CL: The Dark Truth About Kermit the Frog
Women in China's "re-education" camps for Uighurs have been
systematically raped, sexually abused, and tortured, according
to detailed new accounts obtained by the BBC.
Tursunay Ziawudun spent nine months inside China's vast and secretive system
of internment camps in the Xinjiang region. According to independent estimates,
more than a million men and women have been detained in the sprawling network
of camps, which China says exist for the "re-education" of the Uighurs and other
Human rights groups say the Chinese government has gradually stripped away
the religious and other freedoms of the Uighurs, culminating in an oppressive
system of mass surveillance, detention, indoctrination, and even forced sterilisation.
The policy flows from China's President, Xi Jinping
China says reports of mass detention and forced sterilisation are
"lies and absurd allegations".
It is impossible to verify Ziawudun's account completely because of the
severe restrictions China places on reporters in the country, but travel
documents and immigration records she provided to the BBC corroborate
the timeline of her story.
On 9 March 2018, with her husband still in Kazakhstan, Ziawudun was
instructed to report to a local police station, she said. She was told
she needed "more education".
Another central feature of the camps is classrooms. Teachers have been
drafted in to "re-educate" the detainees - a process activists say is designed
to strip the Uighurs and other minorities of their culture, language
and religion, and indoctrinate them into mainstream Chinese culture.
The detainees' hair was cut, they went to class, they underwent unexplained
medical tests, took pills, and were forcibly injected every 15 days
with a "vaccine" that brought on nausea and numbness.
President Xi looms large over the camps. His image and slogans adorn
the walls; he is a focus of the programme of "re-education". Xi is the overall
architect of the policy against the Uighurs, said Charles Parton, a former
British diplomat in China and now senior associate fellow at the
Royal United Services Institute.
Federal registration of all firearms.
A national gun registry.
Limitations on types of firearms.
Federally mandated insurance, expensive, and managed by the FedGov
(some $800 per year).
Psychological evaluations by state-approved psychologists for approval to purchase firearms.
Those evaluations are extended to family members (including former spouses).
Prohibition of person-to-person transfers.
Prohibition of standard capacity magazines.
HR 127 establishes a federal firearms registration system that will be accessible by
federal, state, and local governments, including the military – even the
GENERAL PUBLIC! The system will track the make, model, and serial number
of all firearms, their owners, the dates they were acquired, and where they
are being stored.
Pay $800 for firearms insurance from the government.
For the psychological evaluation, a licensed psychologist will interview individuals’
spouses and at least two other family members or associates to “further determine the state of the mental emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.”
Licenses will be denied to individuals hospitalized for issues such as depressive
episodes; no duration for license disability is specified, and it does not matter
whether the individual sought help voluntarily.
CL: Tim Dillon Covid Lab
CL: Tim Dillon Covid Rage
CL: Tim Dillon People Don't Exist
CL: Tim Dillon Covid Rage 2
CL: Vice David Icke V
CL: Vice Xfiles CT
Whole video is fake moon landing (if you'd done your research you'd
know Icke isn't into the whole “Moon” thing.), along with Kubrick,
internet crazies, Eyes Wide Shut, and the origins of the Bavarian/Playboy
Illuminati; Operation Mindfuck.
Now, for some real Icke.
CL: I Like Ike 1
CL: I Like Ike 2
SPACE IS FAKE
Scientists fair dinkum think there are dinosaurs remains on the moon
scientists are pretty f**ken confident that there are bits of dinosaurs
plastered all over that big old hunk of rock in the sky.
And that’s exactly how scientists reckon bits of dinosaurs ended up on
the moon. Basically, if you’ve ever f**ken jumped onto something
to squish it, leaving bits of it to burst up and collide with nearby
bodies, you’ll understand what the scientists are positing.
the asteroid that sent the terrible thunder lizards – and all their
mates–to Destination F**ked, hit the earth so hard that the
resulting hole it ripped in the atmosphere sucked up and
spat out anything in its path.
“As the asteroid collided with the earth, in the sky above it where
there should have been air, the rock had punched a hole of outer
space vacuum in the atmosphere. As the heavens rushed in to
close this hole, enormous volumes of earth were expelled
into orbit and beyond — all within a second or two of impact.”
Were Two Moons Spotted Over Dubai?
In February 2021, photographs and videos started to circulate
on social media that supposedly showed two moons hanging
in the sky over Dubai.
The “objects” seen in this video are actually digital projections
of the Martian moons Phobos and Deimos in celebration of the
Hope Probe’s approach to Mars.
“The Mars Mission is one of the biggest challenges of the
country’s history and one of the boldest initiatives of the
UAE: Conquer space. So, to create awareness around
this important fact, nothing better than bring the two moons of
Mars to Earth.”
Gulf News reported that two 100-meter cranes were used
to display images of the two Martian moons on a 40-meter screen.
The UAE Government Media Office said that this display
was designed to make it appear as if these two moons were
hanging in the earth sky.
(Two Martian moons) were projected in the sky using a new
technology that has never been seen before in the UAE. Two giant
100-meter cranes and an advanced 40-metre screen have been used
to make the moons appear realistically in the sky and visible
from long distances. “The idea was to create a way that allows
everyone to see what Hope Probe is capturing 500 million miles
away. (It was aimed at driving) awareness and
create excitement around Hope Probe’s insertion on the
Mars atmosphere, a milestone in UAE history that will happen
on February 9.”
Providing a holistic view of how Mars’ climate varies throughout
A fragment from a large, long-period comet, pushed into a sun-grazing
orbit by Jupiter, was likely the source of the impactor that slammed
into the Gulf of Mexico some 66 million years ago.
And it could happen again.
Harvard University astronomers Amir Siraj and Avi Loeb
posit that highly elliptical, long period comets are pushed into
sun-grazing orbits by Jupiter. These long-period comets are
thought to originate from our outer solar system’s Oort cloud,
an icy shell of debris located about ten thousand to a hundred
thousand times the distance between the Sun and the Earth. But
during these passages close to the Sun, large comets are
gravitationally disrupted, producing fields of cometary shrapnel,
Siraj, a Harvard undergraduate studying astrophysics at
the Harvard & Smithsonian center for Astrophysics, told me.
Most of these Chicxulub-sized fragments miss the Earth, he says.
Siraj and Loeb’s theory predicts an increase in the chances
of long period comets impacting Earth by a factor of about 10,
Of course, active volcanism may have played a role in the
demise of the dinosaurs. But the main trigger still seems to be a
giant impactor which slammed into the Yucatan peninsula near Chicxulub.
CL: Scully Likes Science
CL: GWAR on NBC News
CL: Doctor Turtle - Fingerlympics
New Order of Barbarians
The New Order of the Barbarians
CL: Intro NOB
CL: Intro NOB 2
"EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE AND NOBODY CAN STOP US NOW..."
