CL: The Dark Truth About Kermit the Frog


CL: Biden On China Human Rights Violations & Concentration Camps

'Their goal is to destroy everyone'

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.

H.R.127 - Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

H.R. 127

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 Intro

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


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

the year.

How Jupiter Set Off A Chain Of Events That Killed The Dinosaurs

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: $2 Holla - The Ballad of Rosco Perkins

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


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 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


"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.


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.


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 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!


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.


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.


"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.


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!


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.


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."


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.


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

independent contractors.

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.


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.



"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

of overpopulation.


"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




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.



"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.


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."


"Some of you probably think the Churches won't stand for this," and he

went on to say, "the churches will help us!" There was no elaboration on

this, it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said, "the churches

will help us!" In retrospect I think some of us now can understand what

he might have meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, "no they

won't!" and remembering our Lord's words where he said to Peter,

"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of

Hell will not prevail against it." So ... yes, some people in the Churches

might help.


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.



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,

without approval.

People would be very specialized in their own area of expertise. But they

won't be able to get a broad education and won't be able to understand

what is going on overall.


He was already talking about computers in education, and at that time

he said anybody who wanted computer access, or access to books that

were not directly related to their field of study would have to have a

very good reason for so doing. Otherwise, access would be denied.


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

I want.

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." 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

since then.

"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.


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

nice place.


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.


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!"


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.


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.


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.


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.



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 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

was not.


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.


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.


Movies would gradually be made more explicit as regards sex and

language. After all, sex and rough language are real and why pretend

that they are not? There would be pornographic movies in the theaters

and on television. VCR's were not around at that time, but he had indicated

that these cassettes would be available, and video cassette players would

be available for use in the home and pornographic movies would be

available for use on these as well as in the neighborhood theater and on

your television.

"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.


he made a rather straightforward statement like: Music will get worse.

In 1969 Rock music was getting more and more unpleasant. It was

interesting just his words-the way he expressed it " it would get worse" acknowledging that it was already bad. Lyrics would become more

openly sexual. No new sugary romantic music would be publicized like

that which had been written before that time. All of the old music would

be brought back on certain radio stations and records for older people to

hear, and older folks would have sort of their own radio stations to hear

and for younger people, their music as it got worse and worse would be on

their stations.

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.


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, 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.



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."


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.


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

credit signal.

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.


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.”


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.


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.


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


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.

Soylent Green