"The
New Order of Barbarians"
Transcript
of Tape III (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 the third and final
tape of "The New Order of Barbarians"
(1),
referred to on the tapes simply as the "new
world system". This last tape is an
interview by Randy Engel, Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life, with
Dr. Larry Dunegan, and was recorded on Oct. 10, 1991 in Pittsburgh,
Penn.
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 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
Tape
III
Interview
of Dr. Lawrence Dunegan by Randy Engel
Randy Engel (R.E.): Why don't
we open up with a little bit about the man who you are talking about on
these tapes. Just a little profile and a little bit about his education
and particularly his relationship with the population control
establishment. I think that probably was his entree into much of this
information.
Dr. Lawrence Dunegan (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 there... I don't know specifically
why, I did not know him intimately. We were, you know, more than
acquainted... I was a student and he would see me at lectures and, so
he knew my name as a student, probably corrected some of my test scores
and that sort of thing. Of course, I knew him as lecturer - would stand
in front of the auditorium and listen as he talked about diseases...
and take notes.
R.E: What's interesting is that
this man is not as well known, I think to our listeners as names like
Mary Calderone and Allan Guttmacher. They were medical directors at one
time or another for Planned Parenthood, but Dr. Day was not well known.
And as a matter of fact when I went back into the SIECUS archives there
was very little information that had his actual name on it. So he was
not one of the better known of the medical directors, but I'd say he
probably had the scoop of what was going on as well - if not better -
than any of the others before or after he came. Can you describe the
scene of this particular lecture, the approximate date, and what was
the occasion - and then a little bit about the audience?
D.L.D: This was the… the
Pittsburgh Pediatric Society holds about four meetings each year where
we have some speaker come in and talk about a medical topic related to
pediatrics and this was our spring meeting. It's always late February
or early part of March. This was in March, 1969 and it was held at a
restaurant called the Lamont which is well known in Pittsburgh.
Beautiful place. In attendance, I would say somewhere in the
neighborhood of 80 people. Mostly physicians, if not exclusively
physicians. Predominantly pediatricians, particularly pediatric
surgeons and pediatric radiologists - other people who were involved in
medical care of children, even though they might not be pediatricians
as such.
R.E: And the speech was given
after the meal, I presume?
D.L.D: A very nice meal and
everyone was settled down, quite comfortable and quite filled and
really an ideal state to absorb what was coming.
R.E: But when you listen to the
tape, he says some of the most... well not only outrageous things, but
things you would think a pediatrician would kind of almost jump out of
his seat at... for example when he mentions the cancer cures. There
were probably doctors in the audience who were perhaps treating a child
or knowing of a child who was in need of a particular cancer cure. And
to hear that some of these prescriptions for or treatments for cancer
were sitting over at the Rockefeller Institute, and yet, as far as I
got from the tape everyone just kind of sat there... didn't say very
much. I mean he was talking about falsifying scientific data and
everyone just kind of yawns and... How long did this speech go on?
D.L.D: Two hours. He spoke for
over two hours which was longer than most of our speakers go and one of
the interesting things... he hasn't finished, it was getting late and
he said, "there's much much more, but we could be here all night but
it's time to stop".
And I think that's significant, that there was much more that we never
heard. In the beginning of the presentation, I don't know whether I
mentioned this at the introduction of the first tape or not, but
somewhere in the beginning of this he said, "You will forget most or
much of what I'm going to tell you tonight."
And at the time I thought, well, sure, that's true. We tend to forget.
You know, somebody talks for hours you forget a lot of what they say.
But, there is such a thing as the power of suggestion and I can't say
for sure but I do wonder if this may not have been a suggestion when we
were all full of a nice dinner and relaxed and listening - we took that
suggestion and forgot, because I know a number of my colleagues who
were there when I would - some years later - say, "Do you remember when
Dr. Day said this, or he said that or said the other?" They'd say,
"Well, yeah, I kind of... is that what he said? You know I kind of
remember that".
But most were not very impressed, which to me was surprising because...
well use the example of cancer cures. But he said a number of things
that…
R.E: Like doctors making too
much money...?
D.L.D: Yeah, changing the image
of the doctor. You're just going to be a high-paid technician rather
than a professional who exercises independent judgment on behalf of his
independent patient. A number of things that I thought should have been
offensive and elicited a reaction from physicians because they were
physicians. I was surprised at how little reaction there was to it. And
then other things that I would have expected people to react to just
because they were human beings and I think most of the people at the
meeting subscribed more or less to the Judeo-Christian ethic and codes
of behavior, and that was violated right and left. And particularly one
of my friends I thought would be as disturbed as I was about this just
sort of smiled... wasn't disturbed at a ll. I thought, gee, this is
surprising.
R.E: Was part of it also
because of his prominence? I mean he was…
D.L.D: The authority...
Authority figure? Yeah, I think there might be something there. This is
the authority. We sort of owe some deference here.
R.E: And he couldn't possibly
mean what he's saying or there couldn't possibly be any... I mean, he's
such a good guy.
D.L.D: I've often heard that
phrase, "He's such a good guy. I can't believe he'd actually mean the
things"... I can only speculate about this. But I do think at the time
there was an element of disbelief about all of this. Thinking, well
this is somebody's fairy tale plan but it will never really happen
because it's too outlandish. Of course we know step by step it is
indeed happening right under our feet.
