by Zen Gardner
07 June 2016
A must listen interview
if you don't read the
Protocols of Zion,
the veracity of what is said
is clearly evidenced in the
of the world around us.
The New Order
This is a transcript 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."
moderator in the final taped interview with Dr. Dunegan is Randy
Engel, National Director,
U.S. Coalition for Life. It's
interesting to note that Dr. Dunegan "spilled the beans" in
Dr. Dunegan claims he attended a medical meeting on March 20,
1969 where Dr. Richard Day at that time was Professor of
Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York and he was
previously the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation
This speech was given on March 20, 1969 at the
Pittsburgh Pediatric Society to health professionals, who were
destined to be leaders in medicine and health care.
died shortly thereafter, in 1989. It could be a
coincidence since Dr. Day was elderly when he died.
In tape #3,
recorded by Randy Engel, Dunegan details Dr. Day's credentials
and it is clear that Dr. Day was an Establishment insider privy
to the overarching plan of an
Elite Group that rules the Western
World for the creation of a World Dictatorship.
A Global Tyranny
usually called the
New World Order containing a secular and a
spiritual component, the One World Government and the
The "New Order of
This is a transcript of the "New Order of Barbarians,"
Dr. Richard Day's speech on March 20, 1969.
A Short Overview of
Dr. Richard Day's speech
Dr. Dunegan claims, that he attended a medical meeting on March
20, 1969 where Dr. Richard Day was the speaker. At that time Dr.
Day was Professor of Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in
He was previously the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood
Federation of America.
This speech was given on March 20, 1969 at the Pittsburgh
Pediatric Society to health professionals, who were destined to
be leaders in medicine and health care.
Before he began his talk, Dr. Day asked everyone to turn off all
tape recorders and stop note taking so that he could tell them,
the prospective leaders of organized medicine, what was going to
happen in the future.
Dr. Dunegan sensed that Dr. Day's message was important,
disobeyed the request and recorded what was said as note. Later
writing up these notes, which were the basis of the interview
with Randy Engel, the National Director of the US Coalition for
The notes taken by Dr. Dunegan reveals not just what is planned
for the entire world's people but also how this evil cabal
intend to carry out this plan.
Unfortunately for the people of the world everything is going
according to the New World Order Plan.
But what is this New
World Order Plan? In a nutshell the Plan is this. The Dark
Agenda of the secret planners of the New World Order is to
reduce the world's population to a "sustainable" level "in
perpetual balance with nature".
Their method is a ruthless Population Control Agenda via
Population and Reproduction Control. A Mass Culling of the
People via Planned Parenthood. Toxic adulteration of water and
food supplies, release of weaponised man-made viruses, man-made
pandemics, mass vaccination campaigns and a planned Third World
Then, the Dark Agenda will impose upon the drastically reduced
world population a global feudal-fascist state with a World
Government, World Religion, World Army, World Central Bank,
World Currency and a micro-chipped population.
In short, to kill
90% of the world's population and to control all aspects of the
human condition and thus rule everyone, everywhere from the
cradle to the grave.
Global Meltdown / Pandemics World Depopulation
The very first message of the
Georgia Guide Stones is
"Maintain humanity under 500 Million in perpetual balance with
The Georgia Guidestones
In June 1979, a stranger going by the
name of R.C. Christian showed up at a granite company in Elberton, (GA)
construct an edifice to transmit a message to mankind, offering
Erected in March 1980, this granite monument known as
It sits on a hill approx. 10 miles north of
four giant stones and are engraved on both sides with the
Guides, or commandments, in eight different languages (English,
Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese and Russian).
It is a nearly 6m tall monument made of six astronomically
aligned granite slabs; there is a capstone, one slab stands in
the center, and around it stand four vertical slabs. The
north/south pair of vertical granite is aligned to the poles.
The central hollow of the structure is designed to be lit by
light from the sun at noontime no matter the time of year.
entire monument weighs in at an appreciable 118 tons, and is
fitted with a small hole that will allow one to stand at the
base and observe the North Star.
A short distance to the west of
the structure, provides some clarifying notes on the history and
purpose of the Guidestones.
"A total population of
250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present
levels, would be ideal."
Globalist and NWO insider quoted in The McAlvany Int. Advisor,
"The United Nation's goal is to reduce
population selectively by encouraging abortion, forced
sterilization, and control human reproduction, and regards
two-thirds of the human population as excess baggage, with 350,
000 people to be eliminated per day...
It's terrible to have to
say this. World Population must be stabilized and to do
that we have to eliminate 350,000 people per day.
one year that would equal 128 million people."
Jacques-Yves Cousteau (1910-97),
oceanographer, filmmaker and environmentalist revealing the
misanthropic nature of the UN and the radical environmentalist
movement: "Interview Jacques-Yves Cousteau," The UNESCO Courier,
This is a transcript of three tapes on the "New Order of
Barbarians", referred to on the tapes simply as the "new world
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."
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.
Dr. Dunegan claims he attended a medical meeting on March 20,
1969 where Dr. Richard Day at that time was Professor of
Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York and he was
previously the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation
This speech was given on March 20, 1969 at the
Pittsburgh Pediatric Society to health professionals, who were
destined to be leaders in medicine and health care.
Dr. Day died shortly thereafter, in 1989. It could be a
coincidence since Dr. Day was elderly when he died.
In tape #3,
recorded by Randy Engel, Dunegan details Dr. Day's credentials
and it is clear that Dr. Day was an Establishment insider privy
to the overarching plan of
an Elite Group that rules the Western
World for the creation of a World Dictatorship.
A Global Tyranny
usually called the New World Order containing a secular and a
spiritual component, the One World Government and the One World
Novus Ordo Seclorum
The "New Order of Barbarians"
Dr. Richard Day's Speech on March 20. 1969
Before he began his talk, Dr. Day asked everyone to turn off all
tape recorders and stop note taking so that he could tell them,
the prospective leaders of organized medicine, what was going to
happen in the future.
Dr. Dunegan sensed Dr. Day's message was important, disobeyed
the request and recorded what was said as notes on napkins,
later writing up these notes, which were the basis of the
interview with Engel, the National Director of the US Coalition
The notes taken by Dunegan reveal not just what is planned for
the entire world's people but also how this evil cabal intend to
For, those who understand such things will recognize
that Day's remarks are merely reiteration of the secret agenda
of the Global Elite to wipe out swathes of humanity by promoting
ill health and spurious medical treatments while suppressing
effective treatments for diseases as well as the deliberate
Darwin introduction of man-made pathogens,
like AIDS, into the
human gene pool.
Throughout his talk Dr. Day justifies his observations by using
a philosophy founded upon a spurious theory made famous by the
English natural scientist Charles Darwin (1809-82) vis-à-vis
evolution by "natural selection." That is, a posited natural
process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to
the environment pithily described by an ardent supporter of it,
the English philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer
(1820-1903), as the "survival of the fittest."
