Anyone who stands bewildered at the trends of our society, and thinks they are accidental and emergent – half believing official narratives, but half suspecting something is wrong – should read this transcript of a speech given on March 20, 1969, by Dr. Richard Day, to a group of students and health professionals.

The audience was asked to not record, and not take notes. Dr. Lawrence Dunegan did anyway:

PDF: Remarks by Dr. Richard Day, 1969


Population Control

He said the population was growing too fast. Numbers of people living at any one time on the planet must be limited or we will run out of space to live. We will outgrow our food supply and we will over-pollute the world with our waste.

Permission to Have Babies

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. That's because the zero population growth [rate] is 2.1 children per completed family.

Sex without Reproduction and Reproduction without Sex

He said sex must be separated from reproduction. Sex is too pleasurable, and the urges are too strong, to expect people to give it up. Chemicals in food and in the water supply to reduce the sex drive is not practical. The strategy then would be not to diminish sex activity, but to increase sex activity, but in such a way that people won't be having babies.

Contraception Universally available to All

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.

Sex Education as a Tool of World Government

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. At this point I was recalling some of my teachers, particularly in high school and found it totally unbelievable to think of them agreeing, much less participating in, distributing of contraceptives to students. But, that only reflected my lack of understanding of how these people operate. That was before the school-based clinic programs got started. Many, many cities in the United States by this time had already set up school-based clinics which were primarily contraception, birth control, population control clinics.

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 that this certainly would not be any longer considered necessary for sexual activity.

Tax Funded Abortion as Population Control

And this, 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 their own abortions.

Encouraging Homosexuality, Sex, ‘Anything Goes’

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!" But that was the terminology that was used. In this regard, clothing was mentioned. Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative. Recall back in 1969 [it] 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 [his] statements.


Earlier he said 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. He indicated that already, much, much research was under way about making babies in the laboratory.

Families to Diminish in Importance

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. Travel would be easier [and] 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. If both husband and wife are working and one partner gets transferred the other one may not be easily transferred. So one either keeps his or her job and stays behind while the other leaves, or else gives up the job and risks not finding employment in the new location.

Euthanasia and the "Demise Pill"

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.

Limiting access to affordable Medical Care makes Eliminating the Elderly Easier

A big item – [that] was elaborated at some length – was the cost of medical care would be 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.

Planning the Control over Medicine

There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled. The observation was made: "Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance. That [in 1969, he said] is now, abundantly evident. But it's not necessary. We have other ways to control health care."

These would come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work. If you don't work or can't work, you won't have access to medical care. The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where it was virtually nonexistent. Costs would be forced up so that people won't be able to afford to go without insurance. People pay... you pay for it, you're entitled to it. It was only subsequently that I began to realize the extent to which you would not be paying for it. Your medical care would be paid for by others. And therefore you would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was offered to you as a privilege.

Elimination of Private Doctors

The image of the doctor would change. No longer would he be seen as an individual professional in service to individual patients. But the doctor would be gradually recognized as a highly skilled technician ... and his job would change. The job [would] include things like executions by lethal injection. The image of the doctor being a powerful, independent person would have to be changed. And he went on to say: "Doctors are making entirely too much money. They should advertise like any other [service]."

New Difficult-to-Diagnose and Untreatable Diseases

He said new diseases [would] appear which had never been seen before. [These] would be very difficult to diagnose and [would] 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 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 AIDS was probably a manufactured disease.

Suppressing Cancer Cures as a Means of Population Control

He said: "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 over-populated. You may as well die of cancer as something else."

Inducing Heart Attacks as a Form of Assassination

He said: "There is now a way to simulate a real heart attack. It can be used as a means of assassination." Only a very skilled pathologist, who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish this from the real thing.

And he said something [to the effect that] dietary information, [information] about proper diet, would be widely available, but that most people – particularly stupid people, who had no right to continue living anyway – would ignore the advice and just go on and eat whatever was convenient and tasted good.

Convenience foods would be part of the hazards. Anybody who was lazy enough to want the convenience foods rather than fixing his own also had better be energetic enough to exercise. Because if he was too lazy to exercise and too lazy to fix his own food, then he didn't deserve to live very long.

