"The
New Order of Barbarians"
Transcript
of Tape I (1)
about
The New World System
revealed by Dr. Day, an Illuminati
initiate, in 1969
as related by Dr. Dunegan and
transcribed by Randy Engel
INTRODUCTION
This is the transcript of first
tape of "The New Order of Barbarians"
(1),
referred to on the tapes simply as the "new
world system".
Tapes one
and two were recorded in 1988 and are the recollections of Dr. Lawrence
Dunegan regarding a lecture he attended on March 20, 1969 at a meeting
of the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society. The lecturer at that gathering of
pediatricians (identified in tape
three recorded in 1991) was a Dr.
Richard Day
(who died in 1989), an insider
who was revealing - to that limited
audience - the plans for their World System, a.k.a. the World Totalitarian Government.
More info in the Front Page and New World Order -
In Conclusion
Index of
Sections in Tape I
Tape
I
There
is a power, a force or a group of men organizing and redirecting change
There has been much written, and much said, by some
people who have looked at all the changes that have occurred in
American society in the past 20 years or so, and who have looked
retrospectively to earlier history of the United States, and indeed, of
the world, and come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy of
sorts which influences, indeed controls, major historical events, not
only in the United States, but around the world. This conspiratorial
interpretation of history is based on people making observations from
the outside, gathering evidence and coming to the conclusion that from
the outside they see a conspiracy. Their evidence and conclusions are
based on evidence gathered in retrospect. Period.
I want to now describe what I heard
from a speaker in 1969 which in
several weeks will now [1988] be 20 years ago. The speaker did not speak in
terms of retrospect, but rather predicting changes that would be
brought about in the future. The speaker was not looking from
the
outside in, thinking that he saw conspiracy, rather, he was on the
inside, admitting that, indeed, there was an organized power,
force,
group of men, who wielded enough influence to determine major events
involving countries around the world. And he predicted, or rather
expounded on, changes that were planned for the remainder of this
century.
As you listen, if you can recall the situation, at least in the United
States in 1969 and the few years there after, and then recall the kinds
of changes which have occurred between then and now, almost 20 years
later [1988], 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 [the year of this recording] but
are intended to be accomplished before the end of this century. There
is a timetable; and it was during this session that some of the
elements of the timetable were brought out. Anyone who recalls early in
the days of the Kennedy Presidency ... the Kennedy campaign ... when he
spoke of ... progress in the decade of the 60's": that was kind of a
cliché in those days - "the decade of the 60's." Well, by 1969
our speaker was talking about the decade of the 70's, the decade of the
80's, and the decade of the 90's. So that ... I think that terminology
that we are looking at ... looking at things and expressing things,
probably all comes from the same source.
Prior to that time I don't remember anybody saying "the decade of the
40's and the decade of the 50's. So I think this overall plan and
timetable had taken important shape with more predictability to those
who control it, sometime in the late 50's. That's speculation on my
part. In any event, the speaker said that his purpose was to tell us
about changes which would be brought about in the next 30 years or
so...so that an entirely new world-wide system would be in operation
before the turn of the century. As he put it, "We plan to enter the
21st Century with a running start."
Back to Index of
Sections
"Everything
is in place and nobody can stop us now"
He said, as we listened to what he was about to
present, he said, "Some of you will think I'm talking about Communism.
Well, what I'm talking about is much
bigger than Communism!" At that
time he indicated that there is much more cooperation between East and
West than most people realize. In his introductory remarks he commented
that he was free to speak at this time. He would not have been able to
say what he was about to say, even a few years earlier. But he was free
to speak at this time because now, and I'm quoting here, "everything is
in place and nobody can stop us now". That's the end of that
quotation.
He went on to say that most people don't understand how governments
operate and even people in high
positions in governments, including our
own, don't really understand how and where decisions are made.
He went
on to say that ... he went on to say that people who really influence
decisions are names that for the most part would be familiar to most of
us, but he would not use individuals' names or names of any specific
organization. But that, if he did, most of the people would be names
that were recognized by most of his audience. He went on to say that
they were not primarily people in public office, but people of
prominence who were primarily known in their private occupations or
private positions.