Spencer also promptly applied
Darwin's hypothesis to human
societies. Thus, while Darwin restricted his formula of organic
evolution (wherein new species arise and are perpetuated by
"natural selection") to the animal kingdom, others followed
Spencer and extended "natural selection" to human society.
Spencer's theory, often called Social Darwinism.
Whereby human society mimics the jungle and only those best able
to cope with the many testing dangers survive and perpetuate
their characteristics into future generations and so ever
increase the degree of separation of human society from the
degenerate) is the scientific basis of Eugenics and everything
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
(1844-1900) best remembered for his concept of the "superman"
and for his rejection of Christian values is one of the
philosophical giants of this movement.
Dr. Day, an ardent
atheist, was thus a spokesman for those who view human existence
as merely an extension of the jungle and whose self-appointed
task is to safeguard what advances have been made by humans,
epitomized by Western Civilization, by
rooting out "weakness" and "degeneracy" from the human gene
Moreover, in so doing, not only preserve what advances
humanity has made in this evolutionary process but also to
"help" it along. It is this pernicious philosophy, wholly
inimical to the true purpose of Creation wrought by the Will of
God, and of the Natural Moral Order therein, which lies barely
concealed in much of the wicked works of those who strive to
build their New World Order.
It is also part of the reason why a
major component of the plan for the New World Order is not only
Eugenics but also Population Reduction and genocide. Moreover,
it is the reason why people like Dr. Day hate Christianity,
(which in its truest form concretizes Natural Moral Order), and
seeks its destruction here on Earth as a spiritual reality.
Although Dr. Day knew and spoke of the Secret Agenda within
organized medicine to cull the world's population, he was also
privy to the wider goals of the conspirators working to bring
about World Dictatorship under their direct control. In his
introductory remarks, Dr Richard Day commented that he was free
to speak at this time (1969) since, even a few years earlier, he
would not have been able to say what he was about to say.
However, he was now free to speak at this time because the
Ancient Ambition of the Secret Societies for World Empire, the
closely guarded "Closed Conspiracy" was now an "Open Conspiracy"
because as Day crowed:
"... everything is in place and nobody can stop us now."
Amongst the hitherto Secret Plans Day outlined were the morals
revolution that had shook Western society to its foundations and
the ushering onto the world's stage a New World Religion:
Ahriman's One World Religion of the New World Order, which
would be brought about by the churches themselves, especially
the Roman Catholic Church.
Moreover, he discussed "bringing the nation to the brink of
nuclear war" and the cynical control and
use of "terrorism"
bring about World Government and the New World Order.
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:
permission to have babies
redirecting the purpose of
sex - sex without reproduction and reproduction without
available to all
sex education and carnalising of youth as a tool of world
tax funded abortion as
anything goes homosexuality also was to be encouraged
technology used for
reproduction without sex
families to diminish in
euthanasia and the "demise
limiting access to affordable medical care makes eliminating
medicine would be tightly
elimination of private
new difficult to diagnose
and untreatable diseases
suppressing cancer cures as
a means of population control
inducing heart attacks as a
form of assassination
education as a tool for accelerating the onset of puberty and
blending all religions...
the old religions will have to go
changing the bible through
revisions of key words
restructuring education as a
tool of indoctrination
more time in schools, but
pupils "wouldn't learn anything"
controlling who has access to information; schools as the hub of
"some books would just
disappear from the libraries"
changing laws to promote
moral and social chaos
the encouragement of drug abuse to create a jungle atmosphere in
cities and towns
promote alcohol abuse;
restrictions on travel
the need for more jails, and using hospitals as jails
no more psychological or
crime used to manage
curtailment of US industrial pre-eminence
shifting populations and
economies - tearing out the social roots; sports as a
tool of social engineering and change
sex and violence inculcated
through entertainment; travel restrictions and implanted
know how people respond - making them do what you want
use of terrorism
surveillance, implants, and
televisions that watch you
home ownership a thing of
the arrival of the
totalitarian global system
Tape One - Is there a Power, or a Group of Men Organizing and Redirecting
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
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
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 that... I think that terminology that we are
looking at... looking at things and expressing things,
probably all comes from the same source. Prior to that time I
don't remember anybody saying "the decade of the '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
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
"Some of you will think I'm talking about Communism.
Well, what I'm talking about is much bigger than
At that time he indicated that there is much more cooperation
between East and West than most people realize.
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 us
That's the end of that quotation.
He went on to say that most
people don't understand how governments operate and even people
in high positions in governments, including our own, don't
really understand how and where decisions are made.
He went on
to say that... he went on to say that people who really
influence decisions are names that, for the most part, would be
familiar to most of us, but he would not use individuals' names
or names of any specific organization.
But, that if he did, most of the people would be names that were
recognized by most of his audience. He went on to say that they
were not primarily people in public office, but people of
prominence who were primarily known in their private occupations
or private positions. The speaker was a doctor of medicine, a
former professor at a large Eastern University, and he was
addressing a group of
doctors of medicine, about 80 in number. His name would not be
widely recognized by anybody likely to hear this, and so there
is no point in giving his name.
The only purpose in recording
this is that it may give a perspective to those who hear it
regarding the changes which have already been accomplished in
the past 20 years or so, and a bit of a preview to what at least
some people are planning for the remainder of this century so
that we - or they - would enter the 21st Century with a flying
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
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.
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... although this was a fairly
public forum where he was speaking, [where the] remarks were
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... his
"People will have to get used to the idea of change, so used to
change, that they'll be expecting change. Nothing will be
This often came out in the context of a society of... where
people seemed to have no roots or moorings, but would be
passively willing to accept change simply because it was all
they had ever known.
This was sort of in contrast to generations
of people up until this time where certain things you expected
to be, and remain in place as reference points for your life. So
change was to be brought about, change was to be anticipated and
expected, and accepted, no questions asked.
Another comment that
was made from time to time during the presentation was:
"People are too trusting. People don't ask the right questions."
Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb.
But sometimes when... when he would say that and say,
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
The Real and the "Stated" Goals
Another comment that was repeated from time to time... this
particularly in relation to changing laws and customs... and
specific changes... he said:
"Everything has two purposes. One is the ostensible purpose
which will make it acceptable to people; and second, is the real
purpose which would further the goals of establishing the new
system and having it."
Frequently he would say:
"There is just no other way. There's just no other way!"
This seemed to come as a sort of an apology, particularly when... at the conclusion of describing some particularly offensive
changes. For example, the promotion of drug addiction which
we'll get into shortly.
He was very active with population control groups, the
population control movement, and population control was really
the entry point into specifics following the introduction.
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
because they are careless. Most families would be limited to
Some people would be allowed only one, and the outstanding
person or persons might be selected and allowed to have three.
But most people would [be] allowed to have only two babies.
That's because the zero population growth [rate] is 2.1 children
per completed family. So something like every 10th family might
be allowed the privilege of the third baby. To me, up to this
point, the word "population control" primarily connoted limiting
the number of babies to be born.
