In 1932, Aldus Huxley wrote the famed literature Brave New World, describing humanities ignorant enslavement to an establishment primarily focused on exploiting labour. In the novel, the world is governed by 10 world controllers, who have successfully replaced the family unit with ‘state hatcheries’ and condemned everyone to hard labour relieved by sex and drugs.
A little over a decade later, Eric Arthur Blair, better known as George Orwell, wrote 1984, a novel similarly warning that humanity would eventually fall under the arms of an establishment controlling all aspects of information, media and production.
Huxley, who was once a teacher to Orwell at the elitist Eton College, wrote to Orwell praising his work, but criticising that his piece was the more accurate prediction:
”Within the next generation, I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.”
…“I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World.”
However great, familiarity has already been achieved with Huxleys Brave New World and Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four, and it is time to put them to rest. A thew decades later, a greater prophecy arose, one of great detail and minuscule representation.
Prophets and conspiracy groups have long believed in the prophecy of a one-world government. They claim progression in the past century has revealed and silenced those who claim to expose it. Although, plans for the end game seem to have slowly unveiled, with public documents such as the UN’s Agenda 21 and the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ matching such profecies. Other revelations, however, have come out from whistleblowers aiming to warn the public.
Perhaps one most accurate whistleblower would be that of Dr Richard L. Day.
In 1988, Lawrence Dunagen, a paediatrician from Mt. Lebanon took to the tapes to explain a meeting he attended on the 20th of March 1969 lead by Dr Richard Day, a professor of paediatrics at Pittsburgh university, and a future director at Planned Parenthood.
In the tapes, which were recorded by Randy Engel, Lawrence claimed that Dr Richard Day made “off the record” remarks of a plan for humanity.
According to Dr Dunagen, before the meeting could begin, Day asked all members to switch off all tape recorders and put away any notes. Lawrence said: ”Something in his remarks suggested that there could be negative repercussions against him if it became widely known what was about to say to our group”.
The three tapes, which consisted of one hour-long segments, have since been groundbreaking prophecies, describing topics including population control, the internet, computers, promotion of homosexuality, legalisation of abortion, microchipping, cashless society, pornography, sex, individual security, education, religion, and much more.
Dunegan began with: ”The speaker was not looking from the outside in, thinking that he saw conspiracy, rather, he was on the inside, admitting that, indeed, there was an organized power, force, group of men, who wielded enough influence to determine major events involving countries around the world. And he predicted, or rather expounded on, changes that were planned for the remainder of this century.”
So far, many of Lawrence’s claims have come true, bringing serious consideration to whether there truly is some global conspiracy.
Today, the 3-hours worth of tape recordings – named the New Order of Barbarians, can be listened to here.
Below are some of the key subjects Day mentioned:
Claim by Dr Day according to Dr Dunagen: “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. 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. 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.”
The next subject mentioned by Dr Richard Day was the advancement of televisions to include monitoring devices, such as the possibility of a camera and a microphone.
Given this point was spoken in 1969, and the first laptop wasn’t invented until 1981, and including a camera until 1996, I think it would be possible to say that perhaps the closest thing to a laptop or mobile phone at the time was a television. The latest iPhone models as of today include up to 4 cameras, 3 microphones, a 3d facial recognition camera and infrared sensors.
It is arguable whether these technologies could be used as a means of monitoring individuals. However, with advancing technologies such as Amazon’s Alexa and Apple’s Siri making their way into the average home, the opportunity for tapping into certain devices could very easily be taken advantage of by both hackers and potential governments.
However, Day’s prediction did come true. Today, most newer smart TVs are made with a built-in microphone and camera. The ostensible reason behind this is for voice commands (such as switching the channel), video calls, facial recognition logins, and camera games. According to Samsung’s smart TV policy, which can be read here:
”Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition.”
Samsung later added… ”You may disable Voice Recognition data collection at any time by visiting the “settings” menu. However, this may prevent you from using all of the Voice Recognition features.” – Pay the price of privacy, or lose some main features.
Day also mentions, and this can’t be stressed enough nowadays, that people would become ”very dependent” on television, and I would add modern devices as a whole. According to an internet trends study by Bond Capital, the average smartphone user checks their phone 150 times per day. Understandably then, a 2018 study by Harvard also concluded around 73% of people encounter anxiety issues due to their smartphones.
