If Jewish billionaire Igor Kolomoisky is the godfather of the Azov movement, Khazin is their father.

Some Jews with experience in the Defense Forces of Israel (IDF) have replenished the ranks of Ukrainian volunteer battalions in the ATO zone. A citizen of Israel, Nathan Khazin, took part in Maidan, and then went to serve in the Azov regiment 

112 – Ukrainian News Agency

Although little is published about this fact in English, according to the BBC, an Israeli-Ukrainian named Natan Khazin claims to have co-founded the Azov Battalion. In an interview conducted by BBC Ukraine in 2018, which attempted to downplay the claims of rising antisemitism in Ukraine, Khazin is quoted as saying: “I can say that, despite the difficult situation in Ukraine and the war, the level of antisemitism is not growing. Someone in the West simply does not understand the real state of things in Ukraine in this area.”

Mint Press

I’m just wondering if the name Khazim has anything to do with Khazaria…

Sotnik of the Jewish Sotnia of Maidan KHazin: Present government thinks that they have immunity and the national wave rises once in 10 years, but people are more organized and armed now organized and armed

Ukrainian magazine Gordon, 21 november, 2014


Sotnik of the Jewish Self-Defense Sotnia of Maidan and ATO participant Nathan Hazin told the GORDON why the military personnel at the front has no trust towards the government, how Euromaidan benefited the country and why people should not expect fast changes.
By Alexey Stukalo

I believe that Euromaidan changed the country and is still changing it, and will be changing it for a long time. In a word, I can say that no changes in the country are possible without formation of a nation. We had not been at one for years of independence of Ukraine. The concepts of flag, anthem, and statehood were quite ephemeral for many of us. Accordingly, we lived as a state within the state: everyone stands for himself, and the state is against everyone. Or the state was generally a phantom concept for us.

Maidan stirred up people and people began to take pride that they live in Ukraine, that they belong to this land and this country with all its difficulties. It definitely raised the national spirit. The nation that has a spirit has future. It is not a mob of people that have one gastronomic principles. All the rest takes time. This is a beginning, a start. Most of people want blitzkrieg, they want immediate changes and results. But everything was so bewitched here that it is impossible to expect any immediate results. It is clear that today’s authorities do not differ much from the previous ones, but we have freedom of speech and will, and it is a prerequisite of changes.

I do not want a third Maidan in the same format because the price for changes was too high. Too many people had to be buried, many people became disabled for the rest of life for the sake of such changes. I would like to believe that it will never happen, that any changes are possible in a peaceful way and that there will be no violence against people who want to change something. The mighty of this world should be responsible for their actions and should be ready to admit their mistakes when they leave the office.

Unfortunately, it should be noted that today’s power has the same tendencies as the previous one. Unfortunately, people do not learn from other people’s mistakes. But I would like to hope that what we went through for last year will never happen again because it is impossible to stand it once again. This year has passed as 10 years for me.

None of the soldiers at the front have trust towards the current government. The selectivity is based on the principle “against something” rather than “for something”. For this reason, there is no sentimentality regarding the fact that the present power does focus on the human life, nor on human ideals. Everybody just reached the feeding trough. I am more than convinced that they will not manage to use this feeding trough – people “are too strained”, everything is too zealous. Besides, thousands of people who are on the front line perfectly see how they are supplied, how they are taken care of, and they are on the verge of a breakdown. I do not want these people to fight for justice with arms, but it is quite possible.

The matter is about the deprived people, both alive and dead, who are not taken care of by the state, unfortunately, this rage is accumulating. Nothing has been done for the last eight months for an average resident of the country, an ordinary soldier of the Ukrainian army, an average simple to tell the state supported him. Nothing, not even a single populist measure that would make life a little softer, that would show that the state cares for its citizens. It did not happen. Instead – sharing of money, playing on the currency market, repartition of new economic influence. And all this in front of people who went out to fight against it. De facto, people who are in power today think that they are protected by something, that they have immunity and that this wave will not reach them anymore, it rises only once in 10 years. I think that the discontent of people will be shown much quicker now, people are more organized and, unfortunately, they are armed.

one year later he’s the jewish drone expert who says israeli drones are an indicative of russian activity

Expert: Israeli-made drone shot down over Donbas ‘points to Russian involvement in conflict’

Unian News Agency, 08.05.15

According to Israeli Channel 9, the staff of the Air Intelligence of Ukraine unit identified company plates with inscriptions and the manufacturing index of Israel Aerospace Industries when examining the parts of the downed UAV, as reported by one of the unit commanders of Air Intelligence of Ukraine, Israeli Nathan Khazin, who has been launching Ukrainian drones in the ATO area since the summer of 2014.

According to Khazin, this was not the first time that the Ukrainian military has shot down Israeli-made drones. Experts say that Russian drones are also equipped with cameras and inertial orientation systems produced in Israel.

The drones are launched by professional military men, rather than just “militants,” Khazin said. He said it was unlikely that Israel would have sold its drones to the fighters of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic. Therefore, the fact that such vehicles are appearing over the Donbas is evidence of the direct military intervention of Russia in this conflict, he said.

Khazin, who has served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), described the current situation as a strange one.

“Israel, declaring neutrality in the conflict, refuses to sell drones and other military equipment to Ukraine, but has supplied the Russian Federation with its obsolete UAV technology. Moscow, in turn, has been supplying its Arab ‘friends’ with the most advanced Russian weapons,” Khazin said.

ONE MORE YEAR AND HE’S The Advisor to the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

U.S drones have proven to be ineffective in the war in the Donbas

 UA Wire, Friday, December 23, 2016 1:37:00 PM

The drones provided to Ukraine by the United States at a cost of millions of dollars, have proven to be ineffective against jammers and hackers. The Advisor to the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Nathan Khazin, stated in an interview with Reuters that the decision to use these drones in the conflict was wrong from the very beginning.

In the summer of 2016, Ukraine received 72 Raven RQ-11B Analog mini-drones. However, these mini-drones have proven to be so ineffective that Khazin would prefer to send them back. The Raven hand-launched drones were supplied to Ukraine as part of the U.S. military assistance program.

It was intended for Kyiv to make extensive use of these portable, lightweight reconnaissance drones, which aren’t equipped with weapons and manufactured by AeroVironment Technology Company, at the front lines. However, the drones have proven to be ineffective in the fight against separatists, who use much more advanced means of electronic warfare than militants in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria.

Russia and the separatist forces they support can intercept and jam video signals and drones’ data. “The equipment is analog, so the channels and data aren’t protected from interception and jamming by modern means of electronic warfare,” Reuters wrote, citing the Command of the Ukrainian Air Force.

U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Russian means of electronic warfare turned out to be much more advanced than expected at the beginning of the conflict. Meanwhile, they added that Ukrainian and U.S. servicemen have gradually adapted to the situation. One of the Ukrainian officials told Reuters on the condition of anonymity that the drones weren’t used at the front line.

The Advisor to the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Nathan Khazin, said that the drones are mostly kept in a warehouse and referred to them as a weakness – they enable the enemy to see the location of Ukrainian forces and can be easily shot down if desired. These devices have short battery life and they are unable to perform their key function of gathering intelligence on artillery positions, Khazin stated.

Nathan Khazin told BBC Ukraine that the incompetence of the Ukrainian’s allowed for the provision of ineffective drones. “Those responsible for requesting and deploying the drones were absolutely incompetent. The United States gave them exactly what they asked for instead of adjusting their request in accordance with current technology,” Khazin said. According to the Advisor, the cost of each of the 24 kits received by the Ukrainian Armed Forces from Washington, is about USD 400,000.

Every kit includes three drones, control devices and software. The RQ-11B drones are still used in the conflict zone. “Every time we use these drones, we run the risk that these devices will be captured or destroyed by the enemy,” Khazin clarified.

Khazim also created this unit for the Ukrainian Army, see below. But first, take a look at their red-black flag.


The original logo design, taken from Khazim’s facebook page

LET’S REWIND HISTORY AND TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT HIS PAST

The Ukrainian Revolution’s Unlikely Street-Fighting Rabbi

By David E. Fishman, April 07, 2014, Jewish Forward Mag

The following interview is with Natan Khazin, commander of a Jewish squadron of fighters in the Ukrainian revolution that took place in Kiev’s Maidan, or central square. It aired on March 20 on Espreso TV, a popular Ukrainian Internet television station and was the first time that Khazin disclosed his identity in public. Khazin was interviewed by Mykola Veresen, a well-known Ukrainian journalist, who was the BBC’s correspondent in Kiev for many years.

The yarmulke-wearing Khazin, a veteran of the Israel Defense Forces and an ordained rabbi, is representative of many young Ukrainian Jews who are Zionist, religiously observant and at the same time strong Ukrainian patriots. Some of them refer to themselves humorously as Zhido-Banderists — a fusion of the pejorative term for “Jew” with the name Stepan Bandera, leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, which fought for Ukrainian independence during World War II. The organization’s forces also participated in the massacre of Jews, so the term Zhido-Banderist is self-consciously ironic.

The interview has been edited and condensed.

Mykola Veresen: How did you end up on Maidan?

Natan Khazin: After the barbaric and unprecedented dispersal of demonstrators on November 30, I went to the enormous rally of 1 million people [the following Sunday].

But you became a commander.

It happened very fast. After the first barricades on Hrushevsky Street, when there was talk of storming the parliament, I went over to people and asked: “What’s the main objective? Where are we headed? What are we doing?” After about half an hour, I realized that there was no one in charge on the ground. People didn’t know what to do. They only knew that they must press forward. I asked some of the people there: “Do you know the correlation of forces? Do you know that in order to storm a building, when both sides are equally armed, the storming side needs to have three times as many people?” They answered “no.” When I asked, “What’s the tactical plan?” they didn’t have one.

How did you know about such things?

I have extensive combat experience. I served in the Israel Defense Forces. I was an officer. I know something about offensive and defensive maneuvers under conditions of urban combat.

If it isn’t confidential, where did you serve?

In the Gaza Strip. I know what it’s like to move down a street with people shooting, throwing stones or burning objects.

You are originally from Kiev?

No, I’m from Odessa.

You immigrated to Israel, served in the army there and returned to Ukraine?

Yes. I never imagined that I would put my combat knowledge to use in quiet and peaceful Kiev. People said to me: “In Israel, in the Middle East, things are bad, there’s a war. Come here, stay here and live in peaceful Kiev.” I believed they were right.

How naive of you!

I’ll tell you honestly, at first I was an observer of the clashes, then I was an adviser. But within hours I became an active participant, and people recognized that I had experience. I was in charge of several operations on Hrushevsky Street. And I came to realize that this was my war.