But this remark, about what people would be "allowed" and then
what followed, made it quite clear that when you hear
"population control" that means more than just controlling
births. It means control of every endeavor of an entire... of
the entire world population; a much broader meaning to that term
than I had ever attached to it before hearing this.
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
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 Available to All
And the first consideration then here was contraception.
Contraception would be very strongly encouraged, and it would be
connected so closely in people's minds with sex, that they would
automatically think contraception when they were thinking or
preparing for sex.
And contraception would be made universally
available. Nobody wanting contraception would be... find that
they were unavailable. Contraceptives would be displayed much
more prominently in drug stores, right up with the cigarettes
and chewing gum.
Out in the open, rather than hidden under the counter where
people would have to ask for them and maybe be embarrassed.
kind of openness was a way of suggesting that contraceptions... that contraceptives are just as much a part of life as any other
items sold in the store. And, contraceptives would be
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
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
… and would be paid for by taxes for people who could not pay
for their own abortions.
Contraceptives would be made available
by tax money so that nobody would have to do without
contraceptives. If school sex programs would lead to more
pregnancies in children that was really seen as no problem.
Parents who think they are opposed to abortion on moral or
religious grounds will change their minds when it is their own
child who is pregnant. So this will help overcome opposition to
Before long, only a few die-hards will still refuse to
see abortion as acceptable, and they won't matter anymore.
Homosexuality also was to be encouraged.
"People will be given
permission to be homosexual."
That's the way it was stated. They won't have to hide it. And
elderly people will be encouraged to continue to have active sex
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
"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
"It is not just the amount of skin that is exposed that makes
clothing sexually seductive, but other, more subtle things are
… things like movement, and the cut of clothing, and the kind of
fabric, the positioning of accessories on the clothing.
"If a woman has an attractive body, why should she not show it?"... was one of the statements.
There was not detail on what was meant by "provocative
clothing," but since that time if you watched the change in
clothing styles, blue jeans are cut in a way that they're more
tight-fitting in the crotch.
They form wrinkles. Wrinkles are
essentially arrows. Lines which direct one's vision to certain
anatomic areas. And, this was around the time of the "burn your
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
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 information.
Families to Diminish in Importance
Families would be limited in size.
We already alluded to not
being allowed more than two children. Divorce would be made
easier and more prevalent. Most people who marry will marry more
than once. More people will not marry. Unmarried people would
stay in hotels and even live together. That would be very common
- nobody would even ask questions about it. It would be widely
accepted as no different from married people being together.
More women will work outside the home. More men will be
transferred to other cities, and in their jobs, more men would
travel. Therefore, it would be harder for families to stay
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
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.
diabolical approach to this whole thing!
Euthanasia and the "Demise Pill"
Everybody has a right to live only so long.
The old are no
longer useful. They become a burden. You should be ready to
accept death. Most people are. An arbitrary age limit could be
established. After all, you have a right to only so many steak
dinners, so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in life.
And after you have had enough of them and you're no longer
productive, working, and contributing, then you should be ready
to step aside for the next generation.
Some things that would help people realize that they had lived
long enough; he mentioned several of these... I don't remember
them all... here are a few: Use of very pale printing ink on
forms that people... are necessary... to fill out, so that older
people wouldn't be able to read the pale ink as easily and would
need to go to younger people for help.
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
A big item - [that] was elaborated at some length - was the cost
of medical care would be burdensomely high.
Medical care would
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
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
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
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.
care would be paid for by others. And therefore you would
gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was offered to you as a
privilege. Your role being responsible for your own care would
be diminished. As an aside here - this is not something that was
developed at this time...
I didn't understand it at the time
- as an aside, the way this works, everybody's made dependent on
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
$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.
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
The Whole Billing is Fraudulent
Anyhow, continuing on now... access to hospitals would be
tightly controlled. Identification would be needed to get into
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.
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.
definition of criminal was not given.
Elimination of Private Doctors
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 be changed.
went on to say:
"Doctors are making entirely too much money. They should
advertise like any other product."
Lawyers would be advertising too.
Keep in mind; this was an
audience of doctors being addressed by a doctor. And it was
interesting that he would make some rather insulting statements
to his audience without fear of antagonizing us. The solo
practitioner would become a thing of the past.
A few die-hards
might try to hold
out, but most doctors would be employed by an institution of one
kind or another. Group practice would be encouraged,
corporations would be encouraged, and then once the corporate
image of medical care... as this gradually became more and more
acceptable, doctors would more and more become employees rather
than independent contractors.
And along with that, of course,
unstated but necessary, is the employee serves his employer, not
his patient. So that's... we've already seen quite a lot of
that in the last 20 years. And apparently more on the horizon.
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 Diseases
Next heading to talk about is Health & Disease.
He said there
would be new diseases to appear which had not ever been seen
before. Would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable - at least for 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
Some years later,
as AIDS ultimately developed,
I think AIDS was at least one example of what he was talking
I now think that AIDS
probably was a manufactured disease.
Suppressing Cancer Cures as a Means of Population Control
"We can cure almost every cancer right now.
Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's
ever decided that it should be released.
But consider - if
people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would
become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer
as something else."
Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more toward comfort
than toward cure.
There was some statement ultimately the
cures which were being hidden in the
Rockefeller Institute would
come to light because independent researchers might bring them
out, despite these efforts to suppress them.
But at least for
the time being, letting people die of cancer was a 'good thing to
do' because it would slow down the problem of overpopulation.
Inducing Heart Attacks as a Form of Assassination
Another very interesting thing was 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.
thought that was a very surprising and shocking thing to hear
from this particular man at that particular time. This, and the
business of the cancer cure, really still stand out sharply in
my memory, because they were so shocking and, at that time,
seemed to me out of character.
He then went on to talk about nutrition and exercise, sort of in
the same framework. People would not have to... people would
have to eat right and exercise right to live as long as before.
Most won't. This, in the connection of nutrition, there was no
specific statement that I can recall as to particular nutrients
that would be either inadequate or in excess.
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
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 don't remember the details... the rest of this... about
hazardous nutrition. With regard to Exercise.
He went on to say
that more people would be exercising more, especially running,
because everybody can run. You don't need any special equipment
or place. You can run wherever you are. As he put it, "people
will be running all over the place." And in this vein, he
pointed out how supply produces demand.
And this was in reference to athletic clothing and equipment. As
this would be made more widely available and glamorized,
particularly as regards running shoes, this would stimulate
people to develop an interest in running and - as part of a whole
sort of public propaganda campaign - people would be encouraged
then to buy the attractive sports equipment and to get into
Again... well in connection with nutrition he also
mentioned that public eating places would rapidly increase.
That... this had a connection with the family too. As more and
more people eat out, eating at home would become less important.
People would be less dependent on their kitchens at home. And
then this also connected to convenience foods being made widely
- 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.
