-Caveat Lector-
New Order of Barbarians Part II
NO MORE SECURITY
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.
CRIME USED TO MANAGE SOCIETY
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.
CURTAILMENT OF AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL PRE-EMINENCE
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.
SHIFTING POPULATIONS AND ECONOMIES -- TEARING THE SOCIAL ROOTS
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.
SPORTS AS A TOOL OF SOCIAL CHANGE
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.
SEX AND VIOLENCE INCULCATED THROUGH ENTERTAINMENT
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 RESTRICTIONS AND IMPLANTED I.D.
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 CONTROL
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.
WEATHER CONTROL
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.
KNOW HOW PEOPLE RESPOND - MAKING THEM DO WHAT YOU WANT
Somewhere in the presentation he made two statements that I want to insert
at this time. I don't remember just where they were made, but they're valid
in terms of the general overall view. 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."
FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Somewhere in this connection, then, was the statement admitting that some
scientific research data could be - and indeed has been - falsified in
order to bring about desired results. And here was said, "People don't ask
the right questions. Some people are too trusting." Now this was an
interesting statement because the speaker and the audience all being
doctors of medicine and supposedly very objectively, dispassionately
scientific and science being the be all and end-all ... well to falsify
scientific research data in that setting is like blasphemy in the church
... you just don't do that. Anyhow, out of all of this was to come the New
International Governing Body, probably to come through the 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.
TERRORISM
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.
FINANCIAL CONTROL
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.
SURVEILLANCE, IMPLANTS, AND TELEVISIONS THAT WATCH YOU
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.
HOME OWNERSHIP A THING OF THE PAST
Privately owned housing would become a thing of the past. The cost of
housing and financing housing would gradually be made so high that most
people couldn't afford it. People who already owned their houses would be
allowed to keep them but as years go by it would be more and more difficult
for young people to buy a house. Young people would more and more become
renters, particularly in apartments or condominiums. More and more unsold
houses would stand vacant. People just couldn't buy them. But the cost of
housing would not come down. You'd right away think, well the vacant house,
the price would come down, the people would buy it. But there was some
statement to the effect that the price would be held high even though there
were many available so that free market places would not operate. People
would not be able to buy these and gradually more and more of the
population would be forced into small apartments. Small apartments which
would not accommodate very many children. Then as the number of real
home-owners diminished they would become a 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.
THE ARRIVAL OF THE TOTALITARIAN GLOBAL SYSTEM
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.
End Part II
---------------
In expressing aspirations, in seeking practical plans, in translating
humanity's new concept of righteousness and justice and its hatred of
war into recommended action we are ready most heartily to unite, but
every commitment must be made in the exercise of our national
sovereignty. Since [America is] freedom impelled, and independence
inspired, and nationality exalted, a world supergovernment is contrary
to everything we cherish and can have no sanction by our Republic.
This is not selfishness, it is sanctity. It is not aloofness, it is
security. It is not suspicion of others, it is patriotic adherence to
the things which made us what we are."
-Warren G. Harding, in his Inaugural Address on March 4, 1921
**********************************************************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Patriot Resource Center:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6627/
**********************Live Free or Die!**********************<><
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
