Who has a copy of the 1997 population control; government document?

Is this it?

BUSH’S NEW WORLD ORDER: THE MEANING BEHIND THE WORDS
[link to apps.dtic.mil (secure)]

Very interesting... I haven't seen this one. But the one im looking for was posted here by a member. And i bookmarked it. But now its gone from my bookmarks. Its a document from the federal government back in 1997. Its 125 or 127 pages about population control. Via a pandemic.

National Security Study Memorandum or NSSM-200?

[link to pdf.usaid.gov (secure)]

PNAC ?

We gotta put 'em in FEMA camps first.

[link to www.congress.gov (secure)]

Listen to the Ministry album.

Interesting.

Is it real?

Nice one.. will give it a read, thanks

[link to www.truthcontrol.com (secure)]

With regards to population control, I believe the Elite want to increase the population. The more population there is, the more slaves there are. Disney pumped out multiple Marvel movies the last few years (except 2020 for obvious reasons but now are focused on cosmic MCU in 2021 in the form of Disney+). The culmination of a 10 year MCU movie franchise which includes some of the top grossing movies of all time teaches us that reducing the population by 50% is wrong and that Thanos was wrong all along. Even Thanos admitted that he was wrong (although also wrongly suggested that he should have just wiped out the entire universe to create a new one). Now we are entering a new 'golden era' of MCU where it dives into the multiverse and the Cosmic MCU with shows like Loki and the upcoming movies The Eternals and Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of madness. This is predictive programming 101... aliens are going to arrive soon which will be the final signal that the plan is moving forward.

I do not think there is any population reduction going on. I think there is something more nefarious.

[link to www.truthcontrol.com (secure)]

[link to projectcamelot.org (secure)]

Start of interview



BILL RYAN (B): I want to thank you for coming forward with what was immediately clear to me, once I'd read your written debrief, that you have some highly significant information that needs to be shared. And it's our job at Project Camelot to assist you in reaching people who are aware enough to understand what you're saying, why it's important, and to put it in perspective with other information that they may have.

And to introduce all of this, I wonder if you could say what it is that you're prepared to say on record about your background, about your history... just in general what you think is okay to share about how it is that you've actually been positioned to get a hold of the information that you're going to be reporting.

WITNESS (W): Okay. Well, the information I've shared with you already, I feel, it's not Earth-shattering. I feel it's something that a lot of people will already have grasped with the amount of information that is getting put out on the internet already.

If there's any uniqueness within the information that I'm providing to you, that I feel should be shared, is that it's first-hand information and it's given to you freely for those who wish to use it and to inform themselves. I think that that's my initial position on this.

For my part, I've spent a long time in the military and then held a senior position in the City of London, and within both institutions I became very intimate with events that were being manufactured secretly, covertly, on behalf of a group of people -- I can't say it's on behalf of a nation or a community because it's certainly none of that -- but it's certainly something is to do with a group of people whose interests lie within themselves and what they're doing to coerce a series of events to happen.

Looking back with hindsight now, I can see quite clearly they're being most successful in doing what they're doing. And I feel, because of what I know, that time is running out for these people.

So the timeline that I'm going to describe is somehow ... and that's an apt title, really, because a timeline starts somewhere and it ends somewhere and these people are very well aware of it.

We're coming up to a critical time now, which everybody's discussing at the moment. I'm very well aware of that. But the information I've brought may put some flesh on the bones for other people to consider themselves.

And as for the veracity of it, I can only tell you that what I'm going to tell you is truthful, albeit lots of people may think it's a perception. I'm quite happy with that, too. But it's been my experience, and it's that experience that I'm going to share.

B: Yes. What would be great is if you can differentiate between information which came at you first-hand when you were physically in meetings with some of these people, and other information that you've got that was through more subjective means, which you may feel very confident in. It's important to separate out the provenance of the information. But for you, of course, and for many other people who will be reading this, it actually forms a coherent picture. Right?

W: Yes. I think that's important. I think anything like this has to be coherent. And of course there is a subjective element to it; I mean, I can't deny that. But, you know, all of it could be looked at as being subjective, but it's also from a witness point of view. Hopefully, how I'm going to describe it, people will be able to see through any subjective feelings I've got about it and get to the core of what's going on.

B: Right. Now, if you could just add a little bit of detail about the group that you referred to. Does this group have any kind of name that they're calling themselves? Is this a group that other people reading this would recognize when cross-referencing information?

W: I've had difficulty myself in trying to describe these people. I've called them like a "Band of Brothers." I've also called them an "over-government". There's also other names I could call them, some of them derogatory, and that would be deserved. [laughs] But I think the best way, the most sensible way to describe these people so that people can understand what they're like, is they're like an over-government, because that's what they're doing.

B: Are you talking about British people here, or international people?