R.E: Before talking about the
specific areas, I think there's a lot of benefits from this tape. One
of them is when we have a good idea of what the opposition is about and
the techniques he's using - then you can turn around and begin your
resistance to all the types of manipulations and so forth. So I think
that the… seeing that there were four or five "theme songs" - he kept
repeating them over and over again.
For example this business which I think is so important… that people
fail to distinguish between the ostensible reason and the real reason.
In other words, if you want someone to do something and you know that
initially he'll be balky at doing that because it's against his morals
or against his religious beliefs, you have to substitute another reason
that will be acceptable. And then, after he accepts it and it's a fait
accompli then there's just no turning back.
D.L.D: Right. It was in that
connection that he said, "People don't ask the right questions." Too
trusting. And this was directed, as I recall, mostly at Americans. I
had the feelings he thought Europeans maybe were more skeptical and
more sophisticated. That Americans are too trusting and don't ask the
right questions.
R.E: With regard to this lack
of... almost a lack of discernment. I guess that's basically what he
was saying. They were easily tricked or too trusting. The thing that
flashed through my mind rather quickly, for example in schools... how
quickly so-called AIDS education was introduced.
It did amaze me because if a group stated publicly that they wanted to
introduce the concept of sodomy or initiate sex earlier and earlier in
children and that was the reason given, most parents I presume wouldn't
go for that. So you have to come up with another reason and of course
the reason for this so-called AIDS education was to protect children
from this disease. But actually, as it turns out, it's really been a
great boon for the homosexual network, because through various things
like Project Ten they now have access to our children from the youngest
years.
These programs are going on from K-12 and I imagine well into college
and beyond, so that they are reaching a tremendous segment. Speaking of
children, I gather that this speaker... he kept on making the point
about, well, old people, they're going to go by the wayside, so I
presume that the emphasis for these controllers for this New World
Order is really an emphasis on youth.
D.L.D: Absolutely. Yes.
Emphasis on youth. This was stated explicitly. People beyond a certain
age... they're set in their ways and you're not going to change them.
They have values and they're going to stick to them. But you get to the
youth when they're young, they're pliable. You mold them in the
direction you want them to go. This is correct. They're targeting the
young. They figure, "you old fogies that don't see it our way, you're
going to be dying off or when the time comes we're going to get rid of
you. But it's the youngsters we have to mold in the impression we want."
Now something on homosexuality [56] I want to expand on, I don't think
this came out on the original tape, but there was, first of all, "We're
going to promote homosexuality [56]." And secondly "We recognize that
it's bizarre abnormal behavior. But, this is another element in the law
of the jungle, because people who are stupid enough to go along with
this are not fit to inhabit the planet and they'll go by the wayside".
I'm not stating this precisely the way he said it, but it wasn't too
far from there where there was some mention of diseases being created.
And when I remember the one statement and remember the other statement,
I believe AIDS is a disease which has been created in the laboratory
and I think that one purpose it serves is to get rid of people who are
so stupid as to go along with our homosexual program. Let them wipe
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 speculation. But as I synthesize
this - this is I think what happens... "If you're dumb enough to be
convinced by our promotion of homosexuality [56] you don't deserve a
place and you're going to fall by the wayside sooner or later. We'll be
rid of you. We'll select out... the people who will survive are those
who are also smart enough not to be deluded by our propaganda". Does
that make sense?
R.E: Well, it certainly makes
sense for them. And I think also this early sex initiation has the over
all purpose which I think we'll get to in depth a little later. But of
the sexualization of the population... when he said on the tape,
basically, "Anything goes", I think that is what we're seeing. It's not
so much that, let's say, someone may not adopt the homosexual style for
himself, but as a result of the propaganda he certainly will be a lot
more tolerant of that type of behavior too.
So it's a desensitization, even for the individual who doesn't go over
and accept it for himself.
D.L.D: With the power of
propaganda you dare not be against homosexuals [56], otherwise you get
labeled homophobe. You dare not be against any of our programs for
women, otherwise you're a male chauvinist pig. It's like anti-Semitism.
If this label gets enough currency in the culture that people get
shockingly stuck with it. It's easier to keep quiet.
R.E: Another theme was this
business about "CHANGE". And I want to get to change in relation to
religion and family, but during the period of hearing this tape, I
remember going to a MASS and they happened to have at that point
DANCING GIRLS FROM THE ALTER. So when I was sitting and getting a
chance to listen to the tape I thought, as a Catholic that has been...
if you talk about effective change, that has been probably the most
difficult and the hardest thing has been to watch our traditional Mass,
those things which Catholics have practiced and believed for so long
and... at about that time this speech was given which was about late
1969, everything had begun to turn over on its head, so much so that I
think many people feel now when they go into a church where there is
the Novus Ordo , I think
you're almost in a state of constant anxiety
because you're not quite sure... What am I going to encounter now?
You look at the little song book; of course that's changed radically
and you see, instead of brethren, you see people; or you might see
something odd happening up at the alter which is now the "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 [56] or anything is moral today... wasn't
yesterday, but it is today. We have said so, and therefore it's moral.
