New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 


Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

Kissinger Report - 2004


On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.

In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.

Elements of Implementation

According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

NSSM-200 also specifically declared that the United States was to cover up its population control activities and avoid charges of imperialism by inducing the United Nations and various non-governmental organizations to do its dirty work.

We see that the WHO is one such stooge.

While the CIA and Departments of State and Defense have issued hundreds of papers on population control and national security, the U.S. government has never renounced NSSM-200, but has only amended certain portions of its policy. NSSM-200, therefore, remains the foundational document on population control issued by the United States government.


NSSM-200’s strategies have resulted in regional population growth rates decelerating so fast that they are already causing severe economic and social problems in Europe, the former Soviet Union, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Many developing nations are now aging even more rapidly than the developed world, which foretells of even more severe problems for their relatively underdeveloped economies.

Over the past 40 years there has been much disagreement over whether or not population control programs are necessary for those nations with the most rapidly growing populations. There can be no disagreement now, however, except among those organizations whose incomes depend upon such programs.

False Alarm

From the very beginning, the “population explosion” concept was an ideologically motivated false alarm. The resulting push for population control in LDCs has borne absolutely no positive fruit in its decades of implementation. In fact, population control ideologies and programs make it even more difficult to respond to the impending grave crisis looming in the form of a disastrous worldwide “population implosion.”

Therefore, on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the promulgation of NSSM-200, Human Life International calls on the Bush administration to repudiate this document, which advocates violating the most precious freedoms and autonomy of the individual through coercive family planning programs, and to redirect its foreign policy and funding towards family-friendly programs.

They should renew this pledge with Obama

The citizens of the developed nations of the West treasure their right to privacy. It is hypocritical for these countries to routinely violate the right to privacy of the citizens of LDCs by telling families how many children they should or should not have. No nation has the right to invade the bedrooms of the citizens of another nation. NSSM-200 represents the epitome of interference in a family’s most intimate decisions.


NSSM-200 does not emphasize the rights or welfare of individuals or of nations, just the “right” of the United States to have unfettered access to the natural resources of developing nations. The United States and the other nations of the developed world, as well as ideologically motivated population control NGOs, should be supporting and guiding authentic economic development that allows the people of each nation to use their resources for their own benefit, thereby leading to an enhancement of human rights worldwide and healthier economies for all.

Here is the full text of an analysis.
Henry A. Kissinger, former National Security Advisor and United States Secretary of State, primary author of NSSM-200. He played a major role in formulating United States foreign policy, including
population policy. Since 1977 he has lectured and served as a consultant on international affairs.
Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994), 37th President of the United States (1969-1974), under whose authority NSSM-200 was written and approved.
Thomas Malthus, author of the 1798 work An Essay on the Principle of Population, which postulated that mass starvation would be an eventual result of “overpopulation.” This would be so, argued Malthus, because population increases geometrically, while food production increases only arithmetically. Both legs of his theory have been decisively disproved (Referenced pp. 7, 11-13).
Margaret Sanger, eugenicist and founder of the American Birth Control League (ABCL), later International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world’s largest and most influential promoter of abortion. Sanger is still revered as an icon by feminists and abortion-rights activists (Referenced pp. 11, 14, 32).
Paul Ehrlich, the founder of Zero Population Growth, is one of the world’s most influential population controllers. He has predicted (wrongly) that large-scale famines would occur in the United States by the year 1985. He still has many followers, and his organization, recently renamed the “Population Connection,” continues to lobby hard for a reduced population (Referenced pp. 13, 32).
Werner Fornos is president of the Population Institute and is a leading population control alarmist, who frequently uses outdated and false statistics and scenarios to convince people that the world is overpopulated
(Referenced pp. 14, 33).
Timothy Wirth, former State Department Undersecretary and “Population Czar” and current president of the United Nations Foundation, is one of America’s leading proponents of the use of condoms to restrain population growth and retard the spread of AIDS (Referenced p. 25).


The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is one of the world’s leading population control organizations. It has been implicated for massively aiding the Chinese forced-abortion program and for directing the Peruvian forced sterilization program. UNFPA continues to insist that world population must be curtailed for the sake of the environment (Referenced pp. 14, 22-24, 27-28, 33-34).
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was one of the original collaborators in the writing of NSSM-200. Today, it is very active in promoting population control in nations such as Peru and Uganda, even undercutting effective abstinence-based programs with ineffective condom distribution schemes (Referenced pp. 8, 22-23, 25, 27-28, 29, 33).

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is the United States of America’s largest abortion provider, doing about a quarter million of the procedures each year. It is heavily funded by the government and is the leading abortion advocate in the United States (Referenced p. 32).
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), with more than 180 family planning associations (FPAs) around the world, is the largest international promoter of abortion and other means of family planning (Referenced pp. 6, 28, 32).

Views: 95

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The Limits to Growth

The Club of Rome issued an influential 1972 study titled The Limits to Growth, which promoted the Malthusian view that the 21st Century would be a time of mass starvation and energy shortages because the population of the earth would have exceeded its carrying capacity. This theory is outdated, because world population will soon level off, while food production continues to increase (Referenced p.16).
Both UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund, and the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO) are mentioned several times in NSSM-200 as cooperating agencies in a consortium whose purpose is to set up public health systems in lesser-developed countries. These systems would explicitly include family planning services. NSSM-200 also mentions UNICEF and WHO as being leaders in the implementation of the World Population Plan of Action. Additionally, NSSM-200 designates UNICEF and WHO as organizations assisting UNFPA-financed population projects. UNICEF helps to directly fund UNFPA’s involvement in the Chinese forced-abortion program, and has praised China as the world’s most “baby-friendly” nation.
NSSM-200 mentions the United Nations’ World Bank as being a collaborator with the United States in establishing family planning services in lesser-developed countries. The authors of NSSM-200 regret that the Bank did not at the time (1974) seem willing to get deeply involved in population control projects, but instead wanted to focus more strongly on loans to boost agricultural production (Referenced pp. 10, 22, 28, 33).


For nearly a century, the United States of America has been the acknowledged world leader in providing humanitarian aid to countries in need, whether caused by famine, war or natural disaster.
Despite the generosity of the United States, its image in the developing world has suffered tremendously over the past 30 years.
Some Western analysts claim this is due to American unilateralism; others attribute it to the fact that Americans, with one-sixteenth of the world’s population, consume one-third of the world’s resources.
People do not usually change their attitudes so radically, however, unless they are negatively affected in a direct way. So we need to ask ourselves the question: How has the United States adversely affected the lives of millions of people in developing nations?
There is no single cause for the “sea change” in opinion among people who live in developing nations, but one thing is certain—if one nation undermines or attempts to manipulate the most intimate relationships of the people in another country, many of the latter are inevitably going to feel deep and lasting resentment and anger.