Blending all Religions...The Old Religions will have to Go

And he said: "Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it's 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.

Changing the Bible through the Revision of Key Words

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. Then, the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word. And as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized, and then gradually that word replaced with another word.

The Churches will Help

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!"

And in the subsequent 20 years we've seen how some people in churches have helped.

Restructuring Education as a Tool of Indoctrination

In addition to changing the Bible, he said that the classics in Literature would be changed. I seem to recall Mark Twain's writings being given as an example. But he said, the casual reader reading a revised version of a classic would never even suspect that there was any change. Somebody would have to go it through word by word to even recognize that any change was made in [any of] these classics – the changes would be so subtle. But the changes would be such as to promote the acceptability of the new system.

More Time in Schools, but they "Wouldn't Learn Anything."

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. Better schools in better areas with better people – their kids will learn more. In the better schools, learning would be accelerated.

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.

It would be harder to change to another field of study once you get started. Studies would be concentrated in much greater depth, but narrowed. You wouldn't have access to material in other fields, outside your own area of study, without approval.

People would be very specialized in their own area of expertise. But they won't be able to get a broad education and won't be able to understand what is going on overall.

Controlling who has Access to Information

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.

Schools as the Hub of the Community

Kids, in addition to their academic [needs], would have to get into school activities unless they wanted to feel completely out of it.

In this connection, and later on in connection with drug abuse and alcohol abuse, he indicated that psychiatric services would be increased dramatically.

Some Books would just Disappear from the Libraries

In addition to revising the classics, he said: "... some books would just disappear from the libraries." This was in the vein that some books contain information or contain ideas that should not be kept around. And therefore, those books would disappear.

Changing Laws

At that time a lot of States had blue laws about Sunday sales, certain Sunday activities. He said the blue laws would all be repealed. Gambling laws would be repealed or relaxed, so that gambling would be increased. He indicated then that governments would get into gambling. We've had a lot of state lotteries pop up around the country since then.

Encouragement of Drug Abuse to create a Jungle Atmosphere

Drug use would be increased. Alcohol use would be increased. Law enforcement efforts against drugs would be increased. On first hearing that, it sounded like a contradiction. Why increase drug abuse and simultaneously increase law enforcement against drug abuse? 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.

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.

Alcohol Abuse

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.

Restrictions on Travel

Not everybody should be free to travel the way they do now in the United States. People don't have a need to travel that way. It's a privilege!

The Need for More Jails, and Using Hospitals as Jails

More jails would be needed. Hospitals could serve as jails. Some new hospital construction would be designed so as to make them adaptable to jail-like use.


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 [a] jungle [feeling], [a] depressed atmosphere for the unfit.

Other areas there would be well-maintained. Not every part of the city would be slums. There would be the created slums, while other areas [would be] well maintained. Those people able to leave the slums for better areas would learn to better appreciate the importance of human accomplishment. This meant that if they left the jungle and came to civilization, so to speak, they could be proud of their own accomplishments that they made it. There was no related sympathy for those who were left behind in the jungle of drugs and deteriorating neighborhoods. Then a statement that was kind of surprising: "We think we can effectively limit crime to the slum areas, so it won't be spread heavily into better areas."

Consolidating Policy

He went on to say that increased security would be needed in the better areas. That would mean more police, better coordinated police efforts. He did not say so, but I wondered at that time about the moves that were afoot to consolidate all the police departments of suburbs around the major cities. I think the John Birch Society was one that was saying, "Support your local police; don't let them be consolidated." And I remember wondering if that was one of the things he had in mind about security. It was not explicitly stated.

Anyhow, he went on to say there would be a whole new industry of residential security systems with alarms and locks. The alarms would [connect] to the police department so that people could protect their wealth and their well-being. [However] some of the criminal activity would spill out of the slums into better, more affluent 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."

