Note: This is a transcript of three tapes on the "New Order  of Barbarians", referred to on the tapes simply as the "new world system."  Tapes one and two 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). At the time Dr. Day was Professor of  Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. Previously he had served as Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Dr.  Dunegan was formerly a student of Dr. Day at the University of Pittsburgh and was well acquainted with him, though not intimately. He describes Dr. Day as  an insider of the "Order" and although Dr. Dunegan's memory was somewhat  dimmed by the intervening years, he is able to provide enough details of the  lecture to enable any enlightened person to discern the real purposes behind  the trends of our time. This is a transcript of a a loose, conversational  monologue that makes for better listening than reading. The set of audio tapes may be ordered from the Florida Pro-family Forum, P.O. Box 1059,  Highland City, FL 33846-1059 ($20.00).


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 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, I believe  you will be impressed with the degree to which the things that were planned  to be brought about have already been accomplished. Some of the things that  were discussed were not intended to be accomplished yet by 1988. [Note: the  year of this recording] but are intended to be accomplished before the end of  this century. There is a timetable; and it was during this session that some  of the elements of the timetable were brought out. Anyone who recalls early  in the days of the Kennedy Presidency .. the Kennedy campaign .. when he  spoke of .. progress in the decade of the 60's": that was kind of a cliché in  those days - "the decade of the 60's." Well, by 1969 our speaker was talking  about the decade of the 70's, the decade of the 80's, and the decade of the  90's. So that .. I think that terminology that we are looking at .. looking  at things and expressing things, probably all comes from the same source.  Prior to that time I don't remember anybody saying "the decade of the 40's  and the decade of the 50's. So I think this overall plan and timetable had  taken important shape with more predictability to those who control it,  sometime in the late 50's. That's speculation on my part. In any event, the  speaker said that his purpose was to tell us about changes which would be  brought about in the next 30 years or that an entirely new world-wide  system would be in operation before the turn of the century. As he put it,  "We plan to enter the 21st Century with a running start." [emphasis supplied]


He said, as we listened to what he was about to present, he said, "Some  of you will think I'm talking about Communism. Well, what I'm talking about  is much bigger than Communism!" At that time he indicated that there is much  more cooperation between East and West than most people realize. In his  introductory remarks he commented that he was free to speak at this time. He  would not have been able to say what he was about to say, even a few years  earlier. But he was free to speak at this time because now, and I'm quoting  here, "everything is in place and nobody can stop us now." That's the end of  that quotation. He went on to say that most people don't understand how  governments operate and even people in high positions in governments,  including our own, don't really understand how and where decisions are made.  He went on to say that .. he went on to say that people who really influence  decisions are names that for the most part would be familiar to most of us,  but he would not use individuals' names or names of any specific  organization. But. That, if he did, most of the people would be names that  were recognized by most of his audience. He went on to say that they were not  primarily people in public office, but people of prominence who were  primarily known in their private occupations or private positions. The  speaker was a doctor of medicine, a former professor at a large Eastern  university, and he was addressing a group of doctors of medicine, about 80 in  number. His name would not be widely recognized by anybody likely to hear  this, and so there is no point in giving his name. The only purpose in  recording this is that it may give a perspective to those who hear it  regarding the changes which have already been accomplished in the past 20  years or so, and a bit of a preview to what at least some people are planning  for the remainder of this century ... so that we, or they, would enter the  21st Century with a flying start. Some of us may not enter that Century. His  purpose in telling our group about these changes that were to be brought  about was to make it easier for us to adapt to these changes. Indeed, as he  quite accurately said, "they would be changes that would be very surprising,  and in some ways difficult for people to accept," and he hoped that we, as  sort of his friends, would make the adaptation more easily if we knew  somewhat beforehand what to expect.


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.


Another comment that was repeated from time to time, .. this particularly  in relation to changing laws and customs, .. and specific changes, .. he  said, "Everything has two purposes. One is the ostensible purpose which will  make it acceptable to people and second is the real purpose which would  further the goals of establishing the new system and having it," Frequently  he would say, "There is just no other way, There's just no other way!" This  seemed to come as a sort of an apology, particularly when .. at the  conclusion of describing some particularly offensive changes. For example,  the promotion of drug addiction which we'll get into shortly.


He was very active with population control groups, the population control  movement, and population control was really the entry point into specifics  following the introduction. He said the population is growing too fast.  Numbers of people living at any one time on the planet must be limited or we  will run out of space to live. We will outgrow our food supply and we will  over-populate the world with our waste.


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.


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.


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!


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.


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.