Although companies like Apple (who sold their first-ever mac for $666) love to claim that they respect privacy, we can at least resort to the fact that most apps, like Google and Facebook, are continuously gathering data to help with data hoarding and marketing campaigns. Not that this is any revealing news, as revealed by Netflix’s Social Dilemma: ”if you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.”
Day goes further to say that televisions (the closest thing at the time to a modern computer or laptop) ”would be used for purchases”. Since the start of the internet in the ’60s and ’80s, companies such as Apple and Amazon have taken to e-commerce, later releasing subsidiary AI technologies such as Alexa and Siri who have sprung to the markets.
For most of these ‘assistants’ to work, a continuously active microphone is implanted to know when to hear ”hey Siri” or ”Alexa”. In response to privacy concerns with authorities, a spokesman said, “Amazon does not disclose customer information in response to government demands unless we’re required to do so to comply with a legally valid and binding order.”
And in regards to Siri… the AI ‘assistant’ was seed-funded by DARPA – the same government agency responsible for long-range missiles and death rays. Darpa, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, who work closely with the DoD and the Military, were also responsible for the basic concept of the internet and claim to ”make pivotal investments in breakthrough technologies for national security”.
Claim: “He [Richard Day] said there would be new diseases to appear which had not ever been seen before. Would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable — at least for a long time. No elaboration was made on this, but I remember, not long after hearing this presentation, when I had a puzzling diagnosis to make, I would be wondering, “Is this … was what he was talking about? Is this a case of what he was talking about?”
”Some years later, as AIDS ultimately developed, I think AIDS was at least one example of what he was talking about. I now think that AIDS probably was a manufactured disease.”
Today, with Covid-19 apparently on ‘the rise’, this claim once again seems true. Moreover, the pandemic has served as a huge justification for economic and political changes. As also mentioned by Dr Dunegan, AIDS has served as an example of a hard to treat disease, claiming the lives of tens of millions.
Claim: “As regards music, he made a rather straightforward statement like, ” Music will get worse .”
In 1969, Rock music was getting more and more unpleasant. It was interesting just his words the way he expressed it. It would “get worse”… acknowledging that it was already bad. Lyrics would become more openly sexual.
No new sugary romantic music would be publicized like that which had been written before that time. All of the old music would be brought back on certain radio stations and records for older people to hear. And all the folks would have sort of their own radio stations to hear.
Younger people, as it got worse and worse, he seemed to indicate that one group would not hear the other group’s music. Older folks would just refuse to hear the junk that was offered to young people, and the young people would accept the junk because it identified them as their generation and helped them feel distinct from the older generation.
I remember at the time thinking that would not last very long because even young kids wouldn’t like the junk when they got a chance to hear the older music that was prettier they would gravitate toward it. Unfortunately, I was wrong about that, when the kids get through their teens and into their 20’s some of them improve their taste in music, but unfortunately, he was right.
They get used to this junk and that’s all they want. A lot of them can’t stand really pretty music. He went on to say that the music would carry a message to the young and nobody would even know the message was there.” [Subliminals messaging]
Since the ’70s and ’80s, music has changed dramatically. What was once a steady development in music – Jazz, Pop, Alternative Rock etc., seems to have taken a U-turn with rising forms of violent music like grime, rap and sexualised pop.
For three weeks last year, the number one record on the UK charts was WAP – By Cardi B. The song, whose acronym stood for ‘Wet Ass P*ssy’, started with:
”Yeah, you fucking with some wet-ass p*ssy
Bring a bucket and a mop for this wet-ass p*ssy
Give me everything you got for this wet-ass p*ssy.”
Children have also taken the music and similar pieces to TikTok, with the WAP dance becoming a major trend. The trend involved dancing to WAP while humping the floor. Seriously. Unfortunately, if you’re under 18 – you already knew that.
As younger generations today continue listening to more demoralizing music, older generations continue to listen to artists like the Beatles and the Eagles. As Richard Day explained, opposing generations would be listening to completely different stations.
Seeing, reading and hearing things like this (every day now) really does bring Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, which included sex play for children, to terrifying proximity.
Claim: ”Movies would gradually be made more explicit as regards sex and language. After all, sex and rough language are real and why pretend that they are not?
