Dr. Richard Day taught at Sinai from 1968 until his retirement in 1971. Previously, he was the national medical director of Planned Parenthood (1965-1968); Professor and Chair of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh (1956-1965); Professor and Chair of the Department of Pediatrics at Downstate Medical School in Brooklyn (1953-1956) and Associate Professor at the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University (1935-1953).
Dunegans attended a Pittsburgh Pediatric Society medical convention on March 20, 1969 at the Lamont restaurant in Pittsburgh. After the meal, Dr. Richard Day addressed the approximately 80 doctors and radiologists present and, in the following two hours, gave a shocking lecture about the future of mankind in the next 40 years. After this dramatic experience, Dr. Lawrence Dunegans wrote down everything he could remember and, in the years after the lecture, observed how the world actually changed as predicted.
This led him to conclude that Dr. Day must be part of a group powerful enough to shape the world precisely according to their ideas. And that this group has conspired against humanity to force a new world system on it. Dunegans met in 1988, almost 20 years after the lecture in Pittsburgh, with Richard Engel (National Director of the US Coalition for Life) to tape his memories of the meeting and share them with the world. Since the lecture in 1969 and the tape recordings in 1988, a great deal of the changes that were predicted and planned at the time have actually happened in society, but some things are still ahead of us! Because it could be that the Cabal is lagging behind on schedule. The extent to which the Cabal has manipulated the way we think and act as a society from the start is shocking even to me. It is, so to speak, the complete master plan of the Cabal that they wanted to take about 50 years to fulfill. Here is the complete transcript.
Dr. Lawrence Dunegans on Illuminati insider Dr. Richard Day
Much has been written and said by some people who have studied all of the changes in American society in the past 20 years or so. And then they looked back at the earlier history of the United States and the world and came to the conclusion that there is some kind of conspiracy that affects, even controls, major historical events not just in the United States but worldwide. This conspiratorial interpretation of history relies on people outside observing, gathering evidence, and concluding that they see a conspiracy. Their evidence and conclusion are based on evidence gathered in retrospect. I would now like to describe what I heard from the speaker in 1969, which will be 20 years ago in a few weeks. The speaker did not speak in terms of retrospect, but rather predicted changes that will occur in the future. The speaker was not looking at the world from the outside and thinking he was seeing a conspiracy, but was inside and admitting that there was indeed an organized power, a first group of men who had enough influence to make big events that Countries around the world affect, to determine, and he predicted, or rather explained, changes planned for the rest of this century. If, as you listen, you recall the situation, at least in the United States in 1969 and in the few years thereafter, and then remember the kind of changes that occurred between then and now, almost 20 years later, Have occurred, I believe you will be impressed by the degree to which the things that were planned have already been achieved. Some of the things that have been discussed should not be achieved by 1988, but they should be achieved before the end of this century.
There is a schedule. And it was during this session that some of these elements of the schedule were brought out. Anyone who remembers the early days of the Kennedy presidency, the Kennedy Campaign, speaking of progress in the decade of the 1960s. That was kind of a cliché back in the days, “the decade of the 1960s”. Well, in 1969 our speaker was talking about the decade of the 70s, the decade of the 80s and the decade of the 90s. I think the terminology we use to look at things and express things is probably all from the same source. I don’t remember anyone talking about a decade of the 40’s and the decade of the 50’s before that time, so I think that this overall plan and schedule took important shape sometime in the late 50’s.
However, this is speculation on my part. In any case, the speaker said its purpose is to keep us informed of the changes that will be brought about over the next 30 years or so so that an entirely new global system will be up and running before the turn of the century. As he put it, we want with in the 21 good start . [Note: Was that a hint of 9/11 ?!]When we listened to what he had to say, he said, “Some of you will think that I am talking about communism, but what I am talking about is much bigger than communism”. At that point he pointed out that there is much more cooperation between East and West than most people realize. In his introductory remarks he noted that he could speak freely at this point, but a few years ago he would not have been able to say what he wanted to say. Because now, and I quote here, “everything is prepared and nobody can stop us now”. He went on to say that most people do not understand how governments work, and even people in high positions in government, including our own, do not really understand how and where decisions are made. He went on to say that the people who really influence decisions are names that most of us are familiar with, but he would not use the names of individuals or the names of specific organizations. But if he did, most of the people would be who would be recognized by most of his listeners.
He continued: “It is not primarily about people in public office, but about prominent people who were known for private positions, especially in their private professions. That speaker was a doctor of medicine, a former professor at a major university in the East, and he was speaking to a group of about 80 medical professionals. His name would not be easily recognized by anyone if he were told. So there is no point in calling his name. The only purpose he is trying to achieve with this is to give those who hear him a perspective on the changes that have been made in the last 20 years or so, and a sneak peek of what at least some people will do plan for the rest of this century. So that we or them with oneFlying start into the 21st century (another 9/11 reference). Some of us may not enter this century. He has informed our group of these changes that should be brought about to help us adapt to these changes. Indeed, as he rightly said, there would be changes that would be very surprising and in some ways difficult for people to accept. And he hoped that, as some kind of his friends, we would make this adjustment easier if we knew something in advance of what to expect.
Somewhere in the opening remarks he insisted that no one has a tape recorder and that no one takes notes, which for a professor was a very remarkable thing to be expected from the audience. Something in his remarks suggested that if it became common knowledge what he was about to say to our group there could be negative repercussions against him. If it became common knowledge that he let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. When I first heard about this I thought this might be some kind of ego trip, someone who elevates his own importance, but as the revelations unfolded I began to understand why he might have concerns that it might not become common knowledge could be what was said. Although this was a fairly public forum he was speaking at,
As the remarks began to unfold and I saw the rather outrageous things that were being said – at this point they certainly seemed outrageous – I made it my business to try to relate so much of what he was saying, to remember as I could and, in the weeks and months and years that followed, to relate my memories to simple events around me, both to bolster my memory for the future, in case I wanted to do what I am doing now – record this. And also to try to keep perspective on what would develop if it actually followed the pattern predicted – which it did!
At this point, so that I don’t forget to mention it later, I will only include a few statements that were made from time to time throughout the lecture … which only have a general reference to the entire presentation. One of the statements [had] to do with change. People get used to it… His statement was, “People are going to have to get used to the idea of change, so much to change that they expect change. Nothing will last. “
This often happened in the context of a society in which people seemed to have no roots or anchoring, but were passively ready to accept change simply because it was all they ever knew. This was in some ways contrary to the generations of people up to this point in whom certain things were expected to remain as points of reference [for all of life]. So a change should be brought about, a change should be anticipated and expected and accepted without questions being asked. Another remark made from time to time during the presentation was, “People are too trusting. People don’t ask the right questions. “
Sometimes “too trusting” has been equated with “too stupid”. But sometimes when he said that and said, “People aren’t asking the right questions,” it was almost with a sense of regret, as if he wasn’t comfortable with what he was doing and wishing people would challenge it and maybe not be so trusting.
The real and the “declared” Goals
Another comment that was repeated from time to time, particularly regarding changing laws and customs and specific changes, was: “Everything has two ends. On the one hand, it is the supposed purpose that makes it acceptable to the people and, on the other hand, the real purpose that would further the goals of the introduction of the new system and its existence.
Often he would say, “There is just no other way. There is simply no other way! “
It seemed like an apology of sorts, especially after [he] described some particularly horrific changes. For example, promoting drug addiction in society, which we will discuss shortly.
He was very active with population control groups, the population control movement, and population control was really the entry point into [the] details that followed after it was introduced. He said the population was growing too fast. The number of people living on the planet at any one time must be limited or we will run out of space to live. We will outgrow our food supply and excessively pollute the world with our waste.
Permission to have babies
People will not be allowed to have babies just because they want to or because they are careless. Most families would be limited to two. Some people are only allowed to get one, and the outstanding person or persons could be chosen and allowed to get three. But most people are only allowed to have two children. This is because zero population growth is 2.1 children per full family. So roughly every tenth family could have the third child privilege. For me, the word “population control” up to this point has primarily meant limiting the number of expected children. But that remark about what people would be “allowed” to do and what followed made it very clear that when you hear “population control” that means more than just birth control. It means the control of all efforts of the whole world population; a much broader meaning of the term than I’d ever heard before. As you listen and think about some of the things you hear, you will begin to see how one aspect fits in with other aspects of the control of human endeavors.
