Part ONE Editorial Note: This is a transcript of the first of three tapes on the "New Order of Barbarians", referred to on the tapes simply as the "new world system." Tapes one and two, done in 1988, are the reminiscences By Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, of a speech given March 20, 1969 by Dr. Richard Day, an insider of the "Order", whose credentials are given in an interview with Dr. Dunegan on tape three.
The moderator in the final taped interview with Dr. Dunegan is Randy Engel, National Director, US Coalition for Life. It's interesting to note that Dr. Dunegan "spilled the beans" in 1988. According to the bio information, Dr. Day died shortly thereafter, in 1989. It could be a coincidence since Dr. Day was elderly when he died, and then again....
Most of you reading this are very well aware, already, of many of the details involved in the diabolical plan to bring about a New World Order. As much as we all know, hearing about the "HOW" from the words of an insider is spine chilling. I believe these tapes COULD change many lives and awaken many more people to the REALITY of what lies ahead if we don't stop the process. There are many more millions of US than there are the planners. The useful idiots – their words, not ours – who are helping the process along know NOT what they do. If they DID know, they would stop, because they would KNOW that they, too, will be either terminated or become part of a GLOBAL SLAVE CAMP.
Dr. Dunegan reveals not just "WHAT" is intended for America and all people in the world, but "HOW" the controllers intend to carry out their plan. He covers topics such as:
Tapes available at Florida Pro-Family Forum, P.O. Box 10569, Highland City Florida 33846-1059 $20.00.
Begin tape one... Dr. Lawrence Dunegan
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 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. [Ed. Note: the year Dr. Dunegan made this tape] 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 cliche 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 . . ."
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 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 and he hopes that we, as sort of his friends, would make the adaptation more easily if we knew somewhat beforehand what to expect.
Somewhere in the introductory remarks he insisted that nobody have a tape recorder and that nobody take notes, which for a professor was a very remarkable kind of thing to expect from an audience. Something in his remarks suggested that there could be negative repercussions against him if his... if it became widely known what he was about to say to... our group... if it became widely known that he spilled the beans, so to speak.
When I heard that, first 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 I 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.
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-pollute the world with our waste.
People won't be allowed to have babies just because they want to or because they are careless. Most families would be limited to two. Some people would be allowed only one, and the outstanding person or persons might be selected and allowed to have three. But most people would [be] allowed to have only two babies. That's because the zero population growth [rate] is 2.1 children per completed family. So something like every 10th family might be allowed the privilege of the third baby.
To me, up to this point, the word "population control" primarily connoted limiting the number of babies to be born. But this remark, about what people would be "allowed" and then what followed, made it quite clear that when you hear "population control" that means more than just controlling births. It means control of every endeavor of an entire... of the entire world population; a much broader meaning to that term than I had ever attached to it before hearing this. As you listen and reflect back on some of the things you hear, you will begin to recognize how one aspect dovetails with other aspects in terms of controlling human endeavors.
Well, from population control, the natural next step then was sex. He said sex must be separated from reproduction. Sex is too pleasurable, and the urges are too strong, to expect people to give it up. Chemicals in food and in the water supply to reduce the sex drive is not practical. The strategy then would be not to diminish sex activity, but to increase sex activity, but in such a way that people won't be having babies.
And the first consideration then here was contraception. Contraception would be very strongly encouraged, and it would be connected so closely in people's minds with sex, that they would automatically think contraception when they were thinking or preparing for sex. And contraception would be made universally available. Nobody wanting contraception would be... find that they were unavailable.
Contraceptives would be displayed much more prominently in drug stores, right up with the cigarettes and chewing gum. Out in the open, rather than hidden under the counter where people would have to ask for them and maybe be embarrassed. This kind of openness was a way of suggesting that contraceptions . . that contraceptives are just as much a part of life as any other items sold in the store. And, contraceptives would be advertised. And, contraceptives would be dispensed in the schools in association with sex education!
The sex education was to get kids interested early, making the connection between sex and the need for contraception early in their lives, even before they became very active. At this point I was recalling some of my teachers, particularly in high school and found it totally unbelievable to think of them agreeing, much less participating in, distributing of contraceptives to students. But, that only reflected my lack of understanding of how these people operate. That was before the school-based clinic programs got started.
Many, many cities in the United States by this time have already set up school-based clinics which are primarily contraception, birth control, population control clinics. The idea then is that the connection between sex and contraception introduced and reinforced in school would carry over into marriage. Indeed, if young people – when they matured – decided to get married, marriage itself would be diminished in importance. He indicated some recognition that most people probably would want to be married... but that this certainly would not be any longer considered to be necessary for sexual activity.
No surprise then, that the next item was abortion. And this, now back in 1969, four years before Roe vs. Wade. He said, "Abortion will no longer be a crime. Abortion will be accepted as normal", and would be paid for by taxes for people who could not pay for their own abortions. Contraceptives would be made available by tax money so that nobody would have to do without contraceptives. If school sex programs would lead to more pregnancies in children, that was really seen as no problem. Parents who think they are opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds will change their minds when it is their own child who is pregnant. So this will help overcome opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards will still refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they won't matter anymore.