The only purpose in recording this is that it may give a perspective
to those who hear it regarding the changes which have already been accomplished in the past 20 years or so, and a bit of a preview to
what at least some people are planning for the remainder of this
century ... so that we, or they, would enter the 21st Century with a
flying start. Some of us may not enter that Century. His purpose in
telling our group about these changes that were to be brought about
was to make it easier for us to adapt to these changes. Indeed, as he quite accurately said, "they would be changes that would be very surprising,
and in some ways difficult for people to accept," and he hoped that we,
as sort of his friends, would make the adaptation more easily if we knew somewhat beforehand what to expect.
"PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO CHANGE..."
"People will have to get used to the idea of change, so used to change,
that they'll be expecting change. Nothing will be permanent."
"People are too trusting, people don't ask the right questions."
Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb.
But sometimes when ... when he would say that and say, "People don't
ask the right questions," it was almost with a sense of regret ... as if
he were uneasy with what he was part of, and wished that people would challenge it and maybe not be so trusting
THE REAL AND THE STATED GOALS
"Everything has two purposes. One is the ostensible purpose which
will make it acceptable to people and second is the real purpose which
would further the goals of establishing the new system and having it,"
He said the population is growing too fast. Numbers of people living at
any one time on the planet must be limited or we will run out of space
to live. We will outgrow our food supply and we will over-pollute the
world with our waste.
PERMISSION TO HAVE BABIES
Most families would be limited to two. Some people would be allowed
only one, and the outstanding person or persons might be selected and
allowed to have three
That's because the zero population growth rate] is 2.1 children per
completed family. So something like every 10th family might be allowed
the privilege of the third baby. To me, up to this point, the word
"population control" primarily connoted limiting the number of babies
to be born. But this remark about what people would be "allowed" and
then what followed, made it quite clear that when you hear
"population control" that means more than just controlling births.
It means control of every endeavor of an entire ... of the entire world
population; a much broader meaning to that term than I had ever
attached to it before hearing this.
REDIRECTING THE PURPOSE OF SEX - SEX WITHOUT REPRODUCTION AND REPRODUCTION WITHOUT SEX
Chemicals in food and in the water supply to reduce the sex drive
are not practical. The strategy then would be not to diminish sex
activity, but to increase sex activity, but in such a way that people
won't be having babies.
CONTRACEPTION UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE TO ALL
Contraception would be very strongly encouraged, and it would be
connected so closely in people's minds with sex, that they would
automatically think contraception when they were thinking or
preparing for sex.
This kind of openness was a way of suggesting that contraceptions ...
that contraceptives are just as much a part of life as any other items
sold in the store. And, contraceptives would be advertised. And
contraceptives would be dispensed in the schools in association with
SEX EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF WORLD GOVERNMENT
The sex education was to get kids interested early, making the
connection between sex and the need for contraception early in their
lives, even before they became very active.
TAX FUNDED ABORTION AS POPULATION CONTROL
He said, "Abortion will no longer be a crime." Abortion will be accepted
as normal, and would be paid for by taxes for people who could not
pay for their own abortions. Contraceptives would be made available
by tax money so that nobody would have to do without contraceptives.
If school sex programs would lead to more pregnancies in children, that
was really seen as no problem.
ANYTHING GOES ---HOMOSEXUALITY TO BE ENCOURAGED.
"People will be given permission to be homosexual," that's the way
it was stated. They won't have to hide it. And elderly people will be
encouraged to continue to have active sex lives into the very old ages,
just as long as they can. Everyone will be given permission to have sex,
to enjoy however they want. Anything goes. This is the way it was put.
And, I remember thinking, "how arrogant for this individual, or whoever
he represents, to feel that they can give or withhold permission for people
to do things!"
Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative.
He said, "It is not just the amount of skin that is expressed ... exposed
that makes clothing sexually seductive, but other, more subtle things
are often more suggestive."... things like movement, and the cut of clothing,
and the kind of fabric, the positioning of accessories on the clothing.
There was not detail on what was meant by "provocative clothing," but
since that time if you watched the change in clothing styles, blue jeans
are cut in a way that they're more tight-fitting through the crotch. They
form wrinkles. Wrinkles essentially are arrows. Lines which direct one's
vision to certain anatomic areas. And, this was around the time of the
"burn your bra" activity. He indicated that a lot of women should not go
without a bra. They need a bra to be attractive, so instead of banning bras
and burning them, bras would come back. But they would be thinner and softer allowing more natural movement.
You would have sex without reproduction and then technology
was reproduction without sex. This would be done in the laboratory.
He indicated that already much, much research was underway about
making babies in the laboratory.
FAMILIES TO DIMINISH IN IMPORTANCE
Divorce would be made easier and more prevalent. Most people who
marry will marry more than once. More people will not marry. Unmarried people would stay in hotels and even live together. That would be very
common - nobody would even ask questions about it.
More women will work outside the home. More men will be transferred
to other cities and in their jobs, more men would travel in their work.
Therefore, it would be harder for families to stay together. This would tend
to make the marriage relationship less stable and, therefore, tend to make
people less willing to have babies. And, the extended families would be
smaller, and more remote. Travel would be easier, less expensive, for a
while, so that people who did have to travel would feel they could get back
to their families, not that they were abruptly being made remote from their
families. But one of the net effects of easier divorce laws combined
with the promotion of travel, and transferring families from one city to
another, was to create instability in the families. If both husband and
wife are working and one partner gets transferred the other one may
not be easily transferred. So, one either gives up his or her job and stays
behind while the other leaves, or else gives up the job and risks not finding employment in the new location. Rather a diabolical approach to this whole thing!
EUTHANASIA AND THE "DEMISE PILL"
Everybody has a right to live only so long. The old are no longer useful.
They become a burden. You should be ready to accept death. Most people
are. An arbitrary age limit could be established. After all, you have a
right to only so many steak dinners, so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in life. And after you have had enough of them and you're
no longer productive, working, and contributing, then you should be
ready to step aside for the next generation.
use of very pale printing ink on forms that people ... are necessary to
fill out, so that older people wouldn't be able to read the pale ink as
easily and would need to go to younger people for help. Automobile
traffic patterns - there would be more highspeed traffic lanes ... traffic
patterns that would ... that older people with their slower reflexes
would have trouble dealing with and thus, tend to lose some of their independence.
LIMITING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE MAKES ELIMINATING ELDERLY EASIER
The cost of medical care would be made burdensomely high. Medical
care would be connected very closely with one's work but also would
be made very, very high in cost so that it would simply be unavailable
to people beyond a certain time. And unless they had a remarkably rich, supporting family, they would just have to do without care. And the
idea was that if everybody says, "Enough! What a burden it is on the
young to try to maintain the old people," then the young would become agreeable to helping Mom and Dad along the way, provided this was done humanely and with dignity.
Then the example was - there could be like a nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good job. And then after the party's
over they take the "demise pill."
PLANNING THE CONTROL OVER MEDICINE
There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall,
medicine would be much more tightly controlled. The observation was
made, "Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance.
