1988 - 1991
This is a transcript of the first of three tapes
on the "New Order of Barbarians", referred to on the tapes simply as the
"new world system."
Tapes one and two, done in 1988, are the reminiscences
by Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, of a speech given March 20, 1969 by Dr. Richard Day, an insider of the "Order", whose credentials are given in
an interview with Dr. Dunegan on tape three.
The moderator in the final taped interview with Dr. Dunegan is Randy
Engel, National Director, US Coalition for Life. It's interesting to
note that Dr. Dunegan "spilled the beans" in 1988.
According to the bio information, Dr. Day died
shortly thereafter, in 1989. It could be a coincidence since Dr. Day
was elderly when he died, and then again...
Most of you reading this are very well aware, already, of many of the
details involved in the diabolical plan to bring about a
As much as we all know, hearing about the "HOW" from
the words of an insider is spine chilling. I believe these tapes COULD
change many lives and awaken many more people to the REALITY of what lies
ahead if we don't stop the process. There are many more millions of US than
there are the planners.
The useful idiots - their words, not ours
- who are helping the process along know NOT what they do. If they DID know,
they would stop, because they would KNOW that they, too, will be either
terminated or become part of a GLOBAL SLAVE CAMP.
Dr. Dugegan reveals not just "WHAT" is intended for America and all people
in the world, but "HOW" the controllers intend to carry out their plan. He
covers topics such as:
IS there a power, A force or a group of
men organizing and redirecting change?
"Everything is in place and nobody can
stop us now... ."
People will have to get used to change -
everything will change, constantly
The REAL and the "STATED" goals
Permission to have babies
Redirecting the purpose of sex - sex
without reproduction and reproduction without sex
Sex education as a tool of World
Encouraging homosexuality... Sex,
Euthanasia and the "Demise Pill"
Limiting access to affordable medical
care makes eliminating the elderly easier
Planning the control over medicine
Elimination of private doctors
New Difficult to diagnose and
Suppressing cancer cures as a means of
Inducing heart attacks as a form of
Education as a tool for accelerating the
onset of puberty and pushing evolution and MUCH, MUCH MORE
"THE NEW ORDER OF BARBARIANS"
IS THERE A POWER, A FORCE OR
A GROUP OF MEN ORGANIZING AND REDIRECTING CHANGE?
There has been much written, and much said, by some people who have looked
at all the changes that have occurred in American society in the past 20
years or so, and who have looked retrospectively to earlier history of the
United States, and indeed, of the world, and come to the conclusion that
there is a conspiracy of sorts which influences, indeed controls, major
historical events, not only in the United States, but around the world.
This conspiratorial interpretation of history is
based on people making observations from the outside, gathering evidence and
coming to the conclusion that from the outside they see a conspiracy. Their
evidence and conclusions are based on evidence gathered in retrospect.
I want to now describe what I heard from a speaker in 1969 which in several
weeks will be 20 years ago. The speaker did not speak in terms of
retrospect, but rather predicting changes that would be brought about in the
future. The speaker was not looking from the outside in, thinking that he
saw conspiracy, rather, he was on the inside, admitting that, indeed, there
was an organized power, force, group of men, who wielded enough influence to
determine major events involving countries around the world. And he
predicted, or rather expounded on, changes that were planned for the
remainder of this century.
As you listen, if you can recall the situation, at least in the United
States in 1969 and the few years thereafter, 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. [Ed. Note: the year Dr. Dunegan
made this tape] 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 ‘60s",
that was kind of a cliché in those days - "the decade of the ‘60s."
Well, by 1969 our speaker was talking about the
decade of the ‘70s, the decade of the ‘80s, and the decade of the ‘90s. So
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 ‘40s and the decade
of the ‘50s."
So I think this overall plan and timetable had taken important shape with
more predictability to those who control it, sometime in the late ‘50s.
That's speculation on my part. In any event, the speaker said that his
purpose was to tell us about changes which would be brought about in the
next 30 years or so... so that an entirely new world-wide system would be in
operation before the turn of the century.
As he put it,
"We plan to enter the 21st Century with a
running start. Everything is in place and nobody can stop us now..."
He said - as we listened to what he was about to
present - he said,
"Some of you will think I'm talking about
Communism. Well, what I'm talking about is much bigger than Communism!"
At that time he indicated that there is much
more cooperation between East and West than most people realize.
In his introductory remarks he commented that he
was free to speak at this time because now, and I'm quoting here,
"everything is in place and nobody can stop
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... 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 and he hopes 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 he insisted that nobody have a tape
recorder and that nobody take notes, which for a professor was a very
remarkable kind of thing to expect from an audience. Something in his
remarks suggested that there could be negative repercussions against him if
his... if it became widely known what he was about to say to... our group...
if it became widely known that he spilled the beans, so to speak.
When I heard that, first 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... 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
Again, as the remarks began to unfold, and I saw the rather outrageous
things that were said - at that time they certainly seemed outrageous -- I
made it a point to try to remember as much of what he said as I could, and
during the subsequent weeks and months and years, to connect my
recollections to simple events around me, both to aid my memory for the
future in case I wanted to do what I'm doing now - record this.
And also, to try to maintain a perspective on
what would be developing, if indeed, it followed the predicted pattern -
which it has!
At this point, so that I don't forget to include it later, I'll just include
some statements that were made from time to time throughout the
presentation... just having a general bearing on the whole presentation. One
of the statements was having to do with change.
People get used... the statement was,
"People will have to get used to the idea of
change, so used to change, that they'll be expecting change. Nothing
will be permanent."
This often came out in the context of a society
of... where people seemed to have no roots or moorings, but would be
passively willing to accept change simply because it was all they had ever
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
Another comment that was made... from time to time during
the presentation was,
"People are too trusting. People don't ask the right
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
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
This seemed to come as a sort of an apology,
particularly when... at the conclusion of describing some particularly
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-pollute 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
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
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 is 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
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
contraception's... 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 was abortion. And this, now back in
1969, four years before
Roe vs. Wade.
"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
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.
HOMOSEXUALITY. SEX, ANYTHING GOES
Homosexuality also was to be encouraged.
"People will be given permission to be
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 revealing.
"It is not just the amount of skin that is
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
"If a woman has an attractive body, why
should she not show it?" was one of the statements.
There was no 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
Technology. Earlier he said... sex and reproduction would be separated. You
would have sex without reproduction and then technology was reproduction
without sex. This would be done in the laboratory. He indicated that
already, much, much research was underway about making babies in the
laboratory. There was some elaboration on that, but I don't remember the
details, how much of that technology has come to my attention since that
time. I don't remember...
I don't remember in a way that I can distinguish
what was said from what I subsequently have learned as general medical
FAMILIES TO DIMINISH
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. So one either keeps 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
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 THE ELDERLY EASIER
A big item - [that] was elaborated at some length - was the cost of medical
care would be 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
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 real example was - there could be
like a nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good
job. And then after the party's over they take the "demise pill."
PLANNING THE CONTROL OVER MEDICINE
The next topic is Medicine. There would be profound changes in the practice
of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled.
The observation was made,
"Congress is not going to go along with
national health insurance. That (in 1969), he said, 'is now, abundantly
evident. But it's not necessary. We have other ways to control health
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 non-existent. 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
As an aside here - this is not something that was developed at this time...
I didn't understand it at the time - as an aside, the way this works,
everybody's made dependent on insurance. And if you don't have insurance
then you pay directly; the cost of your care is enormous. The insurance
company, however, paying for your care, does not pay that same amount. If
you are charged, say, $600 on your part, they pay $300 or $400.
