. envoy to the People's Republic of
China, a major target for birth control. In 1976, Bush became the
director of the CIA, where he worked closely with NSC director
Scowcroft and Secretary of State Kissinger. The threesome
constituted a team then, and also today.

These studies were quietly declassified in 1989 and released to
the U.S. National Archives in Washington in 1990, where they can
now be reviewed by the public.

Kissinger Fears 'backlash'

NSSM 200 cites 13 "key countries" in which there is "special U.S.
political and strategic interest" which requires imposing a policy
of population control or reduction. The primary reason these
states are so defined, is that the effect of their population
growth is judged likely to increase their relative political,
economic, and military regional and even world power.

These key states are: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria,
Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt,
Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia. The study expresses concern that
even with population reduction programs put in place in such
nations, "population growth rates are likely to increase
appreciably before they begin to decline."

So, for example:

"Nigeria falls into this category. 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 south of the
Sahara."

Similarly, Egypt: "The large and increasing size of Egypt's
population is, and will remain for many years, an important
consideration in the formulation of many foreign and domestic
policies not only of Egypt but also of neighboring countries."

As for Brazil, it "clearly dominated the continent
demographically," the study reports. It consequently warns of a
"growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world
scene over the next 25 years."

Among Kissinger's biggest fears is that leaders of such states
might realize that international population reduction programs are
designed to undermine their development potential. As he puts it:
"There is also the danger that some LDC leaders will see developed
country pressures for family planning as a form of economic or
racial imperialism; this could well create a serious backlash."

He adds: "It is vital that the effort to develop and strengthen a
commitment on the part of the LDC leaders not be seen by them as
an industrialized country policy to keep their strength down or to
reserve resources for use by 'rich' countries. Development of such
a perception could create a serious backlash adverse to the cause
of population stability."

Ensuring Imperial Freedom of Action

Another reason for fostering the population reduction of the
entire Third World is frankly imperial. NSSM 200 pays particular
attention to U.S. access to strategic minerals in the developing
countries, and concludes that reducing the population growth of
mineral-rich Third World states will make continued access to such
resources more politically reliable.

"The location of known reserves of higher-grade ores of most
minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized
regions on imports from less developed countries. The real
problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical
sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms
for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits
among producers, consumers, and host country governments."

The study forecasts that in the absence of political stability,
i.e., subservience, in these states:

"Concessions to foreign companies are likely to be expropriated or
subjected to arbitrary intervention. Whether through governmental
action, labour conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the
smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although
population pressure is not the only factor involved, these types
of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or
zero population growth."

Consequently, reduction of population increases in these states is
a matter of vital U.S. national security:

"Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply ...
the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of
minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.
That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political,
economic and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever
a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates
can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy
becomes relevant to resources supplies and to the economic
interests of the United States."

The study is also worried that population growth in such states
will tend to increase their demands for economic development. For
example, in the case of Bangladesh: "Bangladesh is now a fairly
solid supporter of third world positions, advocating better
distribution of the world's wealth and extensive trade concessions
to poor nations. As its problems grow and its ability to gain
assistance fails to keep pace, Bangladesh's positions on
international issues likely will become radicalized, inevitably in
opposition to U.S. interests on major issues as it seeks to align
itself with others to force adequate aid."

No to a 'New World Economic Order'

One of the major concerns of NSSM 200 is to check the spread of
ideas which are hostile to population control and which demand
economic development as the solution to Third World problems.
According to Kissinger's definition, such ideas are a threat to
U.S. national security.

To highlight the dangerous growth of such ideas, the document
presents the case of the World Population Conference in Bucharest
in August 1974, to which "the U.S. had contributed many
substantive points." The document complains that the conference's
proposed World Population Plan of Action (WPPA or the Plan) was
rejected by many of these states, because of the spread of such
anti-Malthusian ideas. The failure of the conference, which the
U.S. government had intended to be epoch-making, is one of the
cited reasons for the drafting of the NSC memoranda.

Referring to this conference, the document states:

"There was general consternation, therefore, when at the beginning
of the conference, the Plan was subjected to a slashing,
five-pronged attack led by Algeria, with the backing of several
African countries; Argentina, supported by Uruguay, Brazil, Peru
and more limitedly, some other Latin American countries, the
Eastern European group (less Romania); the P.R.C.; and the Holy
See."

Kissinger reports that the objections to the Plan were based on
the idea that a "New World Economic Order" could be a basis for
social and economic development of the former colonial sector, and
also the basis for the respect for the sovereignty of these
states. This would make population control appear unnecessary or
even harmful, Kissinger worries. He complains about the "wishful
thinking that economic development will solve the problem"
generated by supposed over-population as an idea necessary to
eradicate.

In order to combat this "problem," the document stresses the need
for "education" of Third World leaders potentially susceptible to
such threatening ideas of fostering economic development: "The
beliefs, ideologies, and misconceptions displayed by many nations
at Bucharest indicate more forcefully than ever the need for
extensive education of the leaders of many governments, especially
in Africa and some in Latin America. Approaches [for] leaders of
individual countries must be designed in light of their current
beliefs and to meet their special concerns."

Elsewhere, in NSSM 200, Kissinger defines the acceptance of the
supposed need for population control as vital to the U.S. secret
plan: "Development of a worldwide political and popular commitment
to population stabilization is fundamental to any effective
strategy. This requires the support and commitment of key LDC
leaders. This will only take place if they clearly see the
negative impact of unrestricted population growth and believe it
is possible to deal with this question through governmental
action. The U.S. should encourage LDC leaders to take the lead in
advancing family planning...."