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 revealing. He said, "It is not just the amount of skin that is 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 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. So one either keeps his or her job and stays behind while the other leaves, or else gives up the job and risks not finding employment in the new location. Rather a diabolical approach to this whole thing!
Everybody has a right to live only so long. The old are no longer useful. They become a burden. You should be ready to accept death. Most people are. An arbitrary age limit could be established. After all, you have a right to only so many steak dinners, so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in life. And after you have had enough of them and you're no longer productive, working, and contributing, then you should be ready to step aside for the next generation.
Some things that would help people realize that they had lived long enough, he mentioned several of these... I don't remember them all... here are a few: Use of very pale printing ink on forms that people... are necessary... to fill out, so that older people wouldn't be able to read the pale ink as easily and would need to go to younger people for help. Automobile traffic patterns - there would be more high-speed traffic lanes . . traffic patterns that would . . that older people with their slower reflexes would have trouble dealing with and thus, lose some of their independence.
A big item – [that] was elaborated at some length – was the cost of medical care would be 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 real example was - there could be like a nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good job. And then after the party's over they take the "demise pill."
The next topic is Medicine. There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled. The observation was made, "Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance. That (in 1969), he said, "is now, abundantly evident. But it's not necessary. We have other ways to control health care."
These would come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work. If you don't work or can't work, you won't have access to medical care. The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where it was virtually non-existent. 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 this 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 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 in a 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" as in the Soviet Union, but without trying to recall all the details, basically, he was describing the use of hospitals both for treating the sick and for confinement of criminals for reasons other than the medical well-being of the criminal. The definition of criminal was not given.
The image of the doctor would change. No longer would he be seen as an individual professional in service to individual patients. But the doctor would be gradually recognized as a highly skilled technician... and his job would change. The job is to include things like executions by lethal injection. The image of the doctor being a powerful, independent person would have to be changed. And he went on to say, "Doctors are making entirely too much money. They should advertise like any other product."
Lawyers would be advertising too. Keep in mind, this was an audience of doctors being addressed by a doctor. And it was interesting that he would make some rather insulting statements to his audience without fear of antagonizing us. The solo practitioner would become a thing of the past. A few die-hards might try to hold out, but most doctors would be employed by an institution of one kind or another. Group practice would be encouraged, corporations would be encouraged, and then once the corporate image of medical care... as this gradually became more and more acceptable, doctors would more and more become employees rather than independent contractors. And along with that, of course, unstated but necessary, is the employee serves his employer, not his patient.
So that's... we've already seen quite a lot of that in the last 20 years. And apparently more on the horizon. The term HMO was not used at that time, but as you look at HMOs you see this is the way that medical care is being taken over since the National Health Insurance approach did not get through the Congress. A few die-hard doctors may try to make a go of it; remaining in solo practice, remaining independent, which, parenthetically, is me. But they would suffer a great loss of income. They'd be able to scrape by, maybe, but never really live comfortably as would those who were willing to become employees of the system. Ultimately, there would be no room at all for the solo practitioner, after the system is entrenched.
Next heading to talk about is HEALTH & 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 a long 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.
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 ultimately the cancer cures which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to light because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these efforts to suppress them. But at least for the time being, letting people die of cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of overpopulation.
Another very interesting thing was heart attacks. He said, "There is now a way to simulate a real heart attack. It can be used as a means of assassinates."
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, a 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 judgment about people and what they should do with their energies. People who are smart, who would learn about nutrition, and who are disciplined enough to eat right and exercise right are better people – and the kind you want to live longer.
Somewhere along in here there was also something about accelerating the onset of puberty. And this was said in connection with health, and later in connection with education, and connecting to accelerating the process of evolutionary change. There was a statement that "we think that we can push evolution faster and in the direction we want it to go."
I remember this only as a general statement. I don't recall if any details were given beyond that.
Another area of discussion was RELIGION. This is an avowed atheist speaking. And he said, "Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it's mysteries and rituals – so they will have religion."
But the major religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down, the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept it, and feel at home in it. Most people won't be too concerned with religion. They will realize that they don't need it.
In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then, the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word. And as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized, and then gradually that word replaced with another word.
I don't know if I'm making that clear. But the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. And the variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won't know the difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, "the few who do notice the difference won't be enough to matter."
Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, "some of you probably think the churches won't stand for this," and he went on to say, "The churches will help us!"
There was no elaboration on this; it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said, "the churches will help us!" In retrospect, I think some of us now can understand what he might have meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, "no they won't!" and remembering our Lord's words where he said to Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of Hell will not prevail against it."
So... yes, some people in the churches might help. And in the subsequent 20 years we've seen how some people in churches have helped. But we also know that our Lord's Words will stand, and the gates of Hell will NOT prevail.