W: The meeting that I will refer to later, it was all British, and some of them are very well known characters who people in the United Kingdom will recognize immediately. Those who are international who might read this might have to do bit of research on them. But they are national figures, some of them.

B: Are they political figures? Or are they figures in the "noble classes", so to speak?

W: Yes, there is a bit of aristocracy there, and some of them come from quite aristocratic backgrounds. There's one who I identified at that meeting who is a senior politician. Two others were senior figures from the police, and one from the military. Both are known nationally and both are key figures in advising the present government -- at this present time.

B: And inasmuch as there's a political component to this, does this political component go across both parties?

W: No, this senior political component belongs to the right-wing party in Britain, the Conservative Party.

B: Okay. For the benefit of American readers, that would be the equivalent of the Republicans.

W: Yes.

B: All right. So, it's an insider group that functions in Britain as many American readers of this transcript would recognize by analogy -- it's like the American secret government. You're talking about politicians behind the scenes who are still very influential, links with the police, links with the military. Are there also American military links in there?

W: Yes.

B: Okay.

W: One significant military figure, now retired, but active in advising government.

B: Okay. Are you aware of or did you hear any discussion of any participation by church authorities or the Vatican or any of the religions of the world? Was this mentioned as part of their strategic planning for all of this?

W: No. Not at all, but I know the Church of England, especially, is complicit in everything that's going on, totally complicit.

B: Okay. And you know this because of the close relationship between senior figures in the Church of England and the group that you met with in the City of London?

W: Absolutely. You don't need a forensic expert to find that one out. That's quite open.

B: Okay. Is this all fundamentally Masonic?

W: Absolutely. There's no question about that. Everybody is vetted through that process, through the Masonic process, and then they get to meet one another.

That's something that people need to understand. There are levels in Masonry. You know, most Masons don't really know anything at all, and they're out there doing good work for the most part and they get the benefit of a kind of "club," as it were. But that goes through various levels. Some people call it by "degrees" or whatever. But it's a Who's Who. That is -- who can be trusted, who can be brought together, who's holding power, who's likely to develop more power.

And these people attract one another and they get together because they all have a single cause. But it's not exactly like a Masonic cause, you know. It's something that can be likened to it, but not the same as it.

B: Could you explain that a little more clearly?

W: Well, I think the best way to explain this is: Masonry, is to my knowledge, is just a vehicle for these people. It allows them to come together quietly, in secret, behind closed doors, get to know one another, feel safe and secure knowing confidently that what's said in these meetings go no further than those meetings. So it's got that Masonic element to it, but this goes to an entirely different level altogether.

Now, the meeting that I'm talking about, I don't even consider these people to be a significant level -- significant enough for me at the time -- but they were discussing things that were already agreed upon and planned and dictated. They were really getting together to share information, to find out how well it was going and what was needed to keep it on track.

B: So things had already been decided at an even higher level than this. Is that what you're saying?

W: That was very clear. From what I heard, they weren't a decision-making group. They were like an action group. They were people who needed to come together now and then to discuss together what needs to be done, or what is getting done, and what should be getting done. And then they disperse and go back and do what they need to do, as a result of these meetings.

B: Okay. And you attended one meeting?

W: Only one.

B: And in what capacity did you attend this meeting?

W: By sheer accident! I thought it was a normal three-monthly meeting because I looked at the e-mail list, which had familiar names on it, and I was on it. But by that time, because of the senior position I held within the City, I just thought it was quite normal for me to be earmarked for this kind of meeting.

So when I went to the meeting, it wasn't the same venue as before. It was a livery company venue, which is quite unusual, but not too unusual to wonder why. I went to this meeting and it was not the meeting that I was expecting. I believe I was invited... it was because of the position I held and because they believed that, like themselves, I was one of them.

B: So you were included because they already knew you. You were regarded as a safe pair of hands.

W: Absolutely. Yes. I was a safe pair of hands. I was a do-er. I was one of the people who, at my level within the organization, got things done.

B: Okay.

W: And I was regarded as that. Lots had known me for some time, even the most senior figures within them. I mean, it was first-name terms, that sort of thing. And I'd also been regularly invited to various functions, social functions, and things like that where I became familiar with some of them and some of them became very familiar with me.

So it was easy-going, quite professional, nothing out of the ordinary, although bells started to ring about what they were up to and what they were doing and the kind of decisions that they were making, which by and large, I ignored. It seems unusual, but there was a part of me that wanted to ignore what was going on.

B: Are you saying that in this particular meeting we're talking about, the people who attended the meeting were familiar to you, largely, and you'd attended other meetings with them before; but this was a meeting with a difference because it was in a different location and with a different agenda, although the delegates to the meeting were basically the same group? Is that what you're saying?