Note: In 1969 something like China’s one-child policy is being addressed here, which was only introduced in 1980.
Sex without reproduction and reproduction without sex
Well, from population control, then the natural next step was sex. He said sex must be separated from procreation. Sex is too pleasurable and the urges are too strong to expect people to give up. Chemicals in food and water supply to reduce sex drive are impractical. The strategy would then be not to decrease sexual activity, but to increase sexual activity, but in such a way that people do not have children.
Contraception that is available to everyone and the first consideration back then was contraception. Contraception would be very much promoted, and it would be so closely related to sex in people’s minds that they would automatically think of contraception when they think about sex or when preparing for sex. And contraception would be made widely available. No one who wants contraception would find it unavailable. Contraceptives would be much more on display in drugstores, including cigarettes and chewing gum. In the open, instead of hidden under the counter, where people would have to ask and might be ashamed. This kind of openness was one way to suggest that contraceptives are as much a part of life as any other store-sold item.
Sex education as an instrument of world government
Sex education should get children interested in sex at an early age and establish a connection between sex and the need for birth control before they become very active. At that point, I remembered some of my teachers, especially in high school, and found it completely incredible that they consented, let alone participated, in distributing contraceptives to students. But that only reflected my lack of understanding of how these people work. That was before the school-based clinic programs began. Many, many cities in the United States by that time had school-based clinics in place primarily responsible for contraception, birth control, and population control.
The idea then is that the connection between sex and contraception established and strengthened in school should be carried over into marriage. If young people – as they mature – chose to marry, the marriage itself would become less important. He implied some appreciation that most people would likely want to get married, but that it would certainly no longer be considered necessary for sexual activity.
Tax-financed abortion as a population control
No surprise, then, that the next item was abortion. And that as early as 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 in taxes for people who cannot pay for their own abortion.
Contraceptives are made available through taxpayers’ money so that no one has to do without contraceptives. If the sex programs at school resulted in more child pregnancies, that really would not be seen as a problem. Parents who believe they are against abortion for moral or religious reasons will change their minds if it is their own child who is pregnant. So this will help overcome resistance to abortion. Soon, few more will refuse to accept abortion and it will no longer matter.
Promotion of homosexuality, sex, ‘Anything Goes’
Homosexuality should also be encouraged. “People will be allowed to be gay.” That is how it was put. You won’t have to hide it. And older people should be encouraged to lead active sex lives well into old age for as long as they can. Everyone will be allowed to have sex however they want. Everything is possible. That is how it was phrased. And I remember thinking, “How arrogant it is for this person or whoever they represent to feel that they can give or refuse people permission to do things! But that was the terminology that was used.
Clothing was mentioned in this context. The style of clothing should be made more stimulating and provocative. Remember the mini-skirt era in 1969 when these skirts were very, very high and revealing. He said, “It’s not just the amount of skin exposed that makes the clothing sexually seductive, but other, more subtle things are often suggestive” … things like movement and the cut of clothing and the type of fabric, positioning of accessories on clothes. “If a woman has an attractive body, why shouldn’t she show it?” … was one of his statements.
There were no details on what was meant by “provocative clothing”, but if you have watched the change in clothing styles, the blue jeans have since been cut so that they are tighter in the crotch. They form wrinkles. Wrinkles are essentially arrows. Lines that direct the eye to certain anatomical areas. And that was around the time of the “bra burning” activity. He pointed out that many women shouldn’t go without a bra. You need a bra to be attractive, and instead of banning bras and burning them, bras would come back. But they would be thinner and softer and allow for more natural movement. It wasn’t specifically said, but certainly a very thin bra is much more revealing of the nipple and what’s under it than the heavier bras,
Previously, he said that gender and reproduction would be separated. You would have sex without reproduction, and then technology would be reproduction without sex. This would be done in the laboratory. He pointed out that there is already much, much research being done on making babies in the laboratory. There was some comment on it, but I don’t remember the details of how much of this technology has gotten my attention since that time. I don’t remember … I can’t remember so that I can distinguish what was said from what I later learned as general medical information.
[ Note: Dr Day as an insider certainly indicates the scientific advances in human cloning that began at that time and are still secret today]
Families that are becoming less important
Families would be limited in size. We have already indicated that no more than two children are allowed. Divorces would be easier and more frequent. Most people who get married will get married more than once. More people will not get married. Unmarried people would stay in hotels and even live together. That would be very common – no one would even ask questions about it. It would be widely accepted as no different than if married people were together. More women will work outside the home. More men are being transferred to other cities and more men are traveling in their work. Therefore, it would be more difficult for families to stay together.
This would make the marital relationship less stable and thus reduce the willingness to have children. And the extended families would be smaller and further away. Traveling would be easier [and] less expensive for a while, so the people who had to travel would feel like they could return to their families … not that they were suddenly removed from their families. But one of the net effects of the lighter divorce laws coupled with encouraging travel and relocation of families from one city to another has been the creation of instability in families. When both husband and wife are working and one partner is transferred, the other cannot easily be transferred. So one of them either keeps his job and stays behind while the other leaves, or he gives up his job and risks not being able to find work at the new location. A rather diabolical approach to the whole thing!
Euthanasia and the “Pill of Death”
Everyone has a right to live just that long. The old ones are no longer useful. They become a burden. You should be ready to accept death. Most people are. An arbitrary age limit could be set. After all, you are entitled to only so many steak dinners, so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in life. And when you’ve had enough of it and are no longer productive, no longer working and no longer making a contribution, then you should be ready to step aside for the next generation. Some things that would help people realize they lived long enough – he mentioned some of them … I don’t remember all of them … here are some: Using very pale ink on forms that need to be filled out, so that older people cannot easily read the pale ink and have to go to younger people for help. Car traffic patterns – there would be more high-speed carriageways, traffic patterns that older people would find difficult to deal with with their slower reflexes and thereby lose some of their independence.
Limiting access to affordable health care makes the elimination of the elderly easier. A big point – it was worked out at length – was that the cost of medical care would be burdensome. Medical care would be very closely linked to work, but also very, very expensive, so that after a certain period of time it would simply no longer be available to people. And if they didn’t have a remarkably rich, supportive family, they’d simply have to forego care. And the idea was that when everyone says, “Enough! What a burden it is on the young to try to sustain the old … then the young would be willing to help mom and dad along the way, provided it was done humanely and with dignity. And then was the real example – it could be something like a nice farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good job. And then, after the party is over, they take the “pill of death”.
Planning control over medicine
The next subject is medicine. There would be profound changes in medical practice. Overall, the medicine would be much more strictly controlled. The observation was made: “Congress will not agree to national health insurance. That’s [1969, he said] now very obvious. But it is not necessary. We have other ways of controlling health care. “
These would come about gradually, but all health care would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely linked to work. If you cannot or cannot work, you will not have access to medical care. The days of the hospitals giving away free care would gradually go where it practically no longer exists. The costs would soar that people can no longer afford to go without insurance. People pay … you pay for it, you have a right to it. It wasn’t until later that I realized to what extent you weren’t going to pay for it. Your medical care would be paid for by others. And so you would gratefully accept on your knees
Your role of being responsible for your own supply would diminish. By the way – this is not something that was developed at the time … I didn’t get it then – by the way, the way it works everyone is made dependent on insurance. And if you don’t have insurance, then you pay directly; the maintenance costs are enormous. However, the insurance company that pays for your care does not pay the same amount. For example, if you’re billed $ 600, they’ll pay $ 300 or $ 400. And this difference in billing has the desired effect: it enables the insurance company to pay for what you could never pay for. You receive a discount that is not available to you. When you see your bill you will be grateful that the insurance company could do that. And that way you are dependent and practically required to have insurance.
Use of hospitals
In any case, access to the hospitals would continue to be strictly controlled. Identification would be required to enter the building. Security in and around the hospitals would be established and gradually increased so that no one could enter or move around the building without an ID card. Theft of hospital equipment, things like typewriters and microscopes, etc. would be “permitted” and excessive; Reports of this would be exaggerated, so this would be the pretext for ascertaining the need for tight security until people get used to it.
And anyone who would move around in a hospital would have to carry an ID with a photo and … stating the reason why they were there … employees or laboratory technicians or visitors or whatever. This is to be introduced gradually – to get everyone used to the idea of identification – until it is simply accepted.