There would be pornographic movies in the theatres, on television. And VCR’s were not around at that time, but he had indicated that these cassettes would be available, and video cassette players would be available for use in the home and pornographic movies would be available for use on these VCRs as well as in the neighborhood theater and on your television. He said something like, “You’ll see people in the movies doing everything you can think of.”
”He went on to say that… and all of this is intended to bring sex out in the open. That was another comment, that was made several times – the term “sex out in the open”.”
”Violence would be made more graphic . This was intended to desensitize 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 towards death would change and they would not be so fearful of it but more accepting of it, and not be so aghast at the sight of dead people or injured people.
We don’t need to have a genteel population paralyzed by what they might see. People would just learn to say, “well, I don’t want that to happen to me”.”
Although there was no iPhone or Ipad in 1988, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that is clearly where it was going. In 2019, PornHub announced that they had received over 42 billion visits, averaging over 115 million visitors per day.
The company wrote: ‘that’s the equivalent of the populations of Canada, Australia, Poland and the Netherlands all visiting in one day!’
Gaming has also become increasingly graphic, with games such as GTA V – a game featuring drugs, terrorism and strippers, becoming a favourite among teenagers. Even seemingly innocent games like Fortnite, have created the image of guns for children at very early ages.
Claim: “We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it’s ever decided that it should be released. But consider – if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something else.”
”Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more toward comfort than toward cure. There was some statement ultimately the cancer cures which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to light because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these efforts to suppress them. But at least for the time being, letting people die of cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of overpopulation.”
Admittedly, I am no doctor and have little authority on these claims. However, one thing that has puzzled me is the money to progress ratio for cancer.
In 2019/20, Cancer Research UK alone claimed to have raised over £656m, equating billions of pounds each decade in cancer research. Simultaneously, treatment has certainly progressed, but, as for a cure, little progress seems to have been made. Day later mentions that cancer cures would be geared towards comfort treatment, rather than cure which arguably still sounds true.
Studies by Evaluate ltd, a pharmacological analytics firm, found that Cancer drugs were among some of the highest profiting drugs on the market, with projections of $236.6 billion by 2024. This would increase the worldwide market share to nearly 20 per cent of prescription and over-the-counter drugs.
Day also made the claim that that the existing cancer cures were hidden in the Rockefeller Institute, now known as Rockefeller University which was founded by Oil Tycoon John D. Rockefeller.
Rockefeller is also known as one of the founding members of the General Education Board, which since 1902, has had major influence over American medical curriculum, investing over $324m or $12bn inflation-adjusted dollars to American schools and universities.
Whether any coverup could be found is unrealistic, and for now, can only remain in theory.
Claim: “Homosexuality also was to be encouraged. ”People will be given permission to be homosexual.” That’s the way it was stated. They won’t have to hide it. And elderly people will be encouraged to continue to have active sex lives into the very old ages, just as long as they can. Everyone will be given permission to have sex, to enjoy however they want. Anything goes.
This is the way it was put. And, I remember thinking, how arrogant for this individual, or whoever he represents, to feel that they can give or withhold permission for people to do things!.”
…”With the power of propaganda you dare not be against homosexuals, otherwise, you get labeled homophobe.”
This statement has come true, and in ways, benefits both the people and the establishment. Unfortunately, in this context, Day talked about the need for a decrease in the population and greater divisions in society. Since homosexual couples don’t tend to have children (unless adopted), it would be better to have more of them.
Day’s use of the word “promoted” is spot on. As woke culture continues to assign people into collective groups of gay, straight, non-binary etc., more divisive societal labels have begun to split people apart. Each year, the LGBT+ community is assigned June as ‘pride month’, hosting marches to celebrate their sexuality. The effects of this mass self-identity campaign have created more identity division than ever. ”I am LGBTQQIAAP2SAA”. Such statements really do show the counterproductivity of ‘creating equality’.
Attitudes towards homosexuality have also become more liberal, with the 2019 British Social Attitudes survey claiming: ”two-thirds now say that sex between two adults of the same sex is “not wrong at all”, an increase of almost 50 percentage points since the question was first asked in 1983”.
Perhaps Day’s use of the word ‘propaganda’ is a harsh way to describe promoting homosexuality, and I would add that there isn’t anything necessarily wrong with homosexual relationships, but Dunegan’s depiction of being labelled ‘homophobe’ if you challenge the narrative fits perfectly with today’s liberal establishment.