Global Interdependence:

"To Create a New Structure, you first have to tear down the Old." American industry came under discussion – it was the first that I'd heard the term ‘Global Interdependence’ or that notion. The stated plan was that different parts of the world would be assigned different roles in 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 several occasions where he said that, in order to create a new structure, you first have to tear down the old. American industry was one example of that. Our system would have to be curtailed in order to give other countries a chance to build their industries, because otherwise they would not be able to compete against the United States. And this was especially true of our heavy industries – they would be cut back while the same industries were being developed in other countries, notably Japan.

Patriotism would go down the Drain

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 [our] foreign competitors.

Loss of Jobs: Loss of Security

The United States was to be kept strong in information, communications, high technology, education and agriculture. It would continue to be sort of the keystone of the global system. But heavy industry would be transported out. One of the comments made about heavy industry was that we had had enough environmental damage from smokestacks and industrial waste and some of the .. people could put up with that for a while. This again was supposed to be a "redeeming quality" which Americans could accept. You took away our industry but you saved our environment. So we really didn't lose out.

Population Shifts to Eliminate "Traditions"

Along the line there was talk about people losing their jobs as a result of industrial [policy]. Opportunities for retraining and, particularly, population shifts would be brought about.

They would be, 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 changing traditions in a place where people grew up and had an extended family – where they had roots.

World Citizens, World Sports

Some heavy industry would remain. Just enough to maintain a sort of a seedbed of industrial skills which could be expanded if the plan didn't work out as it was intended. So the country would not be devoid of assets and skills. But this was just sort of a contingency plan. It was hoped and expected that the worldwide specialization would be carried on.

Sports in the United States were to be changed, in part as a way of de-emphasizing nationalism. Soccer, a world-wide sport, was to be emphasized and pushed in the United States. This is of interest because the game of soccer was virtually unknown at that time. I had a few friends who attended an elementary school other than the one I attended where they played soccer at their school, and they were a real novelty. This was back in the 50's. So to hear this man speak of soccer in this area was kind of surprising.


Hunting requires guns and gun control is a big element in these plans. I don't remember the details much, but the idea is that gun ownership is a privilege and not everybody should have guns. Hunting was an inadequate excuse for owning guns and everybody should be restricted in gun ownership. The few privileged people who should be allowed to hunt could maybe rent or borrow a gun from official quarters rather than own their own. After all, everybody doesn't have a need for a gun.

Sports for Girls: to De-emphasize Femininity

Athletics would be pushed for girls. This was intended to replace dolls. Baby dolls would still be around, a few of them, but you would not see the number and variety of dolls. Dolls would not be pushed because girls should not be thinking about babies and reproduction. Girls should be out on the athletic field just as the boys are. Girls and boys really need not to be all that different. Tea sets were to go the way of dolls, and all these things that traditionally were thought of as feminine would be de-emphasized as girls got into more masculine pursuits. Just one other thing I recall was that the sports pages would be full of the scores of girls' teams just right along there with the boys' teams.

Entertainment: Violence, Sex and Desensitization

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 theaters, on television. VCRs 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."

This was the first statement suggesting that the plan includes numerous human casualties which the survivors would see.

Music will get Worse

As regards music, he made a rather straightforward statement: "Music will get worse."

In 1969 rock music was getting more and more unpleasant. It was interesting 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...their own radio stations to hear. He seemed to indicate that, as it got worse and worse, 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.

Give us the Young

This aspect was...summarized in the notion that entertainment would be a tool to influence young people. It won't change the older people – they are already set in their ways – but the changes would be all aimed at the young, who are in their formative years, and the older generation would be passing.

Travel Restrictions, National ID, the Chip, etc.

Then, the presentation began to get rather grim, because once that generation passed – that would be in the late 80's and early 90's where we are now – most of that [age] group would be gone. Then, gradually, things would tighten up and the tightening up would be accelerated. The old movies and old songs would be withdrawn; the gentler entertainment would be withdrawn.

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 with these skin-implanted IDs, he said, would 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. [Furthermore], 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. Silicon at that time was thought to be well tolerated. It was used to augment breasts. Women who felt their breasts were too small would get silicon implants, and I guess that still goes on.

Food Control

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 ...