We can change tomorrow. We can make it immoral again tomorrow". And
this is the usurpation of the role of God to define what the peon, the
ordinary person's supposed to believe.
D.L.D: So, the idea is, that if
everybody is used to change most people aren't going to ask, "Well who
has decided what should be changed and how it should be changed"? Most
people just go along with it, like hemlines, and shoe styles and that
sort of thing. So it IS a usurpation of the Rule of God, and if you
read the Humanist Manifesto, and somewhere early in the introductory
part of it, they say, "human intellect is the highest good". Well, to
any human being, what you call the highest good, that's your god. So to
these people human intellect being the highest good is god. And where
does human intellect reside? Well, in the brain of one or more human
beings. So these people, in effect... I don't know think they'd be so
candid as to say so, but whether they know it or not what they're
saying is, "I am god. WE are gods, because we decide what is moral what
is moral tomorrow, what is going to be moral next year. WE determine
change."
R.E: That's right. And of
course, in a nutshell, you've just explained the human potential, the
New Age, all the new esoteric movements that we've seen. But with
regard to change, he seemed to acknowledge that there were a couple of
entities which traditionally blocked this change and therefore made
people resistant to constant manipulation.
And of course one of those is the family, and that would include
grandmothers, grandfathers, our ethnic background and so forth and I
guess I was impressed by everything he seemed to mention whether it was
economics, music... had the overall effect of diminishing the family
and enhancing the power of the state.
That was a constant theme, and therefore when we're evaluating things I
think one of the things we should generally say to ourselves is, "What
effect does that have on family life, and the family and I think if
every congressman or senator asked that question we probably wouldn't
have much action up on Capitol Hill, because almost everything coming
down the pike has an effect of disavowing, hurting the family life and
enhancing and expanding the power of government.
D.L.D: It has an ostensible
purpose, and then it has a REAL purpose.
R.E: Yes, and as a so-called
helping professional your ability to say that is very interesting. The
other factor is this whole factor of religion, and he was talking
basically about a religion without dogma, a religion that would have a
little bit from all the other traditional religions so no one would
really feel uncomfortable, and he said, rather condescendingly, some
people need this and if they need it we'll manufacture something that
they need. But of course it can't be anything that would declare
anything that were moral absolutes or the natural law. Which means that
the main target of this group of controllers of course, was and is the
Roman Catholic Church and he mentioned the Roman Catholic Church
specifically.
D.L.D: Religion's important
because it is eternal and we... people who would follow the church will
not buy our rules about change. But if we make our own religion, if we
define what is religion then we can change it as it suits us. Yes, the
Roman Catholic Church... I was kind of flattered sitting here as a
catholic, hearing it pointed out that the church is the one obstacle
that, he said, "We have to change that. And once the Roman Catholic
Church falls, the rest of Christianity will fall 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 Joost Merloo
mentioned that "if you want to control the people, you control the
language first". Words are weapons. He apparently knew that very well
and I think the controllers as a whole know this very well. Of course,
it's part of their campaign.
But that little statement about words, that "words will be changed".
When I heard that I thought... "Instead of saying 'alter' you say
'table'. Instead of saying 'sacrifice' you say 'meal' with regard to
the Mass", and people say, "That's not important". Of course, you know
that's VERY important, otherwise, why would they bother to change it?
Otherwise, why go through all this rigmarole if it isn't important?
It's obviously important for them because they know WITH THE CHANGING
OF WORDS YOU CHANGE IDEAS.
D.L.D: They're exerting a lot
of effort and time to change it and they're not exerting effort on
things that are NOT important, so yes, you're absolutely right. The
priest no longer has the role... in some cases he no longer has the
role the priest formerly had. Because words carry meaning. There's the
dictionary definition, but I think we all know that certain words carry
meaning that is a little bit hard to put into words... but they carry
meaning.
So yes, controlling the language... you THINK in your language. You
think to yourself in English or Spanish or whatever language you're
familiar with, but when you think, you talk to yourself and you talk to
yourself in words, just the way you talk to other people. And if you
can control the language with which one person speaks to himself or one
person speaks to another you've gone a long way towards controlling
what that person is ABLE - what he is CAPABLE of thinking, and that has
both an inclusionary and an exclusionary component to it. You set the
tone....
R.E: Take the word GAY, for
example. I have some old tapes by Franz 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 [56] are not at all gay. They tend to be
pretty unhappy people. Despite all the publicity that tells them they
can and should feel comfortable with what they're doing, most of them
deep down inside don't... (both talking at the same time here).
R.E: I suppose they're going to
come up with a sadophobia for those who have a hang-up about
sadomasochism and a pedophobia for those who have difficulties with
pedophilia, so we can just look forward to this I think. I guess we can
look forward to it to the extent we permit ourselves... that we permit
the opposition to have access to the brain.
D.L.D: And to dictate the truth
WE use. Sex education is NOT education. It's conditioning, and we
should never use the term "sex education". It's a misnomer. If they
control the vocabulary, then they can control the way we can think and
the way we can express ideas among ourselves and to anybody. But "sex
conditioning", "sex initiation" is much more accurate and we should
insist on that. We should never use terms "homophobia" and "gay".
Homosexual is homosexual. It's not at all gay.