"People will be given permission to be homosexual," that's the way it was  stated. They won't have to hide it. And elderly people will be encouraged to  continue to have active sex lives into the very old ages, just as long as  they can. Everyone will be given permission to have sex, to enjoy however  they want. Anything goes. This is the way it was put. And, I remember  thinking, "how arrogant for this individual, or whoever he represents, to  feel that they can give or withhold permission for people to do things!" But  that was the terminology that was used. In this regard, clothing was  mentioned. Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative.  Recall back in 1969 was the time of the mini skirt, when those mini-skirts  were very, very high and very revealing. He said, "It is not just the amount  of skin that is expressed ... exposed that makes clothing sexually seductive,  but other, more subtle things are often suggestive.".. things like movement,  and the cut of clothing, and the kind of fabric, the positioning of  accessories on the clothing. "If a woman has an attractive body, why should  she not show it?" was one of the statements. There was not detail on what was  meant by "provocative clothing," but since that time if you watched the  change in clothing styles, blue jeans are cut in a way that they're more  tight-fitting in the crotch. They form wrinkles. Wrinkles are essentially  arrows. Lines which direct one's vision to certain anatomic areas. And, this  was around the time of the "burn your bra" activity. He indicated that a lot  of women should not go without a bra. They need a bra to be attractive, so  instead of banning bras and burning them, bras would come back. But they  would be thinner and softer allowing more natural movement. It was not  specifically stated, but certainly a very thin bra is much more revealing of  the nipple and what else is underneath, than the heavier bras that were in  style up to that time.


Earlier he said .. sex and reproduction would be separated. You would  have sex without reproduction and then technology was reproduction without  sex. This would be done in the laboratory. He indicated that already much,  much research was underway about making babies in the laboratory. There was  some elaboration on that, but I don't remember the details. How much of that  technology has come to my attention since that time, I don't remember .. I  don't remember in a way that I can distinguish what was said from what I  subsequently have learned as general medical information.


Families 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!


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.


A big item .. was elaborated at some length was the cost of medical care  would be made burdensomely high. Medical care would be connected very closely  with one's work but also would be made very, very high in cost so that it  would simply be unavailable to people beyond a certain time. And unless they  had a remarkably rich, supporting family, they would just have to do without  care. And the idea was that if everybody says, "Enough! What a burden it is  on the young to try to maintain the old people," then the young would become  agreeable to helping Mom and Dad along the way, provided this was done  humanely and with dignity. And then the example was - there could be like a  nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good job.  And then after the party's over they take the "demise pill."


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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."


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.


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.


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 Iearning  would be accelerated. And this is another time where he said, "We think we  can push evolution." By pushing kids to learn more he seemed to be suggesting  that their brains would evolve, that their offspring would evolve .. sort of  pushing evolution .. where kids would learn and be more intelligent at a  younger age. As if this pushing would alter their 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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!"


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.

Tape II


Nothing is permanent. Streets would be rerouted, renamed. Areas you had  not seen in a while would become unfamiliar. Among other things, this would  contribute to older people feeling that it was time to move on, they feel  they couldn't even keep up with the changes in areas that were once familiar.  Buildings would be allowed to stand empty and deteriorate, and streets would  be allowed to deteriorate in certain localities. The purpose of this was to  provide the jungle, the depressed atmosphere for the unfit. Somewhere in this  same connection he mentioned that buildings and bridges would be made so that  they would collapse after a while, there would be more accidents involving  airplanes and railroads and automobiles. All of this to contribute to the  feeling of insecurity, that nothing was safe. Not too long after this  presentation, and I think one or two even before in the area where I live, we  had some newly constructed bridge to break; another newly constructed bridge  defect discovered before it broke, and I remember reading just scattered  incidents around the country where shopping malls would fall in right where  they were filled with shoppers, and I remember that one of the shopping malls  in our area, the first building I'd ever been in where you could feel this  vibration throughout the entire building when there were a lot of people in  there, and I remember wondering at that time whether this shopping mall was  one of the buildings he was talking about. Talking to construction people and  architects about it they would say ' "Oh no, that's good when the building  vibrates like that, that means it's flexible not rigid." Well, maybe so,  we'll wait and see. Other areas there would be well maintained. Not every  part of the city would be slums.


There would be the created slums and other areas well maintained. Those  people able to leave the slums for better areas then would learn to better  appreciate the importance of human accomplishment. This meant that if they  left the jungle and came to civilization, so to speak, they could be proud of  their own accomplishments that they made it. There was no related sympathy  for those who were left behind in the jungle of drugs and deteriorating  neighborhoods. Then a statement that was kind of surprising: We think we can  effectively limit crime to the slum areas, so it won't be spread heavily into  better areas. I should maybe point out here that these are obviously not word  for word quotations after 20 years, but where I say that I am quoting, I am  giving the general drift of what was said close to word for word, perhaps not  precisely so. But anyhow I remember wondering, how can he be so confident  that the criminal element is going to stay where he wants it to stay? But he  went on to say that increased security would be needed in the better areas.  That would mean more police, better coordinated police efforts. He did not  say so, but I wondered at that time about the moves that were afoot to  consolidate all the police departments of suburbs around the major cities. I  think the John Birch Society was one that was saying "Support your local  police, don't let them be consolidated." and I remember wondering if that was  one of the things he had in mind about security. It was not explicitly  stated. But anyhow he went on to say there would be a whole new industry of  residential security systems to develop with alarms and locks and alarms  going into the police department so that people could protect their wealth  and their well being. Because some of the criminal activity would spill out  of the slums into better, more affluent looking areas that looked like they  would be worth burglarizing. And again it was stated like it was a redeeming  quality: See we're generating all this more crime but look how good we are -  we're also generating the means for you to protect yourself against the  crime. A sort of repeated thing throughout this presentation was the  recognized evil and then the self forgiveness thing, well, see we've given  you a way out.


