Randy Engel (R.E.): Why don't we open up with a little bit about the man who you are talking about on these tapes. Just a little profile and a little bit about his education and particularly his relationship with the population control establishment. I think that probably was his entree into much of this information.
Dr. Lawrence Dunegan (DLD): Yeah. Dr. Day was the Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh from about 1959 thru '64, about that period of time, and then he left the University of Pittsburgh and went to fill the position of Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
R.E: And that was what… about 1965 to '68, about that period?
D.L.D: About '64 or '65 'til about '68 or '69, and then he left there... I don't know specifically why, I did not know him intimately. We were, you know, more than acquainted... I was a student and he would see me at lectures and, so he knew my name as a student, probably corrected some of my test scores and that sort of thing. Of course, I knew him as lecturer - would stand in front of the auditorium and listen as he talked about diseases... and take notes.
R.E: What's interesting is that this man is not as well known, I think to our listeners as names like Mary Calderone and Allen Gootmacher(sp). They were medical directors at one time or another for Planned Parenthood, but Dr. Day was not well known. And as a matter of fact when I went back into the SIECUS archives there was very little information that had his actual name on it. So he was not one of the better known of the medical directors, but I'd say he probably had the scoop of what was going on as well - if not better - than any of the others before or after he came. Can you describe the scene of this particular lecture, the approximate date, and what was the occasion - and then a little bit about the audience?
D.L.D: This was the… the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society holds about four meetings each year where we have some speaker come in and talk about a medical topic related to pediatrics and this was our spring meeting. It's always late February or early part of March. This was in March, 1969 and it was held at a restaurant called the Lamont which is well known in Pittsburgh. Beautiful place. In attendance, I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 people. Mostly physicians, if not exclusively physicians. Predominantly pediatricians, particularly pediatric surgeons and pediatric radiologists - other people who were involved in medical care of children, even though they might not be pediatricians as such.
R.E: And the speech was given after the meal, I presume?
D.L.D: A very nice meal and everyone was settled down, quite comfortable and quite filled and really an ideal state to absorb what was coming.
R.E: But when you listen to the tape, he says some of the most... well not only outrageous things, but things you would think a pediatrician would kind of almost jump out of his seat at... for example when he mentions the cancer cures. There were probably doctors in the audience who were perhaps treating a child or knowing of a child who was in need of a particular cancer cure. And to hear that some of these prescriptions for or treatments for cancer were sitting over at the Rockefeller Institute, and yet, as far as I got from the tape everyone just kind of sat there... didn't say very much. I mean he was talking about falsifying scientific data and everyone just kind of yawns and... How long did this speech go on?
D.L.D: Two hours. He spoke for over two hours which was longer than most of our speakers go and one of the interesting things... he hasn't finished, it was getting late and he said, "there's much much more, but we could be here all night but it's time to stop".
And I think that's significant, that there was much more that we never heard. In the beginning of the presentation, I don't know whether I mentioned this at the introduction of the first tape or not, but somewhere in the beginning of this he said, "You will forget most or much of what I'm going to tell you tonight."
And at the time I thought, well, sure, that's true. We tend to forget. You know, somebody talks for hours you forget a lot of what they say. But, there is such a thing as the power of suggestion and I can't say for sure but I do wonder if this may not have been a suggestion when we were all full of a nice dinner and relaxed and listening - we took that suggestion and forgot, because I know a number of my colleagues who were there when I would - some years later - say, "Do you remember when Dr. Day said this, or he said that or said the other?" They'd say, "Well, yeah, I kind of... is that what he said? You know I kind of remember that".
But most were not very impressed, which to me was surprising because... well use the example of cancer cures. But he said a number of things that…
R.E: Like doctors making too much money...?
D.L.D: Yeah, changing the image of the doctor. You're just going to be a high-paid technician rather than a professional who exercises independent judgment on behalf of his independent patient. A number of things that I thought should have been offensive and elicited a reaction from physicians because they were physicians. I was surprised at how little reaction there was to it. And then other things that I would have expected people to react to just because they were human beings and I think most of the people at the meeting subscribed more or less to the Judeo-Christian ethic and codes of behavior, and that was violated right and left. And particularly one of my friends I thought would be as disturbed as I was about this just sort of smiled... wasn't disturbed at a ll. I thought, gee, this is surprising.