What led you to that conclusion?

People were standing in the streets, unarmed. The authorities were acting like the Kremlin, like Putin against demonstrators. In all the years of Ukrainian independence, I’d never seen so much force used against unarmed civilians — so many vehicles, so many security forces. I decided that I should express my position as a citizen, and help the people that were fighting the regime.

So I went to participate in the storming of the Ukrainian House [Kiev’s central convention center]. I came prepared, knowing that the assault would soon begin. It started on Friday night. After going to synagogue and finishing the Sabbath prayers, I went to Maidan, to the Ukrainian House. We thought there were 40 to 50 soldiers inside, but there were 150 instead — fighters, officers and snipers. After the first three demonstrators were killed, I saw the thirst for revenge in the eyes of my comrades in arms.

I have a question. I really don’t know the answer, and many people will be curious. Can Jews engage in combat on the Sabbath?

If it’s necessary, Jews fight on the Sabbath. Protecting human lives is the highest value. On the Saturdays when I served in the civilian self-defense at Maidan, I shot, traveled in vehicles, I spoke by telephone — I did everything that I would usually not allow myself to do. The Saturdays at Maidan were the first Sabbaths that I violated in 20 years, in order to protect the lives of civilians.

You asked a rabbi, and the rabbi said it was permitted.

I didn’t ask a rabbi, I knew the answer. I have rabbinic ordination, and I could answer the question for myself. I recommended to many other people to participate in self-defense operations on the Sabbath.

Another question: Who was the first person to call himself a “Zhido-Banderist”? Perhaps you coined the term?

No. The copyright to that term is unknown. But as soon as I heard it, I said that I’d rather be called a “Zhido-Banderist” than a “Zhido-Muscovite.” But in all seriousness, in the two and a half months I spent at Maidan, I never heard anyone use the word zhid — not regarding me and not regarding anyone else.

To tell you the truth, during the first few days, I didn’t tell people I was Jewish. Like Queen Esther, who didn’t say anything about her origins. But gradually I decided to come out of the shadows, and began to tell people about my “Zhido-Banderist” origins, about my “Israeli aggressor” past and future. I was shocked by the reaction. People called me “brother.” Everyone. Simply “brother.” I have photographs of me together with different fighting units, from the ultra-nationalist “Svoboda” and other groups. They always greeted me with “Shalom.” And now when I meet them on the street, in civilian clothes, we hug each other.

I read an interview with Natan Sharansky in Israel. They asked him: “What do you think about those Ukrainians? They are such bastards, they hate Jews, right?” And he answered: “Well, that they hate Jews isn’t so. I sat in the Gulag for many years together with Ukrainians, and I didn’t particularly see that. And as for the events in Ukraine, I’ll tell you: I would do anything for the sake of my homeland Israel, for my Jewish people. So I don’t understand, why should Ukrainians be any worse than me, or than anyone else, fighting for their homeland?”

Something changed in me when I saw people on Hrushevsky Street who were ready to sacrifice themselves. A few young men on the street were in the line of fire, and I asked them to move. They said to me, “We’ve come here to die.” When you see before your eyes people who have come to die for the sake of the homeland, this made me feel close, and united with them. I know what it means to be ready to die for the homeland.

Did you have contact with the Israelis? Did they interview you?

Of course. Israeli radio and television stations interviewed me, anonymously. I didn’t want to publicize who I was until very recently. Generally, they viewed what I was doing in a positive spirit, as a good sign. But the Israeli government has displayed an ambiguous attitude toward the events.

Yes, we know that.

This is in the context of the Israeli Foreign Ministry flirting with Moscow. Israel, I’m ashamed to say, has not taken a clear-cut position in support of Ukraine. It hasn’t called the aggression by its name. It hasn’t condemned the annexation of Crimea. Who should understand better than us the meaning of land? We have a slogan in Israel: “Tov lamut be-ad artsenu,” “It’s good to die for our land.”

While, unfortunately, there isn’t governmental support, there is the support of many people in Israel. Lots of young men born in Ukraine, and who served in combat units of the IDF, found out about what I was doing and wrote to me on Facebook. “We’re ready to come and help.” During the hardest days, “We’re ready to come and help.” But there were also a few people who wrote to me: “Why should you die for Ukraine? It’s better to die for Israel.”

At first, the attitude of most Ukrainian Jews toward what I was doing was negative. People scolded me: “What are you doing? You’re disgracing us. You don’t represent the Jewish community, you represent only yourself.” After the bloodshed and the death of many people, including members of my squadron — we lost some very special people — the attitude changed. The community began to take a more active role; they organized assistance. They sent nine heavily wounded people to Israel, and two of them, thank God, have already returned in good shape.

I want to add that in this process, I crossed several thresholds. When people standing next to me on Institutskaya Street were shot before my eyes, and the body of one comrade after another hit by gunfire was dragged away, I lost my last ethnic-psychological distance. After seeing what I saw, I decided that I needed to act in a hard, tough way, without any compromise toward the enemy.

Interview translated and edited by David E. Fishman, director of the Jewish Theological Seminary’s program in the former Soviet Union, Project Judaica.

How a Religious Jew Aids the Ukrainian Army

Ukrainian Jewish Encounter, December 19th, 2016

The Minister of Defense of Ukraine Stepan Poltorak published on his Facebook page a rare photo of a young Ukrainian officer in a black Jewish kippah.

The photo featured Natan Khazin, one of creators and commanders of the “Aerorozvidka” (aerial reconnaissance) unit. Khazin became one of the symbols of Jewish support for Ukraine during and after the “Revolution of Dignity” in 2014-2016.

Khazin is a religious Jew, well known in the Central Brodsky Synagogue in Kyiv. After the beginning of the events on the Маidan in January 2014, Khazin managed one of the “hundreds” (“sotnya”) units of the Maidan. In particular, he managed an operation to release the “Ukrainian House” on Khreshchatyk. After the victory of the Maidan, Khazin left for the АТО (anti-terrorist operation) zone and participated in the liberation of the city of Mariupol from Russian-backed separatists in the spring of 2014.

When military operations began in Donbas, Khazin and his friends Yaroslav Gonchar, Volodymyr Kochetkov-Sukach, and Dmytro Lisenbart created the volunteer “Aerorozvidka” unit. At the time they did not have either sufficient technical equipment or support from the Ministry of Defense.
The “Aerorozvidka” unit is now an official Ukrainian subdivision that conducts reconnaissance by means of pilotless flying vehicles and video monitoring complexes. Similar units are used in the armies of the U.S., Great Britain, and Israel. Currently the “Aerorozvidka” unit monitors on-line around the clock three fourths of the battlefront by video cameras that are co-ordinated into one system, and this increases the efficiency of military operations considerably. The “Aerorozvidka” unit has saved the lives of hundreds of Ukrainian fighters.
For this very reason Ukraine’s defense minister visited Khazin’s unit and rewarded many soldiers.

Natan Khazin in the Brodsky Synagogue, Kyiv. Photo: Shimon Briman.
Not the first and not the last admission. Source

EVEN THE RHETORIC RESEMBLES…

Israeli militia commander fights to protect Kiev

Delta, a Ukrainian-born former IDF soldier, heads a force of 40 men and women, most of whom are not Jewish, against gov’t forces

By CNAAN LIPHSHIZ, 28 February 2014, 9:37 pm

Delta, the nom de guerre of the Jewish commander of a Ukrainian street-fighting unit, is pictured in Kiev earlier this month. (photo credit: ‘Delta’/JTA)

He calls his troops “the Blue Helmets of Maidan,” but brown is the color of the headgear worn by Delta — the nom de guerre of the commander of a Jewish-led militia force that participated in the Ukrainian revolution. Under his helmet, he also wears a kippah.

Delta, a Ukraine-born former soldier in the Israel Defense Forces, spoke to JTA Thursday on condition of anonymity. He explained how he came to use combat skills he acquired in the Shu’alei Shimshon reconnaissance battalion of the Givati infantry brigade to rise through the ranks of Kiev’s street fighters. He has headed a force of 40 men and women — including several fellow IDF veterans — in violent clashes with government forces.

Several Ukrainian Jews, including Rabbi Moshe Azman, one of the country’s claimants to the title of chief rabbi, confirmed Delta’s identity and role in the still-unfinished revolution.

The “Blue Helmets” nickname, a reference to the UN peacekeeping force, stuck after Delta’s unit last month prevented a mob from torching a building occupied by Ukrainian police, he said. “There were dozens of officers inside, surrounded by 1,200 demonstrators who wanted to burn them alive,” he recalled. “We intervened and negotiated their safe passage.”

The problem, he said, was that the officers would not leave without their guns, citing orders. Delta told JTA his unit reasoned with the mob to allow the officers to leave with their guns. “It would have been a massacre, and that was not an option,” he said.

The Blue Helmets comprise 35 men and women who are not Jewish, and who are led by five ex-IDF soldiers, says Delta, an Orthodox Jew in his late 30s who regularly prays at Azman’s Brodsky Synagogue. He declined to speak about his private life.

Delta, who immigrated to Israel in the 1990s, moved back to Ukraine several years ago and has worked as a businessman. He says he joined the protest movement as a volunteer on Nov. 30, after witnessing violence by government forces against student protesters.

“I saw unarmed civilians with no military background being ground by a well-oiled military machine, and it made my blood boil,” Delta told JTA in Hebrew laced with military jargon. “I joined them then and there, and I started fighting back the way I learned how, through urban warfare maneuvers. People followed, and I found myself heading a platoon of young men. Kids, really.”

The other ex-IDF infantrymen joined the Blue Helmets later after hearing it was led by a fellow vet, Delta said.

As platoon leader, Delta says he takes orders from activists connected to Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist party that has been frequently accused of anti-Semitism and whose members have been said to have had key positions in organizing the opposition protests.

“I don’t belong [to Svoboda], but I take orders from their team. They know I’m Israeli, Jewish and an ex-IDF soldier. They call me ‘brother,’” he said. “What they’re saying about Svoboda is exaggerated, I know this for a fact. I don’t like them because they’re inconsistent, not because of [any] anti-Semitism issue.”

The commanding position of Svoboda in the revolution is no secret, according to Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the Washington DC-based Heritage Foundation think tank.

“The driving force among the so-called white sector in the Maidan are the nationalists, who went against the SWAT teams and snipers who were shooting at them,” Cohen told JTA.

Still, many Jews supported the revolution and actively participated in it.

Earlier this week, an interim government was announced ahead of election scheduled for May, including ministers from several minority groups.