The speaker was a doctor of medicine,
a former professor at a large
Eastern university, and he was addressing a group of doctors of
medicine, about 80 in number. His name would not be widely
recognized
by anybody likely to hear this, and so there is no point in giving his
name. The only purpose in recording this is that it may give a
perspective to those who hear it regarding the changes which have
already been accomplished in the past 20 years or so, and a bit of a
preview to what at least some people are planning for the remainder of
this century ... so that we, or they, would enter the 21st Century with
a flying start. Some of us may not enter that Century.
His purpose in telling our group about these changes that were to be
brought about was to make it easier for us to adapt to these changes.
Indeed, as he quite accurately said, "there
would be changes that would
be very surprising, and in some ways difficult for people to accept",
and he hoped that we, as sort of his friends, would make the adaptation
more easily if we knew somewhat beforehand what to expect.
Back to Index of
Sections
"People
will have to get used to change"
Somewhere in the introductory
remarks he insisted
that nobody have a tape recorder and that nobody take notes, which for
a professor was a very remarkable kind of thing to expect from an
audience. Something in his remarks suggested that there could be
negative repercussions against him if his ... if it became widely known
what he was about to say to ... to our group ... if it became widely
known that indeed he had spilled the beans, so to speak. When I heard
first that, I thought maybe that was sort of an ego trip, somebody
enhancing his own importance. But as the revelations unfolded, I began
to understand why he might have had some concern about not having it
widely known what was said, although this ... although this was a
fairly
public forum where he was speaking, (where the) remarks were delivered.
But, nonetheless, he asked that no notes be taken ... no tape recording
be used: suggesting there might be some personal danger to himself if
these revelations were widely publicized.
Again, as the remarks began to unfold, and saw the rather outrageous
things that were said ... at that time they certainly seemed outrageous
... I made it a point to try to remember as much of what he said as I
could, and during the subsequent weeks and months, and years, to
connect my recollections to simple events around me ... both to aid my
memory for the future, in case I wanted to do what I'm doing now -
record this. And also, to try to maintain a perspective on what would
be developing, if indeed, it followed the predicted pattern - which it
has! At this point, so that I don't forget to include it later, I'll
just include some statements that were made from time to time
throughout the presentation. ... just having a general bearing on the
whole presentation. One of the statements was having to do with change.
People get used ... the statement was, "People
will have to get used to
the idea of change, so used to change, that they'll be expecting
change. Nothing will be permanent."
This often came out in the context of a
society of ... where people
seemed to have no roots or moorings, but would be passively willing to
accept change simply because it was all they had ever known.
This was
sort of in contrast to generations of people up until this time where
certain things you expected to be, and remain in place as reference
points for your life. So change was to be brought about, change was to
be anticipated and expected, and accepted, no questions asked. Another
comment that was made ... from time to time during the presentation ...
was. "People are too
trusting, people don't ask the right questions."
Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb.
But
sometimes when ... when he would say that and say, "People don't ask
the
right questions," it was almost with a sense of regret ... as if he
were uneasy with what he was part of, and wished that people would
challenge it and maybe not be so trusting.
Back to Index of
Sections
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
He was very active with population control groups,
the population control movement, and population control was really the
entry point into specifics following the introduction. He said the
population is growing too fast. Numbers of people living at any one
time on the planet must be limited or we will run out of space to live.
We will outgrow our food supply and we will over-populate the world
with our waste.
Back to Index of
Sections
Permission
to have babies
People won't be allowed to have babies
just because
they want to or because they are careless. Most families would be
limited to two. Some people would be allowed only one, and the
outstanding person or persons might be selected and allowed to have
three. But most people would [be] allowed to have only two babies.
That's because the zero population growth rate] is 2.1 children per
completed family. So something like every 10th family might be allowed
the privilege of the third baby. To me, up to this point, the word
"population control primarily connoted limiting the number of babies to
be born. But this remark about what people would be "allowed" and then
what followed, made it quite clear that when you hear "population
control" that means more than just controlling births. It means control
of every endeavor of an entire ... of the entire world population; a
much broader meaning to that term than I had ever attached to it before
hearing this. As you listen and reflect back on some of the things you
hear, you will begin to recognize how one aspect dovetails with other
aspects in terms of controlling human endeavors.