American industry came under discussion - it was the first that I'd heard  the term global interdependence or that notion. The stated plan was that  different parts of the world would be assigned different roles of industry  and commerce in a unified global system. The continued pre-eminence of the  United States and the relative independence and self-sufficiency of the  United States would have to be changed. This was one of the several times  that he said in order to create a new structure, you first have to tear down  the old, and American industry was one example of that. Our system would have  to be curtailed in order to give other countries a chance to build their  industries, because otherwise they would not be able to compete against the  United States. And this was especially true of our heavy industries that  would be cut back while the same industries were being developed in other  countries, notably Japan. And at this point there was some discussion of  steel and particularly automobiles - I remember saying that automobiles would  be imported from Japan on an equal footing with our own domestically produced  automobiles, but the Japanese product would be better. Things would be made  so they would break and fall apart, that is in the United States. so that  people would tend to prefer the imported variety and this would give a bit of  a boost to foreign competitors. One example was Japanese. In 1969 Japanese  automobiles, if they were sold here at all I don't remember, but they  certainly weren't very popular. But the idea was you could get a little bit  disgusted with your Ford, GM or Chrysler product or whatever because little  things like window handles would fall off more and plastic parts would break  which had they been made of metal would hold up. Your patriotism about buying  American would soon give way to practicality that if you bought Japanese,  German or imported that it would last longer and you would be better off.  Patriotism would go down the drain then. It was mentioned elsewhere things  being made to fall apart too. I don't remember specific items or if they were  even stated other than automobiles, but I do recall of having the impression,  sort of in my imagination, of a surgeon having something fall apart in his  hands in the operating room at a critical time. Was he including this sort of  thing in his discussion? But somewhere in this discussion about things being  made deliberately defective and unreliable not only was to tear down  patriotism but to be just a little source of irritation to people who would  use such things. Again the idea that you not feel terribly secure, promoting  the notion that the world isn't a terribly reliable place. The United States  was to be kept strong in information, communications, high technology,  education and agriculture. The United States was seen as continuing to be  sort of the keystone of this global system. But heavy industry would be  transported out. One of the comments made about heavy industry was that we  had had enough environmental damage from smoke stacks and industrial waste  and some of the other people could put up with that for a while. This again  was supposed to be a redeeming quality for Americans to accept. You took away  our industry but you saved our environment. So we really didn't lose on it.


And along this line there were talks about people losing their jobs as a  result of industry and opportunities for retraining, and particularly  population shifts would be brought about. This is sort of an aside. I think  I'll explore the aside before I forget it -population shifts were to be  brought about so that people would be tending to move into the Sun Belt. They  would be sort of people without roots in their new locations, and traditions  are easier to change in a place where there are a lot of transplanted people,  as compared to trying to change traditions in a place where people grew up  and had an extended family, where they had roots. Things like new medical  care systems, if you pick up from a Northeast industrial city and you  transplant yourself to the South Sunbelt or Southwest, you'll be more  accepting of whatever kind of, for example, controlled medical care you find  there than you would accept a change in the medical care system where you had  roots and the support of your family. Also in this vein it was mentioned (he  used the plural personal pronoun we) we take control first of the port cities  - New York, San Francisco, Seattle - the idea being that this is a piece of  strategy, the idea being that if you control the port cities with your  philosophy and your way of life, the heartland in between has to yield. I  can't elaborate more on that but it is interesting. If you look around the  most liberal areas of the country and progressively so are the sea coast  cities. The heartland, the Midwest, does seem to have maintained its  conservatism. But as you take away industry and jobs and relocate people then  this is a strategy to break down conservatism. When you take away industry  and people are unemployed and poor they will accept whatever change seems, to  offer them survival, and their morals and their commitment to things will all  give way to survival. That's not my philosophy, that's the speaker's  philosophy. Anyhow, going back to industry, some heavy industry would remain,  just enough to maintain a sort of a seed bed of industrial skills which could  be expanded if the plan didn't work out as it was intended. So the country  would not be devoid of assets and skills. But this was just sort of a  contingency plan. It was hoped and expected that the worldwide specialization  would be carried on. But, perhaps repeating myself, one of the upshots of all  of this is that with this global interdependence the national identities  would tend to be de-emphasized. Each area depended on every other area for  one or another elements of its life. We would all become citizens of the  world rather than citizens of any one country.