To this end, the document outlines various formulations deemed
appropriate in influencing such Third World leaders, and at the
same time blunting the influence of those exposing the imperial
policy behind population control. For example, the document
reports: "The U.S. can help to minimize charges of an imperialist
motivation behind its support of population activities by
repeatedly asserting that such support derives from a concern
with: (a) the right of the individual to determine freely and
responsibly their number and spacing of children ... and (b) the
fundamental social and economic development of poor countries...."


At the same time, the study recommends a worldwide propaganda
offensive employing diverse U.S. governmental and international
agencies to this end: "Beyond seeking to reach and influence
national leaders, improved worldwide support for
population-related efforts should be sought through increased
emphasis on mass media and other population education and
motivation programs by the U.N., USIA [U.S. Information Agency],
and USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development]. We should
give higher priorities in our information programs worldwide for
this area and consider expansion of collaborative arrangements
with multilateral institutions in population education programs."


Food as a Weapon

While Kissinger cautions, "We must take care that our activities
should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized
country policy directed against the LDCs," the document also
outlines steps to force countries to adopt population reduction
measures if covert forms of persuasion and education prove
ineffective. The primary weapon seized upon is the restriction of
food aid.

The document states: "There is also some established precedent for
taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of
assistance requirements by AID and consultative groups. Since
population growth is a major determinant of increases in food
demand, allocation of scare 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."

Elaborating on this measure, the document raises the possibility
that "mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be
considering these possibilities now," adding, "Would food be
considered an instrument of national power? Will we be forced to
make choices as to whom we can reasonably assist, and if so,
should population efforts be a criterion for such assistance?|...
Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who
can't/won't control their population growth?"

Progress on Implementation

As previously noted, in May 1976, the NSC released its "First
Annual Report on U.S. International Population Policy," a
progress-report study mandated by NSSM 200 and related memoranda.
The classified study analyzed the progress made over the previous
year in implementing Kissinger's memorandum, and was forwarded to
then-CIA director George Bush, among other intelligence officials,
for implementation.

According to the report, the primary resistance to U.S. efforts to
reduce the population of the former colonial sector was found in
Ibero-America, the Middle East, and  Africa - areas dominated or
heavily influenced by either Catholicism or Islam. Both religions
are opposed to birth control, a policy which the NSC condemns as
"pro-natalism."

The report states:

"LDC countries uncommitted to population programs include most of
Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, with a combined
population of about three-quarters of a billion people. Population
policies of these nations range from the pro-natalism of a few to
the non-commitment of most of the others, where, in varying
degrees, family planning is tolerated or even encouraged. Abortion
is generally abhorred, and sterilization disfavored."

The report complains that this "relative lack of concern," which
required being combated, can be "explained by a variety of
factors," including:

1) no perceived need to limit population growth;

2) or, if there is a perceived need, wishful thinking that
economic development will solve the problem;

3) belief that a large family is necessary for old age security or
to meet needs for labour at certain points of farming cycle;
4) preoccupation with other, more immediate issues;

5) religious influences; and

6) ignorance as well as racialism, tribalism, and traditionalism."


The report adds:

"To the extent family planning is identified with the Western
world, particularly the United States, there are even greater
inhibitions in some countries toward family planning. This factor
may be particularly noticeable in international conferences where
Third World countries tend to combine against the West, against
capitalism, and in favor of the 'New World Economic Order.'"

Then, in typical Washingtonese, the report outlines a program of
subversion: "It follows that our efforts to promote family
planning amongst uncommitted countries must be fine-tuned to the
particular sensitivities in each of these countries. This serves
to underline the important role of our Ambassador and his or her
country team in each LDC in terms of advising Washington on how
commitment can be best achieved in terms of the particular
circumstances of that country being alert to take timely
initiatives on their own to further these objectives."

The Need for 'Police-State Discipline'

In contrast to the "uncommitted" countries, which are subject to
special covert targeting, the progress-report cites countries
allegedly committed to, or at least not opposed to birth control.
These countries include most of Asia, notably the People's
Republic of China. The study claims that "almost one-half of the
world's population live in developing countries whose leaders are
committed to population policies and programs. This represents
roughly two-thirds of the developing world." This account
contrasts with statements made in the 1974 Kissinger memorandum,
in which hostility toward population control by such states was
considered far more prevalent.

However, the study notes that even in these nations, population
reduction is often difficult to implement without an appropriate
form of government, even if public education, dispension of birth
control devices, and other measures are vigorously pursued:

"Many leaders recognize that all these measures, significant as
they are, will not help reduce population growth rates
sufficiently to avert major disasters. Prerequisites for real
success are likely to involve three approaches that are
interrelated and have proved highly effective, as follows:

1) strong direction from the top;

2) developing community or 'peer' pressures from below; and

3) providing adequate low-cost health-family planning services
that get to the people.

With regard to 1), population programs have been particularly
successful where leaders have made their positions clear,
unequivocal, and public, while maintaining discipline down the
line from national to village levels, marshalling government
workers (including police and military), doctors, and motivators
to see that population policies are well administered and
executed. Such direction is the {sine qua non} of an effective
program. In some cases, strong direction has involved incentives
such as payment to acceptors for sterilizations, or disincentives
such as giving low priorities in the allocation of housing and
schooling to larger families."

Thus it can be said that in 1976, the U.S. government was
committed to an imperial policy which had the following
components: a plan to enfeeble the power of the developing sector
through fostering population decline; a plan to undermine states
opposed to population control; a plan to create or strengthen
Third World police-states as a means of enforcing population
control. A central principle of this policy was the idea that
Third World economic development represents a threat to U.S.
national security, and that those advocating such development
policies had to be crushed.


----- End Included Message -----


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 10:07:24 PST
From: lpb@stratus.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas x5363)
To: ambrosegb@mala.bc.ca
  raper, a New
York banker and close friend of Prescott Bush,