Our perspective is constrained so we see things through a "reality tunnel" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel).
We never see the whole picture. We only see a narrow sliver of it. Perspective is infinite -- only the Omniscient see its entirety. But we often believe that our perspective is the way things are -- the whole truth. Thus it shapes our beliefs, and in so doing, guides our thoughts, our choices, our trajectory.
And because we are not experts in most things, we use mental shortcuts to help us decide (http://jcr.wisc.edu/publicity/press-releases/docs/2009/june/...).
Here's an example of a divisive, yet narrowly-framed issue: Abortion.
How is abortion usually framed? People argue about the "right to life" vs a "woman's right to choose." We argue back and forth about these issues, but we are doing so inside a narrowly-framed perspective.
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg said that abortion is primarily about population control, but this rarely gets talked about (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html...). It's the establishment's pink elephant that's been sitting in the back of the room since the 1970s.
I believe that much of propaganda is designed to dance around the issue of population control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_control).
Watch Dr. Al Bartlett's (http://www.albartlett.org/) fascinating lecture on the exponential function at the University of Colorado at Boulder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9znsuCphHUU&playnext=1...). He says, "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." Professor Bartlett then goes through the stark reality of what will happen if we continue our exponential growth against finite natural resources.
Research by economists John Donohue and Steven Levit at the University of Chicago (http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittT...) showed that the legalizing of abortion started to reduce violent crime by the 1980s because would-be impoverished people weren't growing up to be criminals. You may have read about this is Levit's book, Freakonomics (http://freakonomicsbook.com/). The government knows this.
In the 1960s Henry Kissinger completed National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), which is more commonly referred to as the "Kissinger Report" (http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf). Kissinger says that the greatest threat to America is not the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but the overpopulation of third-world countries. NSSM 200 discusses several mechanisms that control population growth, such as war, famine, disease, pestilence, poverty and immigration.
My point is that abortion is a form of population control and our government sees it as such, but this rarely gets talked about. Instead we argue about "right to life" and "right to choose" and most have never even considered the bigger issue because that's the way the issue has been framed, because that's the way the government and the media establishment want it.
The question we should be asking is, "Do you believe that population control is a good thing or a bad thing?"
Why do you think government and media don't talk about the population control issue more? Is it because they think the population will be upset thinking about the idea of population control?
At the end of Dr. Bartlett's lecture on population growth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9znsuCphHUU&playnext=1...), he presents the "Great Challenge." He asks, "Can you think of any problem on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted or advanced by having larger populations at the local level, the state level, the national level, or globally?"
My answer to his challenge is: Yes, larger populations mean we have more of our greatest resource -- ourselves. Our creativity and ingenuity has developed solutions to our greatest problems, but we need true and accurate information so that we make better decisions and work toward a solution. To our government and the media: Don't hold back stark realities or frame it in propaganda because this only impairs our ability to find a solution.
The Propaganda Project (http://www.propagandaproject.org) is my answer for reducing the noise and getting more truth out of the media. Do you think it can work?
I wonder where is the separation between those that understand the issue at hand (let's say "population control") but know that they will never be able to frame it as such, and those that don't know the issue and are just bouncing around between the allowed frame limits?
In other words this seems to imply there is a group of people in the government that meet and discuss these issues "off-the-record" so to speak, and they all sit around and ponder "How would we curb population growth?". Presumably NSC is doing this as you pointed out.
However I feel there is tinge of conspiracy theory here as well. I can't imagine there be this group of very intelligent and informed governmental group that is also at the same time able to keep it secret and is able to exercise control. They would have to communicate their desires or commands to IMF, World Bank, UN, branches of the US Govt., somehow determine who gets elected and who doesn't etc. It is not impossible but somehow I don't quite believe it yet.
Population control has been talked about publicly. It was discussed more prevalently in the 1970s -- it just doesn't get talked about much anymore.
Here is a recent video of David Rockefeller speaking about the importance of population control for the UN and other international bodies (such as you mentioned):
Again, it's not so much a conspiracy -- you don't see the establishment giving presentations on who killed JFK at conferences. But as you can see, population control is a discussed in these settings -- just not in the mass media. As explained in "Manufacturing Consent," these type of framed issues are just part of the political economy.