Dr. Robert Malone was skeptical about various “depopulation agenda” theories involving covid. But his mind has changed since receiving an analysis of official documents from a colleague. The incriminating documents included The Kissinger Report.
Article cross-posted from Rhoda Wilson at The Daily Exposé
“Reading through the comments, observations, and associated documents I was stunned by the frank, ‘Realpolitik’-based arguments in favor of a US Federal Government global population control/depopulation agenda, as well as the similarities to various activities known to have been performed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, World Health Organisation, United Nations and other non-governmental (and governmental) organizations,” he wrote.
Dr. Malone acknowledges that that correlation does not prove causation and “we do not (yet?) have documentation that these official population control/depopulation policy items influenced COVIDcrisis public health policy.” However, he said, “As far as I am concerned, one must recognize and acknowledge the amazing parallels between preceding population policy and many of the ‘public health’ policies and actions which were implemented in the USA and most Western countries (particularly the ‘five eyes’ nations).”
The following are excerpts from an article ‘Population Control and Official US Government Policy’ written by Dr. Robert Malone and published on his Substack page on 25 July 2023.
Recently, a respected colleague, Gavin DeBecker, sent me an email comprising a lengthy analysis and attached documents concerning (formerly classified) National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 titled the ‘Kissinger Report‘. He also provided links to associated supplemental federal government documents including the National Security Directive Memorandum 314 ‘Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests, 11/26/75‘. Gavin is a well-published author, including the pivotal work titled ‘The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence’, and he had prepared this analysis (below) while preparing a new book. His text, thoughts, and analysis are shared with the permission of the author.
In considering these documents, it is helpful to keep in mind that Henry Kissinger is a key mentor of Klaus Schwab, was involved (together with the CIA) in originally creating and continues to consult with the World Economic Forum as well as with the CCP/Xi Jinping.
[The short video below is not included in Dr. Malone’s article. We’ve included it as a brief introduction. The video features Dr. David Ayoub and Dr. Stan Monteith at the Radio Liberty Conference 2005. You can watch Dr. Ayoub’s full presentation on Bitchute HERE or Rumble HERE. Dr. Monteith is no longer with us and his website Radio Liberty no longer exists. You can find some of his videos HERE.]
It all started with a meeting held in June 1973:
Referring to a memorandum written by General Taylor, General Draper, and his colleagues presented their views that the population explosion in developing countries was not only a threat to US interests in the economics and the development of those countries but also, more fundamentally, presented a danger to the United States politico military interests.
General Taylor and General Draper asked Ambassador Porter for his advice on how to proceed with the subject. They said they had talked to General Scowcroft in Mr. Kissinger’s office about it in terms of the possibility of a National Security Council (“NSC”) study. General Draper said he had written the President explaining his views that rapid population growth could endanger the concept of a generation of peace and recommending that the President speak out on this subject.
Ambassador Porter said that they were talking to someone who was already converted to this whole idea. He felt that the US population programs were not closely enough connected to the US’s overall aid programs but were handled too separately. He believed there was no use pumping in aid funds and food without a closer correlation with population programs.
Ambassador Porter said he thought that the Soviet Union would not be much interested in internal population programs because, although they were interested in birth control for China, they wanted to fill their own empty space in Siberia. He agreed, however, with General Draper’s argument that the Soviets should be interested, as the US is, in encouraging developing countries to reduce their rates of population growth. Ambassador Porter said he would make a formal proposal to Kissinger to put the matter on the agenda for the President-Brezhnev talks.
Ambassador Porter and Mr. Claxton both observed that it is important to be able to show abroad that we are not asking people of other countries to do more than we are doing at home.
General Draper then brought up his concern that the amendments to the AID bill proposed by 22 members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee would be harmful because … as he understood it, the earmarking for population funds which had been essential to the success of the program was being dropped. He said he would testify before the Foreign Affairs Committee the following week and would urge the Committee to leave $125 million earmarked for population programs alone and to transfer the health subject with $25 million to the food and nutrition section.
Kissinger Report and Subsequent US Population Control Policy:
The classified National Security Study Memorandum (“NSSM”) known as ‘The Kissinger Report’, undertaken at the direction of President Nixon, laid out detailed plans for population reduction in many countries. These plans became official US policy in 1975.
Note: USAID figures most prominently in the report and was a co-author, along with the CIA and Department of State.
The memorandum and subsequent policies developed from the report were observed as a way the United States could use human population reduction to limit the political power of undeveloped nations, ensure the easy extraction of foreign natural resources, prevent young anti-establishment individuals from being born, and to protect American businesses abroad from interference from nations seeking to support their growing populations.