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 presented of
a moral judgment about people and what they should do with their
People who are smart, who would learn about nutrition,
and who are disciplined enough to eat right and exercise right
are better people - and the kind you want to live longer.
Education as a Tool for Accelerating the onset of Puberty and
Somewhere along in here there was also something about
accelerating the onset of puberty.
And this was said in
connection with health, and later in connection
and connecting to accelerating the process of evolutionary
There was a statement that:
"... we think that we can push evolution faster and in the
direction we want it to go."
I remember this only as a general statement. I don't recall if
any details were given beyond that.
Blending all Religions - The Old Religions will have to Go
Another area of discussion was Religion. This is an avowed
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.
will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the
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.
won't be too concerned with religion. They will realize that
they don't need it.
Changing the Bible through Revisions of Key Words
In order to do this,
the Bible will be changed.
It will be
rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be
replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then,
the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old
word. And as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word
can be emphasized, and then gradually that word replaced with
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
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
The Churches will Help
Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole
"...some of you probably think the churches won't stand for
this. The churches will help us!"
There was no elaboration on this; it was unclear just what he
had in mind when he said, "the churches will help us!"
retrospect, I think some of us now can understand what he might
have meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, "no
they won't!" and remembering the Lord's words where he said to
"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and
gates of Hell will not prevail against it."
So... yes, some
people in the churches might help.
And in the subsequent 20
years we've seen how some people in churches have helped. But we
also know that the Lord's Words will stand, and the gates of
Hell will not prevail.
Restructuring Education as a Tool of Indoctrination
Another area of discussion was
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
I seem to recall Mark Twain's writings was given as one
example. But he said, the casual reader reading a revised
version of a classic would never even suspect that there was any
change. And, somebody would have to go through word by word to
even recognize that any change was made in these classics; the
changes would be so subtle.
But the changes would be such as to
promote the acceptability of the new system.
More Time in Schools, but they "Wouldn't Learn Anything"
As regards education, he indicated that kids would spend more
time in schools, but in many schools they wouldn't learn
anything. They'll learn some things, but not as much as
formerly. Better schools in
better areas with better people - their kids will learn more.
the better schools, learning would be accelerated. And this is
another time where he said:
"We think we can push evolution."
By pushing kids to learn more, he seemed to be suggesting that
their brains would evolve, that their offspring would evolve - sort of pushing evolution
- where kids would learn and be more
intelligent at a younger age.
As if this pushing would alter
their physiology. Overall, schooling would be prolonged. This
meant prolonged through the school year. I'm not sure what he
said about a long school day, I do remember he said that school
was planned to go all summer, that the summer school vacation
would become a thing of the past. Not only for schools, but for
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
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,
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
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.
access would be denied.
Schools as the Hub of the Community
Another angle was that the schools would become more important
in people's overall life.
Kids in addition to their academics,
would have to get into school activities unless they wanted to
feel completely out of it. But spontaneous activities among kids
- the thing that came to my mind when I heard this was sandlot
football and sandlot baseball teams that we worked up as kids
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
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
I guess is the word I want. Education would be lifelong. Adults
would be going to school. There'll always be new information
that adults must have to keep up. When you can't keep up
anymore, you're too old. This was another way of letting older
people know that the time had come for them to move on and take
the demise pill.
If you 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
Some Books would just Disappear from the Libraries
In addition to revising the classics, which I alluded to awhile
- with revising the Bible, he said:
".. some books would just disappear from the libraries."
This was in the vein that some books contain information or
contain ideas that should not be kept around.
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.
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.
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 behind it.
But people should be able to
gamble if they want to. So it would become a civil activity,
rather than a private, or illegal activity. Bankruptcy laws
would be changed. I don't remember the details, but just that
they would be changed.
And I know subsequent to that time they
have been. Antitrust laws would be changed, or be interpreted
differently, or both. In connection with the changing anti-trust
laws, there was some statement that in a sense, competition
would be increased.
But this would be increased competition within otherwise
controlled circumstances. So it's not a free competition. I
recall of having the impression that it was like competition but
within members of a club. There would be nobody outside the club
would be able to compete.
Sort of like teams competing within a
professional 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
Encouragement of Drug Abuse to create a Jungle Atmosphere
Drug use would be increased. Alcohol use would be increased.
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
But the idea is that, in part, the increased availability
of drugs would provide a sort of law of the jungle whereby the
weak and the unfit would be selected out.
There was a statement
made at the time:
"Before the earth was overpopulated, there was a law of the
jungle where only the fittest survived."
You had to be able to protect yourself against the elements and
wild animals and disease. And if you were fit, you survived. But
now we've become so civilized - we're over civilized - and the
unfit are enabled to survive, only at the expense of those who
are more fit.
And the abusive drugs then, would restore, in a
certain sense, the law of the jungle, and selection of the
fittest for survival. News about drug abuse and law enforcement
efforts would tend to keep drugs in the public consciousness.
And would also tend to reduce this unwarranted American
complacency that the world is a safe place, and a nice place.
The same thing would happen with alcohol.
Alcohol abuse would be
both promoted and demoted at the same time. The vulnerable and
the weak would respond to the promotions and, therefore, use and
abuse more alcohol.
Drunk driving would become more of a
problem; and stricter rules about driving under the influence
would be established so that more and more people would lose
their privilege to drive.
Restrictions on Travel
This also had connection with something we'll get to later about
overall restrictions on travel.
Not everybody should be free to
travel the way they do now in the United States. People don't
have a need to travel that way. It's a privilege! It was 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.
was presented as sort of a redeeming value on the part of the
It was as if he were saying:
"... you think we're bad in promoting these evil
- but look how
nice we are - we're also providing a way out!"
The Need for More 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]
Tape Two - Novus Ordo Seclorum 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 once familiar.
Buildings would be
allowed to stand empty and deteriorate, and streets would be
allowed to deteriorate in certain localities. The purpose of
this was to provide the jungle, the depressed atmosphere for the
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 to construction people and architects
about it they would say,
"Oh no, that's good when the building
vibrates like that. That means it's flexible, not rigid."
Well... maybe so. We'll wait and see. Other areas
there would be well-maintained. Not every part of the city would
be slums. 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
This meant that if they left the jungle
and came to civilization, so to speak, they could be proud of
their own accomplishments that they made it. There was no
related sympathy for those who were left behind in the jungle of
drugs and deteriorating neighborhoods.
Then a statement that was
kind of surprising:
"We think we can effectively
limit crime to the slum areas, so it won't be spread heavily
into better areas."
I should maybe point out here that these are obviously not word
for word quotations after 20 years, but where I say that I am
quoting, I am giving the general drift of what was said close to
word for word; perhaps not precisely so.
But anyhow, I remember
"How can he be so confident that the criminal element
is going to stay where he wants it to stay?"
But he went on to
say that increased security would be needed in the better areas.
That would mean more police, better coordinated police efforts.
He did not say so, but I wondered at that time about the moves
that were afoot to consolidate all the police departments of
suburbs around the major cities.