Back to Index of
Sections
Redirecting
the purpose of sex - Sex without reproduction and reproduction without
sex
Well, from population control, the natural next step
then was sex. He said sex must be separated from reproduction. Sex is
too pleasurable, and the urges are too strong, to expect people to give
it up. Chemicals in food and in the water supply to reduce the sex
drive are not practical. The strategy
then would be not to diminish sex
activity, but to increase sex activity, but in such a way that people
won't be having babies.
Back to Index of
Sections
Contraception
universally available to all
And the first consideration then here was
contraception. Contraception would be
very strongly encouraged, and it
would be connected so closely in people's minds with sex, that they
would automatically think contraception when they were thinking or
preparing for sex. And contraception would be made universally
available. Nobody wanting contraception would be ... find that they
were
unavailable. Contraceptives would be displayed much more prominently in
drug stores, right up with the cigarettes and chewing gum. Out in the
open rather than hidden under the counter where people would have to
ask for them and maybe be embarrassed. This kind of openness was a way
of suggesting that contraceptions ... that contraceptives are just as
much a part of life as any other items sold in the store. And,
contraceptives would be advertised. And contraceptives would be
dispensed in the schools in association with sex education!
Back to Index of
Sections
Sex
education as a tool of World Government
The sex education was to get kids
interested early,
making the connection between sex and the need for contraception early
in their lives, even before they became very active. At this
point I
was recalling some of my teachers, particularly in high school and
found it totally unbelievable to think of them agreeing, much less
participating in, distributing of contraceptives to students. But, that
only reflected my lack of understanding of how these people operate.
That was before the school-based clinic programs got started. Many,
many cities in the United States by this time have already set up
school-based clinics which are primarily contraception, birth control,
population control clinics.
The idea then is that the connection between sex and contraception
introduced and reinforced in school would carry over into marriage.
Indeed, if young people when they matured decided to get married,
marriage itself would be diminished in
importance. He indicated some
recognition that most people probably would want to be married. ... but
that this certainly would not be any longer considered to be necessary
for sexual activity.
Back to Index of
Sections
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. He said,
"Abortion will no longer be a crime." Abortion will be accepted as
normal, and would be paid for by taxes for people who could not
pay for
their own abortions. Contraceptives would be made available by tax
money so that nobody would have to do without contraceptives. If school
sex programs would lead to more pregnancies in children, that was
really seen as no problem. Parents who think they are opposed to
abortion on moral or religious grounds will change their minds when it
is their own child who is pregnant. So this will help overcome
opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards will still
refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they won't matter anymore.
Back to Index of
Sections
Anything
goes - Homosexuality to be encouraged
"People will be given permission to be
homosexual",
that's the way it was stated. They won't have to hide it. And elderly
people will be encouraged to continue to have active sex lives into the
very old ages, just as long as they can. Everyone will be given
permission to have sex, to enjoy however they want. Anything goes.
This
is the way it was put. And, I remember thinking, "how arrogant for this
individual, or whoever he represents, to feel that they can give or
withhold permission for people to do things!" But that was the
terminology that was used. In this regard, clothing was mentioned.
Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative. Recall
back in 1969 was the time of the mini skirt, when those mini-skirts
were very, very high and very revealing.
He said, "It is not just the amount of skin that is expressed ...
exposed that makes clothing sexually seductive, but other, more subtle
things are often suggestive.".. things like movement, and the cut of
clothing, and the kind of fabric, the positioning of accessories on the
clothing. "If a woman has an attractive body, why should she not show
it?" was one of the statements. There was not detail on what was meant
by "provocative clothing," but since that time if you watched the
change in clothing styles, blue jeans are cut in a way that they're
more tight-fitting in the crotch. They form wrinkles. Wrinkles are
essentially arrows. Lines which direct one's vision to certain anatomic
areas. And, this was around the time of the "burn your bra" activity.
He indicated that a lot of women should not go without a bra. They need
a bra to be attractive, so instead of banning bras and burning them,
bras would come back. But they would be thinner and softer allowing
more natural movement. It was not specifically stated, but certainly a
very thin bra is much more revealing of the nipple and what else is
underneath, than the heavier bras that were in style up to that time.
Back to Index of
Sections
Technology:
Sex and reproduction would be separated
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
Families
to diminish in importance
Families would be limited in size.