R.E: Was part of it also because of his prominence? I mean he was…
D.L.D: The authority... Authority figure? Yeah, I think there might be something there. This is the authority. We sort of owe some deference here.
R.E: And he couldn't possibly mean what he's saying or there couldn't possibly be any... I mean, he's such a good guy.
D.L.D: I've often heard that phrase, "He's such a good guy. I can't believe he'd actually mean the things"... I can only speculate about this. But I do think at the time there was an element of disbelief about all of this. Thinking, well this is somebody's fairy tale 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.
R.E: Before talking about the specific areas, I think there's a lot of benefits from this tape. One of them is when we have a good idea of what the opposition is about and the techniques he's using - then you can turn around and begin your resistance to all the types of manipulations and so forth. So I think that the… seeing that there were four or five "theme songs" - he kept repeating them over and over again.
For example this business which I think is so important… that people fail to distinguish between the ostensible reason and the real reason. In other words, if you want someone to do something and you know that initially he'll be balky at doing that because it's against his morals or against his religious beliefs, you have to substitute another reason that will be acceptable. And then, after he accepts it and it's a fait accompli then there's just no turning back.
D.L.D: Right. It was in that connection that he said, "People don't ask the right questions." Too trusting. And this was directed, as I recall, mostly at Americans. I had the feelings he thought Europeans maybe were more skeptical and more sophisticated. That Americans are too trusting and don't ask the right questions.
R.E: With regard to this lack of... almost a lack of discernment. I guess that's basically what he was saying. They were easily tricked or too trusting. The thing that flashed through my mind rather quickly, for example in schools... how quickly so-called AIDS education was introduced.
It did amaze me because if a group stated publicly that they wanted to introduce the concept of sodomy or initiate sex earlier and earlier in children and that was the reason given, most parents I presume wouldn't go for that. So you have to come up with another reason and of course the reason for this so-called AIDS education was to protect children from this disease. But actually, as it turns out, it's really been a great boon for the homosexual network, because through various things like Project Ten they now have access to our children from the youngest years.
These programs are going on from K-12 and I imagine well into college and beyond, so that they are reaching a tremendous segment. Speaking of children, I gather that this speaker... he kept on making the point about, well, old people, they're going to go by the wayside, so I presume that the emphasis for these controllers for this New World Order is really an emphasis on youth.
D.L.D: Absolutely. Yes. Emphasis on youth. This was stated explicitly. People beyond a certain age... they're set in their ways and you're not going to change them. They have values and they're going to stick to them. But you get to the youth when they're young, they're pliable. You mold them in the direction you want them to go. This is correct. They're targeting the young. They figure, "you old fogies that don't see it our way, you're going to be dying off or when the time comes we're going to get rid of you. But it's the youngsters we have to mold in the impression we want."
Now something on homosexuality I want to expand on, I don't think this came out on the original tape, but there was, first of all, "We're going to promote homosexuality." And secondly "We recognize that it's bizarre abnormal behavior. But, this is another element in the law of the jungle, because people who are stupid enough to go along with this are not fit to inhabit the planet and they'll go by the wayside".
I'm not stating this precisely the way he said it, but it wasn't too far from there where there was some mention of diseases being created. And when I remember the one statement and remember the other statement, I believe AIDS is a disease which has been created in the laboratory and I think that one purpose it serves is to get rid of people who are so stupid as to go along with our homosexual program. Let them wipe themselves out.
Now it's hard for me make clear how much of it is I'm remembering with great confidence and how much is pure speculation. But as I synthesize this - this is I think what happens... "If you're dumb enough to be convinced by our promotion of homosexuality you don't deserve a place and you're going to fall by the wayside sooner or later. We'll be rid of you. We'll select out... the people who will survive are those who are also smart enough not to be deluded by our propaganda". Does that make sense?
R.E: Well, it certainly makes sense for them. And I think also this early sex initiation has the over all purpose which I think we'll get to in depth a little later. But of the sexualization of the population... when he said on the tape, basically, "Anything goes", I think that is what we're seeing. It's not so much that, let's say, someone may not adopt the homosexual style for himself, but as a result of the propaganda he certainly will be a lot more tolerant of that type of behavior too.