Volodymyr Groysman, a former mayor of the city of Vinnytsia and the newly appointed deputy prime minister for regional policy, is a Jew, Rabbi Azman said.

“There are no signs for concern yet,” said Cohen, “but the West needs to make it clear to Ukraine that how it is seen depends on how minorities are treated.”

On Wednesday, Russian State Duma Chairman Sergey Naryshkin said Moscow was concerned about anti-Semitic declarations by radical groups in Ukraine.

But Delta says the Kremlin is using the anti-Semitism card falsely to delegitimize the Ukrainian revolution, which is distancing Ukraine from Russia’s sphere of influence.

“It’s bullshit. I never saw any expression of anti-Semitism during the protests, and the claims to the contrary were part of the reason I joined the movement. We’re trying to show that Jews care,” he said.

Anti-government protesters lob stones during clashes with riot police outside Ukraine’s parliament in Kiev, Ukraine, Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2014. (photo credit: AP/Efrem Lukatsky)

Still, Delta’s reasons for not revealing his name betray his sense of feeling like an outsider. “If I were Ukrainian, I would have been a hero. But for me it’s better to not reveal my name if I want to keep living here in peace and quiet,” he said.

Fellow Jews have criticized him for working with Svoboda. “Some asked me if instead of ‘Shalom’ they should now greet me with a ‘Sieg heil.’ I simply find it laughable,” he said. But he does have frustrations related to being an outsider. “Sometimes I tell myself, ‘What are you doing? This is not your army. This isn’t even your country.’”

He recalls feeling this way during one of the fiercest battles he experienced, which took place last week at Institutskaya Street and left 12 protesters dead. “The snipers began firing rubber bullets at us. I fired back from my rubber-bullet rifle,” Delta said.

“Then they opened live rounds, and my friend caught a bullet in his leg. They shot at us like at a firing range. I wasn’t ready for a last stand. I carried my friend and ordered my troops to fall back. They’re scared kids. I gave them some cash for phone calls and told them to take off their uniform and run away until further instructions. I didn’t want to see anyone else die that day.”

Currently, the Blue Helmets are carrying out police work that include patrols and preventing looting and vandalism in a city of 3 million struggling to climb out of the chaos that engulfed it for the past three months.

But Delta has another, more ambitious, project: He and Azman are organizing the airborne evacuation of seriously wounded protesters — none of them Jewish — for critical operations in Israel. One of the patients, a 19-year-old woman, was wounded at Institutskaya by a bullet that penetrated her eye and is lodged inside her brain, according to Delta. Azman says he hopes the plane of 17 patients will take off next week, with funding from private donors and with help from Ukraine’s ambassador to Israel.

“The doctor told me that another millimeter to either direction and she would be dead,” Delta said. “And I told him it was the work of Hakadosh Baruch Hu.” – SOURCE

Can you see any scenario in which Nazis and Jews would have survived the past century without each other?

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH GOVERNMENT OR OTHER SOCIOPATHIC CRIME SYNDICATE HATES YOUR GUTS FOR READING OUR TYPE OF STUFF, THEY’RE PROBABLY IN SOME EPSTEIN OR MAXWELL BOOKS AND PICS.
SEE DETAILS / ORDER

The people saving us today from Covid and economic collapse also “saved” millions from being born or dying of natural causes.

Remember when Kissinger called Luke Rudkowski “a sick person”? Here’s what that was all about:

The origins of the Commission are traced to a concern with the consequences of U.S. population growth on the part of such key individuals as John D. Rockefeller 3rd and Paul Ehrlich. Because the Commission was a statutory creation of Congress, its membership included 4 Congressmen in addition to 20 distinguished citizens representing a spectrum of groups and views. The evaluation of the consequences of growth, as opposed to the means of reducing fertility, became the major concern of the research effort. Several issues led to differences within the Commission: 1) A narrow versus a broad definition of the scope of the report; 2) differing perceptions of the population problem as manifested by the ecological view, the “unwanted fertility” school, and the social justice view. The social science work contracted by the Commission had a significant impact on the final report’s substance: 1) the demographic work on population projections was crucial to the analysis of the consequences of growth; 2) evaluating the demographic capability of national “growth center strategy” had an influence; and 3) the need to eliminate unwanted fertility was confirmed as a necessary priority. The basic thrust of the Commission’s report was to recomment slowing growth in order to maximize the quality of life.

C F Westoff, “The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future: its origins, operations, and aftermath“, 1973

A History of NSSM 200: Key People and Events that Led to the Development and Implementation of NSSM-200

SOURCE

In some ways, the history of NSSM-200 is just a restatement of the history of the world over the course of 250 years or so.  With so much information having a bearing on the subject, we can do no more than plant some sign posts for the reader to use in doing their own research.  It should be noted that this ‘history’ often reflects points of interest that the advocates for population control themselves indicate.  In fact, in order to generate some of the most pertinent details of this timeline, we merely started with the writings of the population control advocates themselves, noted the individuals and events that they stated were formative, and worked backwards through time.   Darwin quoted Malthus, the eugenicists cited Darwin, the population control advocates invoked the eugenicists, and so on

———–

Malthus

Darwin — quoting Malthus

Eugenicists — quoting Darwin

World War 1 —  Germany in particular saw the conflict as the fitness of one culture prevailing against another.  (Until they lost!)

Period between WW1 and WW2 —  a full on push for eugenics starts winding down.  Eugenicists begin switching their emphasis to ‘population’ studies

Margaret Sanger … The Pivot of Civilization

Guy Irving Burch … A staunch eugenicist, Burch founded the Population Reference Bureau in 1929 and was widely consulted on ‘population matters.’  His book, Human Breeding and Survival (also published as Population Roads to Peace or War – 1945)  cites Malthus approvingly and was well regarded by other ‘founders’ of the population control movement, namely William Vogt.  His eugenic perspective and belief that birth control, population control, and evolutionary principles go hand in hand are on display in the following passage from PRPoW, pages 73-4:

There is one tremendous value of birth control knowledge which deserves special emphasis when it is widespread instead of a class privilege.  Where contraceptive knowledge has been democratized and has reached all economic and social levels of the population the most responsible and intelligent parents have the largest families. […]

Drs. Huntington, Whitney, and Phillips have found the same trend in their studies of Harvard and Yale graduates; and Dr. Thompson found similar evidence in his studies of the fertility of Negroes in our Northern cities.  The most successful parents had the largest families.  Here we find an intelligent and peaceful substitute for the bloody and destructive laws of the jungle which can make possible the continued evolution of human life.  This is, indeed, a Vital Revolution.  References for most of these studies may be found in Dr. Warren S. Thompson’s book, Population Problems, 1935, pp. 386-387.

World War 2 — Nazis enthusiastically apply eugenics principles, albeit filtered through a nationalistic prism.

Immediately after World War 2 — overt eugenics falls completely out of favor.  They turn to ‘crypto-eugenics’, explicitly turning the direction of their efforts to the most ‘politically acceptable’ alternatives that were consistent with eugenics principles:  family planning and population control.

Fairfield Osborn

Fairfield Osborn had already spent decades in the eugenics movement before pivoting to population control advocacy, presiding, for example, over the 1921 International Eugenics Congress.  His book Our Plundered Planet is frequently mentioned by population control advocates in the decades following its publication in 1948.   Fairfield Osborn was the uncle of Frederick Osborn, a president of the American Eugenics Society and the Population Council.  In Our Plundered Planet, on page 204, Osborn thanks William Vogt for “his philosophical approach to the problem”, which is to say, he acknowledges that there is an ideological underpinning to the whole population control mindset (which he shares), and on pgs 205-206, he thanks Guy Irving Burch for providing “information regarding human populations”.  One should begin to get the impression that eugenicists, birth control advocates, and population control agitators are all peas in the same pod.

William Vogt

Vogt was the National Director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 1951 to 1962.  His 1948 book, Road to Survival, was extremely influential.  Given his prominent station at Planned Parenthood for such a long period of time, and in particular dovetailing into the 1960s, when the ‘population crisis’ was a veritable froth, it is absurd to believe that he did not imprint his population control mentality on that organization.  On page 146 of his book, he uses the sub-heading “Too Many Americans.”  This may have been the inspiration for Lincoln and Alice Day’s title of their book by that very name (see below).  Vogt is a good illustration of the historical fact that there was direct continuity and perfect compatibility between ‘birth control’ advocates and population control activists and the eugenics movement itself.

His book lists Guy Irving Burch first in his entire list of references, saying that he was “indebted” to him, saying:  “Foremost among these are […] Guy Irving Burch, who not only granted permission to quote from Human Breeding and Survival (originally published as Population Roads to Peace or War), of which he is co-author, but who has also been extraordinarily helpful with advice, bibliographic suggestions, and critical discussion.”

Not coincidentally–and again, illustrating a continuity within the ideology, Vogt mentions Malthus approvingly.

Vogt’s book is introduced by Bernard Baruch, a wealthy and influential progressive, involved in making the Federal Reserve a reality, and supporting the United Daughters of the Confederacy (which may be of particular interest to modern readers who intone a one to one correspondence between racism and the Confederate flag).

Population Control imposed on the Japanese people by the United States

1950s — Eugenicists-now-turned-population-control-advocates consolidate their change of emphasis, eschewing ‘eugenics’ per se, and focusing on genetic counseling (hereditary clinics) and calling attention to ‘over-population.’

Charles Francis Darwin

Harrison Brown

“Among the more important books designed to be read by the general public are:  Our Plundered Planet by Fairfield Osborn, The Road to Survival by William Vogt,”

Grounds his arguments extensively on Evolution.  Explicit eugenicist.

Cites Charles Galton Darwin at length, approvingly.

Cites Malthus approvingly.

Frederick Osborn

Frederick Osborn was a propaganda officer during World War 2.  After the war, he first focused on advocating for eugenics, serving as the president of the American Eugenics Society.  The AES found their work to be difficult in a post-Holocaust era.  He advocated for ‘crypto-eugenics,‘ for example calling for the establishment of heredity clinics and the ‘genetic counseling’ profession to persuade people to make eugenic decisions without knowing they were doing so.  He called this ‘voluntary unconscious selection.’  Later, he served as the president of the Population Council, succeeded by Bernard Berelson (who is more directly implicated in NSSM-200).   He never stopped thinking in eugenic terms, but, like the expert propagandist that he was, was always ready to bend and twist as circumstances warranted it.  Guy Irving Burch cited him approvingly in his PRPoW in reference to linking birth control to population control:  “one of the latest and most authoritative books on the subject of population [… Preface to Eugenics … by Frederick Osborn, says] the control of births can–if we will–be used to further all efforts to improve the conditions of human life.”

