Catholic Family News
A Monthly Journal Preserving our Catholic Faith and Heritage

Chojnowski: The Kissinger Report: The Depopulation Agenda of America’s Elite 1974 to 1993

The 1974 memorandum of CFR's Henry Kissinger was to clearly identify the
interests of the United States, as a government and a nation, with controlling
and reducing the populations of Developing Nations by means of contraception and abortion.

The Kissinger Report: The Depopulation
Agenda of America’s Elite 1974 to 1993

By Peter Chojnowski, Ph.D

On December 10, 1974, Henry Kissinger (born Heinz Alfred Kissinger in Bavaria, Germany in 1923), National Security Advisor and Secretary of State to President Gerald Ford, issued National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), which was gradually declassified and finally released to the public in 1989.

The secrecy of the document at the time required that the document’s declassification and release could only be sanctioned by the White House itself. Following upon the Supreme Court ruling of January 22, 1973,
Roe v. Wade striking down every state law restricting procured abortions within the United States, this National Security Directive explicitly identified the long term prosperity of the United States, along with the long term interests of the United States government, with a policy of radical reductions of populations and population growth with a multiplicity of nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The intent of this memorandum was to clearly identify the interests of the United States, as a government and as a nation, with controlling and reducing the populations of the Developing Nations by means of contraception and abortion.

Kissinger’s Projected Demographic Apocalypse

In the Executive Summary of NSSM 200 for President Ford, world population growth after 1950 is portrayed as “quantitatively and qualitatively different from any previous epoch in human history.”1 The statistics given to justify this assertion were that, “The rapid reduction in death rates, unmatched by corresponding birth rate reductions, has brought total growth rates close to 2% a year, compared with about 1% before World War II, under 0.5% in 1750-1900 and even far lower rates before 1750. The effect is to double the world’s population in 35 years instead of 100 years. Almost 80 million people are being added each year, compared with 10 million in 1900.”2 Within 3 pages of the title of this Memorandum, Kissinger makes clear that it is “a two child family,” both within and without America, that will be the goal of United States government policy. Even if, he states, “a two-child family should become the norm in the future,” “policies to reduce fertility will have their main effects on total numbers only after several decades.”3 The ultimate intent for United States “interests” is, also, made clear on the same page of the Memorandum, when it is emphasized that for the reduced native populations of the targeted countries there will be, “lowered demands on food, health, and educational and other services,” hence resources –no longer wasted on feeding, educating, and healing their own people –can be allocated to enlarging “capacity to contribute to productive investments [presumably foreign investments], thus accelerating development.”4

The apocalyptic tone of NSSM 200, which was used to justify the massive allocation of resources and monies designated for the population control program speaks of the world situation in “the short and middle term” as involving “the possibility of massive famines in certain parts of the world, especially the poorest [read “overpopulated”] regions.”

The “population explosion” also threatens longer-term food production through “cultivation of marginal lands, overgrazing, desertification, deforestation, and soil erosion, with consequent destruction of land and pollution of water, rapid siltation of reservoirs, and impairment of inland and coastal fisheries.”
6 Even though speaking about “massive famines” for the countries of the Third World, Kissinger does all he can to indicate that attempts to increase the food supply in these countries will not ameliorate the problems on account of the negative consequences of more intensive agricultural development.

The Kissinger Reports discourages any solution to the “problem” of “overpopulation” that involved increased food production by stating, “Capital and foreign exchange requirements for intensive agriculture are heavy, and are aggravated by energy cost increases and fertilizer scarcities and price rises. The institutional, technical, and economic problems of transforming traditional agriculture are also very difficult to overcome.”

Infertility and Sterility as the Only Acceptable Program: Confidential

Under a page heading marked “Confidential,” The Kissinger Report, which has identified that the major problem for the United States government and the world at large is that there were too many people being born into the world, then sets out to identify the causes of the “high birth rates” in many parts of the world. Of course, in light of the secularist utilitarian oligarchic attitude of the writer of the memorandum, the main “problem” to be overcome in the fight against too many of a certain type of people in the world is
ignorance. In fact, the first cause of escalating populations is identified as “inadequate information about and availability of means of fertility control.”8

Added to this, the motivation to have as many children as possible is engendered by high child and infant mortality rates, along with the belief that it will be one’s own children who will take care of their parents during the parents’ old age.

