-Caveat Lector-
New Order of Barbarians Part I
The recollections of Dr. Lawrence Dunegan regarding a lecture he attended
on March 20, 1969 at a meeting of the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society.
The lecturer at that gathering of pediatricians was a Dr. Richard Day (who
died in 1989). 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. 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... the NEW ORDER OF BARBARIANS
IS THERE A POWER, A FORCE OR A GROUP OF MEN ORGANIZING AND REDIRECTING
CHANGE?
There has been much written, and much said, by some people who have looked
at all the changes that have occurred in American society in the past 20
years or so, and who have looked retrospectively to earlier history of the
United States, and indeed, of the world, and come to the conclusion that
there is a conspiracy of sorts which influences, indeed controls. major
historical events, not only in the United States, but around the world.
This conspiratorial interpretation of history is based on people making
observations from the outside, gathering evidence and coming to the
conclusion that from the outside they see a conspiracy. Their evidence and
conclusions are based on evidence gathered in retrospect. Period. I want to
now describe what I heard from a speaker in 1969 which in several weeks
will now 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 so...so that an entirely new world-wide system
would be in operation before the turn of the century. As he put it, "We
plan to enter the 21st Century with a running start." [emphasis supplied]
"EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE AND NOBODY CAN STOP US NOW..."
He said, as we listened to what he was about to present, he said, "Some of
you will think I'm talking about Communism. Well, what I'm talking about is
much bigger than Communism!" At that time he indicated that there is much
more cooperation between East and West than most people realize. In his
introductory remarks he commented that he was free to speak at this time.
He would not have been able to say what he was about to say, even a few
years earlier. But he was free to speak at this time because now, and I'm
quoting here, "everything is in place and nobody can stop us now." That's
the end of that quotation. He went on to say that most people don't
understand how governments operate and even people in high positions in
governments, including our own, don't really understand how and where
decisions are made. He went on to say that .. he went on to say that people
who really influence decisions are names that for the most part would be
familiar to most of us, but he would not use individuals' names or names of
any specific organization. But. That, if he did, most of the people would
be names that were recognized by most of his audience. He went on to say
that they were not primarily people in public office, but people of
prominence who were primarily known in their private occupations or private
positions. The speaker was a doctor of medicine, a former professor at a
large Eastern university, and he was addressing a group of doctors of
medicine, about 80 in number. His name would not be widely recognized by
anybody likely to hear this, and so there is no point in giving his name.
The only purpose in recording this is that it may give a perspective to
those who hear it regarding the changes which have already been
accomplished in the past 20 years or so, and a bit of a preview to what at
least some people are planning for the remainder of this century ... so
that we, or they, would enter the 21st Century with a flying start. Some of
us may not enter that Century. His purpose in telling our group about these
changes that were to be brought about was to make it easier for us to adapt
to these changes. Indeed, as he quite accurately said, "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.
"PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO CHANGE..."
Somewhere in the introductory remarks he insisted that nobody have a tape
recorder and that nobody take notes, which for a professor was a very
remarkable kind of thing to expect from an audience. Something in his
remarks suggested that there could be negative repercussions against him if
his .. if it became widely known what he was about to say to .. to our
group .. if it became widely known that indeed he had spilled the beans, so
to speak. When I heard first that, I thought maybe that was sort of an ego
trip, somebody enhancing his own importance. But as the revelations
unfolded, I began to understand why he might have had some concern about
not having it widely known what was said, although this .. although this
was a fairly public forum where he was speaking, (where the) remarks were
delivered. But, nonetheless, he asked that no notes be taken .. no tape
recording be used: suggesting there might be some personal danger to
himself if these revelations were widely publicized. Again, as the remarks
began to unfold, and saw the rather outrageous things that were said .. at
that time they certainly seemed outrageous .. I made it a point to try to
remember as much of what he said as I could, and during the subsequent
weeks and months, and years, to connect my recollections to simple events
around me .. both to aid my memory for the future, in case I wanted to do
what I'm doing now - record this. And also, to try to maintain a
perspective on what would be developing, if indeed, it followed the
predicted pattern - which it has! At this point, so that I don't forget to
include it later, I'll just include some statements that were made from
time to time throughout the presentation. .. just having a general bearing
on the whole presentation. One of the statements was having to do with
change. People get used .. the statement was, "People will have to get used
to the idea of change, so used to change, that they'll be expecting change.
