tape three

http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/new_order_of_barbarians_3.html

 

 

Note: This is a transcript of an interview by Randy Engel, Director of the US Coalition for Life, with Dr Larry Dunegan on Oct. 10, 1991 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On tapes I and II, (made in 1988) Dr Lawrence Dunegan, recounted his memories of the lecture he attended in 1969 where a New World Order insider, Dr Richard Day, revealed plans for a "World System" which is usually called the New World Order i.e. the long planned and awaited feudal-fascist World Government. In this final tape Dr Dunegan fleshes out the character of Dr Day and the nature of his "New System."

 

---

Randy Engel (R.E.): Why don't we open up with a little bit about the man who you are talking about on these tapes. Just a little profile and a little bit about his education and particularly his relationship with the population control establishment. I think that probably was his entree into much of this information.

Dr Lawrence Dunegan (D.L.D.): Yeah. Dr Day was the Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh from about 1959 thru '64, about that period of time, and then he left the University of Pittsburgh and went to fill the position of Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

R.E: And that was what… about 1965 to '68, about that period?

D.L.D: About '64 or '65 'til about '68 or '69, and then he left there ... I don't know specifically why, I did not know him intimately. We were, you know, more than acquainted ... I was a student and he would see me at lectures and, so he knew my name as a student, probably corrected some of my test scores and that sort of thing. Of course, I knew him as lecturer -would stand in front of the auditorium and listen as he talked about diseases ... and take notes.

R.E: What's interesting is that this man is not as well known, I think to our listeners as names like Mary Calderone and Allen Gootmacher(sp). They were medical directors at one time or another for Planned Parenthood, but Dr Day was not well known. And as a matter of fact when I went back into the SIECUS archives there was very little information that had his actual name on it. So he was not one of the better known of the medical directors, but I'd say he probably had the scoop of what was going on as well -if not better- than any of the others before or after he came. Can you describe the scene of this particular lecture, the approximate date, and what was the occasion- and then a little bit about the audience?

D.L.D: This was the … the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society holds about four meetings each year where we have some speaker come in and talk about a medical topic related to pediatrics and this was our spring meeting. It's always late February or early part of March. This was in March, 1969 and it was held at a restaurant called the Lamont which is well known in Pittsburgh. Beautiful place. In attendance, I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 people. Mostly physicians, if not exclusively physicians. Predominantly pediatricians, particularly pediatric surgeons and pediatric radiologists -other people who were involved in medical care of children, even though they might not be pediatricians as such.

R.E: And the speech was given after the meal, I presume?

D.L.D: A very nice meal and everyone was settled down, quite comfortable and quite filled and really an ideal state to absorb what was coming.

R.E: But when you listen to the tape, he says some of the most ... well not only outrageous things, but things you would think a pediatrician would kind of almost jump out of his seat at ... for example when he mentions the cancer cures. There were probably doctors in the audience who were perhaps treating a child or knowing of a child who was in need of a particular cancer cure. And to hear that some of these prescriptions for or treatments for cancer were sitting over at the Rockefeller Institute, and yet, as far as I got from the tape everyone just kind of sat there ... didn't say very much. I mean he was talking about falsifying scientific data and everyone just kind of yawns and ... How long did this speech go on?

D.L.D: Two hours. He spoke for over two hours which was longer than most of our speakers go and one of the interesting things ... he hasn't finished, it was getting late and he said:

" ... there's much much more, but we could be here all night but it's time to stop."

And I think that's significant, that there was much more that we never heard. In the beginning of the presentation, I don't know whether I mentioned this at the introduction of the first tape or not, but somewhere in the beginning of this he said:

"You will forget most or much of what I'm going to tell you tonight."

And at the time I thought, well, sure, that's true. We tend to forget. You know, somebody talks for hours you forget a lot of what they say. But, there is such a thing as the power of suggestion and I can't say for sure but I do wonder if this may not have been a suggestion when we were all full of a nice dinner and relaxed and listening - we took that suggestion and forgot, because I know a number of my colleagues who were there when I would - some years later ? say:

"Do you remember when Dr Day said this, or he said that or said the other?"

They'd say: "Well, yeah, I kind of ... is that what he said? You know I kind of remember that."