So it's a desensitization, even for the individual who doesn't go over and accept it for himself.
D.L.D: With the power of propaganda you dare not be against homosexuals, otherwise you get labeled homophobe. You dare not be against any of our programs for women, otherwise you're a male chauvinist pig. It's like anti-Semitism. If this label gets enough currency in the culture that people get shockingly stuck with it. It's easier to keep quiet.
R.E: Another theme was this business about "CHANGE". And I want to get to change in relation to religion and family, but during the period of hearing this tape, I remember going to a MASS and they happened to have at that point DANCING GIRLS FROM THE ALTER. So when I was sitting and getting a chance to listen to the tape I thought, as a Catholic that has been... if you talk about effective change, that has been probably the most difficult and the hardest thing has been to watch our traditional Mass, those things which Catholics have practiced and believed for so long and... at about that time this speech was given which was about late 1969, everything had begun to turn over on its head, so much so that I think many people feel now when they go into a church where there is the Novus Ordo (sp), I think you're almost in a state of constant anxiety because you're not quite sure... What am I going to encounter now?
You look at the little song book; of course that's changed radically and you see, instead of brethren, you see people; or you might see something odd happening up at the alter which is now the "table".
The notion of God as eternal and the teachings of Jesus Christ as eternal, and therefore the teachings of the church as eternal depends on the authority of God, and God brings about change in God's way. What this boils down to me is these people say, "No, we take the place of God; we establish what will change and what will not change, so if we say that homosexuality or anything is moral today... wasn't yesterday, but it is today. We have said so, and therefore it's moral. We can change tomorrow. We can make it immoral again tomorrow". And this is the usurpation of the role of God to define what the peon, the ordinary person's supposed to believe.
D.L.D: So, the idea is, that if everybody is used to change most people aren't going to ask, "Well who has decided what should be changed and how it should be changed"? Most people just go along with it, like hemlines, and shoe styles and that sort of thing. So it IS a usurpation of the Rule of God, and if you read the Humanist Manifesto, and somewhere early in the introductory part of it, they say, "human intellect is the highest good". Well, to any human being, what you call the highest good, that's your god. So to these people human intellect being the highest good is god. And where does human intellect reside? Well, in the brain of one or more human beings. So these people, in effect... I don't know think they'd be so candid as to say so, but whether they know it or not what they're saying is, "I am god. WE are gods, because we decide what is moral what is moral tomorrow, what is going to be moral next year. WE determine change."
R.E: That's right. And of course, in a nutshell, you've just explained the human potential, the New Age, all the new esoteric movements that we've seen. But with regard to change, he seemed to acknowledge that there were a couple of entities which traditionally blocked this change and therefore made people resistant to constant manipulation.
And of course one of those is the family, and that would include grandmothers, grandfathers, our ethnic background and so forth and I guess I was impressed by everything he seemed to mention whether it was economics, music... had the overall effect of diminishing the family and enhancing the power of the state.
That was a constant theme, and therefore when we're evaluating things I think one of the things we should generally say to ourselves is, "What effect does that have on family life, and the family and I think if every congressman or senator asked that question we probably wouldn't have much action up on Capitol Hill, because almost everything coming down the pike has an effect of disavowing, hurting the family life and enhancing and expanding the power of government.
D.L.D: It has an ostensible purpose, and then it has a REAL purpose.
R.E: Yes, and as a so-called helping professional your ability to say that is very interesting. The other factor is this whole factor of religion, and he was talking basically about a religion without dogma, a religion that would have a little bit from all the other traditional religions so no one would really feel uncomfortable, and he said, rather condescendingly, some people need this and if they need it we'll manufacture something that they need. But of course it can't be anything that would declare anything that were moral absolutes or the natural law. Which means that the main target of this group of controllers of course, was and is the Roman Catholic Church and he mentioned the Roman Catholic Church specifically.
D.L.D: Religion's important because it is eternal and we... people who would follow the church will not buy our rules about change. But if we make our own religion, if we define what is religion then we can change it as it suits us. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church... I was kind of flattered sitting here as a catholic, hearing it pointed out that the church is the one obstacle that, he said, "We have to change that. And once the Roman Catholic Church falls, the rest of Christianity will fall easily".
