Food Shortages Or Globalist Depopulation Agenda? *
In an article posted on the Hindustan Times website, N. Chandra Mohan cites Mark Thirwell, Director of the International Economy Program at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney, Australia. “This is not the first time in modern economic history that the Malthusian spectre of global food shortages has stalked the world economy,” writes Thirwell. “Surges in food prices in the 1970s and then again in the mid-1990s both prompted warnings that agricultural capacity was failing to keep pace with a growing world population. Each time the prices jumped, it proved to be temporary as supply responded.” Mr. Mohan believes, this time around, there will be no supply ready to respond. He links this dire situation to “policy neglect of agriculture” and “climate and environmental degradation.”
In addition to “climate change,” Mohan blames the failures of capitalism — described as “supply-side responses” to market forces — and the “absence of technological breakthroughs in terms of higher yields from new varieties of paddy, wheat and maize.” In other words, the current food shortages around the world are the result of corporate ineptitude and due to the vagaries of weather, supposedly exacerbated by man-made “climate change.”
Is it possible the current food crisis is part of an intentional plan, indeed Malthusian, as Thirwell writes? Is it possible supposedly man-made “climate change” and the “food crisis” are components of a sinister depopulation agenda designed to cull the herd down to a manageable level, as proclaimed on the mysterious Georgia Guidestones? (”Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”)
In order to understand how these twin menaces — increasingly hyped by the corporate media — may indeed be part of a depopulation agenda, we repost here an article by Joseph Brewda, originally published in the Executive Intelligence Review:
Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide
On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture.
The bogus arguments that Kissinger advanced were not original. One of his major sources was the Royal Commission on Population, which King George VI had created in 1944 “to consider what measures should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend of population.” The commission found that Britain was gravely threatened by population growth in its colonies, since “a populous country has decided advantages over a sparsely-populated one for industrial production.” The combined effects of increasing population and industrialization in its colonies, it warned, “might be decisive in its effects on the prestige and influence of the West,” especially effecting “military strength and security.”
NSSM 200 similarly concluded that the United States was threatened by population growth in the former colonial sector. It paid special attention to 13 “key countries” in which the United States had a “special political and strategic interest”: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. It claimed that population growth in those states was especially worrisome, since it would quickly increase their relative political, economic, and military strength.
For example, Nigeria: “Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria’s population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million. This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa.” Or Brazil: “Brazil clearly dominated the continent demographically.” The study warned of a “growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years.”
Food as a weapon
There were several measures that Kissinger advocated to deal with this alleged threat, most prominently, birth control and related population-reduction programs. He also warned that “population growth rates are likely to increase appreciably before they begin to decline,” even if such measures were adopted.
A second measure was curtailing food supplies to targetted states, in part to force compliance with birth control policies: “There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.”
“Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now,” the document continued, adding, “Would food be considered an instrument of national power? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?”
Kissinger also predicted a return of famines that could make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary. “Rapid population growth and lagging food production in developing countries, together with the sharp deterioration in the global food situation in 1972 and 1973, have raised serious concerns about the ability of the world to feed itself adequately over the next quarter of century and beyond,” he reported.
The cause of that coming food deficit was not natural, however, but was a result of western financial policy: “Capital investments for irrigation and infrastucture and the organization requirements for continuous improvements in agricultural yields may be beyond the financial and administrative capacity of many LDCs. For some of the areas under heaviest population pressure, there is little or no prospect for foreign exchange earnings to cover constantly increasingly imports of food.”
“It is questionable,” Kissinger gloated, “whether aid donor countries will be prepared to provide the sort of massive food aid called for by the import projections on a long-term continuing basis.” Consequently, “large-scale famine of a kind not experienced for several decades—a kind the world thought had been permanently banished,” was foreseeable—famine, which has indeed come to pass.
This globalist “return of famines” would not be possible without the participation of multinational corporations. The elite, writes Richard Freeman for the Intelligence Review, are in the process of applying “a tourniquet to food production and export supplies, not only to poor nations, but to advanced sector nations as well.” Of course, this would not be possible without the cartelization of agricultural, now known as “agribusiness.” Freeman elaborates:
The Windsors’ Global Food Cartel: Instrument for Starvation
Ten to twelve pivotal companies, assisted by another three dozen, run the world’s food supply. They are the key components of the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel, which is grouped around Britain’s House of Windsor. Led by the six leading grain companies—Cargill, Continental, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and Born, André, and Archer Daniels Midland/Töpfer—the Windsor-led food and raw materials cartel has complete domination over world cereals and grains supplies, from wheat to corn and oats, from barley to sorghum and rye. But it also controls meat, dairy, edible oils and fats, fruits and vegetables, sugar, and all forms of spices.
Each year tens of millions die from the most elementary lack of their daily bread. This is the result of the work of the Windsor-led cartel. And, as the ongoing financial collapse wipes out bloated speculative financial paper, the oligarchy has moved into hoarding, increasing its food and raw materials holdings. It is prepared to apply a tourniquet to food production and export supplies, not only to poor nations, but to advanced sector nations as well.
The use of food as a weapon can be found at least four millennia ago in Babylon. Imperial Rome took this tack, as did Venice and various Venetian offshoots, including the Antwerp-centered, powerful Burgundian duchy, and the Dutch and British Levant companies, East India companies, and West India companies. Today, food warfare is firmly under the control of London, with the help of subordinate partners in especially Switzerland and Amsterdam. Today’s food companies were created by having had a section of this ancient set of Mesopotamian-Roman-Venetian-British food networks and infrastructure carved out for them.
The Windsor-led oligarchy has built up a single, integrated raw materials cartel, with three divisions—energy, raw materials and minerals, and increasingly scarce food supplies. Figure 1 represents the situation. At the top is the House of Windsor and Club of the Isles. Right below are two of the principal appurtenances of the House of Windsor: the World Wide Fund for Nature, headed by the Doge of London, Prince Philip, which leads the world in orchestration of ethnic conflict and terrorism, such as the British-created afghansi movement; and British intelligence’s Hollinger Corp. of Conrad Black, which is leading the assault to destroy Bill Clinton and the American Presidency.
The firms within each cartel group are listed. While they maintain the legal fiction of being different corporate organizations, in reality this is one interlocking syndicate, with a common purpose and multiple overlapping boards of directors. The Windsor-centered oligarchy owns these cartels, and they are the instruments of power of the oligarchy, accumulated over centuries, for breaking nations’ sovereignty.