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, that 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. [Therefore] growing your own food would be illegal. And if you persist in illegal activities like growing your own food, then you're a criminal.

Weather Control

There was a mention then of weather. He made 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."

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 [geographical regions] 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."


He said that very few people really know how government works. Something to the effect that elected officials are influenced in ways they don't even realize, 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.

Know how People respond: Making them do what you want

One statement: "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."

Falsified Scientific Research

Somewhere in this connection, then, was a statement admitting that some scientific research data could be – and indeed had been – falsified in order to bring about desired results. [Dr Day] said: "People don't ask the right questions. Some people are too trusting."

Acceptance of the UN: The End justifies the Means

Acceptance of the UN at that time was not as widespread as [they had] hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations increasing importance.

It was stated at this point that war was "obsolete." I thought that was an interesting phrase because obsolete means something that was once useful but is no longer useful. But war is obsolete...because nuclear bombs [meant] war was no longer controllable. Formerly, wars could be controlled, but if nuclear weapons would fall into the wrong hands there could be an unintended nuclear disaster.

This was... [a] very impressive thing to hear then: "If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two – possibly more – nuclear weapons. As it was put this would possibly be needed to convince people that “We mean business.”

That was followed by the statement: "By the time one or two of those went off, then everybody – even the most reluctant – would yield."

War is Good: Cannon-Fodder, keep the Population down, and Die a Hero

[Dr Day said] that there were some good things about war... One, you're going to die anyway, and people sometimes get a chance in war to display great courage and heroism, and if they die they've died well, and if they survive they get recognition.

In any case, the hardships of war on soldiers are worth it because that's the reward they get out of their warring.

Another justification [he expressed] for war was [that if] the many millions of casualties in WWI and WWII ... had not died but had continued to live, and continued to have babies, there would be millions upon millions [more people on the planet] and we would already be overpopulated. So those two great wars served a benign purpose in delaying over-population.

But now there are technological means [whereby] the individual and governments can control over-population, so in this regard war is obsolete. It's no longer needed.

Terrorism: The Great Tool for 'Control'

Terrorism would be used widely in Europe and in other parts of the world. Terrorism at that time was [not considered] necessary in the United States. [However] it could become necessary in the US if the US did not move rapidly enough toward accepting the system.

Money and Banking

One statement was: "Inflation is infinite. You can put an infinite number of zeros after any number and put the decimals points wherever you want" an indication that inflation is a tool of the controllers.

[Dr Day stated] that any purchase of significant size like an automobile, bicycle, a refrigerator, a radio, 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 – the 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. [He made a statement which recognised] 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.

Basically the idea was to prevent people from accumulating any wealth which might have a long range disruptive influence on the system. People would be encouraged to use credit, to borrow, and then also to renege on their debt, so they would destroy their own credit.

So the next step would be the single card and then the next step [after that] would be to replace the single card with a skin implant. The single card could be lost or stolen, [it could] give rise to problems; [or it] could be exchanged with somebody else to confuse identity.

The skin implants would have to be put some place that would be convenient for the skin, for example your right hand or your forehead.

Big Brother is Watching you: While you're watching TV

There was some mention, also, of implants that would lend themselves to surveillance by providing radio signals. This could be [placed] under the skin or [via] a dental implant...

[Dr Day also] 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 [to happen]. The TV set would not have to be on in order for this to be operative. Also, the television set could be used to monitor what you are watching. People could 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.

Privately owned Homes – "A Thing of the Past"

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 and 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 prices 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. 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. Then these homes could be taken by increased taxes or other regulations that would be detrimental to home ownership [but] acceptable to the majority. Ultimately, people would be assigned [to] where they would live and it would be common to have non-family members living with you ... This would all be under the control of a central housing authority.

There just won't be any room, Dr Day 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." And here I don't remember the exact words, but the inference I drew was that at these special places where they were taken, then they would not live very long. He may have said something like, "disposed of humanely."

Somewhere in this vein he said there would not be any martyrs. When I first heard this I thought it meant the people would not be killed, but as the presentation developed what he meant was they 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 he said something like this: "People will just disappear."

1969, folks.

Read the whole thing: PDF