We already
alluded to not being allowed more than two children. Divorce would be
made easier and more prevalent. Most people who marry will marry
more
than once. More people will not marry. Unmarried
people would stay in
hotels and even live together. That would be very common - nobody would
even ask questions about it. It would be widely accepted as no
different from married people being together. More women will work
outside the home. More men will be transferred to other cities and in
their jobs, more men would travel. Therefore, it would be harder for
families to stay together. This would tend to make the marriage
relationship less stable and, therefore, tend to make people less
willing to have babies. And, the extended families would be smaller,
and more remote.
Travel would be easier, less expensive, for a while, so that people who
did have to travel would feel they could get back to their families,
not that they were abruptly being made remote from their families. But
one of the net effects of easier divorce laws combined with the
promotion of travel, and
transferring families from one city to
another, was to create instability in
the families. If both husband and
wife are working and one partner gets transferred the other one may not
be easily transferred. Soon, either gives up his or her job and stays
behind while the other leaves, or else gives up the job and risks not
finding employment in the new location. Rather a diabolical approach to
this whole thing!
Back to Index of
Sections
Euthanasia
and the "Demise Pill"
Everybody has a right to live only so
long. The old
are no longer useful. They become a burden. You should be ready to
accept death. Most people are. An arbitrary age limit could be
established. After all, you have a right to only so many steak dinners,
so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in life. And after you have
had enough of them and you're no longer productive, working, and
contributing, then you should be ready to step aside for the next
generation. Some things that would help people realize that they had
lived long enough, he mentioned several of these - I don't remember
them all - here are a few - use of very pale printing ink on forms that
people ... are necessary to fill out, so that older people wouldn't be
able to read the pale ink as easily and would need to go to younger
people for help. Automobile traffic patterns - there would be more
high-speed traffic lanes ... traffic patterns that would ... that older
people with their slower reflexes would have trouble dealing with and
thus, lose some of their independence.
Back to Index of
Sections
Limiting
access to affordable medical care makes eliminating elderly easier
A big item ... was elaborated at some length was the
cost of medical care would be made burden somely high. Medical care
would be connected very closely with one's work but also would be made
very, very high in cost so that it would simply be unavailable to
people beyond a certain time. And unless they had a remarkably
rich,
supporting family, they would just have to do without care. And the
idea was that if everybody says, "Enough! What a burden it is on the
young to try to maintain the old people," then the young would become
agreeable to helping Mom and Dad along the way, provided this was done
humanely and with dignity. And then the example was - there could be
like a nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a
good job. And then after the party's over they take the "demise pill".
Back to Index of
Sections
Planning
the control over medicine
The next topic is Medicine. There would be profound
changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much
more tightly controlled. The observation was made, "Congress is
not
going to go along with national health insurance. That (in 1969)," he
said, "is now, abundantly evident. But it's not necessary. We have
other ways to control health care." These would come about more
gradually, but all health care
delivery would come under tight control.
Medical care would be closely connected to work. If you don't work or
can't work, you won't have access to medical care. The days of
hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where it
was virtually nonexistent. Costs
would be forced up so that people
won't be able to afford to go without insurance. People pay...
you pay
for it, you're entitled to it.
It was only subsequently that I began to realize the extent to which
you would not be paying for it. Your medical care would be paid for by
others. And therefore you would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what
was offered to you as a privilege. Your role being responsible for your
own care would be diminished. As an aside here, this is not something
that was developed at that time ... I didn't understand it at the time
as an aside, the way this works, everybody's
made dependent on
insurance. And if you don't have insurance then you pay directly; the
cost of your care is enormous.
The insurance company, however, paying for your care, does not pay that
same amount. If you are charged, say, $600 for the use of an operating
room, the insurance company does not pay $600 on your part. They pay
$300 or $400. And that differential in billing has the desired effect:
It enables the insurance company to pay for that which you could never
pay for. They get a discount that's unavailable to you. When you see
your bill you're grateful that the insurance company could do that. And
in this way you are dependent, and virtually required to have insurance.
The whole billing is fraudulent.
Anyhow, continuing on now, ... access
to hospitals would be tightly controlled. Identification would
be
needed to get into the building. The security in and around hospitals
would be established and gradually increased so that nobody without
identification could get in or move around inside the building. Theft
of hospital equipment, things like typewriters and microscopes and so
forth would be "allowed" and exaggerated; reports of it would be
exaggerated so that this would be the excuse needed to establish the
need for strict security, until people got used to it.
