The 1974 Kissinger Report, kept top secret for at least 15 years, incorporated the claims that a global international collaboration of NGOs and government was required to “secure individual rights.” These two values are at odds – universal control and universal individual liberties. This split-personality disorder must be examined and kept in mind to properly discern the human and ecological impacts of the various UN treaties and declarations that arose to establish the current framework which arose directly from Kissinger’s villainous machinations. Indeed, loosely speaking, this dichotomy itself displays a left-right ruse and a left-right incompatibility: universal human rights sound quite liberal; universal domination sounds quite tyrannical or what might be labeled “far-right” or fascist.
One useful definition of fascism that applied in both Stalin and Mao’s communism and Hitler and Mussolini’s regimes is “the unity of (industrial) business and government interests.” In such systems, human beings become accounting entries or numbered pawns. Both appeal to liberties, justice, personal worth, housing, and food for all, etc. – both enslave equally. Nazi camps stamped prisoners with tattoos like livestock; Orwell’s proles were deceived with constant fear. This Jeckyl-and-Hyde attribute of all globalist plans is clearly displayed in the sinister proposals of the Kissinger Report.
In 1971, around the time of the development of most of the international (UN) treaties and regulations which have now grown cancerously into an imminent plan to control all humanity, an influential book by John Rawls titled “A Theory of Justice” was published. The premise of Rawls’ work was to imagine a government structure that preserved individual dignity while creating a social order that left no one behind. Rawls rejected the “utilitarianism” of John Locke and Western democracies because it did not address society’s most impoverished or “marginalized.” He espoused a concept of “consequentialism” which essentially sought to divide human rights in half – a sort of midway between the guarantees of the US Constitution and the statist rigidity of communism.
Rawls wished to escape religions or socio-political movements and their implicit prejudices, and proposed in his book the concept of an “original position” for the societal observer, from which a potential societal order should be viewed “objectively,” allowing that the observer may well end up on the bottom of the heap. He posited that any reasonable, self-interested person in such a position would assent to the two principles which he argued formed the foundation of justice:
(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Each proposition sounds sensible; their innate tension is less immediately apparent. This socio-political duplicity is fertile ground for immoral globalists invoking the inviolate sanctity of number 1 in order to eviscerate and destroy those very things under the globalist guise of number 2. Henry Kissinger was not known for his high moral values; quite the opposite. For him, Rawls’ theory was a delicious prescription for deception and the accrual of power for himself and other wealthy, racist elites.
The individual must be protected from the ravages even of national loyalties, local cultures, or darn bad luck that created imbalances, argued Henry K. The solution was to sweep all humans into one world “peace” where (unelected) Big Brother Globalists would mandate fairness for all not at the point of a gun, but by surrendering total “soft” control of land, currency, healthcare, food production and distribution, etc. to the One Ring to Rule Them All.
Among Kissinger’s benevolent (paternalistic?) plans for “Creating Conditions Conducive to Fertility Decline” can be found the glowing coals of Rawls’ innocuous-sounding but conflicting principles. The Kissinger Report gushes:
Among the first-time statements [of the World Population Conference at Bucharest, Romania in August, 1974] is the assertion that the sovereign right of each nation to set its own population policies is “to be exercised … taking into account universal solidarity in order to improve the quality of life of the peoples of the world.” (Pare 13) This new provision opens the way toward increasing responsibility by nations toward other nations in establishing their national population policies
….3. A basic right of couples and individuals is recognized by Para 13(f), for the first time in a single declarative sentence: All couples and individuals have the basic human right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information, education and means to do so; 4. Also for the first time, a U.N. document links the responsibility of child-bearers to the community [Para 13(f) continued]: The responsibility of couples and individuals in the exercise of this right takes into account the needs of their living and future children, and their responsibilities towards the community. [italics added]
How free are individual couples to “decide freely” how many children they will have if it is decided by the globalist cabal that they are not “responsibly numbering and spacing” them? Who decides number two? And if the “universal rights” to information and education cost money, who will pay for those, and how?
Note that the inalienable rights of the US Constitution cost nothing – freedom of thought, speech, worship, assembly, and even gun ownership do not require someone else to pay for or provide them – they are “inalienable” from government control. Kissinger has imported novel, costly “rights” not embraced by the US Constitution on the one hand, in derogation of those “free” rights that are ensconced therein on the other. Soon, rights to housing, healthcare, food, clean water and air, and even universal income (for people who just don’t feel like working, per the original Green New Deal draft) were added to this fantasy list.
All of these things cost money, requiring the government to extract wealth from one group to reallocate to another. The UN does not generate ANY wealth – it merely directs “member states” how to reallocate theirs. No free lunch exists, no matter what international documents and Utopian proclamations hold. Note, too, that these promises appeal most to the marginalized and disadvantaged (or lazy and criminal) – such people are not occupying the “original position” envisioned by Rawls. Neither are the grand puppeteers who oversee the administration of this new church from on high. And it is a religion of sorts: the very ideas of ending human suffering, feeding the poor, or eliminating so-called “inequities” are moral causes – launched by the Henry Kissingers and John Rawls’s of the world, who do not believe in God or His divine imprint on every soul. Souls who make more money, work harder, or are born with higher IQs or more muscular bodies are to be “morally” readjusted so that those left behind, aren’t.