W: No, not exactly. I knew most of the attendees at the meeting, but not all. There were about 25 or 30 people were at the meeting. And it was looked rather informal, you know, people getting to know one another, re-acquainting themselves as people do. There was nothing unusual about that. It was when the subjects started to come up that my astonishment started to rise at what was being said.

B: Was it like a formal chaired meeting around a table, with notes and water glasses, and all of that kind of stuff?

W: None of the sort. There were no notes taken -- nothing. It was really a behind-closed-doors meeting with people talking over one another, some people holding the audience, spelling out what their concerns were, catapulting onto other things that they thought were of concern to them.

And then describing, which I can only say is the "timeline of events" that they had anticipated to be happening, to be on course, and lots of concerns because it wasn't. And what was meant to happen on the timeline that hadn't happened, and what actions were going to be taken for it to happen.

And this is where things started to get quite surreal -- because I'd never been in the company of people like this, talking like that.

Now, the group of people who I was most familiar with, the people who do the work within the City, they belong to various well known financial committees; some of them quite diverse committees, but they all belong to the same organization. These are people who go unseen; most people don't know who they are. I know them. I know them by sight, know them by name. I know them by what they do.

It was the other people who were there at the time that surprised me. Three others in particular. There were more people there who were at their type of level as well who I couldn't really identify, but three of significance, certainly.

B: Okay, now when was this meeting? Let's put a date on it.

W: Okay. We're talking 2005. It was after the May general election -- that's when Blair was voted back in again. That meeting definitely took place some time in June of that year.

B: It is okay to put on record that it was in June?

W: June 2005 is fine. Yes.

B: All right. Now I wonder then if you could spell out what it was that was discussed at that meeting.

W: Well, as I mentioned, I was quite surprised to see the amount of people who were there. The meeting ranged from several discussions covering several items or things that were happening at the world in the time, so there was quite a big discussion about security within the country. And one of those three key persons there has now assumed the role over this... is actually doing it now. He's there now. He's in that position right now.

The big thing at the time was Iraq. That was on their agenda, but also, surprisingly, there was lots of conversation and talk about Iran. And what surprised me and really raised my eyebrows, was mention, open mention -- this was people talking comfortably to one another, not arguing or shouting -- but talking comfortably about the Israeli reluctance to strike and provoke Iran into armed action. That was something that really raised the hairs on the back of my neck.

And it seemed as if the Israeli government was tied onto what was going on here and had a role to play which was being dictated outside Israeli borders. A year later, Israel attacked Iranian-backed Hezbollah bases in Lebanon.

And then the second thing that came out that I recall quite clearly was mention of Japanese reluctance to create havoc within the Chinese financial sectors.

I really couldn't understand why they were talking about that and why that had any importance. What I picked up from this seemed to be the Japanese government, or those in Japan, being coerced or ordered into doing something that would wreck or slow down the Chinese rise to financial power.

It was mentioned that China was growing too quickly and the main beneficiary of that growth was the Chinese military, which was getting modernized, mostly through the money that they were getting from the world market.

And then things... and this is where I can't help but be subjective, Bill. Because at the time I recall I started to feel quite sick about what was being spoken about, and very anxious about what was being said.

I was on the periphery of this meeting and I could feel the anxiety just rise up inside me because this was stuff that was getting spoken about off the cuff. It wasn't getting announced to anybody. This was things that they already knew about.

So then there was open talk about the use of biological weapons, where and when they would be used, and the timing. And timing always appears to be crucial.

And then there was more talk centered on how Iran must be engaged militarily in order to provoke the desired military response from China.

There was a clear expectation of goading Iran into some sort of armed conflict with the West, with China coming to the aid of Iran. Through this goading, either China or Iran would use a tactical nuclear weapon of some sort.

And, as I mentioned, these people weren't making decisions. They were discussing something that had already been planned, so they were simply sharing their information between themselves. And it became clear as these discussions went on that the central issue of this meeting was when the balloon would go up -- when all this would happen.

Other talk centered on dealing with finances, resources, protection of assets, and a control of these resources and bringing in outlying assets. And I can go through this chain of events with you now, Bill, if you like.

B: I'd be really happy to go into as much detail as you feel you can.

W: Okay. Now, as I previously mentioned, they needed either the Chinese or the Iranians to be guilty of the first use of nuclear weapons in order to justify the next stage.

Now, I've already added, and this is anecdotal, so it can't be confirmed. But my information coming through in this meeting, and from elsewhere, positively indicates that the Iranians do indeed have a tactical nuclear capability right now. They're not developing it. They've got it.

B: Some say they might have got it from the Russians, maybe. Do you have any idea about that?

W: I believe it's from the Chinese.

B: From the Chinese... okay.

W: It's because the Chinese technology has been, for many years, used in their missile systems. They're getting missile technology also from the Russians as well, but this is mostly ground-to-air missile systems, that sort of thing -- defensive weapons. Tactical missile weaponry -- that technology is coming via China.