Nothing will be permanent." This often came out in the context of a society
of .. where people seemed to have no roots or moorings, but would be
passively willing to accept change simply because it was all they had ever
known. This was sort of in contrast to generations of people up until this
time where certain things you expected to be, and remain in place as
reference points for your life. So change was to be brought about, change
was to be anticipated and expected, and accepted, no questions asked.
Another comment that was made .. from time to time during the presentation
.. was. "People are too trusting, people don't ask the right questions."
Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb. But
sometimes when .. when he would say that and say, "People don't ask the
right questions," it was almost with a sense of regret ... as if he were
uneasy with what he was part of, and wished that people would challenge it
and maybe not be so trusting.
THE REAL AND THE STATED GOALS
Another comment that was repeated from time to time, .. this particularly
in relation to changing laws and customs, .. and specific changes, .. he
said, "Everything has two purposes. One is the ostensible purpose which
will make it acceptable to people and second is the real purpose which
would further the goals of establishing the new system and having it,"
Frequently he would say, "There is just no other way, There's just no other
way!" This seemed to come as a sort of an apology, particularly when .. at
the conclusion of describing some particularly offensive changes. For
example, the promotion of drug addiction which we'll get into shortly.
POPULATION CONTROL
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.
PERMISSION TO HAVE BABIES
People won't be allowed to have babies just because they want to or because
they are careless. Most families would be limited to two. Some people would
be allowed only one, and the outstanding person or persons might be
selected and allowed to have three. But most people would [be] allowed to
have only two babies. That's because the zero population growth rate] is
2.1 children per completed family. So something like every 10th family
might be allowed the privilege of the third baby. To me, up to this point,
the word "population control primarily connoted limiting the number of
babies to be born. But this remark about what people would be "allowed" and
then what followed, made it quite clear that when you hear "population
control" that means more than just controlling births. It means control of
every endeavor of an entire .. of the entire world population; a much
broader meaning to that term than I had ever attached to it before hearing
this. As you listen and reflect back on some of the things you hear, you
will begin to recognize how one aspect dovetails with other aspects in
terms of controlling human endeavors.
REDIRECTING THE PURPOSE OF SEX:
SEX WITHOUT REPRODUCTION AND REPRODUCTION WITHOUT SEX
Well, from population control, the natural next step then was sex. He said
sex must be separated from reproduction. Sex is too pleasurable, and the
urges are too strong, to expect people to give it up. Chemicals in food and
in the water supply to reduce the sex drive are not practical. The strategy
then would be not to diminish sex activity, but to increase sex activity,
but in such a way that people won't be having babies.
CONTRACEPTION UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE TO ALL
And the first consideration then here was contraception. Contraception
would be very strongly encouraged, and it would be connected so closely in
people's minds with sex, that they would automatically think contraception
when they were thinking or preparing for sex. And contraception would be
made universally available. Nobody wanting contraception would be .. find
that they were unavailable. Contraceptives would be displayed much more
prominently in drug stores, right up with the cigarettes and chewing gum.
Out in the open rather than hidden under the counter where people would
have to ask for them and maybe be embarrassed. This kind of openness was a
way of suggesting that contraceptions .. that contraceptives are just as
much a part of life as any other items sold in the store. And,
contraceptives would be advertised. And contraceptives would be dispensed
in the schools in association with sex education!
SEX EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF WORLD GOVERNMENT
The sex education was to get kids interested early, making the connection
between sex and the need for contraception early in their lives, even
before they became very active. At this point I was recalling some of my
teachers, particularly in high school and found it totally unbelievable to
think of them agreeing, much less participating in, distributing of
contraceptives to students. But, that only reflected my lack of
understanding of how these people operate. That was before the school-based
clinic programs got started. Many, many cities in the United States by this
time have already set up school-based clinics which are primarily
contraception, birth control, population control clinics. The idea then is
that the connection between sex and contraception introduced and reinforced
in school would carry over into marriage. Indeed, if young people when they
matured decided to get married, marriage itself would be diminished in
importance. He indicated some recognition that most people probably would
want to be married. .. but that this certainly would not be any longer
considered to be necessary for sexual activity.
