This is a transcript of the first of three tapes on the "New Order of
Barbarians", referred to on the tapes simply as the "new world system." Tapes
one and two, done in 1988, are the reminiscences By Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, of a
speech given March 20, 1969 by Dr. Richard Day, an insider of the "Order", whose
credentials are given in an interview with Dr. Dunegan on tape three.
The moderator in the final taped
interview with Dr. Dunegan is Randy Engel, National Director, US Coalition for
Life. It's interesting to note that Dr. Dunegan "spilled the beans" in 1988.
According to the bio information, Dr. Day died shortly thereafter, in 1989. It
could be a coincidence since Dr. Day was elderly when he died, and then
Most of you reading this are very well
aware, already, of many of the details involved in the diabolical plan to bring
about a New World Order. As much as we all know, hearing about the "HOW" from
the words of an insider is spine chilling. I believe these tapes COULD change
many lives and awaken many more people to the REALITY of what lies ahead if we
don't stop the process. There are many more millions of US than there are the
planners. The useful idiots – their words, not ours – who are helping the
process along know NOT what they do. If they DID know, they would stop, because
they would KNOW that they, too, will be either terminated or become part of a
GLOBAL SLAVE CAMP.
Dr. Dunegan reveals not just "WHAT" is
intended for America and all people in the world, but "HOW" the controllers
intend to carry out their plan. He covers topics such as:
- IS there a power, A force or a group
of men organizing and redirecting change?
- "Everything is in place and nobody
can stop us now . . ."
- People will have to get used to
change – everything will change, constantly
- The REAL and the "STATED" goals
- Population Control
- Permission to have babies
- Redirecting the purpose of sex - sex
without reproduction and reproduction without sex
- Sex education as a tool of World
- Encouraging homosexuality... Sex,
- Euthanasia and the "Demise Pill"
- Limiting access to affordable medical
care makes eliminating the elderly easier
- Planning the control over medicine
- Elimination of private doctors
- New Difficult to diagnose and
- Suppressing cancer cures as a means
of population control.
- Inducing heart attacks as a form of
- Education as a tool for accelerating
the onset of puberty and pushing evolution and MUCH, MUCH MORE
IS THERE A POWER, A FORCE OR A GROUP OF
MEN ORGANIZING AND REDIRECTING CHANGE?
There has been much written, and
much said, by some people who have looked at all the changes that have occurred
in American society in the past 20 years or so, and who have looked
retrospectively to earlier history of the United States, and indeed, of the
world, and come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy of sorts which
influences, indeed controls. major historical events, not only in the United
States, but around the world. This conspiratorial interpretation of history is
based on people making observations from the outside, gathering evidence and
coming to the conclusion that from the outside they see a conspiracy. Their
evidence and conclusions are based on evidence gathered in retrospect. Period. I
want to now describe what I heard from a speaker in 1969 which in several weeks
will now be 20 years ago. The speaker did not speak in terms of retrospect, but
rather predicting changes that would be brought about in the future. The speaker
was not looking from the outside in, thinking that he saw conspiracy, rather, he
was on the inside, admitting that, indeed, there was an organized power, force,
group of men, who wielded enough influence to determine major events involving
countries around the world. And he predicted, or rather expounded on, changes
that were planned for the remainder of this century. As you listen, if you can
recall the situation, at least in the United States in 1969 and the few years
there after, and then recall the kinds of changes which have occurred between
then and now, almost 20 years later, I believe you will be impressed with the
degree to which the things that were planned to be brought about have already
been accomplished. Some of the things that were discussed were not intended to
be accomplished yet by 1988. [Note: the year of this recording] but are intended
to be accomplished before the end of this century. There is a timetable; and it
was during this session that some of the elements of the timetable were brought
out. Anyone who recalls early in the days of the Kennedy Presidency .. the
Kennedy campaign .. when he spoke of .. progress in the decade of the 60's":
that was kind of a cliché in those days - "the decade of the 60's." Well, by
1969 our speaker was talking about the decade of the 70's, the decade of the
80's, and the decade of the 90's. So that .. I think that terminology that we
are looking at .. looking at things and expressing things, probably all comes
from the same source. Prior to that time I don't remember anybody saying "the
decade of the 40's and the decade of the 50's. So I think this overall plan and
timetable had taken important shape with more predictability to those who
control it, sometime in the late 50's. That's speculation on my part. In any
event, the speaker said that his purpose was to tell us about changes which
would be brought about in the next 30 years or so...so that an entirely new
world-wide system would be in operation before the turn of the century. As he
put it, "We plan to enter the 21st Century with a running start."
"EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE AND NOBODY CAN
STOP US NOW..."
He said, as we listened to what he
was about to present, he said, "Some of you will think I'm talking about
Communism. Well, what I'm talking about is much bigger than Communism!" At that
time he indicated that there is much more cooperation between East and West than
most people realize. In his introductory remarks he commented that he was free
to speak at this time. He would not have been able to say what he was about to
say, even a few years earlier. But he was free to speak at this time because
now, and I'm quoting here, "everything is in place and nobody can stop us now."
That's the end of that quotation. He went on to say that most people don't
understand how governments operate and even people in high positions in
governments, including our own, don't really understand how and where decisions
are made. He went on to say that .. he went on to say that people who really
influence decisions are names that for the most part would be familiar to most
of us, but he would not use individuals' names or names of any specific
organization. But. That, if he did, most of the people would be names that were
recognized by most of his audience. He went on to say that they were not
primarily people in public office, but people of prominence who were primarily
known in their private occupations or private positions. The speaker was a
doctor of medicine, a former professor at a large Eastern university, and he was
addressing a group of doctors of medicine, about 80 in number. His name would
not be widely recognized by anybody likely to hear this, and so there is no
point in giving his name. The only purpose in recording this is that it may give
a perspective to those who hear it regarding the changes which have already been
accomplished in the past 20 years or so, and a bit of a preview to what at least
some people are planning for the remainder of this century ... so that we, or
they, would enter the 21st Century with a flying start. Some of us may not enter
that Century. His purpose in telling our group about these changes that were to
be brought about was to make it easier for us to adapt to these changes. Indeed,
as he quite accurately said, "they would be changes that would be very
surprising, and in some ways difficult for people to accept," and he hoped that
we, as sort of his friends, would make the adaptation more easily if we knew
somewhat beforehand what to expect.
"PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO
Somewhere in the introductory
remarks he insisted that nobody have a tape recorder and that nobody take notes,
which for a professor was a very remarkable kind of thing to expect from an
audience. Something in his remarks suggested that there could be negative
repercussions against him if his .. if it became widely known what he was about
to say to .. to our group .. if it became widely known that indeed he had
spilled the beans, so to speak. When I heard first that, I thought maybe that
was sort of an ego trip, somebody enhancing his own importance. But as the
revelations unfolded, I began to understand why he might have had some concern
about not having it widely known what was said, although this .. although this
was a fairly public forum where he was speaking, (where the) remarks were
delivered. But, nonetheless, he asked that no notes be taken .. no tape
recording be used: suggesting there might be some personal danger to himself if
these revelations were widely publicized. Again, as the remarks began to unfold,
and saw the rather outrageous things that were said .. at that time they
certainly seemed outrageous .. I made it a point to try to remember as much of
what he said as I could, and during the subsequent weeks and months, and years,
to connect my recollections to simple events around me .. both to aid my memory
for the future, in case I wanted to do what I'm doing now - record this. And
also, to try to maintain a perspective on what would be developing, if indeed,
it followed the predicted pattern - which it has! At this point, so that I don't
forget to include it later, I'll just include some statements that were made
from time to time throughout the presentation. .. just having a general bearing
on the whole presentation. One of the statements was having to do with change.
People get used .. the statement was, "People will have to get used to the idea
of change, so used to change, that they'll be expecting change. Nothing will be
permanent." This often came out in the context of a society of .. where people
seemed to have no roots or moorings, but would be passively willing to accept
change simply because it was all they had ever known. This was sort of in
contrast to generations of people up until this time where certain things you
expected to be, and remain in place as reference points for your life. So change
was to be brought about, change was to be anticipated and expected, and
accepted, no questions asked. Another comment that was made .. from time to time
during the presentation .. was. "People are too trusting, people don't ask the
right questions." Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb.
But sometimes when .. when he would say that and say, "People don't ask the
right questions," it was almost with a sense of regret ... as if he were uneasy
with what he was part of, and wished that people would challenge it and maybe
not be so trusting.
THE REAL AND THE STATED GOALS
Another comment that was repeated
from time to time, .. this particularly in relation to changing laws and
customs, .. and specific changes, .. he said, "Everything has two purposes. One
is the ostensible purpose which will make it acceptable to people and second is
the real purpose which would further the goals of establishing the new system
and having it," Frequently he would say, "There is just no other way, There's
just no other way!" This seemed to come as a sort of an apology, particularly
when .. at the conclusion of describing some particularly offensive changes. For
example, the promotion of drug addiction which we'll get into shortly.
He was very active with population
control groups, the population control movement, and population control was
really the entry point into specifics following the introduction. He said the
population is growing too fast. Numbers of people living at any one time on the
planet must be limited or we will run out of space to live. We will outgrow our
food supply and we will over-populate the world with our waste.
PERMISSION TO HAVE BABIES
People won't be allowed to have
babies just because they want to or because they are careless. Most families
would be limited to two. Some people would be allowed only one, and the
outstanding person or persons might be selected and allowed to have three. But
most people would [be] allowed to have only two babies. That's because the zero
population growth rate] is 2.1 children per completed family. So something like
every 10th family might be allowed the privilege of the third baby. To me, up to
this point, the word "population control primarily connoted limiting the number
of babies to be born. But this remark about what people would be "allowed" and
then what followed, made it quite clear that when you hear "population control"
that means more than just controlling births. It means control of every endeavor
of an entire .. of the entire world population; a much broader meaning to that
term than I had ever attached to it before hearing this. As you listen and
reflect back on some of the things you hear, you will begin to recognize how one
aspect dovetails with other aspects in terms of controlling human endeavors.
REDIRECTING THE PURPOSE OF SEX - SEX
REPRODUCTION AND REPRODUCTION WITHOUT SEX
Well, from population control, the
natural next step then was sex. He said sex must be separated from reproduction.
Sex is too pleasurable, and the urges are too strong, to expect people to give
it up. Chemicals in food and in the water supply to reduce the sex drive are not
practical. The strategy then would be not to diminish sex activity, but to
increase sex activity, but in such a way that people won't be having babies.
CONTRACEPTION UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE TO
And the first consideration then
here was contraception. Contraception would be very strongly encouraged, and it
would be connected so closely in people's minds with sex, that they would
automatically think contraception when they were thinking or preparing for sex.
And contraception would be made universally available. Nobody wanting
contraception would be .. find that they were unavailable. Contraceptives would
be displayed much more prominently in drug stores, right up with the cigarettes
and chewing gum. Out in the open rather than hidden under the counter where
people would have to ask for them and maybe be embarrassed. This kind of
openness was a way of suggesting that contraceptions .. that contraceptives are
just as much a part of life as any other items sold in the store. And,
contraceptives would be advertised. And contraceptives would be dispensed in the
schools in association with sex education!
SEX EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF WORLD
The sex education was to get kids
interested early, making the connection between sex and the need for
contraception early in their lives, even before they became very active. At this
point I was recalling some of my teachers, particularly in high school and found
it totally unbelievable to think of them agreeing, much less participating in,
distributing of contraceptives to students. But, that only reflected my lack of
understanding of how these people operate. That was before the school-based
clinic programs got started. Many, many cities in the United States by this time
have already set up school-based clinics which are primarily contraception,
birth control, population control clinics. The idea then is that the connection
between sex and contraception introduced and reinforced in school would carry
over into marriage. Indeed, if young people when they matured decided to get
married, marriage itself would be diminished in importance. He indicated some
recognition that most people probably would want to be married. .. but that this
certainly would not be any longer considered to be necessary for sexual
TAX FUNDED ABORTION AS POPULATION
No surprise then, that the next item
was abortion. And this, now back in 1969, four years before Roe vs. Wade. He
said, "Abortion will no longer be a crime." Abortion will be accepted as normal,
and would be paid for by taxes for people who could not pay for their own
abortions. Contraceptives would be made available by tax money so that nobody
would have to do without contraceptives. If school sex programs would lead to
more pregnancies in children, that was really seen as no problem. Parents who
think they are opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds will change
their minds when it is their own child who is pregnant. So this will help
overcome opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards will still
refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they won't matter anymore.
ENCOURAGING HOMOSEXUALITY ... ANYTHING
HOMOSEXUALITY ALSO WAS TO BE ENCOURAGED.
"People will be given permission to
be homosexual," that's the way it was stated. They won't have to hide it. And
elderly people will be encouraged to continue to have active sex lives into the
very old ages, just as long as they can. Everyone will be given permission to
have sex, to enjoy however they want. Anything goes. This is the way it was put.
And, I remember thinking, "how arrogant for this individual, or whoever he
represents, to feel that they can give or withhold permission for people to do
things!" But that was the terminology that was used. In this regard, clothing
was mentioned. Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative.
Recall back in 1969 was the time of the mini skirt, when those mini-skirts were
very, very high and very revealing. He said, "It is not just the amount of skin
that is expressed ... exposed that makes clothing sexually seductive, but other,
more subtle things are often suggestive.".. things like movement, and the cut of
clothing, and the kind of fabric, the positioning of accessories on the
clothing. "If a woman has an attractive body, why should she not show it?" was
one of the statements. There was not detail on what was meant by "provocative
clothing," but since that time if you watched the change in clothing styles,
blue jeans are cut in a way that they're more tight-fitting in the crotch. They
form wrinkles. Wrinkles are essentially arrows. Lines which direct one's vision
to certain anatomic areas. And, this was around the time of the "burn your bra"
activity. He indicated that a lot of women should not go without a bra. They
need a bra to be attractive, so instead of banning bras and burning them, bras
would come back. But they would be thinner and softer allowing more natural
movement. It was not specifically stated, but certainly a very thin bra is much
more revealing of the nipple and what else is underneath, than the heavier bras
that were in style up to that time.