R.E: That's right. In fact
we're probably going to have to do some homework on... probably of all
the popular movements in the U.S. Probably the pro-life movement is the
most sensitive to words.
Talking about media events and access to the brain, I remember the
first speech Bush gave in which he talked about the New World Order...
I remember jumping halfway off my seat. That term. Here he is, the
president, saying New World Order as if it was something everyone knew
about. And someone looking across the room said, "I heard that. What
did he say"? And I said, "He said, 'New World Order'!" And they said,
"What does that mean? Why is that extraordinary?"
So, I think one of the weapons we have against the controllers is that
if we can cut off his access to our mind then we have a shot at
escaping the manipulation, if not totally - at least escape a portion
of the manipulations. Remember, one of the books on Chinese POWs
pointed out that some of their survivors in order NOT to be brainwashed
broke their eardrums. And in that way - not being able to hear - the
enemy could not have access to their brain and therefore they were able
to survive where others did not.
And in our popular culture we have a number of things... TV [57] and
radio probably primarily, that are the constant means by which the
opposition has access to our brain and to our children's brains. So I
think the logical conclusion, and one of the common-sense conclusions
is that if you don't want the enemy to have access you have to cut off
the lines of access... which would be in homes to simply either
eliminate altogether, or control by other forms....
D.L.D: Take the networks at
there word. They say, "if you don't like our programming, turn it off".
And we should. We should say, "Yeah. You're right." And we should turn
it off. And let the advertisers spend their money on an audience that
isn't there.
As a pediatrician I'm always interested in how kids do things and how
kids are like adults, and whether you're talking about International
politics where one nation goes to war with another or kids on the
playground, there are certain things that are common. It's just that
kids on the playgrounds do it on a smaller scale. But you mention
cutting off access to your brain... somebody says, I don't want to hear
it. And I remember hearing kids on a playground... somebody
says..."ya-na-na na naa-na", and they're teasing the kid... What's he
do? He puts his hands over his ears. Says I'm not going to listen. And
the kid who's trying to torment him will try to pull his hands away and
be sure that he listens. And it's the same....
R.E: Words. Words entering. And
the child knows. Words have meaning. They're hurting him.
D.L.D: Goebbels knew it. Lenin
knew it. CBS knows it. It's interesting; the principle stands - across
the board. It just gets more complicated as you get older. More
sophisticated. But watch kids on a playground and you'll learn a whole
lot about adults.
R.E: Yes. We're all nodding our
heads at that one. This Dr. Day was very much into the whole population
control establishment, and he was of course in favor of abortion. But
as he started talking about the aged and euthanasia I recall one of the
population- control books saying that birth control without death
control was meaningless.
And one of the advantages in terms… if one was favorable toward the
killing of the aged… one of the favorable things is in fact abortion
for the simple reason that — universally speaking — abortion has the
result of bringing about a rather inordinate chopping off of population
at the front end. That is, at the birth end. And the inevitable effect
is that you will have a population that is top heavy with a rapidly
aging population which is the current state in the United States.
So, inevitably, if you are going to go about killing the young,
especially at the pace we seem to have adapted ourselves to in this
country, then invariably you're going to have to do something about all
those aging populations. Because, the few children who are born, after
all, they cannot be expected to carry this tremendous burden of all
these people. So you're cutting one end and therefore, inevitably, as
you pointed out on the tape, he was saying, "Well, these few young
people who are permitted to be born will feel this inevitable burden on
them and so they'll be more desensitized."
They'll be more warmed up to the idea of grandma and grandpa having
this little party and then shuffle them off to wherever they shuffle
off to. And whether it's taking the "demise" pill or going to a death
camp, or....
D.L.D: There was a movie out
sometime back called "Soylent Green". Remember that movie? I didn't see
the whole movie, but Edward G. Robinson liked to sit in the theatre and
listen to Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony as he was to take his demise
pill.
R.E: That's right. He also made
the point that the food the people were eating were each other. But as
he said, as long as it's done with dignity and humanely... like putting
away your horse.
D.L.D: That's a little bit like
pornography. Years back kids would come across pornography. It was
always poor photography and cheap paper. Then Playboy came out with the
glossy pages and really good photography, so then pornography is no
longer cheap. It's respectable. We went to a movie at the Pittsburgh
Playhouse. I took my son along. It was the Manchurian Candidate. During
the previews of the things that are going to come there was a title I
don't remember but it was (inaudible) in technicolor with classical
music in the background.
And it was a pornographic movie. And I said, well, if you have a guitar
then it's pornography; but if you have classical movie then it converts
it into art. It was pornography.
It's an example of what you were saying. As long as it's done with
dignity, that's what counts. If you kill someone with dignity, it's ok.
If you have pornography with classical music it's art. That was the
point I was trying to make.
R.E: Again, talking about the
family. Currently I know there are an awful lot of people who are out
of jobs and he [Dr. Day] had quite a lot of things to say about, for
example, heavy industry. I guess the shock was that this man... I
wasn't surprised that he knew a lot about population control, abortion,
and at the other end — euthanasia.
But what DID surprise me was that he was an individual who was talking
about religion, law, education, sports, entertainment, food... how
could one individual have that much input? Now one could say, "well, it
didn't pan out". But we know listening to these recollections twenty
years later... except perhaps for some minor things, everything that he
has said has come to pass and almost beyond imagination. How COULD one
individual talk with such authoritative, non-questioning... that this
was the way THIS was going to happen and THIS was going to happen in
"fashion" and THIS was going to happen on TV and there were going to be
video recorders before I ever heard of the word.