B: Do you have some expertise in this subject from your own military background?

W: Yes, I do.

B: Okay, so this means that in this meeting where you were hearing this information, you were able to hear this wearing your military hat, with your military experience, and understand strategically and tactically what it was they were talking about and why.

W: Oh, absolutely. I could have even stepped in and corrected their terminology because I believe they were getting it wrong, but they were just describing it the best way they could.

B: Right.

W: So yes, I do have quite a deep knowledge of those types of weapons, and weapons systems in general.

B: Weapons systems in general; sure. Okay, back to where we were, that was a little footnote that you put in there, saying that you felt, anecdotally, but you're also confident in that opinion, that Iran did actually have a current nuclear capability.

W: Yes, if I can put this in here, Bill, before this escapes me... it's anecdotal in the sense that the discussion didn't mention that Iran didn't have them. The discussion leant toward the Iranians having that type of weapon and not having them. I think the distinction would have been made there -- if they didn't have them. It wasn't mentioned that they DIDN'T have them. It leant towards them having such weapons already.

B: I understand. Now, I don't want to get you off track, but there's the potential analogy with the Iraqi situation, where Western governments and military, whether they really knew the truth or not, were certainly telling the public that the Iraqi military capability was far greater than it really was. Is it possible that there was some delusion here with respect to Iran's capability? Or do you think they really did know what the Iranians have and could do?

W: Making a comparison with Iraq is a natural thing to do. However, in this context, I think it could mislead.

The backing that Iraq got during the Iran-Iraq War was mostly Western. And of course "Western" we must include Israel, so the likelihood of Iraq getting a nuclear weapon that they haven't produced themselves, but getting it imported to them, would be extremely low.

Now, the other side of the coin is Iran. Now, Iran is being continuously backed by China and then later by the Russians; and also by other countries too. The military market is quite an open one and in that we can even include the French, who quite independently export their weapons out wherever they can.

B: Yes.

W: Even in defiance of conventions in place about the sale of weapons abroad. But this goes a bit beyond that. We're talking about a country that's being used quite well by another country throughout the revolutionary period -- where they have been seen as an enemy of all the Western states, and also the Gulf states as well.

B: You mean, you're referring to Iran being used by China?

W: China. Yes. They're both using each other, of course. China's economy is skyrocketing. I don't know if it's reached its plateau now or not, and I'm not talking about that. But the amount of weaponry and the level of technical expertise that Iran is receiving from the Chinese military -- it seems inconceivable that nuclear weapons haven't been included within any package that goes there; whether that comes under the direct control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards or jointly by the Iranians and the Chinese. One can't be sure.

But I go back to what I said before, that at that meeting, the assumption was -- and it was quite clear -- that the Iranians HAD such weapons in their possession because it wasn't mentioned to the contrary.

B: Understood. And what you're going to go on to talk about is how this cooperation between Iran and China was going to be used as a

Try here

What is the State of the Global Depopulation Program?
Amy S. July 21, 2019

[link to www.prepperfortress.com (secure)]

Last Edited by SerenaSeesAll on 07/13/2021 12:05 PM

What is the State of the Global Depopulation Program?
Amy S. July 21, 2019

[link to prepareforchange.net (secure)]

I met Bill Ryan right after he released this information. This was one of the last moves he made. He told me, that "they" put him under immense pressure following this interview. Soon after, he retreated to somewhere in South America and was never heard from. I believe he poked into a hornets-nest. I never forgot his words regarding this ASM-interview and how all hell broke loose to silence him.

With the events of 2020 unfolding, I knew he was up to some very delicate insider knowledge back then that is about to unfold, at least partially, right now.

You Tube forgot to sensor some of the TRUTH. How on Earth did they let that one slip by. Now that you posted it, it will disappear by nightfall.

Your quoting comic books?

They want more population????
LOL

Sounds like a document called, 'The Secret Covenant'. It was originally about the 'sons of God' from Ge:6 and how they attempted to exterminate 5-fingered people, so there could be no 'seed of Eve' born to complete the bruises associated with Ge:3:15.
That one?
The Warsaw Memos are like the paperwork that burned up in Dresden. It would be better to digitize it in the salt mine itself rather than 'move them around'. That will take some time, so will finding the abandoned mine.
That one?

Wow, that article, published 6/19/2019, predicted the virus pandemic.
"Kevin Galalae: The reason they advance ever stronger methods of depopulation is because the methods they have employed so far have not been sufficient to reach the desperate goals previously set, goals that have only become more desperate. Desperate times call for desperate measure. Now we are in do or die time. We no longer have a buffer time, which is why they are going for broke; hence the chemtrails, the GMOs and, soon, pandemic-causing viruses." (Less than 50%).

[link to www.bitchute.com (secure)]

she talks about an astounding document from 1996