Birth-Control Attempts

No human relationships are closer or more intimate than those found in the family. Yet the United States has spent nearly 20 billion dollars since 1965 attempting to control the number of children born to families in developing nations through the widespread imposition of abortion, sterilization and
birth control under the umbrella terms “family planning services” and “reproductive health.” Tragically, population abuses have been committed by U.S.-funded organizations in a number of nations. These abuses include widespread forced abortions and sterilizations, mandatory birth control, and follow-up healthcare so shoddy that it has led to a number of fatalities.
Many organizations and individuals have focused almost exclusively on the human rights abuses committed by overzealous healthcare officials in “family planning” programs. Their focus, however, is too narrow. The time has come not only to eliminate population control abuses, but population control itself.
Because of rapidly-changing world demographic trends, the concept of “population control” is not only outdated, it actually contributes to conflict in the world at large.

National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200)

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council, the highest decision-making body on foreign policy in the United States, promulgated a highly-classified document called National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report, with the subject heading Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests. This document, published shortly after the first major international population conference in Bucharest, was the result of collaboration among the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Departments of State, Defense and Agriculture. On November 26, 1975, NSSM-200 became official foreign policy when it was endorsed by National Security Decision Memorandum 314.
Declassified in 1989, NSSM-200 was made public the following year when it was transferred to the United States National Archives in response to a request from a journalist. The document summarized what was to become United States population control policy and strategy beginning in 1974 (as described in the next section). Despite massive and widespread demographic changes in the world over the past 30 years, NSSM-200 continues to reflect America’s population control policy.
Although the CIA and the Departments of State and Defense have prepared hundreds of papers dealing with population control and national security, they only update certain portions of policy in NSSM-200, which remains the foundational document on population control issued by the United States government.


NSSM-200 explicitly lays out the detailed strategy by which the United States government aggressively promotes population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.
The following outline shows the elements of this plan. (The endnotes contain actual quotes from NSSM-200.)
(1) The United States needs widespread access to the mineral resources of less-developed nations (LDCs).
(2) The smooth flow of resources to the United States could be jeopardized by LDC government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, which are much more likely if population pressure is a factor.
(3) Young populations are also much more likely to challenge imperialism and the world’s power structures, so their numbers should be kept down if possible.
(4) Therefore, the United States of America must develop a commitment to population control among key LDC leaders, while bypassing the will of their people.
(5) Critical elements of implementation include:
• Identifying primary targets—13 key nations that represent nearly half of all world population growth.
• Enlisting the aid of as many multilateral population control organizations as possible in this worldwide project.
• Recognizing that no country has ever controlled its population growth without recourse to legal abortion.
• Designing programs with financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates.
• Concentrating on “indoctrinating” [NSSM-200’s language] the children of LDCs with anti-natalist propaganda.
• Designing and instigating propaganda programs and sex-education curricula intended to convince couples to have smaller families, regardless of social or cultural considerations. (These programs will also be aggressively promoted in LDCs, especially if those nations would benefit from larger populations [i.e., Nigeria {NSSM-200, page 21} and Brazil {NSSM-200, page 22}]).
• Investigating the desirability of mandatory [NSSM-200’s language] population control programs.
• Considering using coercion in other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.
(6) Throughout the implementation process, the United States must hide its tracks and disguise its programs as altruistic. Otherwise there could be a serious backlash. The United States must convince the leaders and people of LDCs that population reduction is in their own best interests, hiding the fact that the United States wants access to their natural resources. The United States also must cover up, or distract attention from, this disturbing truth: Funding for development and health programs has steadily shrunk, while funding for population programs continues to grow.


NSSM-200 not only advocates un-American violations of the human rights of millions of people, it has also become widely perceived as a symbol of imperialistic thinking—a “new colonialism.”
There are several important reasons the Obama administration should repudiate NSSM-200 and all it stands for, including:
• NSSM-200 is un-American. It advocates violating the most precious freedoms and autonomy of the individual through coercive “family planning” programs.
• NSSM-200 is paternalistic and imperialist in its objectives and in its expression.
• NSSM-200 contributes to a bad name for the United States internationally. It epitomizes the attitude of the “ugly American.”
• NSSM-200 is based on demographic assumptions that are grossly outdated. The time has come to jettison population control in general as a viable strategy. NSSM-200’s time has come and gone.
• Governments do not belong in the business of telling families how many children they should or should not have. NSSM-200 represents the epitome of interference in this most intimate decision.
• NSSM-200 is duplicitous and dishonest on its face. While it states that mandatory population programs may be needed, as shown above, it also cautions that we want to cover up this fact.
• NSSM-200 does not emphasize the rights or welfare of individuals or of nations, just the “right” of the United States to have unfettered access to the natural resources of developing nations.
Instead of the United States positioning itself to take advantage of the natural resources of other nations, it should be supporting and guiding authentic economic development that allows the people of each nation to use their resources for their own benefit.
• NSSM-200 informs and directs the operations of such powerful worldwide financial institutions as the World Bank. The U.S. National Advisory Council, in its 1988 annual report to the President and Congress, described itself as “an advisory body, authorized, inter alia, to review proposed transactions and programs to the extent necessary or desirable to co-ordinate U.S. policies. With regard to the international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the African Development Bank and Fund, the Council seeks to ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, their operations are conducted in a manner consistent with U.S. policies and objectives and with the lending and other foreign financial activities of U.S. government agencies.” Since NSSM-200 no longer represents United States
policy on population control, it should be voided or superseded.
• If the United States government declares NSSM-200 to be outdated and no longer applicable, it will send a powerful message to the world—and to population control organizations like the United Nations Population Fund—that our nation’s emphasis has shifted from telling families how many children they should have to promoting their welfare.


The Origins of Population Control. The modern population control movement was inspired by Rev. Thomas Malthus, who published his landmark work Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798.
The heart of Malthus’ philosophy, and the cornerstone of the original population controller’s credo, is evidenced in the following passage from his Essay:
"The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power of the earth
to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. . . . By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence."

For more than a century, the early population control movement worked hard to create the Malthusian impression that worldwide mass starvation was just around the corner.
In a 1920 interview with R.C. Martens, a self-described “Authority Upon the World Food Situation,” Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review claimed:
Within the next few months millions of human beings, mostly Europeans, will starve to death. Food to meet the needs of the Earths’ population is lacking and cannot be produced in time to avoid the great crash—the crash which will, as its chief incident, cost uncounted millions of lives, and bring in the train of that disaster no one knows what governmental and social changes.
An anti-natalist cartoon from the June 1918 issue of the Birth Control Review. It shows a “Mother Earth” figure punching the baby-bearing stork in its long beak and shouting:
“Hey, you! Can’t you realize that we need quality, not quantity?”

Malthus’ theory was gradually, but decisively, disproved by rapidly-improving agricultural technology, and it became obvious at the beginning of the 20th Century that world food production could indeed easily stay far ahead of the increase in population. His ideas were promulgated before the demographic and agricultural sciences were fully developed. When the science caught up with the times, population controllers had to find other justifications for their philosophy and activities.

Changing Justifications.

