Presenting NSSM 200: "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests"

Tyler Durden's picture

One of the topics touched upon by Eric deCarbonnel in the earlier article discussing the potential, if not necessarily probable absent further validation, implications of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, is that of the nature of AIDS. Which got us thinking. While we won't necessarily go into the implications proposed by none other than Chuck Palahniuk in his book Rant (word search Kissinger, especially what Neddy Nelson has to say on the topic), it made us recall that particular National Security Study Memorandum, aka NSSM 200, better known as "The Kissinger Report" authored on December 10, 1974 and immediately classified under Executive Order 11652 until 1989, titled simply, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." What did the report say and why is it relevant, especially in our day and age when so many believe that all important substance - black gold - may have peaked? Well, since it has 123 pages full of very, very curious information as pertains to how US foreign policy is truly styled, we will leave it up to our readers to make their own conclusions, but here are some preliminary observations to help them on their way...

The basic thesis of the memorandum was that population growth in the least developed countries (LDCs) is a concern to U.S. national security, because it would tend to risk civil unrest and political instability in countries that had a high potential for economic development. The policy gives "paramount importance" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries, to control rapid population growth which the US deems inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States, since the "U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad", and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States. It recommends the US leadership to "influence national leaders" and that "improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the U.N., USIA, and USAID."


Thirteen countries are named in the report as particularly problematic with respect to U.S. security interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. These countries are projected to create 47 percent of all world population growth.


The report advocates the promotion of education and contraception and other population control measures. It also raises the question of whether the U.S. should consider preferential allocation of surplus food supplies to states that are deemed constructive in use of population control measures.

Some of the key insights of report are controversial:

"The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States. . . . The location of known reserves of higher grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments" [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel]. 


Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth" [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].


"Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the ‘establishment,' ‘imperialists,' multinational corporations, or other-often foreign-influences blamed for their troubles" [Chapter V, "Implications of Population Pressures for National Security].

"We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs. Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country. "Third World" leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time." [Chapter I, World Demographic Trends].

The kicker:

The report advises, "In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion."

And much more...

So just what do you call when Dr. Mengele applies the principles of eugenics, only not to his own population, but to everybody else's? We have no idea although it certainly sounds like yet another crack pot, tinfoil conspiracy theory.

For those who enjoy factual historical documents, here are some other of the good Doctor's (Kissinger, not Mengele) observations:

Because of the momentum of population dynamics, reductions in birth rates affect total numbers only slowly. High birth rates in the recent past have resulted in a high proportion the youngest age groups, so that there will continue to be substantial population increases over many years even if 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. However, if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970's and 1980's. Moreover, programs started now to reduce birth rates will have short run advantages for developing countries in lowered demands on food, health and educational and other services and in enlarged capacity to contribute to productive investments, thus accelerating development.


U.N. estimates use the 3.6 billion population of 1970 as a base (there are nearly 4 billion now) and project from about 6 billion to 8 billion people for the year 2000 with the U.S. medium estimate at 6.4 billion. The U.S. medium projections show a world population of 12 billion by 2075 which implies a five-fold increase in south and southeast Asia and in Latin American and a seven-fold increase in Africa, compared with a doubling in east Asia and a 40% increase in the presently developed countries (see Table I). Most demographers, including the U.N. and the U.S. Population Council, regard the range of 10 to 13 billion as the most likely level for world population stability, even with intensive efforts at fertility control. (These figures assume, that sufficient food could be produced and distributed to avoid limitation through famines.)


Growing populations will have a serious impact on the need for food especially in the poorest, fastest growing LDCs. While under normal weather conditions and assuming food production growth in line with recent trends, total world agricultural production could expand faster than population, there will nevertheless be serious problems in food distribution and financing, making shortages, even at today's poor nutrition levels, probable in many of the larger more populous LDC regions. Even today 10 to 20 million people die each year due, directly or indirectly, to malnutrition. Even more serious is the consequence of major crop failures which are likely to occur from time to time.


Countries with large population growth cannot afford constantly growing imports, but for them to raise food output steadily by 2 to 4 percent over the next generation or two is a formidable challenge. 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.