And that differential in billing has the desired
effect: It enables the insurance company to pay for that which you could
never pay for. They get a discount that's unavailable to you. When you see
your bill you're grateful that the insurance company could do that. And in
this way you are dependent, and virtually required to have insurance.
The whole billing is fraudulent.
Anyhow, continuing on now... access to hospitals would be tightly
controlled. Identification would be needed to get into the building. The
security in and around hospitals would be established and gradually
increased so that nobody without identification could get in or move around
inside the building.
Theft of hospital equipment, things like
typewriters and microscopes and so forth would be "allowed" and exaggerated;
reports of it would be exaggerated so that this would be the excuse needed
to establish the need for strict security, until people got used to it. And
anybody moving about in a 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" as 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
The image of the doctor would change.
No longer would 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
And he went on to say,
"Doctors are making entirely too much money.
They should advertise like any other product."
Lawyers would be advertising too. Keep in mind,
this was an audience of doctors being addressed by a doctor. And it was
interesting that he would make some rather insulting statements to his
audience without fear of antagonizing us. The solo practitioner would become
a thing of the past. A few die-hards might try to hold out, but most doctors
would be employed by an institution of one kind or another.
Group practice would be encouraged, corporations
would be encouraged, and then once the corporate image of medical care... as
this gradually became more and more acceptable, doctors would more and more
become employees rather than independent contractors. And along with that,
of course, unstated but necessary, is the employee serves his employer, not
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
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
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 a long 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
SUPPRESSING CANCER CURES AS A MEANS OF
POPULATION CONTROL... CANCER.
"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."
cancer treatment would be geared more
toward comfort than toward cure. There was some statement 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
INDUCING HEART ATTACKS AS A FORM OF
Another very interesting thing was heart attacks.
"There is now a way to simulate a real heart
attack. It can be used as a means of assassinates."
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, a 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
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
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 judgment about people and what
they should do with their energies.
People who are smart, who would learn about
nutrition, and who are disciplined enough to eat right and exercise right
are better people - and the kind you want to live longer.
EDUCATION AS A TOOL
FOR ACCELERATING THE ONSET OF PUBERTY AND EVOLUTION
Somewhere along in here there was also something about accelerating the
onset of puberty.
And this was said in connection with health, and
later in connection with education, and connecting to accelerating the
process of evolutionary change. There was a statement that "we think that we
can push evolution faster and in the direction we want it to go."
I remember this only as a general statement.
I don't recall if any details were given beyond
BLENDING ALL RELIGIONS - THE OLD RELIGIONS WILL
HAVE TO GO
Another area of discussion was
RELIGION. This is an avowed atheist speaking.
And he said,
"Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of
people seem to need religion, with it's mysteries and rituals - so they
will have religion."
But the major religions of today have to be
changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old
religions will have to go. Especially Christianity.
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
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."
RESTRUCTURING EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF
Another area of discussion was Education.
And one of the things in connection with
education that I 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
But he said, the casual reader reading a revised
version of a classic would never even suspect that there was any change.
And, somebody would have to go through word by word to even recognize that
any change was made in these classics; the changes would be so subtle.
But the changes would be such as to promote the
acceptability of the new system.
MORE TIME IN SCHOOLS, BUT THEY "WOULDN'T LEARN
As regards education, he indicated that
kids would spend more time in schools, but in many schools they wouldn't
They'll learn some things, but not as much as
formerly. Better schools in better areas with better people - their kids
will learn more. In the better schools, learning would be accelerated.
this is another time where he said,
"We think we can push evolution."
By pushing kids to learn more, he seemed to be suggesting that their brains
would evolve, that their offspring would evolve - sort of pushing evolution
- where kids would learn and be more intelligent at a younger age.
As if this pushing would alter their physiology.
Overall, schooling would be prolonged. This meant prolonged through the
school year. I'm not sure what he said about a long school day, I do
remember he said that school was planned to go all summer, that the summer
school vacation would become a thing of the past. Not only for schools, but
for other reasons. People would begin to think of vacation times year round,
not just in the summer.
For most people, it would take longer to complete their education. To get
what originally had been in a bachelor's program would now require advanced
degrees and more schooling. So that a lot of school time would be just wasted time. Good schools would become more competitive. I inferred when he
said that, that he was including all schools - elementary up through college
- but I don't recall whether he said that.
Students would have to decide at a younger age what they would want to study
and get onto their track early, if they would qualify. It would be harder to
change to another field of study once you get started. Studies would be
concentrated in much greater depth, but narrowed. You wouldn't have access
to material in other fields, outside your own area of study, without
This seem to be more... where he talked about
limited access to other fields... I seem to recall that as being more at the
college level, high school and college level, perhaps. People would be very
specialized in their own area of expertise.
But they won't be able to get a broad education
and won't be able to understand what is going on overall.
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 would become more important in people's
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 sandlot football and sandlot baseball teams that we
worked up as kids growing up. I said the kids wanting any activities outside
of school would be almost forced to get them through the school. There would
be few opportunities outside.
Now the pressures of the accelerated academic program, the accelerated
demands, where kids would feel they had to be part of something - one or
another athletic club or some school activity - these pressures he
recognized would cause some students to burn out.
"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
Education would be lifelong. Adults would be going to school. There'll
always be new information that adults must have to keep up. When you can't
keep up anymore, you're too old. This was another way of letting older
people know that the time had come for them to move on and take the demise
If you get 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
This was in the vein that some books contain
information or contain ideas that should not be kept around.
And therefore, those books would disappear. I
don't remember exactly if he said how this was to be accomplished. But I
seem to recall carrying away this idea that this would include thefts. That
certain people would be designated to go to certain libraries and pick up
certain books and just get rid of them. Not necessarily as a matter of
policy - just simply steal it. Further down the line, not everybody will be
allowed to own books.
And some books NOBODY will be allowed to own.
Another area of discussion was laws that would be changed.
At that time a lot of States had blue laws about
Sunday sales, certain Sunday activities. He said the blue laws would all be
repealed. Gambling laws would be repealed 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
But people should be able to gamble if they want
to. So it would become a civil activity, rather than a private, or illegal
Bankruptcy laws would be changed. I don't remember the details, but just
that they would be changed. And I know subsequent to that time they have
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 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
ENCOURAGEMENT OF DRUG ABUSE TO CREATE A JUNGLE
Drug use would be increased. Alcohol use would be increased. Law enforcement
efforts against drugs would be increased. On first hearing that, it sounded
like a contradiction.
Why increase drug abuse and simultaneously increase
law enforcement against drug abuse? But the idea is that, in part, the increased
availability of drugs would provide a sort of law of the jungle whereby the
weak and the unfit would be selected out.
There was a statement made at the
"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 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 abuse would be both promoted and demoted at the same time.
The vulnerable and the weak would respond to the promotions and, therefore,
use and abuse more alcohol.
Drunk driving would become more of a problem;
and stricter rules about driving under the influence would be established so
that more and more people would lose their privilege to drive.
RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL
This also had connection with something we'll get to later about overall
restrictions on travel. Not everybody should be free to travel the way they
do now in the United States.
People don't have a need to travel that way.
It's a privilege! It was a kind of a high-handed 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 pretty good - 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
It was as if he were saying,
"you think we're bad in promoting these evil
things - but look how nice we are - we're also providing a way out!"
THE NEED FOR MORE JAILS, AND USING HOSPITALS AS JAILS
More jails would be needed. Hospitals could serve as jails.
Some new hospital construction would be designed
so as to make them adaptable to jail-like use.