Earlier he said .. sex and
reproduction would be separated. You would have sex without reproduction and
then technology was reproduction without sex. This would be done in the
laboratory. He indicated that already much, much research was underway about
making babies in the laboratory. There was some elaboration on that, but I don't
remember the details. How much of that technology has come to my attention since
that time, I don't remember .. I don't remember in a way that I can distinguish
what was said from what I subsequently have learned as general medical
FAMILIES TO DIMINISH IN IMPORTANCE
Families would be limited in size.
We already alluded to not being allowed more than two children. Divorce would be
made easier and more prevalent. Most people who marry will marry more than once.
More people will not marry. Unmarried people would stay in hotels and even live
together. That would be very common - nobody would even ask questions about it.
It would be widely accepted as no different from married people being together.
More women will work outside the home. More men will be transferred to other
cities and in their jobs, more men would travel. Therefore, it would be harder
for families to stay together. This would tend to make the marriage relationship
less stable and, therefore, tend to make people less willing to have babies.
And, the extended families would be smaller, and more remote. Travel would be
easier, less expensive, for a while, so that people who did have to travel would
feel they could get back to their families, not that they were abruptly being
made remote from their families. But one of the net effects of easier divorce
laws combined with the promotion of travel, and transferring families from one
city to another, was to create instability in the families. If both husband and
wife are working and one partner gets transferred the other one may not be
easily transferred. Soon, either gives up his or her job and stays behind while
the other leaves, or else gives up the job and risks not finding employment in
the new location. Rather a diabolical approach to this whole thing!
EUTHANASIA AND THE "DEMISE PILL"
Everybody has a right to live only
so long. The old are no longer useful. They become a burden. You should be ready
to accept death. Most people are. An arbitrary age limit could be established.
After all, you have a right to only so many steak dinners, so many orgasms, and
so many good pleasures in life. And after you have had enough of them and you're
no longer productive, working, and contributing, then you should be ready to
step aside for the next generation. Some things that would help people realize
that they had lived long enough, he mentioned several of these - I don't
remember them all - here are a few - use of very pale printing ink on forms that
people .. are necessary to fill out, so that older people wouldn't be able to
read the pale ink as easily and would need to go to younger people for help.
Automobile traffic patterns - there would be more high-speed traffic lanes ..
traffic patterns that would .. that older people with their slower reflexes
would have trouble dealing with and thus, lose some of their independence.
LIMITING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE MEDICAL
MAKES ELIMINATING ELDERLY EASIER
A big item .. was elaborated at some
length was the cost of medical care would be made burdensomely high. Medical
care would be connected very closely with one's work but also would be made
very, very high in cost so that it would simply be unavailable to people beyond
a certain time. And unless they had a remarkably rich, supporting family, they
would just have to do without care. And the idea was that if everybody says,
"Enough! What a burden it is on the young to try to maintain the old people,"
then the young would become agreeable to helping Mom and Dad along the way,
provided this was done humanely and with dignity. And then the example was -
there could be like a nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had
done a good job. And then after the party's over they take the "demise pill."
PLANNING THE CONTROL OVER MEDICINE
The next topic is Medicine. There
would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would
be much more tightly controlled. The observation was made, "Congress is not
going to go along with national health insurance. That (in 1969)," he said, "is
now, abundantly evident. But it's not necessary. We have other ways to control
health care." These would come about more gradually, but all health care
delivery would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected
to work. If you don't work or can't work, you won't have access to medical care.
The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where
it was virtually nonexistent. Costs would be forced up so that people won't be
able to afford to go without insurance. People pay.. you pay for it, you're
entitled to it. It was only subsequently that I began to realize the extent to
which you would not be paying for it. Your medical care would be paid for by
others. And therefore you would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was
offered to you as a privilege. Your role being responsible for your own care
would be diminished. As an aside here, this is not something that was developed
at that time .. I didn't understand it at the time as an aside, the way this
works, everybody's made dependent on insurance. And if you don't have insurance
then you pay directly; the cost of your care is enormous. The insurance company,
however, paying for your care, does not pay that same amount. If you are
charged, say, $600 for the use of an operating room, the insurance company does
not pay $600 on your part. They pay $300 or $400. And that differential in
billing has the desired effect: It enables the insurance company to pay for that
which you could never pay for. They get a discount that's unavailable to you.
When you see your bill you're grateful that the insurance company could do that.
And in this way you are dependent, and virtually required to have insurance. The
whole billing is fraudulent. Anyhow, continuing on now, .. access to hospitals
would be tightly controlled. Identification would be needed to get into the
building. The security in and around hospitals would be established and
gradually increased so that nobody without identification could get in or move
around inside the building. Theft of hospital equipment, things like typewriters
and microscopes and so forth would be "allowed" and exaggerated; reports of it
would be exaggerated so that this would be the excuse needed to establish the
need for strict security, until people got used to it. And anybody moving about
the hospital would be required to wear an identification badge with photograph
and.. telling why he was there .. employee or lab technician or visitor or
whatever. This is to be brought in gradually, getting everybody used to the idea
of identifying themselves - until it was just accepted. This need for ID to move
about would start in small ways: hospitals, some businesses, but gradually
expand to include everybody in all places! It was observed that hospitals can be
used to confine people .. for the treatment of criminals. This did not mean,
necessarily, medical treatment. At that .. at that time I did not know the word
"Psycho-Prison" - is in the Soviet Union, but, without trying to recall all the
details, basically, he was describing the use of hospitals both for treating the
sick, and for confinement of criminals for reasons other than the medical
well-being of the criminal. The definition of criminal was not given.
ELIMINATION OF PRIVATE DOCTORS
The image of the doctor would
change. No longer would the .. he be seen as an individual professional in
service to individual patients. But the doctor would be gradually recognized as
a highly skilled technician - and his job would change. The job is to include
things like executions by lethal injection. The image of the doctor being a
powerful, independent person would have to be changed. And he went on to say,
"Doctors are making entirely too much money. They should advertise like any
other product." Lawyers would be advertising too. Keep in mind, this was an
audience of doctors; being addressed by a doctor. And it was interesting that he
would make some rather insulting statements to his audience without fear of
antagonizing us. The solo practitioner would become a thing of the past. A few
die-hards might try to hold out, but most doctors would be employed by an
institution of one kind or another. Group practice would be encouraged,
corporations would be encouraged, and then once the corporate image of medical
care .. as this gradually became more and more acceptable, doctors would more
and more become employees rather than independent contractors. And along with
that, of course, unstated but necessary, is the employee serves his employer,
not his patient. So that's .. we've already seen quite a lot of that in the last
20 years. And apparently more on the horizon. The term HMO was not used at that
time, but as you look at HMOs you see this is the way that medical care is being
taken over since the National Health Insurance approach did not get through the
Congress. A few die-hard doctors may try to make a go of it, remaining in solo
practice, remaining independent, which, parenthetically, is me. But they would
suffer a great loss of income. They'd be able to scrape by, maybe, but never
really live comfortably as would those who were willing to become employees of
the system. Ultimately, there would be no room at all for the solo practitioner
after the system is entrenched.
NEW DIFFICULT TO DIAGNOSE AND
Next heading to talk about is Health
and Disease. He said there would be new diseases to appear which had not ever
been seen before. Would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable - at
least for along time. No elaboration was made on this, but I remember, not long
after hearing this presentation, when I had a puzzling diagnosis to make, I
would be wondering, "is this was what he was talking about? Is this a case of
what he was talking about?" Some years later, as AIDS ultimately developed, I
think AIDS was at least one example of what he was talking about. I now think
that AIDS probably was a manufactured disease.
SUPPRESSING CANCER CURES AS A MEANS OF
Cancer. He said. "We can cure almost
every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if
it's ever decided that it should be released. But consider - if people stop
dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die
of cancer as something else." Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more
toward comfort than toward cure. There was some statement that ultimately the
cancer cures which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to
light because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these
efforts to suppress them. But at least for the time being, letting people die of
cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of
INDUCING HEART ATTACKS AS A FORM OF
Another very interesting thing was
heart attacks. He said, "There is now a way to simulate a real heart attack. It
can be used as a means of assassination." Only a very skilled pathologist who
knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish this from the
real thing. I thought that was a very surprising and shocking thing to hear from
this particular man at that particular time. This, and the business of the
cancer cure, really still stand out sharply in my memory, because they were so
shocking and, at that time, seemed to me out of character. He then went on to
talk about nutrition and exercise sort of in the same framework. People would
not have to .. people would have to eat right and exercise right to live as long
as before. Most won't. This in the connection of nutrition, there was no
specific statement that I can recall as to particular nutrients that would be
either inadequate or in excess. In retrospect, I tend to think he meant high
salt diets and high fat diets would predispose toward high blood pressure and
premature arteriosclerotic heart disease. And that if people who were too dumb
or too lazy to exercise as they should then their dietary .. their circulating
fats go up and predispose to disease. And he said something about diet
information - about proper diet - would be widely available, but most people,
particularly stupid people, who had no right to continue living anyway, they
would ignore the advice and just go on and eat what was convenient and tasted
good. There were some other unpleasant things said about food. I just can't
recall what they were. But I do remember of .. having reflections about wanting
to plant a garden in the backyard to get around whatever these contaminated
foods would be. I regret I don't remember the details .. the rest of this ..
about nutrition and hazardous nutrition. With regard to Exercise. He went on to
say that more people would be exercising more, especially running, because
everybody can run. You don't need any special equipment or place. You can run
wherever you are. As he put it. "people will be running all over the place." And
in this vein, he pointed out how supply produces demand. And this was in
reference to athletic clothing and equipment. As this would be made more widely
available and glamorized, particularly as regards running shoes, this would
stimulate people to develop an interest in running and .. as part of a whole
sort of public propaganda campaign. People would be encouraged then to buy the
attractive sports equipment and to get into exercise. Again .. well in
connection with nutrition he also mentioned that public eating places would
rapidly increase. That .. this had a connection with the family too. As more and
more people eat out, eating at home would become less important. People would be
less dependent on their kitchens at home. And then this also connected to
convenience foods being made widely available - things like you could pop into
the microwave. Whole meals would be available pre-fixed. And of course. we've
now seen this ... and some pretty good ones. But this whole different approach
to eating out and to .. previously prepared meals being eaten in the home was
predicted at that time to be brought about - convenience foods. The convenience
foods would be part of the hazards. Anybody who was lazy enough to want the
convenience foods rather than fixing his own also had better be energetic enough
to exercise. Because if he was too lazy to exercise and too lazy to fix his own
food, then he didn't deserve to live very long. This was all presented as sort
of a moral judgement about people and what they should do with their energies.
People who are smart, who would learn about nutrition, and who are disciplined
enough to eat right and exercise right are better people - and the kind you want
to live longer.
EDUCATION AS A TOOL FOR ACCELERATING
THE ONSET OF PUBERTY AND EVOLUTION
Somewhere along in here there was
also something about accelerating the onset of puberty. And this was said in
connection with health, and later in connection with education, and connecting
to accelerating the process of evolutionary change. There was a statement that
"we think that we can push evolution faster and in the direction we want it to
go." I remember this only as a general statement. I don't recall if any details
were given beyond that.
BLENDING ALL RELIGIONS...THE OLD
RELIGIONS WILL HAVE TO GO
Another area of discussion was
Religion. This is an avowed atheist speaking. And he said, "Religion is not
necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it's mysteries and
rituals - so they will have religion. But the major religions of today have to
be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old
religions will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic
Church is brought down, the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new
religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate
something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept it,
and feel at home in it. Most people won't be too concerned with religion. They
will realize that they don't need it.
CHANGING THE BIBLE THROUGH REVISIONS OF
In order to do this, the Bible will
be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words
will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the
meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word - and as time goes
on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized. and then gradually
that word replaced with another word." I don't know if I'm making that clear.
But the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key
words replaced by other words. And the variability in meaning attached to any
word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and
therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won't know the
difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, "the few who do
notice the difference won't be enough to matter."
"THE CHURCHES WILL HELP US!"
Then followed one of the most
surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, "Some of you probably
think the Churches won't stand for this," and he went on to say, "the churches
will help us!" There was no elaboration on this, it was unclear just what he had
in mind when he said, "the churches will help us!" In retrospect I think some of
us now can understand what he might have meant at that time. I recall then only
of thinking, "no they won't!" and remembering our Lord's words where he said to
Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of
Hell will not prevail against it." So .. yes, some people in the Churches might
help. And in the subsequent 20 years we've seen how some people in Churches have
helped. But we also know that our Lord's Words will stand, and the gates of Hell
will not prevail.
RESTRUCTURING EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF
Another area of discussion was
Education. And one of the things; in connection with education that remember
connecting with what he said about religion was in addition to changing the
Bible he said that the classics in Literature would be changed. I seem to recall
Mark Twain's writings was given as one example. But he said, the casual reader
reading a revised version of a classic would never even suspect that there was
any change. And, somebody would have to go through word by word to even
recognize that any change was made in these classics, the changes would be so
subtle. But the changes would be such as to promote the acceptability of the new
MORE TIME IN SCHOOLS, BUT THEY
"WOULDN'T LEARN ANYTHING."
As regards education, he indicated
that kids would spend more time in schools, but in many schools they wouldn't
learn anything. They'll learn some things, but not as much as formerly. Better
schools in better areas with better people - their kids will learn more. In the
better schools learning would be accelerated. And this is another time where he
said, "We think we can push evolution." By pushing kids to learn more he seemed
to be suggesting that their brains would evolve, that their offspring would
evolve .. sort of pushing evolution .. where kids would learn and be more
intelligent at a younger age. As if this pushing would alter their physiology.
Overall, schooling would be prolonged. This meant prolonged through the school
year. I'm not sure what he said about a long school day, I do remember he said
that school was planned to go all summer, that the summer school vacation would
become a thing of the past. Not only for schools, but for other reasons. People
would begin to think of vacation times year round, not just in the summer. For
most people it would take longer to complete their education. To get what
originally had been in a bachelor's program would now require advanced degrees
and more schooling. So that a lot of school time would be just wasted time. Good
schools would become more competitive. I inferred when he said that, that he was
including all schools - elementary up through college - but I don't recall
whether he said that. Students would have to decide at a younger age what they
would want to study and get onto their track early, if they would qualify. It
would be harder to change to another field of study once you get started.