It may be wondered why abortion was not more frequently listed as a eugenic or population control measure, but this is not strictly true.  It was a political hot potato and contemplating its use in these ways was only useful in theory to them, because it was not yet legal throughout the United States.  A telling quote by Frederick Osborn testifies to the ‘crypto-eugenic’ path that the eugenicists took after WW2 as well as the recognition that abortion (and birth control, of course) had ‘eugenic effects’:

“The name [of their eugenics journal] was changed because it became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption. Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time. If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance.”

H.J. Muller

Julian Huxley

1960s — Population Control advocates are firmly entrenched in public positions, but lack the political support to enact their proposals.   Wealthy adherents launch numerous advertising campaigns to win over the public.

Hugh Moore — (see:  Lawrence Lader — Breeding Ourselves to Death)

Lincoln and Alice Day — Too Many Americans

Paul Ehrlich — The Population Bomb

Bernard Berelson — President of the Population Council (replacing Frederick Osborn)

Frank Jaffe — Vice-President of Population for Planned Parenthood

Richard Nixon — in 1969 calls for a national population policy and directs money to be spent for that purpose (eg, Title X, in 1970)

1970s

Nixon commissions the Rockefeller Commission on Population in 1972, but does not implement its findings

Nixon orders Kissinger to study how ‘over-population’ in “developing countries” threatens the U.S.  Kissinger’s highly classified report is turned in December of 1974

Nixon is impeached.

Gerald Ford signs an executive order implementing NSSM-200.

The Global 2000 Report under Jimmy Carter is released in 1979.  The report accepts every premise of the population control advocates.  Noteworthy participants include John Holdren (at present, the chief ‘science’ officer in the Obama Administration.

1980s

Ronald Reagan, in the so-called “Mexico City” policy, forbids the use of taxpayer dollars to fund any international program that promotes or finances abortions… population control advocates have a royal conniption that lasts to this very day.  Evidently, without abortion on demand, they feel they can do very little to achieve their goals.

1990s

George H. Bush re-implements the Mexico City policy.

Bill Clinton reverses the Mexico City policy.

NSSM-200 is declassified as the result of a Freedom of Information Request, which itself was spawned by suspicions overseas that certain programs were in fact population control programs.

2000s

George W. Bush reinstates the Mexico City policy.

Barack Obama revokes the Mexico City policy.

Population
and the American Future

The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future

March 27, 1972

To the President and Congress of the United States:

I have the honor to transmit for your consideration the Final Report, containing the findings and recommendations, of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, pursuant to Sec. 8, PL 91-213.

After two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population, rather that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems. We have looked for, and have not found, any convincing economic argument for continued population growth. The health of our country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person.

The recommendations offered by this Commission are directed towards increasing public knowledge of the causes and consequences of population change, facilitating and guiding the processes of population movement, maximizing information about human reproduction and its consequences for the family, and enabling individuals to avoid unwanted fertility.

To these ends we offer this report in the hope that our findings and recommendations will stimulate serious consideration of an issue that is of great consequence to present and future generations.

Respectfully submitted for the Commission,

John D. Rockefeller 3rd

Chairman

The President

The President of the Senate

The Speaker of the House of Representatives

The Commission

Chairman

John D. Rockefeller 3rd

Vice Chairman

Grace Olivarez

Executive Director

Food for All, Inc.

Vice Chairman

Christian N. Ramsey, Jr., M.D.

President

The Institute for the Study of Health and Society

Joseph D. Beasley, M.D.

The Edward Wisner Professor of Public Health

Tulane University Medical Center

David E. Bell

Executive Vice President

The Ford Foundation

Bernard Berelson

President

The Population Council

Arnita Young Boswell

Associate Field Work Professor

School of Social Service Administration

University of Chicago

Margaret Bright

Professor

Dept. of Behavioral Sciences and Dept. of Epidemiology

School of Hygiene and Public Health

The Johns Hopkins University

Marilyn Brant Chandler

Housewife, Volunteer, Student

Paul B. Cornely, M.D.

Professor

Dept. of Community Health Practice, College of Medicine

Howard University

Assistant to the Executive Medical Officer

Welfare and Retirement Fund United Mine Workers of America

Alan Cranston

United States Senator

California

Lawrence A. Davis

President

Arkansas Agricultural, Mechanical & Normal College

Otis Dudley Duncan

Professor of Sociology

University of Michigan

John N. Erlenbom

United States Representative

14th C. District of Illinois

Joan F. Flint

Housewife, Volunteer

R. V. Hansberger

Chairman and President

Boise Cascade Corporation

D. Gale Johnson

Chairman

Department of Economics

University of Chicago

John R. Meyer

President

National Bureau of Economic Research

Professor of Economics Yale University

Bob Packwood

United States Senator

Oregon

James S. Rummonds

Student

Stanford School of Law

Stephen L. Salyer

Student

Davidson College

Howard D. Samuel

Vice President

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

James H. Scheuer

United States Representative

22nd C. District of New York

George D. Woods

Director and Consultant

The First Boston Corporation

This report represents the official views of the Commission, particularly as to the listed recommendations. Clearly, in the case of a Commission with such diverse membership, not every Commissioner subscribes in detail to every suggestion or statement of policy.

[…]

Because he deepened our conviction that each individual has a unique contribution to make to the dignity and worth of all mankind, the Commission and staff dedicate this report to the memory of our colleague, staff member, and friend.
Ritchie H. Reed

1941-1971

Preface

For the first time in the history of our country, the President and the Congress have established a Commission to examine the growth of our population and the impact it will have upon the American future. In proposing this Commission in July 1969, President Nixon said: “One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today.” The Commission was asked to examine the probable extent of population growth and internal migration in the United States between now and the end of this century, to assess the impact that population change will have upon government services, our economy, and our resources and environment, and to make recommendations on how the nation can best cope with that impact.

In our Interim Report a year ago, the Commission defined the scope of our mandate: “. . . to formulate policy for the future”— policy designed to deal with “the pervasive impact of population growth on every facet of American life.” We said that population growth of the magnitude we have experienced since World War II has multiplied and intensified many of our domestic problems and made their solution more difficult. We called upon the American people to begin considering the meaning and consequences of population growth and internal migration and the desirability of formulating a national policy on the question.

Since then, the Commission and staff have conducted an extensive inquiry. We have enlisted many of the nation’s leading scientists in more than 100 research projects. We have heard from more than 100 witnesses in public hearings across the country and have met with experts in many days of executive meetings. And we are aware that population has become an active subject of consideration in a number of states in our country concerned about their future. We have come to recognize that the racial and ethnic diversity of this Commission gives us confidence that our recommendations—the consensus of our members—do indeed point the way in which this nation should move in solving its problems. Because of the importance of this matter, the Commission recommends that future federal commissions include a substantial representation of minorities, youth, poor citizens, and women among their members, including congressional representatives, and the commission staffs and consultants include significant numbers of minorities, youth, and women.

We offer this report in the hope that our viewpoints and recommendations will stimulate serious consideration and response by the citizens of this nation and of nations throughout the world to an issue of great consequence to present and future generations.

Chapter 1: Perspective on Population

In the brief history of this nation, we have always assumed that progress and “the good life” are connected with population growth. In fact, population growth has frequently been regarded as a measure of our progress. If that were ever the case, it is not now. There is hardly any social problem confronting this nation whose solution would be easier if our population were larger. Even now, the dreams of too many Americans are not being realized; others are being fulfilled at too high a cost. Accordingly, this Commission has concluded that our country can no longer afford the uncritical acceptance of the population growth ethic that “more is better.” And beyond that, after two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that no substantial benefits would result from continued growth of the nation’s population.

The “population problem” is long run and requires long-run responses. It is not a simple problem. It cannot be encompassed by the slogans of either of the prevalent extremes: the “more” or the “bigger the better” attitude on the one hand, or the emergency-crisis response on the other. Neither extreme is accurate nor even helpful.

It is a problem which can be interpreted in many ways. It is the pressure of population reaching out to occupy open spaces and bringing with it a deterioration of the environment. It can be viewed as the effect on natural resources of increased numbers of people in search of a higher standard of living. It is the impact of population fluctuations in both growth and distribution upon the orderly provision of public services. It can be seen as the concentration of people in metropolitan areas and depopulation elsewhere, with all that implies for the quality of life in both places. It is the instability over time of proportions of the young, the elderly, and the productive. For the family and the individual, it is the control over one’s life with respect to the reproduction of new life—the formal and informal pronatalist pressures of an outmoded tradition, and the disadvantages of and to the children involved.

Unlike other great public issues in the United States, population lacks the dramatic event—the war, the riot, the calamity—that galvanizes attention and action. It is easily overlooked and neglected. Yet the number of children born now will seriously affect our lives in future decades. This produces a powerful effect in a double sense: Its fluctuations can be strong and not easily changed; and its consequences are important for the welfare of future generations.

There is scarcely a facet of American life that is not involved with the rise and fall of our birth and death rates: the economy, environment, education, health, family life and sexual practices, urban and rural life, governmental effectiveness and political freedoms, religious norms, and secular life styles. If this country is in a crisis of spirit—environmental deterioration, racial antagonisms, the plight of the cities, the international situation—then population is part of that crisis.

Although population change touches all of these areas of our national life and intensifies our problems, such problems will not be solved by demographic means alone. Population policy is no substitute for social, economic, and environmental policy. Successfully addressing population requires that we also address our problems of poverty, of minority and sex discrimination, of careless exploitation of resources, of environmental deterioration, and of spreading suburbs, decaying cities, and wasted countrysides. By the same token, because population is so tightly interwoven with all of these concerns, whatever success we have in resolving these problems will contribute to easing the complex system of pressures that impel population growth.

Consideration of the population issue raises profound questions of what people want, what they need—indeed, what they are for. What does this nation stand for and where is it going? At some point in the future, the finite earth will not satisfactorily accommodate more human beings—nor will the United States. How is a judgment to be made about when that point will be reached? Our answer is that now is the time to confront the question: “Why more people?” The answer must be given, we believe, in qualitative not quantitative terms.

The United States today is characterized by low population density, considerable open space, a declining birthrate, movement out of the central cities—but that does not eliminate the concern about population. This country, or any country, always has a “population problem,” in the sense of achieving a proper balance between size, growth, and distribution on the one hand, and, on the other, the quality of life to which every person in this country aspires.