This need to identify would start on a small scale: hospitals, some businesses, but gradually expand to all people in all places! It has been observed that hospitals can be used to lock people up … to treat criminals. This did not necessarily mean medical treatment. At the time, I didn’t know the word “psycho-prison” as I did in the Soviet Union, but without trying to recall the full details, it basically described the use of hospitals for both the treatment of the sick and the incarceration of criminals for reasons other than the criminal’s medical welfare. A definition of the term “criminal” was not given.
Elimination of private doctors
The doctor’s image would change. He would no longer be seen as an individual professional at the service of the individual patient. But the doctor would gradually be recognized as a highly skilled technician … and his profession would change. The profession [would] include such things as lethal injections. The image of the doctor as a powerful, independent person would have to change. And he went on to say, “Doctors make way too much money. They should advertise like any other [service]. “
Lawyers would also advertise [their services]. Remember, this was an audience of doctors approached by a doctor. And it was interesting that he made some rather insulting statements in front of his audience without being afraid to upset us. The solo practitioner would be a thing of the past. A few diehards would try to hold out, but most of the doctors would be employed by some sort of institution or another. Group practices would be encouraged, companies would be encouraged, and as soon as the company image of medical care…. Gradually more and more accepted, doctors would become employees rather than independent contractors. And then of course, unspoken but necessary, there is the employee who serves his employer, not his patient. We have seen this many times over the past 20 years. And apparently there is more to be seen on the horizon.
The term HMO was not used at the time, but if you look at the HMOs, you can see that medical care is covered in this way because the National Health Insurance approach did not survive Congress [Note: HMO means Health Maintenance Organization, similar to group insurance for a range of medical services]. A few die-hard doctors may try to make it through; they remain in the individual practice, remain independent of what I am, viewed casually. But they would suffer a great loss of income. They might get by, but they could never live comfortably like those who are willing to become employees of the system. Ultimately, there would be no room at all for the solo practitioner
New hard-to-diagnose and untreatable diseases
[The] next section is Health & Disease. He said new diseases would emerge that had never been seen before. These are very difficult to diagnose and untreatable – at least for a long time. It was not elaborated on, but I remember that shortly after hearing this presentation, when I was faced with an enigmatic diagnosis, I asked myself, “Is that what he was talking about? Is this a case he was talking about? ” A few years later, when AIDS finally developed, I think AIDS was at least one example of what he was talking about. I think AIDS was probably a man-made disease.
Cancer treatment efforts would be more about comfort than healing. It was said that the cancer cures hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would eventually come to light – because independent researchers, despite efforts to suppress them, might bring them to light. But for now, at least, it is good to let people die of cancer because it will slow down the problem of overpopulation.
Induced heart attacks as a form of murder
Another very interesting thing was the heart attack. He said, “There is now a way to simulate a real heart attack. It can be used as an assassination attempt. “
Only a very experienced pathologist who knew exactly what to look for during an autopsy could tell this from reality. I found it very surprising and shocking to hear this from this particular man at the time. This and the business of curing cancer really stand out in my memory because they were so shocking and at that point in time no longer seemed appropriate to me.
[ Note: The CIA actually has a heart attack gun whose poison cannot be detected ]
Then he talked about diet and exercise, in the same context, so to speak. People should eat properly and exercise the right to live as long as they used to. Most won’t. In the context of diet, there was no specific statement I can recall that certain nutrients were either inadequate or in excess. In retrospect, I tend to think that he meant that a high-salt and high-fat diet would predispose to high blood pressure and premature atherosclerotic heart disease. And that if people who are too dumb or too lazy to move about the way they should, their dietary fats would rise and predispose them to disease.
And he said that information about diet, about proper nutrition, would be widely available, but that most people – especially stupid people who had no right to go on living anyway – ignore the advice and just keep eating what they gave them just fits and tastes good.
Several other unpleasant things were said about food. I just can’t remember what it was. But I remember trying to create a garden in the garden to avoid this contaminated food. I regret that I cannot remember the specifics … the rest of this … about dangerous diets.
Regarding exercise, he said that more people would move more, especially when running because anyone can run. You don’t need any special devices or locations. You can run wherever you are. As he put it, “people will walk everywhere.” And in that sense he pointed out how supply creates demand. And this related to the sportswear and equipment. As these would be made more widely available and glorified, especially when it came to running shoes, this would encourage interest in running and, as part of a public propaganda campaign, encourage people to buy attractive sports equipment and get exercise.
In connection with nutrition, he also mentioned that the number of public places to eat will increase rapidly. This also has a connection to the family. As more and more people eat out, eating at home will become less important. People would be less dependent on their home kitchen. And then this has to do with the fact that ready meals are widespread – things that can be put in the microwave. Whole meals would be available preprogrammed. And of course we’ve seen that now … and some pretty good ones.
This whole approach to eating out and eating pre-cooked meals at home was predicted back then … convenience food would be part of the dangers. Anyone who was lazy enough to want the ready meals rather than fixating themselves should also be better energetic enough to get moving. Because if he was too lazy to move and too lazy to cook his own food, then he didn’t deserve to live very long.
All of this was presented as a kind of moral judgment about people and what to do with their energies. People who were smart, who would learn about nutrition, and who were disciplined enough to eat properly and move around properly are better people – and those who want to live longer.
Education as a tool to accelerate the onset of puberty and evolution
Somewhere in here there was also something about accelerating the onset of puberty. And this was said in relation to health, and later in relation to the formation and acceleration of the process of evolutionary change. There was a statement that: “… we think we can move evolution faster and in the direction we want it to go.” I only remember that statement as a general statement. I don’t remember if any additional details were given.
Mix all religions …
The old religions have to go. Another topic of discussion was religion. This is an avowed atheist speaking. And he said, “Religion isn’t necessarily bad. Many people seem to need religion, with its mysteries and rituals – so they will have religion ”.
But the great religions of today need to be changed because they are incompatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is overthrown, the rest of Christianity will easily follow. Then a new religion can be accepted for use around the world. It will take over something from all the old religions so that people can more easily accept them and feel at home in them. Most people won’t bother too much with religion. They will realize they don’t need them.
[ Note: The main goal is to push God out of people’s lives and the generally accepted world religion should become a form of Luciferism. ]
Change the Bible by revising key words
To do this, the Bible will be changed. It is being rewritten to do justice to the new religion. Gradually, the keywords are replaced by new words with different shades of meaning. Then the meaning assigned to the new word can be close to the old word. And over time, other shades of meaning of this word can be emphasized, and then this word is gradually replaced by another. I don’t know if I’ll make that clear.
But the idea is that you don’t have to rewrite everything in Scripture, just replace keywords with other words. And the variability in the meaning attached to each word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, making it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won’t tell the difference; and this was another of those times when he said, “… the few who notice the difference will not be enough to matter.”
[ Note: They achieved this in 1978 with the New International Version of the Bible. This is falsified, so always only consult the King James Bible (1611). This English version is closest to the Hebrew original ]
The churches will help
Then came one of the most surprising things in the whole presentation: He said, “… some of you are probably thinking that the churches will not tolerate this [and he went on], the churches will help us! “
It was not elaborated; it was unclear what he meant when he said, “The churches will help us! Looking back, I think some of us can understand today what he might have meant then. I only remember thinking back then: “No, they won’t!” And remembering the words of our Lord when he said to Peter: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and they will not defeat the gates of hell. So … yes, some people in the churches could help. And over the next 20 years we saw some people help in the churches. But we also know that our Lord’s words will endure, and the gates of hell will not prevail.
[ Note: The Vatican, as well as many of the Tele-Evangelists, are now part of this cabal ]
Restructuring Education as an Instrument of Indoctrination
Another point of discussion was education. And I remember that with what he said about religion I connected, among other things, the statement that he would change not only the Bible but also the classics of literature. I remember Mark Twain’s writings being cited as an example. But he said the casual reader reading a revised version of a classic would never even suspect that there was a change. Someone would have to go through it word for word to even see that there was a change in [any] of these classics – the changes would be so subtle. But the changes would be so subtle that they would encourage adoption of the new system.
In terms of education, he stated that the children would spend more time in schools, but in many schools they would not study. You will learn a lot, but not as much as you used to. Better schools in better areas with better people – their children will learn more. In the better schools, learning would be accelerated. And this is another time when he said, “We believe we can advance evolution.”
