This video contains an audio transcript of tapes called the "New Order of Barbarians". These transcripts were provided by Dr. Lawrence Dunegan in 1988 and are his recollection of a speech given March 20, 1969 by Dr. Richard Day who was an insider of "The Order". Dr. Dunegan recorded his recollection of this speech by Dr. Richard Day in 1988 and died shortly thereafter, in 1989. Dr. Dugegan reveals what is (or was) intended for the future of America and the entire world, plus we reveals how the powers-that-be indend to manipulate the masses and implement this plan.

These tapes are available from the Florida Pro-Family Forum, P.O. Box 10569, Highland City Florida 33846-1059 $20.00.

Part 6 of 10

This is the second tape by Dr lawrence dunegan of his recolection of the speech given on march 20 1969 by dr richard day, who was an insider of the order.



Tape 2 — continued from Tape 1



CHANGE

Change, nothing is permanent. Streets would be rerouted, renamed. Areas you had not seen in a while would become unfamiliar. Among other things, this would contribute to older people feeling that it was time to move on, they feel they couldn't even keep up with the changes in areas that were once familiar.

Buildings would be allowed to stand empty and deteriorate, and streets would be allowed to deteriorate in certain localities. The purpose of this was to provide the jungle, the depressed atmosphere for the unfit. Somewhere in this same connection he mentioned that buildings and bridges would be made so that they would collapse after a while; there would be more accidents involving airplanes and railroads and automobiles. All of this to contribute to the feeling of insecurity, that nothing was safe.

Not too long after this presentation, and I think one or two even before in the area where I live, we had some newly constructed bridge to break; another newly constructed bridge defect discovered before it broke, and I remember reading just scattered incidents around the country where shopping malls would fall in -- right where they were filled with shoppers. And I remember that one of the shopping malls in our area, the first building I'd ever been in where you could feel this vibration throughout the entire building when there were a lot of people in there; and I remember wondering at that time whether this shopping mall was one of the buildings he was talking about. Talking to construction people and architects about it they would say, "Oh no, that's good when the building vibrates like that. That means it's flexible, not rigid." Well... maybe so. We'll wait and see.

Other areas there would be well-maintained. Not every part of the city would be slums. 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."

CONSOLIDATING POLICY

I should maybe point out here that these are obviously not word for word quotations after 20 years, but where I say that I am quoting, I am giving the general drift of what was said close to word for word; perhaps not precisely so. But anyhow, I remember wondering, "How can he be so confident that the criminal element is going to stay where he wants it to stay?" But he went on to say that increased security would be needed in the better areas. That would mean more police, better coordinated police efforts.

He did not say so, but I wondered at that time about the moves that were afoot to consolidate all the police departments of suburbs around the major cities. I think the John Birch Society was one that was saying, "Support your local police; don't let them be consolidated." And I remember wondering if that was one of the things he had in mind about security. It was not explicitly stated.

But anyhow, he went on to say there would be a whole new industry of residential security systems to develop with alarms and locks and alarms going into the police department so that people could protect their wealth and their well being. Because some of the criminal activity would spill out of the slums into better, more affluent looking areas that looked like they would be worth burglarizing. And again it was stated like it was a redeeming quality. "See, we're generating all this more crime, but look how good we are -- we're also generating the means for you to protect yourself against the crime." A sort of repeated thing throughout this presentation was the recognized evil and then the self-forgiveness thing..."Well see, we've given you a way out."

GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE "TO CREATE A NEW STRUCTURE, YOU FIRST HAVE TO TEAR DOWN THE OLD"

American industry came under discussion -- it was the first that I'd heard the term GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE or that notion. The stated plan was that different parts of the world would be assigned different roles of industry and commerce in a unified global system. The continued pre-eminence of the United States and the relative independence and self-sufficiency of the United States would have to be changed. This was one of the several times that he said in order to create a new structure, you first have to tear down the old, and American industry was one example of that. Our system would have to be curtailed in order to give other countries a chance to build their industries, because otherwise they would not be able to compete against the United States. And this was especially true of our heavy industries that would be cut back while the same industries were being developed in other countries, notably Japan.

PATRIOTISM WOULD GO DOWN THE DRAIN

And at this point there was some discussion of steel and particularly automobiles. I remember him saying that automobiles would be imported from Japan on an equal footing with our own domestically produced automobiles, but the Japanese product would be better. Things would be made so they would break and fall apart -- that is, in the United States -- so that people would tend to prefer the imported variety and this would give a bit of a boost to foreign competitors.

One example, was Japanese. In 1969, Japanese automobiles -- if they were sold here at all, I don't remember -- but they certainly weren't very popular. But the idea was, you could get a little bit disgusted with your Ford, GM, or Chrysler product -- or whatever -- because little things like window handles would fall off more, and plastic parts would break which, had they been made of metal, would hold up. Your patriotism about buying American would soon give way to practicality that if you bought Japanese, German, or imported that it would last longer and you would be better off. Patriotism would go down the drain then.

It was mentioned elsewhere, things being made to fall apart too. I don't remember specific items or if they were even stated other than automobiles, but I do recall of having the impression, sort of in my imagination, of a surgeon having something fall apart in his hands in the operating room, at a critical time. Was he including this sort of thing in his discussion? But somewhere in this discussion about things being made deliberately defective and unreliable not only was to tear down patriotism but to be just a little source of irritation to people who would use such things.

LOSS OF JOBS — LOSS OF SECURITY

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 smokestacks 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.

[ASIDE] POPULATION SHIFTS TO ELIMINATE "TRADITIONS"

And along this line there were talks about people losing their jobs as a result of industry and opportunities for retraining, and particularly population shifts would be brought about. This is sort of an aside. I think I'll explore the aside before I forget it.

Population shifts were to be brought about so that people would be tending to move into the Sun Belt. They would be, sort of, people without roots in their new locations, and traditions are easier to change in a place where there are a lot of transplanted people, as compared to trying to changing traditions in a place where people grew up and had an extended family -- where they had roots. Things like new medical care systems.

If you pick up from a Northeast industrial city and you transplant yourself to the South Sun Belt or Southwest, you'll be more accepting of whatever kind of, for example, controlled medical care you find there than you would accept a change in the medical care system where you had roots and the support of your family.

Also in this vein it was mentioned -- he used the plural personal pronoun "we" -- we take control first of the port cities... New York, San Francisco, Seattle... the idea being that this is a piece of strategy. The idea being that if you control the port cities with your philosophy and your way of life, the HEARTLAND in between has to yield. I can't elaborate more on that but it is interesting, if you look around the most liberal areas of the country -- and progressively so -- are the seacoast cities; the heartland, the Midwest, does seem to have maintained its conservatism. But as you take away industry and jobs and relocate people then this is a strategy to break down conservatism. When you take away industry, and people are unemployed and poor they will accept whatever change seems to offer them survival; and their morals and their commitment to things will all give way to survival. That's not my philosophy. That's the speaker's philosophy.

Next Video