R.E: I notice that, as the conversation went on, he said, "Now you may think Churches will stand in the way, but I want to tell you that they will HELP us", and he didn't say they will help us, all except the Roman Catholic Church... he said, "They will help us", and unfortunately...
D.L.D: He was right.
RE: He didn't say this explicitly, but again it was one of those themes that came through... he apparently thought the use of words was real important because he mentioned this with regard to a number of things, like the Bible. The very same as the psychiatrist, Miralu(sp?) mentioned that "if you want to control the people, you control the language first". Words are weapons. He apparently knew that very well and I think the controllers as a whole know this very well. Of course, it's part of their campaign.
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.
D.L.D: They're exerting a lot of effort and time to change it and they're not exerting effort on things that are NOT important, so yes, you're absolutely right. The priest no longer has the role... in some cases he no longer has the role the priest formerly had. Because words carry meaning. 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....
R.E: Take the word GAY, for example. I have some old tapes by Franz Layhar(sp?) and he talks about the GAY Hussars, you know... the happy soldiers... and now you couldn't quite use that same word, could you? But you know, the word homosexual, sodomite has been replaced with the term "gay", represents an ideology not only a word and when you use it, it's tacit to saying, "Yes, I accept what your interpretation of this is".
D.L.D: They probably had a committee working for months to pick which word they were going to use for this. The word "gay" carries a connotation, first of all, which is inaccurate. Most homosexuals are not at all gay. They tend to be pretty unhappy people. Despite all the publicity that tells them they can and should feel comfortable with what they're doing, most of them deep down inside don't... (both talking at the same time here).
R.E: I suppose they're going to come up with a sadophobia for those who have a hang-up about sadomasochism and a pedophobia for those who have difficulties with pedophilia, so we can just look forward to this I think. I guess we can look forward to it to the extent we permit ourselves... that we permit the opposition to have access to the brain.
D.L.D: And to dictate the truth WE use. Sex education is NOT education. It's conditioning, and we should never use the term "sex education". It's a misnomer. If they control the vocabulary, then they can control the way we can think and the way we can express ideas among ourselves and to anybody. But "sex conditioning", "sex initiation" is much more accurate and we should insist on that. We should never use terms "homophobia" and "gay". Homosexual is homosexual. It's not at all gay.
R.E: That's right. In fact we're probably going to have to do some homework on... probably of all the popular movements in the U.S. Probably the pro-life movement is the most sensitive to words.
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....
D.L.D: Take the networks at there word. They say, "if you don't like our programming, turn it off". 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.
As a pediatrician I'm always interested in how kids do things and how kids are like adults, and whether you're talking about International politics where one nation goes to war with another or kids on the playground, there are certain things that are common. It's just that kids on the playgrounds do it on a smaller scale. But you mention cutting off access to your brain... somebody says, I don't want to hear it. And I remember hearing kids on a playground... somebody says..."ya-na-na na naa-na", and they're teasing the kid... What's he do? He puts his hands over his ears. Says I'm not going to listen. And the kid who's trying to torment him will try to pull his hands away and be sure that he listens. And it's the same....
R.E: Words. Words entering. And the child knows. Words have meaning. They're hurting him.
D.L.D: Goebels knew it. Lenin knew it. CBS knows it. It's interesting; the principle stands - across the board. It just gets more complicated as you get older. More sophisticated. But watch kids on a playground and you'll learn a whole lot about adults.
R.E: Yes. We're all nodding our heads at that one. This Dr. Day was very much into the whole population control establishment, and he was of course in favor of abortion. 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. And the inevitable effect is that you will have a population that is top heavy with a rapidly aging population which is the current state in the United States.
So, inevitably, if you are going to go about killing the young, especially at the pace we seem to have adapted ourselves to in this country, then invariably you're going to have to do something about all those aging populations. Because, the few children who are born, after all, they cannot be expected to carry this tremendous burden of all these people. So you're cutting one end and therefore, inevitably, as you pointed out on the tape, he was saying, "Well, these few young people who are permitted to be born will feel this inevitable burden on them and so they'll be more desensitized."