By pushing the children to learn more, he seemed to be implying that their brains would develop, that their offspring would develop – a kind of boost to evolution – where the children would learn and be smarter at a younger age. As if that urge would change their physiology. Overall, the school time would be extended. That meant an extension over the entire school year. I’m not sure what he said about a long day at school, but I remember him saying school was planned for all summer, summer school holidays would be a thing of the past. Not just for school, but for other reasons too.
People would start thinking about vacation times [all] year round, not just summer. For most people, it would take longer to complete their education. In order to achieve what was originally intended in a bachelor’s degree, advanced degrees and more school education would now be required. So a lot of school time would be wasted time. Good schools would become more competitive. I concluded when he said that he includes all schools – from elementary to college – but I don’t remember if he said that.
Students would need to decide what to study at a younger age and get started early if they want to qualify. It would be more difficult to switch to another subject once you started. The study would concentrate in a much greater depth, but narrowed it down. You would not have access to material in other areas, outside of your own field of study, without permission. Where he talked about limited access to other areas it seems to me [he was referring] more to the high school and college levels. People would be very specialized in their own field. But they will not be able to get broad education and not be able to understand what is going on overall.
Control who has access to information
He was already talking about computers in education, and at the time he said that anyone who wants access to computers or books that are not directly related to their subject must have a very good reason. Otherwise, access would be denied.
[ Note: the internet didn’t exist back then, you will use it to control knowledge ]
The school as the linchpin of the community
Another aspect was that school would become more important in people’s entire lives. The children would have to enter school activities in addition to their academic [needs] unless they wanted to feel completely left out. But spontaneous activities among the children … children who want some kind of activity outside of school … would almost be forced to get them through school. There are few opportunities outside of school.
The pressures of the accelerated academic program, the accelerated demands where the kids felt they needed to be part of something – some sports club or school activity – those pressures he recognized would burn out some students. He said, “… the brightest will learn to deal with the pressure and survive. It will give students some help in dealing with stress, but the unfit will not be able to handle it. You will then move on to other things. “
In this context, and later in connection with drug and alcohol abuse, he indicated that mental health services would be expanded dramatically. With all the urge to perform, it was realized that many people would need help, and the people worth staying around could take that help and benefit from it and still be superheroes. Those who couldn’t do that would fall by the wayside and would therefore be dispensable, so to speak – “dispensable” is probably the word I want.
Education would be lifelong. Adults would go to school. There will always be new information for adults to maintain. If you can no longer keep up, you are too old. This was another way to let the elderly know that it is time for them to move on and take the Pill of Doom. If you get too tired to keep up with your education, or if you get too old to learn new information, it was a signal – you are starting to prepare to step aside.
Some books would just disappear from the libraries. In addition to revising the classics I alluded to some time ago, he said, “… some books would just disappear from the libraries.”
It was such that some books had information or ideas that shouldn’t be kept around. And that’s why these books would go away. I am no longer sure if he said how this was to be achieved. But I think I remember he carried the idea that this would include theft as well. That certain people were meant to go to certain libraries and get certain books and just get rid of them. Not necessarily for political reasons – just stealing. In the further course not everyone will be allowed to own books. And some books no one will be allowed to own.
Change of Laws
Another point of discussion was laws that are about to be changed. At the time, many states had blue laws about Sunday sales, certain Sunday activities. He said the blue laws would all be repealed. The gambling laws would be repealed or relaxed so that gambling would increase. He hinted at the time that governments would get into gambling. Since then, many state lotteries have popped up across the country. And then we were already told that this would be the case.
“Why should all the money from gambling be kept in private hands when the state would benefit from it? … was the reason for it. But people should be able to play if they want to. So it would become a civil activity, not a private or illegal activity. Bankruptcy law would be changed. I don’t remember the details, but it would just change. And I know they were changed after that time. The antitrust laws would be changed or interpreted differently, or both.
In connection with the change in antitrust laws, there was a statement that competition would be increased in some ways. But this would be increased competition under otherwise controlled circumstances. So it is not a question of free competition. I remember getting the impression that it was like competition but [among] members of a club. Nobody outside the club would be able to compete. Kind of like teams competing in a professional league … if you’re the NFL, or the American or national baseball league, you’re competing within the league, but the league agrees on the rules of competition – not really free competition.
Promoting substance abuse to create a jungle atmosphere
Drug use would increase. Alcohol consumption would increase. Law enforcement efforts against drugs would be stepped up. When I first heard this, it sounded like a contradiction. Why Increase Substance Abuse While Increasing Law Enforcement Against Substance Abuse? But the idea is that the increased availability of drugs would, in part, be some sort of jungle law by which the weak and unfit would be selected. Back then there was an explanation:
“Before the earth was overpopulated, there was a law of the jungle that only the fittest survived.
You had to be able to protect yourself from the elements and wild animals and diseases. And when you were fit, you survived. But now we’ve become so civilized – we’re over-civilized – and the unfit are [able] to survive [but] only at the expense of those who are fitter. And the abusive drugs would then, in some way, restore the law of the jungle and the selection of the fittest to survive. News of substance abuse and law enforcement would keep the drugs in the public eye. And they would also tend to lessen this unjustified American complacency that the world is a safe and beautiful place.
The same thing would happen with alcohol. Alcohol abuse would be encouraged and downgraded at the same time. The weak would respond to the promotions and therefore consume and abuse more alcohol. Drunk driving would become a bigger problem; and there would be stricter rules for driving under the influence of alcohol so that more and more people would lose their driving privilege.
[The following paragraph actually came after the ‘Travel Restrictions’ section below] Again, much more mental health services would be made available to help those who become addicted to drugs and alcohol. To encourage this – to weed out some of the otherwise pretty good disabled people – [the planners] would also [provide a way out, but a controlled one]. If they [the perpetrators] were really worth their salt, they would have enough sense to seek psychological counseling and benefit from it. So this was presented by the planners as a kind of redeeming value. It was like saying, “… you think we’re bad at promoting these bad things – but look how nice we are – we offer a way out too!”
This also had to do with something we will get into later, namely general travel restrictions. Not everyone should be able to travel as freely as they do now in the United States. People don’t feel the need to travel that way. It is a privilege! It was a kind of high-handedness, as they put it.
[ Note: That will almost certainly come with the justification of climate protection ]
The need for more prisons and the use of hospitals as prisons
More prisons would be needed. Hospitals could serve as prisons. Some new hospital buildings would be designed to adapt for prison-like use. Constant change, nothing is permanent. The streets would be relocated and renamed. Areas that have not been seen for a long time would become unfamiliar. Among other things, this would help older people feel it was time to move on; they would feel like they couldn’t even keep up with changes in once-familiar areas. Buildings would stand empty and decay, and streets would decay in certain areas. The purpose of this measure was to provide a depressed atmosphere for the unsuitable.
Somewhere in this context he mentioned that buildings and bridges were built in such a way that after a while they would collapse; there would be more accidents with planes, trains, and automobiles. All of this to add to the feeling of insecurity that nothing is safe.
Not too long after this presentation, several newly built bridges collapsed in the area I live in; a defect in another newly built bridge was discovered before it broke, and I remember reading scattered incidents across the country where malls collapsed – right where they were filled with shoppers. And I remember that one of the shopping malls in our area, the first building I’ve ever been in, you could feel those vibrations throughout the building when there were lots of people there; and I remember then wondering if this mall was one of the buildings he was talking about. When you talked to builders and architects about it, they’d say, “Oh no, that’s good when the building vibrates like that. That means it is flexible not rigid. “Well … maybe it is. We’ll wait and see.
Other areas there would be well looked after. Not every part of the city would be a slum. There would be the resulting slums, while other areas would be well maintained. Those who can leave the slums for better areas would learn to better appreciate the importance of human achievement. That meant that when they left the jungle and got into civilization, so to speak, they could be proud of their own accomplishments that they made it. There was no corresponding compassion for those left behind in the drug jungle and deteriorating neighborhoods. Then a statement that was kind of surprising: “We believe that we can effectively limit crime to the slum areas so that it doesn’t spread too much to better areas. Perhaps I should point out here that after 20 years this is obviously not being quoted word for word, but where I say that I am quoting I am giving the general tendency of what has been said, close to word for word; [but] maybe not exactly like that.