I think the John Birch Society
was one that was saying,
"Support your local police; don't let
them be consolidated."
And I remember wondering if that was one
of the things he had in mind about security.
It was not
explicitly stated. But anyhow, he went on to say there would be
a whole new industry of residential security systems to develop
with alarms and locks and
alarms going into the police department so that people could
protect their wealth and their well being.
Because some of the
criminal activity would spill out of the slums into better, more
affluent looking areas that looked like they would be worth
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."
"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 notion.
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
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
Car Industry and Patriotism would go down the Drain
And at this point there was some discussion of steel and
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
One example was Japanese. In 1969, Japanese automobiles - if they
were sold here at all, I don't remember - but they certainly
weren't very popular. But the idea was, you could get a little
bit disgusted with your Ford, GM, or Chrysler product - or
whatever - because little things like window handles would fall
off more, and plastic parts would break which, had they been
made of metal, would hold up.
Your patriotism about buying
American would soon give way to practicality that if you bought
Japanese, German, or imported that it would last longer and you
would be better off.
Patriotism would go down the drain then. It was mentioned
elsewhere, things being made to fall apart too. I don't remember
specific items or if they were even stated other than
automobiles, but I do recall of having the impression, sort of
in my imagination, of a surgeon having something fall apart in
his hands in the operating room, at a critical time.
including this sort of thing in his
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.
United States was to be kept strong in information,
communications, high technology, education and agriculture. The
United States was seen as continuing to be sort of the keystone
of this global system. But heavy industry would be transported
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
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.
is sort of an aside. I think I'll explore the aside before I
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 conservatism.
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 Sports
Anyhow, going back to industry. Some heavy industry would
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 element in its life. We would all become citizens
of the world rather than citizens of any one country.
these lines then we can talk about sports. Sports in the United
States were 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
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
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
The same thing is true of hockey.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Desensitization: Preparing the People for "Human
Movies would gradually be made more explicit as regards sex and
After all, sex and rough language are real and why
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
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
- 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
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
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.
The 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
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
"Music will get worse."
In 1969, Rock music was getting more and more unpleasant.
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 generation.
I remember at the time thinking that would not last very long
because even young kids wouldn't like the junk when they got a
chance to hear the older music that was prettier they would
gravitate toward it.
Unfortunately, I was wrong about that, when
the kids get through their teens and into their 20's some of
them improve their taste in music, but unfortunately he was
They get used to this junk and that's all they want. A
lot of them can't stand really pretty
music. He went on to say that the music would carry a message to
the young and nobody would even know the message was there. They
would just think it was loud music.
At the time, I didn't
understand quite what he meant by that, but in retrospect, I
think we know now what the messages are in the music for the
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 21st century.
He also indicated all the
old movies would be brought back again, and I remember on
hearing that through my mind ran quickly the 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
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
This would eliminate the possibility of false ID and
also eliminate the possibility of people saying,
"Well, I lost
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
Silicon at that time was thought to be well
tolerated. It was used to augment breasts. Women who felt their
breasts were too small would get silicon implants, and I guess
that still goes on.
At any rate silicon was seen at that time as
the promising material to do both... to be
retained in the body without rejection and to be able to retain
information retrievable by electronic means.
Food supplies would come under tight control.
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 [tape ends abruptly and continues on side two]... 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.
acceptable idea was to protect the consumer but the real idea
was to limit the food supply and growing your own food would be
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
"We can or soon will be able to control the weather."
"I'm not merely referring to dropping iodide crystals into the
clouds to precipitate rain that's already there, but REAL
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.
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
There was no statement how this would be done.
It was stated
that either it was already possible or very, very close to being
He said that very few people really know how government works.
Something to the effect that elected officials are influenced in
ways that they don't even realize, and...
they carry out plans that have been made for them, and they
think that they are authors of the plans.
But actually they are
manipulated in ways they don't understand.
Know how People Respond - Making them do what you Want
Somewhere in the presentation he made two statements that I want
to insert at this time. I don't remember just where they were
made, but they're valid in terms of the general overall view.
"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
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.
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.
here was said:
"People don't ask the right questions. Some people are too
Now this was an interesting statement because the speaker and
the audience all being doctors of medicine and supposedly very
objectively, dispassionately scientific and science being the be
all and end-all... well to falsify scientific research data in
that setting is like blasphemy in the church... you just don't
Anyhow, out of all of this was to come the New
International Governing Body, probably to come through
and with a World Court, but not necessarily through those
It could be brought about in other ways.
Acceptance of the UN - The End Justifies the Means
the United Nations 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
Avoidance of war would foster it from the standpoint
of worrying about hostilities.
It was recognized that doing it
peaceably was better than doing it by war. It was stated at this
point that war was "obsolete." I thought that was an interesting
phrase because obsolete means something that once was seen as
useful is no longer useful.
But war is obsolete... this being because of the nuclear bombs
war is no longer controllable. Formerly, wars could be
controlled, but if nuclear weapons would fall into the wrong
hands there could be an unintended nuclear disaster.
It was not
stated who the "wrong hands" are.
We were free to infer that
maybe this meant terrorists, but in more recent years I'm
wondering whether the wrong hands might also include people that
we've assumed that they've had nuclear weapons all along... maybe they don't have them.
Just as it was stated that industry
would be preserved in the United States - a little
bit, just in case the world wide plans didn't work out; just in
case some country or some other powerful person decided to bolt
from the pack and go his own way - one wonders whether this might
also be true with nuclear weapons.
When you hear that... he
said they might fall into the wrong hands, there was some
statement that the possession of nuclear weapons had been
tightly controlled, sort of implying that anybody who had
nuclear weapons was intended to have them.
necessarily have included the Soviet Union, if indeed they have
But I recall wondering at the time,
"Are you telling us, or are
you implying that this country willingly gave weapons to the
At that time that seemed like a terribly unthinkable
thing to do, much less to admit.
The leaders of the Soviet Union
seem to be so dependent on the West though, one wonders whether
there may have been some fear that they would try to assert
independence if they indeed had these weapons. So, I don't know.
It's something to speculate about perhaps...
Who did he mean
when he said,
"If these weapons fall into the wrong hands"?
Maybe just terrorists.
Anyhow, the new system would be brought in, if not by peaceful
cooperation - everybody willingly yielding national sovereignty
- then by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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' / He Knew it in 1969
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
But at least in the foreseeable future it was not
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
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
Earnings would be
electronically entered into your account. It would be a single
[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
The ability to save would be greatly curtailed.
People would just not be able to save any considerable degree of
There was some statement of recognition that wealth
represents power, and wealth in the hands of a lot of people is
not good for the people in charge, so if you save too much you
might be taxed.
The more you save the higher rate of tax on your
savings so your savings really could never get very far. And
also if you began to show a pattern of saving too much, you
might have your pay cut.
We would say,
"Well, 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.