And anybody moving about the hospital would be required to wear an
identification badge with photograph and.. telling why he was there ...
employee or lab technician or visitor or whatever. This is to be
brought in gradually, getting everybody used to the idea of identifying
themselves - until it was just accepted. This need for ID to move about
would start in small ways: hospitals,
some businesses, but gradually
expand to include everybody in all places!
It was observed that hospitals can be used to confine people ... for
the
treatment of criminals. This did not mean, necessarily, medical
treatment. At that ... at that time I did not know the word
"Psycho-Prison" - is in the Soviet Union, but, without trying to recall
all the details, basically, he was describing the use of hospitals both
for treating the sick, and for confinement of criminals for reasons
other than the medical well-being of the criminal. The definition of
criminal was not given.
Back to Index of
Sections
Elimination
of private doctors
The image of the doctor would change. No longer
would the ... he be seen as an individual professional in service to
individual patients. But the doctor would be gradually recognized as a
highly skilled technician - and his job would change. The job is to
include things like executions by lethal injection. The image of the
doctor being a powerful, independent person would have to be changed.
And he went on to say, "Doctors are making entirely too much money.
They should advertise like any other product." Lawyers would be
advertising too. Keep in mind, this was an audience of doctors; being
addressed by a doctor. And it was interesting that he would make some
rather insulting statements to his audience without fear of
antagonizing us.
The solo practitioner would become a
thing of the past. A few die-hards
might try to hold out, but most doctors would be employed by an
institution of one kind or another. Group practice would be
encouraged,
corporations would be encouraged, and then once the corporate image of
medical care ... as this gradually became more and more acceptable,
doctors would more and more become employees rather than independent
contractors. And along with that, of course, unstated but necessary, is
the employee serves his employer, not his patient. So that's ... we've
already seen quite a lot of that in the last 20 years. And apparently
more on the horizon.
The term HMO [Health Maintenance
Organization] was not used at that time, but as you look at HMOs you
see
this is the way that medical care is being taken over since the
National Health Insurance approach did not get through the Congress. A
few die-hard doctors may try to make a go of it, remaining in solo
practice, remaining independent, which, parenthetically, is me. But
they would suffer a great loss of income. They'd be able to scrape by,
maybe, but never really live comfortably as would those who were
willing to become employees of the system. Ultimately, there would be
no room at all for the solo practitioner after the system is entrenched.
Back to Index of
Sections
Introducing
new difficult to diagnose and untreatable diseases
Next heading to talk about is Health and Disease. He
said there would be new diseases to
appear which had not ever been seen
before. Would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable - at
least for along time. No elaboration was made on this, but I
remember,
not long after hearing this presentation, when I had a puzzling
diagnosis to make, I would be wondering, "is this was what he was
talking about? Is this a case of what he was talking about?" Some years
later, as AIDS ultimately developed, I think AIDS was at least one
example of what he was talking about. I now think that AIDS probably
was a manufactured disease.
Back to Index of
Sections
Suppressing
cancer cures as a means of population control
Cancer. He said. "We can cure almost
every cancer
right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's
ever decided that it should be released. But consider - if people stop
dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You
may as
well die of cancer as something else." Efforts at cancer treatment
would be geared more toward comfort than toward cure. There was some
statement that ultimately the cancer cures which were being hidden in
the Rockefeller Institute would come to light because independent
researchers might bring them out, despite these efforts to suppress
them. But at least for the time being, letting people die of cancer was
a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of
overpopulation.
Back to Index of
Sections
Inducing
heart attacks as a form of assassination
Another very interesting thing was heart attacks. He
said, "There is now a way to simulate
a real heart attack. It can be
used as a means of assassination." Only a very skilled pathologist who
knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish this
from the real thing. I thought that was a very surprising and
shocking
thing to hear from this particular man at that particular time. This,
and the business of the cancer cure, really still stand out sharply in
my memory, because they were so shocking and, at that time, seemed to
me out of character.
He then went on to talk about nutrition and exercise sort of in the
same framework. People would not have to ... people would have to eat
right and exercise right to live as long as before. Most won't.