In addition, in some overpopulated regions, rapid population growth presses on a fragile environment in ways that threaten 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.


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 for economic development and social progress, the resulting instability may undermine the conditions for expanded output and sustained flows of such resources.


Rapid population growth creates a severe drag on rates of economic development otherwise attainable, sometimes to the point of preventing any increase in per capita incomes. In addition to the overall impact on per capita incomes, rapid population growth seriously affects a vast range of other aspects of the quality of life important to social and economic progress in the LDCs.


The universal objective of increasing the world's standard of living dictates that  economic growth outpace population growth. In many high population growth areas of the world, the largest proportion of GNP is consumed, with only a small amount saved. Thus, a small proportion of GNP is available for investment - the "engine" of economic growth. Most experts agree that, with fairly constant costs per acceptor, expenditures on effective family planning services are generally one of the most cost effective investments for an LDC country seeking to improve overall welfare and per capita economic growth. We cannot wait for overall modernization and development to produce lower fertility rates naturally since this will undoubtedly take many decades in most developing countries, during which time rapid population growth will tend to slow development and widen even more the gap between rich and poor.

And why all this is relevant for good ole' humanitarian Uncle Sam:

The political consequences of current population factors in the LDCs - rapid growth, internal migration, high percentages of young people, slow improvement in living standards, urban concentrations, and pressures for foreign migration ?? are damaging to the internal stability and international relations of countries in whose advancement the U.S. is interested, thus creating political or even national security problems for the U.S. In a broader sense, there is a major risk of severe damage to world economic, political, and ecological systems and, as these systems begin to fail, to our humanitarian values.


What are the stakes? We do not know whether technological developments will make it possible to feed over 8 much less 12 billion people in the 21st century. We cannot be entirely certain that climatic changes in the coming decade will not create great difficulties in feeding a growing population, especially people in the LDCs who live under increasingly marginal and more vulnerable conditions. There exists at least the possibility that present developments point toward Malthusian conditions for many regions of the world. 


But even if survival for these much larger numbers is possible, it will in all likelihood be bare survival, with all efforts going in the good years to provide minimum nutrition and utter dependence in the bad years on emergency rescue efforts from the less populated and richer countries of the world. In the shorter run -- between now and the year 2000 -- the difference between the two courses can be some perceptible material gain in the crowded poor regions, and some improvement in the relative distribution of intra- country per capita income between rich and poor, as against permanent poverty and the widening of income gaps. A much more vigorous effort to slow population growth can also mean a very great difference between enormous tragedies of malnutrition and starvation as against only serious chronic conditions.

And it gets even better:

There is an alternative view which holds that a growing number of experts believe that the population situation is already more serious and less amenable to solution through voluntary measures than is generally accepted. It holds that, to prevent even more widespread food shortage and other demographic catastrophes than are generally anticipated, even stronger measures are required and some fundamental, very difficult moral issues need to be addressed.

Dot dot dot...

Full memorandum (link):


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
earleflorida's picture

what happened to "Darwin" ? --- afterall, it's all about natural selection,... isn't it?

playing "GOD", has a horrific history of "Nature's Wrath" - sometimes equated to a fingerprint of the devine master's eternal intervention,... ironically called "Divine"? but,... the elitist 21st century folks are above that logic with their i-pad/i-phones and things?

were such a primitive species, that it sends a chill down my spine, given that the universe is ~14.5bn years young and our glorious civilization is approaching 6-8 millennium of societal genocide and counting! Pathetic,  are we as a race!

happy new year preventive-genocide? *[just not in my backyard, eh]

Seer's picture

"but,... the elitist 21st century folks are above that logic with their i-pad/i-phones and things?"

I'm thinking that the PLAN is in there somewhere... humans w/o the use of their thumbs aren't going to be all that prolific/productive (not saying that all the iCrap drones are wise).

Rynak's picture

The premise of your argument, of which you are unaware is, that egocentric decisions, that completely lack any respect for those you're interacting with.... is benefical to the nation.

Which is just as smallminded and shortsighted as extroversion and altruism - just in the opposite kind of way. Universal dichotomy and stuff.

