National Security Study Memorandum: 200

This document is the United States’ response to the UN’s World Population Plan of Action and demonstrates America’s solidarity with the depopulation agenda. It began as a classified document but was later declassified and became available to the public. The premise is that there are too many people, especially in the less developed countries, which is a threat to our national security. The document discusses using food scarcity as a weapon and exploiting the resources of other countries.

Reading through this document, you may notice themes emerge that are similar to those in the UN’s World Population Plan of Action: Indoctrinating women into believing that motherhood is oppressive, indoctrinating people into believing large families are bad, using propaganda, environmentalism, and promoting abortion.

They hide their genocidal agenda amidst a flurry of data while they take extra precaution to “avoid any appearance of coercion” and appear benevolent. Why would a philanthropic movement need to make efforts to appear as though they are good actors? Evil loves to announce that it is good, but true goodness is self-evident and requires no fanfare.

The following are some areas of consideration regarding a few excerpts from the NSSM: 200:

• This document was originally classified with the intent to ultimately be declassified. Some of the language is more direct than that in the UN’s World Population Plan of Action, however, most of it is technical and the more insidious ideas are often carefully insinuated rather than communicated overtly. Even within our compartmentalized government there are at least some good actors who would surely sound the alarm if the report outright advocated for genocide, though how else is one to interpret such a comprehensive study bent on depopulation?

• They identify the following programs: “improved health care and nutrition to reduce child mortality, education and improved social status for women, increased female employment, improved old-age security, and assistance for the rural poor.” These are among their more benevolent programs, yet note that the motivations behind them are not borne of a desire to enhance the lives of anyone. They advocate for child health because it results in people reproducing less. Same goes for improving female employment, old-age security, and assistance for the rural poor. The appearance of philanthropy is a veneer to obscure their true anti-human motivations.

• They state, “We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDC’s of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDC’s” and “To help assure others of our intentions we should indicate our emphasis on the right of individuals…” They further state that their intention is to improve the overall general welfare, but let’s not forget that they define general welfare as being synonymous with economic growth, which is code for depopulation. They’d like this to appear as though their only strategy is to discourage excessive (by their standards) reproduction, however, we later see them hinting at more nefarious strategies.

• “…even stronger measures are required and some fundamental very difficult moral issues need to be addressed. These include, for example, our own consumption patterns, mandatory programs, tight control of our food resources.” Very difficult moral issues. Tight control of food resources. Sounds like manmade famine to me. I also found it interesting that they seek to exploit agriculture and education (among other departments) for the purposes of “creating conditions for fertility decline”.

• They refer to children as future parents, removing any semblance of humanity and relegating them to a statistical parasite. They also state that, “even the most extreme pro-natalists” (i.e., people who don’t want babies to die) “do not argue that the earth could or should support 103 billion people. Famine, pestilence, war, or birth control will stop population growth far short of this figure.” In other words, thank goodness for famine, pestilence, and war, for without them we may have too many not-dead babies.

• Note the China worship in the NSSM-200: “…the annual rate of growth in Asian communist LDC’s is expected to average 1.6 percent and subsequently to decline to an average of 1.2 percent between 1985 and 2000. The growth rate of LDC’s with market economies, on the other hand, remains practically the same at 2.7 and 2.6 percent, respectively.” Globalists hate the free market except those portions of it that they control and utilize to achieve their aims. That is why Mark Zuckerberg, Justin Trudeau, and so many other detestable establishment tools worship Communist China. (Trudeau openly states his admiration for the CCP and Zuckerberg asked Xi JinPing’s permission to name his child after him. Jinping politely declined.)

• Climate change alarmism was alive and well back in 1974, though the scare tactic was centered around an impending ice-age rather than global warming. “Climatic changes are poorly understood, but a persistent atmospheric cooling trend since 1940 has been established.” Interesting now how these establishment liars have framed man-made climate change. If it was a hot summer, that’s because of man-made climate change. If the summer was more chilly than usual, that’s actually because of man-made climate change too. If there are floods, that’s man-made climate change. If there’s a drought, that’s man-made climate change. If there are wildfires (set by unhinged politically motivated activists), that’s also man-made climate change. Everything is climate change. Everything is racism. It’s just science.

• Note their phrasing: “new order” or “world order”. This is a sure indicator of globalist documentation, though if that’s not convincing enough, the material contained within should solidify the point.

• Note their focus on “child quality versus quantity”. These are eugenicists at heart. We want quality children, like the Aryan race. Genetic perfection if possible. Again, removing the humanity from children.

• Implicit in statements like these – “the present 75 million or so, unless slowed by famine, disease, or massive birth control, will double in 23 years and exceed 170 million by 2000” – imply their thinly veiled desire for famine, disease, and death. These are understood to be useful opportunities for depopulation. Would it then be such a stretch to imagine people like this using their power to facilitate famine, disease, and war?

• Maybe it’s just me, but the NSSM 200’s critique of the World Population Plan of Action’s “hesitant tone” and lack of “plain statements of quantitative goals” is alarming.

• Let’s not ignore that “high priority experimentation” is part of their plan, and I would wager that any documents relating to those experiments are classified now and always will be.

• They advocate for widespread propaganda through media and education. The focus on televised propaganda would be far heavier if this was written in these modern times, however, televisions were not quite present in every home across the world in 1974. These days, television is of course the primary and preferred method of disseminating propaganda and coercing the impressionable masses into globalist beliefs.

• The NSSM 200 appears to be advocating for using food as a weapon. They pose it as a question so that it is more palatable to readers who remain on the fence, but naturally they intend it as a statement. “Should the US set even higher agricultural production goals which would enable it to provide additional major food resources to other countries? Should they be nationally or internationally controlled? Would food be considered an instrument of national power? Will we be forced to make choices as to whom we can reasonably assist, and if so, should population efforts be a criterion for such assistance? Is the US prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth? Are mandatory population control measures appropriate for the US and/or for others?” All of this can only be interpreted as, “Should we (we should) cause other nations to be dependent on us for food and then starve them when they don’t submit to our depopulation demands?”

• They endorse using “financial incentives” and “other motivational devices” to coerce large numbers of Indian men to accept vasectomies.

• Of course, the World Bank “has a population and health program, and the program’s leaders have been quite sympathetic with the above objective” (to supply low interest credits to LDC’s for the development of “health-related services”).

• As a long-term solution, they seek to develop a male contraceptive that is injectable. In a world ruled by depopulationists who are currently attempting to force the entire world to become injected with a vaccine (for everyone’s own good of course), would it be a stretch to suppose they might just include a contraceptive (sterilizing) agent within the COVID vaccines? Why wouldn’t they? Depopulation has been their agenda for decades and now is their chance. If you aren’t convinced of this, then keep reading. There are more documents to explore.

• They admit that funding for health care has been shrinking (as that would naturally assist them in achieving their aims) while funding for (de)population programs is steadily increasing.

• “Family planning” (abortion) should be presented in a health context according to the NSSM 200 so that it “shows a concern for the well-being of the family” when of course the motivation for propagandizing the public into accepting abortion as a “woman’s right” is simply to further their depopulation agenda and not to benefit women in any way, shape, or form. They are especially invested in both “legal and illegal” abortion as they acknowledge it has “become the most widespread fertility control method in use in the world today.”