And along these lines then we can talk about sports. Sports in the United  States was to be changed, in part as a way of de-emphasizing nationalism.  Soccer, a world-wide sport, was to be emphasized and pushed in the United  States. This was of interest because in this area the game of soccer was  virtually unknown at that time. I had a few friends who attended an  elementary school other than the one I attended where they played soccer at  their school, and they were a real novelty. This was back in the 50's. So to  hear this man speak of soccer in this area was kind of surprising. Anyhow,  soccer is seen as an international sport and would be promoted and the  traditional sport of American baseball would be de-emphasized and possibly  eliminated because it might be seen as too American. And he discussed  eliminating this. one's first reaction would be - well, they pay the players  poorly and they don't want to play for poor pay so they give up baseball and  go into some other sport or some other activity. But he said that's really  not how it works. Actually, the way to break down baseball would be to make  the salaries go very high. The idea behind this was that as the salaries got  ridiculously high there would be a certain amount of discontent and  antagonism as people resented the athletes being paid so much, and the  athletes would begin more and more to resent among themselves what other  players were paid and would tend to abandon the sport. And these high  salaries also could break the owners and alienate the fans. And then the fans  would support soccer and the baseball fields could be used as soccer fields.  It wasn't said definitely this would have to happen, but if the international  flavor didn't come around rapidly enough this could be done. There was some  comment along the same lines about football, although I seem to recall he  said football would be harder to dismantle because it was so widely played in  colleges as well as in the professional leagues and would be harder to tear  down. There was something else also about the violence in football that met a  psychological need that was perceived, and people have a need for this  vicarious violence. So football, for that reason, might be left around to  meet that vicarious need. The same thing is true of hockey. Hockey had more  of an international flavor and would be emphasized. There was some  foreseeable international competition about hockey and particularly soccer.  At that time hockey was international between the United States and Canada. I  was kind of surprised because I thought the speaker just never impressed me  as being a hockey fan, and I am. And it turns out he was not. He just knew  about the game and what it would do to this changing sports program. But in  any event soccer was to be the keystone of athletics because it is already a  world wide sport in South America, Europe, and parts of Asia and the United  States should get on the bandwagon. All this would foster international  competition so that we would all become citizens of the world to a greater  extent than citizens of our own narrow nations. There was some discussion  about hunting, not surprisingly. Hunting requires guns and gun control is a  big element in these plans. I don't remember the details much, but the idea  is that gun ownership is a privilege and not everybody should have guns.  Hunting was an inadequate excuse for owning guns and everybody should be  restricted in gun ownership. The few privileged people who should be allowed  to hunt could maybe rent or borrow a gun from official quarters rather than  own their own. After all, everybody doesn't have a need for a gun, is the way  it was put. Very important in sports was sports for girls. Athletics would be  pushed for girls. This was intended to replace dolls. Baby dolls would still  be around, a few of them, but you would not see the number and variety of  dolls. Dolls would not be pushed because girls should not be thinking about  babies and reproduction. Girls should be out on the athletic field just as  the boys are. Girls and boys really don't need to be all that different. Tea  sets were to go the way of dolls, and all these things that traditionally  were thought of as feminine would be de-emphasized as girls got into more  masculine pursuits. Just one other things I recall was that the sports pages  would be full of the scores of girls teams just right along- there with the  boys teams. And that's recently begun to appear after 20 years in our local  papers. The girls sports scores are right along with the boys sports scores.  So all of this is to change the role model of what young girls should look to  be. While she's growing up she should look to be an athlete rather than to  look forward to being a mother.