Another area of discussion was Education. And one of the things in connection with education that I remember connecting with what he said about religion, was – in addition to changing the Bible – he said that the classics in Literature would be changed. I seem to recall Mark Twain's writings was given as one example. But he said, the casual reader reading a revised version of a classic would never even suspect that there was any change. And, somebody would have to go through word by word to even recognize that any change was made in these classics; the changes would be so subtle. But the changes would be such as to promote the acceptability of the new system.
As regards education, he indicated that kids would spend more time in schools, but in many schools they wouldn't learn anything. They'll learn some things, but not as much as formerly. Better schools in better areas with better people – their kids will learn more. In the better schools, learning would be accelerated. And this is another time where he said, "We think we can push evolution."
By pushing kids to learn more, he seemed to be suggesting that their brains would evolve, that their offspring would evolve – sort of pushing evolution – where kids would learn and be more intelligent at a younger age. As if this pushing would alter their physiology. Overall, schooling would be prolonged. This meant prolonged through the school year. I'm not sure what he said about a long school day, I do remember he said that school was planned to go all summer, that the summer school vacation would become a thing of the past. Not only for schools, but for other reasons. People would begin to think of vacation times year round, not just in the summer.
For most people, it would take longer to complete their education. To get what originally had been in a bachelor's program would now require advanced degrees and more schooling. So that a lot of school time would be just wasted time. Good schools would become more competitive. I inferred when he said that, that he was including all schools – elementary up through college – but I don't recall whether he said that.
Students would have to decide at a younger age what they would want to study and get onto their track early, if they would qualify. It would be harder to change to another field of study once you get started. Studies would be concentrated in much greater depth, but narrowed. You wouldn't have access to material in other fields, outside your own area of study, without approval. This seem to be more... where he talked about limited access to other fields... I seem to recall that as being more at the college level, high school and college level, perhaps. People would be very specialized in their own area of expertise. But they won't be able to get a broad education and won't be able to understand what is going on overall.
He was already talking about computers in education, and at that time he said anybody who wanted computer access, or access to books that were not directly related to their field of study would have to have a very good reason for so doing. Otherwise, access would be denied.
Another angle was that the schools would become more important in people's overall life. Kids in addition to their academics, would have to get into school activities unless they wanted to feel completely out of it. But spontaneous activities among kids – the thing that came to my mind when I heard this was sandlot football and sandlot 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 get too tired to keep up with your education, or you got too old to learn new information, then this was a signal – you begin to prepare to get ready to step aside.
In addition to revising the classics, which I alluded to awhile ago - with revising the Bible, he said, "some books would just disappear from the libraries."
This was in the vein that some books contain information or contain ideas that should not be kept around. And therefore, those books would disappear. I don't remember exactly if he said how this was to be accomplished. But I seem to recall carrying away this idea that this would include thefts. That certain people would be designated to go to certain libraries and pick up certain books and just get rid of them. Not necessarily as a matter of policy – just simply steal it. Further down the line, not everybody will be allowed to own books. And some books NOBODY will be allowed to own.
Another area of discussion was laws that would be changed. At that time a lot of States had blue laws about Sunday sales, certain Sunday activities. He said the blue laws would all be repealed. Gambling laws would be repealed 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 changed. 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 league... if you're the NFL or the American or National Baseball Leagues, you compete within the league but the league is all in agreement on what the rules of competition are – not a really free competition.
Drug use would be increased. Alcohol use would be increased. Law enforcement efforts against drugs would be increased. On first hearing that, it sounded like a contradiction. Why increase drug abuse and simultaneously increase law enforcement against drug abuse? But the idea is that, in part, the increased availability of drugs would provide a sort of law of the jungle whereby the weak and the unfit would be selected out. There was a statement made at the time: "Before the earth was overpopulated, there was a law of the jungle where only the fittest survived."
You had to be able to protect yourself against the elements and wild animals and disease. And if you were fit, you survived. But now we've become so civilized – we're over civilized – and the unfit are enabled to survive, only at the expense of those who are more fit. And the abusive drugs then, would restore, in a certain sense, the law of the jungle, and selection of the fittest for survival. News about drug abuse and law enforcement efforts would tend to keep drugs in the public consciousness. And would also tend to reduce this unwarranted American complacency that the world is a safe place, and a nice place.
The same thing would happen with alcohol. Alcohol abuse would be both promoted and demoted at the same time. The vulnerable and the weak would respond to the promotions and, therefore, use and abuse more alcohol. Drunk driving would become more of a problem; and stricter rules about driving under the influence would be established so that more and more people would lose their privilege to drive.
This also had connection with something we'll get to later about overall restrictions on travel. Not everybody should be free to travel the way they do now in the United States. People don't have a need to travel that way. It's a privilege! It was a kind of a high-handed 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 pretty good – would also be subject to getting hooked. And if they were really worth their salt they would have enough sense to seek psychological counseling and to benefit from it. So this was presented as sort of a redeeming value on the part of the planners. It was as if he were saying, "you think we're bad in promoting these evil things — but look how nice we are – we're also providing a way out!"
More jails would be needed. Hospitals could serve as jails. Some new hospital construction would be designed so as to make them adaptable to jail-like use.
[end of tape one]