TAX FUNDED ABORTION AS POPULATION CONTROL
No surprise then, that the next item was abortion. And this, now back in
1969, four years before Roe vs. Wade. He said, "Abortion will no longer be
a crime." Abortion will be accepted as normal, and would be paid for by
taxes for people who could not pay for their own abortions. Contraceptives
would be made available by tax money so that nobody would have to do
without contraceptives. If school sex programs would lead to more
pregnancies in children, that was really seen as no problem. Parents who
think they are opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds will
change their minds when it is their own child who is pregnant. So this will
help overcome opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards
will still refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they won't matter
anymore.
ENCOURAGING HOMOSEXUALITY ... ANYTHING GOES HOMOSEXUALITY ALSO WAS TO BE
ENCOURAGED.
"People will be given permission to be homosexual," that's the way it was
stated. They won't have to hide it. And elderly people will be encouraged
to continue to have active sex 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.
TECHNOLOGY
Earlier he said .. sex and reproduction would be separated. You would have
sex without reproduction and then technology was reproduction without sex.
This would be done in the laboratory. He indicated that already much, much
research was underway about making babies in the laboratory. There was some
elaboration on that, but I don't remember the details. How much of that
technology has come to my attention since that time, I don't remember .. I
don't remember in a way that I can distinguish what was said from what I
subsequently have learned as general medical information.
FAMILIES TO DIMINISH IN IMPORTANCE
Families would be limited in size. We already alluded to not being allowed
more than two children. Divorce would be made easier and more prevalent.
Most people who marry will marry more than once. More people will not
marry. Unmarried people would stay in hotels and even live together. That
would be very common - nobody would even ask questions about it. It would
be widely accepted as no different from married people being together. More
women will work outside the home. More men will be transferred to other
cities and in their jobs, more men would travel. Therefore, it would be
harder for families to stay 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!
EUTHANASIA AND THE "DEMISE PILL"
Everybody has a right to live only so long. The old are no longer useful.
They become a burden. You should be ready to accept death. Most people are.
An arbitrary age limit could be established. After all, you have a right to
only so many steak dinners, so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in
life. And after you have had enough of them and you're no longer
productive, working, and contributing, then you should be ready to step
aside for the next generation. Some things that would help people realize
that they had lived long enough, he mentioned several of these - I don't
remember them all - here are a few - use of very pale printing ink on forms
that people .. are necessary to fill out, so that older people wouldn't be
able to read the pale ink as easily and would need to go to younger people
for help. Automobile traffic patterns - there would be more high-speed
traffic lanes .. traffic patterns that would .. that older people with
their slower reflexes would have trouble dealing with and thus, lose some
of their independence.
LIMITING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE MAKES ELIMINATING ELDERLY EASIER
A big item .. was elaborated at some length was the cost of medical care
would be made 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."
PLANNING THE CONTROL OVER MEDICINE
The next topic is Medicine. There would be profound changes in the practice
of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled. The
observation was made, "Congress is not going to go along with national
health insurance. That (in 1969)," he said, "is now, abundantly evident.
But it's not necessary. We have other ways to control health care." These
would come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come
under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work. If
you don't work or can't work, you won't have access to medical care. The
days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where
it was virtually nonexistent. Costs would be forced up so that people won't
be able to afford to go without insurance. People pay.. you pay for it,
you're entitled to it. It was only subsequently that I began to realize the
extent to which you would not be paying for it. Your medical care would be
paid for by others. And therefore you would gratefully accept, on bended
knee, what was offered to you as a privilege. Your role being responsible
for your own care would be diminished. As an aside here, this is not
something that was developed at that time .. I didn't understand it at the
time as an aside, the way this works, everybody's made dependent on
insurance. And if you don't have insurance then you pay directly; the cost
of your care is enormous. The insurance company, however, paying for your
care, does not pay that same amount. If you are charged, say, $600 for the
use of an operating room, the insurance company does not pay $600 on your
part. They pay $300 or $400. And that differential in billing has the
desired effect: It enables the insurance company to pay for that which you
could never pay for. They get a discount that's unavailable to you. When
you see your bill you're grateful that the insurance company could do that.