This in
the connection of nutrition, there was no specific statement that I can
recall as to particular nutrients that would be either inadequate or in
excess. In retrospect, I tend to think he meant high salt diets and
high fat diets would predispose toward high blood pressure and
premature arteriosclerotic heart disease. And that if people who were
too dumb or too lazy to exercise as they should then their dietary ...
their circulating fats go up and predispose to disease.
And he said something about diet information - about proper diet -
would be widely available, but most people, particularly stupid people,
who had no right to continue living anyway, they would ignore the
advice and just go on and eat what was convenient and tasted good.
There were some other unpleasant things said about food. I just can't
recall what they were. But I do remember of ... having reflections
about
wanting to plant a garden in the backyard to get around whatever these
contaminated foods would be. I regret I don't remember the details ...
the rest of this ... about nutrition and hazardous nutrition.
With regard to Exercise. He went on to say that more people would be
exercising more, especially running, because everybody can run. You
don't need any special equipment or place. You can run wherever you
are. As he put it. "people will be running all over the place." And in
this vein, he pointed out how supply produces demand. And this was in
reference to athletic clothing and equipment. As this would be made
more widely available and glamorized, particularly as regards running
shoes, this would stimulate people to develop an interest in running
and ... as part of a whole sort of public propaganda campaign. People
would be encouraged then to buy the attractive sports equipment and to
get into exercise.
Again ... well in connection with nutrition he also mentioned that
public eating places would rapidly increase. That ... this had a
connection with the family too. As more and more people eat out, eating
at home would become less important. People would be less dependent on
their kitchens at home. And then this also connected to convenience
foods being made widely available - things like you could pop into the
microwave. Whole meals would be available pre-fixed. And of course.
we've now seen this ... and some pretty good ones.
But this whole different approach to eating out and to ... previously
prepared meals being eaten in the home was predicted at that time to be
brought about - convenience foods. The
convenience foods would be part
of the hazards. Anybody who was lazy enough to want the convenience
foods rather than fixing his own also had better be energetic enough to
exercise. Because if he was too lazy to exercise and too lazy to
fix
his own food, then he didn't deserve to live very long. This was all
presented as sort of a moral judgement about people and what they
should do with their energies. People who are smart, who would learn
about nutrition, and who are disciplined enough to eat right and
exercise right are better people - and the kind you want to live longer.
Back to Index of
Sections
Education
as a tool for accelerating the onset of puberty and evolution
Somewhere along in here there was also something
about accelerating the onset of puberty. And this was said in
connection with health, and later in connection with education, and
connecting to accelerating the process of evolutionary change. There
was a statement that "we think that we can push evolution faster and in
the direction we want it to go." I remember this only as a general
statement. I don't recall if any details were given beyond that.
Back to Index of
Sections
Blending
all religions... The old religions will have to go
Another area of discussion was Religion. This is an
avowed atheist speaking. And he said, "Religion is not necessarily bad.
A lot of people seem to need religion, with it's mysteries and rituals
- so they will have religion. But the major religions of today have to
be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come.
The old religions will have to go.
Especially Christianity. Once the
Roman Catholic Church is brought down, the rest of Christianity will
follow easily. Then a new religion
can be accepted for use all over the
world. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make
it more easy for people to accept it, and feel at home in it.
Most
people won't be too concerned with religion. They will realize that
they don't need it.
Back to Index of
Sections
Changing
the Bible through revisions of key words
In order to do this, the Bible will be
changed. It
will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be
replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then
the
meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word - and as
time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized,
and then gradually that word replaced with another word." I don't know
if I'm making that clear. But the idea is that everything in Scripture
need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. And the
variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to
change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it
acceptable to this new religion. Most people won't know the difference;
and this was another one of the times where he said, "the few who do
notice the difference won't be enough to matter."
Back to Index of
Sections
"The
churches will hep us!"
Then followed one of the most surprising statements
of the whole presentation: He said, "Some
of you probably think the
Churches won't stand for this," and he went on to say, "the churches
will help us!" There was no elaboration on this, it was unclear
just
what he had in mind when he said, "the churches will help us!" In
retrospect I think some of us now can understand what he might have
meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, "no they won't!"
and remembering our Lord's words where he said to Peter, "Thou art
Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of Hell will
not prevail against it." So ... yes, some people in the Churches might
help. And in the subsequent 20 years we've seen how some people in
Churches have helped. But we also know that our Lord's Words will
stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail.