Entertainment. Movies would gradually be made more explicit as regards sex  and language. After all, sex and rough language are real and why pretend that  they are not? There would be pornographic movies in the theaters and on  television. VCR's were not around at that time, but he had indicated that  these cassettes would be available, and video cassette players would be  available for use in the home and pornographic movies would be available for  use on these as well as in the neighborhood theater and on your television.  He said something like: "you'll see people in the movies doing everything you  can think of." He went on to say that all of this is intended to bring sex  out in the open. That was another comment that was made several times- the  term "sex out in the open." Violence would be made more graphic. This was  intended to desensitize people to violence. There might need to be a time  when people would witness real violence and be a part of it. Later on it will  become clear where this is headed. So there would be more realistic violence  in entertainment which would make it easier for people to adjust. People's  attitudes toward death would change. People would not be so fearful of it but  more accepting of it, and they would not be so aghast at the sight of dead  people or injured people. We don't need to have a genteel population  paralyzed by what they might see. People would just learn to say, well I  don't want that to happen to me. This was the first statement suggesting that  the plan includes numerous human casualties which the survivors would see.  This particular aspect of the presentation came back in my memory very  sharply a few years later when a movie about the Lone Ranger came out and I  took my very young son to see it and early in the movie were some very  violent scenes. One of the victims was shot in the forehead and there was  sort of a splat where the bullet entered his forehead and blood and I  remember regretting that I took my son and feeling anger toward the doctor  who spoke. Not that he made the movie, but he agreed to be part of this  movement, and I was repelled by the movie and it brought back this aspect of  his presentation very sharply in my memory. As regards music, he made a  rather straightforward statement like: Music will get worse. In 1969 Rock  music was getting more and more unpleasant. It was interesting just his  words-the way he expressed it " it would get worse" acknowledging that it was  already bad. Lyrics would become more openly sexual. No new sugary romantic  music would be publicized like that which had been written before that time.  All of the old music would be brought back on certain radio stations and  records for older people to hear, and older folks would have sort of their  own radio stations to hear and for younger people, their music as it got  worse and worse would be on their stations. He seemed to indicate that one  group would not hear the other group's music. Older folks would just refuse  to hear the junk that was offered to young people, and the young people would  accept the junk because it identified them as their generation and helped  them feel distinct from the older generation. I remember at the time thinking  that would not last very long because even young kids wouldn't like the junk  when they got a chance to hear the older music that was prettier they would  gravitate toward it. Unfortunately I was wrong about that, when the kids get  through their teens and into their 20's some of them improve their taste in  music, but unfortunately he was right. They get used to this junk and that's  all they want. A lot of them can't stand really pretty music. He went on to  say that the music would carry a message to the young and nobody would even  know the message was there they would just think it was loud music. At the  time I didn't understand quite what he meant by that, but in retrospect I  think we know now what the messages are in the music for the young. And again  he was right. This aspect was sort of summarized with the notion that  entertainment would be a tool to influence young people. It won't change the  older people, they are already set in their ways, but the changes would all  be aimed at the young who are in their formative years and the older  generation would be passing. Not only could you not change them but they are  relatively unimportant anyhow. Once they live out their lives and are gone  the younger generation being formed are the ones that would be important for  the future in the 21st century. He also indicated all the old movies would be  brought back again and I remember on hearing that through my mind ran quickly  the memory of a number of old movies. I wondered if they would be included,  the ones that I thought I would like to see again. Along with bringing back  old music and movies for older people there were other privileges that would  also be accorded older folks: free transportation, breaks on purchases,  discounts, tax discounts, - a number of privileges just because they were  older. This was stated to be sort of a reward for the generation which had  grown up through the depression and had survived the rigors of World War II.  They had deserved it and they were going to be rewarded with all these  goodies, and the bringing back of the good old music and the good old movies  was going to help ease them through their final years in comfort. Then the  presentation began to get rather grim, because once that generation passed,  and that would be in the late 80's and early 90's where we are now, most of  that group would be gone and then gradually things would tighten up and the  tightening up would be accelerated. The old movies and old songs would be  withdrawn, the gentler entertainment would be withdrawn.


Travel, instead of being easy for old folks, travel then would become  very restricted. People would need permission to travel and they would need a  good reason to travel. If you didn't have a good reason for your travel you  would not be allowed to travel, and everyone would need ID. This would at  first be an ID card you would carry on your person and you must show when you  are asked for it. It was already planned that later on some sort of device  would be developed to be implanted under the skin that would be coded  specifically to identify the individual. This would eliminate the possibility  of false ID and also eliminate the possibility of people saying "Well, I lost  my ID." The difficulty about these skin implant that ID was stated to be  getting material that would stay in or under the skin without causing foreign  body reaction whereby the body would reject it or cause infection, and that  this would have to be material on which information could be recorded and  retrieved by some sort of scanner while it was not rejected by the body.  Silicon was mentioned. Silicon at that time was thought to be well tolerated.  It was used to augment breasts. Women who felt their breasts were too small  would get silicon implants, and I guess that still goes on. At any rate  silicon was seen at that time as the promising material to do both: to be  retained in the body without rejection and to be able to retain information  retrievable by electronic means.


Food supplies would come under tight control. If population growth didn't  slow down, food shortages could be created in a hurry and people would  realize the dangers of overpopulation. Ultimately, whether the population  slows down or not the food supply is to be brought under centralized control  so that people would have enough to be well-nourished but they would not have  enough to support any fugitive from the new system. In other words, if you  had a friend or relative who didn't sign on, and growing ones own food would  be outlawed. This would be done under some sort of pretext. In the beginning  I mentioned there were two purposes for everything - one the ostensible  purpose and one the real purpose, and the ostensible purpose here would be  that growing your own vegetables was unsafe, it would spread disease or  something like that. So the acceptable idea was to protect the consumer but  the real idea was to limit the food supply and growing your own food would be  illegal. And if you persist in illegal activities like growing your own food,  then you're a criminal.


There was a mention then of weather. This was another really striking  statement. He said, "We can or soon will be able to control the weather." He  said, "I'm not merely referring to dropping iodide crystals into the clouds  to precipitate rain that's already there, but REAL control." And weather was  seen as a weapon of war, a weapon of influencing public policy. It could make  rain or withhold rain in order to influence certain areas and bring them  under your control. There were two sides to this that were rather striking.  He said, "On the one hand you can make drought during the growing season so  that nothing will grow, and on the other hand you can make for very heavy  rains during harvest season so the fields are too muddy to bring in the  harvest, and indeed one might be able to do both." There was no statement how  this would be done. It was stated that either it was already possible or very  very close to being possible. Politics. He said that very few people really know how government works.  Something to the effect that elected officials are influenced in ways that  they don't even realize and they carry out plans that have been made for them  and they think that they are authors of the plans. But actually they are  manipulated in ways they don't understand.