But most were not very impressed, which to me was surprising because ... well use the example of cancer cures. But he said a number of things that …

R.E: Like doctors making too much money ...?

D.L.D: Yeah, changing the image of the doctor. You're just going to be a high-paid technician rather than a professional who exercises independent judgment on behalf of his independent patient. A number of things that I thought should have been offensive and elicited a reaction from physicians because they were physicians. I was surprised at how little reaction there was to it. And then other things that I would have expected people to react to just because they were human beings and I think most of the people at the meeting subscribed more or less to the Judaeo-Christian ethic and codes of behavior, and that was violated right and left. And particularly one of my friends I thought would be as disturbed as I was about this just sort of smiled ... wasn't disturbed at all. I thought, gee, this is surprising.

R.E: Was part of it also because of his prominence? I mean he was …

D.L.D: The authority ... Authority figure? Yeah, I think there might be something there. This is the authority. We sort of owe some deference here.

R.E: And he couldn't possibly mean what he's saying or there couldn't possibly be any ... I mean, he's such a good guy.

D.L.D: I've often heard that phrase, "He's such a good guy. I can't believe he'd actually mean the things" ... I can only speculate about this. But I do think at the time there was an element of disbelief about all of this. Thinking, well this is somebody's fairy tale plan but it will never really happen because it's too outlandish. Of course we know step by step it is indeed happening right under our feet.

R.E: Before talking about the specific areas, I think there's a lot of benefits from this tape. One of them is when we have a good idea of what the opposition is about and the techniques he's using - then you can turn around and begin your resistance to all the types of manipulations and so forth. So I think that the seeing that there were four or five "theme songs" -he kept repeating them over and over again.

For example this business which I think is so important that people fail to distinguish between the ostensible reason and the real reason. In other words, if you want someone to do something and you know that initially he'll be balky at doing that because it's against his morals or against his religious beliefs, you have to substitute another reason that will be acceptable. And then, after he accepts it and it's a fait accompli then there's just no turning back.

D.L.D: Right. It was in that connection that he said, "People don't ask the right questions." Too trusting. And this was directed, as I recall, mostly at Americans. I had the feelings he thought Europeans maybe were more skeptical and more sophisticated. That Americans are too trusting and don't ask the right questions.

R.E: With regard to this lack of ... almost a lack of discernment. I guess that's basically what he was saying. They were easily tricked or too trusting. The thing that flashed through my mind rather quickly, for example in schools ... how quickly so-called AIDS education was introduced. It did amaze me because if a group stated publicly that they wanted to introduce the concept of sodomy or initiate sex earlier and earlier in children and that was the reason given, most parents I presume wouldn't go for that. So you have to come up with another reason and of course the reason for this so-called AIDS education was to protect children from this disease. But actually, as it turns out, it's really been a great boon for the homosexual network, because through various things like Project Ten they now have access to our children from the youngest years.

These programs are going on from K-12 and I imagine well into college and beyond, so that they are reaching a tremendous segment. Speaking of children, I gather that this speaker ... he kept on making the point about, well, old people, they're going to go by the wayside, so I presume that the emphasis for these controllers for this New World Order is really an emphasis on youth.

D.L.D: Absolutely. Yes. Emphasis on youth. This was stated explicitly. People beyond a certain age ... they're set in their ways and you're not going to change them. They have values and they're going to stick to them. But you get to the youth when they're young, they're pliable. You mold them in the direction you want them to go. This is correct. They're targeting the young. They figure, "you old fogies that don't see it our way, you're going to be dying off or when the time comes we're going to get rid of you. But it's the youngsters we have to mold in the impression we want."

Now something on homosexuality I want to expand on, I don't think this came out on the original tape, but there was, first of all:

"We're going to promote homosexuality."

And secondly:

"We recognize that it's bizarre abnormal behavior. But, this is another element in the law of the jungle, because people who are stupid enough to go along with this are not fit to inhabit the planet and they'll go by the wayside".

I'm not stating this precisely the way he said it, but it wasn't too far from there where there was some mention of diseases being created. And when I remember the one statement and remember the other statement, I believe AIDS is a disease which has been created in the laboratory and I think that one purpose it serves is to get rid of people who are so stupid as to go along with our homosexual program. Let them wipe themselves out.

