Abby Aldrich Rockefeller (1874-1948) and Richard Day, MD
by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB
Australia’s current Royal Commission on Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has completed three years of work and is scheduled to carry on for another two years, until the end of 2017. It is conducting a very public investigation (anyone can make submissions), in hopes of learning how it was that thousands of children could be sexually abused and everyone remained silent about it.
Any citizen may do as she/he pleases with the information that is being gathered. In my series of articles for Gumshoe, I’m not acting as a regular reporter. Rather I select any bits that give me insights about the larger issues. The article at hand is about power. I ask: Who holds such power over us that an entire institution – for example, religion – can be dictated to?
You may have seen the video in which I reacted to the survivor who said he wanted “to knock the living Christ” out of Fr Seerson who had abused him. My question was: Didn’t the fault really lie with the bishop who condoned Fr Seerson’s behavior? And to whom did that bishop answer? (Bishop Frank Little is now deceased, so we can’t interrogate him.) Let’s look at a speech that reveals many secrets.
The Dr Richard Day Speech of 1969
Anyone who wants to analyze “the fall of the Church” should heed the words of Lawrence Dunegan, MD. When he was young, in 1969, he attended a medical dinner. The speaker, Richard Day, MD, worked for Planned Parenthood, which is a Rockefeller-initiated charity. Dr Day pitched his speech as one in which he would give doctors and medical students a glimpse of the future.
One of the things Day mentioned was that the Christian Churches would be made to collapse. Dunegan, in the audience, was offended by such talk. He took notes (against the wishes of the speaker) and 19 years later, in 1988, he spilled all the beans on a Christian radio show, the Randy Engels program. Later Dunegan’s report was carried in print at F Rense’s website.
I will now quote Dunegan’s report of Day’s 1969 speech:
He said, “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.
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. Everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words will be replaced by other words.
Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, “Some of you probably think the Churches won’t stand for this,” and he went on to say, “the Churches will help us!”
Who Is Running the Bishops?
I don’t think Australia’s Royal Commission can afford to pass over that last remark by Dr Day. He does seem to have genuine knowledge of some plans that were underway. (Indeed, changes to the Bible have recently been announced.) If the goal were to destroy the Church, wouldn’t a sex scandal be useful?
The commission’s huge question is: Why didn’t the bishops put a stop to the sexual abuse of children? They not only failed to stop it, they caused it to increase, by sending the abuser to new parishes. They did not warn the new parish that the priest had already been identified as a pedophile! They thus helped the fall of the Church – as Day predicted: “the Churches will help us!”
We need to discover how a bishop gets his instructions. On some occasions the bishop had parents sitting right in front of him, pressuring him to act. Of course any bishop has the authority to deal with such matters. The buck stopped there. So if the bishop did not act to satisfy the parents, it must be — mustn’t it? — that he was receiving pressure from another source, to let the sinning priest continue.
I think we should stop being flustered by our inability to identify exactly who the pressure-makers are. We know enough, just from Dr Day’s speech. We know that some powerful group, somewhere, considers religion its plaything. That same group considers just about everything its plaything.
“We” – Rockefellers – “Are in Control”
Let me now display several more bits from Dr Day’s futuristic talk, as recorded by Lawrence Dunegan, MD. Note: the full Dunegan is now reprinted in “Truth in Journalism,” by Dee McLachlan and Mary W Maxwell. The bolding was added by me:
Dr Day indicated that there is much more co-operation between East and West than most people realise. [That remark alone tells us that the planners have got top-most position!]
Most people don’t understand how governments operate and even people in high positions in governments don’t really understand how and where decisions are made.
“People are too trusting, they don’t ask the right questions.” [When Dunegan employs quote marks he means this is verbatim Richard Day. Otherwise he is paraphrasing.]
“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.
He said there would be new diseases to appear. Would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable – at least for along time.
Buildings and bridges would be made so that they would collapse after a while, there would be more accidents involving aeroplanes and railroads and automobiles. All of this to contribute to the feeling of insecurity, that nothing was safe.