Sprinkled with “humanitarian” pledges to “improve health care and nutrition [for those who are allowed to be born],” “education and improved social status for women,” and “improved old age security” [as if a check in the mail will replace being surrounded by a large and loving family in one’s old age], the critical solution to the “problem” of fertility requires efforts to increase “demand” by birth control information and efforts to render large families less desirable, along with the necessity to then provide for this increase demand by an adequate “supply,” that is to “assure full availability by 1980 of birth control [means] to all fertile individuals.”
10 The countries most specifically designated as needing population control “aid,” were: Mexico, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Columbia.

For these nations, The Kissinger Report draws the following conclusion, “While specific goals in this area are difficult to state, our aim should be for the world to achieve a
replacement level of fertility, (a two child family on average), by about the year 2000…. this goal would result in 500 million fewer people in 2000 and about 3 billion fewer in 2050.” The crassly materialistic and self-aggrandizing aspect of this Memorandum is shown when Kissinger explains how rapid population growth in Third World nations, especially in African nations, will interfere with Western procurement of mineral resources.

According to the executive summary, “Rapid population growth is not in itself a major factor in pressure on depletable resources (fossil fuels and other minerals), since demand for them depends more on levels of industrial output than on numbers of people. On the other hand, the world is increasingly dependent on mineral supplies from developing countries, and if rapid population frustrates their prospects of economic development and social progress, the resulting instability may undermine the conditions for expanded output and sustained flows of such resources.
11 Kissinger concludes his executive summary to fellow Republican, President Gerald Ford, by stating, “Attainment of this goal will require greatly intensified population programs.”12

NSSM 200 became official governmental policy on November 26, 1975 when National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft signed, in the name of President Gerald Ford, National Security Decision Memorandum 314, which states, “The President has reviewed the interagency response to NSSM 200 and the covering memorandum from the Chairman of the NSC Under Secretaries Committee. He believes that United States leadership is essential to combat population growth, to implement the World Population Plan of Action and to advance United States security and overseas interests. The President endorses the policy recommendations contained in the Executive Summary of the NSSM 200.”

Kissinger Report as Rockefeller CFR Agenda: The Eugenics Masters

If we look objectively at the Nixon and Ford administrations during which the United States both legalized abortion and committed itself to a world-wide contraceptive and abortion program, we cannot help but see then as a Nelson Rockefeller Administration, without Nelson Rockefeller. This “without Nelson Rockefeller” is, of course, qualified by the fact that Rockefeller emerged as Vice President of the United States as a result of the resignation of Richard Nixon and the activation of the 25
th Amendment. The major figures of the Nixon administration from 1969 to 1974, were those who were in some way protégés or professional assistants of Nelson Rockefeller and his family. Richard Nixon, “opponent” of Nelson Rockefeller in 2 of his 3 runs for the presidency during the 1960s, had been Rockefeller’s tenant and neighbor when the two both resided at 810 Fifth Avenue from the years 1966-1968 when Nixon worked in the firm of John Mitchell, Rockefeller’s personal attorney.14 This was the same building in which occurred the famous, “Munich of the Republican Party” –so called by Senator Barry Goldwater –in which Richard Nixon, during the summer of 1960 met with Nelson Rockefeller to refashion the conservative Republican electoral platform of the Taft faction,15 instead, producing a document that Edith Kermit Roosevelt called, “a carbon copy of the Democratic platform drawn up by Chester Bowles, Council of Foreign Relation member and former trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation.”16 It was, perhaps, at this same meeting that Nelson Rockefeller was offered the vice presidential nomination by the Republican presidential nominee.17

