"The
New Order of Barbarians"
Transcript
of Tape II (1)
about
The New World System
revealed by Dr. Day, an Illuminati
initiate, in 1969
as related by Dr. Dunegan and
transcribed by Randy Engel
INTRODUCTION
This is the transcript of second
tape of "The New Order of Barbarians"
(1),
referred to on the tapes simply as the "new
world system".
Tapes one
and two were recorded in 1988 and are the recollections of Dr. Lawrence
Dunegan regarding a lecture he attended on March 20, 1969 at a meeting
of the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society. The lecturer at that gathering of
pediatricians (identified in tape
three recorded in 1991) was a Dr.
Richard Day
(who died in 1989), an insider
who was revealing - to that limited
audience - the plans for their World System, a.k.a. the World Totalitarian Government.
More info in the Front Page and New World Order - In Conclusion
Index of
Sections in Tape II
Tape
II
Nothing is permanent. Streets would be rerouted, renamed. Areas you had
not seen in a while would become unfamiliar. Among other things, this
would contribute to older people feeling that it was time to move on,
they feel they couldn't even keep up with the changes in areas that
were once familiar. Buildings would be allowed to stand empty and
deteriorate, and streets would be allowed to deteriorate in certain
localities. The purpose of this was to provide the jungle, the
depressed atmosphere for the unfit.
Somewhere in this same connection he mentioned that buildings and
bridges would be made so that they would collapse after a while, there
would be more accidents involving airplanes and railroads and
automobiles. All of this to contribute to the feeling of insecurity,
that nothing was safe.
Not too long after this presentation, and I think one or two even
before in the area where I live, we had some newly constructed bridge
to break; another newly constructed bridge defect discovered before it
broke, and I remember reading just scattered incidents around the
country where shopping malls would fall in right where they were filled
with shoppers, and I remember that one of the shopping malls in our
area, the first building I'd ever been in where you could feel this
vibration throughout the entire building when there were a lot of
people in there, and I remember wondering at that time whether this
shopping mall was one of the buildings he was talking about.
Talking to construction people and architects about it they would say '
"Oh no, that's good when the building vibrates like that, that means
it's flexible not rigid." Well, maybe so, we'll wait and see. Other
areas there would be well maintained. Not every part of the city would
be slums.
Back to Index of
Sections
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
Shifting
populations and economies; that is, 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.
Back to Index of
Sections
Sports
as a tool of social change - Gun Control
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
Sex
and violence inculcated through entertainment - Graphic violence
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
Entertainment
as a tool to change the young
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
Travel
restrictions and implanted ID
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
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."
Back to Index of
Sections
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
The
arrival of the Totalitarian Global System - People will just disappear
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.
Back to Index of
Sections
End
of Tape II
INDEX of
DOCUMENTS
NOTES
(1) Original
Transcript from Randy Engel. These transcripts are being published
with the express permission of Randy
Engel, Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life.
En Español: El Nuevo Orden de la
Crueldad (Parte 2)
Published on January 25th, 2019
Restructured in four documents on October 7th, 2020 - Feast of Our Lady
of the Rosary
The M+G+R Foundation
Please Note: If the above dated image does not appear
on this document, it means that you are not viewing the original
document from our servers. Should you have reason to doubt the
authenticity of the document, we recommend that you access our server
again and click on the "Refresh" or "Reload" button of your Browser to
view the original document.