Claim: “Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative. Recall back in 1969 was the time of the mini skirt when those mini-skirts were very, very high and revealing. He said, “It is not just the amount of skin that is exposed that makes clothing sexually seductive, but other, more subtle things are often suggestive,”
… “Things like movement, and the cut of clothing, and the kind of fabric, the positioning of accessories on the clothing. “If a woman has an attractive body, why should she not show it?” was one of the statements. There was no detail on what was meant by “provocative clothing,” but since that time, if you watched the change in clothing styles, blue jeans are cut in a way that they’re more tight-fitting in the crotch. They form wrinkles. Wrinkles are essentially arrows. Lines, which direct one’s vision to certain anatomic areas.”
Achieved loud and clear. I imagine any person born just 50 years ago would be rather surprised by the evolution of provocative fashion, whether good or bad. In the tapes, Lawrence Dunagen describes how at the time – 1988, 20 years after the meeting, this had already been achieved through ”tight-fitting” clothes.
Certainly, 40 years later, clothes have moved from ”tight-fitting” wear to crop tops and ripped jeans. These looks are similarly propelled into the media, take a look at any modern-day pop icon and you will find some wildly seductive looks. You could perhaps search up Cardi B’s, 2021 Grammys performance, but dont scream.
Claim: “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. That would be very common – nobody would even ask questions about it. It would be widely accepted as no different from married people being 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. And, the extended families would be smaller, and more remote.”
According to the Office of National Statistics, in 1969 – the time of the meeting, in the UK there was a total of 51,310 divorces. In 1990 ONS figures recorded a total of 153,386. In 2019, those figures dropped to 108,000. Marriages have also declined, ranging from around 396,000 in 1996 to 232,000 in 2017.
Statistics aside, it is pretty clear that attitudes to marriage have changed. Day saying people will “marry more than once” is becoming seemingly true.
Claim: People would need permission to travel and they would need a good reason to travel. If you didn’t have a good reason for your travel you would not be allowed to travel, and everyone would need ID.
This would at first be an ID card you would carry on your person and you must show when you are asked for it. It was already planned that later on some sort of device would be developed to be implanted under the skin that would be coded specifically to identify the individual. This would eliminate the possibility of false ID and also eliminate the possibility of people saying, “Well, I lost my ID.”
The difficulty about these skin-implanted ID was stated to be getting material that would stay in or under the skin without causing foreign body reaction whereby the body would reject it or cause infection, and that this would have to be material on which information could be recorded and retrieved by some sort of scanner while it was not rejected by the body. Silicon was mentioned.
Arguably, this one seems to be lurking closer and closer. Already, reasonable amounts of ID are required to enter places like hospitals, schools and some businesses. However, with each new terror crisis, like 911, more and more need for Orwellian styles of identification have been implemented to be in place.
In the transcript above, Dunegan mentions the need for skin-implanted ID’s, something far from the public arena in 1988 and ridiculously far from the original meeting he experienced in 1969.
Currently, in Sweden, under a company called BioHax, thousands have implanted microchips under the skin of their wrists. The chips are used to replace keys, cash and ID in an attempt to make life easier.
A question that arises, however, is: is the convenience of opening a door 5 seconds earlier.. (wow!), worth the risk that the technology could be used to create a two-tier culture.
Already, we’ve seen big tech, the mainstream media and other major corporations ban, kick and limit users from doing certain activities for not conforming with establishment narratives like political correctness. When your data becomes cross-referenced, you can imagine how governments and corporations may begin to abuse their powers. As ID progresses, we may see more and more attempts to single out people who question the establishment.
Claim: “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 realize the dangers of overpopulation.
Ultimately, whether the population slows down or not the food supply is to be brought under centralized 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. In other words, if you had a friend or relative who didn’t sign on.
And growing ones 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 food would be illigal.”
Day’s explanation of centralised food control springs to mind nowadays with the uprising promotion of ‘clean meats’, the ostensible label for lab-grown, synthetic meats.
In an interview with Technology Review, Bill Gates, who has been a major shareholder in synthetic meat companies including Beyond Meats, Carbon Engineering and Impossible Foods, claimed:
”I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time. Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.”
Although synthetic meats are claimed to fight climate change because animals (particularly cows) release methane, the underlying issue is that synthetic meat is not by any means a small business venture. Farmer Jones from around the corner is not going to have a synthetic meat lab in his barn.