Nor is this country alone in the world, demographically or in any other way. Many other nations are beginning to recognize the importance of population questions. We need to act prudently, understanding that today’s decisions on population have effects for generations ahead. Similarly, we need to act responsibly toward other people in the world: This country’s needs and wants, given its wealth, may impinge upon the patrimony of other, less fortunate peoples in the decades ahead. The “population problem” of the developing countries may be more pressing at this time, but in the longer perspective, it is both proper and in our best interest to participate fully in the worldwide search for the good life, which must include the eventual stabilization of our numbers.

A Diversity of Views

Ultimately, then, we are concerned not with demographic trends alone, but with the effect of these trends on the realization of the values and goals cherished as part of the American tradition and sought after by minorities who also “want in.”

One of the basic themes underlying our analysis and policy recommendations is the substitution of quality for quantity; that is, we should concern ourselves with improving the quality of life for all Americans rather than merely adding more Americans. And unfortunately, for many of our citizens that quality of life is still defined only as enough food, clothing, and shelter. All human beings need a sense of their own dignity and worth, a sense of belonging and sharing, and the opportunity to develop their individual potentialities.

But it is far easier to achieve agreement on abstract values than on their meaning or on the strategy to achieve them. Like the American people generally, this Commission has not been able to reach full agreement on the relative importance of different values or on the analysis of how the “population problem” reflects other conditions and directions of American society.

Three distinct though overlapping approaches have been distinguished. These views differ in their analysis of the nature of the problem and the general priorities of tasks to be accomplished. But, despite the different perspectives from which population is viewed, all of the population policies we shall recommend are consistent with all three positions.

The first perspective acknowledges the benefits to be gained by slowing growth, but regards our population problem today primarily as a result of large numbers of people being unable to control an important part of their lives—the number of children they have. The persistence of this problem reflects an effective denial of freedom of choice and equality of access to the means of fertility control. In this view, the population problem is regarded more as the sum of such individual problems than as a societal problem transcending the interests of individuals; the welfare of individuals and that of the general society are seen as congruent, at least at this point in history. The potential conflict between these two levels is mitigated by the knowledge that freedom from unwanted childbearing would contribute significantly to the stabilization of population.

Reproductive decisions should be freely made in a social context without pronatalist pressures—the heritage of a past when the survival of societies with high mortality required high fertility. The proper mission for government in this matter is to ensure the fullest opportunity for people to decide their own future in this regard, based on the best available knowledge; then the demographic outcome becomes the democratic solution.

Beyond these goals, this approach depends on the processes of education, research, and national debate to illuminate the existence of any serious population “problem” that transcends individual welfare. The aim would be to achieve the best collective decisiOn about population issues based on knowledge of the tradeoffs between demographic choices and the “quality of life,” however defined. This position ultimately seeks optimize the individual and the collective decisions and then accepts the aggregate outcome—with the understanding that the situation will be reconsidered from time to time.

The second view does not deny the need for education and knowledge, but stresses the crucial gaps between what we claim as national values and the reality experienced by certain groups in our society. Many of the traditional American values, such as freedom and justice, are not yet experienced by some minorities. Racial discrimination continues to mean that equal access to opportunities afforded those in the mainstream of American society is denied to millions of people. Overt and subtle discrimination against women has meant undue pressure toward childbearing and child-rearing. Equality is denied when inadequate income, education, or racial and sexual stereotypes persist, and shape available options. Freedom is denied when governmental steps are not taken to assure the fullest possible access to methods of controlling reproduction or to educational, job, and residential opportunities. In addition, the freedom of future generations may be compromised by a denial of freedom to the present generation. Finally, extending freedom and equality—which is nothing more than making the American system live up to its stated values—would go far beyond affecting the growth rate. Full equality both for women and ‘for racial minorities is a value in its own right. In this view, the “population problem” is seen as only one facet, and not even a major one, of the restriction of full opportunity in American life.

The third position deals with the population problem in an ecological framework, one whose primary axiom asserts the functional interdependence of man and his environment. It calls for a far more fundamental shift in the operative values of modern society. The need for more education and knowledge and the need to eliminate poverty and racism are important, but not enough. For the population problem, and the growth ethic with which it is intimately connected, reflect deeper external conditions and more fundamental political, economic, and philosophical values. Consequently, to improve the quality of our existence while slowing growth, will require nothing less than a basic recasting of American values.

The numbers of people and the material conditions of human existence are limited by the external environment. Human life, like all forms of life on earth, is supported by intricate ecological systems that are limited in their ability to adapt to and tolerate changing conditions. Human culture, particularly science and technology, has given man an extraordinary power to alter and manipulate his environment. At the same time, he has also achieved the capacity virtually to destroy life on earth. Sadly, in the rush to produce, consume, and discard, he has too often chosen to plunder and destroy rather than to conserve and create. Not only have the land, air, and water, the flora and fauna suffered, but also the individual, the family, and the human community.

This position holds that the present pattern of urban industrial organization, far from promoting the realization of the individual as a uniquely valuable experience, serves primarily to perpetuate its own values. Mass urban industrialism is based on science and technology, efficiency, acquisition, and domination through rationality. The exercise of these same values now contains the potential for the destruction of our humanity. Man is losing that balance with nature which is an essential condition of human existence. With that loss has come a loss of harmony with other human beings. The population problem is a concrete symptom of this change, and a fundamental cause of present human conditions.

It is comfortable to believe that changes in values or in the political system are unnecessary, and that measures such as population education and better fertility control information and services will solve our population problem. They will not, however, for such solutions do not go to the heart of man’s relationship with nature, himself, and society. According to this view, nothing less than a different set of values toward nature, the transcendence of a laissez-faire market system, a redefinition of human identity in terms other than consumerism, and a radical change if not abandonment of the growth ethic, will suffice. A new vision is needed—a vision that recognizes man’s unity with nature, that transcends a simple economic definition of man’s identity, and that seeks to promote the realization of the highest potential of our individual humanity.

The Immediate Goal

These three views reflect different evaluations of the nature of the population problem, different assessments of the viability of the American political process, and different perceptions of the critical values at stake.

Given the diversity of goals to be addressed and the manifold ramifications of population change throughout society, how are specific population policies to be selected?

As a Commission and as a people, we need not agree on all the priorities if we can identify acceptable policies that speak in greater or lesser degree to all of them. By and large, in our judgment, the policy findings and recommendations of this Report meet that requirement. Whatever the primary needs of our society, the policies recommended here all lead in right directions for this nation, and generally at low costs.*

Our immediate goal is to modernize demographic behavior in this country: to encourage the American people to make population choices, both in the individual family and society at large, on the basis of greater rationality rather than tradition or custom, ignorance or chance. This country has already moved some distance down this road; it should now complete the journey. The time has come to challenge the tradition that population growth is desirable: What was unintended may turn out to be unwanted, in the society as in the family.

In any case, more rational attitudes are now forced upon us by the revolutionary increase in average length of life within the past century, which has placed modern man in a completely different, historically unique, demographic situation. The social institutions and customs that have shaped reproductive behavior in the past are no longer appropriate in the modern world, and need reshaping to suit the new situation. Moreover, the instruments of population policy are now more readily available—fuller knowledge of demographic impacts, better information on demographic trends, improved means by which individuals may control their own fertility.

As a Commission, we have come to appreciate the delicate complexities of the subject and the difficulty, even the impossibility, of solving the problem, however defined, in its entirety and all at once. But this is certainly the time to begin: The 1970’s may not be simply another decade in the demographic transition but a critical one, involving changes in family life and the role of women, dynamics of the metropolitan process, the depopulation of rural areas, the movement and the needs of disadvantaged minorities, the era of the young adults produced by the baby boom, and the attendant question of what their own fertility will be—baby boom or baby bust.

Finally, we agree that population policy goals must be sought in full consonance with the fundamental values of American life: respect for human freedom, human dignity, and individual fulfillment; and concern for social justice and social welfare. To “solve” population problems at the cost of such values would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed. The issues are ethical in character, and their proper solution requires a deep sense of moral responsibility on the part of both the individual family and the national community: the former in considering another birth, the latter in considering appropriate policies to guide population growth into the American future.

A separate statement by Commissioner James S. Rummonds appears on page 164.

For our part, it is enough to make population, and all that it means, explicit on the national agenda, to signal its impact on our national life, to sort out the issues, and to propose how to start toward a better state of affairs. By its very nature, population is a continuing concern and should receive continuing attention. Later generations, and later commissions, will be able to see the right path further into the future. In any case, no generation needs to know the ultimate goal or the final means, only the direction in which they will be found.

Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future

RICHARD NIXON

37th President of the United States: 1969 ‐ 1974

May 05, 1972.
SOURCE

THE Commission on Population Growth and the American Future has formally presented its report to me today, thus completing its 2 years of work.

The men and women on this panel have performed a valuable public service in identifying and examining a wide range of problems related to population, and have contributed to an emerging debate of great significance to the future of our Nation.

I wish to thank the able and energetic Chairman of the Commission, Mr. John D. Rockefeller 3d, for his tireless efforts, not only on this Commission but in other capacities, to focus the Nation’s attention on these important issues.

The extensive public discussion already generated by this report clearly indicates the need to continue research in areas touching on population growth and distribution.

While I do not plan to comment extensively on the contents and recommendations of the report, I do feel that it is important that the public know my views on some of the issues raised.

In particular, I want to reaffirm and reemphasize that I do not support unrestricted abortion policies. As I stated on April 3, 1971, when I revised abortion policies in military hospitals, I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. In my judgment, unrestricted abortion policies would demean human life. I also want to make it clear that I do not support the unrestricted distribution of family planning services and devices to minors. Such measures would do nothing to preserve and strengthen close family relationships.

I have a basic faith that the American people themselves will make sound judgments regarding family size and frequency of births, judgments that are conducive both to the public interest and to personal family goals–and I believe in the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves.

While disagreeing with the general thrust of some of the Commission’s recommendations, I wish to extend my thanks to the members of the Commission for their work and for having assembled much valuable information.

The findings and conclusions of the Commission should be of great value in assisting governments at all levels to formulate policy. At the Federal level, through our recent reorganization of the Executive Office of the President, we have the means through the Domestic Council and the Office of Management and Budget to follow up on the Commission’s report. The recommendations of the Commission will be taken into account as we formulate our national growth and population research policies, and our agency budgets through these processes for the years ahead.

Many of the questions raised by the report cannot be answered purely on the basis of fact, but rather involve moral judgments about which reasonable men will disagree. I hope that the discussions ahead will be informed ones, so that we all will be better able to face these questions relating to population in full knowledge of the consequences of our decisions.

Note: The report is entitled “Population and the American Future” (Government Printing Office, 186 pp.).