That" (in 1969), he said, "is now, abundantly evident. But it's not
necessary. We have other ways to control health care." These would
come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come
under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work.
If you don't work or can't work, you won't have access to medical care.
The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down,
to where it was virtually nonexistent. Costs would be forced up so that
people won't be able to afford to go without insurance. People pay...
you pay for it, you're entitled to it.. It was only subsequently that I
began to realize the extent to which you would not be paying for it.
Your medical care would be paid for by others. And therefore you
would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was offered to you
as a privilege. Your role being responsible for your own care would be diminished.
If you are charged, say, $600 for the use of an operating room, the
insurance company does not pay $600 on your part. They pay $300 or
$400. And that differential in billing has the desired effect: It enables
the insurance company to pay for that which you could never pay for.
They get a discount that's unavailable to you. When you see your bill
you're grateful that the insurance company could do that. And in this
way you are dependent, and virtually required to have insurance.
The whole billing is fraudulent.
Identification would be needed to get into the building. The security
in and around hospitals would be established and gradually increased
so that nobody without identification could get in or move around inside
the building. Theft of hospital equipment, things like typewriters and microscopes and so forth would be "allowed" and exaggerated; reports
of it would be exaggerated so that this would be the excuse needed to
establish the need for strict security, until people got used to it. And
anybody moving about the hospital would be required to wear an
identification badge with photograph and...telling why he was there...
employee or lab technician or visitor or whatever.
It was observed that hospitals can be used to confine people ... for the
treatment of criminals. This did not mean, necessarily, medical treatment.
At that ... at that time I did not know the word "Psycho-Prison" - is in the
Soviet Union, but, without trying to recall all the details, basically, he was describing the use of hospitals both for treating the sick, and for confinement
of criminals for reasons other than the medical well-being of the criminal.
ELIMINATION OF PRIVATE DOCTORS
The image of the doctor would change. No longer would the ... he be seen
as an individual professional in service to individual patients. But the
doctor would be gradually recognized as a highly skilled technician -
and his job would change. The job is to include things like executions
by lethal injection. The image of the doctor being a powerful, independent person would have to be changed. And he went on to say, "Doctors are
making entirely too much money. They should advertise like any other
product." Lawyers would be advertising too.
The solo practitioner would become a thing of the past. A few diehards
might try to hold out, but most doctors would be employed by an
institution of one kind or another. Group practice would be encouraged, corporations would be encouraged, and then once the corporate image
of medical care ... as this gradually became more and more acceptable,
doctors would more and more become employees rather than
The term HMO was not used at that time, but as you look at HMOs you
see this is the way that medical care is being taken over since the
National Health Insurance approach did not get through the Congress.
A few die-hard doctors may try to make a go of it, remaining in solo
practice, remaining independent, (which, parenthetically, is me). But they
would suffer a great loss of income.
NEW DIFFICULT TO DIAGNOSE AND UNTREATABLE DISEASES
He said there would be new dis eases to appear which had not ever
been seen before. Would be very difficult to d i a g n o s e a n d b e
untreatable - at least for a long time. No elaboration was made on this,
but I remember, not long after hearing this presentation, when I had a
puzzling diagnosis to make, I would be wondering, "is this was what he
was talking about? Is this a case of what he was talking about?" Some
years later, as AIDS ultimately developed, I think AIDS was at least one
example of what he was talking about. I now think that AIDS probably
was a manufactured disease.
SUPPRESSING CANCER CURES AS A MEANS OF POPULATION
"We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in
the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should be released.
But consider - if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would
become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something else.
"Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more toward comfort than
toward cure. There was some statement that ultimately the cancer cures
which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to
light because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these
efforts to suppress them. But at least for the time being, letting people die
of cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem
INDUCING HEART ATTACKS AS A FORM OF ASSASSINATION
"There is now a way to simulate a real heart attack. It can be used as a
means of assassination." Only a very skilled pathologist who knew exactly
what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish this from the real thing.
I thought that was a very surprising and shocking thing to hear from
this particular man at that particular time. This, and the business of the
cancer cure, really still stand out sharply in my memory, because they
were so shocking, and, at that time, seemed to me out of character. He
then went on to talk about nutrition and exercise sort of in the same
framework. People would not have to ... people would have to eat right
and exercise right to live as long as before. Most won't. This in the
connection of nutrition, there was no specific statement that I can recall
as to particular nutrients that would be either inadequate or in excess. In retrospect, I tend to think he meant high salt diets and high fat diets
would predispose toward high blood pressure and premature
arteriosclerotic heart disease. And that if people who were too dumb or
too lazy to exercise as they should then their dietary ... their circulating
fats go up and predispose to disease. And he said something about diet information - about proper diet - would be widely available, but most
people, particularly stupid people, who had no right to continue living
anyway, they would ignore the advice and just go on and eat what was convenient and tasted good. There were some other unpleasant things
said about food.
He went on to say that more people would be exercising more, especially running, because everybody can run. You don't need any special
equipment or place. You can run wherever you are. As he put it. "people
will be running all over the place." And in this vein, he pointed out how
supply produces demand. And this was in reference to athletic clothing
and equipment. As this would be made more widely available and
glamorized, particularly as regards running shoes, this would stimulate
people to develop an interest in running and ... as part of a whole sort of
public propaganda campaign. People would be encouraged then to buy
the attractive sports equipment and to get into exercise. Again ... well in connection with nutrition he also mentioned that public eating places
would rapidly increase. That ... this had a connection with the family too.
As more and more people eat out, eating at home would become less
important. People would be less dependent on their kitchens at home.
And then this also connected to convenience foods being made widely
available - things like you could pop into the microwave. Whole meals
would be available prefixed.
The convenience foods would be part of the hazards. Anybody who
was lazy enough to want the convenience foods rather than fixing his
own also had better be energetic enough to exercise. Because if he was
too lazy to exercise and too lazy to fix his own food, then he didn't deserve
to live very long. This was all presented as sort of a moral judgment about
people and what they should do with their energies. People who are smart,
who would learn about nutrition, and who are disciplined enough to eat
right and exercise right are better people - and the kind you want to live
EDUCATION AS A TOOL FOR ACCELERATING THE ONSET OF
PUBERTY AND EVOLUTION
There was a statement that "we think that we can push evolution faster
and in the direction we want it to go." I remember this only as a general statement. I don't recall if any details were given beyond that.
BLENDING ALL RELIGIONS... THE OLD RELIGIONS WILL
HAVE TO GO
"Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion,
with its mysteries and rituals - so they will have religion. But the major
religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible
with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down, the
rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted
for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from all of the old
ones to make it more easy for people to accept it, and feel at home in it.
Most people won't be too concerned with religion. They will realize that
they don't need it.
CHANGING THE BIBLE THROUGH REVISIONS OF KEY WORDS
In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit
the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words
having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the
new word can be close to the old word - and as time goes on, other
shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized. and then gradually
that word replaced with another word." But the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words.