Anyway, I remember asking myself, “How can he be so sure that the criminal element will stay where he wants it? He went on to say that more security is needed in the better areas. That would mean more police and better coordinated policing. He didn’t say that, but I wondered at the time what steps were being taken to consolidate all police stations in the suburbs of the big cities. I believe the John Birch Society was one that said, “Support your local police; don’t let them be consolidated ”. And I remember wondering if this was one of the things he had in mind about safety. That was not specifically said.
In any case, there will be a whole new branch of security systems for residential buildings with alarm systems and locks, he said. The alarms would link up with the police so people could protect their wealth and well-being. However, some of the criminal activity would radiate from the slums to better, more affluent areas that seem worth breaking into. And again it was portrayed as having a redeeming quality.
“Look, we’re creating all of this more crime, but see how good we are – we’re also creating the resources for you to protect yourself against the crime.
One kind of repeated thing in this presentation was the perceived evil and then the forgiveness … “You see, we gave you a way out.”
“To create a new structure, you have to tear down the old one first.” American industry got into the discussion – it was the first time I heard the term “global interdependence” or that notion. The stated plan was that different parts of the world should be assigned different roles in industry and commerce in a unified global system. The continued supremacy of the United States and the relative independence and self-sufficiency of the United States would need to be changed. It was one of several times he said that in order to create a new structure, one had to demolish the old one first. American industry was an example of this. Our system must be curtailed in order to give other countries the chance to build up their industries, because otherwise they would not be able to compete with the United States. And this was especially true of our heavy industries – they would be dismantled while the same industries were developed in other countries, particularly Japan.
[ Note: How much the world is interdependent today is evident from the Corona crisis. Trump knows: he is now trying to reverse this year-long development for the USA (America First) ]
Patriotism would go down the drain
At this point there was some discussion about [the] steel and especially the automotive [industry]. I remember him saying that cars from Japan would be imported on an equal footing with our own domestically made cars, but the Japanese product was better. Things would be made to break and fall apart – that is, in the United States – so people would tend to prefer the imported variant, and that would give [our] foreign competitors some boost .
An example of this was Japan. In 1969, Japanese cars – if they were sold here, I don’t remember – were certainly not very popular. But the idea was that you could get a little disgusted with your Ford, GM, or Chrysler product – or whatever – because little things like window handles would fall off and break plastic pieces that would hold up if they were metal. Your patriotism in buying an American car would soon give way to practicality – if you bought a Japanese, German, or [other] imported [vehicle] it would last longer and you would be better off. Patriotism would then go down the drain.
It was also mentioned elsewhere that things were going to fail. I don’t remember specific items or whether they were even mentioned [with reference to anything other than cars], but I do remember having the impression … that at a critical point in the operating room a surgeon was disintegrating something in his hands …
Loss of jobs: loss of security
The idea [was to encourage insecurity] … the idea that the world is not a terribly reliable place.
The United States should remain strong in information, communications, high technology, education, and agriculture. They would continue to be some kind of keystone of the global system. But heavy industry would be carried out. One of the comments about heavy industry was that we had enough environmental damage from chimneys and industrial waste, and some of the … people could take it for a while. This, in turn, should be a “redeeming quality” that Americans could accept. You took our industry away from us, but you saved our environment. So we really haven’t lost.
Population tends to eliminate “traditions”
Along the line there was talk of people losing their jobs as a result of industrial policy. Opportunities for retraining and, above all, population shifts would be brought about. This is kind of a minor matter. I think I’ll examine this aside before I forget about it. The population shifts should be brought about so that people would tend to move to the sun belt [note: this generally means the southern third of the United States]. They would be people with no roots in their new place of residence, so to speak, and traditions are easier to change in a place where there are many transplanted people than in a place where people grew up and had an extended family – where they had roots.
Things like new medical care systems. For example, if you are from an industrial city in the northeast and have yourself transplanted to the southern sun belt or southwest, you will be more likely to accept the type of controlled medical care you can find there. You would not accept the same change in the health care system that you have roots and family support in. Also in this sense it was mentioned – he used the plural personal pronoun “we” – we take control of the port cities first … New York, San Francisco, Seattle … the idea is that this is a piece of strategy. The idea is that if you control the port cities with your philosophy and way of life, the heartland in between has to give way.
I can’t say more about it, but it’s interesting. If you look around, the most liberal areas in the country are … the coastal cities. The heartland, the Midwest, seems to have retained its conservatism. But if you take away industry and jobs and move people, that’s a strategy that will crush conservatism. If you take industry away and the people are unemployed and poor, they will accept anything that seems to ensure their survival; and their morals and commitment to things will give way to survival. That’s not my philosophy. That is the speaker’s philosophy.
World citizens, world sport
Anyway, back to industry. Part of the heavy industry would remain. Just enough to have some kind of nucleus of industrial skills that could be expanded if the plan didn’t work out the way it was intended. So the country would not be left without wealth and skills. But this was just a kind of contingency plan. It was hoped and expected that global specialization would continue.
Maybe I repeat myself, but one of the consequences of all this global interdependence would be that national identities would tend to be less emphasized. Each area depended on every other area for one element or another in its life. We would all become citizens of the world instead of being citizens of a single country. And in that sense we can then talk about sports.
Sport in the United States should be changed, in part as a way to give less weight to nationalism. Football, a global sport, should be emphasized and promoted in the United States. This is interesting because the soccer game was practically unknown at the time. I had a couple of friends who went to a different elementary school than the one I went to, where they played football in their school, and they were a real novelty. That was back in the 50s. So it was kind of surprising to hear this man talking about football in this area.
In any case, football is viewed and promoted as an international sport, and the traditional sport of American baseball would be downplayed and possibly eliminated because it could be viewed as too American. And he discussed the abolition of this aspect. The first reaction would be, well, they pay the players badly and they don’t want to play for bad pay, so they [would] give up baseball and either switch to another sport or activity. But that’s not how it works. Actually, the way to break up baseball would be to make the salaries very high. The idea behind this was that when the salaries get ridiculously high there would be some level of dissatisfaction and antagonism as people would resent the athletes for that they get paid so much and athletes would get more and more angry about what other players are getting paid and tend to give up the sport. These high salaries would also break the owners and alienate fans. Then the fans would support football and the baseball fields could be used as soccer fields. It wasn’t certain that this would happen, but if international flavor didn’t catch on quickly enough, it could be done.
There have been some comments in the same direction about [American] football, though I seem to remember that he said that football was harder to break down because it was so prevalent in colleges and professional leagues and that it is more difficult to dismantle.
There was something else about the violence in football, how it corresponded to a perceived psychological need, that people had a need for that vicarious violence. Therefore, for this reason, football could perhaps be left nearby to meet this vicarious need.
The same was true of [ice hockey]. Ice hockey had a more international character and would be emphasized. International competition was foreseeable in hockey and especially in football. At the time, hockey was international between the United States and Canada. I was kind of surprised because I thought the speaker would never have impressed me as a hockey fan, and so am I. And it turned out he wasn’t. He just knew about the game and [how it would fit into this changing sports program].
In any case, football should be the cornerstone of athletics because it was already a global sport. In South America, Europe and parts of Asia it was already a global sport. So the United States should jump on the bandwagon. All of this would encourage international competition so that we would all become global citizens to a greater extent than citizens of our close nations.
There was a discussion about hunting, which was not surprising. Hunting requires rifles, and gun control is an important element in these plans. I don’t remember the specifics, but the idea is that gun ownership is a privilege and not everyone should have guns. Hunting was an inadequate excuse for gun ownership, and gun ownership should be restricted for everyone. The privileged few who should be allowed to hunt might be able to rent or borrow a rifle from official agencies instead of owning their own. After all, not everyone has a need for a rifle. So it was said.
Sports for girls: less emphasis on femininity
Sports for girls was very important in sports. Athletics would be promoted for girls. This should replace the dolls. Baby dolls would still exist, a few, but the number and variety of dolls would not be seen. Dolls wouldn’t be rushed because girls shouldn’t think about babies and procreation. The girls should be on the sports field, just like the boys. Girls and boys really don’t have to be that different. They should go the doll way, and all of these things that have traditionally been viewed as feminine would be less emphasized if the girls became more involved in male activities. I just remember one more thing: the sports pages were full of results from the girls ‘and boys’ teams. And that has recently appeared in our local newspapers after 20 years. The girls’s sports scores are the same as those of the boys. All of this to change the role model young girls should have. As she grows up, she should look forward to becoming an athlete rather than looking forward to becoming a mother.
