In 1969 Dr Richard Day, late professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and a former director of Planned Parenthood, spoke of the plans of “The Order” to a group of pediatricians. Dr. Lawrence Dunegan was in the audience and prepared an audiotape from his notes in the conference.
What Dr Day said foreshadowed many recent developments that at the time seemed improbable, if not impossible. Dr Day predicted that abortion would become normal (spoken before Roe v Wade), sex education would be taught to young children, homosexuality would be promoted and American industry would be relocated overseas. Another of “The Order’s” objective was the destruction of the normal family structure.
We’ve seen much of this happen in recent decades. While more of what Dr Day spoke of is becoming a reality. Ed.
Doctor Richard Day in 1969
Dr Richard Day was a Rockefeller (Elite bloodline) insider, who told a group of paediatricians in Pennsylvania in 1969 how America and the world was going to change in line with a global plan. What he said has since proved to be correct in virtually every detail. All these people knew what was planned because there is a knowledge base within the Elite network that is very different to the one in the public domain. Recording or taking notes at the meeting was forbidden, however one brave audience member managed to recall and divulge much of the debate. This is what he said –
He said that very few people really know how government works. Something to the effect that elected officials are influenced in ways that they don’t even realise 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.
He went on to say that most people don’t understand how governments operate and even people in high positions in governments, including our own, don’t really understand how and where decisions are made. One of the statements was having to do with change … the statement was, ‘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.’ This often came out in the context of a society of … where people seemed to have no roots or moorings, but would be passively willing to accept change simply because it was all they had ever known. ‘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] ‘People are too trusting, people don’t ask the right questions.’
Gobal economic dictatorship
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 … 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. 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. 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 [exactly what has happened].
Centrally-controlled money 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. People would carry money only in very small amounts for things like chewing gum and candy bars. Just pocket sorts of things. Any purchase of any significant amount would be done electronically.
Earnings would be electronically entered into your account. It would be a single banking system. It 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.
There was a statement that any purchase of significant size like an automobile, bicycle, a refrigerator, a radio or television or whatever might have some sort of identification on it so it could be traced, so that very quickly anything which was either given away or stolen –whatever –authorities would be able to establish who purchased it and when. Computers would allow this to happen.
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 [see negative interest rates]. 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.’ … The idea being to prevent people from accumulating any wealth which might have long range disruptive influence on the system.
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.
Electronic payments initially would all be based on different kinds of credit cards … these were already in use in 1969 to some extent. Not as much as now. But people would have credit cards with the electronic strip on it and once they got used to that then it would be pointed out the advantage of having all of that combined into a single credit card, serving a single monetary system and then they won’t have to carry around all that plastic.
So the next step would be the single card and then the next step would be to replace the single card with a skin implant. The single card [smartphone] could be lost or stolen, give rise to problems; could be exchanged with somebody else to confuse identity. 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 [right on the third eye] …
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 [just look around at what is happening today].
Imposition of world system through nuclear war
If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this [world dictatorship], 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 realisation that peace was better than war [This syncs with the Albert Pike letter in 1871 about three world wars and what would happen after the third one].
There was a discussion of terrorism. 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 [hence 9/ 11 to speed everything along]. But at least in the foreseeable future it was not planned … Maybe terrorism would not be required here, but the implication being that it would be indeed used if it was necessary.
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 is indeed a dangerous place … or can be if we don’t relinquish control to the proper authorities.
Population control and killing the elderly
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.
Some things that would help people realise that they had lived long enough, he mentioned several of these. I don’t remember them all –here are a few: 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 high-speed traffic lanes … traffic patterns that … older people with their slower reflexes would have trouble dealing with and thus, lose some of their independence.
A big item … was elaborated at some length was that 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. And 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’.
People won’t be allowed to have babies just because they want to or because they are careless. 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. But most people would [be] allowed to have only two babies.
… 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 recognised would cause some students to burn out. He said ‘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.’
In this connection and later on in the connection with drug abuse and alcohol abuse he indicated that psychiatric services to help would be increased dramatically. In all the pushing for achievement, it was recognised 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.
Education would be lifelong. 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. If you got too tired to keep up with your education, or you got too old to learn new information, then this was a signal –you begin to prepare to get ready to step aside.
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.
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.
Portrayal of violence (movies/ video games)
Violence would be made more graphic. This was intended to desensitise 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 paralysed 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.
Food supplies would come under tight control. If population growth didn’t slow down, food shortages could be created in a hurry and people would realise the dangers of overpopulation. Ultimately, whether the population slows down or not the food supply is to be brought under centralised 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. Growing one’s own food would be outlawed.
This would be done under some sort of pretext. 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.
There was a mention then of weather. This was another really striking statement. He said, ‘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.’ There was no statement how this would be done. It was stated that either it was already possible or very, very close to being possible [in 1969].
Mass mind control
‘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.’
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 [smart TVs]. The TV set would not have to be on in order for this to be operative. Also, the television set 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 [the rush to digital TV is part of this]. 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 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.
There was some discussion of audio monitors, too, just in case 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.
Day was talking here about the World Wide Web which wasn’t ‘invented’ officially until 1989 by English scientist Tim Berners-Lee who ‘wrote the first web browser in 1990 while employed at CERN in Switzerland.’ Oh, really? So how did Richard Day know about it in 1969? Because ‘new’ technology is sitting in the wings all along waiting for the right time to be introduced. How did Day know about Telescreens or smart TVs many decades before they were ‘invented’? How did Orwell?
Human settlement zones
Privately owned housing would become a thing of the past. 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. People just couldn’t buy them. But the cost of housing would not come down. You’d right away think, well the vacant house, the price would come down, the people would buy it. But there was some statement to the effect that 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 [micro apartments]. Then as the number of real home-owners diminished they would become a minority. There would be no sympathy for them from the majority who dwelled in the apartments and then these homes could be taken by increased taxes or other regulations that would be detrimental to home ownership and would be acceptable to the majority [divide and rule].
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.
Have this in mind … when they ask, ‘How many bedrooms in your house? How many bathrooms in your house? Do you have a finished game room?’ This information is personal and is of no national interest to government under our existing Constitution. But you’ll be asked those questions and decide how you want to respond to them [happening].
Disappearance of dissidents
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,’ the inference being that at these special places where they were taken, then they would not live very long and ‘disposed of humanely,’ . 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.
He said there would not be any martyrs meaning that the people would not be killed in such a way or disposed of in such a way that they could serve as inspiration to other people the way martyrs do. Rather more like … ‘People will just disappear.’
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. During the process in getting the United States ready for these changes everybody would be busier with less leisure time and less opportunity to really look about and see what was going on around them.
Richard Day also said that there would be mass movements. and migrations of people without roots in their new locations because ‘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.’
This is one of the prime reasons for orchestrating the mass migrations from the Middle East and Africa into Europe with the targeting especially of Germany which has such a sense of its own traditions and culture. Chancellor Merkel knows exactly what she is doing and why.
Day even said in 1969 that soccer would be promoted in the United States because it was an international game and would help to break down a sense of a unique culture underpinned by baseball and American football.