Somewhere in the presentation he made two statements that I want to  insert at this time. I don't remember just where they were made, but they're  valid in terms of the general overall view. One statement: "People can carry  in their minds and act upon two contradictory ideas at one time, provided  that these two contradictory ideas are kept far enough apart." And the other  statement is, "You can know pretty well how rational people are going to  respond to certain circumstances or to certain information that they  encounter. So, to determine the response you want you need only control the  kind of data or information that they're presented or the kinds of  circumstance that they're in; and being rational people they'll do what you  want them to do. They may not fully understand what they're doing or why."


Somewhere in this connection, then, was the statement admitting that some  scientific research data could be - and indeed has been - falsified in order  to bring about desired results. And here was said, "People don't ask the  right questions. Some people are too trusting." Now this was an interesting  statement because the speaker and the audience all being doctors of medicine  and supposedly very objectively, dispassionately scientific and science being  the be all and end-all ... well to falsify scientific research data in that  setting is like blasphemy in the church ... you just don't do that. Anyhow,  out of all of this was to come the New International Governing Body, probably  to come through the U.N. and with a World Court, but not necessarily through  those structures. It could be brought about in other ways. Acceptance of the  U.N. at that time was seen as not being as wide as was hoped. Efforts would  continue to give the United Nations increasing importance. People would be  more and more used to the idea of relinquishing some national sovereignty.  Economic interdependence would foster this goal from a peaceful standpoint.  Avoidance of war would foster it from the standpoint of worrying about  hostilities. It was recognized that doing it peaceably was better than doing  it by war. It was stated at this point that war was "obsolete." I thought  that was an interesting phrase because obsolete means something that once was  seen as useful is no longer useful. But war is obsolete ... this being  because of the nuclear bombs war is no longer controllable. Formerly wars  could be controlled, but if nuclear weapons would fall into the wrong hands  there could be an unintended nuclear disaster. It was not stated who the  "wrong hands" are. We were free to infer that maybe this meant terrorists,  but in more recent years I'm wondering whether the wrong hands might also  include people that we've assumed that they've had nuclear weapons all along  ... maybe they don't have them. Just as it was stated that industry would be  preserved in the United States - a little bit just in case the world wide  plans didn't work out; just in case some country or some other powerful  person decided to bolt from the pack and go his own way, one wonders whether  this might also be true with nuclear weapons. When you hear that ... he said  they might fall into the wrong hands, there was some statement that the  possession of nuclear weapons had been tightly controlled, sort of implying  that anybody who had nuclear weapons was intended to have them. That would  necessarily have included the Soviet Union, if indeed they have them. But I  recall wondering at the time, "Are you telling us, or are you implying that  this country willingly gave weapons to the Soviets?." At that time that  seemed like a terribly unthinkable thing to do, much less to admit. The  leaders of the Soviet Union seem to be so dependent on the West though, one  wonders whether there may have been some fear that they would try to assert  independence if they indeed had these weapons. So, I don't know. It's  something to speculate about perhaps ... Who did he mean when he said, "If  these weapons fall into the wrong hands"? Maybe just terrorists. Anyhow, the  new system would be brought in, if not by peaceful cooperation - everybody  willingly yielding national sovereignty - then by bringing the nation to the  brink of nuclear war. And everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is  created by the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a strong public  outcry to negotiate a public peace and people would willingly give up  national sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring  in the New International Political System. This was stated and very  impressive thing to hear then ... "If there were too many people in the right  places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two - possibly  more - nuclear weapons. As it was put this would be possibly needed to  convince people that "We mean business." That was followed by the statement  that, "By the time one or two of those went off then everybody - even the  most reluctant - would yield." He said something about "this negotiated peace  would be very convincing", as kind of in a framework or in a context that the  whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People hearing about it  would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between hostile enemies  who finally had come to the realization that peace was better than war. In  this context discussing war, and war is obsolete, a statement was made that  there were some good things about war ... one, you're going to die anyway,  and people sometimes in war get a chance to display great courage and heroism  and if they die they've died well and if they survive they get recognition.  So that in any case, the hardships of war on soldiers are worth it because  that's the reward they get out of their warring. Another justification  expressed for war was, if you think of the many millions of casualties in WWI  and WWII, well.. suppose all those people had not died but had continued to  live, then continued to have babies. There would be millions upon millions  and we would already be overpopulated, so those two great wars served a  benign purpose in delaying over-population. But now there are technological  means for the individual and governments to control over-population so in  this regard war is obsolete. It's no longer needed. And then again it's  obsolete because nuclear weapons could destroy the whole universe. War, which  once was controllable, could get out of control and so for these two reasons  it's now obsolete.