They'll be more warmed up to the idea of grandma and grandpa having this little party and then shuffle them off to wherever they shuffle off to. And whether it's taking the "demise" pill or going to a death camp, or....
D.L.D: There was a movie out sometime back called "Soilant Green". Remember that movie? I didn't see the whole movie, but Edward G. Robinson liked to sit in the theatre and listen to Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony as he was to take his demise pill.
R.E: That's right. He also made the point that the food the people were eating were each other. But as he said, as long as it's done with dignity and humanely... like putting away your horse.
D.L.D: That's a little bit like pornography. Years back kids would come across pornography. It was always poor photography and cheap paper. Then Playboy came out with the glossy pages and really good photography, so then pornography is no longer cheap. It's respectable. We went to a movie at the Pittsburgh Playhouse. I took my son along. It was the Manchurian Candidate. During the previews of the things that are going to come there was a title I don't remember but it was (inaudible) in technicolor with classical music in the background.
And it was a pornographic movie. And I said, well, if you have a guitar then it's pornography; but if you have classical movie then it converts it into art. It was pornography.
It's an example of what you were saying. As long as it's done with dignity, that's what counts. If you kill someone with dignity, it's ok. If you have pornography with classical music it's art. That was the point I was trying to make.
R.E: Again, talking about the family. Currently I know there are an awful lot of people who are out of jobs and he [Dr. Day] had quite a lot of things to say about, for example, heavy industry. I guess the shock was that this man... I wasn't surprised that he knew a lot about population control, abortion, and at the other end — euthanasia.
But what DID surprise me was that he was an individual who was talking about religion, law, education, sports, entertainment, food... how could one individual have that much input? Now one could say, "well, it didn't pan out". But we know listening to these recollections twenty years later... except perhaps for some minor things, everything that he has said has come to pass and almost beyond imagination. How COULD one individual talk with such authoritative, non-questioning... that this was the way THIS was going to happen and THIS was going to happen in "fashion" and THIS was going to happen on TV and there were going to be video recorders before I ever heard of the word.
D.L.D: I think what happens... certainly one individual hears this, but the plans are by no means made by one or a small number of individuals. Just as industrial corporations which have a board of directors, with people from all sorts of activities who sit on the board of this corporation, and they say, "Now if we do this to our product, or if we expand in this area what will that do to banking? What will that do to clothing? What will that do... what impact, ripple effect will that have on other things?" And I'm sure that whoever makes these plans they have representatives from every area you can think of.
So they'll have educators, they'll have clothing manufacturers - designers; architects... across the board. I'm sure they get together and have meetings and plan and everybody puts in his input, just the way a military operation goes. What will the Navy do? Will they bombard the shore? What will the Air Force do? Will they come in with air cover? What will the infantry do? It's the same thing. These people, when they plan, they don't miss a trick.
They have experts in every field and they say, "Well, if we do this, that and the other.. John, what will that do to your operation?" And John will be in position to feed back, "Well this is what I think will happen." So it certainly covers a broad range of people. And for one individual to be able to say all of this in the two hours that he spoke to us, really tells us that he was privy to a lot of information.
R.E: That's right. He must have been sitting in on one of those boardrooms at least at some point. And I think not at the highest level from his position, but enough, because anyone in the population control would be associated with names of foundations... powerful foundations, powerful organizations...
D.L.D: And I'm sure there was a lot in the plans that he never heard. He wasn't a four-star general in this outfit. He wouldn't be in on the whole story.
R.E: Well, too bad he couldn't have talked for six hours instead of two, and we might have had a lot more information. There was another aspect that I found fascinating in listening to this. This whole aspect of privacy... he mentioned that as the private homes went by we would have individuals, non-family members perhaps sharing our apartments.
As I understand that is becoming more popular out in California. Could California and New York being the coast states, did he say... That's right... PORT cities that bring in things so that they can eventually work their way to middle America. But this is about privacy. When he was talking, for example, about the area of sex, he made some interesting remarks. One of them that hit me like a ton of bricks was this business about; "We must be open about sex". As if there can't be any fear of the person that does not hesitate to open up to the public. Now, if you look at these so-called sex initiation programs in the schools where the children are forced either through writing or through verbal expression to talk about all aspects of the sexual sphere…