And it is especially hypocritical, when the policies of the own government, were those that helped to create the problem in the first place, and that gov now attempting compensation of the defects it created, rather than fixing their policies.

Nope, they're not acting according to what is benefical to the nation. Nope, they're not acting "reasonable" or "logical". They're just acting like introverted assholes in denial-mode. And they don't fucking care neither about your nation, nor other nations.

Errol's picture

Dog, I agree.  It's interesting to note that in 1974 TPTB were already aware that energy constraints and climate change might well reduce future food production.  His mention of Malthus indicates that they understood that the discovery of oil only delayed Malthus's conclusion.

Dane Bramage's picture

"Culture of Death."  :(  Everything is limited/shoratge/competitive to these evil folks.   These are likely the same folks supressing any technology that would free/decentralize energy, beneficial agricultural products (e.g. hemp), etc., etc.,.  These are the people we need to leave in the dustbin of history.  Those one's unable to imagine that the technological progress we've made thus far  just might continue.  Look at the technological progress since the industrial revolution.  Now imagine where we might be in 1000 years.  The Kissengers of the world would rather commit the human race to ruin than have to compete fairly.  

Errol's picture

Dane, the "technological progress since the industrial revolution" was based on the exploitation of resources that Kissinger is referring to!  We have run through millions of years' worth of stored solar energy, in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas.  When it's pretty much used up, industrial civilization goes *poof!*

Even 1850's level of technology in the US wasn't sustainable; we cut down centuries of forest growth to smelt steel, burn in steam engines, and to burn just to recover the potash for fertilizer (look it up!).  Americans ate billions of Passenger Pigeons and millions of bison, and mined thousand's of years' accumulations of guano for nitrogen fertilizer (look it up!).

Without fossil fuels and the system to exploit them, the sustainable human population of the Earth is probably less than 500 million.  Prepare yourself and your family for a population reduction of Biblical proportions.  Kissinger was just seeking to make the US arrive late to that party...

Dane Bramage's picture

We have run through millions of years' worth of stored solar energy, in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas.  When it's pretty much used up, industrial civilization goes *poof!*

How many slaves, beasts of burden before that?  People used to drink from lead cups once as well.  Do you truly think we've reached the pinnacle of civilization?   You think it impossible for our species to adapt and find other sources of power (or make those already known magnitudes of order more efficient) even when it truly is a necessity (& not just conjecture)?    Wow - I'm not usually the opitimist in these discussions.   

Apparently your omnipotence and Kissenger can not only ordain the future, but accurately predict precisely how many humans the "system" can support.   When your system is failing that badly, I suspect you might find it is what dies and life simply overgrows it.   How might that world then look and how many might die?  First, no one can honestly accurately say and, lastly, people always die.  I would bet probably a lot less than the culture of death would cause, based on their past and present track-record.  (e.g. )

Don't be afraid of the future.  

trav7777's picture

ah, techno cornucopian magical it.

Fuck the earth, let's just fuckin destroy it.

SAT 800's picture

Oh, come on let's use up all the avaiable resources to feed IQ75 Africans; and when we make ourselves redundant; God will reward us.

Seer's picture

"Don't be afraid of the future. "

More importantly, don't be fucking stupid!

Anyone who isn't concerned should look to identify with that more important attribute.

Fucking hubris... entropy laughs at the unicorn fans.

SAT 800's picture

I'm not afraid of the future, but all the people having big families that the UN gets to feed better be damn fearful of the future.

Socratic Dog's picture

Thanks for stating the apparently obvious Errol.  How are so many commentators on this article unable to see it?

Magical thinking is alive and well on Zero Hedge, of all places.  What hope is there?

bugs_'s picture

Too bad we didn't engage in debt control with the same fanaticism we engaged in birth control.

Ratscam's picture

georgia guide stones - damn it's real!

bank guy in Brussels's picture

As the Georgia Guide Stones say:

"Leave room for nature ... Leave room for nature ..."