This is a prescription for division, unfairness, and totalitarianism – as seen in the roiling chaos of the European Union, where farmers protesting the seizure of their lands and livestock are pitted against environmentalists and climate warriors. After all, The UN/WHO “One Health” ideology has taken Rawls another step – those “individual rights” of humans must now be exercised with respect to the “rights” of plants and animals, and the Earth itself, to be free of human-induced warming. This vision is to be accomplished by yielding to the most significant government authority in human history — human controlled with human sinfulness, errancy, prejudices, and greed still intact.
Whether Left or Right, is this good or evil? Is it to be trusted? How many other (still-secret?) Jeckyl-and-Hyde discrepancies have global treaties, charters, and administrative regulations promulgated and given effect? Is it really in the world’s (humanity’s) “best interests” to populate the WHO, UN, and WEF with the richest and most powerful humans on the planet, or seat corporations at the WEF table as if they have some sort of Citizen’s United personhood, when they have proven they have no souls or accountability?
The connections between past global agreements and current iterations, between various global agencies and NGOs, and the powerful Rockefeller, Gates, and other elites who have conspired to form them are all the pernicious spawn of the devious Kissinger and his craftily crafted 1974 Report. The focus is on food security and agricultural production, and the exposure of humanity and the environment to ecotoxins, not just greenhouse gases. Land, food distribution, farming methods and control, and money supply all integrate to provide the miraculous Green Revolution that has made food cheap and plentiful – and toxic and unsustainable. The grand globalist prescription for humankind is to amplify control through this same system. Global famine is currently ensured because industrial agriculture is unsustainable, whether or not this is a deliberate plan to reduce human population in the name of saving humanity from suffering.
From the Kissinger Report to the Grand Green Deals
Kissinger’s 1974 Report became the blueprint for multiple UN initiatives and the coordination of a massive international interconnection of governments, corporations, and NGOs for innumerable purposes. These groups are unaccountable to the individuals they claim to serve and invoke climate change, equity, overpopulation, gender, sexual orientation, biodiversity, or universal humanitarian rights as a dizzying interchangeable blend of quasi-religious justifications to implement widespread “smart” technologies for surveillance of crops, animals, people, and food supplies.
Always the policies come back to controlling food, land, and diets; always humanity is told the solutions to the problems identified in Kissinger’s original blueprint to reduce population involve 1) greater global coordination and erasure of local cultures and individual rights; 2) more technological innovation and solutions; 3) a transition of millions of peasant farmers and small farms to industrial methods using synthetic fertilizers, GMO crops, and chemicals (presented as “sustainable” agriculture); 4) control of human diets to reduce meat intake and rely on newfangled creations of science; and 5) lots and lots of other people’s money.
This pattern pervades the propaganda messaging of these organizations, but it is easiest to display using the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its visible globalist tentacles. The WEF takes its cue from UN proclamations, which it then presents as “papers” or positions drafted by its “partners,” which include the world’s largest food, chemical, banking, insurance, and technology companies. Goldman Sachs, Google, and Bayer (formerly Monsanto) now join Syngenta, Pfizer, Black Rock, and Zurich Insurance to forcibly take over small farms, impose surveillance on livestock, crops, food distribution, and human diets, and decide who will get what without accountability to humanity.
These are not farmers but the same industrial actors who secretly conspired with Henry Kissinger to hatch this plan. Instead of the original stated goal of “saving the planet by fertility control,” the new mantra is “saving humanity from climate change by total control.” The historical distrust of profit-driven corporations is concurrently transformed: corporations are now socially conscious. Corporate boardrooms and CEOs are portrayed as benevolent monks devoted not to the bottom line of earnings reports but to the bottom rungs of humanity’s impoverished masses. They earn their unconscionable salaries to “save the world” from aboard their yachts and private jets, and they all happen to oversee the technological and financial tools to rescue humanity – not from the corporate overlords, but from the environmental destruction, inequities, and loss of farms and farmland that these same corporations have effected. It is a grand corporate awakening, an international church of corporatology!
All roads lead to food. The UN has raised the food alarm in almost all of its actions and sub-entities. Its website sums up its repackaged Kissinger Plan in a press release titled “UN calls for urgent action to feed the world’s growing population healthily, equitably and sustainably”:
The COVID-19 crisis has added between 83 and 132 million to the 690 million people worldwide who were already undernourished, casting doubt on the chances of meeting global targets on food security and nutrition and prompting calls for an overhaul of the world’s food systems, which the fifty-fourth session of the UN Commission on Population and Development will discuss.
This year’s meeting of the Commission on Population and Development will run from 19 to 23 April. Participants will examine the interlinkages between population, food security, nutrition and sustainable development. The Commission’s debates will inform the preparations of the Food Systems Summit, to be convened by the United Nations Secretary‑General in September 2021.
The continuing growth of the human population, which is expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, together with the growth in income per capita will substantially increase the demand for food, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
The gradual ageing and urbanization of the global population will also affect food demand. The different food requirements of youth and older persons, as well as the different consumption patterns of urban and rural populations, will affect minimum dietary energy requirements and the demand for various types of food.
The press release then recounts the laundry list of pressing justifications to surrender food control to this unelected elitist-controlled Juggernaut: environmental harms caused by foods, food security and gender, climate change, the impact of the pandemic, the plight of migrant workers, improved diversity. These moral rationalizations are employed to grant more money and control to multinational corporations that will create technological solutions and employ industrial agriculture to “feed the world.”
If this nefarious scheme is not terminated, it ends badly for the world’s most marginalized and poor denizens.