[end of tape one]
"THE NEW ORDER OF BARBARIANS"
This is a transcript of the second of three
tapes on the "New Order of Barbarians", referred to on the tapes simply as
the "new world system."
Tapes one and two, done in 1988, are the
reminiscences of Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, a pediatrician from
Pittsburgh, who sat through a talk in 1969, while insider, Dr. Richard Day,
spoke of the planned future of America and Americans.
Day was speaking to a
group of Pediatric Physicians who were told,
"No note-taking and no tape recorders."
.... Change, 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
Buildings would be allowed to stand empty and
deteriorate, and streets would be allowed to deteriorate in certain
localities. The purpose of this was to provide the jungle, the depressed
atmosphere for the unfit. Somewhere in this same connection he mentioned
that buildings and bridges would be made so that they would collapse after a
while; there would be more accidents involving airplanes and railroads and
automobiles. All of this to contribute to the feeling of insecurity, that
nothing was safe.
Not too long after this presentation, and I think one or two even before in
the area where I live, we had some newly constructed bridge to break;
another newly constructed bridge defect discovered before it broke, and I
remember reading just scattered incidents around the country where shopping
malls would fall in - right where they were filled with shoppers.
And I remember that one of the shopping malls in
our area, the first building I'd ever been in where you could feel this
vibration throughout the entire building when there were a lot of people in
there; and I remember wondering at that time whether this shopping mall was
one of the buildings he was talking about.
Talking to construction people and architects
about it they would say,
"Oh no, that's good when the building
vibrates like that. That means it's flexible, not rigid."
Well... maybe so. We'll wait and see.
Other areas there would be well-maintained. Not every part of the city would
There would be the created slums and other areas
well-maintained. Those people able to leave the slums for better areas then
would learn to better appreciate the importance of human accomplishment.
This meant that if they left the jungle and came to civilization, so to
speak, they could be proud of their own accomplishments that they made it.
There was no related sympathy for those who were left behind in the jungle
of drugs and deteriorating neighborhoods.
Then a statement that was kind of surprising:
"We think we can effectively limit crime to
the slum areas, so it won't be spread heavily into better areas."
I should maybe point out here that these are obviously not word for word
quotations after 20 years, but where I say that I am quoting, I am giving
the general drift of what was said close to word for word; perhaps not
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
"Support your local police; don't let them
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
"See, we're generating all this more crime,
but look how good we are - we're also generating the means for you to
protect yourself against the crime."
A sort of repeated thing throughout this
presentation was the recognized evil and then the self-forgiveness thing...
"Well see, we've given you a way out."
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE "TO CREATE A NEW
STRUCTURE, YOU FIRST HAVE TO TEAR DOWN THE OLD"
American industry came under discussion -
it was the first that I'd heard the term GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE or that
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.
PATRIOTISM WOULD GO DOWN THE DRAIN
And at this point there was some
discussion of steel and particularly automobiles. I remember him saying that
automobiles would be imported from Japan on an equal footing with our own
domestically produced automobiles, but the Japanese product would be better.
Things would be made so they would break and
fall apart - that is, in the United States - so that people would tend to
prefer the imported variety and this would give a bit of a boost to foreign
competitors. One example, was Japanese.
In 1969, Japanese automobiles - if
they were sold here at all, I don't remember - but they certainly weren't
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.
LOSS OF JOBS - LOSS OF SECURITY
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
But heavy industry would be transported out. One
of the comments made about heavy industry was that we had had enough
environmental damage from smokestacks 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
So we really didn't lose on it.
POPULATION SHIFTS TO ELIMINATE "TRADITIONS"
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 changing traditions in a place where people grew up
and had an extended family - where they had roots.
Things like new medical care systems. If you
pick up from a Northeast industrial city and you transplant yourself to the
South Sun Belt 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
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 seacoast
cities; the heartland, the Midwest, does seem to have maintained its
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.
WORLD CITIZENS - WORLD
Anyhow, going back to industry. Some heavy industry would remain.
Just enough to maintain a sort of a seedbed 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 then national identities would tend to be
de-emphasized. Each area depended on every other area for one or another
elements in its life. We would all become citizens of the world rather than
citizens of any one country.
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 and 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 either 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 then also could break
the owners and alienate the fans. And then the fans would support soccer and
the baseball fields could be used as soccer fields. It wasn't said
definitely this would have to happen, but if the international flavor didn't
come around rapidly enough this could be done.
There was some comment along the same lines about football, although I seem
to recall he said football would be harder to dismantle because it was so
widely played in colleges as well as in the professional leagues and would
be harder to tear down. There was something else also about the violence in
football that met a psychological need that was perceived, and people have a
need for this vicarious violence.
So football, for that reason, might be
left around to meet that vicarious need.
The same thing is true of hockey. Hockey had more of an international flavor
and would be emphasized. There was some foreseeable international
competition about hockey and particularly soccer. At that time hockey was
international between the United States and Canada. I was kind of surprised
because I thought the speaker just never impressed me as being at all 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, in Europe, in 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 narrow nations.
There was some discussion about hunting, not surprisingly.
Hunting requires guns and gun control is a big
element in these plans. I don't remember the details much, but the idea is
that gun ownership is a privilege and not everybody should have guns.
Hunting was an inadequate excuse for owning guns
and everybody should be restricted in gun ownership. The few privileged
people who should be allowed to hunt could maybe rent or borrow a gun from
official quarters rather than own their own.
After all, everybody doesn't have a need for a
gun, is the way it was put.
SPORTS FOR GIRLS - TO DE-EMPHASIZE FEMININITY
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 need not to be
all that different. Tea sets were to go the way of dolls, and all these
things that traditionally were thought of as feminine would be de-emphasized
as girls got into more masculine pursuits.
Just one other thing 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 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 to look forward to being a mother.
ENTERTAINMENT - VIOLENCE, SEX AND MORE SEX
PREPARING THE PEOPLE FOR "HUMAN CASUALTIES"
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, on television.
And 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 VCRs 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... and 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 towards death would change and they would not be so
fearful of it but more accepting of it, and 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 remember 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.
"MUSIC WILL GET WORSE"
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 here. And all the folks would have sort of their
own radio stations to hear. Younger people, as it got worse and worse, 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
I remember at the time thinking that would not last very long because even
young kids wouldn't like the junk when they got a chance to hear the older
music that was prettier they would gravitate toward it.
Unfortunately, I was wrong about that, when the
kids get through their teens and into their 20's some of them improve their
taste in music, but unfortunately he was right.
They get used to this junk
and that's all they want. A lot of them can't stand really pretty music. He
went on to say that the music would carry a message to the young and nobody
would even know the message was there. They would just think it was loud
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.
GIVE US 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 be all 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
He also indicated all the old movies would be brought back again, and I
remember on hearing that through my mind ran quickly the memories 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 old 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.
'80s AND '90s - THE GRIM REAPER - TRAVEL
RESTRICTIONS - NATIONAL ID - THE CHIP, ETC.
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 [age] 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, 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-implanted 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
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 [side one ends abruptly continue 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
"We can or soon will be able to
"I'm not merely referring to dropping iodide
crystals into the clouds to precipitate rain that's already there, but
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.
"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
There was no statement how this would be done.
It was stated that either it was already possible or very very close to
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
KNOW HOW PEOPLE RESPOND - MAKING THEM DO WHAT
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.
"People can carry in their minds and act
upon two contradictory ideas at one time, provided that these two
contradictory ideas are kept far enough apart."
And the other statement is,
"You can know pretty well how rational
people are going to respond to certain circumstances or to certain
information that they encounter. So, to determine the response you want,
you need only control the kind of data or information that they're
presented or the kinds of circumstance that they're in; and being
rational people they'll do what you want them to do. They may not fully
understand what they're doing or why."
FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Somewhere in this connection, then,
was the statement admitting that some scientific research data could be -
and indeed HAS been - falsified in order to bring about desired results.
And here was said,
"People don't ask the right questions. Some
people are too trusting."
Now this was an interesting statement because
the speaker and the audience all being doctors of medicine and supposedly
very objectively, dispassionately scientific and science being the be all
and end-all... well to falsify scientific research data in that setting is
like blasphemy in the church... you just don't do that.
Anyhow, out of all of this was to come the New
International Governing Body, probably to come through
the UN and with a
World Court, but not necessarily through those structures.
It could be brought about in other ways.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE U.N. - THE END JUSTIFIES THE
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
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
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
Who did he mean when he said,
"If these weapons fall into the wrong
Maybe just terrorists.
Anyhow, the new system would be brought in, if not by peaceful cooperation -
everybody willingly yielding national sovereignty - then by bringing the
nation to the brink of nuclear war. And everybody would be so fearful as
hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a
strong public outcry to negotiate a public peace and people would willingly
give up national sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this
would bring in the New International Political System.
This was stated and very impressive thing to hear then...
"If there were too many people in the right
places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two -
possibly more - nuclear weapons. As it was put this would be possibly
needed to convince people that 'We mean business'".
That was followed by the statement that,
"By the time one or two of those went off
then everybody - even the most reluctant - would yield."
He said something about "this negotiated peace
would be very convincing," as kind of in a framework or in a context that
the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it.
People hearing about it would be convinced that
it was a genuine negotiation between hostile enemies who finally had come to
the realization that peace was better than war.
WAR IS GOOD - YOU GET TO BE CANNON-FODDER, KEEP
THE POPULATION DOWN, AND DIE A HERO
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.
TERRORISM - THE GREAT TOOL FOR 'CONTROL'
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.
MONEY AND BANKING
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
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
It would be a single banking system. [It] 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
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
And also if you began to show a pattern of saving too much, you
might have your pay cut.
We would say,
"Well, you're saving instead of spending.
You really don't need all that money."
That basically the idea being to prevent people
from accumulating any wealth which might have long range disruptive
influence on the system.
People would be encouraged to use credit to borrow,
and then also be encouraged to renege on their debt, so they would destroy
their own credit. The idea here is that, again, if you're too stupid to
handle credit wisely, this gives the authorities the opportunity to come
down hard on you once you've shot your credit.
Electronic payments initially would all be based on different kinds of
credit cards... these were already in use in 1969 to some extent. Not as
much as now. But people would have credit cards with the electronic strip on
it and once they got used to that then it would be pointed out the advantage
of having all of that combined into a single credit card, serving a single
monetary system and then they won't have to carry around all that plastic.
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 stole, 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 transferable to another person so you and your accounts would be
identified without any possibility of error. And the skin
have to be put some place that would be convenient to the skin; for example
your right hand or your forehead.
At that time when I heard this I was unfamiliar with the statements in the
Book of Revelation.
The speaker went on to say,
"Now some of you people who read the Bible
will attach significance to this to the Bible," but he went on to
disclaim any Biblical significance at all.
This is just common sense of how the system
could work and should work and there's no need to read any superstitious
Biblical principals into it. As I say, at the time I was not very familiar
with the words of revelations.
Shortly after, I became familiar with
it and the significance of what he said really was striking.
I'll never forget it.
BIG BROTHER IS
WATCHING YOU, WHILE YOU'RE WATCHING TV
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
The TV set would not have to be on in order for this to be operative.
Also, the television set can be used to monitor what you are watching.
People can tell what you're watching on TV and how you're reacting to what
you're watching. And you would not know that you were being watched while
you were watching your television.
How would we get people to accept these things into their homes? Well,
people would buy them when they buy their own television. They won't know
that they're on there at first. This was described by being what we now know
as Cable TV to replace the antenna TV. When you buy a TV set this monitor
would just be part of the set and most people would not have enough
knowledge to know it was there in the beginning.
And then the cable would be the means of
carrying the surveillance message to the monitor. By the time people found
out that this monitoring was going on, they would also be very dependent
upon television for a number of things. Just the way people are dependent
upon the telephone today.
One thing the television would be used for would be purchases. You wouldn't
have to leave your home to purchase. You just turn on your TV and there
would be a way of interacting with your television channel to the store that
you wanted to purchase. And you could flip the switch from place to place to
choose a refrigerator or clothing. This would be both convenient, but it
would also make you dependent on your television so the built-in monitor
would be something you could not do without.
There was some discussion of audio monitors,
too, just in case the authorities wanted to hear what was going on in rooms
other than where the television monitor was, and in regard to this the
statement was made,
"Any wire that went into your house, for
example your telephone wire, could be used this way."
I remember this in particular because it was
fairly near the end of the presentation and as we were leaving the meeting
place, I said something to one of my colleagues about going home and pulling
all of the wires out of my house… except I knew I couldn't get by without
the telephone. And the colleague I spoke to just seemed numb. To this day, I
don't think he even remembers what we talked about or what we heard that
time, cause I've asked him. But at that time he seemed stunned.
Before all these changes would take place with electronic monitoring, it was
mentioned that there would be service trucks all over the place, working on
the wires and putting in new cables.
This is how people who were on the inside would
know how things were progressing.
PRIVATELY OWNED HOMES
- "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
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.
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.
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
"There just won't be any room", he said,
"for people who won't go along. We can't have such people cluttering up
the place so such people would be taken to special places".
And here I don't remember the exact words, but
the inference I drew was that at these special places where they were taken,
then they would not live very long.
He may have said something like,
"disposed of humanely", but I don't remember very precisely... just the
impression the system was not going to support them when they would not go
along with the system. That would leave death as the only alternative.
Somewhere in this vein he said there would not be any martyrs. When I first
heard this I thought it meant the people would not be killed, but as the
presentation developed what he meant was they would not be killed in such a
way or disposed of in such a way that they could serve as inspiration to
other people the way martyrs do.
Rather he said something like this.
"People will just disappear."
A FEW FINAL ITEMS…
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 here by saying, all of these things said by one individual at one
time in one place relating to so many different human endeavors and then to
look and see how many of these actually came about... that is, changes
accomplished between then and now [1969 - 1988] and the things which are
planned for the future, I think there is no denying that this is controlled
and there is indeed a conspiracy.
[End of tape two]
"THE NEW ORDER OF THE BARBARIANS"
This is the third and final tape of the "New Order of Barbarians", is
interview by Randy Engel, Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life,
with Dr. Larry Dunegan was taped on Oct. 10, 1991 in Pittsburgh,
On tapes I and II (made in 1988), Dr. Dunegan
spoke about his recollections of the lecture he attended in 1969 where Dr.
Richard Day, an insider, revealed the plans for their World System, AKA the
Once again, this final tape/interview speaks for
Randy Engel (R.E.): Why don't
we open up with a little bit about the man who you are talking about on
these tapes. Just a little profile and a little bit about his education
and particularly his relationship with the population control
establishment. I think that probably was his entree into much of this
Dr. Lawrence Dunegan (DLD): Yeah. Dr. Day was the Chairman
of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh from
about 1959 thru '64, about that period of time, and then he left the
University of Pittsburgh and went to fill the position of Medical
Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
R.E: And that was what… about 1965 to '68, about that period?
D.L.D: About '64 or '65 'til about '68 or '69, and then he left there...