Studies would be concentrated in much greater depth, but narrowed. You wouldn't
have access to material in other fields, outside your own area of study, without
approval. This seem to be more .. where he talked about limited access to other
fields .. I seem to recall that as being more at the college level. high school
and college level, perhaps. People would be very specialized in their own area
of expertise. But they won't be able to get a broad education and won't be able
to understand what is going on overall.
Why Johnny Can't Read
The Dumbing Down Of
CONTROLLING WHO HAS ACCESS TO
He was already talking about
computers in education, and at that time he said anybody who wanted computer
access, or access to books that were not directly related to their field of
study would have to have a very good reason for so doing. Otherwise, access
would be denied.
SCHOOLS AS THE HUB OF THE COMMUNITY
Another angle was that the schools
would become more important in people's overall life. Kids in addition to their
academics would have to get into school activities unless they wanted to feel
completely out of it. But spontaneous activities among kids.. the thing that
came to my mind when I heard this was - sand lot football and sand lot baseball
teams that we worked up as kids growing up. I said the kids wanting any
activities outside of school would be almost forced to get them through the
school. There would be few opportunities outside. Now the pressures of the
accelerated academic program, the accelerated demands. where kids would feel
they had to be part of something - one or another athletic club or some school
activity - these pressures he recognized would cause some students to burn out.
He said. "the smartest ones will learn how to cope with pressures and to
survive. There will be some help available to students in handling stress, but
the unfit won't be able to make it. They will then move on to other things." In
this connection and later on in the connection with drug abuse and alcohol abuse
he indicated that psychiatric services to help would be increased dramatically.
In all the pushing for achievement, it was recognized that many people would
need help, and the people worth keeping around would be able to accept and
benefit from that help, and still be super achievers. Those who could not would
fall by the wayside and therefore were sort of dispensable - "expendable" I
guess is the word I want. Education would be lifelong. Adults would be going to
school. There'll always be new information that adults must have to keep up.
When you can't keep up anymore, you're too old. This was another way of letting
older people know that the time had come for them to move on and take the demise
pill. If you got too tired to keep up with your education, or you got too old to
learn new information, then this was a signal - you begin to prepare to get
ready to step aside.
"SOME BOOKS WOULD JUST DISAPPEAR FROM
In addition to revising the
classics, which I alluded to awhile ago .. with revising the Bible, he said,
"some books would just disappear from the libraries." This was in the vein that
some books contain information or contain ideas that should not be kept around.
And therefore, those books would disappear. I don't remember exactly if he said
how this was to be accomplished. But I seem to recall carrying away this idea
that this would include thefts. That certain people would be designated to go to
certain libraries and pick up certain books and just get rid of them. Not
necessarily as a matter of policy - just simply steal it. Further down the line,
not everybody will be allowed to own books. And some books nobody will be
allowed to own.
Another area of discussion was laws
that would be changed. At that time a lot of States had blue laws about Sunday
sales, certain Sunday activities. He said the blue laws [Sunday laws] would all
be repealed. Gambling laws would be repeated or relaxed, so that gambling would
be increased. He indicated then that governments would get into gambling. We've
had a lot of state lotteries pop up around the country since then. And, at the
time, we were already being told that would be the case. "Why should all that
gambling money be kept in private hands when the State would benefit from it?"
was the rational behind it. But people should be able to gamble if they want to.
So it would become a civil activity, rather than a private, or illegal activity.
Bankruptcy laws would be changed. I don't remember the details, but just that
they would be. And I know subsequent to that time they have been. Antitrust laws
would be changed, or be interpreted differently, or both. In connection with the
changing anti-trust laws, there was some statement that in a sense. competition
would be increased. But this would be increased competition within otherwise
controlled circumstances. So it's not a free competition. I recall of having the
impression that it was like competition but within members of a club. There
would be nobody outside the club would be able to compete. Sort of like teams
competing within a professional sports league .. if you're the NFL or the
American or National Baseball Leagues - you compete within the league but the
league is all in agreement on what the rules of competition are - not a really
THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF DRUG ABUSE TO
CREATE A JUNGLE ATMOSPHERE
Drug use would he increased. Alcohol
use would be increased. Law enforcement efforts against drugs would be
increased. On first hearing that it sounded like a contradiction. Why increase
drug abuse and simultaneously increase law enforcement against drug abuse? But
the idea is that, in part, the increased availability of drugs would provide a
sort of law of the jungle whereby the weak and the unfit would be selected out.
There was a statement made at the time: "Before the earth was overpopulated,
there was a law of the jungle where only the fittest survived. You had to be
able to protect yourself against the elements and wild animals and disease. And
if you were fit you survived. But now we've become so civilized - we're over
civilized - and the unfit are enabled to survive only at the expense of those
who are more fit." And the abusive drugs then, would restore, in a certain
sense, the law of the jungle, and selection of the fittest for survival. News
about drug abuse and law enforcement efforts would tend to keep drugs in the
public consciousness. And would also tend to reduce this unwarranted American
complacency that the world is a safe place, and a nice place.
The same thing would happen with
alcohol. Alcohol abuse would be both promoted and demoted at the same time. The
vulnerable and the weak would respond to the promotions and therefore use and
abuse more alcohol. Drunk driving would become more of a problem; and stricter
rules about driving under the influence would be established so that more and
more people would lose their privilege to drive.
RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL
This also had connection with
something we'll get to later about overall restrictions on travel. Not everybody
should be free to travel the way they do now in the United States. People don't
have a need to travel that way. It's a privilege! It was kind of the high-handed
the way it was put. Again, much more in the way of psychological services would
be made available to help those who got hooked on drugs and alcohol. The idea
being, that in order to promote this - drug and alcohol abuse to screen out some
of the unfit - people who are otherwise are pretty good also would also be
subject to getting hooked. And if they were really worth their salt they would
have enough sense to seek psychological counseling and to benefit from it. So
this was presented as sort of a redeeming value on the part of the planners. It
was as if he were saying, "you think we're bad in promoting these evil things -
but look how nice we are - we're also providing a way out!"
THE NEED FOR MORE JAILS, AND USING
HOSPITALS AS JAILS
More jails would be needed.
Hospitals could serve as jails. Some new hospital construction would be designed
so as to make them adaptable to jail-like use.
End of Tape I
NEW ORDER OF BARBARIANS
NO MORE SECURITY
Nothing is permanent. Streets would
be rerouted, renamed. Areas you had not seen in a while would become unfamiliar.
Among other things, this would contribute to older people feeling that it was
time to move on, they feel they couldn't even keep up with the changes in areas
that were once familiar. Buildings would be allowed to stand empty and
deteriorate, and streets would be allowed to deteriorate in certain localities.
The purpose of this was to provide the jungle, the depressed atmosphere for the
unfit. Somewhere in this same connection he mentioned that buildings and bridges
would be made so that they would collapse after a while, there would be more
accidents involving airplanes and railroads and automobiles. All of this to
contribute to the feeling of insecurity, that nothing was safe. Not too long
after this presentation, and I think one or two even before in the area where I
live, we had some newly constructed bridge to break; another newly constructed
bridge defect discovered before it broke, and I remember reading just scattered
incidents around the country where shopping malls would fall in right where they
were filled with shoppers, and I remember that one of the shopping malls in our
area, the first building I'd ever been in where you could feel this vibration
throughout the entire building when there were a lot of people in there, and I
remember wondering at that time whether this shopping mall was one of the
buildings he was talking about. Talking to construction people and architects
about it they would say ' "Oh no, that's good when the building vibrates like
that, that means it's flexible not rigid." Well, maybe so, we'll wait and see.
Other areas there would be well maintained. Not every part of the city would be
Flaming Skull emblazoned garb of the New Orleans
CRIME USED TO MANAGE SOCIETY
There would be the created slums and
other areas well maintained. Those people able to leave the slums for better
areas then would learn to better appreciate the importance of human
accomplishment. This meant that if they left the jungle and came to
civilization, so to speak, they could be proud of their own accomplishments that
they made it. There was no related sympathy for those who were left behind in
the jungle of drugs and deteriorating neighborhoods. Then a statement that was
kind of surprising: We think we can effectively limit crime to the slum areas,
so it won't be spread heavily into better areas. I should maybe point out here
that these are obviously not word for word quotations after 20 years, but where
I say that I am quoting, I am giving the general drift of what was said close to
word for word, perhaps not precisely so. But anyhow I remember wondering, how
can he be so confident that the criminal element is going to stay where he wants
it to stay? But he went on to say that increased security would be needed in the
better areas. That would mean more police, better coordinated police efforts. He
did not say so, but I wondered at that time about the moves that were afoot to
consolidate all the police departments of suburbs around the major cities. I
think the John Birch Society was one that was saying "Support your local police,
don't let them be consolidated." and I remember wondering if that was one of the
things he had in mind about security. It was not explicitly stated. But anyhow
he went on to say there would be a whole new industry of residential security
systems to develop with alarms and locks and alarms going into the police
department so that people could protect their wealth and their well being.
Because some of the criminal activity would spill out of the slums into better,
more affluent looking areas that looked like they would be worth burglarizing.
And again it was stated like it was a redeeming quality: See we're generating
all this more crime but look how good we are - we're also generating the means
for you to protect yourself against the crime. A sort of repeated thing
throughout this presentation was the recognized evil and then the self
forgiveness thing, well, see we've given you a way out.
CURTAILMENT OF AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL
American industry came under
discussion - it was the first that I'd heard the term global interdependence or
that notion. The stated plan was that different parts of the world would be
assigned different roles of industry and commerce in a unified global system.
The continued pre-eminence of the United States and the relative independence
and self-sufficiency of the United States would have to be changed. This was one
of the several times that he said in order to create a new structure, you first
have to tear down the old, and American industry was one example of that. Our
system would have to be curtailed in order to give other countries a chance to
build their industries, because otherwise they would not be able to compete
against the United States. And this was especially true of our heavy industries
that would be cut back while the same industries were being developed in other
countries, notably Japan. And at this point there was some discussion of steel
and particularly automobiles - I remember saying that automobiles would be
imported from Japan on an equal footing with our own domestically produced
automobiles, but the Japanese product would be better. Things would be made so
they would break and fall apart, that is in the United States. so that people
would tend to prefer the imported variety and this would give a bit of a boost
to foreign competitors. One example was Japanese. In 1969 Japanese automobiles,
if they were sold here at all I don't remember, but they certainly weren't very
popular. But the idea was you could get a little bit disgusted with your Ford,
GM or Chrysler product or whatever because little things like window handles
would fall off more and plastic parts would break which had they been made of
metal would hold up. Your patriotism about buying American would soon give way
to practicality that if you bought Japanese, German or imported that it would
last longer and you would be better off. Patriotism would go down the drain
then. It was mentioned elsewhere things being made to fall apart too. I don't
remember specific items or if they were even stated other than automobiles, but
I do recall of having the impression, sort of in my imagination, of a surgeon
having something fall apart in his hands in the operating room at a critical
time. Was he including this sort of thing in his discussion? But somewhere in
this discussion about things being made deliberately defective and unreliable
not only was to tear down patriotism but to be just a little source of
irritation to people who would use such things. Again the idea that you not feel
terribly secure, promoting the notion that the world isn't a terribly reliable
place. The United States was to be kept strong in information, communications,
high technology, education and agriculture. The United States was seen as
continuing to be sort of the keystone of this global system. But heavy industry
would be transported out. One of the comments made about heavy industry was that
we had had enough environmental damage from smoke stacks and industrial waste
and some of the other people could put up with that for a while. This again was
supposed to be a redeeming quality for Americans to accept. You took away our
industry but you saved our environment. So we really didn't lose on it.
SHIFTING POPULATIONS AND ECONOMIES --
TEARING THE SOCIAL ROOTS
And along this line there were talks
about people losing their jobs as a result of industry and opportunities for
retraining, and particularly population shifts would be brought about. This is
sort of an aside. I think I'll explore the aside before I forget it -population
shifts were to be brought about so that people would be tending to move into the
Sun Belt. They would be sort of people without roots in their new locations, and
traditions are easier to change in a place where there are a lot of transplanted
people, as compared to trying to change traditions in a place where people grew
up and had an extended family, where they had roots. Things like new medical
care systems, if you pick up from a Northeast industrial city and you transplant
yourself to the South Sunbelt or Southwest, you'll be more accepting of whatever
kind of, for example, controlled medical care you find there than you would
accept a change in the medical care system where you had roots and the support
of your family. Also in this vein it was mentioned (he used the plural personal
pronoun we) we take control first of the port cities - New York, San Francisco,
Seattle - the idea being that this is a piece of strategy, the idea being that
if you control the port cities with your philosophy and your way of life, the
heartland in between has to yield. I can't elaborate more on that but it is
interesting. If you look around the most liberal areas of the country and
progressively so are the sea coast cities. The heartland, the Midwest, does seem
to have maintained its conservatism. But as you take away industry and jobs and
relocate people then this is a strategy to break down conservatism. When you
take away industry and people are unemployed and poor they will accept whatever
change seems, to offer them survival, and their morals and their commitment to
things will all give way to survival. That's not my philosophy, that's the
speaker's philosophy. Anyhow, going back to industry, some heavy industry would
remain, just enough to maintain a sort of a seed bed of industrial skills which
could be expanded if the plan didn't work out as it was intended. So the country
would not be devoid of assets and skills. But this was just sort of a
contingency plan. It was hoped and expected that the worldwide specialization
would be carried on. But, perhaps repeating myself, one of the upshots of all of
this is that with this global interdependence the national identities would tend
to be de-emphasized. Each area depended on every other area for one or another
elements of its life. We would all become citizens of the world rather than
citizens of any one country.
