population growth

by Kevin Galalae, guest writer for Global Freedom Movement, 5 September 2016

The system of population control that was instituted in 1945 as a substitute to war and the obverse side of nuclear deterrence was from the very beginning the cooperative effort of the Allied Powers: the U.S., the Soviet Union/Russia, and the U.K. Their cooperation is one of mutual coercion mutually agreed upon and it is driven by the fear of nuclear annihilation.

The Soviet-American cooperation in the depopulation genocide, which I exposed in my book Killing Us Softly: The Global Depopulation Policy, is confirmed by a recently leaked U.S. State Department cable from 20 October 1973¹ – when Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State and Richard Nixon President. The cable was written by the American ambassador to India at that time, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who later became America’s Ambassador to the UN thanks to his expertise in population control.

Lamenting the population problem of South Asia in general and India in particular, Ambassador Moynihan wrote:

1. I met Monday with General William Draper and former Senator Joseph Tydings, both of whom are well known to you. For reasons I cannot completely fathom, they are escorting a group of Japanese family planners around the world. Notwithstanding that, we had an excellent if cheerless talk about the continuing grim prospects for South Asia.
2. This is a subject that has long interested me. While in the White House in 1969, I wrote the President’s message to Congress on population, the first such declaration of national policy ever. It met great enthusiasm in the Congress – Senator Tydings and Speaker McCormack instantly saw its importance – and the upshot was that the domestic side of population policy was pretty well settled for decades to come.
3. One reason the President decided to address himself so explicitly to U.S. domestic policy was that in his judgment our pronouncements and actions in the international family planning field would be unwelcome and might appear hypocritical unless we were seen clearly to be putting our own house in order. The message also spoke to the international issues, but less firmly and decisively, in part because there seemed little we could do, but also because we all sensed the importance of first settling our own affairs on the domestic side and charting our own course for the future, a process initiated by the president and continued by the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future which he appointed.
4. Four years later, so far as I can tell, the United States still lacks any coherent policy with respect to world population growth, though it has been conscientious and generous in its contributions to multi-lateral agencies. The time may be upon us for some further attention to these matters; as the President indicated in his 1973 foreign policy report, 1974 will be world population year. A conference has been called for August, and the United States has pledged full cooperation.
5. I need not limn for you the population problem of India, except to offer two vignettes. When I returned to New Delhi past week, the first paragraph of the excellent ‘While You Were Away’ summary prepared by the embassy staff asserted “While you were away, the population of India grew by 1.1 million persons.” Second vignette: The population expert at the Ford Foundation office here routinely refers to the advent of “The second India”, since reputable demographers are agreed that if it continues on its present course India’s population will double by the end of this century.
6. No one can know the consequences for this society of the strains inherent in a billion people living on its land area, but the social, economic and political tensions will be very great indeed. I expect they will pose a grave threat to peace and stability in South Asia as a whole, for the problem is not confined to India. Bangladesh is doubtless the more tragic case. And Sri Lanka is already paying a price in hunger, poverty and instability for its enormous population growth on a fixed or declining resource base over the past quarter century.
7. For reasons I cannot fully fathom, the government of India is turning against its own family planning programs. Draper and Tydings simply suggest that the present government has a deeply ingrained pro-natalist outlook and is incapable of motivating itself to budget large sums for family planning or to run effective programs with the money they do budget. As I come to understand the Hindu family structure somewhat better, it’s clear that children are perhaps the most prized possession, and the more of them the better. Lurking in the background, at the political level, may also be a continuing awareness that, as many millions as India has, China has even more.
8. The United States has got burned in family planning in India, and the GOI (Government of India) has made abundantly clear both to Aid and to the private foundations that it is an area where their funds may be accepted but their advice and technical assistance are not wanted. It’s clear that the only sort of help India will accept in family planning will be multi-lateral assistance, and even there she is not likely to ask for it. Draper reports enormous difficulty even in getting the GOI to seek modest financial assistance from the U.N. family planning agency.
9. We will, of course, respect their wishes. I completely agree with Secretary Shultz’ statement in Nairobi that “aid stimulates development only where there exists the will and competence to utilize it effectively.” Whether the competence in population planning exists here – or anywhere – I leave to the experts. As for the will, I call your attention to New Delhi 12011 and the rest of the messages in the sorry saga of the Indian family planning budget.
10. We are not about to do for the Indians what they refuse to do for themselves, nor do I expect the American public to retain much enthusiasm in the face of this evidence. In Washington and since returning to Delhi I have been impressed – nay awed – by the strength and depth of feeling about the importance of family planning and the dismay with which the budget cuts have been greeted.
11. Nonetheless, the problem worsens in South Asia, and the United States will not be blind to it, nor, I trust, will the other great powers. Though this will seem a bad week to make the point, I think partial solution over the long run may lie in US-Soviet cooperation, and in whatever ability we and the Soviets might jointly muster to persuade the nations of South Asia that a reduction in population growth is necessary to the peaceful, stable world we seek. In addition, with Soviet-American leadership, and with contributions to match, the other nations of the world and the international organizations might be induced to concentrate more resources on this area.
12. I do not propose that we start with India. The political dimensions of Soviet and American activity here are too great, and India’s mistrust of outsiders meddling is too deep. But what about Bangladesh, a potential basket case of a nation in which we, the Soviets and –not so incidentally – India already have heavy investments and lasting commitments? Might that not be the place to commence a demonstration of the ways in which détente can lead to partial solutions to other problems menacing world stability? I do not, of course, mean to prescribe for a country I have never seen, nor to intrude on Dacca’s own view of the matter. Perhaps much is quietly going forward that I do not know, and in any case I presume large initiatives there will await the arrival of a new ambassador.
13. I understand that the National Security Council is beginning a study of the strategic implications of population growth, and of its consequences for world peace. I would heartily endorse such a study, and urge that it make use of the most distinguished demographers and advanced social science techniques, much as the Rockefeller Commission did with American domestic population growth. It may want to take South Asia as its first area of concern.
14. Finally, may I say that the likes of Draper, with their doggedness, their apolitical selflessness and their remarkable set of contacts around the world should be asked to help as it suits our purposes. They can say things we can’t, and people – even in India – seem to listen. Sometimes.