Commission Chairman John D. Rockefeller 3d and members Graciela Gil Olivares and Christian N. Ramsey, Jr., met with the President at the White House to present the report.

Richard Nixon, Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/254752

Gerald Ford Directive to Implement NSSM-200, Memo NSDM 314

Brian Clowes of Human Life International on NSSM 200

There are surprisingly few people who have tried to research the extent to which NSSM 200 is official US Government policy to this date.  One example is Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International.

You can download his full report, here:  Kissinger-Report-A-Retrospective-on-NSSM-200

Original Source

 

NSSM 200 and the world population explosion

The Journal of social, political, and economic studies, Spring 1995

S D Mumford

Abstract

This paper was published in the wake of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical ‘Evangelicum Vitae’, which condemns abortion and contraception. The author describes how, in the mid-1970’s, the Vatican blocked the implementation of President Nixon’s ‘National Security Study Memorandum 200’, which was intended to combat global overpopulation. The author explains that excessive population growth is considered threatening to U.S. security interests, and concludes that “papal security-survival along with the influence of fundamentalist Protestant opposition to birth control is now pitted against the U.S. and world security-survival.”

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF NSSM 200
How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy
by Stephen D. Mumford (1996)

INDEX TO CONTENTS

And all that has everything to do with this:

“I HOPE THE DEPOPULATION WILL OCCUR IN A CIVIL AND PEACEFUL WAY” – WEF MASTERMIND AND CLUB OF ROME FOUNDER, IN RESURFACED 2012 INTERVIEW

And this:

BUSTED! GEORGIA GUIDESTONES BUILT ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, A MYSTERY ONLY DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA COVER UP

And probably 90% of everything we’ve ever published.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Dennis Bushnell did it again! NASA’s chief scientist is a true renewable source of juicy quotes and revelations.

What I took out in our headline is but a tiny fraction from a long stream of epic quotes, whether you want to agree with them or ridicule them.

Our regular readers got acquainted with Bushnell in this older report, if not earlier:

SMIRKED AT MY BORG REFERENCES? 2001 NASA FILE PREDICTS THE GREAT RESET AKA THE ASSIMILATION IN SPOOKY DETAILS

I strongly suggest you too start this journey there.

Then, I can’t insist enough for you to watch the whole thing! At times he’s just regurgitating so many libtard tropes it feels like it will never end, but almost every other minute he delivers some surprising admission, argument or revelation that makes you wonder if he’s there to represent the Military BioTech Complex or to whistleblow against it.
And the final Q&A is the icing on the cake!

In addition to being a brilliant scientist, Dennis Bushnell has the advantage of enjoying an eagle’s-eye view of most of the exciting new technologies vying for a place, from under the oceans to low-Earth orbit to the moon, Mars, and deep space. In this discussion, he’ll take a close look at our near-term challenges and the technical solutions he suggests for moving beyond them. –

https://fire.futureinreview.com/
This was lit!

BONUS

This starts slow, but it gets better and better, culminating around min. 37, where he starts ranting again about brainchips and becoming cyborgs. Peak Transhumanism and Great Reset in 2011!

Keynote by Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley on the major issues facing humans & society indicating where water fits in and explicating the water solution spaces and potential silver bullets, including Frontier/ Revolutionary energetics, advanced nano-technology and the use of salt loving plants, Halophytes, for Global Food Production.
BlueTech, Feb 10, 2012

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

We will perish as a species if people don’t immediately come to terms with the fact that our society is a human farm managed by communazi eugenicists, and the population culling is real and habitual.

Dennis Meadows is his name. Look him up, not a secretive guy, more like his own trumpet.

He touches on almost everything we see happening today, from Sri Lanka to The Netherlands and Canada. I’ll comment at the end of this report.

The whole thing recalls this:

“THE QUESTION IS ONLY WHETHER WORLD GOVERNMENT WILL BE ACHIEVED BY CONSENT OR BY CONQUEST” – WARBURG / ROTHSCHILD PROGENITURE IN 1950 US SENATE HEARINGS

Meadows is very appreciated in Germany, unsurprisingly:

‘Limits to Growth’ Author Dennis Meadows‘Humanity Is Still on the Way to Destroying Itself’

Der Spiegel (Germany) 07.12.2012

In 1972, environmental guru Dennis Meadows predicted in his seminal study “The Limits to Growth” that the world was heading toward an economic collapse. Forty years on, he tells SPIEGEL ONLINE that nothing he has seen since has made him change his mind.

People scavenging at a dump in India: Where are the limits to growth?
People scavenging at a dump in India: Where are the limits to growth? Foto: Daniel Berehulak/ Getty Images

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Professor Meadows, 40 years ago you published “The Limits to Growth” together with your wife and colleagues, a book that made you the intellectual father of the environmental movement. The core message of the book remains valid today: Humanity is ruthlessly exploiting global resources and is on the way to destroying itself. Do you believe that the ultimate collapse of our economic system can still be avoided?

Meadows: The problem that faces our societies is that we have developed industries and policies that were appropriate at a certain moment, but now start to reduce human welfare, like for example the oil and car industry. Their political and financial power is so great and they can prevent change. It is my expectation that they will succeed. This means that we are going to evolve through crisis, not through proactive change.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Several central forecasts you made in the book have come true, the exponential growth of the world’s population, for example, and widespread environmental destruction. Your prediction regarding economic growth, namely that it would ultimately cease and the global economy would collapse, has not yet come to pass.

Meadows: The fact that the collapse hasn’t occurred so far doesn’t mean it won’t take place in the future. There is no doubt that the world is changing, and we will have to go along with it. There are two ways to do that: One is, you see the necessity of change ahead of time and you make the change, and the second is that you don’t and are finally forced to do it anyway. Let’s say that you’re driving a car inside a factory building. There are two ways to stop: Either you put on the brakes or you keep going and hit the wall. But stop you will, because the building is finite. And the same holds true for Earth’s resources.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: That sounds convincing, but is it really true? Will not private companies react to dwindling resources with innovation in an effort to maintain profitability?

Meadows: The really big changes don’t come from inside of established industries. Who made the iPhone? Not Nokia, not Motorola, nor any of the other established mobile phone producers. It came from Apple, totally outside the industry. There are many other examples of this kind.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about in areas that are under state control or regulation?

Meadows: That’s even worse. Our history with fishing shows that we are destroying the oceans’ ecosystems, for example. And we’re using our atmosphere as a free industrial waste dump. Nobody has an incentive to protect them.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is not the desire for humanity’s survival enough of a motivation?

Meadows: You see, there are two kinds of big problems. One I call universal problems, the other I call global problems. They both affect everybody. The difference is: Universal problems can be solved by small groups of people because they don’t have to wait for others. You can clean up the air in Hanover without having to wait for Beijing or Mexico City to do the same. Global problems, however, cannot be solved in a single place. There’s no way Hanover can solve climate change or stop the spread of nuclear weapons. For that to happen, people in China, the US and Russia must also do something. But on the global problems, we will make no progress.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are you not underestimating people and the reaction when our backs are to the wall? Australian businessman and environmentalist Paul Gilding, for example, argues in his book “The Great Disruption” that while a crisis is coming, humanity will mobilize to fight it as seen during times of war.

Meadows: He is right. But will it succeed? It could, if the delays were very short. But unfortunately, they are not. In climate change, for example, the delays are very long. Even if we were to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to zero today, warming would still continue for centuries. The same is true for soil, which we are destroying globally. Recovery can take centuries.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Surely technological innovation has served to reduce the impact of some long-term problems. Since your book appeared four decades ago, for example, modern medicine has increased life expectancy and reduced infant mortality rates. New technologies have dramatically increased harvests and computers and the Internet have brought the world closer together and improved access to education.

Meadows: Technology doesn’t invent itself. These achievements were the results of decades of hard work, and someone has to pay for these programs. One big source of money is the military. Another is corporations, and they are not motivated to solve global problems, they’re motivated to make money. The drug companies in the United States spend more money on hair-loss prevention than on preventing HIV infections. Why? Because rich people go bald and poor people get HIV.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But imagine the profits that would accrue to the inventor of a new, clean and limitless source of energy.

Meadows: I hope you’re not talking about fusion, because that’s bullshit. I think we will discover a major new energy source. But afterwards, it would take decades for it to make an impact. Even if there was no resistance, even if there were no environmental impacts and even if it wouldn’t make a lot of people bankrupt — still it would take a long time. So if someone tells you that technology is going to save us just like that, he does not know how technology is developed.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about resources. Past forecasts predicted that there would be hardly any oil left by 2012, but there still seems to be plenty available. Recent estimates even show that the US might soon produce more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Meadows: That may very well be. But the oil reserves we are talking about are scarce and very expensive to exploit. And they, too, will be depleted one day. And then we have a problem. Here’s an example: I have a neighbor, she’s rich. Her electric bill is, let’s say, 1 percent of her income. Then comes Hurricane Sandy, and suddenly she had no electricity in her house. Does her quality of life go down by 1 percent? No! Her food is spoiled; she can’t turn on her lights; she can’t work anymore. It’s a disaster for her. Take a look around. The chair you sit on, the glass windows, the lights — everything is here for one single reason: We enjoy cheap energy.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Let’s assume that you are right and that the collapse will arrive in this century. What will it look like?

Meadows: It will look different in different places. Some countries are already collapsing, and some people won’t even notice. There are almost a billion people who are starving to death these days, and people here basically aren’t noticing. And there is the issue of speed: The difference between a decline and a collapse is speed. The rich can buy their way out of a lot of things. The end of fossil energy, for example, will be gradual. But climate change will come to the industrial countries no matter what. And the geological record clearly shows that the global temperature doesn’t increase in a linear way. It jumps. If that happens, a collapse will occur. But it would be nothing new, of course. Societies rise and fall. They have been doing so for 300,000 years. 

Interview conducted by Markus Becker

“The original Limits To Growth (LTG) study published in 1972 1 , the “Report for The Club of Rome‘s Project on the Predicament of Mankind”, insistently urged humanity to act. Its vivid and almost haunting description of the consequences of exponential growth which is confronted with finite resources, is still as perspicuous as it was back then: continuous economic and demographical growth will hit the limits of naturally provided resources and very likely lead to overshoot, collapse, and radical decrease of most people’s standard of living, accompanied by international crises, conflicts and catastrophes. The study was supported by the German Volkswagen Foundation”

– Volkswagen Foundation

WolksWagen, you know, Hitler’s cars…

Here’s a presentation he did for The Smithsonian in 2012, important to view because he makes some points about assumptions and limits of growth, almost outing his own scam.