Now it's hard for me make clear how much of it is I'm remembering with great confidence and how much is pure speculation. But as I synthesize this - this is I think what happens ...

"If you're dumb enough to be convinced by our promotion of homosexuality you don't deserve a place and you're going to fall by the wayside sooner or later. We'll be rid of you. We'll select out ... the people who will survive are those who are also smart enough not to be deluded by our propaganda".

Does that make sense?

R.E: Well, it certainly makes sense for them. And I think also this early sex initiation has the over all purpose which I think we'll get to in depth a little later. But of the sexualization of the population ... when he said on the tape, basically, "Anything goes", I think that is what we're seeing. It's not so much that, let's say, someone may not adopt the homosexual style for himself, but as a result of the propaganda he certainly will be a lot more tolerant of that type of behavior too. So it's a desensitization, even for the individual who doesn't go over and accept it for himself.

D.L.D: With the power of propaganda you dare not be against homosexuals, otherwise you get labeled homophobe. You dare not be against any of our programs for women, otherwise you're a male chauvinist pig. It's like anti-Semitism. If this label gets enough currency in the culture that people get shockingly stuck with it. It's easier to keep quiet.

R.E: Another theme was this business about "change." And I want to get to change in relation to religion and family, but during the period of hearing this tape, I remember going to a mass and they happened to have at that point dancing girls from the alter. So when I was sitting and getting a chance to listen to the tape I thought, as a Catholic that has been ... if you talk about effective change, that has been probably the most difficult and the hardest thing has been to watch our traditional Mass, those things which Catholics have practiced and believed for so long and ... at about that time this speech was given which was about late 1969, everything had begun to turn over on its head, so much so that I think many people feel now when they go into a church where there is the Novus Ordo (sp), I think you're almost in a state of constant anxiety because you're not quite sure ... What am I going to encounter now?

You look at the little song book; of course that's changed radically and you see, instead of brethren, you see people; or you might see something odd happening up at the alter which is now the "table". The notion of God as eternal and the teachings of Jesus Christ as eternal, and therefore the teachings of the church as eternal depends on the authority of God, and God brings about change in God's way. What this boils down to me is these people say, "No, we take the place of God; we establish what will change and what will not change, so if we say that homosexuality or anything is moral today ... wasn't yesterday, but it is today. We have said so, and therefore it's moral. We can change tomorrow. We can make it immoral again tomorrow". And this is the usurpation of the role of God to define what the peon, the ordinary person's supposed to believe.

D.L.D: So, the idea is, that if everybody is used to change most people aren't going to ask, "Well who has decided what should be changed and how it should be changed?" Most people just go along with it, like hemlines, and shoe styles and that sort of thing. So it is a usurpation of the Rule of God, and if you read the

ランキングに参加中。クリックして応援お願いします！

• 
  人気ブログランキング
• 
  にほんブログ村

コメント

 

 

 

 

• 
• 
• 
• 

tape two

http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/new_order_of_barbarians_2.html

 

Change

.... Change, nothing is permanent. Streets would be rerouted, renamed. Areas you had not seen in a while would become unfamiliar. Among other things, this would contribute to older people feeling that it was time to move on; they feel they couldn't even keep up with the changes in areas that were once familiar. Buildings would be allowed to stand empty and deteriorate, and streets would be allowed to deteriorate in certain localities. The purpose of this was to provide the jungle, the depressed atmosphere for the unfit. Somewhere in this same connection he mentioned that buildings and bridges would be made so that they would collapse after a while; there would be more accidents involving airplanes and railroads and automobiles. All of this to contribute to the feeling of insecurity, that nothing was safe. Not too long after this presentation and I think one or two even before in the area where I live, we had some newly constructed bridge to break; another newly constructed bridge defect discovered before it broke, and I remember reading just scattered incidents around the country where shopping malls would fall in ? right where they were filled with shoppers. And I remember that one of the shopping malls in our area, the first building I'd ever been in where you could feel this vibration throughout the entire building when there were a lot of people in there; and I remember wondering at that time whether this shopping mall was one of the buildings he was talking about.