D.L.D: I think what happens...
certainly one individual hears this, but the plans are by no means made
by one or a small number of individuals. Just as industrial
corporations which have a board of directors, with people from all
sorts of activities who sit on the board of this corporation, and they
say, "Now if we do this to our product, or if we expand in this area
what will that do to banking? What will that do to clothing? What will
that do... what impact, ripple effect will that have on other things?"
And I'm sure that whoever makes these plans they have representatives
from every area you can think of.
So they'll have educators, they'll have clothing manufacturers -
designers; architects... across the board. I'm sure they get together
and have meetings and plan and everybody puts in his input, just the
way a military operation goes. What will the Navy do? Will they bombard
the shore? What will the Air Force do? Will they come in with air
cover? What will the infantry do? It's the same thing. These people,
when they plan, they don't miss a trick.
They have experts in every field and they say, "Well, if we do this,
that and the other.. John, what will that do to your operation?" And
John will be in position to feed back, "Well this is what I think will
happen." So it certainly covers a broad range of people. And for one
individual to be able to say all of this in the two hours that he spoke
to us, really tells us that he was privy to a lot of information.
R.E: That's right. He must have
been sitting in on one of those boardrooms at least at some point. And
I think not at the highest level from his position, but enough, because
anyone in the population control would be associated with names of
foundations... powerful foundations, powerful organizations...
D.L.D: And I'm sure there was a
lot in the plans that he never heard. He wasn't a four-star general in
this outfit. He wouldn't be in on the whole story.
R.E: Well, too bad he couldn't
have talked for six hours instead of two, and we might have had a lot
more information. There was another aspect that I found fascinating in
listening to this. This whole aspect of privacy... he mentioned that as
the private homes went by we would have individuals, non-family members
perhaps sharing our 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". As if there can't be
any fear of the person that does not hesitate to open up to the public.
Now, if you look at these so-called sex initiation programs in the
schools where the children are forced either through writing or through
verbal expression to talk about all aspects of the sexual sphere…
[end of side one ends abruptly - side two follows]
D.L.D: .... of our right to
investigate even your sex life. Your money will be easy. We'll have it
all on computer. We'll know more about it than you do. But we have to
form a generation where the most intimate activity which two people can
have is public, or can be public. Therefore, it's harder to have any
private thoughts and you can't buck the system if everything you think
and do is public knowledge. But the planners won't be that open about
their own lives. They'll reserve their privacy. It's for the rest of us.
R.E: Yes. Just like their
listening to concerts and operas, but for the mass media they're
pumping in hard rock. That was another fascinating thing. For example,
the... and I know this has come to pass because I deal with a lot of
young people... the young people have their own radio stations for
their music and adults have their own and never the twain shall meet.
And when they do there's usually a clash. And I think the same is
probably true with a lot of the classical movies. I can remember when I
was growing up and my dad had the radio on, I think it was a kind of
general music. I didn't say, "Dad, I don't like that music; turn to
another station". Whereas now there is a fabricated generational gap
which puts the family at the disadvantage.
D.L.D: And it creates conflict
within the family, which is one of the spin-off benefits to them. If
you're constantly fussing at your kids, you don't like the music
they're playing, and they're constantly fussing at you because they
don't like what you're playing... that does bad things to the bonds of
affection that you would like to be nurtured in the family.
R.E: It would appear, that any
resistance movement against the population controllers would probably
be based on families strengthening themselves in a number of ways. One
of them being to make sure that children know about grandma and grandpa
and where did they come from and developing a whole... getting out the
family albums and making sure that children know they have roots, first
of all. And secondly, that their family is stable. One father, one
mother, with children, with grandfathers. Those of us who have them
should hold on to them.
Toward the end of the tape there was a reference - at the time
everything would be coming together - how this New World Order would be
introduced to a population which, at this point I think they would
assume would be acceptable to it.... how was this put? We're just going
to wake up one morning and changes would just be there? What did he say
about that?
D.L.D: It was presented in what
must be an over-simplified fashion, so with some qualifications, here's
the recollections I have... That in the winter, and there was
importance to the winter - on a weekend, like on a Friday an
announcement would be made that this was or about to be in place...
That the New World Order was now the System for the World and we all
owe this New World Order our allegiance.
And the reason for winter is that - and this was stated - people are
less prone to travel in the winter, particularly if they live in an
area where there's ice and snow. In summer it's easier to get up and
go. And the reason for the weekend is, people who have questions about
this, Saturday and Sunday everything's closed and they would not have
an opportunity to raise questions, file a protest and say no.
And just that period over the weekend would allow a desensitizing
period so that when Monday came and people had an opportunity maybe to
express some reservations about it, or even oppose it... there would
have been 48 hours to absorb the idea and get used to it.
R.E: What about those who
decided they didn't want to go along?