Since they could no longer use imminent food shortages as a rationale for
their theories, population controllers needed a new justification for their activities.
Since about 1960, population control organizations have portrayed the growing population of the world as a threat to the environment and to the “quality of life” of all people.
The population of the world began to ramp steeply upward in about the year 1940, adding 4 billion people in a little less than 60 years—an average of a fair-sized city (about 1.3 million) per week.
Certainly this was a cause of alarm for all reasonable people, but many did not respond in a reasonable manner.

Here Are the Numbers

1950 2,518.6 51.86 2.33
1955 2,755.8 47.44 1.80
1960 3,021.5 53.14 1.84
1965 3,334.9 62.68 1.97
1970 3,692.5 71.52 2.04
1975 4,068.1 75.12 1.94
1980 4,434.7 73.32 1.73
1985 4,831.0 79.26 1.71
1990 5,263.6 86.52 1.72
1995 5,674.4 82.16 1.50
2000 6,070.6 79.24 1.35
2005 6,403.7 66.62 1.07
2010 6,688.6 56.98 0.87
2015 6,939.5 50.18 0.74
2020 7,159.0 43.90 0.62
2025 7,334.2 35.04 0.48
2030 7,454.4 24.04 0.33
2035 7,518.2 12.76 0.17
2040 7,529.3 2.22 0.03
2045 7,492.2 -7.42 -0.10
2050 7,408.6 -16.72 -0.22
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2001 Revision, downloaded from on October 12, 2004. The low variant is used here since, historically, the United Nations low variant for population projections is the most accurate—and, in many cases, has understated the severity of the situation.


Scaremongering became the tactic of the day, and leaders of the population control movement made many ridiculous claims, including:
• In 1968, Paul Ehrlich, the founder of Zero Population Growth, warned, “The battle to feed humanity is already lost . . . we will not be able to prevent large-scale famines in the next decade.” Two years later, Ehrlich’s best-selling book, The Population Bomb, was published. In it, he said that one-third of the American population—65 million people—would starve to death by the year 1985. By this time, of course, weight reduction clinics were everywhere, and diet books and magazines consistently crowded the best-seller lists and the magazine racks of supermarket checkout counters.
• In the 1970s, the population control movement found its voice and frequently used it in an irresponsible manner. Various leading scientists and writers warned us that by 1990 huge artificial islands would be constructed in the middle of the ocean to handle the earth’s exploding population; that the world’s oil supplies would be completely depleted by 2000; and that the prime motivator of all wars by the year 1990 would be attacks on other nation’s cached food stores.
• In 1972, the Club of Rome issued an influential study titled The Limits to Growth, which promoted the Malthusian view that the 21st Century would be a time of mass starvation and energy shortages because the population of the earth would have exceeded its carrying capacity.

World Population

Source: World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2001 Revision.
Human Life International u
• In 1980, population controllers predicted that:
a) By 1995, worldwide compulsory birth control would be instituted;
b) By 2000, the “Planned Planethood” movement would triumph over all
other systems of thought and conception control would be removed from personal choice;
c) Males would be sterilized at age 14 after depositing a semen sample in the local frozen gamete bank;
d) Conception would require approval of a state or federal committee, which would first investigate the genetic health of the two proposed genetic parents and would license conceptiononly if the parents were of superior “stock”;
e) By the year 2000, artificial insemination would be widely used to produce genetically superior offspring—Margaret Sanger’s dream of a “race of
thoroughbreds” would finally become a reality.
• A 1972 article by David Lytle, which was heavily circulated by Planned Parenthood-WorldPopulation, was chillingly and verbosely titled The Human Race Has Thirty-Five Years Left: After That, People Will Start Eating Plankton. Or People.
• Through the 1980s and 1990s, population controllers predicted that if world population growth continued at a rate of 2 percent annually, there would be standing room only by 2610, with only one square foot of land per person. Physicist Stephen Hawking said that the world population doubles every 40 years; and, “By the year 2600 the world population will be standing shoulder to shoulder and electricity consumption will make the Earth glow red hot.”
Planned Parenthood turned this prediction into physical form—a poster that it widely distributed all over the United States. The poster was exactly one square foot, and proclaimed: “If present birth rates continue, there will be one human being standing on every square foot of land on earth. Here’s a square foot. Try it. Stand on it. Then take a stand for Planned Parenthood!”
World population under this scenario would be 1,589 trillion, or 250,000 people for every one currently living in 2004.
• Despite the fact that world population growth is leveling off, some population control groups continue to employ apocalyptic language. Werner Fornos, president of the Population Institute, claimed, “In 1997, world population growth turned a little slower. The difference, however, is comparable to a tidal wave surging toward one of our coastal cities. Whether the tidal wave is 80 feet or 100 feet high, the impact will be similar.”

The Solution: Abortion

• In November 2004, Fornos falsely claimed that the earth’s population is still increasing at a rate of 80 million per year, and said, “We are only getting small snapshots of the long-term consequences, both in developing and industrialized countries, of shrugging off the necessity to voluntarily curtail rapid human growth because the best available science is being held hostage by religious zealotry that drives reactionary right-wing political ideologues. Unless we reverse this situation, polar bears and seals may follow the path of the dinosaur and the human race could be next in line.”
• The UNFPA’s State of the World Population 2004 Report struggles to justify the agency’s continued existence by claiming that overpopulation threatens the earth’s environmental future, a threat that can only be defused by UNFPA’s expanded provision of “family planning” services.
The report also appears to endorse legalized abortion by stating, “The social taboos surrounding abortion and the penalties for both women who seek abortions and those who provide them are further challenges in many countries.”
This report also acknowledges that UNFPA has not been successful in bringing the AIDS epidemic under control, but then recommends the continuation of policies that have failed disastrously, most notably, “promoting the correct and consistent use of condoms” and dispelling the “pervasive myths, misperceptions and fears about condoms” that may “inhibit their use.” This report also indirectly praises China’s forced abortion program by claiming, “China has seen a dramatic drop in the incidence of poverty” due to its decreased fertility.


In summary, population control organizations have routinely extrapolated current trends far past the point where they are physically possible in order to frighten people who are not familiar with statistical theory or demographics. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the people are unschooled in these disciplines, and so uncritically accept the spurious mathematical analyses of the population controllers without question—simply because they are “experts.”
Such statistical extrapolations obviously have no bearing on reality. They have, however, accomplished their goal. They have convinced the majority of Americans that there is an impending and critical global overpopulation problem, and this misperception informs the public’s—and the government’s—opinions and decisions.

we shall publish the next bit in the next post


“Cultures and civilizations rise and fall with the populations on which they are based. . . . This is the lesson of history.” —Former French Social Affairs Minister Jacques Solideau.
Population Momentum.
It is a basic principle of demographics that worldwide population trends have a huge amount of momentum. If the world hopes to avoid a catastrophic population implosion, the time has come to stop trying to convince people to have smaller families. The objective of any program
concerned about a worldwide standard of sustainable living should aim for a world population that is stable or very slowly declining or increasing, in order to avoid the terrible economic and social upheavals that will inevitably occur if population rapidly declines. The primary purpose of population control programs was to avoid a catastrophic collapse in the quality of life for billions; the objective of a pronatalist campaign is exactly the same.
The pilot of a half-million ton oil tanker traveling at 20 knots does not reverse his engines when he is a quarter-mile from the dock; he begins to slow down miles before he reaches his goal.
In the same manner, the only way to accomplish the objective of a steady or slowly declining population in three or four decades is to begin encouraging families to have more children now. If this is not done,
the entire world will experience the catastrophic population collapse that is just now beginning to be felt throughout all of Europe and the nations of the former Soviet Union.