Big Corked Boots's picture

Has anyone noticed that hard core advocates of population control never implement any of their own plans?

wisefool's picture

what I have noticed is that the plans backfire and only work on themselves. "If you want to make the devil laugh, tell him your plan"

Specifically, it is the western, judeo christian populations that are not meeting replacement rate. The other folks are doing just fine and eating popcorn, after they get done landscaping our estates and cleaning our toliets for tax free cash + welfare entitlements.

Socratic Dog's picture

Very astute comment Fool.  This has been a long-standing theme of Spengler, writing on the Asia Times website.  The deathwish of western civilization.  It's well worth taking a look.

When you don't reproduce to replacement rate, as a culture, tribe, or any other group, then you die.  At your own hand, in this case.

If you don't reproduce as an individual, then your genes die.

Having babies is about supporting the life force.  Darwin explained it very clearly, those who use "darwinian" as a slur are fools.

The embrace of abortion is about as suicidally stupid as it's possible for an individual human, or a culture, to be.

Ask your gardener.  He probably understands it better than you do.

Disclosure: 5 siblings, wife has 11, we have 3 kids, having trouble making ends meet, but more kids to come, hopefully many.  We are survivors.

Gully Foyle's picture

bank guy in Brussels

George Carlin - Saving the Planet

CARLIN: Let me tell you about endangered species, all right? Saving
endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control
nature. It's arrogant meddling. It's what got us in trouble in the first
place. Doesn't anybody understand that? Interfering with nature. Over
90%, way over 90% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet,
ever lived, are gone. They're extinct. We didn't kill them all. They
just disappeared. That's what nature does. We're so self-important, so
self-important. Everybody is going to save something now. Save the
trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the
greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What?

I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white
bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is
there aren't enough bicycle paths, people trying to make the world safe
for their Volvos. There is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong
with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are (bleep) --
difference, difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the
planet is doing great. It's been here four and a half billion years. Did
you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a
half billion years. We've only been engaged in heavy industry for a
little more than 200 years.

Two hundred years versus four and a half billion, and we have the
conceit to think that somehow we're a threat, that somehow we're going to
put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just
a-floatin' around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than
us, been through all kinds of things worse than us, been through
earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares,
sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of
thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors,
worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays,
recurring ice ages, and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans
are going to make a difference? The planet isn't going anywhere. We are!
We're going away.


“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!

We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

? George Carlin

centerline's picture

Carlin rocks!  Thanks for posting this one.

Seer's picture

We're nearing the end of the current inter-glacial period.  Things most certainly will be reset...

UP Forester's picture

....with a snow-white screen, after mass-migration and food wars.

JW n FL's picture


Our planet's magnetic field reverses about once every 200,000 years on average.

However, the time between reversals is highly variable.

The last time Earth's magnetic field flipped was 780,000 years ago, according to the geologic record of Earth's polarity.


Shift in Earth's magnetic north pole forces Tampa airport to repaint its runways

AUD's picture

If this really came from Henry Kiss-my-ass-inger (MDC 1981, I think), it was probably just obfuscation to blame the economic instability caused by the US default in 1971 on something other than the US default in 1971.

smlbizman's picture

based on your beginning observations, i would guess the u.s.a will be putting condems on our missiles to control the populations everywhere....

Sudden Debt's picture

I thought america decided that global climate change didn't exist?

SAT 800's picture

It doesn't exist. It doesn't matter what "official america" thinks; it doesn't exist. There, now there's one more person who knows what the right answer is.

lotsoffun's picture

comment tu va sudden debt?  goede dag sudden debt?

america?  you mean, north, south, middle.  mexcio canada, braizil, costa rico, argentina :) 

yes - the united states has decided - among other things that - according to mcdonald and coca cola - they make food and you should eat it. according to general motors and exxon there is no such thing as global warming.  and according to disney and atari - violence in t.v. and video games has no effect on people.  according to monsanto - genetically modified salmon that grow 3x bigger 3x as fast have no effect on the food chain.  is there any other thing that peter pan want to hear or tell you about?

tim73's picture

27 government security agencies in the US...those bastard Canadians must be one huge security threat. They are out to get you!

wanwer's picture

Fear of Over-Population is what drives a lot of Democrat policies.  Free abortion, taxing growth, EPA rules, ethanol subsidies that drive up food prices, etc.  Democrats and the elites around the world see humans as THE problem.  They should do us all a favor and bite a bullet.  The conundrum Democrats face is they hate humans and want less of them, but the particular ones they hate, they pander to for votes.