Entertainment: violence, sex and desensitization
Films would gradually become more explicit about sex and language. After all, sex and rough language are real, and why pretend they aren’t? There are pornographic films in the cinemas, on television. VCRs did not exist at the time, but he had indicated that these tapes would be available and that video cassette players would be available for home use and pornographic films would be available for use on these VCRs as well as in the neighborhood theater and on television . He said something like, “You will see people in the films doing whatever you can think of.”
He went on to say that … and all of this is meant to bring sex to the public. That was another remark that was made several times – the term “sex in public”.
[ Note: Sex has been an open topic in society since the 60s, only sex video stores came in the 80s and today porn sites are among the most clicked on the Internet, sex and poron addiction is now a recognized and increasingly widespread disease ]
The violence would be made clearer. This should desensitize people to violence. There would have to be a time when people could witness and be a part of real violence. It will be seen later where this will lead. So there would be more realistic violence in entertainment, which would make it easier for people to adapt. People’s attitudes towards death would change and they would no longer fear death as much as they would accept it and no longer be so appalled at the sight of dead or injured people. We do not need a noble population paralyzed by what they can see. People would just learn to say, “Well, I don’t want this to happen to me.”
This was the first statement to suggest that the plan involved numerous human sacrifices that the survivors would see. That particular aspect of the presentation came to my mind very vividly a few years later when a film about the Lone Ranger came out and I took my very young son to see him and there were some very violent scenes at the beginning of the film. One of the victims was shot in the forehead and there was some sort of impact where the bullet went into his forehead … and I remember regretting taking my son away. And I remember feeling angry at [Dr. Day] felt. Not that he made the film, but he agreed to be part of that movement and I was repelled by the film,
“The music is getting worse”
As for the music, he made a pretty straightforward statement: “The music is going to get worse.”
In 1969 rock music became more and more uncomfortable. It was interesting how he put it. It was going to “get worse” … acknowledging that she was already bad. The lyrics would be more openly sexual. No new sugary romantic music would be released like that written before that time. All of the old music would be made accessible again to the elderly on certain radio stations and on records. And all people would have … to listen to their own radio stations. It seemed to indicate that as it got worse and worse, one group would no longer hear the other group’s music. The elders would simply refuse to hear the garbage that was being offered to the young people and the young people would accept the garbage because it identified them as their generation and helped them.
I remember thinking at the time this wouldn’t last very long because even young kids wouldn’t like the junk. When they got the chance to hear the older music, which was more beautiful, they were drawn to it. Unfortunately I was wrong. As the kids get through their teens and into their 20s 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. Many of them can’t stand really beautiful music. He went on to say that the music would convey a message to the young people and no one would know the message was there. You would just think it was loud music. At the time I didn’t quite understand what he meant by that, but in retrospect I believe that today we know what messages the music contains for the youth. [Note: Ex-Illuminati insider John Todd spoke at length about the satanic dimension of the music industry and how it is used to spread demonic ideas].
Give us the youth
And again he was right. This aspect was summed up in the idea that entertainment would be a means of influencing young people. It won’t change the elders – they are already set in their own way – but the changes would all relate to the young people who are in their formative years, and the older generation would pass. Not only could they not be changed, they are relatively unimportant anyway. Once they have lived out and are no longer there, the young generation that is forming is the one that would be important for the future of the 21st century.
He also implied that all the old films would be brought back, and I remember hearing this that memories of a number of old films quickly passed through my mind. I wondered if they would be included that I would love to see again. In addition to bringing back old music and old films for the elderly, there were other privileges that elderly people would also have: free travel, discounts on purchases, rebates, tax breaks: a number of privileges just because they were are older. This was seen as a kind of reward for the adult generation who had survived the Great Depression and the rigors of World War II. They deserve it, and they should be rewarded with all of these goodies, and bringing back the good old music and movies should help bring them comfortably through the years.
80s and 90s: The Grim Reaper, Travel Restrictions, National ID, The Chip, etc.
Then the presentation started to get pretty grim because if that generation died out – that would be the late 80s and early 90s where we are now – most of that age group would be dead. Then things would gradually get worse and worse would be sped up. The old movies and old songs would go away; the shallower conversation would be withdrawn. Travel, instead of being easy for old people … would be very restricted.
People would need a travel permit and they would need a good reason to travel. If you don’t have a good reason to travel, you’re not allowed to travel and everyone would need ID. First of all, this would be an ID card that you would have with you and you would have to show it when asked. It was already planned that some type of device would later be developed which would be implanted under the skin that would be specially coded to identify the person. This would eliminate the possibility of a wrong ID and the possibility of people saying, “Well, I’ve lost my ID.”
The difficulty with these skin-implanted badges is to get material that would stay in or under the skin without causing a foreign body reaction, whereby the body would reject it or cause an infection. In addition, it would have to be a material on which information can be recorded and accessed by a kind of scanner, and at the same time not be repelled by the body. Silicon (polymer made from silicon and oxygen) was mentioned. Back then it was thought that silicone would be well tolerated. It was used to enlarge the breasts. Women who felt their breasts were too small would get silicone implants, and I guess they still do. In any case, silicone was seen as the promising material back then.
[ Note: Our memory chips are of course also made of silicon ]
The food supply would come under tight control. If population growth did not slow down, food shortages could be created quickly and people would recognize the dangers of overpopulation. Ultimately, whether population growth is slowing or not, food and supplies should be brought under central control so that people would have enough to be well fed but not have enough to survive outside of the new system. … growing your own food would be forbidden. This would be done on some pretext. At the beginning I mentioned that there are two purposes for everything – one, the alleged purpose and once the real purpose – and the apparent purpose here would be that your own vegetables would be unsafe, that they would spread diseases or the like. So the acceptable idea was to protect the consumer, but the real idea was to limit the food supply. Growing your own food would therefore be illegal. And if you insist on illegal activities like growing your own food, then you are a criminal.
Control of the weather
The weather was also mentioned at that time. He made another really striking statement. He said, “We may or will soon be able to control the weather.” He said, “I am not referring to just dropping iodine crystals into the clouds to trigger precipitation that is already there, but real control “. The weather was seen as a weapon of war, a weapon for influencing public policy. It could make rain or hold rain to affect certain areas [geographic regions] and bring them under your control. There were two sides to it.
He said, “On the one hand you can create a drought during the growing season so nothing will grow, and on the other hand you can create very heavy rainfall during the harvest season so the fields are too muddy to harvest and indeed one could do both. ”
There was no explanation of how this should be done. It has been declared that it is either already possible or very, very close to being possible.
[ Note: Since the 70s it has been possible for the Cabal to completely influence the weather and use it as a weapon. From rain, storm, snow, drought, earthquake, tornadoes and tsunamis, complete control of the weather has now been achieved. This is achieved with fields from high-frequency antennas that send energy against the “ionosphere” and bounce off there. One of these stations is in Alaska and is called HAARP, others are in Russia and Norway. Many of the major natural disasters in recent years have been HAARP attacks. ]
He said very few people really know how governments work. Something like that elected officials are influenced in ways they don’t even realize and they carry out the plans made for them, and they believe that they are the originators of those plans. But actually, they’re being manipulated in ways they don’t understand.
Know how people react: get them to do what we want.
Somewhere in the presentation he made two statements that I would like to add here. I don’t remember where they were made, but they are valid in terms of the general overview. A statement: ” People can have two contradicting ideas in their minds at once and act on them, provided that these two contradicting ideas are kept far enough apart”.
And the other statement is, “You can pretty well know how sensible people are respond to certain circumstances or certain information they encounter. So, to determine the response you want, all you have to do is control the type of data or information presented to them, or the type of circumstances they are in – and as rational people, they will do what you want them to that they do. They may not fully understand what they are doing or why they are doing it, but they are doing exactly what you want them to do ”.
Fake Scientific Research
So somewhere in that context there was a statement admitting that some scientific research data might have been – and indeed was – falsified in order to achieve the desired results. Dr. Day said, “People aren’t asking the right questions. Some people are too trusting”. That was an interesting statement because the speaker and the audience are all medical professionals and supposedly very objective and dispassionately scientific. Science is the be-all and end-all. Well, to say falsifying the scientific research data was like blasphemy in the church in the setting … you just don’t do that. Anyway, from all of this the new international governing body should come, probably … through the UN and a world court, but not necessarily through these structures. It could be brought about in other ways.
