Note: This is a transcript of three tapes on the
Order of Barbarians", referred to on the tapes simply as the "new world
system." Tapes one and two were recorded in 1988 and are the
recollections of Dr. Lawrence Dunegan regarding a lecture he attended
on March 20, 1969 at a meeting of the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society.
lecturer at that gathering of pediatricians (identified in tape three
recorded in 1991) was a Dr. Richard Day (who died in 1989). At the time
Dr. Day was Professor of Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in
New York. Previously he had served as Medical Director of Planned
Parenthood Federation of America.
Dr. Dunegan was formerly a student of
Dr. Day at the University of Pittsburgh and was well acquainted with
him, though not intimately. He describes Dr. Day as an insider of the
"Order" and although Dr. Dunegan's memory was somewhat dimmed by the
intervening years, he is able to provide enough details of the lecture
to enable any enlightened person to discern the real purposes behind
the trends of our time. This is a transcript of a a loose,
conversational monologue that makes for better listening than reading.
The third and final tape of the "New Order of
Barbarians" is an 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.
IS THERE A POWER, A FORCE OR A GROUP OF MEN ORGANIZING AND
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.
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
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." [emphasis supplied]
"EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE AND NOBODY CAN STOP US
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 CHANGE..."
Somewhere in the introductory remarks
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
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 WITHOUT 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 ALL
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 GOVERNMENT
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 activity.
TAX FUNDED ABORTION AS POPULATION CONTROL
No surprise then, that the next item
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 GOES HOMOSEXUALITY ALSO
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
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 information.
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 CARE MAKES ELIMINATING
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
PLANNING THE CONTROL OVER MEDICINE
The next topic is Medicine. There
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
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
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.
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.
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
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 UNTREATABLE DISEASES
Next heading to talk about is Health
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 POPULATION
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 overpopulation.
INDUCING HEART ATTACKS AS A FORM OF ASSASSINATION
Another very interesting thing was
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
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
Another area of discussion was
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 KEY WORDS
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
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 INDOCTRINATION
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
MORE TIME IN SCHOOLS, BUT THEY "WOULDN'T LEARN
As regards education, he indicated
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 Iearning 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
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
CONTROLLING WHO HAS ACCESS TO INFORMATION
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
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
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.
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 THE
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
Another area of discussion was laws
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
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 free
THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF DRUG ABUSE TO CREATE A JUNGLE
Drug use would he increased. Alcohol
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
CURTAILMENT OF AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL PRE-EMINENCE
American industry came under
- 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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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 mother.
SEX AND VIOLENCE INCULCATED THROUGH ENTERTAINMENT
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
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 withdrawn.
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
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.
KNOW HOW PEOPLE RESPOND - MAKING THEM DO WHAT YOU
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
FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Somewhere in this connection, then,
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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 SYSTEM
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
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
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
Interview of Dr.
Lawrence Dunegan by Randy Engel
Randy Engel (R.E.): Why don't we open up with a
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
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
Allan Guttmacher. 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?
D.L.D: This was the… the Pittsburgh Pediatric
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
D.L.D: A very nice meal and everyone was settled
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
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?
D.L.D: 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.
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 money...?
D.L.D: Yeah, changing the image of the doctor.
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?
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
there couldn't possibly be any... I mean, he's such a good guy.
D.L.D: I've often heard that phrase, "He's such a
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
R.E: Before talking about the specific areas, I
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
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
D.L.D: Right. It was in that connection that he
"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 was introduced.
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.
D.L.D: 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
"We 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,
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 themselves out.
Now it's hard for me make clear how much of it is
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 too.
So it's a desensitization, even for the individual
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 keep quiet.
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 , 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
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
D.L.D: It has an ostensible purpose, and then it has
R.E: Yes, and as a so-called helping professional
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.
D.L.D: Religion's important because it is eternal
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 IDEAS.
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
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 this is".
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 time here).
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.
D.L.D: And to dictate the truth WE use. Sex
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 words.
Talking about media events and access to the brain,
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 not.
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
D.L.D: Take the networks at there word. They say,
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
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.
have meaning. They're hurting him.
D.L.D: 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
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 more desensitized."
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....
D.L.D: 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,
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
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 —
But what DID surprise me was that he was an
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
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,
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
R.E: That's right. He must have been sitting in on
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
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
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
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
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
Toward the end of the tape there was a reference -
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
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
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
R.E: What about those who decided they didn't want
D.L.D: Somewhere in there it was that… because this
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
R.E: Could you get these things from other people,
would that be... in other words, let's say if you had a sympathetic
D.L.D: No you could not because the housing
would keep close tabs on who is inhabiting any domicile. So the housing
authority would be sure that everybody living there was authorized to
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
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
and since you're sympathetic to them, maybe your allegiance isn't very
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
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 compulsory.
I remember a statement from the late Allan
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
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
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 for
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
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
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 rights.
And there is no God, so you can't go for any
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 PDF Document"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
Nazi concentration camps... something about, "Work is Peace and Work is
Happiness". I don't remember if it was Buchenwald 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
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
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
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
Nobody has any wealth. You own nothing of value
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
Right now you have a half a dozen credit cards in
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
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.
D.R.D: 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
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 said.
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
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?
D.L.D: 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 controllers?
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 thing.
R.E: What I was just thinking as you were just
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
And if one has an entity then that no longer has
will, you just have to wonder if that point out Lord says, "Enough".
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.
D.L.D: 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
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 decision.
R.E: I think it would be an understatement to say
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
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
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 decision.
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.
Return to Originating Document
Transcript from Randy Engel
Published on January 25th,
About Us and Frequently Asked
Note: If the above dated image
does not appear on this document, it means that you are not viewing the
original document from our servers. Should you have reason to doubt the
authenticity of the document, we recommend that you access our server
again and click on the "Refresh" or "Reload" button of your Browser to
view the original document.
you wish to contact
The M+G+R Foundation, please Click Here