Talking to construction people and architects about it they would say, "Oh no, that's good when the building vibrates like that. That means it's flexible, not rigid." Well ... maybe so. We'll wait and see. Other areas there would be well-maintained. Not every part of the city would be slums. There would be the created slums and other areas well-maintained. Those people able to leave the slums for better areas then would learn to better appreciate the importance of human accomplishment. This meant that if they left the jungle and came to civilization, so to speak, they could be proud of their own accomplishments that they made it. There was no related sympathy for those who were left behind in the jungle of drugs and deteriorating neighborhoods. Then a statement that was kind of surprising:

"We think we can effectively limit crime to the slum areas, so it won't be spread heavily into better areas."

 

Consolidating Policy

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."

Global Interdependence: "To Create a New Structure, you first have to tear down the Old"

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.

Patriotism would go down the Drain

And at this point there was some discussion of steel and particularly automobiles. I remember him 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.

Loss of Jobs: Loss of Security

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 smokestacks 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.

Population Shifts to Eliminate "Traditions"

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 changing 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 Sun Belt 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 seacoast 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.

World Citizens: World Sports

Anyhow, going back to industry. Some heavy industry would remain. Just enough to maintain a sort of a seedbed 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 then national identities would tend to be de-emphasized. Each area depended on every other area for one or another element in its life. We would all become citizens of the world rather than citizens of any one country.  And along these lines then we can talk about sports. Sports in the United States were 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 and 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 either 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 then 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 at all 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, in Europe, in 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 narrow nations.

Hunting

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.

Sports for Girls: to De-emphasize Femininity

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 need not 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 thing 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 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 to look forward to being a mother.

Entertainment: Violence, Sex and more Sex Desensitization: Preparing the People for "Human Casualties"

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, on television. And 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 VCRs 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 ... and 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

tape one

http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/new_order_of_barbarians.html

The New Order of Barbarians is the transcript of three tapes of reminiscences made by  Dr Lawrence Dunegan, of a speech given on March 20, 1969 by Dr Richard Day (1905-89), an insider of the "Order," recorded by Randy Engel in 1988. Dr Dunegan claims he attended a medical meeting on March 20, 1969 where Dr Richard Day (who died in 1989 but at the time was Professor of Paediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York and was previously the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America) give "off the record" remarks during an addressed at the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society to a meeting of students and health professionals, who were destined to be leaders in medicine and health care.

In tape three, recorded by Randy Engel, Dunegan details Dr Day's credentials and what is clear from this is that Day was an Establishment insider privy to the overarching plan of an Elite Group that rules the Western World for the creation of a World Dictatorship. A Global Tyranny usually called the New World Order containing a secular and a spiritual component -the One World Government and the One World Religion: A future reality that those who understand such things call Lucifer's Totalitarian World Empire.

Before he began his talk, Dr Day asked everyone to turn off all tape recorders and stop note taking so that he could tell them, the prospective leaders of organised medicine, what was going to happen in the future. Dr Dunegan sensed Dr Day's message was important, disobeyed the request and recorded what was said as notes on napkins, later writing up these notes, which were the basis of the interview with Engel, the National Director of the US Coalition for Life. The notes taken by Dunegan reveal not just what is planned for the entire world's people but also how this evil cabal intend to carry out this plan. For, those who understand such things will recognise that Day's remarks are merely reiteration of the secret agenda of the Global Elite to wipe out swathes of humanity by promoting ill health and spurious medical treatments while suppressing effective treatments for diseases as well as the deliberate introduction of man-made pathogens, like AIDS, into the human gene pool.

Throughout is talk Day justifies his observations by using a philosophy founded upon a spurious theory made famous by the English natural scientist Charles Darwin (1809-82) vis-?-vis evolution by "natural selection." That is, a posited natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment pithily described by an ardent supporter of it, the English philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), as the "survival of the fittest." Spencer also promptly applied Darwin's hypothesis to human societies. Thus, while Darwin restricted his formula of organic evolution (wherein new species arise and are perpetuated by "natural selection") to the animal kingdom, others followed Spencer and extended "natural selection" to human society.