Moynihan

I will not dwell on the full implications of this revelatory cable, which are extensive, since it concerns American rather than Russian population policy. For the time being, it suffices to say that the Soviets and the Americans have worked hand in hand to lead the world and pressure all other nations to adopt population control measures and this gives an entirely new perspective to Soviet-American relations during the Cold War; a perspective that shows deep collaboration and contradicts the adversarial scenario presented to the world.

The Soviet Union has been key to the Global Depopulation Policy from the very beginning in 1945 when the UN was formed and the Axis Powers were the first to be subjected to covert measures of population control at war’s end. Russia has continued where the Soviet Union left off and it has not skipped a beat.

The alternative and social media nowadays are awash with hints, reports, predictions and articles that the Russians have turned against the depopulation cabal. The above cable shows that the Russians have always cooperated and coordinated closely with the Americans to control population growth within and outside their own borders. And the newest statistics show conclusively that the current Russian government, like its Soviet predecessors, is not only fully onboard the global depopulation program but is leading the way by example since Russia has accomplished all demographic/depopulation targets ahead of everyone else: balanced births/deaths, optimal life expectancy, optimal population levels, and optimal dependency burdens.

Balancing births and deaths is the formula for stable populations and the ratio aimed at by the depopulation/globalization system is 10 births and 10 deaths per 1000 people. Russia reached births and deaths parity in 2012 at 13 each.

Birth Rate

Looking at the vital statistics of the US and Russia we can draw the following conclusions. The US started to interfere with birth rates first, immediately after WW1, during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and the Russians followed suit as soon as Stalin took power in 1924. Between 1918 and 1945, thus during the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), Warren G. Harding (1921-1923), Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929), Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), and Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945), the US managed to bring down the crude birth rate from 30 to 20 births per 1000. During the same period, and despite starting later and from a much higher crude birth rate, the Soviet Union managed to lower its birth rate from 45 to 30. The Americans did it through contraceptives, education, and involuntary surgical sterilizations while the Russians did it through abortions, mass incarceration and by imposing hardship on the population.

At the end of WW2 the US and the Soviet Union had near parity in their crude birth rates, with the US at 25 and the Soviets at 26. The Americans maintained this rate throughout the presidencies of Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) and Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) and the Russians until the end of Stalin’s leadership in 1955.

As soon as Nikita Khrushchev took power in 1955 he drove the birth rate down from 26 to 16 by the end of his reign in 1964. John F. Kennedy (1961-1963), Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969) and Richard Nixon (1969-1974) drove the American birth rate down from 25 to 15, playing catch-up with the Russians during the presidencies of Kennedy and Johnsons.