And the variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool
to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable
to this new religion. Most people won't know the difference; and this
was another one of the times where he said, "the few who do notice the difference won't be enough to matter."
"THE CHURCHES WILL HELP US!"
"Some of you probably think the Churches won't stand for this," and he
went on to say, "the churches will help us!" There was no elaboration on
this, it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said, "the churches
will help us!" In retrospect I think some of us now can understand what
he might have meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, "no they
won't!" and remembering our Lord's words where he said to Peter,
"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of
Hell will not prevail against it." So ... yes, some people in the Churches
RESTRUCTURING EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF INDOCTRINATION
Another area of discussion was Education. And one of the things; in
connection with education that remember connecting with what he said
about religion was in addition to changing the Bible he said that the classics
in Literature would be changed. I seem to recall Mark Twain's writings
were given as one example. But he said, the casual reader reading a revised version of a classic would never even suspect that there was any change.
And, somebody would have to go through word by word to even recognize
that any change was made in these classics, the changes would be so
subtle. But the changes would be such as to promote the acceptability of
the new system.
MORE TIME IN SCHOOLS, BUT THEY "WOULDN'T LEARN A
As regards education, he indicated that kids would spend more time in
schools, but in many schools they wouldn't learn anything. They'll learn
some things, but not as much as formerly. Better schools in better areas
with better people -their kids will learn more. In the better schools
learning would be accelerated.
"We think we can push evolution." By pushing kids to learn more he
seemed to be suggesting that their brains would evolve, that their
offspring would evolve ... sort of pushing evolution ... where kids
would learn and be more intelligent at a younger age. As if this pushing
would alter their physiology. Overall, schooling would be prolonged.
This meant prolonged through the school year. I'm not sure what he said
about a long school day, I do remember he said that school was planned
to go all summer, that the summer school vacation would become a thing
of the past.
For most people it would take longer to complete their education. To
get what originally had been in a bachelor's program would now require advanced degrees and more schooling. So that a lot of school time would
be just wasted time. Good schools would become more competitive.
Students would have to decide at a younger age what they would want
to study and get onto their track early, if they would qualify. It would be
harder to change to another field of study once you get started. Studies
would be concentrated in much greater depth, but narrowed. You wouldn't
have access to material in other fields, outside your own area of study,
People would be very specialized in their own area of expertise. But they
won't be able to get a broad education and won't be able to understand
what is going on overall.
CONTROLLING WHO HAS ACCESS TO INFORMATION
He was already talking about computers in education, and at that time
he said anybody who wanted computer access, or access to books that
were not directly related to their field of study would have to have a
very good reason for so doing. Otherwise, access would be denied.
SCHOOLS AS THE HUB OF THE COMMUNITY
Kids in addition to their academics would have to get into school
activities unless they wanted to feel completely out of it. But spontaneous activities among kids... the thing that came to my mind when I heard
this was - sand lot football and sand lot baseball teams that we worked
up as kids growing up. I said the kids wanting any activities outside of
school would be almost forced to get them through the school. There
would be few opportunities outside. Now the pressures of the accelerated academic program, the accelerated demands. where kids would feel they
had to be part of something - one or another athletic club or some school
activity - these pressures he recognized would cause some students to burn
"the smartest ones will learn how to cope with pressures and to survive.
There will be some help available to students in handling stress, but the
unfit won't be able to make it. They will then move on to other things.
drug abuse and alcohol abuse he indicated that psychiatric services to
help would be increased dramatically. In all the pushing for achievement,
it was recognized that many people would need help, and the people
worth keeping around would be able to accept and benefit from that help,
and still be super achievers. Those who could not would fall by the wayside
and therefore were sort of dispensable - "expendable" I guess is the word
There'll always be new information that adults must have to keep up.
When you can't keep up anymore, you're too old. This was another way
of letting older people know that the time had come for them to move on
and take the demise pill.
"SOME BOOKS WOULD JUST DISAPPEAR FROM THE LIBRARIES..."
"some books would just disappear from the libraries." This was in the
vein that some books contain information or contain ideas that should
not be kept around. And therefore, those books would disappear.
That certain people would be designated to go to certain libraries and
pick up certain books and just get rid of them. Not necessarily as a matter
of policy - just simply steal it. Further down the line, not everybody will
be allowed to own books. And some books nobody will be allowed to own.
At that time a lot of States had blue laws about Sunday sales, certain
Sunday activities. He said the blue laws [Sunday laws] would all be
repealed. Gambling laws would be repealed or relaxed, so that gambling
would be increased. He indicated then that governments would get into gambling. We've had a lot of state lotteries pop up around the country
"Why should all that gambling money be kept in private hands when
the State could benefit from it?"
But people should be able to gamble if they want to. So it would become
a civil activity, rather than a private, or illegal activity.
Antitrust laws would be changed, or be interpreted differently, or both.
In connection with the changing anti-trust laws, there was some statement
that in a sense, competition would be increased. But this would be
increased competition within otherwise controlled circumstances. So it's
not a free competition. I recall of having the impression that it was like competition but within members of a club. There would be nobody outside
the club would be able to compete. Sort of like teams competing within a professional sports league ... if you're the NFL or the American or National Baseball Leagues - you compete within the league but the league is all in agreement on what the rules of competition are - not a really free competition.
THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF DRUG ABUSE TO CREATE A JUNGLE ATMOSPHERE
Drug use would he increased. Alcohol use would be increased. Law
enforcement efforts against drugs would be increased
Why increase drug abuse and simultaneously increase law enforcement
against drug abuse? But the idea is that, in part, the increased availability
of drugs would provide a sort of law of the jungle whereby the weak
and the unfit would be selected out.
"Before the earth was overpopulated, there was a law of the jungle where
only the fittest survived. You had to be able to protect yourself against the elements and wild animals and disease. And if you were fit you survived.
But now we've become so civilized - we're over civilized - and the unfit
are enabled to survive only at the expense of those who are more fit."
News about drug abuse and law enforcement efforts would tend to keep
drugs in the public consciousness. And would also tend to reduce this unwarranted American complacency that the world is a safe place, and a
Alcohol abuse would be both promoted and demoted at the same time
The vulnerable and the weak would respond to the promotions and
therefore use and abuse more alcohol. Drunk driving would become
more of a problem; and stricter rules about driving under the influence
would be established so that more and more people would lose their
privilege to drive.
RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL
Not everybody should be free to travel the way they do now in the United
States. People don't have a need to travel that way. It's a privilege! It was
kind of the high-handed the way it was put. Again, much more in the way of
psychological services would be made available to help those who got
hooked on drugs and alcohol. The idea being, that in order to promote
this - drug and alcohol abuse to screen out some of the unfit - people
who are otherwise are pretty good also would also be subject to getting
hooked. And if they were really worth their salt they would have enough
sense to seek psychological counseling and to benefit from it.