SPORTS AS A TOOL OF SOCIAL CHANGE
And along these lines then we can
talk about sports. Sports in the United States was to be changed, in part as a
way of de-emphasizing nationalism. Soccer, a world-wide sport, was to be
emphasized and pushed in the United States. This was of interest because in this
area the game of soccer was virtually unknown at that time. I had a few friends
who attended an elementary school other than the one I attended where they
played soccer at their school, and they were a real novelty. This was back in
the 50's. So to hear this man speak of soccer in this area was kind of
surprising. Anyhow, soccer is seen as an international sport and would be
promoted and the traditional sport of American baseball would be de-emphasized
and possibly eliminated because it might be seen as too American. And he
discussed eliminating this. one's first reaction would be - well, they pay the
players poorly and they don't want to play for poor pay so they give up baseball
and go into some other sport or some other activity. But he said that's really
not how it works. Actually, the way to break down baseball would be to make the
salaries go very high. The idea behind this was that as the salaries got
ridiculously high there would be a certain amount of discontent and antagonism
as people resented the athletes being paid so much, and the athletes would begin
more and more to resent among themselves what other players were paid and would
tend to abandon the sport. And these high salaries also could break the owners
and alienate the fans. And then the fans would support soccer and the baseball
fields could be used as soccer fields. It wasn't said definitely this would have
to happen, but if the international flavor didn't come around rapidly enough
this could be done. There was some comment along the same lines about football,
although I seem to recall he said football would be harder to dismantle because
it was so widely played in colleges as well as in the professional leagues and
would be harder to tear down. There was something else also about the violence
in football that met a psychological need that was perceived, and people have a
need for this vicarious violence. So football, for that reason, might be left
around to meet that vicarious need. The same thing is true of hockey. Hockey had
more of an international flavor and would be emphasized. There was some
foreseeable international competition about hockey and particularly soccer. At
that time hockey was international between the United States and Canada. I was
kind of surprised because I thought the speaker just never impressed me as being
a hockey fan, and I am. And it turns out he was not. He just knew about the game
and what it would do to this changing sports program. But in any event soccer
was to be the keystone of athletics because it is already a world wide sport in
South America, Europe, and parts of Asia and the United States should get on the
bandwagon. All this would foster international competition so that we would all
become citizens of the world to a greater extent than citizens of our own narrow
nations. There was some discussion about hunting, not surprisingly. Hunting
requires guns and gun control is a big element in these plans. I don't remember
the details much, but the idea is that gun ownership is a privilege and not
everybody should have guns. Hunting was an inadequate excuse for owning guns and
everybody should be restricted in gun ownership. The few privileged people who
should be allowed to hunt could maybe rent or borrow a gun from official
quarters rather than own their own. After all, everybody doesn't have a need for
a gun, is the way it was put. Very important in sports was sports for girls.
Athletics would be pushed for girls. This was intended to replace dolls. Baby
dolls would still be around, a few of them, but you would not see the number and
variety of dolls. Dolls would not be pushed because girls should not be thinking
about babies and reproduction. Girls should be out on the athletic field just as
the boys are. Girls and boys really don't need to be all that different. Tea
sets were to go the way of dolls, and all these things that traditionally were
thought of as feminine would be de-emphasized as girls got into more masculine
pursuits. Just one other things I recall was that the sports pages would be full
of the scores of girls teams just right along- there with the boys teams. And
that's recently begun to appear after 20 years in our local papers. The girls
sports scores are right along with the boys sports scores. So all of this is to
change the role model of what young girls should look to be. While she's growing
up she should look to be an athlete rather than to look forward to being a
SEX AND VIOLENCE INCULCATED THROUGH
Entertainment. Movies would gradually be
made more explicit as regards sex and language. After all, sex and rough
language are real and why pretend that they are not? There would be pornographic
movies in the theaters and on television. VCR's were not around at that time,
but he had indicated that these cassettes would be available, and video cassette
players would be available for use in the home and pornographic movies would be
available for use on these as well as in the neighborhood theater and on your
television. He said something like: "you'll see people in the movies doing
everything you can think of." He went on to say that all of this is intended to
bring sex out in the open. That was another comment that was made several times-
the term "sex out in the open." Violence would be made more graphic. This was
intended to desensitize people to violence. There might need to be a time when
people would witness real violence and be a part of it. Later on it will become
clear where this is headed. So there would be more realistic violence in
entertainment which would make it easier for people to adjust. People's
attitudes toward death would change. People would not be so fearful of it but
more accepting of it, and they would not be so aghast at the sight of dead
people or injured people. We don't need to have a genteel population paralyzed
by what they might see. People would just learn to say, well I don't want that
to happen to me. This was the first statement suggesting that the plan includes
numerous human casualties which the survivors would see. This particular aspect
of the presentation came back in my memory very sharply a few years later when a
movie about the Lone Ranger came out and I took my very young son to see it and
early in the movie were some very violent scenes. One of the victims was shot in
the forehead and there was sort of a splat where the bullet entered his forehead
and blood and I remember regretting that I took my son and feeling anger toward
the doctor who spoke. Not that he made the movie, but he agreed to be part of
this movement, and I was repelled by the movie and it brought back this aspect
of his presentation very sharply in my memory. As regards music, he made a
rather straightforward statement like: Music will get worse. In 1969 Rock music
was getting more and more unpleasant. It was interesting just his words-the way
he expressed it " it would get worse" acknowledging that it was already bad.
Lyrics would become more openly sexual. No new sugary romantic music would be
publicized like that which had been written before that time. All of the old
music would be brought back on certain radio stations and records for older
people to hear, and older folks would have sort of their own radio stations to
hear and for younger people, their music as it got worse and worse would be on
their stations. He seemed to indicate that one group would not hear the other
group's music. Older folks would just refuse to hear the junk that was offered
to young people, and the young people would accept the junk because it
identified them as their generation and helped them feel distinct from the older
generation. I remember at the time thinking that would not last very long
because even young kids wouldn't like the junk when they got a chance to hear
the older music that was prettier they would gravitate toward it. Unfortunately
I was wrong about that, when the kids get through their teens and into their
20's some of them improve their taste in music, but unfortunately he was right.
They get used to this junk and that's all they want. A lot of them can't stand
really pretty music. He went on to say that the music would carry a message to
the young and nobody would even know the message was there they would just think
it was loud music. At the time I didn't understand quite what he meant by that,
but in retrospect I think we know now what the messages are in the music for the
young. And again he was right. This aspect was sort of summarized with the
notion that entertainment would be a tool to influence young people. It won't
change the older people, they are already set in their ways, but the changes
would all be aimed at the young who are in their formative years and the older
generation would be passing. Not only could you not change them but they are
relatively unimportant anyhow. Once they live out their lives and are gone the
younger generation being formed are the ones that would be important for the
future in the 21st century. He also indicated all the old movies would be
brought back again and I remember on hearing that through my mind ran quickly
the memory of a number of old movies. I wondered if they would be included, the
ones that I thought I would like to see again. Along with bringing back old
music and movies for older people there were other privileges that would also be
accorded older folks: free transportation, breaks on purchases, discounts, tax
discounts, - a number of privileges just because they were older. This was
stated to be sort of a reward for the generation which had grown up through the
depression and had survived the rigors of World War II. They had deserved it and
they were going to be rewarded with all these goodies, and the bringing back of
the good old music and the good old movies was going to help ease them through
their final years in comfort. Then the presentation began to get rather grim,
because once that generation passed, and that would be in the late 80's and
early 90's where we are now, most of that group would be gone and then gradually
things would tighten up and the tightening up would be accelerated. The old
movies and old songs would be withdrawn, the gentler entertainment would be
TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS AND IMPLANTED I.D.
Travel, instead of being easy for
old folks, travel then would become very restricted. People would need
permission to travel and they would need a good reason to travel. If you didn't
have a good reason for your travel you would not be allowed to travel, and
everyone would need ID. This would at first be an ID card you would carry on
your person and you must show when you are asked for it. It was already planned
that later on some sort of device would be developed to be implanted under the
skin that would be coded specifically to identify the individual. This would
eliminate the possibility of false ID and also eliminate the possibility of
people saying "Well, I lost my ID." The difficulty about these skin implant that
ID was stated to be getting material that would stay in or under the skin
without causing foreign body reaction whereby the body would reject it or cause
infection, and that this would have to be material on which information could be
recorded and retrieved by some sort of scanner while it was not rejected by the
body. Silicon was mentioned. Silicon at that time was thought to be well
tolerated. It was used to augment breasts. Women who felt their breasts were too
small would get silicon implants, and I guess that still goes on. At any rate
silicon was seen at that time as the promising material to do both: to be
retained in the body without rejection and to be able to retain information
retrievable by electronic means.
Food supplies would come under tight
control. If population growth didn't slow down, food shortages could be created
in a hurry and people would realize the dangers of overpopulation. Ultimately,
whether the population slows down or not the food supply is to be brought under
centralized control so that people would have enough to be well-nourished but
they would not have enough to support any fugitive from the new system. In other
words, if you had a friend or relative who didn't sign on, and growing ones own
food would be outlawed. This would be done under some sort of pretext. In the
beginning I mentioned there were two purposes for everything - one the
ostensible purpose and one the real purpose, and the ostensible purpose here
would be that growing your own vegetables was unsafe, it would spread disease or
something like that. So the acceptable idea was to protect the consumer but the
real idea was to limit the food supply and growing your own food would be
illegal. And if you persist in illegal activities like growing your own food,
then you're a criminal.
There was a mention then of weather.
This was another really striking statement. He said, "We can or soon will be
able to control the weather." He said, "I'm not merely referring to dropping
iodide crystals into the clouds to precipitate rain that's already there, but
REAL control." And weather was seen as a weapon of war, a weapon of influencing
public policy. It could make rain or withhold rain in order to influence certain
areas and bring them under your control. There were two sides to this that were
rather striking. He said, "On the one hand you can make drought during the
growing season so that nothing will grow, and on the other hand you can make for
very heavy rains during harvest season so the fields are too muddy to bring in
the harvest, and indeed one might be able to do both." There was no statement
how this would be done. It was stated that either it was already possible or
very very close to being possible.
Politics. He said that very few
people really know how government works. Something to the effect that elected
officials are influenced in ways that they don't even realize and they carry out
plans that have been made for them and they think that they are authors of the
plans. But actually they are manipulated in ways they don't understand.
Carolina Lightning Storm Absurdly Violent
KNOW HOW PEOPLE RESPOND - MAKING THEM
DO WHAT YOU WANT
Somewhere in the presentation he
made two statements that I want to insert at this time. I don't remember just
where they were made, but they're valid in terms of the general overall view.
One statement: "People can carry in their minds and act upon two contradictory
ideas at one time, provided that these two contradictory ideas are kept far
enough apart." And the other statement is, "You can know pretty well how
rational people are going to respond to certain circumstances or to certain
information that they encounter. So, to determine the response you want you need
only control the kind of data or information that they're presented or the kinds
of circumstance that they're in; and being rational people they'll do what you
want them to do. They may not fully understand what they're doing or why."
FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Somewhere in this connection, then,
was the statement admitting that some scientific research data could be - and
indeed has been - falsified in order to bring about desired results. And here
was said, "People don't ask the right questions. Some people are too trusting."
Now this was an interesting statement because the speaker and the audience all
being doctors of medicine and supposedly very objectively, dispassionately
scientific and science being the be all and end-all ... well to falsify
scientific research data in that setting is like blasphemy in the church ... you
just don't do that. Anyhow, out of all of this was to come the New International
Governing Body, probably to come through the U.N. and with a World Court, but
not necessarily through those structures. It could be brought about in other
ways. Acceptance of the U.N. at that time was seen as not being as wide as was
hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations increasing importance.
People would be more and more used to the idea of relinquishing some national
sovereignty. Economic interdependence would foster this goal from a peaceful
standpoint. Avoidance of war would foster it from the standpoint of worrying
about hostilities. It was recognized that doing it peaceably was better than
doing it by war. It was stated at this point that war was "obsolete." I thought
that was an interesting phrase because obsolete means something that once was
seen as useful is no longer useful. But war is obsolete ... this being because
of the nuclear bombs war is no longer controllable. Formerly wars could be
controlled, but if nuclear weapons would fall into the wrong hands there could
be an unintended nuclear disaster. It was not stated who the "wrong hands" are.
We were free to infer that maybe this meant terrorists, but in more recent years
I'm wondering whether the wrong hands might also include people that we've
assumed that they've had nuclear weapons all along ... maybe they don't have
them. Just as it was stated that industry would be preserved in the United
States - a little bit just in case the world wide plans didn't work out; just in
case some country or some other powerful person decided to bolt from the pack
and go his own way, one wonders whether this might also be true with nuclear
weapons. When you hear that ... he said they might fall into the wrong hands,
there was some statement that the possession of nuclear weapons had been tightly
controlled, sort of implying that anybody who had nuclear weapons was intended
to have them. That would necessarily have included the Soviet Union, if indeed
they have them. But I recall wondering at the time, "Are you telling us, or are
you implying that this country willingly gave weapons to the Soviets?." At that
time that seemed like a terribly unthinkable thing to do, much less to admit.
The leaders of the Soviet Union seem to be so dependent on the West though, one
wonders whether there may have been some fear that they would try to assert
independence if they indeed had these weapons. So, I don't know. It's something
to speculate about perhaps ... Who did he mean when he said, "If these weapons
fall into the wrong hands"? Maybe just terrorists. Anyhow, the new system would
be brought in, if not by peaceful cooperation - everybody willingly yielding
national sovereignty - then by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war.
And everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is created by the possibility of
nuclear war that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public
peace and people would willingly give up national sovereignty in order to
achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in the New International Political
System. This was stated and very impressive thing to hear then ... "If there
were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a
need to use one or two - possibly more - nuclear weapons. As it was put this
would be possibly needed to convince people that "We mean business." That was
followed by the statement that, "By the time one or two of those went off then
everybody - even the most reluctant - would yield." He said something about
"this negotiated peace would be very convincing", as kind of in a framework or
in a context that the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People
hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between
hostile enemies who finally had come to the realization that peace was better
than war. In this context discussing war, and war is obsolete, a statement was
made that there were some good things about war ... one, you're going to die
anyway, and people sometimes in war get a chance to display great courage and
heroism and if they die they've died well and if they survive they get
recognition. So that in any case, the hardships of war on soldiers are worth it
because that's the reward they get out of their warring. Another justification
expressed for war was, if you think of the many millions of casualties in WWI
and WWII, well.. suppose all those people had not died but had continued to
live, then continued to have babies. There would be millions upon millions and
we would already be overpopulated, so those two great wars served a benign
purpose in delaying over-population. But now there are technological means for
the individual and governments to control over-population so in this regard war
is obsolete. It's no longer needed. And then again it's obsolete because nuclear
weapons could destroy the whole universe. War, which once was controllable,
could get out of control and so for these two reasons it's now obsolete.