Leonid Brezhnev (1964-1982), Yuri Andropov (1982-1984) and Konstantin Chernenko (1984-1985) kept the birth rate steady at 16. Gerald Ford (1974-1977), Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) and Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) did the same as the Russians and kept their birth rate steady at 16, therefore maintaining parity with the Russians.

As soon as Gorbachev took power in 1985 the birth rate began dropping and by 1991 when he was ousted from power it had gone from 16 to 12. This drop, however, is partly the result of the economic and social

hardships brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union and partly the result of adopting the same depopulation methods pioneered by the West and adulterating food and beverages with endocrine disruptors. During this time Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) kept the US birth rate steady at 16.

During Boris Yeltsin’s presidency from 1991 to 1999 Russia’s birth rate dropped from 12 to 9, also as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the transition from communism to capitalism, while in the U.S. the birth rate remained stable at 15 during the presidency of Bill Clinton (1993-2001) and at 14 during the presidency of George W. Bush (2001-2009).

During the presidency of Barack Obama (2009-today) the US birth rate has been steady at 13 while in Russia Vladimir Putin (2000-today) has reversed Russia’s downward spiral and brought up the birth rate from 9 to nearly 13, once again reaching perfect parity with the US.

Russia (blue line) and the US (red line), the statistical data shows, have pursued a policy of birth parity since the end of WW2 and have started controlling population growth by lowering births since the end of WW1.

Crude birth rate

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN?end=2015&locations=RU-US&start=1960

Despite starting with very different birth rates (Russia at 45 and the US at 30) and having vastly different social and economic systems (Russia being communist and the US capitalist), they have managed to reach and maintain parity in their crude birth rates for the past 70 years. They have also managed to reach replacement level fertility (i.e. 2.1 children per woman) within 7 years of each other, Russia in 1965 during Khrushchev’s leadership and the US in 1972 during Nixon’s leadership.

Fertility rate, total (births per woman)

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?end=2015&locations=RU-US&start=1960

The only constant in Russian-American relations has been the relentless effort to control population growth at home and abroad since that is the only civilized substitute to war and the only hope for enduring peace and universal prosperity.

Russia has succeeded by using voluntary abortions and to a lesser extent also involuntary sterilizations until the end of communism. Since 1991 abortions have dropped from 4 million annually to just 1 million, but fertility rates did not increase correspondingly, as one would have expected, but decrease even further. That can only be explained by the introduction of western style covert chemical methods of depopulation by Gorbachev that were continued by Yeltsin but to a lesser extent, hence the steep and uninterrupted drop in Russia’s fertility starting two years after Gorbachev took over the country’s leadership in 1985 until he was ousted by Yeltsin in 1991, and the lesser decline from 1991 to 1999 when Yeltsin held the reins of power. Contraceptives are gradually replacing food and beverages adulterated with endocrine disruptors as the primary method of birth control since Putin took power, hence the steady climb up from 1.2 to 1.8 children per woman. Nevertheless, Russia’s total fertility rate remains well below replacement level and that indicates the continued use of covert chemical methods of fertility reduction by the Russian government especially since only about half of Russia’s married women use modern methods of contraceptives.

Covert methods of population control (such as fluoride, BPA, and other endocrine disruptors) are most certainly being used by the Russian government in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan, which are predominantly Muslim and where birth rates have been dropping like planes from the sky lately and have started approaching the national average of 13 births per 1000 people.

In Chechnya the birth rate has decreased from nearly 30 in 2011 to just 20 in 2016, a 33% drop in just 5 years; in Ingushetia from 26 in 2011 to 16.5 in 2016, thus a 37% decrease in just 5 years; and in Dagestan from 19 in 2014 to 16.7 in 2016, a 12% drop in just 2 years. But since death rates are very low throughout the Caucasus region at c. 5% and births exceed deaths fourfold, and since the population of this region is far younger than that of Russia at large (circa 22 years as opposed to 39) the population will continue to grow rapidly for decades to come and change the country’s ethnic ratio

It could very well be that Russia is using Chinese made sterilizants such as Gossypol or novel heterocyclic compounds to involuntarily bring down fertility rates in ethnic and Muslim regions of the country where the people refuse to limit themselves to two children only, just as China does in Tibet, Xinjiang and Ningxia Autonomous Regions. What is certain is that such a precipitous drop in births in places that reject family planning and birth control on ethnic and religious grounds can only be accomplished by covert methods. What is also certain is that Russia’s North Caucasus wars also have a demographic in addition to their ethnic dimension.