World Population Trends.

Table 1 shows that the rate of world population growth is already rapidly
decelerating. The population growth rate peaked at a little more than 2 percent a year in 1970, and will be half that in just 2 years (2006).
Annual world population growth peaked at about 86.5 million additional people in 1990 and has now dropped to less than 67 million additional people per year. This figure will continue to plunge, until the world population stabilizes in about the year 2040, just three and a half decades from now.
It is very important to examine the current population situation in Europe and the projected figures over the next 50 years, because what is happening in Europe now will be happening in the developing world in the near future. Statistics show:
(1) The population of the less developed regions of the world is currently more than four times greater than the population of the more developed regions of the world. This means that the impacts of change in less developed regions of the world will be proportionally greater on the world economy and stability at large; and
(2) The direct impacts on the quality of life of people in the developing world will be far greater because developing nations are poorer and have less social structures in place to alleviate suffering. It is said that the developed nations of the world got rich before they got old. The opposite is true in developing nations, and this will cause problems much more severe than those currently projected to occur in Europe.
Table 2 shows basic population statistics for the 13 nations specifically mentioned in NSSM-200 as population control targets. This Table shows that the average total fertility rates of these nations has plunged by almost half and that their annual population growth rates have shown the same trend.
In fact, the population growth of the entire world is now barely 1 percent per year.
Table 2
Vital Population Statistics on NSSM-200’s 13 Target NationsAnnual Population Comparative State
Total Fertility RatesA Population (Millions) Growth Rates Population Density
1975 2005 % Decrease 1975 2004 1975 2005
Bangladesh 6.15 3.21 - 48% 75.2 151.2 2.51% 1.83% New Jersey
Brazil 4.72 1.97 - 58% 108.1 181.0 2.38% 1.05% Iowa
Colombia 5.00 2.37 - 53% 25.4 45.1 2.36% 1.39% Kentucky
Egypt 5.70 3.04 - 47% 39.3 74.2 2.16% 1.81% Hawaii
Ethiopia 6.80 5.89 - 13% 33.1 73.7 2.60% 2.32% Michigan
India 5.43 2.76 - 49% 620.7 1,087.2 2.24% 1.34% Massachusetts
Indonesia 5.20 2.10 - 60% 134.4 223.2 2.27% 1.07% Florida
Mexico 6.52 2.25 - 65% 59.1 105.3 3.11% 1.25% Tennessee
Nigeria 6.90 5.17 - 25% 54.9 129.2 2.69% 2.38% New York
Pakistan 6.28 4.83 - 23% 70.3 160.1 2.56% 2.31% Maryland
Philippines 6.00 2.93 - 51% 42.0 82.0 2.79% 1.61% Connecticut
Thailand 4.97 1.68 - 66% 41.3 63.4 2.60% 0.79% Florida
Turkey 5.15 2.18 - 58% 41.0 72.6 2.50% 1.22% Illinois
WORLD 4.48 2.48 - 45% 4,068.1 6,403.7 1.94% 1.07% South Carolina
AA total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.1 children per woman is generally required for population replacement. In the absence of immigration, emigration, or a radical change in life expectancy, a TFR of 2.1 would lead to a stable population.
Source: National population information is from the United Nations Population Division World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision at: . State population density is from United States Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2003 Edition. Table 19, “State Resident Population—Components of Change: 2000 to 2002.”
Table 3 shows that the population of Europe is already declining and that the populations of all continents except Africa will be declining by the year 2050. The world population will peak in about the year 2040 and then will begin to decline.
Table 3 and Figure 3 show that the total fertility rates for Europe and Northern America slipped under the replacement level of 2.1 for the first time in 1970 and have remained under replacement ever since. Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Oceania are near replacement now, and Africa will be at replacement in about 35 years. Total fertility rates worldwide will shortly (within 10 years) be at replacement levels. The population growth rate of the world will remain positive for about three decades afterward due to longer life spans and lower infant mortality rates.
It is interesting to note that continental population density has no statistical correlation to degree of prosperity. The most densely-populated region on earth is still Western Europe, with 167 persons per square kilometer. By comparison, South America has 21 persons per square kilometer and Africa has 29 persons per square kilometer. In summary, 59 of the world’s nations, comprising 44 percent of its total population, are currently not replacing their populations.

Table 3
Regional and World Population Growth Rates and Total Fertility Rates.

Annual Population Growth Rates

Latin America
and the Northern
Africa Asia Europe Caribbean America Oceania World
1950-1955 2.19% 1.95% 0.99% 2.65% 1.71% 2.15% 1.80%
1955-1960 2.34% 1.97% 0.99% 2.69% 1.77% 2.16% 1.84%
1960-1965 2.46% 2.20% 0.96% 2.75% 1.46% 2.11% 1.97%
1965-1970 2.60% 2.41% 0.68% 2.57% 1.10% 1.93% 2.04%
1970-1975 2.66% 2.24% 0.59% 2.45% 0.97% 2.07% 1.94%
1975-1980 2.81% 1.87% 0.49% 2.32% 1.01% 1.14% 1.73%
1980-1985 2.86% 1.85% 0.39% 2.10% 1.02% 1.56% 1.71%
1985-1990 2.78% 1.85% 0.44% 1.90% 1.02% 1.57% 1.72%
1990-1995 2.56% 1.59% 0.16% 1.72% 1.09% 1.61% 1.50%
1995-2000 2.35% 1.41% 0.02% 1.56% 1.07% 1.41% 1.35%
2000-2005 2.04% 1.08% -0.14% 1.22% 0.93% 1.15% 1.07%
2005-2010 1.79% 0.86% -0.24% 0.94% 0.78% 0.92% 0.87%
2010-2015 1.64% 0.70% -0.31% 0.75% 0.67% 0.78% 0.74%
2015-2020 1.52% 0.56% -0.37% 0.62% 0.60% 0.69% 0.62%
2020-2025 1.37% 0.39% -0.44% 0.45% 0.52% 0.61% 0.48%
2025-2030 1.22% 0.20% -0.52% 0.27% 0.40% 0.49% 0.33%
2030-2035 1.06% 0.02% -0.62% 0.09% 0.26% 0.32% 0.17%
2035-2040 0.90% -0.13% -0.72% -0.08% 0.13% 0.17% 0.03%
2040-2045 0.75% -0.27% -0.82% -0.24% 0.03% 0.04% -0.10%
2045-2050 0.61% -0.41% -0.90% -0.40% -0.06% -0.06% -0.22%