And in this way you are dependent, and virtually required to have
insurance. The whole billing is fraudulent. Anyhow, continuing on now, ..
access to hospitals would be tightly controlled. Identification would be
needed to get into the building. The security in and around hospitals would
be established and gradually increased so that nobody without
identification could get in or move around inside the building. Theft of
hospital equipment, things like typewriters and microscopes and so forth
would be "allowed" and exaggerated; reports of it would be exaggerated so
that this would be the excuse needed to establish the need for strict
security, until people got used to it. And anybody moving about the
hospital would be required to wear an identification badge with photograph
and.. telling why he was there .. employee or lab technician or visitor or
whatever. This is to be brought in gradually, getting everybody used to the
idea of identifying themselves - until it was just accepted. This need for
ID to move about would start in small ways: hospitals, some businesses, but
gradually expand to include everybody in all places! It was observed that
hospitals can be used to confine people .. for the treatment of criminals.
This did not mean, necessarily, medical treatment. At that .. at that time
I did not know the word "Psycho-Prison" - is in the Soviet Union, but,
without trying to recall all the details, basically, he was describing the
use of hospitals both for treating the sick, and for confinement of
criminals for reasons other than the medical well-being of the criminal.
The definition of criminal was not given.
ELIMINATION OF PRIVATE DOCTORS
The image of the doctor would change. No longer would the .. he be seen as
an individual professional in service to individual patients. But the
doctor would be gradually recognized as a highly skilled technician - and
his job would change. The job is to include things like executions by
lethal injection. The image of the doctor being a powerful, independent
person would have to be changed. And he went on to say, "Doctors are making
entirely too much money. They should advertise like any other product."
Lawyers would be advertising too. Keep in mind, this was an audience of
doctors; being addressed by a doctor. And it was interesting that he would
make some rather insulting statements to his audience without fear of
antagonizing us. The solo practitioner would become a thing of the past. A
few die-hards might try to hold out, but most doctors would be employed by
an institution of one kind or another. Group practice would be encouraged,
corporations would be encouraged, and then once the corporate image of
medical care .. as this gradually became more and more acceptable, doctors
would more and more become employees rather than independent contractors.
And along with that, of course, unstated but necessary, is the employee
serves his employer, not his patient. So that's .. we've already seen quite
a lot of that in the last 20 years. And apparently more on the horizon. The
term HMO 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.
NEW DIFFICULT TO DIAGNOSE AND UNTREATABLE DISEASES
Next heading to talk about is Health and Disease. He said there would be
new diseases to appear which had not ever been seen before. Would be very
difficult to diagnose and be untreatable - at least for along time. No
elaboration was made on this, but I remember, not long after hearing this
presentation, when I had a puzzling diagnosis to make, I would be
wondering, "is this was what he was talking about? Is this a case of what
he was talking about?" Some years later, as AIDS ultimately developed, I
think AIDS was at least one example of what he was talking about. I now
think that AIDS probably was a manufactured disease.
SUPPRESSING CANCER CURES AS A MEANS OF POPULATION CONTROL
Cancer. He said. "We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is
on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should
be released. But consider - if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we
would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something
else." Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more toward comfort than
toward cure. There was some statement that ultimately the cancer cures
which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to light
because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these efforts
to suppress them. But at least for the time being, letting people die of
cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of
overpopulation.
INDUCING HEART ATTACKS AS A FORM OF ASSASSINATION
Another very interesting thing was heart attacks. He said, "There is now a
way to simulate a real heart attack. It can be used as a means of
assassination." Only a very skilled pathologist who knew exactly what to
look for at an autopsy, could distinguish this from the real thing. I
thought that was a very surprising and shocking thing to hear from this
particular man at that particular time. This, and the business of the
cancer cure, really still stand out sharply in my memory, because they were
so shocking and, at that time, seemed to me out of character. He then went
on to talk about nutrition and exercise sort of in the same framework.