D.L.D: Somewhere in there it
was that… because this is a "New Authority" and it represents a change,
then, from where your allegiance was presumed to be, people would be
called on to publicly acknowledge their allegiance to the new
authority. This would mean to sign an agreement or in some public way
acknowledge that you accepted this... authority. You accepted its
legitimacy and there were two impressions I carried away. If you
didn't... and I'm not sure whether the two impressions are necessarily
mutually exclusive because this wasn't explored in great detail... one
of them was that you would simply have nowhere to go.
If you don't sign up then you can't get any electric impulses in your
banking account and you won't have any electric impulses with which to
pay your electric, or your mortgage or your food, and when your
electric impulses are gone, then you have no means of livelihood.
R.E: Could you get these things
from other people, or would that be... in other words, let's say if you
had a sympathetic family...
D.L.D: No you could not because
the housing authority would keep close tabs on who is inhabiting any
domicile. So the housing authority would be sure that everybody living
there was authorized to live there.
R.E: Could I get some food?
D.L.D: Your expenditures,
through electronic surveillance would be pretty tightly watched so if
you were spending too much money at the super market, somebody would
pick this up and say, "How come? What are you doing with all that food?
You don't look that fat. You don't have that many people. We know
you're not entertaining. What are you doing with all that food?" And
these things then would alert the...
R.E: I have seven people in my
basement who object to the New World Order and I'm feeding them and
then they said, well, one has to go.
D.L.D: They don't belong there
and you can't feed them and since you're sympathetic to them, maybe
your allegiance isn't very trustworthy either.
R.E: Yes. We see this... I
think the Chinese experience tells us a great deal about certain
things. For example, when they wanted to enforce the "One child
family"... they cut off all education for the second child. Your food
rations were cut so you couldn't get the right amount of food, and if
they found ways around that, they instituted compulsory abortions and
compulsory plugging in of the IUD's.
Somewhere in the tape this business about "People can carry two
conflicting ideas around - or even espouse two conflicting ideas as
long as they don't get two close together". And what immediately came
to mind is… here we have an organization like Planned Parenthood...
"freedom to choose", yet they support population control programs which
is of course NOT the freedom to choose. And then when they're called
into account and someone says, "Now wait a minute here. You're,
'freedom to choose - freedom to choose' here, but you're supporting the
Chinese program which is compulsory.
I remember a statement from the late Allan Guttmacher, one of the
medical directors of Planned Parenthood and he said, "Well, if people
limit their families and do what we say, fine. But if we need
compulsory population control, we're going to have it."
What would happen with people who wouldn't go along, and particularly
that point about, "There wouldn't be any martyrs"? That was
significant, because I recall having watched some movies about the
Third Reich that many times they would come late in the evening and
people would be taken from their home, but neighbors would never ask,
"Where did they go?" They knew where they went!
D.L.D: Solzhenitsyn mentions
that in the Gulag Archipelago.
R.E: I think this is very
similar to what we would see. People would just disappear and you would
not ask because it might endanger yourself or your family. But you
would know where they went. If you ask questions, you draw attention to
yourself and then you might follow them to where they went. So you mind
your own business and step over the starving man on the street who
didn't go along.
D.L.D: He didn't go into detail
about precisely how this would come about but it's not too hard to
imagine. Yes. In the past, the Nazi's came, the Communists came in the
middle of the night, people just disappeared and one simple way to do
this is that if you're cut off from all economic support and you have
no place to live and nothing to eat... we already see a lot of homeless
now.
I just had a man in the office this morning talking about he and his
child seeing people living in boxes in downtown Pittsburgh today. When
the New World Order is here and you're living in a box, we can't have
people littering the place, so you come around in the wagon and you
pick them up.
If your frame of mind as you're growing up and formed is that, "Human
value resides in being productive; you have to have a prestigious
position or at least perform something useful - make a contribution",
and the truck comes by to pick up some guy living in a box and he's not
making any contribution, who's going to get excited about it? You know…
he's sub-human; he's a fetus; he's a zygote; he's a derelict, and
fetuses and zygotes and derelicts are all the same animal. So what do
you do with them? You dispose of them. Who gets excited about it?
R.E: I recall that when the
Chinese Communists came into power one of the first things that they
taught in schools was not any thoughts about specific political
ideology, but about evolution and that man was just an animal and if
man was just an animal then we won't mind being herded and having
masters who keep tabs on the animals and we're one big ant colony and
we've got someone to direct traffic and...
Speaking of traffic. We talked about the aged and again - people
hearing this tape, it's phenomenal how many times these things on this
tape will hit you. I just came back from New Jersey which has a lot of
retirement-type villages and I've been there over a period of years and
there's a structure around a retirement home which has been uncompleted
for at least two or three years. Now they've recently completed it.
It's kind of a roadway, but I think it would be easier to get out of a
complex at a play-land it is so complicated. And yet the whole area has
elderly people driving.
And we are a fairly middle-aged couple and for the life of me we
couldn't figure out how we were going to get out, what we were going to
do and so I asked some of the residents... "Doesn't it bother you that
they haven't fixed this road for years and now you can't just go across
the street which would have been the logical thing?" You have to go
down and they have a jug-handle and you have to go over and under, so
it takes you so long, and the woman replied to me, "Well you know, we
just don't go out. We just don't go out".
So here we have this little retirement village where they've made it
very difficult for a population, maybe several hundred homes in this
plat with only one exit and the exit involves such a great deal of
bother, they say they just cut down on the number of times they have to
go out shopping.