Russia, however, has rejected GMOs and appears to also be moving away from endocrine disruptors, thus from Western-style methods of covertly inducing sterility. Russia is also not participating in the chemtrail spraying program. Most likely because it has already reached all its demographic objectives and does not have to poison its people from the sky.

As a one-party state Soviet Russia had it much easier than the US to control population growth, as it could impose any decision on its people, but also because it controlled the Russian Orthodox Church and did not have to contend with religious objections to abortion. The system has changed but the culture of political absolutism remains. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia has been aided in its population control program by lack of transparency in government, weak civil society institutions and a state-controlled media. This allows the government to keep the program secret.

The US did not have these advantages, which is why its program has had to bypass democratic processes and the rule of law and has had to corrupt the media, buy off civil society, subsume corporations and manipulate medicine and agriculture to hide its demographic intentions and pursue them under well-hidden pretexts protected by plausible deniability.

I have been able to unravel the deepest secrets of the international order because of leaks by American institutions and inconsistencies in the American media. No such leaks have ever come out of Russia nor will they until the government decides so.

Death Rate

That Russia has conducted a more aggressive population control policy than the US is illustrated by the trajectories of their death rates. For a while Russia has increased its death rate to mirror its decrease in birth rate, in order to reach its demographic goals by manipulating both ends of life, the US has decreased its death rate to parallel its birth rate and has thus accomplished its demographic goals only by controlling the front end of life, births.

Birth Rate

As a result, Russia inversed its proportion between births and deaths in 1992 registering for the first time in its history more deaths than births (1,807,441 deaths as opposed to 1,587,644 births), which resulted in a first annual decrease of its population by 219,797 souls; a decrease that continued until 2012 with annual decreases of nearly one million people from 1994 to 2005. The percentage growth of Russia’s population went from nearly 2% after the war, to -0.5% in the first decade of the 21st century, to zero growth today, and thus to a stable population.

Population growth in percent

Its total population decreased accordingly and went from a peak of 148,538,000 people in 1992 to a low of 142,742,368 million in 2008, a loss of 5,795,632 or nearly 4%.

Vladimir Putin reversed this trend and from 2008 until today the Russian population grew to 145,405,999, a net increase of nearly 2%. Therefore, Russia’s population has been more or less flat since 1990 at around 145 million.

Population growth in total numbers

The United States, on the other hand, pursued a population stabilization policy and not a population reduction policy and did so by attempting to bring births and deaths down at the same time, which is why the two graph lines are parallel. It has not yet succeeded in reaching parity between births and deaths but has succeeded in closing the gap between them from 25 births and 10 deaths per 1000 during the post-WW2 period to just 12.5 births and 8.5 deaths today, thus from two and a half more births than deaths to just one and a half.

As such, births have continued to outpace deaths and the population has continued to grow; growth that has been exacerbated by immigration. But the pace of growth has slowed from 1.9% in the 1950s to just 0.9% since the beginning of the 21st century.

Population growth in percent

Population growth in total numbers

The intense chemtrailing of the population and the mandatory immunization programmes are intended to stop the population from growing by raising the death rate to equal the birth rate and thus accomplish zero percentage growth and stable population just as Russia has done since 1990.

The US may get there around 2020, a full thirty years later than Russia. While the Russian population has been stable since 1990 at around 145 million the American population has grown during this time from 250 million to 322 million, a 29% increase. Much of this growth, however, is due to heavy immigration and the higher birth rates of immigrants yet undamaged by covert chemical methods of sterilization. The US, therefore, lags behind Russia in pursuit of demographic targets because it has assumed a far greater burden of responsibility for the rest of the world than Russia did, which to this day remains closed to immigration.

Life Expectancy

Russia is also the first nation to have stopped the rise in life expectancy, which over the decades has climbed from 51 years in 1946 to 70 years in 1986, where it remains to this day. Since 70 years is the ideal life span for governments and industry, both economically and environmentally, most nations that have developed strong social safety nets and universal pension plans covertly undermine their people’s immune systems through vaccines and adulterated food and beverages to ensure that life expectancy declines to the desirable median age of 70 years.