Total Fertility Rates (Children per Woman)

and the Northern
Africa Asia Europe Caribbean America Oceania World
1950-1955 6.74 5.89 2.66 5.89 3.47 3.90 5.02
1955-1960 6.80 5.63 2.66 5.93 3.72 4.12 4.95
1960-1965 6.86 5.63 2.58 5.97 3.34 4.01 4.97
1965-1970 6.80 5.68 2.36 5.55 2.54 3.59 4.91
1970-1975 6.71 5.06 2.16 5.03 2.01 3.25 4.48
1975-1980 6.59 4.17 1.97 4.48 1.78 2.82 3.90
1980-1985 6.43 3.66 1.88 3.90 1.81 2.62 3.57
1985-1990 6.08 3.40 1.83 3.39 1.89 2.56 3.37
1990-1995 5.63 2.98 1.58 3.01 2.02 2.55 3.03
1995-2000 5.22 2.72 1.42 2.72 2.01 2.45 2.83
2000-2005 4.66 2.31 1.30 2.28 1.95 2.23 2.48
2005-2010 4.14 2.01 1.22 1.94 1.80 1.99 2.22
2010-2015 3.69 1.82 1.21 1.75 1.69 1.85 2.05
2015-2020 3.34 1.72 1.21 1.65 1.62 1.78 1.95
2020-2025 3.03 1.64 1.23 1.57 1.61 1.71 1.87
2025-2030 2.75 1.57 1.28 1.49 1.57 1.64 1.78
2030-2035 2.50 1.51 1.32 1.45 1.52 1.57 1.71
2035-2040 2.27 1.46 1.34 1.41 1.48 1.51 1.64
2040-2045 2.08 1.44 1.34 1.38 1.42 1.45 1.59
2045-2050 1.92 1.42 1.34 1.36 1.35 1.41 1.54
Reference: World Population Prospects Population Database of the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2001 Revision at: .
To See the Future of the World, Look to Europe.

For the first time since the Black Death ravaged the European population in 1347-1351, an entire continent is experiencing a population collapse due to
natural causes:
• The total fertility rate (TFR) of a developed nation or region must be 2.1 children per woman in order to sustain the population at a static level. The weighted TFR of Europe’s 47 nations has plunged from an already-low 2.6 in 1965 to 1.3 in 2004, far below replacement.
• There are currently 18 countries in the world whose population is actually declining. Fifteen of these nations are in Europe.
• Even with massive immigration, the European population has already peaked at about 728 million in 1997.
• Europe is now losing 1.6 million people per year. It will lose almost one-fourth of its population in the next 45 years, declining to 565 million by 2050.
• By the year 2050, the average European will be 52 years old. By contrast, the average African will be 31 years old.
Figure 3

Population Bust

Fertility Rates Dropping Below Replacement Levels
Source: Population Database of the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the U.N. Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2001 Revision. .
Human Life International u

• The European support ratio (workers to retirees) is 5:1 now, but will be only 2:1 in 2050. By comparison, Africa’s support ratio is 17:1 now, and will be 8:1 in 2050. This will lead inevitably to a much higher retirement age, less healthcare for more money, and a massive push for euthanasia.
• The population of Western Europe will continue to collapse unless there is massive immigration from Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Islamic nations, which will itself lead to a galaxy of further problems. One of the most serious of these will be a heightened level of social conflict between observant Muslims, who integrate poorly into secular societies, and other religious and cultural groups.
• The Russian Federation peaked in population in 1990 at 148 million and is now losing 1 million people annually. A baby boy born today in the Russian Federation can expect to live less than 60
years—the same as a baby boy born in Guyana or North Korea.27
In every developed region or nation with a declining population, everyone feels the day-to-day economic impacts, and the situation will only get worse as these countries lose more and more people every year, as is evidenced by:
• The January 2004 International Pension Readiness Report, which was prepared by the World Economic Forum and Watson Wyatt Worldwide. This Report predicts that the European Union, which had 208.7 million in its labor force in 2000, will see this number decline to 151.2 million by 2050. During the same time period, the number of persons aged 60 or more in the EU will increase from 82.1 million to 125.1 million. This means that the worker to retiree ratio will drop from 2.55:1 in 2000 to 1.20:1 in 2050. In 2050, the average European will be 52 years old, and nearly one-third of all Europeans will be aged 65 or older. Naturally, pension costs will
skyrocket and a shrinking workforce will lead to less productivity. Yet Europe seems unwilling to do anything to stop its slide into continental senility. It is truly becoming the new “Dark Continent”: Old, listless, lacking hope.
• In aging nations, although there will be some savings due to a smaller young population, public spending for an older person (aged 65 or more) averages three times greater than public spending for a younger person (aged 14 or under). One way to meet these costs would be to raise taxes on
workers in developed nations from 25 percent of their wages to 40 percent, a crushing burden.
The only other alternative is to pile up mountains of debt, which will destabilize the world economy. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), without massive benefit cuts or tax increases, Japan will have to increase its public debt levels from the current 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to more than 100 percent by 2050.
In Europe, public debt levels would have to rise from about 55 percent of GDP now to nearly 110 percent in 2050.

There is Only One Solution to the Impending Depopulation Crisis.

Fortunately, some nations and regions have begun to wake up to the multiple grave threats posed by a rapidly declining population.
They have offered bounties and other benefits to couples having children, but their efforts are sporadic and scattered, and have had little effect, as the following indicates:
• In 1986, France initiated the La France a besoin des enfants! [France needs babies!] campaign, accompanied by posters of a wide-eyed, chubby baby. The campaign failed to make the slightest difference in the nation’s declining total fertility rate, which fell from 1.8 children per woman in
1985 to 1.7 currently, well below replacement.
• In 1994, the German State of Brandenburg offered to pay its citizens $650 to have a child, but there was not even the slightest blip in the birth rate. This is not surprising when one considers that the people had been told for decades that raising a child would cost hundreds of thousands
of dollars. Wolfgang Jahmer, director of a social welfare program in Schwerin, Germany, said, “We have some fears that the tree of life may be falling.”
• Singapore has recognized the threat that a declining population would cause its vibrant economy and has begun to offer cash bonuses of up to U.S. $5,200 to couples who have more than one child. This policy seems to have little effect, as Singapore’s population is projected to decline by
15 to 20 percent by the year 2050.
The above examples show that mere monetary or economic incentives are superficial in nature and cannot even begin to accomplish the goal of increased childbearing; only ingrained social stimuli will eventually convince people to have more children.
The most efficient way to accomplish this objective is to vigorously pursue a campaign to strengthen and promote stable families and to promote authentic economic development.
The first step in this process, of course, is to renounce NSSM-200 and other anti-natalist documents so that the United States does not send a mixed message to the world.