D.L.D: Right away it makes me
wonder... if it's difficult to get out, it's also difficult to get in
probably for visitors.
R.E: These retirement homes
sort of remind me of an elephant burial ground. The one thing you
notice is that there are no children. There's not the laughter of
children in these homes.
D.L.D: My experience has been,
these people in the retirement homes, when they see a child they just
blossom. They're really delighted to see a child. Sure they're happy to
have their sons and daughters come and other adults, but when they see
a child - and it doesn't have to be their own - it has a very
beneficial effect on their mood. And if these older people aren't
seeing children, the other side of that coin is, the children aren't
seeing older people either. So if you don't get used to seeing older
people, they don't exist.
R.E: And that's why, with the
family, making sure your children see their grandparents very often, no
matter how much that entails, the trouble with the logistics, etc...
it's certainly worth while because, again if you never see someone and
you don't learn to love them and you never have any contact with them,
when someone says, "Well it's time for your grandpa to check out", it's
like, "Who's that?"
Who's going to defend and fight for someone they never even saw before?
Oh, I remember one of the phrases. So many of these things... you only
have to hear them once and they stick in your mind. It's so jarring.
We've already discussed "sex without reproduction", then you also said
the technology would be there for "reproduction without sex" and this
is a whole other area because it's contradictory. If a land is so
overpopulated, then you would want to diminish sexual activity, get rid
of pornography, get rid of everything that was sexually stimulating.
But, no. It's a contrary. You want to Increase sexual activity but only
insofar as it doesn't lead to reproduction. That was the message, right?
D.L.D: Yes, and this is my own
extension. He didn't say this, but that leads to slavery because if you
become enslaved to your gratification, whether it's sex, food or
whatever, then you're more easily controlled, which is one of the
reasons the celibate priesthood is so important. And so many priests
don't even understand that. But if you're addicted to sex... if sex is
divorced from reproduction, something you do for gratification only - I
won't try to parallel that with food because you can't go without food
- then you can be more easily controlled by the availability or the
removal of the availability of sex.
So that can become an enslaving feature. Now, reproduction without
sex... what you would get then would have all the desirable attributes
of a human being without any claim to human rights. The way we do it
now, we say, you're human because you have a father and mother... you
have a family and so you're a human being with human rights. But if
your father was a petrie dish and you mother was a test tube, how can
you lay claim to human rights? You owe your existence to the laboratory
which conveys to you no human rights.
And there is no God, so you can't go for any God-given human rights, so
you're an ideal slave. You have all the attributes of a human being but
you don't have any claim on rights.
R.E: In PDF Document"Brave New
World" [58] 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 [58]". And any of our listeners who hasn't read that
recently...
D.L.D: You may remember the
slogan that was above the Nazi concentration camps... something about,
"Work is Peace and Work is Happiness". I don't remember if it was
Buchenwald or Auschwitz. My recollection of words isn't precise,
but the idea is what counts. And here's Huxley, writing Brave New World
[58], 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 [59]... 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 [58] 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 [58], that these things are not really good.
It would be better if man still had a sense of humor, a sense of
privacy, if the family still existed.. but, it's inevitable. They're
going to go. Too bad. I feel a little sorry about that. A little
sentiment, but the New Order has to come in and we have to make room
for it.
And I got that same impression from the things that were said about
this Day tape. He wasn't real happy about some of the things, but
they're going to occur anyway, so make it easier on yourself. The more
you accept it the easier it's going to be when it comes around, and I'm
kind of doing you a favor - you physicians out there this evening - I'm
going to make it easier for you by telling you in advance what's coming
and you can make your own adjustments.
D.L.D: Somewhere in Scripture…
I think it was after the flood, God said, "I will write my law on man's
hearts", and I feel the same parallel that you do between Dr. Day's
reaction to what he was exposed to and mine... seeming not totally
accepting of this. Huxley seeming not totally accepting of what he
wrote about but both saying, "Well, there's a certain inevitability to
all of this, so let's try to talk about the best parts of it. It's
going to be good for people. Technology will be better, quality of life
will be better... so you live a few years shorter."
But they both do seem to send out messages not buying the whole
package...
R.E: And maybe wishing some
people would ask more questions. Looking back over history there are
many individuals who had an idea of what a New World Order should be,
certainly Hitler and Stalin did, but what was lacking during these
periods is that they lacked the technology to carry many a many of the
things out... surveillance, constant monitoring... but in this
so-called New World Order it's going to be very difficult to escape
because technology will provide those means which had been lacking
those totalitarian individuals from years ago.
D.L.D: I can't remember on the
original tapes, did I mention the phrase where he said, "This time
we're going to do it right!" ?
R.E: No. You didn't.
D.L.D: There were so many
details to remember. But when he mentioned bringing in the New World
Order, he said, "This time we're going to do it right".
And right away, I'm wondering, "what do you mean, 'this time'?". There
was no explicit explanation of that, but I think it's fairly easy to
infer that previous efforts had to do with the Third Reich... Your
point about the technology is critical with computers and all means of
exchange being controlled by electronic impulse.
Nobody has any wealth. You own nothing of value except access to
electronic impulses which are beyond your control. A cashless society.