SAT 800's picture

It's not necessary to "hate humans" in order to understand that we don't need THIS MANY HUMANS.

earleflorida's picture

21st Century Planned Parenthood via "Modern-Oligarchy-Theorem" = "Machiavellian Misanthropy on Steroids" 

trav7777's picture

visit Haiti sometime...or just go to an island where deer got stranded

JW n FL's picture



Hey! Hey!! Now!!!

dont you pick on our little dears!

we imported some Ohio stock to Kissimee back in the 1960's..

what we lack in the size of our dear.. we more than make up for in the size of our Sailfish! Marlin! and ______________ name whatever fish you would like.. and dont get me started about fresh water, like Large Mouth Bass! WOWIE!!

jus sayin!

Seer's picture

Democrat policies responsible for "ethanol subsidies that drive up food prices, etc. "

You've got quite the case of myopia there. (click on "PARTY SPLIT BY CYCLE") [Cargil] (click on "PARTY SPLIT BY CYCLE") [Monsanto] (click on "PARTY SPLIT BY CYCLE") [Archer Daniels Midland - yes, Dems were slightly ahead, but apparently they've dropped from favor for the 2012 cycle] [John Deere]

I'm sure that I could go on, but this should be enough to toss your steaming turds back in your lap.

So, what's it like to be a stupid and ignorant Party Pussy?

JW n FL's picture



Seer ,

         1st off! HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

2nd off, anyone who still thinks that Team Red and Blue are anything bit conversational fodder for the less than.. needs our help to un-plug them from their self sustaining brain wash.. that is stuck on repeat!

God Bless and God Love You and Yours!

JW n FL's picture




Fear of Over-Population is what drives a lot of Democrat policies. Free abortion, taxing growth, EPA rules, ethanol subsidies that drive up food prices, etc. Democrats and the elites around the world see humans as THE problem. They should do us all a favor and bite a bullet. The conundrum Democrats face is they hate humans and want less of them, but the particular ones they hate, they pander to for votes.

And the Republicans will save us from the Evil Dumbocrats?

How do you feel about Ron Paul?

How do you feel about the NDAA?

  • National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, from the Congressional Budget Office
  • National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, from
  • National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, from
  • National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, from
  • National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010: H.R. 2647 and S. 1391
  • National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, from the Congressional Budget Office
  • National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, from
  • [1]


    do you think it is possible that Repugnants are in bed with the Rumbocrats.. and thusly that BOTH sides of the coin.. are really only ALL LObby Whores?

    is it possible that you taking the time out of your day to bash a fellow American.. instead of document why these scumbags.. one and all! are the single largest threat to America?


    The Constitution has been gutted.. by both of the bottom feeding lobby whore parties!!

    do you see how they use Dead Babies to polarize We the People?

    do you feel like a sheep being led around by your nose?


    dont drink the kooaide.. of either side.


    Happy New Year! 

    JW n FL's picture



    Department of Energy 2011 (International) Outlook

    We are all FUCKED! (this will only be news to a few of you idiots)

    Department of Energy Press Page.

    Video presentation.

    The PDF short report (direct link).

    how about some back ground?

    This is for the attention deficit crowd, 1 minute and 45 seconds long and in cartoon medium.

    this one is a little longer.. and maybe more for the grownups.. to all of my Friends here.. this is Jeff Rubin, again.. no need for you guys / gals to have to suffer it again.

    Al Bartlett on energy consumption versus population

    Uploaded by human4832 on Dec 7, 2009

    Prof. Al Bartlett discusses his perspective on energy consumption versus population growth. Unending population growth is the root cause of our increasing demand for energy.

    This is from a panel discussion with Professor Al Bartlett and former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm at the October 2009 ASPO-USA Denver, Colorado symposium on peak oil. For more information and additional panel videos, see . Also see .