There was a discussion of terrorism.
Terrorism would be used widely in Europe and in other parts of the world.
Terrorism at that time was thought would not be necessary in the United States.
It could become necessary in the United States if the United States did not move
rapidly enough into accepting the system. But at least in the foreseeable future
it was not planned. And very benignly on their part. Maybe terrorism would not
be required here, but the implication being that it would be indeed used if it
was necessary. Along with this came a bit of a scolding that Americans had had
it too good anyway and just a little bit of terrorism would help convince
Americans that the world is indeed a dangerous place ... or can be if we don't
relinquish control to the proper authorities.
There was discussion of money and
banking. One statement was, "Inflation is infinite. You can put an infinite
number of zeros after any number and put the decimals points wherever you want",
as an indication that inflation is a tool of the controllers. Money would become
predominately credit. It was already ... money is primarily a credit thing but
exchange of money would be not cash or palpable things but electronic credit
signal. People would carry money only in very small amounts for things like
chewing gum and candy bars. Just pocket sorts of things. Any purchase of any
significant amount would be done electronically. Earnings would be
electronically entered into your account. It would be a single banking system.
May have the appearance of being more than one but ultimately and basically it
would be one single banking system, so that when you got paid your pay would be
entered for you into your account balance and then when you purchased anything
at the point of purchase it would be deducted from your account balance and you
would actually carry nothing with you. Also computer records can be kept on
whatever it was you purchased so that if you were purchasing too much of any
particular item and some official wanted to know what you were doing with your
money they could go back and review your purchases and determine what you were
buying. There was a statement that any purchase of significant size like an
automobile, bicycle, a refrigerator, a radio or television or whatever might
have some sort of identification on it so it could be traced, so that very
quickly anything which was either given away or stolen - whatever - authorities
would be able to establish who purchased it and when. Computers would allow this
to happen. The ability to save would be greatly curtailed. People would just not
be able to save any considerable degree of wealth. There was some statement of
recognition that wealth represents power and wealth in the hands of a lot of
people is not good for the people in charge so if you save too much you might be
taxed. The more you save the higher rate of tax on your savings so your savings
really could never get very far. And also if you began to show a pattern of
saving too much you might have your pay cut. We would say, "Well, your saving
instead of spending. You really don't need all that money." That basically the
idea being to prevent people from accumulating any wealth which might have long
range disruptive influence on the system. People would be encouraged to use
credit to borrow and then also be encouraged to renege on their debt so they
would destroy their own credit. The idea here is that, again, if you're too
stupid to handle credit wisely, this gives the authorities the opportunity to
come down hard on you once you've shot your credit. Electronic payments
initially would all be based on different kinds of credit cards ... these were
already in use in 1969 to some extent. Not as much as now. But people would have
credit cards with the electronic strip on it and once they got used to that then
it would be pointed out the advantage of having all of that combined into a
single credit card, serving a single monetary system and then they won't have to
carry around all that plastic.
SURVEILLANCE, IMPLANTS, AND TELEVISIONS
THAT WATCH YOU
So the next step would be the single
card and then the next step would be to replace the single card with a skin
implant. The single card could be lost or stolen, give rise to problems; could
be exchanged with somebody else to confuse identify. The skin implant on the
other hand would be not losable or counterfeitable or transferrable to another
person so you and your accounts would be identified without any possibility of
error. And the skin implants would have to be put some place that would be
convenient to the skin; for example your right hand or your forehead. At that
time when I heard this I was unfamiliar with the statements in the Book of
Revelation. The speaker went on to say, "Now some of you people who read the
Bible will attach significance to this to the Bible," but he went on to disclaim
any Biblical significance at all. This is just common sense of how the system
could work and should work and there's no need to read any superstitious
Biblical principals into it. As I say, at the time I was not very familiar with
the words of Revelations. Shortly after I became familiar with it and the
significance of what he said really was striking. I'll never forget it. There
was some mention, also, of implants that would lend themselves to surveillance
by providing radio signals. This could be under the skin or a dental implant ...
put in like a filling so that either fugitives or possibly other citizens could
be identified by a certain frequency from his personal transmitter and could be
located at any time or any place by any authority who wanted to find him. This
would be particularly useful for somebody who broke out of prison. There was
more discussion of personal surveillance. One more thing was said, "You'll be
watching television and somebody will be watching you at the same time at a
central monitoring station." Television sets would have a device to enable this.
The T.V. set would not have to be on in order for this to be operative. Also,
the television set can be used to monitor what you are watching. People can tell
what you're watching on TV and how you're reacting to what you're watching. And
you would not know that you were being watched while you were watching your
television. How would we get people to accept these things into their homes?
Well, people would buy them when they buy their own television. They won't know
that they're on there at first. This was described by being what we now know as
Cable TV to replace the antenna TV. When you buy a TV set this monitor would
just be part of the set and most people would not have enough knowledge to know
it was there in the beginning. And then the cable would be the means of carrying
the surveillance message to the monitor. By the time people found out that this
monitoring was going on, they would also be very dependent upon television for a
number of things. Just the way people are dependent upon the telephone today.
One thing the television would be used for would be purchases. You wouldn't have
to leave your home to purchase. You just turn on your TV and there would be a
way of interacting with your television channel to the store that you wanted to
purchase. And you could flip the switch from place to place to choose a
refrigerator or clothing. This would be both convenient, but it would also make
you dependent on your television so the built-in monitor would be something you
could not do without. There was some discussion of audio monitors, too, just in
case the authorities wanted to hear what was going on in rooms other than where
the television monitor was, and in regard to this the statement was made, "Any
wire that went into your house, for example your telephone wire, could be used
this way. I remember this in particular because it was fairly near the end of
the presentation and as we were leaving the meeting place I said something to
one of my colleagues about going home and pulling all of the wires out of my
house.. except I knew I couldn't get by without the telephone. And the colleague
I spoke to just seemed numb. To this day I don't think he even remembers what we
talked about or what we hear that time, cause I've asked him. But at that time
he seemed stunned. Before all these changes would take place with electronic
monitoring, it was mentioned that there would be service trucks all over the
place, working on the wires and putting in new cables. This is how people who
were on the inside would know how things were progressing.
Actual Soviet Style 'Snitch' Poster On DC Commuter Train
HOME OWNERSHIP A THING OF THE PAST
Privately owned housing would become
a thing of the past. The cost of housing and financing housing would gradually
be made so high that most people couldn't afford it. People who already owned
their houses would be allowed to keep them but as years go by it would be more
and more difficult for young people to buy a house. Young people would more and
more become renters, particularly in apartments or condominiums. More and more
unsold houses would stand vacant. People just couldn't buy them. But the cost of
housing would not come down. You'd right away think, well the vacant house, the
price would come down, the people would buy it. But there was some statement to
the effect that the price would be held high even though there were many
available so that free market places would not operate. People would not be able
to buy these and gradually more and more of the population would be forced into
small apartments. Small apartments which would not accommodate very many
children. Then as the number of real home-owners diminished they would become a
minority. There would be no sympathy for them from the majority who dwelled in
the apartments and then these homes could be taken by increased taxes or other
regulations that would be detrimental to home ownership and would be acceptable
to the majority. Ultimately, people would be assigned where they would live and
it would be common to have non-family members living with you. This by way of
your not knowing just how far you could trust anybody. This would all be under
the control of a central housing authority. Have this in mind in 1990 when they
ask, "How many bedrooms in your house? How many bathrooms in your house? Do you
have a finished game room?." This information is personal and is of no national
interest to government under our existing Constitution. But you'll be asked
those questions and decide how you want to respond to them.
THE ARRIVAL OF THE TOTALITARIAN GLOBAL
When the new system takes over
people will be expected to sign allegiance to it, indicating that they don't
have any reservations or holding back to the old system. "There just won't be
any room", he said, "for people who won't go along. We can't have such people
cluttering up the place so such people would be taken to special places", and
here I don't remember the exact words, but the inference I drew was that at
these special places where they were taken, then they would not live very long.
He may have said something like, "disposed of humanely", but I don't remember
very precisely ... just the impression the system was not going to support them
when they would not go along with the system. That would leave death as the only
alternative. Somewhere in this vein he said there would not be any martyrs. When
I first heard this I thought it meant the people would not be killed, but as the
presentation developed what he meant was they would not be killed in such a way
or disposed of in such a way that they could serve as inspiration to other
people the way martyrs do. Rather he said something like this. "People will just
disappear." Just a few additional items sort of thrown in here in the end which
I failed to include where they belong more perfectly. One: The bringing in of
the new system he said probably would occur on a weekend in the winter.
Everything would shut down on Friday evening and Monday morning when everybody
wakened there would be an announcement that the New System was in place. During
the process in getting the United States ready for these changes everybody would
be busier with less leisure time and less opportunity to really look about and
see what was going on around them. Also, there would be more changes and more
difficulty in keeping up as far as one's investments. Investment instruments
would be changing. Interest rates would be changing so that it would be a
difficult job with keeping up with what you had already earned. Interesting
about automobiles; it would look as though there were many varieties of
automobiles, but when you look very closely there would be great duplication.
They would be made to look different with chrome and wheel covers and this sort
of thing, but looking closely one would see that the same automobile was made by
more than one manufacturer. This recently was brought down to me when I was in a
parking lot and saw a small Ford - I forget the model - and a small Japanese
automobile which were identical except for a number of things like the number of
holes in the wheel cover and the chrome around the plate and the shape of the
grill. But if you looked at the basic parts of the automobile, they were
identical. They just happened to be parked side-by-side where I was struck with
this and I was again reminded of what had been said many years ago. I'm hurrying
here because I'm just about to the end of the tape. Let me just summarize her by
saying, all of these things said by one individual at one time in one place
relating to so many different human endeavors and then to look and see how many
of these actually came about ... that is changes accomplished between then and
now [1969 - 1988] and the things which are planned for the future, I think there
is no denying that this is controlled and there is indeed a conspiracy. The
question then becomes what to do. I think first off, we must put our faith in
God and pray and ask for his guidance. And secondly do what we can to inform
other individuals as much as possible, as much as they may be interested. Some
people just don't care, because they're preoccupied with getting along in their
own personal endeavors. But as much as possible I think we should try to inform
other people who may be interested, and again ... put our faith and trust in God
and pray constantly for his guidance and for the courage to accept what we may
be facing in the near future. Rather than accept peace and justice which we hear
so much now ... it's a cliché. Let's insist on liberty and justice for all.
End of Tape II
NEW ORDER OF THE BARBARIANS"
This is the third and final tape of the
"New Order of Barbarians". This interview by Randy Engel, Director of the U.S.
Coalition for Life, with Dr. Larry Dunegan was taped on Oct. 10, 1991 in
Pittsburgh, Penn. On tapes I and II, (made in 1988) Dr. Dunegan, spoke about his
recollections of the lecture he attended in 1969 where Dr. Richard Day, an
insider, revealed the plans for their World System, AKA the totalitarian,
socialist World Government. Once again, this final tape/interview speaks for
Randy Engel (R.E.): Why don't we
open up with a little bit about the man who you are talking about on these
tapes. Just a little profile and a little bit about his education and
particularly his relationship with the population control establishment. I think
that probably was his entree into much of this information.
Dr. Lawrence Dunegan (DLD): Yeah.
Dr. Day was the Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of
Pittsburgh from about 1959 thru '64, about that period of time, and then he left
the University of Pittsburgh and went to fill the position of Medical Director
of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
R.E: And that was what… about
1965 to '68, about that period?
D.L.D: About '64 or '65 'til
about '68 or '69, and then he left there... I don't know specifically why, I did
not know him intimately. We were, you know, more than acquainted... I was a
student and he would see me at lectures and, so he knew my name as a student,
probably corrected some of my test scores and that sort of thing. Of course, I
knew him as lecturer - would stand in front of the auditorium and listen as he
talked about diseases... and take notes.
R.E: What's interesting is that
this man is not as well known, I think to our listeners as names like Mary
Calderone and Allen Gootmacher(sp). They were medical directors at one time or
another for Planned Parenthood, but Dr. Day was not well known. And as a matter
of fact when I went back into the SIECUS archives there was very little
information that had his actual name on it. So he was not one of the better
known of the medical directors, but I'd say he probably had the scoop of what
was going on as well - if not better - than any of the others before or after he
came. Can you describe the scene of this particular lecture, the approximate
date, and what was the occasion - and then a little bit about the audience?
This was the… the
Pittsburgh Pediatric Society holds about four meetings each year where we have
some speaker come in and talk about a medical topic related to pediatrics and
this was our spring meeting. It's always late February or early part of March.
This was in March, 1969 and it was held at a restaurant called the Lamont which
is well known in Pittsburgh. Beautiful place. In attendance, I would say
somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 people. Mostly physicians, if not
exclusively physicians. Predominantly pediatricians, particularly pediatric
surgeons and pediatric radiologists - other people who were involved in medical
care of children, even though they might not be pediatricians as such.
R.E: And the speech was given
after the meal, I presume?
D.L.D: A very nice meal and
everyone was settled down, quite comfortable and quite filled and really an
ideal state to absorb what was coming.
R.E: But when you listen to the
tape, he says some of the most... well not only outrageous things, but things
you would think a pediatrician would kind of almost jump out of his seat at...
for example when he mentions the cancer cures. There were probably doctors in
the audience who were perhaps treating a child or knowing of a child who was in
need of a particular cancer cure. And to hear that some of these prescriptions
for or treatments for cancer were sitting over at the Rockefeller Institute, and
yet, as far as I got from the tape everyone just kind of sat there... didn't say
very much. I mean he was talking about falsifying scientific data and everyone
just kind of yawns and... How long did this speech go on?
Two hours. He spoke for
over two hours which was longer than most of our speakers go and one of the
interesting things... he hasn't finished, it was getting late and he said,
"there's much much more, but we could be here all night but it's time to stop".