Many population programs are a recipe for disastrous violations of paramount human rights. The basic problem is an imbalance of power—well-funded Western organizations with the latest equipment and technology literally invading the villages and homes of poor-uneducated country people.
One of the primary engines of coercive practices are incentives and disincentives, which become irresistible to regional and local healthcare workers, and which lead to quotas being set by higher national authorities, lending further impetus to practices that grossly violate human rights. In a
September 1988 World Bank report titled Costs, Payments, and Incentives in Family-Planning Programs, the Bank described the use of “incentives” and “disincentives” on fertility choices: “First, payments are
made to:
(a) acceptors,
b) providers, and
(c) recruiters, all focused on the act of accepting a method (usually sterilization).
These payments may be in cash or in kind and are usually given immediately upon acceptance.”
The report describes “disincentives” as “oriented directly to fewer births, as distinct from inducements to practice contraception. Some involve benefits (or penalties) . . . salary level, tax exemptions, maternity leaves, eligibility for preferred housing, schools, and so forth.”

Thus, poor country people are subjected to irresistible pressure to be sterilized in order to obtain food money or survive a temporary financial crisis. In many cases, the women being sterilized did not know that the effects of the procedure were permanent—or even that the procedure was contraceptive in its intent and effect.
More than 20 nations have promoted forced-abortion and forced-sterilization programs of varying magnitude. Even the United States just ended its coercive eugenical policies in 1973, after they were endorsed by the Supreme Court’s 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Many volumes have been written about these coercive programs, and there is not enough room to even summarize them in this short document. It is instructive, however, to examine three instances in which U.S. population control funds have been used to finance organizations—primarily USAID and
UNFPA—that have used this money to violate women’s rights on a vast scale.


During the years 1995 to 1997, nearly a quarter of a million Peruvian women were sterilized as part of a program to fulfill then-president Alberto Fujimori’s family planning goals. Although this campaign was called the “Voluntary Surgical Contraception Campaign,” many of these procedures were anything but voluntary. Human rights abuses reported by human rights groups include the following:
• Some poor women were bribed to accept sterilization by being offered free food. Other women whose underweight children were on government food programs were threatened with the withholding of this food if they refused to be sterilized. Gregoria Chuquihuancas of Tocache, where a vigorous sterilization campaign was carried out, said, “They always look for the poorest women, especially those who don’t understand Spanish [in some parts of Peru, people only speak their native Kechua]. They make them put their fingerprint on a sterilization paper they don’t understand because they can’t read. If the women refuse, they threaten to cut off the food and milk programs.”
• Some women were sterilized without their consent during other medical procedures, and some were even kidnapped and forcibly sterilized.
• Human rights workers documented at least six deaths among women who were involuntarily sterilized, as well as hundreds of injuries. The women who suffered injuries were told that they had to pay for their own surgery and other care needed to recover.
• Health workers commonly ridiculed rural women, calling them “animals,” “beasts,” “stupid,” and other epithets for having more than the approved number of children.
Internal government documents spoke of doctors who would receive “credits” for meeting sterilization quotas. These credits, in fact, would often be used to determine whether or not a doctor would continue in public employment. Tamayo León, a lawyer with the Flora Tristán Center for
Peruvian Women (a feminist organization), said that health workers received cash bonuses for every woman they brought in for sterilization.
The United States Agency for International Development provided Peru with training for vasectomies and tubal ligations.
USAID has also poured more money into Peru than into any other Latin American nation. The agency funded 69 population control projects in Peru or in regions including Peru during the time period 1962 to 1998. In the early stages of its programs, USAID pressured the government of Peru to produce measurable population growth rate reductions. USAID provided Peru with training for tubal ligations and vasectomies. From the 1970s to the 1990s, USAID provided tens of millions of dollars for the establishment of “family planning” centers in Peru. A 1995 project description for a “commercial family planning” exercise speaks of “behavior change” as its long-term objective.
USAID even paid for nationwide television attack ads against those prominent government officials who opposed its population control programs. One of those condemned and ridiculed was Peru’s Minister of Health, Dr. Fernando Carbone, who was relegated to a “Garbage Room” for speaking out against USAID-UNFPA population policies in his nation.
In June 2002, the Peruvian Congress published its Anticoncepción Quirúrgica Voluntaria Report, confirming that the Fujimori government implemented the nationwide sterilization campaign with support and funding from both USAID and the United Nations Population Fund, the latter actually leading the campaign.


For many years, the United States government has funded the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA, see Table 4). One of the main targets of UNFPA money is the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and its widely-criticized forced-abortion and family planning program.
Although spokesmen for the organization have stridently disavowed responsibility for China’s coercive programs, UNFPA’s plan was laid out in many of its internal memos, including a January 15, 1985, briefing note titled The United Nations Fund for Population Activities and China.

According to the briefing, UNFPA:
• Contributed more than $100 million to China’s population control programs;
• Bought and custom-designed a $12 million IBM computer complex specifically to monitor the population program;
• Provided the technical expertise and personnel that trained thousands of Chinese population control officials;
• Presented China with the United Nation’s award for the “most outstanding population control program;” and
• Stated that the coercive programs should cease because they were causing the Chinese “negative image problems”—not because the programs were inhuman and genocidal in nature.

When the horrors of the Chinese population control program were finally laid bare, U.S. funding to UNFPA was cut off. Meanwhile, the United Nations continued to deny there was even a problem, going on record as saying, “Although some have accused the family planning programme of employing
coercive methods, the [Chinese] Government has never sanctioned the use of coercion.”
Such denials are hardly credible in light of Chinese national and provincial laws demonstrating the coercive nature of the one-child policy, including:
• Central Committee Directive Number 7 of 1983, which reads: “All state officials, workers and employees, and urban residents, except for special cases which must be approved, may have only one child per couple.”
• Shanxi Province Communist Party Chief Zhang Boxing issued a directive on July 10, 1983, as follows: “Those women who have already given birth to one child must be fitted with IUDs, couples who already have two children must undergo sterilization of either the husband or the wife, and women pregnant outside the Plan must abort as soon as possible.”
• In April of 1992, the Chinese National People’s Congress adopted Article 42 of a law that states:
“When a wife terminates gestation as required by the family planning programme, her husband may not apply for a divorce within six months after the operation.” (Note, we are not advocating divorce, but this quote shows the coercive nature of the Chinese population control program).
• In April 1988, Fujian Province adopted birth control regulations which stated, “Persons not meeting legal age requirements shall be prohibited from marrying or bearing children. . . .Unplanned births shall be prohibited.”
• In April 1990, Henan Province adopted “Rules and Regulations on Family Planning,” which states in Article 11, “Birth of the second child must be strictly controlled, and birth of the third child must be prohibited.”
• Finally, on December 29, 2001, the 25th session of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress formally approved China’s first law on population control and family planning, whose purpose is to further advance its one-child policy. Li Peng, chairman of the legislature,
said the law would “stabilize” China’s “family planning” policy.
On December 10, 1987, the United States House of Representatives adopted a resolution sponsored by Congressman Chris Smith [R-N.J.] that “strongly condemns the continued violations of human rights by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, including the one-child-per-family policy adopted in 1979 that relies on coercion, economic penalties, and forced abortions, often late in pregnancy. . . .”
The UNFPA operates “family planning” programs in 32 counties, or county-level municipalities, throughout China. In fact, its offices are often co-located with local Family Planning Offices. Therefore, there is no possible way that UNFPA cannot know about the draconian forced-abortion program in China. Yet it claims that Chinese “women are free to voluntarily select the timing and spacing of their pregnancies”; that there are no family planning targets or quotas; that abortion is not promoted in China
as a method of family planning; and, finally, that coercion does not exist.