I don't know specifically why, I did not know him intimately. We were,
you know, more than acquainted... I was a student and he would see me at
lectures and, so he knew my name as a student, probably corrected some
of my test scores and that sort of thing. Of course, I knew him as
lecturer - would stand in front of the auditorium and listen as he
talked about diseases... and take notes.
R.E: What's interesting is that this man is not as well known, I think
to our listeners as names like Mary Calderone and Allen Gootmacher(sp).
They were medical directors at one time or another for Planned
Parenthood, but Dr. Day was not well known. And as a matter of fact when
I went back into the SIECUS archives there was very little information
that had his actual name on it. So he was not one of the better known of
the medical directors, but I'd say he probably had the scoop of what was
going on as well - if not better - than any of the others before or
after he came. Can you describe the scene of this particular lecture,
the approximate date, and what was the occasion - and then a little bit
about the audience?
D.L.D: This was the… the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society holds about four
meetings each year where we have some speaker come in and talk about a
medical topic related to pediatrics and this was our spring meeting.
It's always late February or early part of March. This was in March,
1969 and it was held at a restaurant called the Lamont which is well
known in Pittsburgh. Beautiful place. In attendance, I would say
somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 people. Mostly physicians, if not
exclusively physicians. Predominantly pediatricians, particularly
pediatric surgeons and pediatric radiologists - other people who were
involved in medical care of children, even though they might not be
pediatricians as such.
R.E: And the speech was given after the meal, I presume?
D.L.D: A very nice meal and everyone was settled down, quite comfortable
and quite filled and really an ideal state to absorb what was coming.
R.E: But when you listen to the tape, he says some of the most... well
not only outrageous things, but things you would think a pediatrician
would kind of almost jump out of his seat at... for example when he
mentions the cancer cures. There were probably doctors in the audience
who were perhaps treating a child or knowing of a child who was in need
of a particular cancer cure. And to hear that some of these
prescriptions for or treatments for cancer were sitting over at the
Rockefeller Institute, and yet, as far as I got from the tape everyone
just kind of sat there... didn't say very much. I mean he was talking
about falsifying scientific data and everyone just kind of yawns and...
How long did this speech go on?
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. We tend to forget.
You know, somebody talks for hours you forget a lot of what they say.
But, there is such a thing as the power of suggestion and I can't say
for sure but I do wonder if this may not have been a suggestion when we
were all full of a nice dinner and relaxed and listening - we took that
suggestion and forgot, because I know a number of my colleagues who were
there when I would - some years later - say, "Do you remember when Dr.
Day said this, or he said that or said the other?" They'd say, "Well,
yeah, I kind of... is that what he said? You know I kind of remember
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
R.E: Like doctors making too much money...?
D.L.D: Yeah, changing the image of the doctor. You're just going to be a
high-paid technician rather than a professional who exercises
independent judgment on behalf of his independent patient. A number of
things that I thought should have been offensive and elicited a reaction
from physicians because they were physicians.
I was surprised at how
little reaction there was to it. And then other things that I would have
expected people to react to just because they were human beings and I
think most of the people at the meeting subscribed more or less to the
judeo-christian ethic and codes of behavior, and that was violated right
and left. And particularly one of my friends I thought would be as
disturbed as I was about this just sort of smiled... wasn't disturbed at
a ll. I thought, gee, this is surprising.
R.E: Was part of it also because of his prominence? I mean he was…
D.L.D: The authority... Authority figure? Yeah, I think there might be
something there. This is the authority. We sort of owe some deference
R.E: And he couldn't possibly mean what he's saying or there couldn't
possibly be any... I mean, he's such a good guy.
D.L.D: I've often heard that phrase, "He's such a good guy. I can't
believe he'd actually mean the things"... I can only speculate about
this. But I do think at the time there was an element of disbelief about
all of this. Thinking, well this is somebody's fairy tale plan but it
will never really happen because it's too outlandish. Of course we know
step by step it is indeed happening right under our feet.
R.E: Before talking about the specific areas, I think there's a lot of
benefits from this tape. One of them is when we have a good idea of what
the opposition is about and the techniques he's using - then you can
turn around and begin your resistance to all the types of manipulations
and so forth. So I think that the… seeing that there were four or five
"theme songs" - he kept repeating them over and over again.
For example this business which I think is so important… that people
fail to distinguish between the ostensible reason and the real reason.
In other words, if you want someone to do something and you know that
initially he'll be balky at doing that because it's against his morals
or against his religious beliefs, you have to substitute another reason
that will be acceptable. And then, after he accepts it and it's a fait
accompli then there's just no turning back.
D.L.D: Right. It was in that connection that he said, "People don't ask
the right questions." Too trusting. And this was directed, as I recall,
mostly at Americans. I had the feelings he thought Europeans maybe were
more skeptical and more sophisticated. That Americans are too trusting
and don't ask the right questions.
R.E: With regard to this lack of... almost a lack of discernment. I
guess that's basically what he was saying. They were easily tricked or
too trusting. The thing that flashed through my mind rather quickly, for
example in schools... how quickly so-called AIDS education was
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
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,
to promote homosexuality."
"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, but it wasn't too far
from there where there was some mention of diseases being created. And
when I remember the one statement and remember the other statement, I
believe AIDS is a disease which has been created in the laboratory and I
think that one purpose it serves is to get rid of people who are so
stupid as to go along with our homosexual program. Let them wipe
Now it's hard for me make clear how much of it is I'm remembering with
great confidence and how much is pure speculation. But as I synthesize
this - this is I think what happens...
"If you're dumb enough to be
convinced by our promotion of homosexuality you don't deserve a place
and you're going to fall by the wayside sooner or later. We'll be rid of
you. We'll select out... the people who will survive are those who are
also smart enough not to be deluded by our propaganda".
Does that make
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
So it's a desensitization, even for the individual who doesn't go over
and accept it for himself.
D.L.D: With the power of propaganda you dare not be against homosexuals,
otherwise you get labeled homophobe. You dare not be against any of our
programs for women, otherwise you're a male chauvinist pig. It's like
anti-Semitism. If this label gets enough currency in the culture that
people get shockingly stuck with it. It's easier to 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 (sp), I think you're almost in a state of constant
anxiety because you're not quite sure... What am I going to encounter
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 "table".
The notion of God as eternal and the teachings of Jesus Christ as
eternal, and therefore the teachings of the church as eternal depends on
the authority of God, and God brings about change in God's way. What
this boils down to me is these people say,
"No, we take the place of God; we establish what will change and what will not change, so if we
say that homosexuality or anything is moral today... wasn't yesterday,
but it is today. We have said so, and therefore it's moral. We can
change tomorrow. We can make it immoral again tomorrow".
And this is the
usurpation of the role of God to define what the peon, the ordinary
person's supposed to believe.
D.L.D: So, the idea is, that if everybody is used to change most people
aren't going to ask, "Well who has decided what should be changed and
how it should be changed"? Most people just go along with it, like
hemlines, and shoe styles and that sort of thing. So it IS a usurpation
of the Rule of God, and if you read the Humanist Manifesto, and
somewhere early in the introductory part of it, they say, "human
intellect is the highest good".
Well, to any human being, what you call
the highest good, that's your god. So to these people human intellect
being the highest good is god. And where does human intellect reside?
Well, in the brain of one or more human beings.
So these people, in
effect... I don't know think they'd be so candid as to say so, but
whether they know it or not what they're saying is,
"I am god. WE are
gods, because we decide what is moral what is moral tomorrow, what is
going to be moral next year. WE determine change."
R.E: That's right. And of course, in a nutshell, you've just explained
the human potential, the New Age, all the new esoteric movements that
we've seen. But with regard to change, he seemed to acknowledge that
there were a couple of entities which traditionally blocked this change
and therefore made people resistant to constant manipulation.