As we push towards synthetic meats, pastoral agriculture could well be hijacked by billion-dollar conglomerates.
Meat isn’t the only industry at risk of centralised control. Already food as a whole has become very centralised, with most major food products being owned by just a small handful of corporations.
Imagine you walk into a shop looking for chocolate, and you’re given the wide choice between Snickers, Mars, Twix, M&M’s, Maltesers, Galaxy, Dove, Bounty or Milky Way. The reality is: it doesn’t always matter. All of the above-mentioned chocolates are owned by the same company; Mars Inc. Mars is also responsible for your Whiskas and Pedigree pet food, your Orbit and Spearmint gum, Dolmio sauce, Skittles, Uncle Bens, Starbursts, HubbaWubba and a long list of other consumer products.
Currently, it is estimated that 10 companies: Nestle, PepsiCo, General Mills, Kelloggs, AssociatedBritishFoods, Mondelez, Mars Inc, Danone, Unilever and Coca-Cola, control a vast majority of consumer products.
Claim: “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. But at least in the foreseeable future it was not planned. And very benignly on their part.”
“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.”
In 1988, the same year Dunegan released these tapes, terrorist group Al Queda was founded by Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet-Afgan war. Later in 1994, the Taliban of Afganistan was found, and shortly after in 1999, the Islamic State of Iraq came to life. Since then, countless other terror groups have come to life such as Boko Haram of Nigeria and Al-Shabaab of Somalia.
Day’s vision of increasing terrorism in Europe and the West has also become reality with major attacks such as 911, Manchester Arena, the Westminster attacks, the Berlin attacks, and the Paris attacks creating mass panic globally.
Claim: “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.
And also if you began to show a pattern of saving too much, you might have your pay cut. We would say, “Well, you’re saving instead of spending. You really don’t need all that money.” That basically the idea being to prevent people from accumulating any wealth which might have long range disruptive influence on the system.
”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 could be lost or stole, give rise to problems; could be exchanged with somebody else to confuse identify. The skin implant on the other hand would be not loseable 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.”
I went to get a haircut recently, and when offered a £20 note, the barber said, ”sorry, we don’t accept cash anymore”. A pitiful disgrace. Throughout the pandemic (surprise, surprise), the push towards a cashless society has progressed swiftly with the announced claim that cashless will help bring ends to the pandemic.
According to LINK, the UK’s largest ATM network, during 2020, 75% of people were using less cash and a further 54% were completely avoiding it.
Currently, Sweden is leading the game to a fully cashless society. In 2012, Sweden’s biggest 6 banks collaborated to create Swish, a digital payments app that could be used for purchases, and money transactions.
‘As cash usage declines, almost all consumer payments in shops are now made by card. This market is completely dominated by Visa and Mastercard and much of the infrastructure is located outside Sweden’s borders. Unlike Norway and Denmark, Sweden has no card network of its own.’ – Riksbank (central bank of Sweden)
With the rising concerns that another ‘pandemic’ is on its way, enforcing a cashless society into legislature could very well be justifiable. So long as governments have the right excuse, cashless could become ‘the new normal.’
Dunegan also mentions a microchip in the right hand or the forehead. Under the BioHax company in Sweden, thousands of Swedes are already accustomed to a microchip under their wrists. In terms of ”in your forehead”, you could thank Elon Musk, the world’s second-richest man.
In 2016, Musk founded Neuralink, a company whose aim is to connect a small microchip ”Neuralink” to the neurons in the brain. The ostensible purpose behind the technology is to help people with neurological disorders and, once advanced, to be used to help ordinary people carry out daily activities. In recent years, Musk has continued to fund the project, and has claimed that mouth-to-mouth language could be obsolete by the next decade, and the internet will be accessible through the brain.
Claim: “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 realize 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 would… that older people with their slower reflexes would have trouble dealing with and thus, lose some of their independence.”
Horrifically, part of the plan Day was warning about, for population control was the introduction of euthanasia and the demise pill. Obviously, the latter is rather far off for now and has not yet happened. Attitudes to euthanasia, however, have changed.
Gradually, euthanasia and assisted suicide is becoming legalised with legalisation already in Canada, New Zealand, Belgium, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain as well as 11 US states; Califonia, Washington, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont. Other countries, like India and Columbia, have also legalised euthanasia under the condition that the patient is severely in pain.