And I think that's significant, that
there was much more that we never heard. In the beginning of the presentation, I
don't know whether I mentioned this at the introduction of the first tape or
not, but somewhere in the beginning of this he said, "You will forget most or
much of what I'm going to tell you tonight."
And at the time I thought, well, sure,
that's true. We tend to forget. You know, somebody talks for hours you forget a
lot of what they say. But, there is such a thing as the power of suggestion and
I can't say for sure but I do wonder if this may not have been a suggestion when
we were all full of a nice dinner and relaxed and listening - we took that
suggestion and forgot, because I know a number of my colleagues who were there
when I would - some years later - say, "Do you remember when Dr. Day said
this, or he said that or said the other?" They'd say, "Well, yeah, I kind
of... is that what he said? You know I kind of remember that".
But most were not very impressed, which
to me was surprising because... well use the example of cancer cures. But he
said a number of things that…
R.E: Like doctors making too much
D.L.D: Yeah, changing the image
of the doctor. You're just going to be a high-paid technician rather than a
professional who exercises independent judgment on behalf of his independent
patient. A number of things that I thought should have been offensive and
elicited a reaction from physicians because they were physicians. I was
surprised at how little reaction there was to it. And then other things that I
would have expected people to react to just because they were human beings and I
think most of the people at the meeting subscribed more or less to the
Judeo-Christian ethic and codes of behavior, and that was violated right and
left. And particularly one of my friends I thought would be as disturbed as I
was about this just sort of smiled... wasn't disturbed at a ll. I thought, gee,
this is surprising.
R.E: Was part of it also because
of his prominence? I mean he was…
D.L.D: The authority... Authority
figure? Yeah, I think there might be something there. This is the authority. We
sort of owe some deference here.
R.E: And he couldn't possibly
mean what he's saying or there couldn't possibly be any... I mean, he's such a
D.L.D: I've often heard that
phrase, "He's such a good guy. I can't believe he'd actually mean the things"...
I can only speculate about this. But I do think at the time there was an element
of disbelief about all of this. Thinking, well this is somebody's fairy tale
plan but it will never really happen because it's too outlandish. Of course we
know step by step it is indeed happening right under our feet.
R.E: Before talking about the
specific areas, I think there's a lot of benefits from this tape. One of them is
when we have a good idea of what the opposition is about and the techniques he's
using - then you can turn around and begin your resistance to all the types of
manipulations and so forth. So I think that the… seeing that there were four or
five "theme songs" - he kept repeating them over and over again.
For example this business which I think
is so important… that people fail to distinguish between the ostensible reason
and the real reason. In other words, if you want someone to do something and you
know that initially he'll be balky at doing that because it's against his morals
or against his religious beliefs, you have to substitute another reason that
will be acceptable. And then, after he accepts it and it's a fait accompli then
there's just no turning back.
D.L.D: Right. It was in that
connection that he said, "People don't ask the right questions." Too trusting.
And this was directed, as I recall, mostly at Americans. I had the feelings he
thought Europeans maybe were more skeptical and more sophisticated. That
Americans are too trusting and don't ask the right questions.
R.E: With regard to this lack
of... almost a lack of discernment. I guess that's basically what he was saying.
They were easily tricked or too trusting. The thing that flashed through my mind
rather quickly, for example in schools... how quickly so-called AIDS education
It did amaze me because if a group
stated publicly that they wanted to introduce the concept of sodomy or initiate
sex earlier and earlier in children and that was the reason given, most parents
I presume wouldn't go for that. So you have to come up with another reason and
of course the reason for this so-called AIDS education was to protect children
from this disease. But actually, as it turns out, it's really been a great boon
for the homosexual network, because through various things like Project Ten they
now have access to our children from the youngest years.
These programs are going on from K-12
and I imagine well into college and beyond, so that they are reaching a
tremendous segment. Speaking of children, I gather that this speaker... he kept
on making the point about, well, old people, they're going to go by the wayside,
so I presume that the emphasis for these controllers for this New World Order is
really an emphasis on youth.
Absolutely. Yes. Emphasis
on youth. This was stated explicitly. People beyond a certain age... they're set
in their ways and you're not going to change them. They have values and they're
going to stick to them. But you get to the youth when they're young, they're
pliable. You mold them in the direction you want them to go. This is correct.
They're targeting the young. They figure, "you old fogies that don't see it our
way, you're going to be dying off or when the time comes we're going to get rid
of you. But it's the youngsters we have to mold in the impression we want."
Now something on homosexuality I want to
expand on, I don't think this came out on the original tape, but there was,
first of all,
"We're going to promote homosexuality." And secondly
recognize that it's bizarre abnormal behavior. But, this is another element in
the law of the jungle, because people who are stupid enough to go along with
this are not fit to inhabit the planet and they'll go by the wayside".
I'm not stating this precisely the way
he said it, but it wasn't too far from there where there was some mention of
diseases being created. And when I remember the one statement and remember the
other statement, I believe AIDS is a disease which has been created in the
laboratory and I think that one purpose it serves is to get rid of people who
are so stupid as to go along with our homosexual program. Let them wipe
Now it's hard for me make clear how much
of it is I'm remembering with great confidence and how much is pure speculation.
But as I synthesize this - this is I think what happens... "If you're dumb
enough to be convinced by our promotion of homosexuality you don't deserve a
place and you're going to fall by the wayside sooner or later. We'll be rid of
you. We'll select out... the people who will survive are those who are also
smart enough not to be deluded by our propaganda". Does that make sense?
R.E: Well, it certainly makes
sense for them. And I think also this early sex initiation has the over all
purpose which I think we'll get to in depth a little later. But of the
sexualization of the population... when he said on the tape, basically,
"Anything goes", I think that is what we're seeing. It's not so much that, let's
say, someone may not adopt the homosexual style for himself, but as a result of
the propaganda he certainly will be a lot more tolerant of that type of behavior
So it's a desensitization, even for the
individual who doesn't go over and accept it for himself.
D.L.D: With the power of
propaganda you dare not be against homosexuals, otherwise you get labeled
homophobe. You dare not be against any of our programs for women, otherwise
you're a male chauvinist pig. It's like anti-Semitism. If this label gets enough
currency in the culture that people get shockingly stuck with it. It's easier to
R.E: Another theme was this
business about "CHANGE". And I want to get to change in relation to religion and
family, but during the period of hearing this tape, I remember going to a MASS
and they happened to have at that point DANCING GIRLS FROM THE ALTER. So when I
was sitting and getting a chance to listen to the tape I thought, as a Catholic
that has been... if you talk about effective change, that has been probably the
most difficult and the hardest thing has been to watch our traditional Mass,
those things which Catholics have practiced and believed for so long and... at
about that time this speech was given which was about late 1969, everything had
begun to turn over on its head, so much so that I think many people feel now
when they go into a church where there is the Novus Ordo (sp), I think you're
almost in a state of constant anxiety because you're not quite sure... What am I
going to encounter now?
You look at the little song book; of
course that's changed radically and you see, instead of brethren, you see
people; or you might see something odd happening up at the alter which is now
The notion of God as eternal and the
teachings of Jesus Christ as eternal, and therefore the teachings of the church
as eternal depends on the authority of God, and God brings about change in God's
way. What this boils down to me is these people say, "No, we take the place of
God; we establish what will change and what will not change, so if we say that
homosexuality or anything is moral today... wasn't yesterday, but it is today.
We have said so, and therefore it's moral. We can change tomorrow. We can make
it immoral again tomorrow". And this is the usurpation of the role of God to
define what the peon, the ordinary person's supposed to believe.
D.L.D: So, the idea is, that if
everybody is used to change most people aren't going to ask, "Well who has
decided what should be changed and how it should be changed"? Most people just
go along with it, like hemlines, and shoe styles and that sort of thing. So it
IS a usurpation of the Rule of God, and if you read the Humanist Manifesto, and
somewhere early in the introductory part of it, they say, "human intellect is
the highest good". Well, to any human being, what you call the highest good,
that's your god. So to these people human intellect being the highest good is
god. And where does human intellect reside? Well, in the brain of one or more
human beings. So these people, in effect... I don't know think they'd be so
candid as to say so, but whether they know it or not what they're saying is, "I
am god. WE are gods, because we decide what is moral what is moral tomorrow,
what is going to be moral next year. WE determine change."
R.E: That's right. And of course,
in a nutshell, you've just explained the human potential, the New Age, all the
new esoteric movements that we've seen. But with regard to change, he seemed to
acknowledge that there were a couple of entities which traditionally blocked
this change and therefore made people resistant to constant manipulation.
And of course one of those is the
family, and that would include grandmothers, grandfathers, our ethnic background
and so forth and I guess I was impressed by everything he seemed to mention
whether it was economics, music... had the overall effect of diminishing the
family and enhancing the power of the state.
That was a constant theme, and therefore
when we're evaluating things I think one of the things we should generally say
to ourselves is, "What effect does that have on family life, and the family and
I think if every congressman or senator asked that question we probably wouldn't
have much action up on Capitol Hill, because almost everything coming down the
pike has an effect of disavowing, hurting the family life and enhancing and
expanding the power of government.
D.L.D: It has an ostensible
purpose, and then it has a REAL purpose.
R.E: Yes, and as a so-called
helping professional your ability to say that is very interesting. The other
factor is this whole factor of religion, and he was talking basically about a
religion without dogma, a religion that would have a little bit from all the
other traditional religions so no one would really feel uncomfortable, and he
said, rather condescendingly, some people need this and if they need it we'll
manufacture something that they need. But of course it can't be anything that
would declare anything that were moral absolutes or the natural law. Which means
that the main target of this group of controllers of course, was and is the
Roman Catholic Church and he mentioned the Roman Catholic Church specifically.
Religion's important because it is
eternal and we... people who would follow the church will not buy our rules
about change. But if we make our own religion, if we define what is religion
then we can change it as it suits us. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church... I was
kind of flattered sitting here as a catholic, hearing it pointed out that the
church is the one obstacle that, he said, "We have to change that.
And once the Roman Catholic Church
falls, the rest of Christianity will fall easily".
R.E: I notice that, as the
conversation went on, he said, "Now you may think Churches will stand in the
way, but I want to tell you that they will HELP us", and he didn't say they will
help us, all except the Roman Catholic Church... he said, "They will help us",
D.L.D: He was right.
RE: He didn't say this
explicitly, but again it was one of those themes that came through... he
apparently thought the use of words was real important because he mentioned this
with regard to a number of things, like the Bible. The very same as the
psychiatrist, Miralu(sp?) mentioned that "if you want to control the people, you
control the language first". Words are weapons. He apparently knew that very
well and I think the controllers as a whole know this very well. Of course, it's
part of their campaign.
But that little statement about words,
that "words will be changed". When I heard that I thought... "Instead of saying
'alter' you say 'table'. Instead of saying 'sacrifice' you say 'meal' with
regard to the Mass", and people say, "That's not important". Of course, you know
that's VERY important, otherwise, why would they bother to change it? Otherwise,
why go through all this rigmarole if it isn't important? It's obviously
important for them because they know WITH THE CHANGING OF WORDS YOU CHANGE
D.L.D: They're exerting a lot of
effort and time to change it and they're not exerting effort on things that are
NOT important, so yes, you're absolutely right. The priest no longer has the
role... in some cases he no longer has the role the priest formerly had. Because
words carry meaning. There's the dictionary definition, but I think we all know
that certain words carry meaning that is a little bit hard to put into words...
but they carry meaning.
So yes, controlling the language... you
THINK in your language. You think to yourself in English or Spanish or whatever
language you're familiar with, but when you think, you talk to yourself and you
talk to yourself in words, just the way you talk to other people. And if you can
control the language with which one person speaks to himself or one person
speaks to another you've gone a long way towards controlling what that person is
ABLE - what he is CAPABLE of thinking, and that has both an inclusionary and an
exclusionary component to it. You set the tone....
R.E: Take the word GAY, for
example. I have some old tapes by Franz Layhar(sp?) and he talks about the GAY
Hussars, you know... the happy soldiers... and now you couldn't quite use that
same word, could you? But you know, the word homosexual, sodomite has been
replaced with the term "gay", represents an ideology not only a word and when
you use it, it's tacit to saying, "Yes, I accept what your interpretation of
D.L.D: They probably had a
committee working for months to pick which word they were going to use for this.
The word "gay" carries a connotation, first of all, which is inaccurate. Most
homosexuals are not at all gay. They tend to be pretty unhappy people. Despite
all the publicity that tells them they can and should feel comfortable with what
they're doing, most of them deep down inside don't... (both talking at the same
R.E: I suppose they're going to
come up with a sadophobia for those who have a hang-up about sadomasochism and a
pedophobia for those who have difficulties with pedophilia, so we can just look
forward to this I think. I guess we can look forward to it to the extent we
permit ourselves... that we permit the opposition to have access to the brain.
And to dictate the truth
WE use. Sex education is NOT education. It's conditioning, and we should never
use the term "sex education". It's a misnomer. If they control the vocabulary,
then they can control the way we can think and the way we can express ideas
among ourselves and to anybody. But "sex conditioning", "sex initiation" is much
more accurate and we should insist on that. We should never use terms
"homophobia" and "gay". Homosexual is homosexual. It's not at all gay.
R.E: That's right. In fact we're
probably going to have to do some homework on... probably of all the popular
movements in the U.S. Probably the pro-life movement is the most sensitive to
Talking about media events and access to
the brain, I remember the first speech Bush gave in which he talked about the
New World Order... I remember jumping halfway off my seat. That term. Here he
is, the president, saying New World Order as if it was something everyone knew
about. And someone looking across the room said, "I heard that. What did he
say"? And I said, "He said, 'New World Order'!" And they said, "What does that
mean? Why is that extraordinary?"
So, I think one of the weapons we have
against the controllers is that if we can cut off his access to our mind then we
have a shot at escaping the manipulation, if not totally - at least escape a
portion of the manipulations. Remember, one of the books on Chinese POWs pointed
out that some of their survivors in order NOT to be brainwashed broke their
eardrums. And in that way - not being able to hear - the enemy could not have
access to their brain and therefore they were able to survive where others did
And in our popular culture we have a
number of things... TV and radio probably primarily, that are the constant means
by which the opposition has access to our brain and to our children's brains. So
I think the logical conclusion, and one of the common-sense conclusions is that
if you don't want the enemy to have access you have to cut off the lines of
access... which would be in homes to simply either eliminate altogether, or
control by other forms....