The Chernobyl accident just like Fukushima were no accidents but intentional state-sponsored sabotage to lower life expectancy and the dependency burden of the old by increasing morbidity and mortality. The Chernobyl disaster took place in 1986 when the life expectancy of the Russian people first reached 70. After the disaster, life expectancy steadily decreased from 70 to 64 by 1994. It has since recovered and has been stabilized at 70 since 2011. It will be interesting to see if Japan’s life expectancy will also decrease in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster and if a similar man-made disaster is planned for Europe. If so then the likeliest target is one of the two nuclear power plants in the Czech Republic, Temelín and Dukovany, due to their proximity to the German border and their location at the heart of the continent.

Life expectancy at birth, total (years)

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?end=2015&locations=RU-US&start=1960

While Russia has peaked its life expectancy at 70, the US and indeed the entire developed world is struggling to accomplish a similar feat as their own life expectancies are skirting 80. As the ratio of workers to retirees becomes increasingly unsustainable in the last stage of the demographic transition and the median age rises and with it the elderly dependency burden, the US and the entire developed world will find it increasingly hard and eventually impossible to meet their social obligations and their national budgets will sink further into deficits thus depriving the young of opportunities.

Dependency Burdens

Another target of the Global Depopulation Policy is optimal dependency burdens. Due to engineered low fertility rates all nations that have practiced covert methods of depopulation for decades have reached the fifth and last stage of the demographic transition and with it inverted population pyramids, which means that they have too many old people to support in relation to the working population.

Population ages 65 and above (% of total)

World Bank estimates based on age distributions of UN Population Division’s World Population Prospects.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS?end=2015&locations=RU&start=1960

Russia made sure its old age dependency burden is stopped and has succeeded in stabilizing it since 2003 at around 13%.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS?locations=RU-EU

Neither the EU nor the US have succeeded in stopping the rise of their own elderly dependency burdens, though the US did so from 1990 to 2005 at around 12%, which suggests that the US started to lower its dependency burden before the Russians and that the two countries have mirrored each other’s efforts, which is a clear sign of cooperation; or at the very least of mutual coercion.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS?locations=RU-US

Optimal Population

The last target of the genocidal international system that governs national conduct since 1945 is the accomplishment of optimal population levels, which have been calculated by Population Matters and published in the Overshoot Index.² While most developed nations are in overshoot and are desperately poisoning their people to bring down their populations to sustainable levels, Russia has stabilized its population long before reaching the maximum sustainable number, which has been calculated to be 171 million. Russia’s population peaked at c. 149 million in 1992, then declined rapidly to c. 143 million by 2008 (due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, massive emigration, induced sub-replacement level fertility rates, and induced mortality rates) and has since recovered somewhat and stabilized at 146 million. That means Russia could grow by an additional 25 million people and still have a sustainable population.

The United States by comparison is 142 million people in overshoot and the EU 260 million, which means that they have roughly twice as many people as their landmass and resources can sustain. It is therefore safe to assume that Russia exerts pressure on the West to also reach optimal population levels, just as it has done, and is most certainly not opposed to the continuation of covert methods of depopulation, as the propaganda asserts.

Were the Russian government concerned with human life it could easily become the most popular on earth by simply revealing the existence of covert methods of depopulation and exposing the UN as the pivot of the depopulation genocide. But since Russia itself is an anchor of the depopulation program it keeps the secret and allows the butchery to continue until the rest of the developed world catches up with Russia and the developing world is firmly subsumed into the program.

It is no accident that Russia has the largest mission at the UN. It is also no accident that Vladimir Putin is a former KGB man and has broken all rules to stay in power. As far as Russia is concerned, the military mindset of the Cold War is needed to complete the global genocide and it will not allow the West to ease up until all depopulation targets have been met and the West mirrors Russia’s demographic accomplishments. In all population indices Russia is ahead of the US and the EU and as such forces them to catch up with it.

The statistical data and the government’s actions show that Russia has not abandoned genocide, but is in fact a driving force for its continuation, a main proponent for its completion, and an insurmountable barrier to its abandonment.

---

Endnotes

1. Wikileaks: Kissinger Cables. Cable 1973NEWDE12233_b (20 October 1973), https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1973NEWDE12233_b.html

2. Population Matters. Overshoot Index 2016. https://www.populationmatters.org/documents/overshoot_index.pdf

---