It should not then be surprising that when Nixon made his chief choices for his administration, Spiro Agnew as his Vice President and Henry Kissinger as his National Security Advisor and, later, Secretary of State, the former should have been Nelson Rockefeller’s presidential campaign chairman during his 1968 run for the presidency and the later should be Rockefeller’s foreign affairs advisor when Nelson was governor of New York. Kissinger’s relationship to Rockefeller was the main reason why Kissinger became one of the leading minds on the Council on Foreign Relations. According to J. Robert Moskin, “It was principally because of his long association with the Rockefellers that Henry Kissinger became a force in the Council. The
New York Times called him ‘The Council’s most influential member,’ and a Council insider says that ‘his influence is indirect and enormous –much of it through his Rockefeller connection.”18 The role of Nelson Rockefeller in the life of Henry Kissinger, author of America’s Birth Control and Abortion Agenda, was confirmed by none other than Kissinger himself, when he dedicated his book, White House Years, not to Richard Nixon who had appointed him to his only official governmental positions, but rather, to Nelson Rockefeller “the single most influential person in my life.”19

The Rockefellers were the richest and most prominent supporters of what can only be called a “eugenics” movement (from the Greek words meaning “happy birth”), which has its origin in the theories of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) who was the first to put forward the notion that the size of the population must press against the limits of the food supply because of the “breeding habits” of the “lower classes of society.” Mirroring the views of our contemporary libertarian activists, Malthus – although rejecting government financed birth prevention – believed that by denying the poor all charity, public or private, they would experience fully both the costs and benefits of their reproductive decisions and conform their marriages and childbearing with their earning abilities.

Even though Charles Darwin admitted to being inspired by Malthus’ studies, it was Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) who would inspire the great business magnates of the time, most particularly John D. Rockefeller, Sr. It was Spencer who coined the phrase, “survival of the fittest,” to describe the process of competition by which optimal development occurs in social systems. The benefits derived from the competitive process, i.e., weeding out the unfit, led him to oppose any government interference that might frustrate the process.

From the historic evidence it is clear that it was the Anglo-American elite who first trumpeted the need for national eugenic policies. In 1912, the First International Congress of Eugenics was held at the University of London. The vice presidents of this conference included Winston Churchill, Charles Eliot (President of Harvard University), David Starr Jordan (President of Stamford University), and other notables. Its goal: “the prevention of the propagation of the unfit.”
22 The Third Congress, meeting in 1932, featured a call for the sterilization of 14 million Americans with low intelligence-test scores.23

The United States quickly became the focal point and base for the Population Control Movement, achieving embodiment in Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and Hugh Moore (of the Dixie Cup fortune). In the pages of Sanger’s
Birth Control Review, all the way back in 1919, was stated in a forthright way the purpose for the Birth Control Movement, “More children from the fit, less from the unfit – that is the chief issue of birth control.” Not really differing from the Social Darwinism of the German National Socialists, Sanger also stated that “funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who never should have been born.”24

It was the “conversion” of Hugh Moore, however, to the eugenics camp that initiated the next stage of the birth control movement, the stage where the Rockefellers, John D. Jr., John D. III, Nelson, and David take up –- and pay for –- the banner. In this regard, Hugh Moore was persuaded by a 1948 book written by William Vogt, a former official of Planned Parenthood, that there was a “population bomb” that would “explode” and destroy our civilization. From then on Moore devoted much of his fortune and energies to publicizing “the bomb” and enlisting support for population control measures. It was Moore that allowed Paul Ehrlich to use the title of one of his pamphlets in Ehrlich’s 1968 book
The Population Bomb.25

We have spoken of the connection between Richard Nixon and Governor Nelson Rockefeller, the New York governor who signed his state’s abortion legalization bill in 1970. In the same year as the New York legalization, Nixon appointed Nelson’s brother John D. Rockefeller, III, founder of the Population Council, to a Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. John D. Rockefeller, III, long a supporter of the eugenics movement, reported to Congress that since further population growth would not advance such essential national interests as “the vitality of business,” it had better stop.

Global 2000: Making Religion a Tool of Depopulation Policies

That Henry Kissinger was implementing, with NSSM 200, an established Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) agenda can be clearly seen when, in 1975, concurrent with Kissinger’s progressive implementation of NSSM 200, the CFR’s 1980s Project, produced a volume entitled,
Six Billion People: Demographic Dilemmas and World Politics, which echoed The Kissinger Report by calling for the deurbanization of the Third World to curb population growth. It concludes that, in a world of rapidly increasing population, it was not possible to curb population without restricting some elements of freedom.27

In 1976, Kissinger indicated that “restricting some elements of freedom” was not the only grim aspect of the utopian idea of a “healthy” depopulated globe. In a follow-up document to NSSM 200 entitled, “First Annual Report on US International Population Policy (at least the document acknowledges forthrightly that
this was indeed US government policy), the document outlines a psychological warfare strategy for overcoming opposition to the population control agenda.