“Dennis Meadows was appointed to the MIT faculty in 1969. In 1970 he assembled a team of 16 scientists to conduct a two-year, computer-model based study on the long-term causes and consequences of physical growth on the planet Earth. That project was funded by the Club of Rome and lead to 3 reports, one of which, The Limits to Growth, was presented for the first time to the public in the Smithsonian Institution Castle in March 1972. The book was eventually translated into about 35 languages, and it was selected as one of the most influential environmental books of the 20th century. He worked subsequently with Jørgen Randers and with Donella Meadows, senior author of Limits to Growth, to produce a second edition in 1994 and a third edition in 2004. Before becoming Professor Emeritus of Policy Systems in 2004, Dennis Meadows was a professor for 35 years at MIT, Dartmouth College, and the University of New Hampshire earning tenure in schools of engineering, management, and the social sciences. He has received numerous honorary doctorates in the US and Europe for his contributions to environmental education. His many awards include the 2009 Japan Prize. He has co-authored 10 books and designed numerous computer-based strategic planning games that are used in many nations to teach principles of sustainable resource use. He remains very active, especially in Europe and Japan, speaking, writing, and advising corporate and government leaders on issues related to growth.” – The Smithsonian

MIT as in…

COMPUTER MODELS? MIT HAS ONE THAT PREDICTED SOCIETAL COLLAPSE STARTING 2020

Btw, after a lengthy whole media-tour by Meadows in 2012 this happened:

IN 2013, A MILITARY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION PREDICTED A MASSIVE GLOBAL DEPOPULATION (50-80%) BY 2025 [UPDATED 2021]

That’s just an anecdotal association I made above, to contribute the huge web of connections and influences that observably radiate from this massive con artist. But my anecdotes prove more factual than their news, over time.
It’s incredible how easy it is to bullshit the rich inbred bullshitters in politics and above!

You can also observe that our owners cranked up the insanity after 2012. He sounds more like a press secretary at a press conference on societal collapse, but he’s definitely to blame for providing the elites with these propaganda concept. I bet many elites started to consume from their propaganda stash, the dumbing down trickles up eventually.

And almost all these expert brainfarts are just gas. Gases and mirrors.

I should’ve have made a separate article about what’s wrong with the “Infinite growth on a finite planet” scam, but, instead, I just dumped the concept in the trunk of this report

HUGE! OIL MOGUL JUST ADMITTED OIL IS NEITHER FOSSIL OR SCARCE. NOT EVEN FINITE


And I don’t mean the nature of oil, but the nature of energy. It’s all in the link above, in one little red pill. I could make a book out of it, but if you won’t read and spread that thing, you surely won’t buy the book.

Btw, don’t ever spend a dime on this scumbag! Let me help:

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

They outed themselves and the implications are huge!

So a district attorney just came up and accused the Georgia Guidestones demolition man of terrorist acts against public property!

Which means local authorities issued permits for this, to say the least.

As per Elbert County Chamber official website, they approved the erection on public domain of a monument listing a bunch of “conspiracies” that would put you on FBI’s watchlist:

–Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
Means the entire human race at its climax level for permanent balance with nature.
–Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
Without going into details as yet undiscovered, this means humanity should apply reason and knowledge to guiding its own reproduction. Fitness could be translated as health. Diversity could be translated as variety.
–Unite humanity with a living new language.
A living language grows and changes with advancing knowledge. A new language will be developed de novo – and need not necessarily be adapted from any languages now in existence.
–Rule Passion-Faith-Tradition-and all things with tempered reason.
Faith here may be used in a religious sense. Too often people are ruled by blind faith even when it may be contrary to reason. Reason must be tempered with compassion here – but must prevail.
–Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
Courts must consider justice as well as law.
–Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
Individual nations must be free to develop their own destinies at home as their own people wish – but cannot abuse their neighbors.
–Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
Self-explanatory.
–Balance personal rights with social duties.
Individuals have a natural concern for their personal welfare, but man is a social animal and must also be concerned for the group. Failure of society means failure for its individual citizens.
–Prize truth-beauty-love-seeking harmony with the infinite.
The infinite here means the supreme being – whose will is manifest in the workings of the cosmos – if we will seek for it.
–Be not a cancer on the earth-Leave room for nature.
In our time, the growth of humanity is destroying the natural conditions of the earth which have fostered all existing life. We must restore reasoned balance.

Elbert County Chamber

I’ve got three YouTube channels deleted for much much less than what they’ve written on stone.

YOUTUBE DELETES OUR CHANNEL OVER LOCKSTEP VIDEO. BUT I THINK IT’S DEEPER THAN THAT

Now they claim they started hunting down the demolisher, but, decades later, when it comes to the people who erected it, they claim this:

“No one knows the identity of a group of sponsors who provided the specifications for the 19-foot high monument”

Elbert County Chamber

For decades, they fed us legends and now, if you believed them, you’re a nutty conspiracy theorist, akin to terrorists:

Nobody Knows How to Interpret This Doomsday Stonehenge in Georgia

We know where they are and what they say, but everything else is all hotly debated

Smithonian Mag, September 10, 2013


In Elbert County, Georgia there’s a set of stones called the Georgia Guidestones. They were put there in 1979, with a set of ten guidelines, in eight modern languages and four dead ones, carved onto the slabs. But that’s pretty much all anybody can agree on about them, as Jill Neimark writes this week at Discover Magazine. How to interpret the guidelines, who put the stone there, and what people should do about them are all hotly debated.

On the stones are ten instructions:

  1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
  2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
  3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
  4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
  5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
  6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
  7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
  8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
  9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
  10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

Neimark visited the stones and writes about the mystery behind them. The only man who knows who built them isn’t telling, “They could put a gun to my head and kill me, I will never reveal his real name,” he told her. And the purpose of the inscriptions isn’t even clear. Van Smith, “one of the monument’s most prominent conspiracy theorists,” says that they’re for establishing the beginnings of a totalitarian tribal government. Another theorist said that the stones were Satanic and should be destroyed. Alex Jones, a radio host and famous conspiracy theorist, says that the stones call for culling of humans.

Many hate the stones. When Randall Sullivan of Wired visited the stones in 2009, they had been vandalized, “Death to the new world order” painted on them in polyurethane paint.

Not only were the stones supposed to give messages, but their arrangement was meant to be a Stonehenge like astronomical device. Sullivan writes that the man commissioned to build them had to seek outside help to make that dream a reality:

The astrological specifications for the Guidestones were so complex that Fendley had to retain the services of an astronomer from the University of Georgia to help implement the design. The four outer stones were to be oriented based on the limits of the sun’s yearly migration. The center column needed two precisely calibrated features: a hole through which the North Star would be visible at all times, and a slot that was to align with the position of the rising sun during the solstices and equinoxes. The principal component of the capstone was a 7\8-inch aperture through which a beam of sunlight would pass at noon each day, shining on the center stone to indicate the day of the year.

But today, astronomers say the astronomical features on the guidestones are crude—”an abacus compared to Stonehenge’s computer,” Loris Magnani of the University of Georgia told Neimark.

And yet despite the confusion and mystery—or perhaps because of it—the monument has a devoted community dedicated to figuring out just what the mysterious rocks are for. And, like most conspiracy theories, the quest will probably never end.

A summary of the official narrative right now:


Mysterious men under false identities got government’s blessing to erect on the public domain a monument to eugenics and genocide, that literally says world population needs maintained under half a billion people.
But if I insist on elites having genocidal plans of population culling, I end up on some FBI watchlist as potential terrorist and total nutter.
And the people who can’t know who they built a monument with, now are after the people who blew it up.
Ridiculous. And I have uncovered a bunch of receipts to prove it.

I kept digging and I found a TV report on the inauguration day, that was quite loud and pompous, a polar opposite to “secretive”, it even had prominent politicians speaking.
Watch it here

Video transcript:

Over 951 cubic feet of granite make up the 11 pieces. Out The overall height is 19 ft 3″ from the surface of the ground to the top of the capstone there are slots and holes in the center stone that have astrological significance because they have been cut at precise angles to permit accurate readings of the sun and moon at various times of the year, standing on the highest point of Elbert county, the Georgia guide stones have raised *** lot of questions. Four upright stones more than 16 ft high with support stones totaling almost £238,000. And there’s *** message sand blasted in 12 languages and letters Two inches tall. The sponsors of the mysterious project are said to be an anonymous group of out of state Americans promoting the concept of the conservation of mankind. Here’s the mystery though. Elbert and granite businessman joe Finley was contacted to build the project by *** man using the fictitious name of R. C. Christian granite city Bank President Wyatt Martin served as intermediary handled the escrow account for all funds and says he’ll carry the secret of who R. C. Christian is to his grave. Well, in spite of what we don’t know, congressman doug Bernard dedicated the guide stones with an open mind. We must stress today the need for self control for self restraint and yes self government, all of which I interpret in this Georgia guide stones, the sense of prominence is there and we do know this. The Georgia. Guide stones are some of the largest granite monuments ever erected, and they can be seen for years to come on Georgia Highway 77 7 miles north of Elberton, Matt Hunt, Action News on the scene in northeast Georgia. And whenever you might, you inspect the money.

[Doug] Barnard was a delegate to the Georgia State Democratic convention in 1962 and a delegate to the 1964 Democratic National Convention. He served in the United States House of Representatives from 1977 to 1993. On March 22, 1980, he addressed a crowd estimated to be between 200 and 300 people where he unveiled the Georgia Guidestones monument in Elberton. He explained that the monument was to guide future generations and that it should make Americans try to ecologically preserve the environment.

Wikipedia

The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Georgia 23 Mar 1980, Sun  •  Page 27

The stones were revealed in a ceremony witnessed by up to 300 people. During it, Rep. Douglas Barnard read the message:
“In order to avoid debate, we the sponsors of the Georgia Guidestones, have a simple message for human beings, now and for the future. We believe our precepts are sound, and they must stand on their own merits.”
Christian then transferred the deed to the structure and acreage to Elbert County, who has helped to maintain the structure. It drew in about 20,000 people annually to the area, the local chamber of commerce estimated.
Only one person really knew Christian’s real identity. That was Elberton banker Wyatt Martin. Martin passed away late last year and appears to have taken that secret to his grave.
Several documentary and investigative journalists have long sought after the real identity of Christian, his group, and what the real purpose of it was. However, for now, it remains a mystery.