National Security Study Memorandum 200, Wikipedia
The summary of The Kissinger Report stated that:
- actions to accommodate continued population growth up to 6 billion by the mid-21st century without massive starvation or total frustration of developmental hopes; and
- actions to keep the ultimate level as close as possible to 8 billion rather than permitting it to reach 10 billion, 13 billion, or more.
This major objective – to not exceed 8 billion – combined with the fact that we hit the 8 billion mark in 2022 might help explain the intense urgency of so many planned and organized actions during the past three years.
Perhaps the most obvious result of covid lockdowns and the interruption of commerce is the current record number of people at risk of starvation. Before the covid era, the number of people at risk of starvation was 135 million. By the end of 2021, that had increased by another 135 million people, and in 2022, it then increased by another 67 million. The result is currently about 10 million deaths from starvation, 3 million of them children.
Further reading: World Hunger Facts, Action Against Hunger
The Kissinger Report created a template and spending plan that includes:
- Fertility and contraceptive research.
- Biomedical research would be doubled.
- Field testing of existing technology.
- Development of new technology.
- Oral contraceptives (optimal steroid hormone combinations and doses for populations).
- Intra-uterine devices of differing size, shape, and bioactivity should be developed and tested to determine the optimum levels of acceptability
- Sterilization of men and women has received widespread acceptance in several areas. Female sterilization has been improved by technical advances with laparoscopes, culdoscopes, and greatly simplified abdominal surgical techniques … the use of tubal clips, trans-cervical approaches, and simpler techniques can be developed. For men, several current techniques hold promise but require more refinement.
- Leuteolytic and anto-progesterone approaches to fertility control including the use of prostaglandins.
- Injectable contraceptives for women … administered by pare-professionals. Currently limited by their side effects and potential hazards… can be overcome with additional research.
- Male contraceptive, in particular an injection which will be effective for specified periods.
- Injection which will assure a woman of regular periods. The drug would be given by pare-professionals once a month or as needed to regularise the menstrual cycle.
The report recommends population control only in the least Developed Countries (“LDC”) and cautions that “We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs,” though the policy was precisely that.
The report stresses more than once that weaving the concepts of family planning into health programs is a strategy for gaining acceptance and will: “help the US contend with the ideological charge that the US is more interested in curbing the numbers of LDC people than it is in their future and well-being. We should recognize that those who argue along ideological lines have made a great deal of the fact that the US contribution to development programs and health programs has steadily shrunk, whereas funding for population programs has steadily increased.”
The Report also mentioned mandatory programs of population control: “A growing number of experts are of the belief that the outlook is much harsher and far less tractable than commonly perceived… the conclusion of this view is that mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now.”
And asked: “Is the US prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth? … Are mandatory population control measures appropriate for the US and/or for others?”
The Report proposes a commercial approach in which the US government uses “big-medical research to improve the existing means of fertility control and to develop new ones.” It favors “large-scale programs that will induce fertility decline in a cost-effective manner,” and enthusiastically describes controversial examples, such as what it calls “the remarkably successful experiments in India in which financial incentives, along with other motivational devices, were used to get large numbers of men to accept vasectomies.”
The Report stated that primary emphasis on “population moderation” should be applied to “the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special US political and strategic interest.” In 1974, the named countries were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Columbia.
Note: 33 years later, in 2021, the US donated millions of mRNA vaccines to the following countries, all of which were specifically named in The Kissinger Report: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, Thailand, Ethiopia, and Columbia.
The policies expanded even further in 1976 after the NSC advocated for the use of withholding food as a strategy of influence (food power), and using military force to prevent population growth.
United Nations Fund for Population Activities (“UNFPA”)
The Kissinger Report stated it is “desirable in terms of US interests” to work with the UNFPA which already had projects in more than 70 countries.
Pressure to develop a global strategy of population reduction was advanced to the Nixon Administration by Major General William Draper, who had been instrumental in establishing UNFPA and also co-founded the Population Crisis Committee.
UNFPA ran programs described by critics as forced abortions and coercive sterilizations. The UNFPA gave money from the US to support the People’s Republic of China’s birth control campaign, widely accused of major human rights violations, mainly on women and girls. Likewise, UNFPA provided funding for the forced sterilization program promoted by the Indian government, exposed in 2014 when dozens of women died in “sterilization camps” to which they were lured in exchange for social benefits.
The program also received funds from other governments and various U.S. organizations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Further reading: The Kissinger Report and the World Population Control, The Wolf Report, 27 August 2017
Top 10 Methods Used to Reduce Human Population
Here are the top 10 methods “they” are using to reduce human population down to a “manageable” amount, at which point those remaining (apparently including the heirs to the fortunes of those driving this bus) will all live in a “utopian society”.
- Targeted sterilization
- Wars
- No cures for diseases
- Sexually transmitted diseases
- Environmental manipulation
- Abortions
- Genetically modified organisms
- Same-sex relationships
- The food supply
- Transhumanism
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.