So when your reward for working is [nothing more than] impulses on the
computer and the only claim you have is these impulses and the people
who run the system can give or take them as they choose. Up until this
time there was no way the statement in the Book of Revelation that
said, "No man can buy or sell unless he has the mark of the beast"...
there's no way that could have been enforced.
People could say I'll trade you a bushel of tomatoes for a bushel of
wheat. If you'll drive my kids to school I'll give you six ears of
corn. Bartering. And even not going necessarily that primitive, there
was always gold and silver and other forms of money that were even
better than bartering. But with this cashless society, I believe this
is the first time in the history of the human race where the entire
population of the world can be controlled economically so that somebody
can say, "I pushed the right buttons and I know how much credit you
have electronically; I know where you spend your money electronically;
and you cannot buy, you cannot sell unless you get on my computer."
Right now you have a half a dozen credit cards in your pocket, but
pretty soon it will be narrowed to one credit card and then when we...
you know the ostensible reason is that when people loose their credit
cards and we have to get rid of that and put the implant in... where it
has to be accessible to the scanner... in your right hand or in your
forehead.
R.E: Speaking of scanner. When
we had the TV War..... the Gulf War? It was the first war where you
just sit there and 24 hours a day just like being on the battlefield
there. There were several points made about the advances in technology
and how they could spot just one little individual down in... they used
the constant reference to pinpoint... "pinpoint". I imagine with the
different technologies they can also pinpoint a couple of renegades in
the New World Order. The technology which was applicable to a so-
called 'enemy' can also be applicable to this controlling the order.
D.R.D: Exactly. It's infra-red stuff that's... I'm sort of amateurish
about this, but any heat source like a deer, a human being, a
renegade... can be picked up by an infra-red scanner and you get sort
of an outline of whether it's a deer or sheep or whatever.
My first hearing about them was in the Vietnam War where our troops
used them to detect the enemy. That's twenty-some years ago, so they're
probably even more sophisticated now than they were then; but with this
kind of surveillance it would be pretty hard for anybody to escape and
say, "Well, I'm just going to go out into the mountains and be a hermit
and escape the New World Order. I can shoot deer and eat berries and
survive and I've got a wife who's pretty sturdy and she'll be able to
survive and we'll do what the Indians did before Columbus got here and
we'll all survive". The New World Order will say, "No you won't because
we're gonna find you".
R.E: Even in Brave New World
[58] they had a group of people who still lived as a family and the
women breast-fed and they were called savages. But we won't have any
savages. We're cultured, we'll be thin and our teeth will be straight.
D.L.D: Something also that was
mentioned; forests could — and if necessary would — be leveled or
burned. Now this comes out of this movement... goddess mother earth,
and how we have to protect the environment... but if we want to get
someone who's trying to get away we'll burn down the whole forest.
We'll find them. That was stated. Deforestation could be and would be
brought about to make sure that nobody gets outside the control of the
system.
R.E: We're drawing to a close
here. How did you feel after... well, it's been about 22 years now
since that original lecture and there probably isn't a day that goes by
- at least since I've heard the tape - that I don't think about the
things that this Dr. Day said.
D.L.D: You get constant
reminders. Not a day goes by something doesn't say, "That reminds me
of…" such and such, whether it's surveillance or 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. Man left to his own devices... the tendency is -- in groups
like this, then -- is for internal dissension to arise where the
leaders would be at each other's throats too... each saying, "No, I'm
more powerful than you. I deserve more than you".
R.E: Who will control the
controllers?
D.L.D: Yeah. They would stab
themselves. I think so. They would create their own seeds of
destruction while they're creating the system. But the other thing I
wonder if indeed this may be time for our Lord to come back and say,
"Enough's enough. Because you're going to destroy my planet earth. I am
in charge of the planet. I'm in charge of mankind. Mankind will be
destroyed if I say. I will not allow my creatures to assume and exert
this degree of control where you're going to destroy the whole thing.
R.E: What I was just thinking
as you were just 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" [human+Being]
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 the eighth
came around and said, either sign here and join... and while he was
saying it they were throwing the noose over the limb of the oak tree,
and slipping the noose around your neck and saying, "you want to sign
this or do we slap the horse out from under you?" and a lot of people
said I won't sign it and they were martyred.
Despite his having said there will be no martyrs, certainly there will
be martyrs. The implication of his statements were that they would not
be recognized as martyrs, but there will be martyrs and they will be
RECOGNIZED as martyrs. Maybe not the same way as in the past but I
think this is something people should sort of prepare themselves for.
When I'm nose to nose with this choice, "ether sign this allegiance or
we're going to put you in a boxcar and you're going out to Arizona, to
the desert..." I think we have to be prepared to make a 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.
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 U.S. Coalition for Life; Box
315, Export, Penn 15632. Your comments and criticism and any other
information which you might have regarding this tape will be most
welcome.
End
of Tape III
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.
Published on January 25th, 2019
Restructured in four documents on October 7th, 2020 - Feast of Our Lady
of the Rosary
En Español: El Nuevo Orden de
la Crueldad (Parte 3)
The M+G+R Foundation
About
Us and Frequently
Asked Questions
Our Research Department
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.
If you wish to contact The M+G+R Foundation, please
access our Contact Page and follow the
instructions.