    The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8)

    Uploaded by wonderingmind42 on Jun 16, 2007

    2 million views for an old codger giving a lecture about arithmetic? What's going on? You'll just have to watch to see what's so damn amazing about what he (Albert Bartlett) has to say.

    I introduce this video to my students as "Perhaps the most boring video you'll ever see, and definitely the most important." But then again, after watching it most said that if you followed along with what the presenter (a professor emeritus of Physics at Univ of Colorado-Boulder) is saying, it's quite easy to pay attention, because it is so damn compelling.

    Entire playlist for the lecture:

    David Rockefeller speaks about population control.

    Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero!

    Fracking Contaminates Towns Water Supply


    BigDuke6's picture


    Get your ass over to this bullshit MSM UK newspaper (owned by former KGB agent!! - no shit)

    where they are discussing the congress members all going to isreal - i tried to track you and get those links you had but couldn't find it.

    kick their butts


    JW n FL's picture



    On Tuesday, Iowa's caucuses kick off the GOP nominating process, followed a week later by the New Hampshire primary. Outwardly, these final few days of campaigning have been in keeping with the switchback ride that has gone before: a sudden moment in the sun for a candidate who had previously been overlooked, in this case Rick Santorum. In reality, the ascent of Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, could have been easily predicted by the simple principle of Buggins' turn. After all, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich at one stage shot to the top of the polls only, for differing reasons, to crash back to earth. So why not Rick Santorum now?

    They dont mention Ron Paul one, single time.. They mention Herman Cain and he is out! Thye mention Rick Santorum and he is not even running!

    But NO! Ron! Paul!!

    The problem I have is... that Ron Paul.. if he does not suffer a Secret Service Stand Down ( would be  the Top 0.1%'s Wet dream Come True!

    Ron would bring Austerity to the fore front of the budget crisis..

    Ron would make everyone pay the same tax rate. (including corporations)

    But what could / would Ron get done minus the votes in Congress or the Senate?

    any way.. I dont see Ron or anyone getting anything done, it is us verse them.. and US! is to busy fighting with US! to be able to get them out of power!

    as for News Papers... they reach an olde audience.. that votes..

    and thanks to the New York Times in the early 1970's.. these older people still believe that News Paper's are representing the truth for the betterment of ALL!

    We the People! are screwed.

    as for the Jew's.. the Jew's dont have the cash to run the Country.. but they are out front of this cluster fuck! which screams set up to me.


    BigDuke6's picture

    Thats it i guess.

    Looking at the uk newspaper sites it brings home how RP is ignored.

    the uk is ruled by the banking cartels lock, stock and barrel so the papers tow the line.

    RP is usually named as a fanatic etc in throwaway comments that subconsciously paint DR Paul as a old nutter.

    its interesting to see such manipulation even in a country where her wont stand for office.

    Snake Plissken's picture

    Precisely, exactly the same in the Telegraph which has today almost hailed Romney as the second coming in its 'News' section:


    trav7777's picture

    RP doesn't support Israel's "right" to exist nor our 3-monkeys foreign policy support of them

    Seer's picture

    I once fired off a nasty letter to the BBC after hearing them refer to Hugo Chavez as "left wing" president.  The POINT, which I made quite clearly, is that they didn't mention George W. Bush as a "right wing" president, inconsistent (and obvious propaganda): no, the BBC isn't/wasn't "promoting" the "left wing," it was all meant as a negative toward Chavez. I haven't listened to the BBC in years, but shortly after I'd sent the letter I do seem to recall that they did stop inconsistently applying such labels.

    Lndmvr's picture

    I believe the country is being run by executive orders as of a while ago. Maybe RP would use the same to dismantle before going back to the constitution.

    Irelevant's picture

    Overcrowding BITCHEZ.

    luna_man's picture



    "very difficult moral issues need to be addressed."

    I sense nothing but war, in my future!

    Eally Ucked's picture

    The best contraceptive human race ever discovered was Higher standard of living. Western countries are the best example of it. So we should stop exploiting Third World and help them to achieve the level of development similar to ours. It would help greatly in development of trade, distribution of capital and much more even job creation all over the world. I don't want to go into details here, anyway.