Fox News

But wait, the mayor was there too…

And i kept digging…

Object NameThe Georgia Guidestones 
Maker and Year: The Elberton Granite Finishing Co., Inc., 1981
Object Type: Promotional publication
SourceWired.com

Excerpts from the PDF (with my “notes” added):

What a pathetic way for the psychos to avoid being assumed psychos who own what they do!

AND THEN THERE’S THE TIME CAPSULE

A slab on-site had two unfinished lines that said, “Placed six feet below this spot on …” that was “to be opened on,” leading to a search by county officials.

Denver Gazette

Before I even started to collect info on the event, first thing I thought was that someone intended to either “censor” them like you delete a conspiracy video, or someone went after the time capsule, or both.

I can’t fully prove any of these hypothesis, but I haven’t heard any better either and everything that followed fell in line with these concepts.

The government did go after the capsule, and then they showed people this:

I belong to the old school of journalism, that demanded “three independent sources” and where one single patented liar such as the government was considered zero sources, unless corroborated.

How do you corroborate their claims with this, for instance:

BONUS

DARK CLOUDS OVER ELBERTON:
The True Story of the Georgia Guidestones

Written and Directed by Christian J. Pinto
Running Time: Approximately 2 hours

DVD $24.95
BUY DVD HERE

 Dark Clouds
DVD $24.95
Qty: 
  


ABOUT THE FILM:

In 1979, a mysterious stranger appeared in the remote town of Elberton, Georgia.  The man introduced himself as R.C. Christian, but admitted this was not his real name.  He claimed to represent a small group of loyal Americans who wanted to erect a monument they hoped would inspire “the Age of Reason.” 

The monument was named the Georgia Guidestones, and since its completion has spawned a host of conspiracy theories about who or what was behind it.  Written on the great granite stones are ten commands or “guides” that were intended to provide wisdom for mankind.  But the first of them calls for a reduction of the world population to a mere 500 million.  In order to achieve this, billions of people would have to die.  Many have wondered: is the monument designed to inspire wisdom?  Or to launch a global genocide?

Researchers have wondered for decades about the identity of R.C. Christian and the purpose of his mysterious structure.  Was he part of a globalist group?  Was he working with the United Nations?  After a five year investigation, this powerful documentary presents groundbreaking information, and dares to solve the mystery of who R.C. Christian really was.

This film is a must see for those who wish to learn more about the globalist use of environmentalism towards the cause of population control.

This documentary features the following:

1) Reveals never-before-seen information about the true identity of the man who called himself “R.C. Christian.”

2) Features original interviews with the people who knew the mysterious “Mr. Christian.”

3) Original interviews with the men who were actually responsible for the building of the Georgia Guidestones.

4) An original interview with Wyatt Martin, the only man who knew the true identity of the stranger, and promised to take the secret to his grave.

5) Never-before-seen documents from Wyatt Martin’s secret files, hidden away in his old IBM computer case.

6) Proof from original documents of the Rosicrucian connection to the name “R.C. Christian” and its probable role in the creation of a time capsule. 

7) Freemasonry’s part in building the Georgia Guidestones.

8) Evidence of the friendship of Dr. William Shockley (the Nobel Prize winning physicist who argued the principles of dysgenics) – to R.C. Christian.

9) The role of the United Nations in the design of the monument.

10) The chilling ramifications of R.C. Christian’s environmental concerns and his writings on population control.

Also check

WSJ 2009: ‘BILLIONAIRES TRY TO SHRINK WORLD’S POPULATION, REPORT SAYS’

HUMANITY SET FOR IRREVERSIBLE POPULATION DECLINE BEFORE COVID, LOCKDOWNS TIPPED IT OVER THE EDGE

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Minister for Nature and Nitrogen Policy, more precisely. That’s an official position in The Netherlands.

And that position is occupied right now by Christianne van der Wal-Zeggelink, of the super-rich van der Wal family.

Her husband, Piet van der Wal is heir to Okke van de Wal and brother to Bouke van der Wal.

They are known for owning a massive supermarket chain called Boni, but few people know they are also massively invested in Picnic, huge groceries retailer in The Netherlands, about to expand in Germany too, as attested by the mainstream media RTL.

Even less people know is that…

Picnic directly buys from an existing supermarket chain (Boni), which saves them the operational costs on that side. Not having shops saves them big time on distribution and rent, which they can use to benefit consumers:

Retail Intelligence Lab

So whether you buy from Boni or Picnic, you buy from the Dutch Nitrogen Minister.
I can’t believe I just wrote this previous sentence and it’s legit too…

But, in September 2021, after pouring in about half a billion dollars, the lead investor in Picnic has become none other than Bill Gates. That kind of money buys you access to anything.

The exact amount that the Gates put down, is unknown. But they did provide the majority of the funds, CEO Michiel Muller says in an interview. The Gates Foundation was joined by previous investors in the Series D funding round, such as NPM Capital, De Hoge Dennen and Hoyberg.

Ecommerce News

As a result. Picnic jumps over Jumbo on Dutch online grocery market, with Jumbo controlling about 1/3 of the market just a few years prior.

They have been accused of violating several Dutch labor laws. The FNV said on Thursday it would take Picnic to court for refusing to pay staff according to the nationwide supermarket pay and conditions agreement (cao).

dutchreview.com

And this is not the first time Gates stuck his nose into Dutch food and agriculture.

Dutch Foreign Trade Minister and Bill Gates Discuss Cooperation Between the Netherlands and Gates Foundation

 European Seed, April 30, 2018

Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Aid Sigrid Kaag met with Bill Gates, co-chairman of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation during the 2018 World Bank Spring Meetings in Washington DC. Bill Gates expressed his appreciation that the Dutch development budget is ‘going back in the right direction’.  Both share the vision that the private sector can provide a key contribution to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Further cooperation was discussed, such as in the areas of agriculture and health care.

The Netherlands and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have been involved supporting industry benchmarking for sustainable development from the very start. The Access to Medicine Index was the first industry benchmark of this kind. As early as 2010, Bill Gates was the first to state that industry benchmarks should also be created for other industries to boost the private sector’s contribution to sustainable development and to give credit to companies that set an example.

Since then, the Access to Seeds Index as well as the Access to Nutrition Index were set up with support of both The Netherlands and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Currently the World Benchmarking Alliance is being set up, which will focus on developing new industry benchmarks tracking, disclosing and encouraging the contributions of various industries to achieving the SDGs.

UPDATE: JULY 11, 2022 – EXPLOSIVE PICNIC IN THE NETHERLANDS

BONUS

We have to accept in the West that we are going to be a bit poorer, Dutch PM Rutte says

Rutte is back as Dutch PM and wan der Wal’s boss.

Global Center on Adaptation opens an office in Beijing, China

Dutch Water Sector. 28 June 2019

Dutch prime Minister Mark Rutte, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announce the launch of the first regional office of the Global Center on Adaptation in China. The two countries have agreed to work closely together to accelerate action to make China and the region more resilient to the reality of the climate crisis on its fragile ecological environment.

About GCA

Launched in 2018 the Global Center on Adaptation works to accelerate action and support for adaptation solutions, from the international to the local, from the public and private sector, to ensure we learn from each other and work together for a climate resilient future.

The Global Center on Adaptation is a Managing Partner of the Global Commission on Adaptation led by Ban Ki-moon, 8th Secretary-General of the United Nations, Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Kristalina Georgieva, CEO of the World Bank.

The GCA head office is based in The Netherlands.

So there.
More interesting connections to be revealed soon, stay tuned.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Welcome back to Absurdistan!
In this episode, UN and ResearchGate are officially competing Babylon Bee.

the claim:

The facts:

They didn’t write it in an attempt to anything, they mirrored it from the University of Hawaii.
Their “satire” even got its own DOI.

So how much of the ResearchGate content is satire then? Surely the Covid part…

This deletion and the Georgia Guidestones demolition are the same thing at different scales, if you think of it. No patriot did either.

the article:

As per UN website.

Now, please apply to the following material every critique Babylon Bee ever got from globo-groomers affiliated with Epstein’s Island University, see how it fits:

The Benefits of World Hunger

We sometimes talk about hunger in the world as if it were a scourge that all of us want to see abolished, viewing it as comparable with the plague or aids. But that naïve view prevents us from coming to grips with what causes and sustains hunger. Hunger has great positive value to many people. Indeed, it is fundamental to the working of the world’s economy. Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there is a need for manual labour.

We in developed countries sometimes see poor people by the roadside holding up signs saying “Will Work for Food”. Actually, most people work for food. It is mainly because people need food to survive that they work so hard either in producing food for themselves in subsistence-level production, or by selling their services to others in exchange for money. How many of us would sell our services if it were not for the threat of hunger?
More importantly, how many of us would sell our services so cheaply if it were not for the threat of hunger? When we sell our services cheaply, we enrich others, those who own the factories, the machines and the lands, and ultimately own the people who work for them. For those who depend on the availability of cheap labour, hunger is the foundation of their wealth.

The conventional thinking is that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs. For example, an article reports on “Brazil’s ethanol slaves: 200,000 migrant sugar cutters who prop up renewable energy boom”.1 While it is true that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs, we need to understand that hunger at the same time causes low-paying jobs to be created. Who would have established massive biofuel production operations in Brazil if they did not know there were thousands of hungry people desperate enough to take the awful jobs they would offer? Who would build any sort of factory if they did not know that many people would be available to take the jobs at low-pay rates?

Much of the hunger literature talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive. That is nonsense. No one works harder than hungry people. Yes, people who are well nourished have greater capacity for productive physical activity, but well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work.

The non-governmental organization Free the Slaves defines slaves as people who are not allowed to walk away from their jobs. It estimates that there are about 27 million slaves in the world,2 including those who are literally locked into workrooms and held as bonded labourers in South Asia. However, they do not include people who might be described as slaves to hunger, that is, those who are free to walk away from their jobs but have nothing better to go to. Maybe most people who work are slaves to hunger?

For those of us at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest our vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? We would have to produce our own food and clean our own toilets. No wonder people at the high end are not rushing to solve the hunger problem. For many of us, hunger is not a problem, but an asset.

Notes 1 Tom Phillipps, “Brazil’s ethanol slaves: 200,000 migrant sugar cutters who prop up renewable energy boom”. The Guardian. Online, 9 March 2007.http://environment.guardian.co.uk/energy/story/0,,2030144,00.html
2 Free the Slaves. Online, 2007. http://www.freetheslaves.net/

About the author

George Kent

George Kent is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Hawaii. He works on human rights, international relations, peace, development and environmental issues, with a special focus on nutrition and children. He has written several books, the latest is Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food.

BONUS:

Silview.media is looking forward to the UN Babylon satire website!
Will the content be be peer-reviewed?

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them