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.
implant on the other hand would be not loseable or
counterfeitable or transferable to another person so you and
your accounts would be identified without any possibility of
error. And the skin implants would have to be put some place
that would be convenient to the skin; for example your right
hand or your forehead.
At that time when I heard this I was
unfamiliar with the statements in the Book of Revelation.
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 Revelation. 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.
could be under the skin or a dental implant... put in like a
filling so that either fugitives or possibly other citizens
could be identified by a certain frequency from his personal
transmitter and could be located at any time or any place by any
authority who wanted to find him.
This would be particularly
useful for somebody who broke out of prison. There was more
discussion of personal surveillance.
One more thing was said:
"You'll be watching television and somebody will be watching you
at the same time at a central monitoring station."
Television sets would have a device to enable this.
The 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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
Then as the number of real home-owners diminished
they would become a minority.
There would be no sympathy for them from the majority who
dwelled in the apartments and then these homes could be taken by
increased taxes or other regulations that would be detrimental
to home ownership and would be acceptable to the majority.
Ultimately, people would be assigned where they would live and
it would be common to have non-family members living with you.
This by way of your not knowing just how far you could trust
anybody. This would all be under the control of a central
Have this in mind in 1990 when they ask,
many bedrooms in your house? How many bathrooms in your house?
Do you have a finished game room?".
This information is personal
is of no national interest to government under our existing
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 old
"There just won't be any room [he (Dr. Day) 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.
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
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
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 [1969-88] and the things which are planned
for the future, I think there is no denying that this is
controlled and there is indeed a conspiracy.
The question then
becomes what to do. I think first off, we must put our faith in
god and pray and ask for His guidance. And secondly, do what we
can to inform other individuals as much as
possible, as much as they may be interested.
Some people just
don't care, because they're preoccupied with getting along in
their own personal endeavors.
But, as much as possible, I think
we should try to inform other people who may be interested, and
again... Put our faith and trust in God and pray constantly for
his guidance and for the courage to accept what we may be facing
in the near future.
Rather than accept peace and justice which
we hear so much now... it's a cliché.
Let's insist on liberty
and justice for all.
[End of Tape Two]
Tape Three - Novus Ordo Seclorum
In this final tape Dr. Dunegan fleshes out the character of Dr.
Day and the nature of his "New System."
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 (D.L.D.): 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
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
Of course, I knew him as lecturer - would stand in front
of the auditorium and listen as he talked about diseases... and
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
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
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.
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
And at the time I thought, well, sure, that's true. We tend to
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
"Well, yeah, I kind of... is that what he said? You know I kind
of remember that."
But most were not very impressed, which to me was surprising
because... well use the example of cancer cures. But he said a
number of things that…
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
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 all. I thought, gee, this is
R.E: Was part of it also because of his prominence? I mean he
D.L.D: The authority... Authority figure? Yeah, I think there
might be something there. This is the authority. We sort of owe
some deference here.
R.E: And he couldn't possibly mean what he's saying or there
couldn't possibly be any... I mean, he's such a 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.
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,
don't ask the right questions."
And this was
directed, as I recall, mostly at Americans. I had the feelings
he thought Europeans maybe were more skeptical and more
That Americans are too trusting and don't ask the
R.E: With regard to this lack of... almost a lack of
discernment. I guess that's basically what he was saying. They
were easily tricked or too trusting.
The thing that flashed
through my mind rather quickly, for example in schools... how
quickly so-called AIDS
education was introduced. It did amaze me because if a group
stated publicly that they wanted to introduce the concept of
sodomy or initiate sex earlier and earlier in children and that
was the reason given, most parents I presume wouldn't go for
So you have to come up with another reason and of course
the reason for this so - called AIDS education was to protect
children from this disease.
But actually, as it turns out, it's
really been a great boon for the homosexual network, because
through various things like Project Ten they now have access to
our children from the youngest years.
These programs are going on from K-12 and I imagine well into
college and beyond, so that they are reaching a tremendous
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
D.L.D: Absolutely. Yes. Emphasis on youth. This was stated
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
"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
"We're going 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
And when I remember the one statement and
remember the other statement, I believe AIDS is a disease which
has been created in the laboratory and I think that one purpose
it serves is to get rid of people who are so stupid as to go
along with our homosexual program. Let them wipe themselves out.
Now it's hard for me make clear how much of it is I'm
remembering with great confidence and how much is pure
But as I synthesize this - this is I
think what happens...
"If you're dumb enough to be convinced by our promotion of
homosexuality you don't deserve a place and you're going to fall
by the wayside sooner or later.
We'll be rid of you. We'll
select out... the people who will survive are those who are
also smart enough not to be deluded by our propaganda".
Does that make sense?
R.E: Well, it certainly makes sense for them.
And I think also
this early sex initiation has the over all purpose which I think
we'll get to in depth a little later. But of the sexualization
of the population... when he said on the tape, basically,
"Anything goes", I think that is what we're seeing.
It's not so
much that, let's say, someone may not adopt the homosexual style
for himself, but as a result of the propaganda he certainly will
be a lot more tolerant of that type of
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
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
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 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
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
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.
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
"What effect does that have on family life, and
...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.
It has an ostensible purpose, and then it has a real purpose.
R.E: Yes, and as a so-called helping professional your ability
to say that is very interesting.
The other factor is this whole
factor of religion, and he was talking basically about a
religion without dogma, a religion that would have a little bit
from all the other traditional religions so no one would really
feel uncomfortable, and he said, rather condescendingly, some
people need this and if they need it we'll manufacture something
that they need.
But of course it can't be anything that would
declare anything that were moral absolutes or the natural law.
Which means that the main target of this group of controllers of
course, was and is the
Roman Catholic Church and he mentioned
the Roman Catholic Church specifically.
D.L.D: Religion's important because it is eternal and we... people who would follow the church will not buy our rules about
But if we make our own religion, if we define what is
religion then we can change it as it suits us.
Yes, the Roman
Catholic Church... I was kind of flattered sitting here as a
catholic, hearing it pointed out that the church is the one
obstacle that, he said:
"We have to change that. And once the Roman Catholic Church
falls, the rest of Christianity will fall easily".
R.E: I notice that, as the conversation went on, he said.
"Now you may think Churches will stand in the way, but I want to
tell you that they will help us," and he didn't say they will
help us, all
except the Roman Catholic Church... he said, "They will help
us," 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 mentioned that,
"if you want to control the
people, you control the language first."
Words are weapons. He
apparently knew that very well and I think the controllers as a
whole know this very well. Of course, it's part of their
But that little statement about words, that "words will be
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
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?
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
And if you can control the language with which one
person speaks to
himself or one person speaks to another you've gone a long way
towards controlling what that person is able - what he is capable
of thinking, and that has both an inclusionary and an
exclusionary component to it.
You set the tone ....
R.E: Take the word gay, for example.
I have some old tapes by
Franz Lehar and he talks about the gay Hussars, you know... the
happy soldiers... and now you couldn't quite use that same
word, could you?