It was as if he were saying, "you think we're bad in promoting these
evil things - but look how nice we are - we're also providing a way out!"
THE NEED FOR MORE JAILS, AND USING HOSPITALS AS JAILS
More jails would be needed. Hospitals could serve as jails. Some new
hospital construction would be designed so as to make them adaptable
to jail-like use.
NO MORE SECURITY
Nothing is permanent. Streets would be rerouted, renamed. Areas you
had not seen in a while would become unfamiliar. Among other things,
this would contribute to older people feeling that it was time to move on,
people would feel they couldn't even keep up with the changes in areas
that were once familiar. Vacant buildings would be allowed to stand empty
and deteriorate, and streets would be allowed to deteriorate in certain
localities. The purpose of this was to provide the jungle, the depressed atmosphere for the unfit. Somewhere in this same connection he mentioned
that buildings and bridges would be made so that they would collapse
after a while, there would be more accidents involving airplanes and
railroads and automobiles. All of this to contribute to the feeling of
insecurity, that nothing was safe.
CRIME USED TO MANAGE SOCIETY
There would be the created slums and other areas well maintained. Those
people able to leave the slums for better areas then would learn to better
appreciate the importance of human accomplishment. This meant that if
they left the jungle and came to civilization, so to speak, they could be
proud of their own accomplishments that they made it. There was no
related sympathy for those who were left behind in the jungle of drugs
and deteriorating neighborhoods. Then a statement that was kind of
surprising: "We think we can effectively limit crime to the slum areas, so
it won't be spread heavily into better areas."
But he went on to say that increased security would be needed in the
better areas. That would mean more police, better coordinated police efforts.
He did not say so, but I wondered at that time about the moves that were
afoot to consolidate all the police departments of suburbs around the major
cities. I think the John Birch Society was one that was saying "Support your
local police, don't let them be consolidated." and I remember wondering
if that was one of the things he had in mind about security.
there would be a whole new industry of residential security systems to
develop with alarms and locks and alarms going into the police department
so that people could protect their wealth and their well being. Because
some of the criminal activity would spill out of the slums into better,
more affluent looking areas that looked like they would be worth
burglarizing. And again it was stated like it was a redeeming quality:
See we're generating all this more crime but look how good we are -
we're also generating the means for you to protect yourself against the crime.
CURTAILMENT OF AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL PRE-EMINENCE
American industry came under discussion - it was the first that I'd
heard the term global interdependence or that notion. The stated plan
was that different parts of the world would be assigned different
roles of industry and commerce in a unified global system. The continued
pre-emi nence of the United States and the relative independence and selfsufficiency of the United States would have to be changed. This was
one of the several times where he said in order to create a new structure,
you first have to tear down the old, and American industry was one
example of that. Our system would have to be curtailed in order to
give other countries a chance to build their industries, because otherwise
they would not be able to compete against the United States. And this was especially true of our heavy industries that would be cut back while
the same industries were being developed in other countries, notably Japan.
I remember saying that automobiles would be imported from Japan on
an equal footing with our own domestically produced automobiles, but
the Japanese product would be better. Things would be made so they
would break and fall apart, that is in the United States. so that people
would tend to prefer the imported variety and this would give a bit of a
boost to foreign competitors. One example was Japanese. In 1969 Japanese automobiles, if they were sold here at all I don't remember, but they
certainly weren't very popular. But the idea was you could get a little bit disgusted with your Ford, GM or Chrysler product or whatever because
little things like window handles would fall off more and plastic parts
would break which had they been made of metal would hold up . Your patriotism about buying American would soon give way to practicality
that if you bought Japanese, German or imported that it would last longer
and you would be better off. Patriotism would go down the drain then.
I don't remember specific items or if they were even stated other than automobiles, but I do recall of having the impression, sort of in my
imagination, of a surgeon having something fall apart in his hands in
the operating room at a critical time.
But somewhere in this discussion about things being made deliberately
defective and unreliable not only was to tear down patriotism but to be
just a little source of irritation to people who would use such things. Again
the idea that you not feel terribly secure, promoting the notion that the
world isn't a terribly reliable place. The United States was to be kept strong
in information, communications, high technology, education and
agriculture. The United States was seen as continuing to be sort of the
keystone of this global system. But heavy industry would be transported
out. One of the comments made about heavy industry was that we had
had enough environmental damage from smoke stacks and industrial
waste and some of the other people could put up with that for a while.
This again was supposed to be a redeeming quality for Americans to
accept. You took away our industry but you saved our environment.
So we really didn't lose on it.
SHIFTING POPULATIONS AND ECONOMIES — TEARING THE
Population shifts were to be brought about so that people would be
tending to move into the Sun Belt. They would be sort of people without
roots in their new locations, and traditions are easier to change in a place
where there are a lot of transplanted people, as compared to trying to
change traditions in a place where people grew up and had an extended
family, where they had roots.
Also in this vein it was mentioned (he used the plural personal pronoun we)
we take control first of the port cities - New York, San Francisco, Seattle -
the idea being that this is a piece of strategy, the idea being that if you
control the port cities with your philosophy and your way of life, the
heartland in between has to yield.
If you look around the most liberal areas of the country and progressively
so are the sea coast cities. The heartland, the Midwest, does seem to
have maintained its conservatism. But as you take away industry and
jobs and relocate people then this is a strategy to break down conservatism. When you take away industry and people are unemployed and poor they
will accept whatever change seems, to offer them survival, and their
morals and their commitment to things will all give way to survival.
Some heavy industry would remain, just enough to maintain a sort of a
seed bed of industrial skills which could be expanded if the plan didn't
work out as it was intended. So the country would not be devoid of assets
and skills. But this was just sort of a contingency plan. It was hoped and
expected that the worldwide specialization would be carried on. But,
perhaps repeating myself, one of the upshots of all of this is that with
this global interdependence the national identities would tend to be
de-emphasized. Each area depended on every other area for one or
another element of its life. We would all become citizens of the world rather
than citizens of any one country.
SPORTS AS A TOOL OF SOCIAL CHANGE
Sports in the United States was to be changed, in part as a way of
deemphasizing nationalism. Soccer, a world-wide sport, was to be
emphasized and pushed in the United States. This was of interest because
in this area the game of soccer was virtually unknown at that time.
Anyhow, soccer is seen as an international sport and would be promoted
and the traditional sport of American baseball would be de-emphasized
and possibly eliminated because it might be seen as too American.
And he discussed eliminating this. One's first reaction would be - well,
they pay the players poorly and they don't want to play for poor pay so
they give up- baseball and go into some other sport or some other activity.
But he said that's really not how it works. Actually, the way to break
down baseball would be to make the salaries go very high. The idea behind
this was that as the salaries got ridiculously high there would be a certain amount of discontent and antagonism as people resented the athletes being
paid so much, and the athletes would begin more and more to resent
among themselves what other players were paid and would tend to
abandon the sport. And these high salaries also could break the owners
and alienate the fans.