In 1986, Rafael Salas, UNFPA’s then-executive director, said, “Each country has its view of what is free, a free choice. If you refer to the case of China, I am very sure that the Chinese themselves will say that within their cultural norms, they are not at all coercive. Maybe from Western standards, these might not be totally acceptable, but then each country must determine that for themselves.”
In 1989, UNFPA’s then-executive director Nafis Sadik claimed on CBS’s Nightwatch television program that the UNFPA “does not support abortion programs anywhere in the world,” and is “not supporting coercion in any form.” She also continued to insist that China’s population control policies
are “purely voluntary.”
Despite a mountain of evidence attesting to China’s crimes against human rights, Sadik said, “China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and control of its population growth over the past 10 years. Now the country could offer its experiences and special experts to help other countries.”


An entirely different, but perhaps even more pernicious, type of atrocity occurs when population controllers are so ideologically blinded that they will forcibly undermine effective indigenous programs for AIDS and population control by diverting funds to programs that have been proven
ineffective, all for ideological reasons.
Uganda became the first African country to roll back its AIDS rate—from 21 percent in 1991 to about six percent today, a 70 percent decrease.
The nation accomplished this amazing feat with the “ABC Model” devised by President Yoweri Museveni—Abstain, Be faithful, and, for high-risk populations such as prostitutes, use Condoms. Most of the Ugandan population, however, refused the use of condoms, so the social values of the nation effectively precluded their use. This was quite fortunate, in light of the fact that 1 of 11 condoms breaks or fails during use, according to the authoritative guide Contraceptive Technology.
After studying and recognizing the effectiveness of Uganda’s “ABC Model,” President George W. Bush adopted it for his Emergency Plan for AIDS, a $15 billion, 5-year program to fight the disease in 15 countries. In January of 2004, Congress allocated the first $2.4 billion to this plan. Old habits,
old models, and old ways of thinking, however, die hard.
Timothy Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, gave us an excellent example of this kind of support for unworkable solutions when he said, “The United States and others have started questioning the efficacy of condoms. To condemn women by indifference to science and by failure to
provide tools for their own protection may not meet the technical definition of crimes against humanity but it is certainly gross negligence toward humanity.”
The USAID office in Kampala, Uganda, is not funding ABC Model organizations. Instead, it is distributing Uganda’s share of ABC Model funds to organizations known to be inherently hostile to abstinence programs and favorable to massive condom distribution schemes that have been proven completely ineffective in the African context, and in any other context, for that matter.
These groups include contraceptive supplier Population Services International (which sells its Protector brand of condom) and CARE International. USAID also provides all of the funding for the Deliver Project in Uganda, which continues to rely on an old-school plan consisting entirely of condom and contraceptive distribution.
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and USAID experts also helped write Uganda’s National Condom Policy and Strategy in 2003. This detailed plan proposes several different, overlapping low-cost condom supply lines to every one of Uganda’s 56 districts.
Dr. Edward Green, a senior research scientist for the Harvard University School of Public Health, visited Uganda in August 2004. He has been fighting AIDS in Africa since the first cases were detected there 20 years ago. Professor Green had been a condom promoter himself, but his thinking
was changed by the demonstrated effectiveness of the ABC Model, which, in practice, became the “ABbutnoC” Model. He now sees this program in Uganda being deliberately undermined by ineffective programs promoted by U.S.-funded organizations.

Professor Green says, “We’re going to reach a point where infection rates will start going up again and then experts will say ABC never worked, that there was probably something wrong with the data all along. . . . The unique indigenous program that Uganda developed is being gradually destroyed. Uganda is being pushed more towards condoms and pills.”

Table 4 shows that the United States alone has spent $17.3 billion on controlling the populations of developing nations since 1965.
Table 4
United States Population Control Expenditures, 1965-2004 (Constant 2004 $ Millions)A Inflation Fiscal Factor 2004
Year USAID UNFPAB Total (2004=1)C DollarsD
1965-7 10.5 0.0 10.5 5.846 61.38
1968 34.3 0.5 34.8 5.443 189.42
1969 42.9 2.5 45.4 5.160 234.26
1970 70.6 4.0 74.6 4.881 364.12
1971 81.9 14.0 95.9 4.677 448.52
1972 94.3 29.0 123.3 4.531 558.67
1973 116.6 9.0 125.6 4.266 535.81
1974 94.4 18.0 112.4 3.841 431.73
1975 90.0 20.0 110.0 3.520 387.20
1976 115.5 20.0 135.5 3.329 451.08
1977 114.9 29.4 144.3 3.125 450.94
1978 138.5 28.0 166.5 2.905 483.68
1979 161.4 30.0 191.4 2.609 499.36
1980 163.0 32.0 195.0 2.299 448.31
1981 173.4 35.0 208.4 2.084 434.31
1982 204.0 33.8 237.8 1.963 466.80
1983 209.3 33.8 243.1 1.902 462.38
1984 226.2 38.0 264.2 1.823 481.64
1985 281.7 36.0 317.7 1.760 559.15
1986 295.5 0.0 295.5 1.728 510.62
1987 286.6 0.0 286.6 1.667 477.76
1988 248.1 0.0 248.1 1.601 397.21
1989 257.6 0.0 257.6 1.527 393.36
1990 287.1 0.0 287.1 1.449 416.01
1991 352.3 0.0 352.3 1.391 490.05
1992 325.6 0.0 325.6 1.350 439.56
1993 447.8 14.5 462.3 1.311 606.08
1994 480.2 40.0 520.2 1.278 664.82
1995 541.6 35.0 576.6 1.243 716.71
1996 432.0 22.8 454.8 1.207 548.94
1997 385.0 25.0 410.0 1.180 483.80
1998 385.0 20.0 405.0 1.162 470.61
1999 385.0 0.0 385.0 1.137 437.75
2000 372.5 21.5 394.0 1.100 433.40
2001 425.0 21.5 446.5 1.069 477.31
2002 446.5 0.0 446.5 1.053 470.16
2003 446.5 0.0 446.5 1.029 459.45
2004 429.5 34.0 463.5 1.000 463.50
Total United States Population Control Expenditures, 1965-2004 17,305.85
AThe figures for annual United States bilateral population control expenditures for USAID and voluntary contributions to UNFPA were downloaded from the website of Population Action at:
data_and_graphs/USPopulationAssistance.htm#FY2004> on September 15, 2004. Other population control funding by the United States is not included in this Table.