But you know, the word homosexual, sodomite has
been replaced with the term "gay", represents an ideology not
only a word and when you use it, it's tacit to saying, "Yes, I
accept what your interpretation of this is".
D.L.D: They probably had a committee working for months to pick
which word they were going to use for this.
The word "gay"
carries a connotation, first of all, which is inaccurate. Most
homosexuals are not at all gay. They tend to be pretty unhappy
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 begin talking at the same time
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.
"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 US Probably the pro-life movement is the most sensitive to
Talking about media events and access to the brain, I
remember the first speech
Bush gave in which he talked about the
New World Order... I remember jumping halfway off my seat.
term. Here he is, the president, saying New World Order as if it
was something everyone knew about.
And someone looking across
the room said,
"I heard that. What did he say?"
And I said,
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
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.
"Yeah. You're right."
And we should turn it off.
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.
that kids on the playgrounds do it on a smaller scale. But you
mention cutting off access to your brain... somebody says, I
don't want to hear it. And I remember hearing kids on a
playground... somebody says ..."ya-na-na na naa-na." and
they're teasing the kid...
What's he do? He puts his hands over
his ears. Says I'm not going to listen. And the kid who's trying
to torment him will try to pull his hands away and be sure that
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.
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
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
And the inevitable effect is that you will have a
population that is top heavy with a rapidly aging population
which is the current state in the United States.
So, inevitably, if you are going to go about killing the young,
especially at the pace we seem to have adapted ourselves to in
this country, then invariably you're going to have to do
something about all those aging populations. Because, the few
children who are born,
after all, they cannot be expected to carry this tremendous
burden of all these people.
So you're cutting one end and
therefore, inevitably, as you pointed out on the tape, he was
"Well, these few young people who are permitted to be born will
feel this inevitable burden on them and so they'll be more
They'll be more warmed up to the
idea of grandma and grandpa having this little party and then
shuffle them off to wherever they shuffle off to. And whether
it's taking the "demise" pill or going to a death camp, or...
D.L.D: There was a movie out sometime back called "Soylent
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
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.
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
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
"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
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.
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
And John will be in position to feed back,
this is what I think will happen."
So it certainly covers a
broad range of people. And for one individual to be able to say
all of this in the two hours that he spoke to us, really tells
us that he was privy to a lot of information.
R.E: That's right. He must have been sitting in on one of those
boardrooms at least at some point.
And I think not at the
highest level from his position, but enough, because anyone in
the population control would be associated with names of
foundations... powerful foundations, powerful organizations ...
D.L.D: And I'm sure there was a lot in the plans that he never
heard. He wasn't a four-star general in this outfit. He wouldn't
be in on the whole story.
R.E: Well, too bad he couldn't have talked for six hours instead
of two, and we might have had a lot more information.
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 remarks.
One of them that
hit me like a ton of bricks was this business about,
"We must be
open about sex."
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 …
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.
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.
when they do there's usually a clash. And I think the same is
probably true with a lot of the classical movies. I can remember
when I was growing up and my dad had the radio on, I think it
was a kind of general music.
I didn't say,
"Dad, I don't like
that music; turn to another station."
Whereas now there is a
fabricated generational gap which puts the family at the
D.L.D: And it creates conflict within the family, which is one
of the spin-off benefits to them.
If you're constantly fussing
at your kids, you don't like the music they're playing, and
they're constantly fussing at you because they don't like what
you're playing... that does bad things to the bonds of
affection that you would like to be nurtured in the family.
R.E: It would appear, that any resistance movement against the
population controllers would probably be based on families
strengthening themselves in a number of ways.
One of them being
to make sure that children know about grandma and grandpa and
where did they come from and developing a whole... getting out
the family albums and making sure that children know they have
roots, first of all.
And secondly, that their family is stable.
One father, one mother, with children, with grandfathers. Those
of us who have them should hold on 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
We're just going to wake up one morning and changes would
just be there? What did he say about that?
D.L.D: It was presented in what must be an over-simplified
fashion, so with some qualifications, here's the recollections I
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
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.
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.
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.
you didn't... and I'm not sure whether the two impressions are
necessarily mutually exclusive because this wasn't explored in
great detail... one of them was that you would simply have
nowhere to go.
If you don't sign up then you can't get any electric impulses in
your banking account and you won't have any electric impulses
with which to pay your electric, or your mortgage or your food,
and when your electric impulses are gone, then you have no means
R.E: Could you get these things from other people, 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,
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?"
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
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".
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
And then when they're called into account and someone
"Now wait a minute here. You're, 'freedom to choose - freedom to choose' here, but you're supporting the Chinese
program which is compulsory."
I remember a statement from the late 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
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
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.
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
I just had a man in the office this morning talking about he and
his child seeing people living in boxes in downtown Pittsburgh
When the New World Order is here and you're living in a
box, we can't have people littering the place, so you come
around in the wagon and you pick them up. If your frame of mind
as you're growing up and formed is that,
"Human value resides in being productive; you have to have a
prestigious position or at least perform something useful - make
...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
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
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:
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
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.
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
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
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.
can become an enslaving feature.
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.
Brave New World they had the caste system, the alphas,
the omegas, etc.
The way they brought about the different caste
systems was that in the decanting, or birthing rooms, the
individual who was to do menial or slave labor... work in the
mines... received just a little bit of oxygen to the brain so
they learned to love their slavery and they were very happy.
They didn't know any better. They didn't have the wherewithal to
do things, but the higher in the caste you got, the more oxygen
you got to your brain. So we actually had a group of sub-human
beings who loved their slavery.
In the past slaves probably
didn't love their slavery very much, but in this case, we have
this technology which will make people love their slavery, and
each caste loved being what they were in "Brave New World."
any of our listeners who hasn't read that recently ...
D.L.D: You may remember the slogan that was above the Nazi
concentration camps... something about, "Work is Peace and Work
I don't remember if it was Bucchenvald or
Auschwitz. My recollection of words isn't precise, but the idea
is what counts. And here's Huxley, writing Brave New World,
saying basically the same thing before Hitler was even in power,
so Huxley knew something.
R.E: He came from a family that probably contributed at least in
part to this New World Order.
A number of the English authors... H.G. Wells... from that period and from those associations
who highlighted the concepts of what was coming down the path. I
can remember reading Brave New World in high school, and
thought, "Boy, is this fantasy land."
Thirty years later and I
said, "This is scary."
There seems to be kind of a similarity between his writings and
the talk given by Dr Day, because you get kind of a mixed
message in Brave New World, that these things are not really
good. It would be better if man still had a sense of humor, a
sense of privacy, if the family still existed... but, it's
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
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
seeming not totally accepting of what he wrote about but both
"Well, there's a certain inevitability to all of this,
so let's try to talk about the best parts of it. It's going to
be good for people. Technology will be better, quality of life
will be better... so you live a few years shorter."
But they both do seem to send out messages not buying the whole
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.