As of yet, there is certainly no ”arbitrary age limit” and no ”demise pill”, but it is clear that public opinions on the right to die have changed. Ideas of ”overpopulation” have also spiked.
Claim: “This is an avowed atheist speaking. And 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. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept it, and feel at home in it. Most people won’t be too concerned with religion. They will realize that they don’t need it.”
According to a 2019 report by British Social Attitudes, 52% of the British public do not regard themselves as belonging to any religious views, compared to just 10% who didn’t in 1988. It also claimed over two-thirds of the public do not attend religious services. The same survey calculated that just 1% of Britons aged between 18-24 were affiliated with the Church Of England.
As for changing religious texts, as of I’m aware, religious texts are not yet being changed, and there is no sign of a new religion. Evidently yet, it is clear that religion is on the decline and is currently portrayed as a dimwit belief. Perhaps, you could suggest that religion hasn’t so much vanished but been replaced by a new religion: mainstream science. What was once listening to the church has become listening to the scientific institutions.
Claim: ‟As regards education, he indicated that kids would spend more time in schools, but in many schools, they wouldn’t learn anything. They’ll learn some things, but not as much as formerly.
Overall, schooling would be prolonged. This meant prolonged through the school year. I’m not sure what he said about a long school day, I do remember he said that school was planned to go all summer, that the summer school vacation would become a thing of the past. Not only for schools, but for other reasons. People would begin to think of vacation times year round, not just in the summer.
For most people, it would take longer to complete their education.To get what originally had been in a bachelor’s program would now require advanced degrees and more schooling. So that a lot of school time would be just wasted time. Students would have to decide at a younger age what they would want to study and get onto their track early, if they would qualify. It would be harder to change to another field of study once you get started.
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 bum 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 recognized 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.”
Statistics aside, I think it is loud and clear that ‘education’ has increasingly become harder while children continuously feel pressured to learn ‘key subjects’ like English and Maths. It is no surprise mental health for children has been at a rapid decline. According to a 2014 Public Health England report conducted by HBSC, 11% of boys and 32% of girls aged 11-15 in the UK have self-harmed.
On top of education, as a result of technology and the media, newer struggles like social media, body consciousness and material needs are on the increase. Pressuring children to learn subjects with no real-world use and then forcing them to revise, else they are ‘failures’ is disgustingly egregious. I think you could argue lower school’s have a certain importance, with subjects like basic maths and English.
Unfortunately, from high school onwards, the curriculum switches to revising poems, 20th-century texts, complex maths (which can be done with a calculator), parts of a cell, coastal erosion and other subjects with no real use to anybody beyond school. Even if you argue that these subjects are important, most children will forget 95% of the information.
Britain’s modern education system is also based on competition, meaning exam grades are purposely spread out across the nation. Good grades are bad grades if everyone else does good, today’s system relies on beating other students, even if they did well too. Electrons in an atom, trigonometry, read your poem anthology, revise, revise! revise! Forget google and calculators exist. The ‘Education’ has clearly become outdated.
Claim: “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
This was sort of in contrast to generations of people up until this time where certain things you expected to be, and remain in place as reference points for your life. So change was to be brought about, change was to be anticipated and expected, and accepted, no questions asked.
Another comment that was made… from time to time during the presentation was, “People are too trusting. People don’t ask the right questions.” Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb. But sometimes when… when he would say that and say, “People don’t ask the right questions,” it was almost with a sense of regret, as if he were uneasy with what he was part of, and wished that people would challenge it and maybe not be so trusting”
This statement hardly needs explanation anymore. We are going to lockdown for two weeks, stay 6 feet away from everyone, wear a mask. Do not visit your family members, do not visit your friends. Close your business, go cashless, work from home. Take your child out of school. We are going to lockdown for 2 months… 6 months… a year. We are going to censor opposing opinions over social media. Wear 2 masks, now wear 3. Take a vaccine, take 2 vaccines, get your vaccine passport… now you need a booster shot.
A present theme today is that so long as the establishment can provide an ostensible reason, a justification behind authoritarianism, people tend to follow, and often unquestionably.
Ideologies like political corectness, which at once would have been regarded as loudacrous, now have a strong currency in western society. Worse yet, each new idea is equipped with a label if you beg to differ. For example, if you question the Covid-19 vaccine – one of the first ever mRNA vaccines, you are labelled an ‘Anti-vaxxer” or ”conspiracy theorist”. Equally, if one questions political correctness they are labelled as ”racist”, ”homophobe” or even a ”white supremacist”.
