The NWO and the Rockefeller's Impact on the Family Unit, Woman's Lib, Planned Parenthood and Sex Education

NWO Order Plans Exposed by Insider in 1969: One World Government Under the Devil Without Liberty or Justice for All (Excerpt)

March 1988 (Recollections from a Lecture Given on March 20, 1969)

Dr. Lawrence Dunegan - 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... The idea then is that the connection between sex and contraception introduced and reinforced in school would carry over into marriage. Indeed, if young people when they matured decided to get married, marriage itself would be diminished in importance. He indicated some recognition that most people probably would want to be married, but this certainly would not be any longer considered necessary for sexual activity... 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, and that was really seen as no problem. Parents who think they are opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds will change their minds when it is their own child who is pregnant.

Sex and reproduction would be separated. You would have sex without reproduction and then technology was reproduction without sex. This would be done in the laboratory... Families would be limited in size. We already alluded to not being allowed more than two children. 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... More women will work outside the home. More men will be transferred to other cities and in their jobs, more men would travel. 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. 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.

Schools would become more important in peoples' overall life. Kids, in addition to their academics, would have to get into school activities unless they wanted to feel completely out of it... 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 out... Education would be lifelong and adults would be going to school. 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.

Drug use would he increased. Alcohol use would be increased. Law enforcement efforts against drugs would be increased... 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... The abuse of drugs would restore, in a certain sense, the law of the jungle and selection of the fittest for survival. 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.

The same thing would happen with alcohol. 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. 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 are used to screen out some of the unfit — people who otherwise are pretty good 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.

There would be the created slums while other areas would be well maintained. Those people able to leave the slums for better areas then would learn to better appreciate the importance of human accomplishment... There was no related sympathy for those who were left behind in the jungle of drugs and deteriorating neighbourhoods... Increased security would be needed in the better areas... 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.

Population shifts were to be brought about so that people would be tending to move into the Sun Belt — they would be the 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, and had roots. Things like new medical care systems — if you pick up from a Northeast industrial city and you transplant yourself to the South Sunbelt or Southwest, you'll be more accepting of whatever kind of, for example, controlled medical care you find there — then you would accept a change in the medical care system where you had roots and the support of your family.

Also in this vein 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... 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.

More Unmarried Couples Having Babies: CDC

Nick Rockefeller told Aaron Russo that his family's foundation had created and bankrolled the women's liberation movement in order to destroy the family and that population reduction was a fundamental aim of the global elite. Rockefeller asked Russo what he thought women's liberation was about. Russo's response that he thought it was about the right to work and receive equal pay as men, just as they had won the right to vote, caused Rockefeller to laughingly retort, "You're an idiot! Let me tell you what that was about, we the Rockefeller's funded that, we funded women's lib, we're the one's who got all of the newspapers and television - the Rockefeller Foundation." [Source]



April 12, 2012

HealthDay News - More unmarried women who live with their partners are having babies than ever before, a new government report shows.

Twenty-seven percent of births between 2003 and 2010 were to such couples -- a threefold increase from 1985, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.

"It's thought that in births outside of marriage, one parent isn't present. But our data is showing that a large proportion do have two parents, even though [they're] not formally married," said report author Gladys Martinez, a demographer in the CDC's Division of Vital Statistics.

In addition, not only are many older women giving birth, but many also are having more then one child, she said.

"We know that women have been delaying childbirth," Martinez said. "But there is also an increase in the number of older women who have more than one kid, and we would expect that to be even higher if we interviewed even older women."

Martinez noted that women who delay having children tend to be better educated. Nearly 60 percent of women who did not complete high school had their first child as a teenager, compared with only 4 percent of women with a college degree.

The data in the report was gathered from more than 22,000 interviews done between 2006 and 2010 with men and women aged 15 to 44. The data was compared with similar data from 2002, according to the CDC.

"It's surprising that so many unmarried couples are having children," said Dr. Christine Mullin, a reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist at the Center for Human Reproduction at North Shore-LIJ Health System in Manhasset, N.Y.

Mullin also noted that, for older women, having one child is hard enough. Women who delay giving birth usually do so for education and career reasons, she added.

Other highlights of the report include:

• Forty-three percent of women aged 15 to 44 had never had a baby.
• Among men aged 15 to 44, 45 percent had fathered a child.
• The average age at which women had their first child was 23; for men it was 25.
• Almost 40 percent of women whose first birth occurred between the ages of 35 and 44 had at least two children; it was 26 percent in 1995.
• Women between the ages of 40 and 44 had an average of 2.1 children.