There were so many details to remember.
But when he mentioned
bringing in the New World Order, he said:
"This time we're going to do it right."
And right away, I'm wondering, "what do you mean, 'this time'?"
There was no explicit explanation of that, but I think it's
fairly easy to infer that previous efforts had to do with the
Third Reich... Your point about the technology is critical with
computers and all means of exchange being controlled by
electronic impulse. Nobody has any wealth.
You own nothing of
value except access to electronic
impulses which are beyond your control. A cashless society. So
when your reward for working is [nothing more than] impulses on
the computer and the only claim you have is these impulses and
the people who run the system can give or take them as they
Up until this time there was no way the statement in the
Book of Revelation that said, "No man can buy or sell unless he
has the mark of the beast"... there's no way that could have
been enforced. People could say I'll trade you a bushel of
tomatoes for a bushel of wheat.
If you'll drive my kids to school I'll give you six ears of
corn. Bartering. And even not going necessarily that primitive,
there was always gold and silver and other forms of money that
were even better than bartering.
But with this cashless society,
I believe this is the first time in the history of the human
race where the entire population of the world can be controlled
economically so that somebody can say,
"I pushed the right
buttons and I know how much credit you have electronically.
I know where you spend your money electronically; and you cannot
buy, you cannot sell unless you get on my computer."
you have a half a dozen credit cards in your pocket, but pretty
soon it will be narrowed to one credit card and then when we... you know the ostensible reason is that when people loose their
credit cards and we have to get rid of that and put the implant
in... where it has to be accessible to the scanner... in your
right hand or in your forehead.
R.E: Speaking of scanner.
When we had the TV War... the Gulf
War? It was the first war where you just sit there and 24 hours
a day just like being on the battlefield there.
several points made about the advances in technology and how
they could spot just one little individual down in... they used
the constant reference to pinpoint... "pinpoint." I imagine
with the different technologies they can also pinpoint a couple
of renegades in the New World Order.
The technology which was
applicable to a so - called 'enemy' can also be applicable to
this controlling the order.
D.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
My first hearing about them was in the Vietnam War where our
troops used them to detect the enemy.
That's twenty-some years
ago, so they're probably even more sophisticated now than they
were then; but with this kind of surveillance it would be pretty
hard for anybody to escape and say,
"Well, I'm just going to go out into the mountains and be a
hermit and escape the New World Order.
I can shoot deer and eat
berries and survive and I've got a wife who's pretty sturdy and
she'll be able to survive and we'll do what the Indians did
before Columbus got here and we'll all survive."
The New World
Order will say,
"No you won't because we're
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'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
probably isn't a day that goes by - at least since I've heard
the tape - that I don't think about the things that this Dr. Day
D.L.D: You get constant reminders. Not a day goes by something
doesn't say, "That reminds me of…" such and such, whether it's
surveillance or security...
R.E:... or clothing. I opened up a toy catalogue the other day
and noticed there didn't happen to be any baby dolls in this toy
catalogue... of course going back to the idea that we don't want little
girls to by thinking about babies.
They only had one little doll
and it was kind of an adult doll. And nothing that would raise
anyone's maternal instincts. Well, Doc, what's the prognosis?
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.
to his own devices... the tendency is - in groups like this,
then - is for internal dissention to arise where the leaders
would be at each other's throats too... each saying,
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.
create their own seeds of destruction while they're creating the
system. But the other thing I wonder if indeed this may be time
for our Lord to come back and say,
"Enough's enough. Because
you're going to destroy my planet earth. I am in charge of the
planet. I'm in charge of mankind. Mankind will be destroyed if I
say. I will not allow my creatures to assume and exert this
degree of control where you're going to destroy the whole
R.E: What I was just thinking as you were just saying that is
that in the past, dictators could kill people, they could
torture them, but essentially they could not change what it
meant to be a human being.
They could not change human nature. Now we are going to have
with this new Genome Project, a multi-billion dollar project
where they're going to be getting a tab on everyone's genes. No
one shall escape.
Everyone shall have their genetic codes and
with this opens the door to manipulation to change the very
meaning of what it means to be human. And if one has an entity
then that no longer has free will, you just have to wonder if
that point out Lord says, "Enough."
D.L.D: Just as Lucifer set himself up as God in the beginning,
some people now would set themselves up as God and say, "I
control the computers, I control the genomes, I control
everything, I am God..." and at that point he would have to
say, "No, you are not! I have to demonstrate to you... you're
not. I'm still God. You're just a creature"
R.E: And as you said on the original tape, we believe in what our
Lord has said, in that He will not leave us orphans. He will be
with us 'til the end of time.
D.L.D: This right away now begs the questions, when they come
around and say, "It's your turn to sign the allegiance form"... what are you going to do?
When Henry VIII came around and
said, either sign here and join... and while he was saying it
they were throwing the noose over the limb of the oak tree, and
slipping the noose around your neck and saying, "you want to
sign this or do we slap the horse out from under you?" and a lot
of people said I won't sign it and they were martyred.
his having said there will be no martyrs, certainly there will
The implication of his statements were that they
would not be recognized as martyrs, but there will be martyrs
and they will be recognized as martyrs. Maybe not the same way
as in the past but I think this is something people should sort
of prepare themselves for.
When I'm nose to nose with this
"ether sign this allegiance or we're going to put you in
a boxcar and you're going out to Arizona, to the desert..."
think we have to be prepared to make a decision.
R.E: I think it would be an understatement to say that this tape
has great meaning and it's like a forewarning and it gives us
ideas of things we should do and things we shouldn't do and I
think everybody listening to the tapes will come up with things
he can do on a small scale.
I think that's the beauty of this
thing. As he was talking... it wasn't real earth shattering
things he was talking about. He was talking about little things.
Television and things that we do every day. Things that are
under our control. The books we read.
And I think some of these
changes if they are going to occur will occur with the
individual person within that family, with him getting the word
out and then doing the little things.
I think they matter over
the long haul, the most.
D.L.D: Just as with the prisoners who survived the brainwashing,
I think people who are Spiritually oriented, who are thinking
about God, thinking about their relationship with God, are the
ones who will then be better prepared or equipped to survive
this world and the next.
Whereas, those who are just focused on
meeting their needs right now, strictly the material needs of
the day, they're more easily controlled.
Under the threat of
losing your comforts or losing your food or loosing your head or
whatever, certainly some people are going to yield, and those
who I think will survive and I really mean both in this life and
the next - they're going to have to be the ones who are prepared
because it's my belief when the time comes to make the decision... "Are you going to sign on or not?"... it's too late to begin
preparation and start saying, "Well, let me think about this."
You won't have time to think about it. You're either going to
say yes or no. I hope a lot of us make the right decision.
R.E: I do so too, and I think the tape will change as many lives
and have hopefully as good an effect as it had on mine and on
yours and so let me thank you very much.
For further information
please contact the US 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.
[End of Tape Three]