Back to Index of
Sections
Restructuring
education as a tool for indoctrination
Another area of discussion was Education. And one of
the things; in connection with education that remember connecting with
what he said about religion was in addition to changing the Bible he
said that the classics in Literature would be changed. I seem to recall
Mark Twain's writings was given as one example. But he said, the casual
reader reading a revised version of a classic would never even suspect
that there was any change. And, somebody would have to go through word
by word to even recognize that any change was made in these classics,
the changes would be so subtle. But the changes would be such as to
promote the acceptability of the new system.
Back to Index of
Sections
More
time in schools, but the "woldn't learn anything"
As regards education, he indicated
that kids would
spend more time in schools, but in many schools they wouldn't learn
anything. They'll learn some things, but not as much as formerly.
Better schools in better areas with better people - their kids will
learn more. In the better schools learning would be accelerated. And
this is another time where he said, "We think we can push evolution."
By pushing kids to learn more he seemed to be suggesting that their
brains would evolve, that their offspring would evolve ... sort of
pushing evolution ... where kids would learn and be more intelligent at
a younger age. As if this pushing would alter their physiology.
Overall, schooling would be prolonged. This meant prolonged through the
school year. I'm not sure what he
said about a long school day, I do
remember he said that school was planned to go all summer, that
the
summer school vacation would become a thing of the past. Not only for
schools, but for other reasons. People would begin to think of vacation
times year round, not just in the summer. For most people it would take
longer to complete their education. To
get what originally had been in
a bachelor's program would now require advanced degrees and more
schooling. So that a lot of school time would be just wasted time.
Good schools would become more competitive. I inferred when he said
that, that he was including all schools - elementary up through college
- but I don't recall whether he said that. Students would have to
decide at a younger age what they would want to study and get onto
their track early, if they would qualify. It would be harder to change
to another field of study once you get started.
Studies would be concentrated in much greater depth, but narrowed. You
wouldn't have access to material in other fields, outside your own area
of study, without approval. This seem to be more ... where he talked
about limited access to other fields ... I seem to recall that as being
more at the college level. high school and college level, perhaps.
People would be very specialized in their own area of expertise. But
they won't be able to get a broad education and won't be able to
understand what is going on overall.
Back to Index of
Sections
Controlling
who has access to information
He was already talking about computers in education,
and at that time he said anybody who wanted computer access, or access
to books that were not directly related to their field of study would
have to have a very good reason for so doing. Otherwise, access would
be denied.
Back to Index of
Sections
Schools
as the hub of the community
Another angle was that the schools would become more
important in people's overall life. Kids in addition to their academics
would have to get into school activities unless they wanted to feel
completely out of it. But spontaneous activities among kids... the
thing
that came to my mind when I heard this was - sand lot football and sand
lot baseball teams that we worked up as kids growing up. I said the
kids wanting any activities outside of school would be almost forced to
get them through the school. There would be few opportunities outside.
Now the pressures of the accelerated academic program, the accelerated
demands. where kids would feel they had to be part of something - one
or another athletic club or some school activity - these pressures he
recognized would cause some students to burn out.
He said. "the smartest ones will learn how to cope with pressures and
to survive. There will be some help available to students in handling
stress, but the unfit won't be able to make it. They will then move on
to other things." In this connection and later on in the connection
with drug abuse and alcohol abuse he indicated that psychiatric
services to help would be increased dramatically. In all the pushing
for achievement, it was recognized that many people would need help,
and the people worth keeping around would be able to accept and benefit
from that help, and still be super achievers. Those who could not would
fall by the wayside and therefore were sort of dispensable -
"expendable" I guess is the word I want.
Education would be lifelong. Adults
would be going to school. There'll
always be new information that adults must have to keep up. When
you
can't keep up anymore, you're too old. This was another way of letting
older people know that the time had come for them to move on and take
the demise pill. If you got too tired to keep up with your education,
or you got too old to learn new information, then this was a signal -
you begin to prepare to get ready to step aside.
