Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:20 AM Feb 2016

"Depopulation should be the highest priority"

“of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries”. – Henry Kissinger

Does Secretary Clinton share, or even respect, the world view of Henry Kissinger?

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Depopulation should be the highest priority" (Original Post) DefenseLawyer Feb 2016 OP
Oh god. Oh god. What a monster (Kissinger). nt thereismore Feb 2016 #1
Source? MineralMan Feb 2016 #2
Is that real? You need a link. cali Feb 2016 #3
I posted a link downthread. MineralMan Feb 2016 #6
I saw it. Thank you. cali Feb 2016 #10
Hitler had the same idea with liebensrum or whatever the hell its spelled. roguevalley Feb 2016 #15
Here's a source for that quote: MineralMan Feb 2016 #4
Yes (National Security Study Memorandum 200) Va Lefty Feb 2016 #5
Here's a link to a pdf of that document. MineralMan Feb 2016 #7
I don't find the quotation in the paper itself. Jim Lane Feb 2016 #18
Depopulation across the board, yes. Not so we can get more 'stuff'. randome Feb 2016 #8
There are huge empty swaths of this country, but be that as it may cali Feb 2016 #9
To answer your question, you'd have to ask Hillary Clinton. MineralMan Feb 2016 #11
I agree. They can ask her about East Timor DefenseLawyer Feb 2016 #12
Fucking hardcore frylock Feb 2016 #13
She sure wouldn't say out loud...in public! Ferd Berfel Feb 2016 #16
She may sya she doesn't agree. Wilms Feb 2016 #17
Pretty shocking UglyGreed Feb 2016 #14

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
15. Hitler had the same idea with liebensrum or whatever the hell its spelled.
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:27 PM
Feb 2016

we all know what that turned out to be. Fuck Kissinger. May he live forever and rot

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
18. I don't find the quotation in the paper itself.
Sat Feb 6, 2016, 03:11 AM
Feb 2016

In the paper I find a discussion of the linkage between population and mineral resources but it makes the unobjectionable point that there will be less demand for minerals if the ultimate stabilization of global population is at a lower level. For the short term, at least, it expressly disclaims any short-term linkage, in the first passage I've boldfaced. Later, in another passage I've boldfaced, it refers to "reduced birth rates", which IMO must happen, in the United States and other developed countries as well as the Third World.

 Although the U.S. is relatively well off in this regard, it nonetheless depends heavily on mineral imports from a number of sources which are not completely safe or stable. It may therefore be necessary, especially in the light of our recent oil experience, to keep this dependence within bounds, in some cases by developing additional domestic resources and more generally by acquiring stockpiles for economic as well as national defence emergencies. There are also possible dangers of unreasonable prices promoted by producer cartels and broader policy questions of U.S. support for commodity agreements involving both producers and consumers. Such matters, however, are in the domain of commodity policy rather than population policy.

At least through the end of this century, changes in population growth trends will make little difference to total levels of requirements for fuel and other minerals. Those requirements are related much more closely to levels of income and industrial output, leaving the demand for minerals substantially unaffected. In the longer run, a lower ultimate world population (say 8 to 9 billion rather than 12 to 16 billion) would require a lower annual input of depletable resources directly affected by population size as well as a much lower volume of food, forest products, textiles, and other renewable resources.

Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply and to develop domestic alternatives, the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States. {emphasis added}


In your other post you gave a different link (to rense.com), one that purports to be quoting this paper, but I'm dubious. The rense quotation puts the key word "depopulation" in quotation marks, implying verbatim quotation, but I don't find that word in the paper. Furthermore, the site seems quite unreliable. As of this writing, the home page has a box proclaiming that "Every so-called United States District Court within the Union is a pretended court...." and goes on in that vein. Below that is a photo and caption implying, with not much subtlety, that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian. There's a link to the ho-hum lunacy of Holocaust denial, plus one that was new to me: The Boston Marathon bombing was staged and no one actually died. (The Marathon bombing denial page is linked from the site you cited.)

My conclusion: Yes, Kissinger is vile, but he didn't say this particular vile thing. There's been a game of telephone. Someone somewhere along the way made an unfair paraphrase of the paper's recognition of the linkage between population and resource demand. The paraphrase used the term "depopulation" and a later author picked that up as a Kissinger verbatim quotation.

I rec'd this thread as a great revelation of Kissinger's attitude. Now I'm withdrawing my rec. I don't put it past Kissinger to believe what's in the OP but he was probably too crafty to say it.
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
8. Depopulation across the board, yes. Not so we can get more 'stuff'.
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:40 AM
Feb 2016

America would be less divided, IMO, if we were a less populous country. As it is, there is too much competition and too much cutting of corners in order to stand out or to get to the top of the ladder.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
9. There are huge empty swaths of this country, but be that as it may
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:44 AM
Feb 2016

it is not less populous. Kissinger's comment is as vile as it gets. It is, if not a call for genocide, close to it. It is shocking. So is
Hillary's invocation of him.

MineralMan

(146,308 posts)
11. To answer your question, you'd have to ask Hillary Clinton.
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:00 PM
Feb 2016

I doubt she would agree with what he wrote. In fact, I'm sure of that. Perhaps someone will ask her that question. I would not assume that Clinton is in agreement with everything Henry Kissinger ever said or did. That kind of assumption is not warranted.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»"Depopulation should be t...