People would not have to .. people would have to eat right and exercise
right to live as long as before. Most won't. This in the connection of
nutrition, there was no specific statement that I can recall as to
particular nutrients that would be either inadequate or in excess. In
retrospect, I tend to think he meant high salt diets and high fat diets
would predispose toward high blood pressure and premature arteriosclerotic
heart disease. And that if people who were too dumb or too lazy to exercise
as they should then their dietary .. their circulating fats go up and
predispose to disease. And he said something about diet information - about
proper diet - would be widely available, but most people, particularly
stupid people, who had no right to continue living anyway, they would
ignore the advice and just go on and eat what was convenient and tasted
good. There were some other unpleasant things said about food. I just can't
recall what they were. But I do remember of .. having reflections about
wanting to plant a garden in the backyard to get around whatever these
contaminated foods would be. I regret I don't remember the details .. the
rest of this .. about nutrition and hazardous nutrition. With regard to
Exercise. He went on to say that more people would be exercising more,
especially running, because everybody can run. You don't need any special
equipment or place. You can run wherever you are. As he put it. "people
will be running all over the place." And in this vein, he pointed out how
supply produces demand. And this was in reference to athletic clothing and
equipment. As this would be made more widely available and glamorized,
particularly as regards running shoes, this would stimulate people to
develop an interest in running and .. as part of a whole sort of public
propaganda campaign. People would be encouraged then to buy the attractive
sports equipment and to get into exercise. Again .. well in connection with
nutrition he also mentioned that public eating places would rapidly
increase. That .. this had a connection with the family too. As more and
more people eat out, eating at home would become less important. People
would be less dependent on their kitchens at home. And then this also
connected to convenience foods being made widely available - things like
you could pop into the microwave. Whole meals would be available pre-fixed.
And of course. we've now seen this ... and some pretty good ones. But this
whole different approach to eating out and to .. previously prepared meals
being eaten in the home was predicted at that time to be brought about -
convenience foods. The convenience foods would be part of the hazards.
Anybody who was lazy enough to want the convenience foods rather than
fixing his own also had better be energetic enough to exercise. Because if
he was too lazy to exercise and too lazy to fix his own food, then he
didn't deserve to live very long. This was all presented as sort of a moral
judgement about people and what they should do with their energies. People
who are smart, who would learn about nutrition, and who are disciplined
enough to eat right and exercise right are better people - and the kind you
want to live longer.
EDUCATION AS A TOOL FOR ACCELERATING THE ONSET OF PUBERTY AND EVOLUTION
Somewhere along in here there was also something about accelerating the
onset of puberty. And this was said in connection with health, and later in
connection with education, and connecting to accelerating the process of
evolutionary change. There was a statement that "we think that we can push
evolution faster and in the direction we want it to go." I remember this
only as a general statement. I don't recall if any details were given
beyond that.
BLENDING ALL RELIGIONS...THE OLD RELIGIONS WILL HAVE TO GO
Another area of discussion was Religion. This is an avowed atheist
speaking. And he said, "Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people
seem to need religion, with it's mysteries and rituals - so they will have
religion. But the major religions of today have to be changed because they
are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to
go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought
down, the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can
be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from
all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept it, and feel
at home in it. Most people won't be too concerned with religion. They will
realize that they don't need it.
CHANGING THE BIBLE THROUGH REVISIONS OF KEY WORDS
In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit
the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words
having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word
can be close to the old word - and as time goes on, other shades of meaning
of that word can be emphasized. and then gradually that word replaced with
another word." I don't know if I'm making that clear. But the idea is that
everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by
other words. And the variability in meaning attached to any word can be
used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore
make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won't know the
difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, "the few
who do notice the difference won't be enough to matter."
"THE CHURCHES WILL HELP US!"
Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole
presentation: He said, "Some of you probably think the Churches won't stand
for this," and he went on to say, "the churches will help us!" There was no
elaboration on this, it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said,
"the churches will help us!" In retrospect I think some of us now can
understand what he might have meant at that time. I recall then only of
thinking, "no they won't!" and remembering our Lord's words where he said
to Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and
gates of Hell will not prevail against it." So .. yes, some people in the
Churches might help. And in the subsequent 20 years we've seen how some
people in Churches have helped. But we also know that our Lord's Words will
stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail.
RESTRUCTURING EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF INDOCTRINATION
Another area of discussion was Education. And one of the things; in
connection with education that remember connecting with what he said about
religion was in addition to changing the Bible he said that the classics in
Literature would be changed. I seem to recall Mark Twain's writings was
given as one example. But he said, the casual reader reading a revised
version of a classic would never even suspect that there was any change.
And, somebody would have to go through word by word to even recognize that
any change was made in these classics, the changes would be so subtle. But
the changes would be such as to promote the acceptability of the new
system.
MORE TIME IN SCHOOLS, BUT THEY "WOULDN'T LEARN ANYTHING."
As regards education, he indicated that kids would spend more time in
schools, but in many schools they wouldn't learn anything. They'll learn
some things, but not as much as formerly. Better schools in better areas
with better people - their kids will learn more. 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.