U.S. Population Control Expenditures

BDuring the years 1968 to 1992 inclusive, the U.S. contribution to UNFPA was channeled through USAID, and is separated out in this Table.
CThe United States Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator found at: is used to update all prices to 2004 levels.
DThe 2004 figure is an estimate that depends upon the final disposition of the FY2002 United States voluntary contribution to UNFPA. In 2002 and 2003, the U.S. contribution to UNFPA was zeroed out under the Kemp-Kasten Amendment.
If all of this money had instead been poured into authentic economic development, the people would naturally have smaller families for a number of reasons. The people would also be healthier and would enjoy a much higher standard of living. Is this not a more humane and human way of dealing with a perceived overpopulation problem?

What could have been done with $17.3 billion if it had been allocated towards authentic economic development?
In the developing nations of Africa and Asia, we could have accomplished all of the following:
• Built water treatment facilities for 20,000 towns and villages with an average population of 1,000 each, providing all of the people with the most basic requirement for good health: clean drinking water [cost: About $2.4 billion]; and
• Brought electricity to these 20,000 villages, thereby increasing production towards self-sufficiency and freeing 5 million children to go to school [$2.7 billion]; and
• Built 100,000 miles of paved or improved roads and bridges connecting these 20,000 villages to the national road system, allowing them to ship their goods to market and have access to the outside world. This would in turn greatly increase the standard of living of the villages [$2.5 billion]; and
• Built and staffed enough modern schools to properly educate the 5 million children from these villages, who would otherwise receive little or no education and would therefore fall into lives of poverty and despair [$4.5 billion]; and
• Built 20,000 basic healthcare clinics in these villages, which could care for the health of the people, fully staff them, and cut maternal and infant mortality in those villages in half [$3.5billion]; and
• Built grain storage facilities for these 20,000 villages, so their rice and other harvests would not be partly or mostly consumed by insects and rodents [$1.7 billion].

These measures would have dramatically improved the standard of living of 20 million of the poorest people of the developing world.
Many developing countries act to reduce births because of pressure from United Nations agencies such as the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) or the World Bank, well-funded non-governmental organizations such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), and the leaders in population control—The United States, Canada, Germany, Denmark, France, Australia and Japan.
These entities have spent billions of dollars to control the populations of developing countries, while basic healthcare priorities such as clean drinking water remain underfunded. Many doctors complain that their hospitals and clinics lack the most basic and inexpensive items necessary to arrest disease, such as bandages, needles, antiseptics and antibiotics, while stocking vast varieties and amounts of contraceptives. This lopsided emphasis on population control is felt in many other areas. In Haiti, for instance, 88 percent of women have access to a full range of contraceptives, while only 22 percent have access to clean drinking water.



There is growing awareness that the world “population explosion” is over or, indeed, that it never really materialized. We can expect to see at most a world population of about 7.5 billion, only about 17 percent greater than the current 6.4 billion. Following this peak in about 35 years—barely a generation from now—the world population will begin to decline, and the loss of population will continue to accelerate, as is now happening in Europe.
Regional population growth rates are decelerating so fast that they are already causing severe economic and social problems in Europe, the former Soviet Union, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong.
Many developing nations are now aging even more rapidly than the developed world, which foretells of even more severe problems for their relatively undeveloped economies.

Over the past 40 years, there was much disagreement over whether or not population control programs were necessary for those nations with the most rapidly growing populations. There can be no disagreement now, however, except among those organizations whose incomes depend upon it. The time for population control has come and gone. It is now necessary to plan ahead. We have successfully
averted a “population explosion,” and now we must work just as hard to avoid a “population implosion.”
The first step in such a massive change in policy is, of course, to change our vision and our values. In order to do this, we must repudiate old ways of thinking and outmoded ways of accomplishing our objectives in order to avoid conflicts and confusion.


(1) In order to pave the way for a significant change in national population policy, we recommend
that the Obama Administration explicitly repudiate not only NSSM-200, but the principles it stands for.
(2) We recommend changing national population policy to reflect a paramount concern for the children and the families of developing nations. This can best be done by stressing authentic economic development. To this end, we recommend that all population control funds be immediately redirected towards providing the basic physical needs of the people of developing nations.
(3) We recommend that the Obama Administration more closely monitor and supervise USAID and other organizations funded by the USA in order to ensure that old, ineffective and unhealthy population control policies—such as massive condom distribution programs—cease at once.
(4) The world population situation has dramatically changed over the past 30 years, but United States population policy has not. It has remained static and mired in the past. We recommend that the Administration direct the National Security Council to study the situation, taking into account updated demographic information.



• United States Population Information Network at: . This comprehensive resource provides 28 demographic indicators for the historical (1950-2000) and projected (2005-2050) periods for every nation in the world, including birth and death rates, total fertility rates, infant mortality and data on age, sex and migration.
• The Africa 2000 Media Group at: provides detailed studies on United States and other population control programs in Africa, to include their racist, propaganda, and eugenical aspects.

Books and Reports

• Julian L. Simon. The Ultimate Resource 2 [Princeton University Press, 1996].
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population to 2300 [New York: United Nations, 2004].
• Center for Reproductive Rights. Silence and Complicity: Violence Against Women in Peruvian Public Health Facilities [1999, 108 pages]. This report documents some of the terrible violations of women’s rights—from rape to forced abortion and sterilization—that took place in Peru’s family planning clinics from 1996 to 1998. The entire report is available in PDF format on the website of the CRR at: .


• Philip Longman. “The Global Baby Bust.” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004 [Volume 83, Number 3], pages 64 to 79.
• Michael Meyer, et. al. “Birth Dearth.” Newsweek Magazine cover story, September 27, 2004.
• Priya Abraham. “Hooked on Failure.” World Magazine, November 6, 2004, pages 26 to 28. Article content: In Africa’s fight against AIDS, the United States continues to support family-planning groups that stifle the White House abstinence and fidelity Programs.
In the light of this report, it becomes increasingly evident that the WHO is the stooge for this program and implements it among others through vaccination programs, sterilisation and the spread of condoms, which they claim to help stop AIDS.

Considering the fact that HIV has never been isolated and for that reason remains a chimera and that AIDS is diagnosed without any tests, but solely on the doctor's say-so, plus the fact that ARV's quickly kill the patient, we can see the Population Control Program is alive and kicking.

While it is also obvious that the swine flue scare is a propaganda tool, we must not forget that the WHO is not a health organisation but THE genocidal arm of BIg Pharma.

Welcome to HWC Kaviraj, and thanks for the tome on NWO Malthusian eugenics.

Very interesting time to be alive on the planet.
Much chaos seems to be building .. anything may happen

warm wishes,
david hartley


Search This Site

GET ➤ 
Cancer and Homeopathy
Best Vitamin C Drink
for $3 coupon



© 2017   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...