There was something else also about the violence in football that met a psychological need that was perceived, and people have a need for
this vicarious violence. So football, for that reason, might be left around
to meet that vicarious need. The same thing is true of hockey. Hockey
had more of an international flavor and would be emphasized. There was
some foreseeable international competition about hockey and particularly
soccer. At that time hockey was international between the United States
and Canada. I was kind of surprised because I thought the speaker just
never impressed me as being a hockey fan, and I am. And it turns out he
Hunting requires guns and gun control is a big element in these plans.
I don't remember the details much, but the idea is that gun ownership
is a privilege and not everybody should have guns. Hunting was an
inadequate excuse for owning guns and everybody should be restricted
in gun ownership. The few privileged people who should be allowed to
hunt could maybe rent or borrow a gun from official quarters rather than
own their own. After all, everybody doesn't have a need for a gun, is the
way it was put.
ELIMINATING FEMININITY, BABY DOLLS & TEA SETS
Athletics would be pushed for girls. This was intended to replace dolls.
Baby dolls would still be around, a few of them, but you would not see
the number and variety of dolls. Dolls would not be pushed because girls
should not be thinking about babies and reproduction. Girls should be out
on the athletic field just as the boys are. Girls and boys really don't need to
be all that different. Tea sets were to go the way of dolls, and all these
things that traditionally were thought of as feminine would be
de-emphasized as girls got into more masculine pursuits.
While she's growing up she should look to be an athlete rather than to look forward to being a mother.
SEX AND VIOLENCE INCULCATED THROUGH ENTERTAINMENT
Movies would gradually be made more explicit as regards sex and
language. After all, sex and rough language are real and why pretend
that they are not? There would be pornographic movies in the theaters
and on television. VCR's were not around at that time, but he had indicated
that these cassettes would be available, and video cassette players would
be available for use in the home and pornographic movies would be
available for use on these as well as in the neighborhood theater and on
"you'll see people in the movies doing everything you can think of." He
went on to say that all of this is intended to bring sex out in the open.
That was another comment that was made several times- the term "sex
out in the open."
Violence would be made more graphic. This was intended to desensitize
people to violence. There might need to be a time when people would
witness real violence and be a part of it. Later on it will become clear where
this is headed. So there would be more realistic violence in entertainment
which would make it easier for people to adjust. People's attitudes toward
death would change. People would not be so fearful of it but more accepting
of it, and they would not be so aghast at the sight of dead people or injured people. We don't need to have a genteel population paralyzed by what they might see. People would just learn to say, well I don't want that to happen
to me. This was the first statement suggesting that the plan includes
numerous human casualties which the survivors would see.
MUSIC WILL GET WORSE
he made a rather straightforward statement like: Music will get worse.
In 1969 Rock music was getting more and more unpleasant. It was
interesting just his words-the way he expressed it " it would get worse" acknowledging that it was already bad. Lyrics would become more
openly sexual. No new sugary romantic music would be publicized like
that which had been written before that time. All of the old music would
be brought back on certain radio stations and records for older people to
hear, and older folks would have sort of their own radio stations to hear
and for younger people, their music as it got worse and worse would be on
Older folks would just refuse to hear the junk that was offered to young
people, and the young people would accept the junk because it identified
them as their generation and helped them feel distinct from the older
I remember at the time thinking that would not last very long because
even young kids wouldn't like the junk when they got a chance to hear
the older music that was prettier they would gravitate toward it.
They get used to this junk and that's all they want. A lot of them can't
stand really pretty music.
ENTERTAINMENT AS A TOOL TO CHANGE THE YOUNG
He went on to say that the music would carry a message to the young
and nobody would even know the message was there they would just
think it was loud music.
This aspect was sort of summarized with the notion that entertainment
would be a tool to influence young people. It won't change the older people,
they are already set in their ways, but the changes would all be aimed at
the young who are in their formative years and the older generation would
be passing. Not only could you not change them but they are relatively unimportant anyhow. Once they live out their lives and are gone the
younger generation being formed are the ones that would be important for
the future in the 21st century. He also indicated all the old movies would
be brought back again and I remember on hearing that through my mind
ran quickly the memory of a number of old movies. I wondered if they
would be included, the ones that I thought I would like to see again. Along
with bringing back old music and movies for older people there were
other privileges that would also be accorded older folks: free transportation, breaks on purchases, discounts, tax discounts, - a number of privileges
just because they were older. This was stated to be sort of a reward for the generation which had grown up through the depression and had survived
the rigors of World War II. They had deserved it and they were going to
be rewarded with all these goodies, and the bringing back of the good old
music and the good old movies was going to help ease them through their
final years in comfort.
Once that generation passed, and that would be in the late 80's and
early 90's where we are now, most of that group would be gone and
then gradually things would tighten up and the tightening up would
be accelerated. The old movies and old songs would be withdrawn,
the gentler entertainment would be withdrawn.
TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS AND IMPLANTED I.D.
Travel, instead of being easy for old folks, travel then would become
very restricted. People would need permission to travel and they would
need a good reason to travel. If you didn't have a good reason for your
travel you would not be allowed to travel, and everyone would need ID.
This would at first be an ID card you would carry on your person and you
must show when you are asked for it. It was already planned that later
on some sort of device would be developed to be implanted under the skin
that would be coded specifically to identify the individual. This would
eliminate the possibility of false ID and also eliminate the possibility of
people saying "Well, I lost my ID." The difficulty about these skin implant
that ID was stated to be getting material that would stay in or under the
skin without causing foreign body reaction whereby the body would reject
it or cause infection, and that this would have to be material on which information could be recorded and retrieved by some sort of scanner
while it was not rejected by the body. Silicon was mentioned. Silicon at
that time was thought to be well tolerated. It was used to augment breasts. Women who felt their breasts were too small would get silicon implants,
and I guess that still goes on. At any rate silicon was seen at that time as
the promising material to do both: to be retained in the body without
rejection and to be able to retain information retrievable by electronic
If population growth didn't slow down, food shortages could be created
in a hurry and people would realize the dangers of overpopulation.
Ultimately, whether the population slows down or not the food supply
is to be brought under centralized control so that people would have
enough to be well-nourished but they would not have enough to support
any fugitive from the new system. In other words, if you had a friend or
relative who didn't sign on, and growing ones own food would be
In the beginning I mentioned there were two purposes for everything -
one the ostensible purpose and one the real purpose, and the ostensible
purpose here would be that growing your own vegetables was unsafe,
it would spread disease or something like that. So the acceptable idea was
to protect the consumer but the real idea was to limit the food supply and growing your own food would be illegal. And if you persist in illegal
activities like growing your own food, then you're a criminal.