CONTROLLING WHO HAS ACCESS TO INFORMATION
He was already talking about computers in education, and at that time he
said anybody who wanted computer access, or access to books that were not
directly related to their field of study would have to have a very good
reason for so doing. Otherwise, access would be denied.
SCHOOLS AS THE HUB OF THE COMMUNITY
Another angle was that the schools would become more important in people's
overall life. Kids in addition to their academics would have to get into
school activities unless they wanted to feel completely out of it. But
spontaneous activities among kids.. the thing that came to my mind when I
heard this was - sand lot football and sand lot baseball teams that we
worked up as kids growing up. I said the kids wanting any activities
outside of school would be almost forced to get them through the school.
There would be few opportunities outside. Now the pressures of the
accelerated academic program, the accelerated demands. where kids would
feel they had to be part of something - one or another athletic club or
some school activity - these pressures he recognized would cause some
students to burn out. He said. "the smartest ones will learn how to cope
with pressures and to survive. There will be some help available to
students in handling stress, but the unfit won't be able to make it. They
will then move on to other things." In this connection and later on in the
connection with drug abuse and alcohol abuse he indicated that psychiatric
services to help would be increased dramatically. In all the pushing for
achievement, it was recognized that many people would need help, and the
people worth keeping around would be able to accept and benefit from that
help, and still be super achievers. Those who could not would fall by the
wayside and therefore were sort of dispensable - "expendable" I guess is
the word I want. Education would be lifelong. Adults would be going to
school. There'll always be new information that adults must have to keep
up. When you can't keep up anymore, you're too old. This was another way of
letting older people know that the time had come for them to move on and
take the demise pill. If you got too tired to keep up with your education,
or you got too old to learn new information, then this was a signal - you
begin to prepare to get ready to step aside.
"SOME BOOKS WOULD JUST DISAPPEAR FROM THE LIBRARIES..."
In addition to revising the classics, which I alluded to awhile ago .. with
revising the Bible, he said, "some books would just disappear from the
libraries." This was in the vein that some books contain information or
contain ideas that should not be kept around. And therefore, those books
would disappear. I don't remember exactly if he said how this was to be
accomplished. But I seem to recall carrying away this idea that this would
include thefts. That certain people would be designated to go to certain
libraries and pick up certain books and just get rid of them. Not
necessarily as a matter of policy - just simply steal it. Further down the
line, not everybody will be allowed to own books. And some books nobody
will be allowed to own.
CHANGING LAWS
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.
THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF DRUG ABUSE TO CREATE A JUNGLE ATMOSPHERE
Drug use would he increased. Alcohol use would be increased. Law
enforcement efforts against drugs would be increased. On first hearing that
it sounded like a contradiction. Why increase drug abuse and simultaneously
increase law enforcement against drug abuse? But the idea is that, in part,
the increased availability of drugs would provide a sort of law of the
jungle whereby the weak and the unfit would be selected out. There was a
statement made at the time: "Before the earth was overpopulated, there was
a law of the jungle where only the fittest survived. You had to be able to
protect yourself against the elements and wild animals and disease. And if
you were fit you survived. But now we've become so civilized - we're over
civilized - and the unfit are enabled to survive only at the expense of
those who are more fit." And the abusive drugs then, would restore, in a
certain sense, the law of the jungle, and selection of the fittest for
survival. News about drug abuse and law enforcement efforts would tend to
keep drugs in the public consciousness. And would also tend to reduce this
unwarranted American complacency that the world is a safe place, and a nice
place.
ALCOHOL ABUSE
The same thing would happen with alcohol. Alcohol abuse would be both
promoted and demoted at the same time. The vulnerable and the weak would
respond to the promotions and therefore use and abuse more alcohol. Drunk
driving would become more of a problem; and stricter rules about driving
under the influence would be established so that more and more people would
lose their privilege to drive.
RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL
This also had connection with something we'll get to later about overall
restrictions on travel. Not everybody should be free to travel the way they
do now in the United States. People don't have a need to travel that way.
It's a privilege! It was 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!"
THE NEED FOR MORE JAILS, AND USING HOSPITALS AS JAILS
More jails would be needed. Hospitals could serve as jails. Some new
hospital construction would be designed so as to make them adaptable to
jail-like use.
End Part I
------------
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the
name of "Liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing
what happened."
-Norman Thomas, former U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate
**********************************************************
[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