And of course one of those is the family, and that would include
grandmothers, grandfathers, our ethnic background and so forth and I
guess I was impressed by everything he seemed to mention whether it was
economics, music... had the overall effect of diminishing the family and
enhancing the power of the state.
That was a constant theme, and therefore when we're evaluating things I
think one of the things we should generally say to ourselves is, "What
effect does that have on family life," and the family and I think if
every congressman or senator asked that question we probably wouldn't
have much action up on Capitol Hill, because almost everything coming
down the pike has an effect of disavowing, hurting the family life and
enhancing and expanding the power of government.
D.L.D: It has an ostensible purpose, and then it has a REAL purpose.
R.E: Yes, and as a so-called helping professional your ability to say
that is very interesting. The other factor is this whole factor of
religion, and he was talking basically about a religion without dogma, a
religion that would have a little bit from all the other traditional
religions so no one would really feel uncomfortable, and he said, rather
condescendingly, some people need this and if they need it we'll
manufacture something that they need. But of course it can't be anything
that would declare anything that were moral absolutes or the natural
law. Which means that the main target of this group of controllers of
course, was and is the
roman catholic church and he mentioned the
catholic church specifically.
D.L.D: Religion's important because it is eternal and we... people who
would follow the church will not buy our rules about change. But if we
make our own religion, if we define what is religion then we can change
it as it suits us. Yes, the roman
catholic church... I was kind of
flattered sitting here as a catholic, hearing it pointed out that the
church is the one obstacle that, he said,
"We have to change that. And
once the roman
catholic church falls, the rest of christianity will fall
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
catholic church... he said, "They will help us", and unfortunately...
D.L.D: He was right.
R.E: 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
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 your language. You
think to yourself in English or Spanish or whatever language you're
familiar with, but when you think, you talk to yourself and you talk to
yourself in words, just the way you talk to other people.
And if you can
control the language with which one person speaks to himself or one
person speaks to another you've gone a long way towards controlling what
that person is ABLE - what he is CAPABLE of thinking, and that has both
an inclusionary and an exclusionary component to it. You set the
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
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 education is NOT education.
It's conditioning, and we should never use the term "sex education".
It's a misnomer. If they control the vocabulary, then they can control
the way we can think and the way we can express ideas among ourselves
and to anybody. But "sex conditioning", "sex initiation" is much more
accurate and we should insist on that. We should never use terms
"homophobia" and "gay". Homosexual is homosexual. It's not at all gay.
R.E: That's right. In fact we're probably going to have to do some
homework on... probably of all the popular movements in the U.S.
Probably the pro-life movement is the most sensitive to words.
Talking about media events and access to the brain, I remember the first
speech Bush gave in which he talked about the New World Order... I
remember jumping halfway off my seat. That term. Here he is, the
president, saying New World Order as if it was something everyone knew
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 forms....
D.L.D: Take the networks at there word. They say, "if you don't like our
programming, turn it off". And we should. We should say, "Yeah. You're
right." And we should turn it off. And let the advertisers spend their
money on an audience that isn't there.
As a pediatrician I'm always interested in how kids do things and how
kids are like adults, and whether you're talking about International
politics where one nation goes to war with another or kids on the
playground, there are certain things that are common. It's just that
kids on the playgrounds do it on a smaller scale. But you mention
cutting off access to your brain... somebody says, I don't want to hear
And I remember hearing kids on a playground... somebody says..."ya-na-na
na naa-na", and they're teasing the kid... What's he do? He puts his
hands over his ears. Says I'm not going to listen. And the kid who's
trying to torment him will try to pull his hands away and be sure that
he listens. And it's the same....
R.E: Words. Words entering. And the child knows. Words have meaning.
They're hurting him.
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 United States.
So, inevitably, if you are going to go about killing the young,
especially at the pace we seem to have adapted ourselves to in this
country, then invariably you're going to have to do something about all
those aging populations. Because, the few children who are born, after
all, they cannot be expected to carry this tremendous burden of all
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,
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, if you have a guitar
then it's pornography; but if you have classical movie then it converts
it into art. It was pornography.
It's an example of what you were saying. As long as it's done with
dignity, that's what counts. If you kill someone with dignity, it's ok.
If you have pornography with classical music it's art. That was the
point I was trying to make.
R.E: Again, talking about the family. Currently I know there are an
awful lot of people who are out of jobs and he [Dr. Day] had quite a lot
of things to say about, for example, heavy industry. I guess the shock
was that this man... I wasn't surprised that he knew a lot about
population control, abortion, and at the other end - euthanasia.
But what DID surprise me was that he was an individual who was talking
about religion, law, education, sports, entertainment, food... how could
one individual have that much input? Now one could say, "well, it didn't
pan out". But we know listening to these recollections twenty years
later... except perhaps for some minor things, everything that he has
said has come to pass and almost beyond imagination.
How COULD one
individual talk with such authoritative, non-questioning... that this
was the way THIS was going to happen and THIS was going to happen in
"fashion" and THIS was going to happen on TV and there were going to be
video recorders before I ever heard of the word.
D.L.D: I think what happens... certainly one individual hears this, but
the plans are by no means made by one or a small number of individuals.
Just as industrial corporations which have a board of directors, with
people from all sorts of activities who sit on the board of this
corporation, and they say,
"Now if we do this to our product, or if we
expand in this area what will that do to banking? What will that do to
clothing? What will that do... what impact, ripple effect will that have
on other things?"
And I'm sure that whoever makes these plans they have
representatives from every area you can think of.
So they'll have educators, they'll have clothing manufacturers -
designers; architects... across the board. I'm sure they get together
and have meetings and plan and everybody puts in his input, just the way
a military operation goes. What will the Navy do? Will they bombard the
shore? What will the Air Force do? Will they come in with air cover?
What will the infantry do? It's the same thing. These people, when they
plan, they don't miss a trick.
They have experts in every field and they say,
"Well, if we do this,
that and the other... John, what will that do to your operation?"
John will be in position to feed back,
"Well this is what I think will
So it certainly covers a broad range of people. And for one
individual to be able to say all of this in the two hours that he spoke
to us, really tells us that he was privy to a lot of information.
R.E: That's right. He must have been sitting in on one of those
boardrooms at least at some point. And I think not at the highest level
from his position, but enough, because anyone in the population control
would be associated with names of foundations... powerful foundations,
D.L.D: And I'm sure there was a lot in the plans that he never heard. He
wasn't a four-star general in this outfit. He wouldn't be in on the
R.E: Well, too bad he couldn't have talked for six hours instead of two,
and we might have had a lot more information. There was another aspect
that I found fascinating in listening to this. This whole aspect of
privacy... he mentioned that as the private homes went by we would have
individuals, non-family members perhaps sharing our apartments.
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
One of them that hit me like a ton of bricks was this business
"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 sexual sphere…
[end of side one ends abruptly - side two
D.L.D: .... of our right to investigate even
your sex life. Your money will be easy. We'll have it all on computer.
We'll know more about it than you do. But we have to form a generation
where the most intimate activity which two people can have is public, or
can be public. Therefore, it's harder to have any private thoughts and
you can't buck the system if everything you think and do is public
knowledge. But the planners won't be that open about their own lives.
They'll reserve their privacy. It's for the rest of us.
R.E: Yes. Just like their listening to concerts and operas, but for the
mass media they're pumping in hard rock. That was another fascinating
thing. For example, the... and I know this has come to pass because I
deal with a lot of young people... the young people have their own radio
stations for their music and adults have their own and never the twain
shall meet. And when they do there's usually a clash.