In this report the various religions, political, and cultural “impediments” are mentioned and methods which are “fine-tuned to the particular sensitivities of each of these countries” are advanced.
28 One of the first telling recommendations coming from this report was the advice to avoid the very term “birth control.” In this regard we read, “In the case of countries uncommitted to population programs, our efforts must be fine-tuned to their particular sensitivities and attitudes. In the main, we should avoid the language of "birth control" in favor of "family planning" or "responsible parenthood," with the emphasis being placed on child spacing in the interests of the health of child and mother and the well-being of the family and community.”29

Among reasons why there are nations which are refusing the birth control agenda adopted by the U.S. government, the Report identifies “religious influences” and “traditionalism.”
30 Another reason given is that “birth control” aid is identified with the United States [seemingly, for good reason], which may produce negative resentment. Moreover, the United States must adopt what can only be called a “feminist” agenda, on account of the fact that, “in many of the uncommitted countries, male machismo, inhibitions about discussing sex issues, and the subservient role of women combine as major obstacles to family planning.”31

Clearly, part of the psychological preparation of the uncooperative segments of the world’s population, was to enlist the assistance of religion in the drive for population control and decreases in the fertility rate. It also began in 1975 with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger establishing a policy-planning group in the US Department of State’s Office of Population Affairs. The group’s main task was to prepare the National Security Council’s “Global 2000 Report to the President.”
32 This Report, written finally by the director of the policy group Dr. Gerald Barney, was submitted to then President Jimmy Carter and also made public and sold to over 1.5 million people in 8 languages. Dr. Barney has spoken of the Report as the only public report by any national government on the economic, demographic, resource, and environmental future of the world.33

What interests us, however, is the “updating” done in 1993 by the Millennium Institute led by the same Dr. Barney. This updated analysis of the same global future heading into the year 2000 was entitled,
Global 2000 Revisited. The reason Dr. Barney gives for this new update is that, “Global 2000 is now 13 years old, and although most if its trends are still basically disconcertingly accurate, it needs updating. This report assembles new data on most of the basic trends reported in the original Global 2000.”34 The author hoped that the newly inaugurated President Bill Clinton would do a full update.

Global 2000
was being written right before a meeting of the Parliament of the World’s Religions and, therefore, the authors took time to emphasize that they believe that “spiritual leaders have a vital contribution to make to a country’s reflections on sustainable possibilities for the future.”35 In these “reflections” urged by the authors, the “spiritual leaders” should train themselves to consider the dawning of the 21st century as an “anniversary of Earth” [rather, we surmise, than as the bi-millennial anniversary of the Incarnation]. This anniversary must be one in which “all nations, cultures, and faith traditions participate.” The 21st century must be the time to encourage a major shift in human attitudes and institutional goals, a shift towards a “sustainable future.” In order to achieve this, we all need to achieve a new mentality in which we humans “give up old, 20th century ways of thinking and living.”36

At this point in
Global 2000 Revisited, we have a repetition of the official Neo-Malthusian overpopulation mantra, “For more than a billion of Earth’s desperately poor humans, the outlook for food and other necessities of life will be no better. Life for billions will be more precarious in the 21st century than it is now – unless the faith traditions of the world lead the nations and peoples of Earth to act decisively to alter current beliefs and policies.”37

Apparently the efforts to psychologically manipulate the uncooperative nations of the world had not been working over the past 20 years, since, “Currently [1993] the world’s population is growing faster than ever before.” However, if “drastic declines in human fertility (or very large increases in mortality) occur over the next five years, it would be possible to stabilize the human population at about 12 billion within a century.” In order for “such a rapid drop in human fertility to occur, it will be necessary to change the religious, social, economic, and legal factors that shape couple’s decisions on the number of children they have….
but most importantly, religious teachings…must shift to encourage small families.38 If overpopulation does not recede, the carbon dioxide concentrations will cause “planet-wide changes in temperatures and weather patterns. Such changes would seriously disrupt agriculture throughout the world as early as the first half of the 21st century.39