D.L.D: Take the networks at there
word. They say, "if you don't like our programming, turn it off". And we should.
We should say, "Yeah. You're right." And we should turn it off. And let the
advertisers spend their money on an audience that isn't there.
As a pediatrician I'm always interested
in how kids do things and how kids are like adults, and whether you're talking
about International politics where one nation goes to war with another or kids
on the playground, there are certain things that are common. It's just that kids
on the playgrounds do it on a smaller scale. But you mention cutting off access
to your brain... somebody says, I don't want to hear it. And I remember hearing
kids on a playground... somebody says..."ya-na-na na naa-na", and they're
teasing the kid... What's he do? He puts his hands over his ears. Says I'm not
going to listen. And the kid who's trying to torment him will try to pull his
hands away and be sure that he listens. And it's the same....
R.E: Words. Words entering. And
the child knows. Words have meaning. They're hurting him.
Goebels knew it. Lenin
knew it. CBS knows it. It's interesting; the principle stands - across the
board. It just gets more complicated as you get older. More sophisticated. But
watch kids on a playground and you'll learn a whole lot about adults.
R.E: Yes. We're all nodding our
heads at that one. This Dr. Day was very much into the whole population control
establishment, and he was of course in favor of abortion. But as he started
talking about the aged and euthanasia I recall one of the population- control
books saying that birth control without death control was meaningless.
And one of the advantages in terms… if
one was favorable toward the killing of the aged… one of the favorable things is
in fact abortion for the simple reason that — universally speaking — abortion
has the result of bringing about a rather inordinate chopping off of population
at the front end. That is, at the birth end. And the inevitable effect is that
you will have a population that is top heavy with a rapidly aging population
which is the current state in the United States.
So, inevitably, if you are going to go
about killing the young, especially at the pace we seem to have adapted
ourselves to in this country, then invariably you're going to have to do
something about all those aging populations. Because, the few children who
are born, after all, they cannot be expected to carry this tremendous burden
of all these people. So you're cutting one end and therefore, inevitably, as you
pointed out on the tape, he was saying, "Well, these few young people who are
permitted to be born will feel this inevitable burden on them and so they'll be
They'll be more warmed up to the idea of
grandma and grandpa having this little party and then shuffle them off to
wherever they shuffle off to. And whether it's taking the "demise" pill or going
to a death camp, or....
There was a movie out
sometime back called "Soilant Green". Remember that movie? I didn't see the
whole movie, but Edward G. Robinson liked to sit in the theatre and listen to
Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony as he was to take his demise pill.
R.E: That's right. He also made
the point that the food the people were eating were each other. But as he said,
as long as it's done with dignity and humanely... like putting away your horse.
D.L.D: That's a little bit like
pornography. Years back kids would come across pornography. It was always poor
photography and cheap paper. Then Playboy came out with the glossy pages and
really good photography, so then pornography is no longer cheap. It's
respectable. We went to a movie at the Pittsburgh Playhouse. I took my son
along. It was the Manchurian Candidate. During the previews of the things that
are going to come there was a title I don't remember but it was (inaudible) in
technicolor with classical music in the background.
And it was a pornographic movie. And I
said, well, if you have a guitar then it's pornography; but if you have
classical movie then it converts it into art. It was pornography.
It's an example of what you were saying.
As long as it's done with dignity, that's what counts. If you kill someone with
dignity, it's ok. If you have pornography with classical music it's art. That
was the point I was trying to make.
R.E: Again, talking about the
family. Currently I know there are an awful lot of people who are out of jobs
and he [Dr. Day] had quite a lot of things to say about, for example, heavy
industry. I guess the shock was that this man... I wasn't surprised that he knew
a lot about population control, abortion, and at the other end — euthanasia.
But what DID surprise me was that he was
an individual who was talking about religion, law, education, sports,
entertainment, food... how could one individual have that much input? Now one
could say, "well, it didn't pan out". But we know listening to these
recollections twenty years later... except perhaps for some minor things,
everything that he has said has come to pass and almost beyond imagination. How
COULD one individual talk with such authoritative, non-questioning... that this
was the way THIS was going to happen and THIS was going to happen in "fashion"
and THIS was going to happen on TV and there were going to be video recorders
before I ever heard of the word.
D.L.D: I think what happens...
certainly one individual hears this, but the plans are by no means made by one
or a small number of individuals. Just as industrial corporations which have a
board of directors, with people from all sorts of activities who sit on the
board of this corporation, and they say, "Now if we do this to our product, or
if we expand in this area what will that do to banking? What will that do to
clothing? What will that do... what impact, ripple effect will that have on
other things?" And I'm sure that whoever makes these plans they have
representatives from every area you can think of.
So they'll have educators, they'll have
clothing manufacturers - designers; architects... across the board. I'm sure
they get together and have meetings and plan and everybody puts in his input,
just the way a military operation goes. What will the Navy do? Will they bombard
the shore? What will the Air Force do? Will they come in with air cover? What
will the infantry do? It's the same thing. These people, when they plan, they
don't miss a trick.
They have experts in every field and
they say, "Well, if we do this, that and the other.. John, what will that do to
your operation?" And John will be in position to feed back, "Well this is what I
think will happen." So it certainly covers a broad range of people. And for one
individual to be able to say all of this in the two hours that he spoke to us,
really tells us that he was privy to a lot of information.
R.E: That's right. He must have
been sitting in on one of those boardrooms at least at some point. And I think
not at the highest level from his position, but enough, because anyone in the
population control would be associated with names of foundations... powerful
foundations, powerful organizations...
D.L.D: And I'm sure there was a
lot in the plans that he never heard. He wasn't a four-star general in this
outfit. He wouldn't be in on the whole story.
R.E: Well, too bad he couldn't
have talked for six hours instead of two, and we might have had a lot more
information. There was another aspect that I found fascinating in listening to
this. This whole aspect of privacy... he mentioned that as the private homes
went by we would have individuals, non-family members perhaps sharing our
As I understand that is becoming more
popular out in California. Could California and New York being the coast states,
did he say... That's right... PORT cities that bring in things so that they can
eventually work their way to middle America. But this is about privacy. When he
was talking, for example, about the area of sex, he made some interesting
remarks. One of them that hit me like a ton of bricks was this business about;
"We must be open about sex". As if there can't be any fear of the person that
does not hesitate to open up to the public. Now, if you look at these so-called
sex initiation programs in the schools where the children are forced either
through writing or through verbal expression to talk about all aspects of the
[end of side one ends abruptly -
side two follows]
D.L.D: .... of our right to
investigate even your sex life. Your money will be easy. We'll have it all on
computer. We'll know more about it than you do. But we have to form a generation
where the most intimate activity which two people can have is public, or can be
public. Therefore, it's harder to have any private thoughts and you can't buck
the system if everything you think and do is public knowledge. But the planners
won't be that open about their own lives. They'll reserve their privacy. It's
for the rest of us.
R.E: Yes. Just like their
listening to concerts and operas, but for the mass media they're pumping in hard
rock. That was another fascinating thing. For example, the... and I know this
has come to pass because I deal with a lot of young people... the young people
have their own radio stations for their music and adults have their own and
never the twain shall meet. And when they do there's usually a clash. And I
think the same is probably true with a lot of the classical movies. I can
remember when I was growing up and my dad had the radio on, I think it was a
kind of general music. I didn't say, "Dad, I don't like that music; turn to
another station". Whereas now there is a fabricated generational gap which puts
the family at the disadvantage.
D.L.D: And it creates conflict
within the family, which is one of the spin-off benefits to them. If you're
constantly fussing at your kids, you don't like the music they're playing, and
they're constantly fussing at you because they don't like what you're playing...
that does bad things to the bonds of affection that you would like to be
nurtured in the family.
R.E: It would appear, that any
resistance movement against the population controllers would probably be based
on families strengthening themselves in a number of ways. One of them being to
make sure that children know about grandma and grandpa and where did they come
from and developing a whole... getting out the family albums and making sure
that children know they have roots, first of all. And secondly, that their
family is stable. One father, one mother, with children, with grandfathers.
Those of us who have them should hold on to them.
Toward the end of the tape there was a
reference - at the time everything would be coming together - how this New World
Order would be introduced to a population which, at this point I think they
would assume would be acceptable to it.... how was this put? We're just going to
wake up one morning and changes would just be there? What did he say about that?
D.L.D: It was presented in what
must be an over-simplified fashion, so with some qualifications, here's the
recollections I have... That in the winter, and there was importance to the
winter - on a weekend, like on a Friday an announcement would be made that this
was or about to be in place... That the New World Order was now the System for
the World and we all owe this New World Order our allegiance.
And the reason for winter is that - and
this was stated - people are less prone to travel in the winter, particularly if
they live in an area where there's ice and snow. In summer it's easier to get up
and go. And the reason for the weekend is, people who have questions about this,
Saturday and Sunday everything's closed and they would not have an opportunity
to raise questions, file a protest and say no.
And just that period over the weekend
would allow a desensitizing period so that when Monday came and people had an
opportunity maybe to express some reservations about it, or even oppose it...
there would have been 48 hours to absorb the idea and get used to it.
R.E: What about those who decided
they didn't want to go along?
D.L.D: Somewhere in there it was
that… because this is a "New Authority" and it represents a change, then, from
where your allegiance was presumed to be, people would be called on to publicly
acknowledge their allegiance to the new authority. This would mean to sign an
agreement or in some public way acknowledge that you accepted this... authority.
You accepted its legitimacy and there were two impressions I carried away. If
you didn't... and I'm not sure whether the two impressions are necessarily
mutually exclusive because this wasn't explored in great detail... one of them
was that you would simply have nowhere to go.
If you don't sign up then you can't get
any electric impulses in your banking account and you won't have any electric
impulses with which to pay your electric, or your mortgage or your food, and
when your electric impulses are gone, then you have no means of livelihood.
R.E: Could you get these things
from other people, or would that be... in other words, let's say if you had a
D.L.D: No you could not because
the housing authority would keep close tabs on who is inhabiting any domicile.
So the housing authority would be sure that everybody living there was
authorized to live there.
R.E: Could I get some food?
D.L.D: Your expenditures, through
electronic surveillance would be pretty tightly watched so if you were spending
too much money at the super market, somebody would pick this up and say, "How
come? What are you doing with all that food? You don't look that fat. You don't
have that many people. We know you're not entertaining. What are you doing with
all that food?" And these things then would alert the...
R.E: I have seven people in my
basement who object to the New World Order and I'm feeding them and then they
said, well, one has to go.
D.L.D: They don't belong there
and you can't feed them and since you're sympathetic to them, maybe your
allegiance isn't very trustworthy either.
R.E: Yes. We see this... I think
the Chinese experience tells us a great deal about certain things. For example,
when they wanted to enforce the "One child family"... they cut off all education
for the second child. Your food rations were cut so you couldn't get the right
amount of food, and if they found ways around that, they instituted compulsory
abortions and compulsory plugging in of the IUD's.
Somewhere in the tape this business
about "People can carry two conflicting ideas around - or even espouse two
conflicting ideas as long as they don't get two close together". And what
immediately came to mind is… here we have an organization like Planned
Parenthood... "freedom to choose", yet they support population control programs
which is of course NOT the freedom to choose. And then when they're called into
account and someone says, "Now wait a minute here. You're, 'freedom to choose -
freedom to choose' here, but you're supporting the Chinese program which is
I remember a statement from the late
Allen Gootmacher, one of the medical directors of Planned Parenthood and he
said, "Well, if people limit their families and do what we say, fine. But if we
need compulsory population control, we're going to have it."
What would happen with people who
wouldn't go along, and particularly that point about, "There wouldn't be any
martyrs"? That was significant, because I recall having watched some movies
about the Third Reich that many times they would come late in the evening and
people would be taken from their home, but neighbors would never ask, "Where did
they go?" They knew where they went!
D.L.D: Solzhenitsyn mentions that
in the Gulag Archipelago.
R.E: I think this is very similar
to what we would see. People would just disappear and you would not ask because
it might endanger yourself or your family. But you would know where they went.
If you ask questions, you draw attention to yourself and then you might follow
them to where they went. So you mind your own business and step over the
starving man on the street who didn't go along.
D.L.D: He didn't go into detail
about precisely how this would come about but it's not too hard to imagine. Yes.
In the past, the Nazi's came, the Communists came in the middle of the night,
people just disappeared and one simple way to do this is that if you're cut off
from all economic support and you have no place to live and nothing to eat... we
already see a lot of homeless now.
I just had a man in the office this
morning talking about he and his child seeing people living in boxes in downtown
Pittsburgh today. When the New World Order is here and you're living in a box,
we can't have people littering the place, so you come around in the wagon and
you pick them up.
If your frame of mind as you're growing
up and formed is that, "Human value resides in being productive; you have to
have a prestigious position or at least perform something useful - make a
contribution", and the truck comes by to pick up some guy living in a box and
he's not making any contribution, who's going to get excited about it? You know…
he's sub-human; he's a fetus; he's a zygote; he's a derelict, and fetuses and
zygotes and derelicts are all the same animal. So what do you do with them? You
dispose of them. Who gets excited about it?
R.E: I recall that when the
Chinese Communists came into power one of the first things that they taught in
schools was not any thoughts about specific political ideology, but about
evolution and that man was just an animal and if man was just an animal then we
won't mind being herded and having masters who keep tabs on the animals and
we're one big ant colony and we've got someone to direct traffic and...
Speaking of traffic. We talked about the
aged and again - people hearing this tape, it's phenomenal how many times these
things on this tape will hit you. I just came back from New Jersey which has a
lot of retirement-type villages and I've been there over a period of years and
there's a structure around a retirement home which has been uncompleted for at
least two or three years. Now they've recently completed it. It's kind of a
roadway, but I think it would be easier to get out of a complex at a play-land
it is so complicated. And yet the whole area has elderly people driving.