When media conglomerates work hand in hand to spread a certain agenda, it is clear that millions will follow.
Claim: “And the first consideration then here was contraception. Contraception would be very strongly encouraged, and it would be connected so closely in people’s minds with sex, that they would automatically think contraception when they were thinking or preparing for sex. And contraception would be made universally available. Nobody wanting contraception would be… find that they were unavailable.
Contraceptives would be displayed much more prominently in drug stores, right up with the cigarettes and chewing gum. Out in the open, rather than hidden under the counter where people would have to ask for them and maybe be embarrassed. This kind of openness was a way of suggesting that contraception’s… that contraceptives are just as much a part of life as any other items sold in the store. And, contraceptives would be advertised. And, contraceptives would be dispensed in the schools in association with sex education!”
What was once a behind-the-counter speciality, as Day said contraception has now become easily accessible. Unfortunately in this context, Day was regarding the need for contraception as a means of population control, however, current western laws have made it especially easy for people to access contraceptives.
In 1974, it became legal for ‘the pill’ to be prescribed to single women in the UK, and since then, more formulas have been developed giving a wider choice of treatments and contraceptives for avoiding pregnancies. It has also become know as a common form of birth control, helping millions of woman protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies, however, has continued to create controversy with religious and pro-life groups, as well as rising concerns over its safety.
Currently, under UK law, a doctor can prescribe contraceptives and contraceptive treatment to children under 16, and without even informing their parents, because ‘the duty of confidentiality owed to a person under 16 is as great as that owed to any other person’.
Since Day’s speech in 1969, the availability of contraceptive treatment has gone from a highly controlled behind-the-counter product, to a widely available product to have sex without the risk of getting pregnant.
Attitudes to sex have also changed through media representation, birth control movements, and social standards from sex being a pleasurable activity rather than for the means of reproduction. Sexualised media is one thing, but now youth’s as young as children can have sex without the need for the parents to know.
Claim: “No surprise then, that the next item was abortion. And this, now back in 1969, four years before Roe vs. Wade. He said, “Abortion will no longer be a crime. Abortion will be accepted as normal” and would be paid for by taxes for people who could not pay for then 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 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. So this will help overcome opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards will still refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they won’t matter anymore.”
In 1967, abortion became legal in the UK, and a further 4 years after the release of the tapes, abortion was legalised in the US. According to a 30-year survey performed by British Social Attitudes, in 1983, over half (55%) of the British public believed that a woman shouldn’t have the right to an abortion if she doesn’t want a baby. In the same recent survey, this had changed to two thirds.
Although abortion certainly could have its benefits, once again, unfortunately, Day was claiming this ‘organised’ establishment needed abortion as a means of decreasing the rate of population growth. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), between 2015-2019, an average of 73.3 million abortions took place worldwide, equating to around 203,000 abortions per day. The WHO also claimed that there were 39 abortions for every 1000 women and that 3 out of 10 pregnancies worldwide ended in abortion, and 6 out of 10 unintended pregnancies would end in abortion.
Despite the fact we do not live in a full Orwellian, totalitarian dystopia, and you could still argue that Day’s revelations in 1969, revealed by Lawrence Dunegan in 1988, were mistruths, I can’t deny that many of the things covered by Day came true, and many seem to lurk around the corner. If you had said in the 60s or 8os that many children of today would be coming home from a day at school, greeting their divorced parents, then going upstairs to listen to perverted rap and porn through their screens, you would have been called mad.
The tapes, which can be listened to here, or read as a transcript here, consisted of 3 hours of audio, and only a split of what was said is mentioned in this article. To sum up, below is a greater list of what was described. Many have not happened, some on their way, and many already accomplished.
Some of Day’s predictions, or rather, in his position as a director of Planned Parenthood, knowledge of what was coming could be seen as inevitable and thus could be compared to an axe. An axe can be used to cut down a tree or to kill someone. Examples like the promotion of homosexuality probably would have happened anyway and aren’t necessarily bad, but rather just being used for the wrong purpose. Throughout the ‘pandemic’ we have seen mass societal changes in the name of ‘protecting citizens’, and time will only tell how much closer we get to Orwells 1984.