There was a discussion of terrorism. Terrorism would be used widely in  Europe and in other parts of the world. Terrorism at that time was thought  would not be necessary in the United States. It could become necessary in the  United States if the United States did not move rapidly enough into accepting  the system. But at least in the foreseeable future it was not planned. And  very benignly on their part. Maybe terrorism would not be required here, but  the implication being that it would be indeed used if it was necessary. Along  with this came a bit of a scolding that Americans had had it too good anyway  and just a little bit of terrorism would help convince Americans that the  world is indeed a dangerous place ... or can be if we don't relinquish  control to the proper authorities.


There was discussion of money and banking. One statement was, "Inflation  is infinite. You can put an infinite number of zeros after any number and put  the decimals points wherever you want", as an indication that inflation is a  tool of the controllers. Money would become predominately credit. It was  already ... money is primarily a credit thing but exchange of money would be  not cash or palpable things but electronic credit signal. People would carry  money only in very small amounts for things like chewing gum and candy bars.  Just pocket sorts of things. Any purchase of any significant amount would be  done electronically. Earnings would be electronically entered into your  account. It would be a single banking system. May have the appearance of  being more than one but ultimately and basically it would be one single  banking system, so that when you got paid your pay would be entered for you  into your account balance and then when you purchased anything at the point  of purchase it would be deducted from your account balance and you would  actually carry nothing with you. Also computer records can be kept on  whatever it was you purchased so that if you were purchasing too much of any  particular item and some official wanted to know what you were doing with  your money they could go back and review your purchases and determine what  you were buying. There was a statement that any purchase of significant size  like an automobile, bicycle, a refrigerator, a radio or television or  whatever might have some sort of identification on it so it could be traced,  so that very quickly anything which was either given away or stolen -  whatever - authorities would be able to establish who purchased it and when.  Computers would allow this to happen. The ability to save would be greatly  curtailed. People would just not be able to save any considerable degree of  wealth. There was some statement of recognition that wealth represents power  and wealth in the hands of a lot of people is not good for the people in  charge so if you save too much you might be taxed. The more you save the  higher rate of tax on your savings so your savings really could never get  very far. And also if you began to show a pattern of saving too much you  might have your pay cut. We would say, "Well, your saving instead of  spending. You really don't need all that money." That basically the idea  being to prevent people from accumulating any wealth which might have long  range disruptive influence on the system. People would be encouraged to use  credit to borrow and then also be encouraged to renege on their debt so they  would destroy their own credit. The idea here is that, again, if you're too  stupid to handle credit wisely, this gives the authorities the opportunity to  come down hard on you once you've shot your credit. Electronic payments  initially would all be based on different kinds of credit cards ... these  were already in use in 1969 to some extent. Not as much as now. But people  would have credit cards with the electronic strip on it and once they got  used to that then it would be pointed out the advantage of having all of that  combined into a single credit card, serving a single monetary system and then  they won't have to carry around all that plastic.


So the next step would be the single card and then the next step would be  to replace the single card with a skin implant. The single card could be lost  or stolen, give rise to problems; could be exchanged with somebody else to  confuse identify. The skin implant on the other hand would be not losable or  counterfeitable or transferrable to another person so you and your accounts  would be identified without any possibility of error. And the skin implants  would have to be put some place that would be convenient to the skin; for  example your right hand or your forehead. At that time when I heard this I  was unfamiliar with the statements in the Book of Revelation. The speaker  went on to say, "Now some of you people who read the Bible will attach  significance to this to the Bible," but he went on to disclaim any Biblical  significance at all. This is just common sense of how the system could work  and should work and there's no need to read any superstitious Biblical  principals into it. As I say, at the time I was not very familiar with the  words of Revelations. Shortly after I became familiar with it and the  significance of what he said really was striking. I'll never forget it. There  was some mention, also, of implants that would lend themselves to  surveillance by providing radio signals. This could be under the skin or a  dental implant ... put in like a filling so that either fugitives or possibly  other citizens could be identified by a certain frequency from his personal  transmitter and could be located at any time or any place by any authority  who wanted to find him. This would be particularly useful for somebody who  broke out of prison. There was more discussion of personal surveillance. One  more thing was said, "You'll be watching television and somebody will be  watching you at the same time at a central monitoring station." Television  sets would have a device to enable this. The T.V. set would not have to be on  in order for this to be operative. Also, the television set can be used to  monitor what you are watching. People can tell what you're watching on TV and  how you're reacting to what you're watching. And you would not know that you  were being watched while you were watching your television. How would we get  people to accept these things into their homes? Well, people would buy them  when they buy their own television. They won't know that they're on there at  first. This was described by being what we now know as Cable TV to replace  the antenna TV. When you buy a TV set this monitor would just be part of the  set and most people would not have enough knowledge to know it was there in  the beginning. And then the cable would be the means of carrying the  surveillance message to the monitor. By the time people found out that this  monitoring was going on, they would also be very dependent upon television  for a number of things. Just the way people are dependent upon the telephone  today. One thing the television would be used for would be purchases. You  wouldn't have to leave your home to purchase. You just turn on your TV and  there would be a way of interacting with your television channel to the store  that you wanted to purchase. And you could flip the switch from place to  place to choose a refrigerator or clothing. This would be both convenient,  but it would also make you dependent on your television so the built-in  monitor would be something you could not do without. There was some  discussion of audio monitors, too, just in case the authorities wanted to  hear what was going on in rooms other than where the television monitor was,  and in regard to this the statement was made, "Any wire that went into your  house, for example your telephone wire, could be used this way. I remember  this in particular because it was fairly near the end of the presentation and  as we were leaving the meeting place I said something to one of my colleagues  about going home and pulling all of the wires out of my house.. except I knew  I couldn't get by without the telephone. And the colleague I spoke to just  seemed numb. To this day I don't think he even remembers what we talked about  or what we hear that time, cause I've asked him. But at that time he seemed  stunned. Before all these changes would take place with electronic  monitoring, it was mentioned that there would be service trucks all over the  place, working on the wires and putting in new cables. This is how people who  were on the inside would know how things were progressing.