And we are a fairly middle-aged couple
and for the life of me we couldn't figure out how we were going to get out, what
we were going to do and so I asked some of the residents... "Doesn't it bother
you that they haven't fixed this road for years and now you can't just go across
the street which would have been the logical thing?" You have to go down and
they have a jug-handle and you have to go over and under, so it takes you so
long, and the woman replied to me, "Well you know, we just don't go out. We just
don't go out".
So here we have this little retirement
village where they've made it very difficult for a population, maybe several
hundred homes in this plat with only one exit and the exit involves such a great
deal of bother, they say they just cut down on the number of times they have to
go out shopping.
D.L.D: Right away it makes me
wonder... if it's difficult to get out, it's also difficult to get in probably
R.E: These retirement homes sort
of remind me of an elephant burial ground. The one thing you notice is that
there are no children. There's not the laughter of children in these homes.
D.L.D: My experience has been,
these people in the retirement homes, when they see a child they just blossom.
They're really delighted to see a child. Sure they're happy to have their sons
and daughters come and other adults, but when they see a child - and it doesn't
have to be their own - it has a very beneficial effect on their mood. And if
these older people aren't seeing children, the other side of that coin is, the
children aren't seeing older people either. So if you don't get used to seeing
older people, they don't exist.
R.E: And that's why, with the
family, making sure your children see their grandparents very often, no matter
how much that entails, the trouble with the logistics, etc... it's certainly
worth while because, again if you never see someone and you don't learn to love
them and you never have any contact with them, when someone says, "Well it's
time for your grandpa to check out", it's like, "Who's that?"
Who's going to defend and fight for
someone they never even saw before? Oh, I remember one of the phrases. So many
of these things... you only have to hear them once and they stick in your mind.
It's so jarring.
We've already discussed "sex without
reproduction", then you also said the technology would be there for
"reproduction without sex" and this is a whole other area because it's
contradictory. If a land is so overpopulated, then you would want to diminish
sexual activity, get rid of pornography, get rid of everything that was sexually
stimulating. But, no. It's a contrary. You want to Increase sexual activity but
only insofar as it doesn't lead to reproduction. That was the message, right?
D.L.D: Yes, and this is my own
extension. He didn't say this, but that leads to slavery because if you become
enslaved to your gratification, whether it's sex, food or whatever, then you're
more easily controlled, which is one of the reasons the celibate priesthood is
so important. And so many priests don't even understand that. But if you're
addicted to sex... if sex is divorced from reproduction, something you do for
gratification only - I won't try to parallel that with food because you can't go
without food - then you can be more easily controlled by the availability or the
removal of the availability of sex.
So that can become an enslaving feature.
Now, reproduction without sex... what you would get then would have all the
desirable attributes of a human being without any claim to human rights. The way
we do it now, we say, you're human because you have a father and mother... you
have a family and so you're a human being with human rights. But if your father
was a petrie dish and you mother was a test tube, how can you lay claim to human
rights? You owe your existence to the laboratory which conveys to you no human
And there is no God, so you can't go for
any God-given human rights, so you're an ideal slave. You have all the
attributes of a human being but you don't have any claim on rights.
R.E: In "Brave New World" they
had the caste system, the alphas, the omegas, etc. The way they brought about
the different caste systems was that in the decanting, or birthing rooms, the
individual who was to do menial or slave labor... work in the mines... received
just a little bit of oxygen to the brain so they learned to love their slavery
and they were very happy.
They didn't know any better. They didn't
have the wherewithal to do things, but the higher in the caste you got, the more
oxygen you got to your brain. So we actually had a group of sub-human beings who
loved their slavery. In the past slaves probably didn't love their slavery very
much, but in this case, we have this technology which will make people love
their slavery, and each caste loved being what they were in "Brave New World".
And any of our listeners who hasn't read that recently...
D.L.D: You may remember the
slogan that was above the Nazi concentration camps... something about, "Work is
Peace and Work is Happiness". I don't remember if it was Buchenwald (sp) or
Auschwitz. My recollection of words isn't precise, but the idea is what counts.
And here's Huxley, writing Brave New World, saying basically the same thing
before Hitler was even in power, so Huxley knew something.
R.E: He came from a family that
probably contributed at least in part to this New World Order. A number of the
English authors... H.G. Wells... from that period and from those associations
who highlighted the concepts of what was coming down the path.
I can remember reading Brave New World
in high school, and thought, "Boy, is this fantasy land". Thirty years later and
I said, "This is scary". There seems to be kind of a similarity between his
writings and the talk given by Dr. Day, because you get kind of a mixed message
in Brave New World, that these things are not really good. It would be better if
man still had a sense of humor, a sense of privacy, if the family still
existed.. but, it's inevitable. They're going to go. Too bad. I feel a little
sorry about that. A little sentiment, but the New Order has to come in and we
have to make room for it.
And I got that same impression from the
things that were said about this Day tape. He wasn't real happy about some of
the things, but they're going to occur anyway, so make it easier on yourself.
The more you accept it the easier it's going to be when it comes around, and I'm
kind of doing you a favor - you physicians out there this evening - I'm going to
make it easier for you by telling you in advance what's coming and you can make
your own adjustments.
D.L.D: Somewhere in Scripture… I
think it was after the flood, God said, "I will write my law on man's hearts",
and I feel the same parallel that you do between Dr. Day's reaction to what he
was exposed to and mine... seeming not totally accepting of this. Huxley seeming
not totally accepting of what he wrote about but both saying, "Well, there's a
certain inevitability to all of this, so let's try to talk about the best parts
of it. It's going to be good for people. Technology will be better, quality of
life will be better... so you live a few years shorter."
But they both do seem to send out
messages not buying the whole package...
R.E: And maybe wishing some
people would ask more questions. Looking back over history there are many
individuals who had an idea of what a New World Order should be, certainly
Hitler and Stalin did, but what was lacking during these periods is that they
lacked the technology to carry many a many of the things out... surveillance,
constant monitoring... but in this so-called New World Order it's going to be
very difficult to escape because technology will provide those means which had
been lacking those totalitarian individuals from years ago.
D.L.D: I can't remember on the
original tapes, did I mention the phrase where he said, "This time we're going
to do it right!" ?
R.E: No. You didn't.
D.L.D: There were so many details
to remember. But when he mentioned bringing in the New World Order, he said,
"This time we're going to do it right".
And right away, I'm wondering, "what do
you mean, 'this time'?". There was no explicit explanation of that, but I think
it's fairly easy to infer that previous efforts had to do with the Third
Reich... Your point about the technology is critical with computers and all
means of exchange being controlled by electronic impulse.
Nobody has any wealth. You own nothing
of value except access to electronic impulses which are beyond your control. A
cashless society. So when your reward for working is [nothing more than]
impulses on the computer and the only claim you have is these impulses and the
people who run the system can give or take them as they choose. Up until this
time there was no way the statement in the Book of Revelation that said, "No man
can buy or sell unless he has the mark of the beast"... there's no way that
could have been enforced.
People could say I'll trade you a bushel
of tomatoes for a bushel of wheat. If you'll drive my kids to school I'll give
you six ears of corn. Bartering. And even not going necessarily that primitive,
there was always gold and silver and other forms of money that were even better
than bartering. But with this cashless society, I believe this is the first time
in the history of the human race where the entire population of the world can be
controlled economically so that somebody can say, "I pushed the right buttons
and I know how much credit you have electronically; I know where you spend your
money electronically; and you cannot buy, you cannot sell unless you get on my
Right now you have a half a dozen credit
cards in your pocket, but pretty soon it will be narrowed to one credit card and
then when we... you know the ostensible reason is that when people loose their
credit cards and we have to get rid of that and put the implant in... where it
has to be accessible to the scanner... in your right hand or in your forehead.
R.E: Speaking of scanner. When we
had the TV War..... the Gulf War? It was the first war where you just sit there
and 24 hours a day just like being on the battlefield there. There were several
points made about the advances in technology and how they could spot just one
little individual down in... they used the constant reference to pinpoint...
"pinpoint". I imagine with the different technologies they can also pinpoint a
couple of renegades in the New World Order. The technology which was applicable
to a so- called 'enemy' can also be applicable to this controlling the order.
Exactly. It's infra-red
stuff that's... I'm sort of amateurish about this, but any heat source like a
deer, a human being, a renegade... can be picked up by an infra-red scanner and
you get sort of an outline of whether it's a deer or sheep or whatever.
My first hearing about them was in the
Vietnam War where our troops used them to detect the enemy. That's twenty-some
years ago, so they're probably even more sophisticated now than they were then;
but with this kind of surveillance it would be pretty hard for anybody to escape
and say, "Well, I'm just going to go out into the mountains and be a hermit and
escape the New World Order. I can shoot deer and eat berries and survive and
I've got a wife who's pretty sturdy and she'll be able to survive and we'll do
what the Indians did before Columbus got here and we'll all survive". The New
World Order will say, "No you won't because we're gonna find you".
R.E: Even in Brave New World they
had a group of people who still lived as a family and the women breast-fed and
they were called savages. But we won't have any savages. We're cultured, we'll
be thin and our teeth will be straight.
D.L.D: Something also that was
mentioned; forests could — and if necessary would — be leveled or burned.
Now this comes out of this movement... goddess mother earth, and how we have to
protect the environment... but if we want to get someone who's trying to get
away we'll burn down the whole forest. We'll find them. That was stated.
Deforestation could be and would be brought about to make sure that nobody gets
outside the control of the system.
R.E: We're drawing to a close
here. How did you feel after... well, it's been about 22 years now since that
original lecture and there probably isn't a day that goes by - at least since
I've heard the tape - that I don't think about the things that this Dr. Day
D.L.D: You get constant
reminders. Not a day goes by something doesn't say, "That reminds me of…" such
and such, whether it's surveillance or security...
R.E: ... or clothing. I opened up
a toy catalogue the other day and noticed there didn't happen to be any baby
dolls in this toy catalogue... of course going back to the idea that we don't
want little girls to by thinking about babies. They only had one little doll and
it was kind of an adult doll. And nothing that would raise anyone's maternal
instincts. Well, Doc, what's the prognosis?
Left to man alone I think
the technology is already here and with technological progress, I think it is
inevitable -- if man is left to his own devices -- that some men will be able to
assert total control over other men... other people. Man left to his own
devices... the tendency is -- in groups like this, then -- is for internal
dissention to arise where the leaders would be at each other's throats too...
each saying, "No, I'm more powerful than you. I deserve more than you".
R.E: Who will control the
D.L.D: Yeah. They would stab
themselves. I think so. They would create their own seeds of destruction while
they're creating the system. But the other thing I wonder if indeed this may be
time for our Lord to come back and say, "Enough's enough. Because you're going
to destroy my planet earth. I am in charge of the planet. I'm in charge of
mankind. Mankind will be destroyed if I say. I will not allow my creatures to
assume and exert this degree of control where you're going to destroy the whole
R.E: What I was just thinking as
you were just saying that is that in the past, dictators could kill people, they
could torture them, but essentially they could not change what it meant to be a
human being. They could not change human nature. Now we are going to have with
this new Genome Project, a multi-billion dollar project where they're going to
be getting a tab on everyone's genes. No one shall escape. Everyone shall have
their genetic codes and with this opens the door to manipulation to change the
very meaning of what it MEANS to be human.
And if one has an entity then that no
longer has free will, you just have to wonder if that point out Lord says,
D.L.D: Just as Lucifer set
himself up as God in the beginning, some people now would set themselves up as
God and say, "I control the computers, I control the genomes, I control
everything, I am God..." and at that point He would have to say, "No, you are
not! I have to demonstrate to you... you're NOT. I'm still God. You're just a
RE: And as you said on the
original tape, we believe in what our Lord has said, in that He will not leave
us orphans. He will be with us 'til the end of time.
This right away now begs
the questions, when they come around and say, "It's your turn to sign the
allegiance form"... what are you going to do? When Henry the eighth came around
and said, either sign here and join... and while he was saying it they were
throwing the noose over the limb of the oak tree, and slipping the noose around
your neck and saying, "you want to sign this or do we slap the horse out from
under you?" and a lot of people said I won't sign it and they were martyred.
Despite his having said there will be no
martyrs, certainly there will be martyrs. The implication of his statements were
that they would not be recognized as martyrs, but there will be martyrs and they
will be RECOGNIZED as martyrs. Maybe not the same way as in the past but I think
this is something people should sort of prepare themselves for.
When I'm nose to nose with this choice,
"ether sign this allegiance or we're going to put you in a boxcar and you're
going out to Arizona, to the desert..." I think we have to be prepared to make a
R.E: I think it would be an
understatement to say that this tape has great meaning and it's like a
forewarning and it gives us ideas of things we should do and things we shouldn't
do and I think everybody listening to the tapes will come up with things he can
do on a small scale. I think that's the beauty of this thing. As he was
talking... it wasn't real earth shattering things he was talking about. He was
talking about little things. Television. Things that we do every day. Things
that are under our control. The books we read.
And I think some of these changes if
they are going to occur will occur with the individual person within that
family, with him getting the word out and then doing the little things. I think
they matter over the long haul, the most.
D.L.D: Just as with the prisoners
who survived the brainwashing, I think people who are Spiritually oriented, who
are thinking about God, thinking about their relationship WITH God, are the ones
who will then be better prepared or equipped to survive this world and the next.
Whereas, those who are just focused on meeting their needs right now, strictly
the material needs of the day, they're more easily controlled.
Under the threat of losing your comforts
or losing your food or loosing your head or whatever, certainly some people are
going to yield, and those who I think will survive and I really mean both in
this life and the next - they're going to have to be the ones who are prepared
because it's my belief when the time comes to make the decision… "Are you going
to sign on or not?"... it's too late to begin preparation and start saying,
"Well, let me think about this."
You won't have time to think about it.
You're either going to say yes or no. I hope a lot of us make the right
R.E: I do so too, and I think the
tape will change as many lives and have hopefully as good an effect as it had on
mine and on yours and so let me thank you very much. For further information
please contact the U.S. Coalition for Life; Box 315, Export, Penn 15632. Your
comments and criticism and any other information which you might have regarding
this tape will be most welcome.
All the political cartoons and photo-collages are reproduced with much gratitude