UN acceptance: the end justifies the means
The acceptance of the UN was not as widespread then as [they] had hoped. Efforts to keep the United Nations increasingly prominent would continue. People would become more and more accustomed to the idea of giving up part of national sovereignty. Economic interdependence would promote this goal in a peaceful manner. Avoidance of war would further this goal from the standpoint of concern about avoiding national hostilities. It has been recognized that it is better to do this peacefully than through war. At this point it was determined that the war was “obsolete”. I thought this was an interesting phrase because obsolete means something that was once useful but is no longer useful. But the war is out of date … because atomic bombs [meant] that the war is no longer controllable. In the past, wars could be controlled, but if nuclear weapons fell into the wrong hands, an unintended nuclear disaster could result. It was not stated who the “wrong hands” are. We were free to infer that this might mean terrorists, but for the past few years I’ve wondered if the ‘wrong hands’ includes people we assumed had nuclear weapons all along … maybe they don’t have any.
Just as it was said that the US industry would be preserved – a little, just in case the global plans didn’t work out; just in case a country or other powerful person decided to step out of the pack and go its own way – one wonders if this could also be the case with nuclear weapons.
When you hear that … he said they might get into the wrong hands, there have been some statements that the possession of nuclear weapons is tightly controlled, which means that anyone who has nuclear weapons should have them too. That would inevitably have included the Soviet Union, if they actually did. But I I remember asking him at the time: “Are you telling us or are you suggesting that this country voluntarily surrendered arms to the Soviets”? At the time, that seemed a terribly unthinkable thing to do, let alone admit it. The leaders of the Soviet Union seem so dependent on the West, however, that one wonders if some fear that they would try to maintain their independence if they actually had these weapons. So I don’t know.
It’s something to maybe speculate about … Who did he mean when he said: “If those weapons fall into the wrong hands”? Maybe just terrorists.
In any case, the new system would be introduced if everyone did not willingly give up national sovereignty through peaceful cooperation – then by bringing nations to the brink of nuclear war. And everyone would be so afraid, because of the hysteria over the possibility of nuclear war, that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate public peace and people would willingly give up national sovereignty in order to achieve peace. This would push through the new international political system.
It was… very impressive to hear, “If there are too many people in the right places who would oppose this, it might be necessary to use one or two – possibly more – nuclear weapons. As it was said, this might be necessary to show them: “We mean business”. This was followed by the explanation: “If one or two of them went off, everyone – even the most reluctant – would give in.”
He said something like, “This Negotiated Peace would be very compelling,” as some kind of context in which it was planned, but no one would know. The people who heard about it would be convinced that it was a real peace negotiation between warring nations that had finally come to the realization that peace is better than war.
War is good: cannon fodder, keep the population small and die as a hero
In this context – the discussion about the war that it was obsolete – said Dr. Day that there are some good things about the war … First, you are going to die anyway, and at least sometimes people in war have a chance to show great courage and heroism, and when they die they die for something good, and when if they survive, they get recognition. In any case, the hardships of the war are worth it for the soldiers, because that is the reward they get out of their war.
Another justification for the war was (in his opinion) that if the many millions of victims of World Wars I and II … hadn’t died but lived and continued to have babies, there would be millions and millions more people today the planet and we would already be overpopulated. So these two great wars served a good cause
in retarding overpopulation.
[ Note: This shows how sick these psychopaths are in the head! ]
But now there are technological means by which individuals and governments can control overpopulation, making war obsolete in that regard. He is no longer needed. And it’s also out of date because nuclear weapons could destroy the whole universe. The war that was once controllable could get out of control, and for those two reasons it is now out of date.
Terrorism: The Great Tool of ‘Control’.
There was a discussion about terrorism. Terrorism would be widespread in Europe and in other parts of the world. Terrorism was then [not] deemed necessary in the United States. However, it could become necessary in the US if the US does not move fast enough towards acceptance of the system. But at least in the foreseeable future, this was not planned. Very gracious on your part. Perhaps terrorism wouldn’t be required here, but the implication was that it would actually be used if it were necessary is. This was accompanied by a bit of scolding that the Americans had it too good anyway, and a little terrorism would help convince Americans that the world is indeed a dangerous place … or it can become a dangerous place if we don’t Get control of the competent authorities.
Money and Banking
There was a discussion about money and banks. One explanation was: “Inflation is infinite. You can put an infinite number of zeros after any number and put the comma wherever you want “… as an indication that inflation is a tool of the controllers. Most of the money would become a loan. That was it already. Money was primarily a credit thing, but the exchange of money would not be in the form of cash or anything tangible, but an electronic credit signal. People would only carry very small amounts of cash for things like chewing gum and candy bars … Any purchase of any significant sum would be made electronically. The earnings would go into your account electronically. It would be a single banking system. It can appear to be more than that, but ultimately it would be a single banking system. So when you get paid, your salary will be replenished in your account balance for you and then if you bought something, at the time of purchase, it would be deducted from your account balance and you would actually not be carrying anything with you.
[ Note: the first credit / giro cards were available at the end of the 60s, but they were still a marginal phenomenon. Today there are whole countries like Sweden where cash is no longer needed and is therefore hardly used any more. ]
Computer records could also be kept of what you bought so that if you bought too much of a particular item and some officials wanted to know what you did with your money, they could go back and review and determine your purchases what you bought.
Dr. Day explained that any purchase of a significant size such as a car, bicycle, refrigerator, radio, television or whatever could be provided with some type of identification that they can trace, so that very quickly everything either gives away or stolen – whatever – the authorities would be able to determine who bought it and when. Computers would make this possible.
The possibility of saving would be severely limited. People simply would not be able to save a considerable amount of wealth. He made a statement recognizing that wealth represents power and wealth in the hands of many people is not good for the people in power so if you save too much you may be taxed. The more you save, the higher the tax rate on your savings, so your savings really could never go very far. And even if someone started showing a pattern of over-saving, your salary could be cut. We’d say, “Well, you’re saving instead of spending. You really don’t need all that money ”.
Basically, people who have a disruptive influence on the system should be prevented from amassing a fortune. People would be encouraged to take credit, borrow, and then also break down their debts so that they would destroy their own credit. The same applies here: If you are too stupid to deal with credit, the authorities give you the opportunity to punish you harshly once you have missed your credit.
Electronic payments were initially all based on different types of credit cards – some of which were already in use in 1969. Not as much as it is today. But people had credit cards with the electronic stripe on them, and once they got used to it … the benefit of putting it all into a single credit card [would point out] it served a single monetary system and then you didn’t need as much plastic to carry around with you.
So the next step would be the single card, and then the next step after that would be to replace the single card with a skin implant. The individual card could be lost or stolen, it could lead to problems; or it could be exchanged with someone else to confuse identification. The skin implant, on the other hand, would not be lost, counterfeit or transferable to another person, so that you and your accounts are identified without the possibility of error.
[ Note: Today the citizens of the Maldives already have a single ID card, which is an ID card, passport, health card, driver’s license and credit card in one. And the trend is already going in this direction elsewhere. ]
The skin implants would need to be placed in a location that is comfortable for the skin, such as your right hand or your forehead. At the time I heard this, I was unfamiliar with the statements in the book of Revelation. The speaker went on to say, “Now some of you who read the Bible will assign it a biblical meaning,” … but continued to reject any biblical meaning.
It’s just common sense. This is how the system could and should work, and there is no need to read into it any superstitious biblical principles. As I said, at the time I was not very familiar with the words of Revelation. Shortly after that, I became familiar with it, and the meaning of what he was saying was really startling. I will never forget that.
[ Note: here again as a reminder the Bible passage from Revelation chapter 13 verses 16-17: And it brings everyone there, the small and the large and the rich and the poor and the free and slaves, that they have a mark on their right hand or on your foreheads . And that no one can buy or sell except he who has the mark, the name of the beast or the number of his name (666).
Even if you are not a believer, ask yourself why they want a chip in their hand and forehead, as described in the Bible.]