And I think the
same is probably true with a lot of the classical movies. I can remember
when I was growing up and my dad had the radio on, I think it was a kind
of general music. I didn't say, "Dad, I don't like that music; turn to
another station". Whereas now there is a fabricated generational gap
which puts the family at the disadvantage.
D.L.D: And it creates conflict within the family, which is one of the
spin-off benefits to them. If you're constantly fussing at your kids,
you don't like the music they're playing, and they're constantly fussing
at you because they don't like what you're playing... that does bad
things to the bonds of affection that you would like to be nurtured in
R.E: It would appear, that any resistance movement against the
population controllers would probably be based on families strengthening
themselves in a number of ways. One of them being to make sure that
children know about grandma and grandpa and where did they come from and
developing a whole... getting out the family albums and making sure that
children know they have roots, first of all. And secondly, that their
family is stable. One father, one mother, with children, with
grandfathers. Those of us who have them should hold on to them.
Toward the end of the tape there was a reference - at the time
everything would be coming together - how this New World Order would be
introduced to a population which, at this point I think they would
assume would be acceptable to it... how was this put? We're just going
to wake up one morning and changes would just be there? What did he say
D.L.D: It was presented in what must be an over-simplified fashion, so
with some qualifications, here's the recollections I have... That in the
winter, and there was importance to the winter - on a weekend, like on a
Friday an announcement would be made that this was or about to be in
place... That the New World Order was now the System for the World and
we all owe this New World Order our allegiance.
And the reason for winter is that - and this was stated - people are
less prone to travel in the winter, particularly if they live in an area
where there's ice and snow. In summer it's easier to get up and go. And
the reason for the weekend is, people who have questions about this,
Saturday and Sunday everything's closed and they would not have an
opportunity to raise questions, file a protest and say no.
And just that period over the weekend would allow a desensitizing period
so that when Monday came and people had an opportunity maybe to express
some reservations about it, or even oppose it... there would have been
48 hours to absorb the idea and get used to it.
R.E: What about those who decided they didn't want to go along?
D.L.D: Somewhere in there it was that… because this is a "New Authority"
and it represents a change, then, from where your allegiance was
presumed to be, people would be called on to publicly acknowledge their
allegiance to the new authority. This would mean to sign an agreement or
in some public way acknowledge that you accepted this... authority. You
accepted its legitimacy and there were two impressions I carried away.
If you didn't... and I'm not sure whether the two impressions are
necessarily mutually exclusive because this wasn't explored in great
detail... one of them was that you would simply have nowhere to go.
If you don't sign up then you can't get any electric impulses in your
banking account and you won't have any electric impulses with which to
pay your electric, or your mortgage or your food, and when your electric
impulses are gone, then you have no means of livelihood.
R.E: Could you get these things from other people, or would that be...
in other words, let's say if you had a sympathetic family...
D.L.D: No you could not because the housing authority would keep close
tabs on who is inhabiting any domicile. So the housing authority would
be sure that everybody living there was authorized to live there.
R.E: Could I get some food?
D.L.D: Your expenditures, through electronic surveillance would be
pretty tightly watched so if you were spending too much money at the
super market, somebody would pick this up and say,
"How come? What are
you doing with all that food? You don't look that fat. You don't have
that many people. We know you're not entertaining. What are you doing
with all that food?"
And these things then would alert the...
R.E: I have seven people in my basement who object to the New World
Order and I'm feeding them and then they said, well, one has to go.
D.L.D: They don't belong there and you can't feed them and since you're
sympathetic to them, maybe your allegiance isn't very trustworthy
R.E: Yes. We see this... I think the Chinese experience tells us a great
deal about certain things. For example, when they wanted to enforce the
"One child family"... they cut off all education for the second child.
Your food rations were cut so you couldn't get the right amount of food,
and if they found ways around that, they instituted compulsory abortions
and compulsory plugging in of the IUD's.
Somewhere in the tape this business about,
"People can carry two
conflicting ideas around - or even espouse two conflicting ideas as long
as they don't get two close together".
And what immediately came to mind
is… here we have an organization like Planned Parenthood... "freedom to
choose", yet they support population control programs which is of course
NOT the freedom to choose. And then when they're called into account and
"Now wait a minute here. You're, 'freedom to choose -
freedom to choose' here, but you're supporting the Chinese program which
I remember a statement from the late Allen Gootmacher, one of the
medical directors of Planned Parenthood and he said, "Well, if people
limit their families and do what we say, fine. But if we need compulsory
population control, we're going to have it."
What would happen with people who wouldn't go along, and particularly
that point about, "There wouldn't be any martyrs"? That was significant,
because I recall having watched some movies about the Third Reich that
many times they would come late in the evening and people would be taken
from their home, but neighbors would never ask, "Where did they go?"
They knew where they went!
D.L.D: Solzhenitsyn mentions that in the Gulag Archipelago.
R.E: I think this is very similar to what we would see. People would
just disappear and you would not ask because it might endanger yourself
or your family. But you would know where they went. If you ask
questions, you draw attention to yourself and then you might follow them
to where they went. So you mind your own business and step over the
starving man on the street who didn't go along.
D.L.D: He didn't go into detail about precisely how this would come
about but it's not too hard to imagine. Yes. In the past, the Nazi's
came, the Communists came in the middle of the night, people just
disappeared and one simple way to do this is that if you're cut off from
all economic support and you have no place to live and nothing to eat...
we already see a lot of homeless now.
I just had a man in the office this morning talking about he and his
child seeing people living in boxes in downtown Pittsburgh today. When
the New World Order is here and you're living in a box, we can't have
people littering the place, so you come around in the wagon and you pick
If your frame of mind as you're growing up and formed is that, "Human
value resides in being productive; you have to have a prestigious
position or at least perform something useful - make a contribution",
and the truck comes by to pick up some guy living in a box and he's not
making any contribution, who's going to get excited about it? You know…
he's sub-human; he's a fetus; he's a zygote; he's a derelict, and
fetuses and zygotes and derelicts are all the same animal.
So what do
you do with them? You dispose of them. Who gets excited about it?
R.E: I recall that when the Chinese Communists came into power one of
the first things that they taught in schools was not any thoughts about
specific political ideology, but about evolution and that man was just
an animal and if man was just an animal then we won't mind being herded
and having masters who keep tabs on the animals and we're one big ant
colony and we've got someone to direct traffic and...
Speaking of traffic. We talked about the aged and again - people hearing
this tape, it's phenomenal how many times these things on this tape will
hit you. I just came back from New Jersey which has a lot of
retirement-type villages and I've been there over a period of years and
there's a structure around a retirement home which has been uncompleted
for at least two or three years. Now they've recently completed it. It's
kind of a roadway, but I think it would be easier to get out of a
complex at a play-land it is so complicated. And yet the whole area has
elderly people driving.
And we are a fairly middle-aged couple and for the life of me we
couldn't figure out how we were going to get out, what we were going to
do and so I asked some of the residents...
"Doesn't it bother you that
they haven't fixed this road for years and now you can't just go across
the street which would have been the logical thing?"
You have to go down
and they have a jug-handle and you have to go over and under, so it
takes you so long, and the woman replied to me,
"Well you know, we just
don't go out. We just don't go out".
So here we have this little retirement village where they've made it
very difficult for a population, maybe several hundred homes in this
plat with only one exit and the exit involves such a great deal of
bother, they say they just cut down on the number of times they have to
go out shopping.
D.L.D: Right away it makes me wonder... if it's difficult to get out,
it's also difficult to get in probably for visitors.