Crime will be used to manage society. I wondered at that time about the moves that were afoot to consolidate all the police departments of suburbs around the major cities. John Birch Society was saying “Support your local police, don’t let them be consolidated.”
In connection with nutrition he also mentioned that public eating places would rapidly increase. This had a connection with the family too. As more and more people eat out, eating at home would become less important.
Kids will spend more time in schools, but they wouldn’t learn anything. [Charlotte Iserbyt’s book, Deliberate Dumbing Down, has heavily documented that the dumbing has been policy for decades.]
The Spilling of Conspiracies
The foregoing is only about a fourth of what Dr Day said. I included enough to suggest that he knew of a grand plan. Imagine listing such things as diminishing the family’s mealtime together, changing words in the Bible, and introducing new diseases! Imagine planning to have car crashes and plane crashes! The arrogance of it. (And did Dr Day think he would be spared?)
The bringing down of religions was also a plot outlined in HG Wells’ novel “The Open Conspiracy,” published in 1928. Wells must have been a scribe for the biggies (which I variously call the World Government, the cabal, or the Bozos). I mean they allowed Wells to tattle, albeit in fictional guise.
Dr Day, by contrast, was not trying to “get the word out.” More likely he was using his audience to check their reaction. But there was almost no reaction! Certainly no one stood up to the speaker at the dinner. Dunegan tells us that when he ran into colleagues years later and asked if they recalled Dr Day’s speech, they showed no appreciation of its significance.
Rabbi Marvin Antelman also makes a good case that, within Judaism, somebody was on the attack in the 19th century, to destroy religion. An aside: One of Antelman’s villains on that score is Eva Frank. She was a member of the Sabbatian sect, which went in for child sacrifice. Aleister Crowley’s Golden Dawn may have done so, too. (He worked for MI6.) Have a look at JoyOfSatan.org.
The Precautionary Principle
I believe that most or all of the plans announced by Dr Day are in full swing. Thus I’m willing to start thinking about what to do. If it turns out that I’m just a paranoid nutter, not too much will have been lost — just some effort on my part. But if I’m too embarrassed to deal with the Dr Day thing (for fear of being called a nutter), and it turns out that Day was right, I will have lost a lot.
The “precautionary principle” means “Better safe than sorry.” I hereby recommend that the Royal Commission take into consideration Dr Day’s apparent insider knowledge about a plan to sink the Catholic Church. This could well illuminate (pardon the word) the behavior of members of the hierarchy whom the commission has yet to call as witnesses.
Don’t be embarrassed, O Justice Peter McCallum, Justice Jennifer Coate, and other Commissioners. Use the precautionary principle. Please, we are relying on your protection! You have been given such a unique task, with full legitimacy. You can question everything that’s going on that sheds light on the “Institutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse.”
The Non-Adversarial Approach
As I watch, in the hearings, the approach of Angus Stewart, Counsel, and Justice Peter McCallum, the Commissioner, I have been gobsmacked. They persistently and without any hostility, seek further information from the person in the witness box. They don’t let anybody get away with obfuscation or smooth talk.
I had never seen a “court” that is other the adversarial type. (Granted, this commission is not a court; it is an inquiry.) It has made me wonder if our adversarial system is hopelessly inferior to the inquisitorial system. Note: in some European countries the judge is an investigator. She seeks to get the truth, not to win.
In general, anyone who attends the hearings will learn about the enormity of the suffering (and the longevity of the suffering) of the victims, the immorality of the many institutions called on the carpet here, and the inadequacy of our system of policing. But, happily, they will also be struck by the ability of a truly open public forum to accomplish what other authoritative groups cannot. It is really inspiring.
No matter what else comes of this RC, it has helped me to conjure up the image of an outside controller. That is, someone who is such a damned busybody that he can make decisions that affect the lives of almost everyone in the community, and yet his identity be unknown!
I suggest we pursue that identity.
— Mary W Maxwell is a Roman Catholic, or perhaps a roamin’ Catholic. She cogitates night and day on the weirdness of our not calling a spade a spade, and not indicting major criminals who cause us immense trouble. She awaits your visit at maryWmaxwell.com.