Big Brother is watching you: While you’re watching TV
There was also talk of implants that would be suitable for monitoring by providing radio signals. This could be placed under the skin or [over] a dental implant … like a filling, so that either refugees or possibly other citizens could be identified by a certain frequency of their personal transmitter and could be found anytime and anywhere by any authority. This would be especially useful for someone who has escaped from prison. [ Note: this is achieved with the RFID chip and 5G network]
There was further discussion of personal surveillance. Dr. Day said, “They will be watching TV and someone will be watching them at a central monitoring station at the same time.” Televisions have a device that enables this. The TV would not need to be on for this to take effect. Also, the television could be used to monitor what you are watching. People could say what you see on TV and how you react to what you see. And you wouldn’t know that while you were watching TV you were being watched.
[ Note: This plan was achieved through the new technologies of the Internet, PC and smartphone. While we are being entertained and informed, we are fully monitored by the NSA. Dr. Day uses the term ‘television’ as this was the only reference for such a technology at the time ]
How would we get people to accept these things in their homes? Well, people would buy them if they bought their own TV. You won’t know they’re in there initially. This was described by what we now know as cable television [which replaces] aerial television. If you were to buy a TV, that surveillance monitor would already be part of the kit and most people wouldn’t have enough knowledge to know it was there from the start. The cable would be the means to transmit the surveillance message to the monitor. If people found out that this surveillance was taking place, they would be very dependent on television for many things as well. Just as people rely on the phone today. One thing that television would be used for would be shopping. You wouldn’t have to leave home to buy anything. You could just turn on your TV and there would be a way to interact with your TV station about the store you wanted to shop at. And you could flip the switch from place to place to choose a refrigerator or clothing. Either way, it would be convenient, but it would also make you dependent on your television set so you couldn’t do without the built-in monitor.
There was also some discussion about audio monitors, just in case the authorities wanted to hear what was going on in other rooms, that is, the one where the TV monitor was located, and the statement was made: “Any cable that goes into Your house went, for example your telephone cord, could be used in this way ”.
I remember it especially because it was pretty close to the end of the presentation, and when we were leaving the meeting place I said something to one of my coworkers about going home and pulling all the wires out of my house … except who I knew that I couldn’t do without the phone. And the colleague I spoke to just seemed numb. I don’t think he even remembers what we talked about or what we heard to this day. But at this point he seemed stunned. Before all of these changes would take place with electronic surveillance, it was mentioned that there would be service vans everywhere working on the wires and pulling in new cables. That way, the people who were inside would know how things were going on.
[ Note: The execution of this plan was actually much easier, because we wanted to have installed the internet / fiber optic cables in our house ourselves (and also paid for it). This proves again that the internet was invented for surveillance and mind control from the beginning, just like social media. The fact that the Internet is used to share the truth could be a loss that you consciously entered into, so through filter bubbles you have also driven the division of people who know the truth from the rest]
Privately Owned Homes – “A thing of the past”
Private apartments would be a thing of the past. The cost of housing and the financing of housing would gradually become so high that most people could no longer afford them. People who already owned their home were allowed to keep it, but over the years it would become increasingly difficult for young people to buy a home.
Young people would increasingly become tenants, especially in apartments or condominiums. More and more unsold houses would stand empty. People just couldn’t buy them. But the cost of housing would not go down. One would immediately think, well, the empty house – the price would go down and people would buy it. But there was a statement that said the price would be kept high even though there were many available, so free market prices would not work.
People would not be able to buy them and gradually more and more of the population would be forced into small apartments … small apartments that could not accommodate very many children. Then, if the number of real homeowners decreased, they would become a minority.
There would be no sympathy for them from the majority living in the apartments. Then these homes could be taken away by increased taxes or other regulations that would adversely affect home ownership [but] would be acceptable to the majority. Ultimately, people would be assigned where they would live and it would be customary for non-family members to live with you … This would all be under the control of a central housing authority. Remember when you ask in 1990, “How many bedrooms are there in your house? How many bathrooms are there in your home? Do you have a ready-made playroom?
This information is personal and has no national interest for the government under our existing constitution. But you will be asked these questions and you will decide how to respond to them. When the new system is adopted, people are expected to show loyalty, indicating that they have no reservations about it or any desire to adhere to the old system.
There just won’t be a place for people who don’t join in, said Dr. Day. “We cannot let such people clutter up the place so that these people come to special places”. And here I don’t remember the exact words, but the conclusion I drew was that in those particular places where they were recorded, then they wouldn’t live very long. He may have said something like “humanely disposed of”, but I don’t remember very well … just the impression that the system would not support them if
they did not join the system. Then death would be the only alternative.
[Note: Wow, here he is clearly addressing the FEMA concentration camps for those who do not allow themselves to be forced into an NWO]
Somewhere along that line he said there would be no martyrs. When I first heard it I thought this meant that people were not going to be killed, but as the presentation went on it was clear what he meant is that they would not be killed or disposed of in a way that inspired the other people serve as martyrs do. Rather, he said something like, “People will just disappear.”
A few final points from Dr. Dunegan
Just a few additional points that I threw in here at the end and that I did not include where they belong more perfectly.
The introduction of the new system (NWO)will likely happen on a weekend in winter. Everything would shut down on Friday evening and on Monday morning when everyone woke up there would be an announcement that the new system is active. In the process of preparing the United States for these changes everyone would be more busy, have less free time, and less opportunity to really see what was going on around them. There would also be more changes and more difficulty keeping up with your investments. The investment instruments would change. Interest rates would change so it would be difficult to keep up with what you have already earned.
[ Note: Wait a minute, did Dr. Dungegan (or Dr. Day) predicted the Corona Shutdown here as early as 1988, with which they want to impose the NWO ?! And the financial crash? The three days also coincide with statements from other insiders, he says here in winter (second wave, second shutdown?), David Wilcock already says Easter, let’s see ]
Interesting facts about automobiles; it would look like there are many varieties of cars, but if you look very carefully, there would be a lot of overlap. It would look different with chrome and wheel covers and things like that, but on closer inspection you would see that the same automobile is made by more than one manufacturer.
I realized this recently when I was in a parking lot and saw a small Ford – I forgot the model – and a small Japanese automobile that were identical except for a number of things like the number of holes in the wheel cover and the chrome around the plate and shape of the grill. But if you look at the basic parts of the automobile, they were identical. They just happened to be parked next to each other. I was very impressed and reminded of what had been said many years ago.
I’m rushing here because I’m almost at the end of the tape. Let me just summarize here by saying – all of these things were said by one person at one time in one place, related to so many different human endeavors. Now you see how many of them actually came about … that is, changes made between then and now [1969-1988] and the things that are planned for the future. I think there is no denying that this is being controlled and that there is indeed a conspiracy going on. Then the question arises what to do. I think first we have to put our faith in God and Pray and ask for his guidance. Second, we need to do what we can to inform others. Individuals as much as possible, as much as they might be interested. Some people just don’t care because they are busy making their own pursuits. But I think we should try as much as we can to inform other people who may be interested, and again … Let us put our faith and trust in God and keep praying for His guidance and the courage to accept that, what could be in store for us in the near future.
Instead of accepting the peace and justice that we hear so much about – this is a cliché: let’s demand freedom and justice for all.
Phew, we really live in the matrix, it seems like in the last 60 years (and even before) nothing has developed organically at all. The extent and precision with which the Cabal has shaped our society is truly terrifying. Almost everything that Doctor Day said in 1969 will have arrived by 2020. Some things only after 1988, Dr. Dunegan hasn’t sucked anything out of his fingers. The probability that the world has developed in the same way by chance then goes to zero, there is an exact schedule. It is shaped like a clay figure. From powerful people with an extremely high level of influence and a very high understanding of crowd psychology.
And today they are close to completing the master plan. The world is really just a stage … and that can be intimidating, but also somehow liberating. Years later he also tried to contact the other doctors present and talk to them about the statements of that day and the development of the world. Some were just as amazed as he was, but many also forgot the statements and said that all of this is probably not so bad and that he couldn’t have said it in exactly the same way (denied the obvious facts; cognitive dissonance).
Dr. Dungane is a hero and did humanity a great favor by letting the cat out of the bag. He died of cancer in January 2004, at the age of 70 (rest in peace). Here are the tape recordings from 1988 in case you want to check out the original from 1988. It starts with a recap from 9/11, the title and the thumbnail have nothing to do with the content, but serve to prevent the censorship algorithm from striking. Dr. Dunegane starts talking at 5:50. Here is the English original in text form, there is a third tape with an interview with Dr. Dungan (from page 32).NWORichardDay