So what did
Global 2000 Revisited say to the religious leaders in 1993, after some 90 years of population control propaganda and militancy? Rather than, rather awkwardly, give them specific instructions, it instead asks a series of leading questions. “What does your faith tradition teach about the human destiny? Is the human destiny separable from that of Earth? What does your tradition teach concerning the destiny of followers of other traditions? How does your faith tradition characterize the teachings and followers of other faiths? Do some adherent of your tradition hold that the teachings and followers of other faiths are evil, dangerous, or even misguided? Is there any possibility that your faith tradition can derive wisdom, truth, or insight from the teachings of another faith? What are the traditional teachings – and the range of other opinions – within your faith on the possibility of criticism, correction, reinterpretation, and even rejection of ancient traditional assumptions and ‘truth’ in light of new understandings or revelations? Does your faith tradition envision new revelation, new understanding, new interpretation, new wisdom, and new faith concerning human activity affecting the future of the Earth?”40

These questions indicate that orthodox Christianity cannot be allowed to survive if the globe is to be saved from demographic and environmental disaster –finally we get to the core of the Birth Control Agenda. But, have we not just heard a perfect articulation of the New Religion of our time? In this attempt to hijack the ancient Christian Faith, they, definitely,
think they have won.

The 1993 Global 2000 Revisited population control document
called for avoiding the language of "birth control" in favor of
"family planning" or "responsible parenthood," two slogans
adopted by post-Conciliar churchmen.

National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (The Kissinger Report), December 10, 1974, classified by Harry C. Barney III and fully declassified and released July 3, 1989 by F. Graboske, National Security Council, pp. 1-3.
2 Ibid., p. 3, Executive Summary.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid., p. 4.
6 Ibid., p. 5.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., p. 6.
9 Ibid., pp. 6-7.
10 Ibid., p. 7.
11 Ibid., p. 5.
12 Ibid., p. 10.
13 Brent Scowcroft, National Security Decision Memorandum 314, November 26, 1975, issued and declassified by National Security Council, Washington, DC.
14 James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline (Appleton, WI: Western Islands Publishers, 1988), p. 144.
15 Theodore White, The Making of the President, 1960 (New York: Atheneum, 1961), p. 199.
16 Edith Kermit Roosevelt, “Elite Clique Holds Power in U.S.,” Indianapolis News (December 23, 1961), p. 6.
17 Richard Norton Smith, On His Own Terms: A Life of Nelson Rockefeller (New York: Random House, 2014), chapter 18.
18 J. Robert Moskin, “Advise and Dissent,” Town and Country, March 1987, p. 156.
19 Henry Kissinger, White House Years (Boston: Little, Brown, 1979), p. 4.
20 Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of World Population Control (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), pp. 212-213.
21 Ibid., p. 213. Cf. Allen Chase, The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1977), p. 8.
22 Chase, p. 19.
23 Ibid., p. 20.
24 Kasun, p. 216.
25 Ibid. p. 217.
26 Ibid., p. 219.
27 Servando Gonzalez, I Dare Call It Treason: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Betrayal of the American People (Hayward, CA: Spooks Books, 2013), p. 147.
28 Ibid.
29 National Security Council Population Task Force, First Progress Report, 1976. Dated January 3, 1977. Issued by Brent Scowcroft for President Gerald Ford, p. 7.
30 Ibid., pp. 28-29.
31 Ibid., pp. 29-31.
32 Gonzalez, p. 147.
33 Dr. Gerald Barney, Jane Blewett, and Kristen Barney, Global 2000 Revisited from Millennium Institute website.
34 Ibid., p. 1.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid., p. 3.
38 Ibid., p. 3.
39 Ibid., p. 4.
40 Ibid., p. 5.

Originally published in the February 2016 edition of
Catholic Family News

• • •

Comments? Contact

• • •

Subscribe to
Catholic Family News:
a traditional Catholic monthly print journal faithful to what the Church has taught
"in the same meaning and in the same explanation" for 2000 years


Daily Blog - 2016 Catholic News