"We can or soon will be able to control the weather." He said, "I'm not
merely referring to dropping iodide crystals into the clouds to precipitate
rain that's already there, but REAL control." And weather was seen as a
weapon of war, a weapon of influencing public policy. It could make rain
or withhold rain in order to influence certain areas and bring them under
your control. There were two sides to this that were rather striking. He
said, "On the one hand you can make drought during the growing season
so that nothing will grow, and on the other hand you can make for very
heavy rains during harvest season so the fields are too muddy to bring
in the harvest, and indeed one might be able to do both."
Politics. He said that very few people really know how government really
works. Something to the effect that elected officials are influenced in ways
that they don't even realize and they carry out plans that have been made
for them and they think that they are authors of the plans But actually they
are manipulated in ways they don't understand.
KNOW HOW PEOPLE RESPOND - MAKING THEM DO WHAT YOU
One statement: "People can carry in their minds and act upon two
contradictory ideas at one time, provided that these two contradictory
ideas are kept far enough apart." And the other statement is, "You can
know pretty well how rational people are going to respond to certain
circumstances or to certain information that they encounter. So, to determine
the response you want you need only control the kind of data or information
that they're presented or the kinds of circumstance that they're in; and being rational people they'll do what you want them to do. They may not fully understand what they're doing or why."
FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Somewhere in this connection, then, was the statement admitting that
some scientific research data could be - and indeed has been - falsified in
order to bring about desired results. And here was said, "People don't ask
the right questions. Some people are too trusting." Now this was an
interesting statement because the speaker and the audience all being
doctors of medicine and supposedly very objectively, dispassionately
scientific and science being the be all and end-all ... well to falsify scientific research data in that setting is like blasphemy in the church ... you just
don't do that.
ON THE POLITICAL SCENE
Out of all of this was to come the New International Governing Body,
probably to come through the U.N. and with a World Court, but not
necessarily through those structures. It could be brought about in other
ways. Acceptance of the U.N. at that time was seen as not being as wide
as was hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations
increasing importance. People would be more and more used to the idea
of relinquishing some national sovereignty. Economic interdependence
would foster this goal from a peaceful standpoint.. Avoidance of war
would foster it from the standpoint of worrying about hostilities. It was
recognized that doing it peaceably was better than doing it by war. It was
stated at this point that war is "obsolete." I thought that was an interesting
phrase because obsolete means something that once was seen as useful is
no longer useful. But war is obsolete ... this being because of the nuclear
bombs war is no longer controllable. Formerly wars could be controlled,
but if nuclear weapons would fall into the wrong hands there could be an unintended nuclear disaster. It was not stated who the "wrong hands" are.
We were free to infer that maybe this meant terrorists, but in more recent
years I'm wondering whether the wrong hands might also include people
that we've assumed that they've had nuclear weapons all along ... maybe
they don't have them. Just as it was stated that industry would be preserved
in the United States - a little bit - just in case the world wide plans didn't
work out; just in case some country or some other powerful person decided
to bolt from the pack and go his own way, one wonders whether this might
also be true with nuclear weapons. When you hear that ... he said they might
fall into the wrong hands, there was some statement that the possession of nuclear weapons had been tightly controlled, sort of implying that anybody
who had nuclear weapons was intended to have them. That would
necessarily have included the Soviet Union, if indeed they have them.
"Are you telling us, or are you implying that this country willingly gave
weapons to the Soviets?." At that time that seemed like a terribly
unthinkable thing to do, much less to admit. The leaders of the Soviet
Union seem to be so dependent on the West though, one wonders whether
there may have been some fear that they would try to assert independence
if they indeed had these weapons.
Who did he mean when he said, "If these weapons fall into the wrong
hands"? Maybe just terrorists. We'll see. Anyhow, the new system would
be brought in, if not by peaceful cooperation - everybody willingly
yielding national sovereignty -then by bringing the nation to the brink of
nuclear war. And everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is created by
the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a strong public outcry
to negotiate a public peace and people would willingly give up national
sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in
the New International Political System.
"If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there
might be a need to use one or two - possibly more - nuclear weapons. As
it was put, this would be possibly needed to convince people that "We
mean business." That was followed by the statement that, "By the time
one or two of those went off then everybody - even the most reluctant -
would yield." He said something about "this negotiated peace would
be very convincing", as kind of in a framework or in a context that the
whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People hearing
about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between
hostile enemies who finally had come to the realization that peace was
better than war. In this context discussing war, and war is obsolete, a
statement was made that there were some good things about war ... one,
you're going to die anyway, and people sometimes in war get a chance to
display great courage and heroism and if they die they've died well and if
they survive they get recognition. So that in any case, the hardships of
war on soldiers are worth it because that's the reward they get out of their warring.
Terrorism would be used widely in Europe and in other parts of the world.
Terrorism at that time was thought would not be necessary in the United
States. It could become necessary in the United States if the United States
did not move rapidly enough into accepting the system. But at least in the foreseeable future it was not planned.
Along with this came a bit of a scolding that Americans had had it too
good anyway and just a little bit of terrorism would help convince
Americans that the world indeed is a dangerous place ... or can be if we
don't relinquish control to the proper authorities.
"Inflation is infinite. You can put an infinite number of zeros after any
number and put the decimals points wherever you want", as an indication
that inflation is a tool of the controllers. Money would become
predominately credit. It was already ... money is primarily a credit thing
but exchange of money would be not cash or palpable things but electronic
Earnings would be electronically entered into your account. It would be a
single banking system. May have the appearance of being more than one
but ultimately and basically it would be one single banking system, so that
when you got paid your pay would be entered for you into your account
balance and then when you purchased anything at the point of purchase it
would be deducted from your account balance and you would actually
carry nothing with you. Also computer records can be kept on whatever it
was you purchased so that if you were purchasing too much of any
particular item and some official wanted to know what you were doing
with your money they could go back and review your purchases and
determine what you were buying.
The ability to save would be greatly curtailed. People would just not be
able to save any considerable degree of wealth. There was some statement
of recognition that wealth represents power and wealth in the hands of a
lot of people is not good for the people in charge so if you save too much
you might be taxed. The more you save the higher rate of tax on your
savings so your savings really could never get very far. And also if you
began to show a pattern of saving too much you might have your pay cut.
We would say, "Well, your saving instead of spending. You really don't
need all that money."
People would be encouraged to use credit to borrow and then also be encouraged to renege on their debt so they would destroy their own credit.
The idea here is that, again, if you're too stupid to handle credit wisely,
this gives the authorities the opportunity to come down hard on you once
you've shot your credit.
SURVEILLANCE, IMPLANTS, AND TELEVISIONS THAT WATCH YOU
the next step would be to replace the single card with a skin implant.
The single card could be lost or stolen, give rise to problems; could be
exchanged with somebody else to confuse identify. The skin implant on
the other hand would be not losable or counterfeitable or transferrable
to another person so you and your accounts would be identified without
any possibility of error.
And the skin implants would have to be put some place that would be convenient to the skin; for example your right hand or your forehead.