Privately owned housing would become a thing of the past. The cost of  housing and financing housing would gradually be made so high that most  people couldn't afford it. People who already owned their houses would be  allowed to keep them but as years go by it would be more and more difficult  for young people to buy a house. Young people would more and more become  renters, particularly in apartments or condominiums. More and more unsold  houses would stand vacant. People just couldn't buy them. But the cost of  housing would not come down. You'd right away think, well the vacant house,  the price would come down, the people would buy it. But there was some  statement to the effect that the price would be held high even though there  were many available so that free market places would not operate. People  would not be able to buy these and gradually more and more of the population  would be forced into small apartments. Small apartments which would not  accommodate very many children. Then as the number of real home-owners  diminished they would become a minority. There would be no sympathy for them  from the majority who dwelled in the apartments and then these homes could be  taken by increased taxes or other regulations that would be detrimental to  home ownership and would be acceptable to the majority. Ultimately, people  would be assigned where they would live and it would be common to have  non-family members living with you. This by way of your not knowing just how  far you could trust anybody. This would all be under the control of a central  housing authority. Have this in mind in 1990 when they ask, "How many  bedrooms in your house? How many bathrooms in your house? Do you have a  finished game room?." This information is personal and is of no national  interest to government under our existing Constitution. But you'll be asked  those questions and decide how you want to respond to them.


When the new system takes over people will be expected to sign allegiance  to it, indicating that they don't have any reservations or holding back to  the old system. "There just won't be any room", he said, "for people who  won't go along. We can't have such people cluttering up the place so such  people would be taken to special places", and here I don't remember the exact  words, but the inference I drew was that at these special places where they  were taken, then they would not live very long. He may have said something  like, "disposed of humanely", but I don't remember very precisely ... just  the impression the system was not going to support them when they would not  go along with the system. That would leave death as the only alternative.  Somewhere in this vein he said there would not be any martyrs. When I first  heard this I thought it meant the people would not be killed, but as the  presentation developed what he meant was they would not be killed in such a  way or disposed of in such a way that they could serve as inspiration to  other people the way martyrs do. Rather he said something like this. "People  will just disappear." Just a few additional items sort of thrown in here in  the end which I failed to include where they belong more perfectly. One: The  bringing in of the new system he said probably would occur on a weekend in  the winter. Everything would shut down on Friday evening and Monday morning  when everybody wakened there would be an announcement that the New System was  in place. During the process in getting the United States ready for these  changes everybody would be busier with less leisure time and less opportunity  to really look about and see what was going on around them. Also, there would  be more changes and more difficulty in keeping up as far as one's  investments. Investment instruments would be changing. Interest rates would  be changing so that it would be a difficult job with keeping up with what you  had already earned. Interesting about automobiles; it would look as though  there were many varieties of automobiles, but when you look very closely  there would be great duplication. They would be made to look different with  chrome and wheel covers and this sort of thing, but looking closely one would  see that the same automobile was made by more than one manufacturer. This  recently was brought down to me when I was in a parking lot and saw a small  Ford - I forget the model - and a small Japanese automobile which were  identical except for a number of things like the number of holes in the wheel  cover and the chrome around the plate and the shape of the grill. But if you  looked at the basic parts of the automobile, they were identical. They just  happened to be parked side-by-side where I was struck with this and I was  again reminded of what had been said many years ago. I'm hurrying here  because I'm just about to the end of the tape. Let me just summarize her by  saying, all of these things said by one individual at one time in one place  relating to so many different human endeavors and then to look and see how  many of these actually came about ... that is changes accomplished between  then and now [1969 - 1988] and the things which are planned for the future, I  think there is no denying that this is controlled and there is indeed a  conspiracy. The question then becomes what to do. I think first off, we must  put our faith in God and pray and ask for his guidance. And secondly do what  we can to inform other individuals as much as possible, as much as they may  be interested. Some people just don't care, because they're preoccupied with  getting along in their own personal endeavors. But as much as possible I  think we should try to inform other people who may be interested, and again  ... put our faith and trust in God and pray constantly for his guidance and  for the courage to accept what we may be facing in the near future. Rather  than accept peace and justice which we hear so much now ... it's a cliché.  Let's insist on liberty and justice for all.