Back to Index of
Sections
"Some
books would just disappear from the libraries"
In addition to revising the classics,
which I
alluded to awhile ago ... with revising the Bible, he said, "some books
would just disappear from the libraries." This was in the vein
that
some books contain information or contain ideas that should not be kept
around. And therefore, those books would disappear. I don't remember
exactly if he said how this was to be accomplished. But I seem to
recall carrying away this idea that this would include thefts. That
certain people would be designated to go to certain libraries and pick
up certain books and just get rid of them. Not necessarily as a matter
of policy - just simply steal it. Further down the line, not everybody
will be allowed to own books. And some books nobody will be allowed to
own.
Back to Index of
Sections
Another area of discussion was laws that would be
changed. At that time a lot of States had blue laws about Sunday sales,
certain Sunday activities. He said the blue laws [Sunday laws] would
all be repealed. Gambling laws would
be repeated or relaxed, so that
gambling would be increased. He indicated then that governments would
get into gambling. We've had a lot of state lotteries pop up
around the
country since then. And, at the time, we were already being told that
would be the case. "Why should all that gambling money be kept in
private hands when the State would benefit from it?" was the rational
behind it. But people should be able to gamble if they want to. So it
would become a civil activity, rather than a private, or illegal
activity.
Bankruptcy laws would be changed. I don't remember the details, but
just that they would be. And I know subsequent to that time they have
been. Antitrust laws would be changed, or be interpreted differently,
or both. In connection with the changing anti-trust laws, there was
some statement that in a sense. competition would be increased. But
this would be increased competition within otherwise controlled
circumstances. So it's not a free competition. I recall of having the
impression that it was like competition but within members of a club.
There would be nobody outside the club would be able to compete. Sort
of like teams competing within a professional sports league ... if
you're the NFL or the American or National Baseball Leagues - you
compete within the league but the league is all in agreement on what
the rules of competition are - not a really free competition.
Back to Index of
Sections
The
encouragement of drug abuse to create a jungle atmosphere
Drug use would he increased. Alcohol use would be
increased. Law enforcement efforts against drugs would be increased. On
first hearing that it sounded like a contradiction. Why increase drug
abuse and simultaneously increase law enforcement against drug abuse?
But the idea is that, in part, the
increased availability of drugs
would provide a sort of law of the jungle whereby the weak and the
unfit would be selected out.
There was a statement made at the time: "Before the earth was
overpopulated, there was a law of the jungle where only the fittest
survived. You had to be able to protect yourself against the elements
and wild animals and disease. And if you were fit you survived. But now
we've become so civilized - we're over civilized - and the unfit are
enabled to survive only at the expense of those who are more fit." And
the abusive drugs then, would restore, in a certain sense, the law of
the jungle, and selection of the fittest for survival. News about drug
abuse and law enforcement efforts would tend to keep drugs in the
public consciousness. And would also tend to reduce this unwarranted
American complacency that the world is a safe place, and a nice place.
Back to Index of
Sections
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
This also had connection with something we'll get to
later about overall restrictions on travel. Not everybody should be
free to travel the way they do now in the United States. People don't
have a need to travel that way. It's a privilege! It was kind of
the
high-handed the way it was put.
Again, much more in the way of psychological services would be made
available to help those who got hooked on drugs and alcohol. The idea
being, that in order to promote this - drug and alcohol abuse to screen
out some of the unfit - people who are otherwise are pretty good also
would also be subject to getting hooked. And if they were really worth
their salt they would have enough sense to seek psychological
counseling and to benefit from it. So this was presented as sort of a
redeeming value on the part of the planners. It was as if he were
saying, "you think we're bad in promoting these evil things - but look
how nice we are - we're also providing a way out!"
Back to Index of
Sections
The
need for more jails and using hospitals as jails
More jails would be needed. Hospitals could serve as
jails. Some new hospital construction would be designed so as to make
them adaptable to jail-like use.
End
of Tape I
INDEX of
DOCUMENTS
NOTES
(1) Original
Transcript from Randy Engel. These transcripts are being published
with the express permission of Randy
Engel, Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life.
En Español: El Nuevo Orden de la
Crueldad (Parte 1)
Published on January 25th, 2019
Restructured in four documents on October 7th, 2020 - Feast of Our Lady
of the Rosary
The M+G+R Foundation
Please Note: If the above dated image does not appear
on this document, it means that you are not viewing the original
document from our servers. Should you have reason to doubt the
authenticity of the document, we recommend that you access our server
again and click on the "Refresh" or "Reload" button of your Browser to
view the original document.