R.E: These retirement homes sort of remind me of an elephant burial
ground. The one thing you notice is that there are no children. There's
not the laughter of children in these homes.
D.L.D: My experience has been, these people in the retirement homes,
when they see a child they just blossom. They're really delighted to see
a child. Sure they're happy to have their sons and daughters come and
other adults, but when they see a child - and it doesn't have to be
their own - it has a very beneficial effect on their mood. And if these
older people aren't seeing children, the other side of that coin is, the
children aren't seeing older people either. So if you don't get used to
seeing older people, they don't exist.
R.E: And that's why, with the family, making sure your children see
their grandparents very often, no matter how much that entails, the
trouble with the logistics, etc... it's certainly worth while because,
again if you never see someone and you don't learn to love them and you
never have any contact with them, when someone says,
"Well it's time for
your grandpa to check out", it's like, "Who's that?"
Who's going to defend and fight for someone they never even saw before?
Oh, I remember one of the phrases. So many of these things... you only
have to hear them once and they stick in your mind. It's so jarring.
We've already discussed "sex without reproduction", then you also said
the technology would be there for "reproduction without sex" and this is
a whole other area because it's contradictory. If a land is so
overpopulated, then you would want to diminish sexual activity, get rid
of pornography, get rid of everything that was sexually stimulating.
But, no. It's a contrary.
You want to Increase sexual activity but only
insofar as it doesn't lead to reproduction. That was the message, right?
D.L.D: Yes, and this is my own extension. He didn't say this, but that
leads to slavery because if you become enslaved to your gratification,
whether it's sex, food or whatever, then you're more easily controlled,
which is one of the reasons the celibate priesthood is so important. And
so many priests don't even understand that.
But if you're addicted to
sex... if sex is divorced from reproduction, something you do for
gratification only - I won't try to parallel that with food because you
can't go without food - then you can be more easily controlled by the
availability or the removal of the availability of sex.
So that can become an enslaving feature. Now, reproduction without
sex... what you would get then would have all the desirable attributes
of a human being without any claim to human rights. The way we do it
now, we say, you're human because you have a father and mother... you
have a family and so you're a human being with human rights.
But if your
father was a petrie dish and you mother was a test tube, how can you lay
claim to human rights? You owe your existence to the laboratory which
conveys to you no human rights.
And there is no God, so you can't go for any God-given human rights, so
you're an ideal slave. You have all the attributes of a human being but
you don't have any claim on rights.
R.E: In "Brave New World" they had the caste system, the alphas, the
omegas, etc. The way they brought about the different caste systems was
that in the decanting, or birthing rooms, the individual who was to do
menial or slave labor... work in the mines... received just a little bit
of oxygen to the brain so they learned to love their slavery and they
were very happy.
They didn't know any better. They didn't have the wherewithal to do
things, but the higher in the caste you got, the more oxygen you got to
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
D.L.D: You may remember the slogan that was above the Nazi concentration
camps... something about, "Work is Peace and Work is Happiness". I don't
remember if it was Bucchenwald (sp) or Auschwitz. My recollection of
words isn't precise, but the idea is what counts. And here's Huxley,
writing Brave New World, saying basically the same thing before Hitler
was even in power, so Huxley knew something.
R.E: He came from a family that probably contributed at least in part to
this New World Order. A number of the English authors... H.G. Wells...
from that period and from those associations who highlighted the
concepts of what was coming down the path.
I can remember reading Brave New World in high school, and thought,
"Boy, is this fantasy land". Thirty years later and I said, "This is
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
But they both do seem to send out messages not buying the whole
R.E: And maybe wishing some people would ask more questions. Looking
back over history there are many individuals who had an idea of what a
New World Order should be, certainly Hitler and Stalin did, but what was
lacking during these periods is that they lacked the technology to carry
many a many of the things out... surveillance, constant monitoring...
but in this so-called New World Order it's going to be very difficult to
escape because technology will provide those means which had been
lacking those totalitarian individuals from years ago.
D.L.D: I can't remember on the original tapes, did I mention the phrase
where he said, "This time we're going to do it right!" ?
R.E: No. You didn't.
D.L.D: There were so many details to remember. But when he mentioned
bringing in the New World Order, he said,
"This time we're going to do
And right away, I'm wondering,
"what do you mean, 'this time'?".
was no explicit explanation of that, but I think it's fairly easy to
infer that previous efforts had to do with the Third Reich... Your point
about the technology is critical with computers and all means of
exchange being controlled by electronic impulse.
Nobody has any wealth. You own nothing of value except access to
electronic impulses which are beyond your control. A cashless society.
So when your reward for working is [nothing more than] impulses on the
computer and the only claim you have is these impulses and the people
who run the system can give or take them as they choose.
Up until this
time there was no way the statement in the book of revelation that said,
"No man can buy or sell unless he has the mark of the beast"... there's
no way that could have been enforced.
People could say I'll trade you a bushel of tomatoes for a bushel of
wheat. If you'll drive my kids to school I'll give you six ears of corn.
Bartering. And even not going necessarily that primitive, there was
always gold and silver and other forms of money that were even better
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,
pushed the right buttons and I know how much credit you have
electronically; I know where you spend your money electronically; and
you cannot buy, you cannot sell unless you get on my computer."
Right now you have a half a dozen credit cards in your pocket, but
pretty soon it will be narrowed to one credit card and then when we...
you know the ostensible reason is that when people loose their credit
cards and we have to get rid of that and put the implant in... where it
has to be accessible to the scanner... in your right hand or in your
R.E: Speaking of scanner. When we had the TV War..... the Gulf War? It
was the first war where you just sit there and 24 hours a day just like
being on the battlefield there.
There were several points made about the
advances in technology and how they could spot just one little
individual down in... they used the constant reference to pinpoint...
"pinpoint". I imagine with the different technologies they can also
pinpoint a couple of renegades in the New World Order.
which was applicable to a so- called 'enemy' can also be applicable to
this controlling the order.
D.L.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
"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 going to find you".
R.E: Even in Brave New World they had a group of people who still lived
as a family and the women breast-fed and they were called savages. But
we won't have any savages. We're cultured, we'll be thin and our teeth
will be straight.
D.L.D: Something also that was mentioned; forests could - and if
necessary would - be leveled or burned. Now this comes out of this
movement... goddess mother earth, and how we have to protect the
environment... but if we want to get someone who's trying to get away
we'll burn down the whole forest. We'll find them. That was stated.
Deforestation could be and would be brought about to make sure that
nobody gets outside the control of the system.
R.E: We're drawing to a close here. How did you feel after... well, it's
been about 22 years now since that original lecture and there probably
isn't a day that goes by - at least since I've heard the tape - that I
don't think about the things that this Dr. Day 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
R.E: ... or clothing. I opened up a toy catalogue the other day and
noticed there didn't happen to be any baby dolls in this toy
catalogue... of course going back to the idea that we don't want little
girls to by thinking about babies. They only had one little doll and it
was kind of an adult doll. And nothing that would raise anyone's
maternal instincts. Well, Doc, what's the prognosis?
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
"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 saying that is that in
the past, dictators could kill people, they could torture them, but
essentially they could not change what it meant to be a human being.
They could not change human nature. Now we are going to have with this
Genome Project, a multi-billion dollar project where they're going
to be getting a tab on everyone's genes. No one shall escape. Everyone
shall have their genetic codes and with this opens the door to
manipulation to change the very meaning of what it MEANS to be human.
And if one has an entity then that no longer has free will, you just
have to wonder if that point out lord says, "Enough".
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.