Spencer's theory, often called Social Darwinism (whereby human society mimics the jungle and only those best able to cope with the many testing dangers survive and perpetuate their characteristics into future generations and so ever increase the degree of separation of human society from the degenerate) is the scientific basis of Eugenics and everything it connotes.

The German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900) best remembered for his concept of the "superman" and for his rejection of Christian values is one of the philosophical giants of this movement. Dr Day, an ardent atheist, was thus a spokesman for those who view human existence as merely an extension of the jungle and whose self-appointed task is to safeguard what advances have been made by humans, epitomised by Western Civilisation, by rooting out "weakness" and "degeneracy" from the human gene pool. Moreover, in so doing, not only preserve what advances humanity has made in this evolutionary process but also to "help" it along. It is this pernicious philosophy, wholly inimical to the true purpose of Creation wrought by the Will of God, and of the Natural Moral Order therein, which lies barely concealed in much of the wicked works of those who strive to build their New World Order. It is also part of the reason why a major component of the plan for the New World Order is not only Eugenics but also Population Reduction and genocide. Moreover, it is the reason why people like Dr Day hate Christianity, which in its truest form concretises Natural Moral Order, and seeks its destruction here on Earth as a spiritual reality.

Although Day knew and spoke of the Secret Agenda within organised medicine to cull the world's population, he was also privy to the wider goals of the conspirators working to bring about World Dictatorship under their direct control. In his introductory remarks, Dr Richard Day commented that he was free to speak at this time (1969) since, even a few years earlier, he would not have been able to say what he was about to say. However, he was now free to speak at this time because the Ancient Ambition of the Secret Societies for World Empire, the closely guarded "Closed Conspiracy" was now an "Open Conspiracy" because as Day crowed:

"... everything is in place and nobody can stop us now."

Amongst the hitherto Secret Plans Day outlined were the morals revolution that had shook Western society to its foundations and the ushering onto the world's stage a New World Religion: this is Ahriman's One World Religion of the New World Order, which would be brought about by the churches themselves, especially the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, he discussed "bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war" and the cynical control and use of "terrorism" to bring about World Government and the New World Order.

Topics Day discusses are:

"Population control; permission to have babies; redirecting the purpose of sex - sex without reproduction and reproduction without sex; contraception universally available to all; sex education and carnalising of youth as a tool of world government; tax funded abortion as population control; encouraging homosexuality ... anything goes homosexuality also was to be encouraged; technology used for reproduction without sex; families to diminish in importance; euthanasia and the "demise pill"; limiting access to affordable medical care makes eliminating elderly easier; medicine would be tightly controlled; elimination of private doctors; new difficult to diagnose and untreatable diseases; suppressing cancer cures as a means of population control; inducing heart attacks as a form of assassination; education as a tool for accelerating the onset of puberty and evolution; blending all religions ... the old religions will have to go; changing the bible through revisions of key words; restructuring education as a tool of indoctrination; more time in schools, but pupils "wouldn't learn anything"; controlling who has access to information; schools as the hub of the community; "some books would just disappear from the libraries"; changing laws to promote moral and social chaos; the encouragement of drug abuse to create a jungle atmosphere in cities and towns; promote alcohol abuse; restrictions on travel; the need for more jails, and using hospitals as jails; no more psychological or physical security; crime used to manage society; curtailment of US industrial pre-eminence; shifting populations and economies -tearing out the social roots; sports as a tool of social engineering and change; sex and violence inculcated through entertainment; travel restrictions and implanted I.D. cards; food control; weather control; know how people respond -making them do what you want; falsified scientific research; use of terrorism; surveillance, implants, and televisions that watch you; home ownership a thing of the past; the arrival of the totalitarian global system."

 

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 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 thereafter, 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 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 '60s"; that was kind of a clich? in those days - "the decade of the '60s." Well, by 1969 our speaker was talking about the decade of the '70s, the decade of the '80s, and the decade of the '90s. 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 '40s and the decade of the '50s." So I think this overall plan and timetable had taken important shape with more predictability to those who control it, sometime in the late '50s. 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. Everything is in place and nobody can stop us now . . ."

ランキングに参加中。クリックして応援お願いします！

• 
  人気ブログランキング
• 
  にほんブログ村

コメント

 

 

 

 

• 
• 
• 
•