At that time when I heard this I was unfamiliar with the statements in
the Book of Revelation. The speaker went on to say, "Now some of you
people who read the Bible will attach significance to this to the Bible,"
but he went on to disclaim any Biblical significance at all. This is just
common sense of how the system could work and should work and
there's no need to read any superstitious Biblical principals into it.
There was some mention, also, of implants that would lend themselves
to surveillance by providing radio signals. This could be under the skin
or a dental implant ... put in like a filling so that either fugitives or possibly
other citizens could be identified by a certain frequency from his personal transmitter and could be located at any time or any place by any authority
who wanted to find him. This would be particularly useful for somebody
who broke out of prison. There was more discussion of personal
surveillance. One more thing was said, "You'll be watching television
and somebody will be watching you at the same time at a central
monitoring station." Television sets would have a device to enable this.
The T.V. set would not have to be on in order for this to be operative.
can be used to monitor what you are watching. People can tell what
you're watching on TV and how you're reacting to what you're watching.
And you would not know that you were being watched while you were watching your television. How would we get people to accept these things
into their homes? Well, people would buy them when they buy their
own television. They won't know that they're on there at first. This was
described by being what we now know as Cable TV to replace the
antenna TV. When you buy a TV set this monitor would just be part
of the set and most people would not have enough knowledge to know
it was there in the beginning. And then the cable would be the means of
carrying the surveillance message to the monitor. By the time people
found out that this monitoring was going on, they would also be already
very dependent upon television for a number of things. Just the way
people are dependent upon the telephone today. One thing the television
would be used for would be purchases. You wouldn't have to leave your
home to purchase. You just turn on your TV and there would be a way of interacting with your television channel to the store that you wanted to
purchase. And you could flip the switch from place to place to choose a refrigerator or clothing. This would be both convenient, but it would
also make you dependent on your television so the built-in monitor
would be something you could not do without.
the authorities wanted to hear what was going on in rooms other than
where the television monitor was, and in regard to this the statement was
made, "Any wire that went into your house, for example your telephone
wire, could be used this way.”
HOME OWNERSHIP A THING OF THE PAST
The cost of housing and financing housing would gradually be made
so high that most people couldn't afford it. People who already owned
their houses would be allowed to keep them but as years go by it would
be more and more difficult for young people to buy a house. Young
people would more and more become renters, particularly in apartments
or condominiums. More and more unsold houses would stand vacant.
The price would be held high even though there were many available
so that free market places would not operate. People would not be able
to buy these and gradually more and more of the population would be
forced into small apartments. Small apartments which would not
accommodate very many children. Then as the number of real
home-owners diminished they would become a minority.
Ultimately, people would be assigned where they would live and it
would be common to have non-family members living with you. This
by way of your not knowing just how far you could trust anybody.
This would all be under the control of a central housing authority.
THE ARRIVAL OF THE TOTALITARIAN GLOBAL SYSTEM
When the new system takes over people will be expected to sign
allegiance to it, indicating that they don't have any reservations or
holding back to the old system. "There just won't be any room",
he said, "for people who won't go along. We can't have such people
cluttering up the place so such people would be taken to special places",
and here I don't remember the exact words, but the inference I drew
was that at these special places where they were taken, then they would
not live very long. He may have said something like, "disposed of
humanely", but I don't remember very precisely ... just the impression
the system was not going to support them when they would not go
along with the system. That would leave death as the only alternative. Somewhere in this vein he said there would not be any martyrs.
PEOPLE WILL JUST DISAPPEAR
One: The bringing in of the new system he said probably would
occur on a weekend in the winter. Everything would shut down
on Friday evening and Monday morning when everybody wakened
there would be an announcement that the New System was in place.
Investment instruments would be changing. Interest rates would be
changing so that it would be a difficult job with keeping up with what
you had already earned.
all of these things said by one individual at one time in one place
relating to so many different human endeavors and then to look and
see how many of these actually came about ... that is changes
accomplished between then and now [1969 - 1988] and the things
which are planned for the future, I think there is no denying that this is controlled and there is indeed a conspiracy.
"You will forget most or much of what I'm going to tell you tonight."
But I do think at the time there was an element of disbelief about all
of this. Thinking, well this is somebody's fairytale plan but it will
never really happen because it's too outlandish. Of course we know
step by step it is indeed happening right under our feet.
In a nutshell, you've just explained the human potential, the New Age,
all the new esoteric movements that we've seen.
But that little statement about words, that "words will be changed".
When I heard that I thought... "Instead of saying 'alter' you say 'table'.
Instead of saying 'sacrifice' you say 'meal' with regard to the Mass", and
people say, "That's not important". Of course, you know that's VERY
important, otherwise, why would they bother to change it? Otherwise,
why go through all this rigmarole if it isn't important? It's obviously
important for them because they know WITH THE CHANGING OF
WORDS YOU CHANGE IDEAS.
There's the dictionary definition, but I think we all know that certain
words carry meaning that is a little bit hard to put into words... but
they carry meaning. So yes, controlling the language... you THINK in
your language. You think to yourself in English or Spanish or whatever
language you're familiar with, but when you think, you talk to yourself
and you talk to yourself in words, just the way you talk to other people.
And if you can control the language with which one person speaks to
himself or one person speaks to another you've gone a long way
towards controlling what that person is ABLE - what he is CAPABLE
of thinking, and that has both an inclusionary and an exclusionary
component to it. You set the tone....
"if you want to control the people, you control the language first".
Words are weapons.
Talking about media events and access to the brain, I remember the
first speech Bush gave in which he talked about the New World Order...
I remember jumping halfway off my seat. That term. Here he is, the
president, saying New World Order as if it was something everyone
knew about. And someone looking across the room said, "I heard that.
What did he say"? And I said, "He said, 'New World Order'!" And they
said, "What does that mean? Why is that extraordinary?" So, I think
one of the weapons we have against the controllers is that if we can cut
off his access to our mind then we have a shot at escaping the
manipulation, if not totally - at least escape a portion of the
manipulations. Remember, one of the books on Chinese POWs pointed
out that some of their survivors in order NOT to be brainwashed
broke their eardrums And in that way - not being able to hear - the
enemy could not have access to their brain and therefore they were
able to survive where others did not. And in our popular culture we
have a number of things... TV and radio probably primarily, that are
the constant means by which the opposition has access to our brain
and to our children's brains. So I think the logical conclusion, and
one of the common-sense conclusions is that if you don't want the
enemy to have access you have to cut off the lines of access... which
would be in homes to simply either eliminate altogether, or control by other forms....
And we should. We should say, "Yeah. You're right." And we should
turn it off. And let the advertisers spend their money on an audience
that isn't there.
But as he started talking about the aged and euthanasia I recall one
of the population- control books saying that birth control without death
control was meaningless. And one of the advantages in terms ... if one
was favorable toward the killing of the aged... one of the favorable things
is in fact abortion for the simple reason that — universally speaking —
abortion has the result of bringing about a rather inordinate chopping
off of population at the front end. That is, at the birth end.