COMMENTS FROM STREET TALK NETWORK ABOUT THIS POST-

1. Do your own research on the information provided and then come up with your own conclusions.

2. This article contains many names and other information that can be researched.

3. Trust your gut feeling on information provided as this post may contain slanted information.

The story concerns a private address reportedly delivered by pediatrician Dr. Richard L. Day to approximately 80 physicians—mostly pediatric specialists—at a Pittsburgh Pediatric Society meeting in March 1969. The talk later became known as “The New Order of the Barbarians.”

Importantly, no recording, transcript, minutes, or contemporaneous notes from the alleged 1969 address have surfaced. Nearly everything now attributed to Day comes from Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, who recorded his recollections in 1988—about 19 years afterward—and identified Day publicly in a later interview. Therefore, the statements should be described as Dunegan’s recollections of Day, not established quotations from a surviving Day speech.

According to Dunegan, Day told the doctors that powerful, unnamed people were directing social change and intended to establish a new worldwide system. The physicians were supposedly being informed in advance so they could recognize and adapt to the approaching changes. Day allegedly requested no recording or note-taking and declared that the arrangements were already in place and could no longer be stopped.

What Day allegedly predicted or disclosed

Dunegan attributed an extraordinarily broad collection of claims to Day:

• Governments would seek increasingly centralized
  control over individuals.
• Constant change would weaken people’s attachment
  to traditions and institutions.
• Population growth would be restricted through
  contraception, abortion and limits on family size.
• Reproduction would become increasingly separated
  from marriage and sexual relations.
• Sex education would be used to transform social
  attitudes.
• Traditional family structures and religious
  authority would be weakened.
• Education would become more specialized,
  regimented and centrally directed.
• Entertainment and television would help reshape
  public conduct.
• Personal information would be consolidated into
  computerized records.
• Cash would gradually give way to electronic
  financial systems.
• Travel and movement would become easier to
  monitor.
• Gun ownership would be restricted.
• Drug use would be encouraged or managed for
  social purposes.
• Criminal penalties and prisons would expand.
• Doctors would lose professional independence and
  become employees or “technicians” within large systems.
• Healthcare access would increasingly be
  controlled through institutional rules.
• Care for elderly or seriously ill people would be
  limited according to cost and social priorities.
• Assisted death or euthanasia would eventually
  become socially acceptable.
• Scientific research could be manipulated to
  obtain desired political results.
• New diseases could be introduced or used to
  control populations.
• Medical knowledge, including supposed cancer
  cures, could be withheld.
• A method existed for inducing an apparently
  natural heart attack.

Dunegan also remembered Day saying that public programs often had two purposes: an acceptable stated purpose and a concealed purpose advancing the larger system. He attributed another recurring warning to Day: people were too trusting and failed to ask the correct questions.

What can actually be established

Richard Day was a genuine and respected pediatrician. He held senior academic positions, conducted research involving premature infants and neonatal jaundice, and was associated with Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Sources connected with the story also identify him as a former medical director at Planned Parenthood.

What has not been independently established is that Day delivered all—or any—of the sensational statements appearing in Dunegan’s recordings. The evidentiary problems are substantial:

1. Dunegan waited almost two decades before recording his recollections.

2. He acknowledged that no notes or recordings were made during the alleged lecture.

3. No other identifiable attendee has provided a comparable detailed account.

4. No original program, speech manuscript or institutional record confirming the contents has been produced.

5. Several “predictions” concerned trends already visible in 1969, including computers, contraception, television, population policy and changes in medical organization.

6. Some passages contain Dunegan’s later interpretation rather than something he specifically remembered Day saying. His speculation that AIDS was manufactured is one particularly important example.

7. Internet transcripts frequently combine Dunegan’s recollections, later interviews and editorial commentary, making it difficult to determine which language originated where.

The surviving material is therefore historically interesting as a late witness account, but it is not adequate by itself to prove the existence of a coordinated program controlling all the developments described. A responsible article can examine how some alleged predictions resemble later events, but it should not present resemblance as proof that Day possessed inside knowledge or that one organization secretly caused those events.

The most accessible surviving source is the complete Dunegan transcript preserved by the Internet Archive. It should be read with the distinction firmly in mind: these are Dunegan’s memories recorded in 1988 and a later interview—not a recording of Richard Day speaking in 1969.

go more into detail by using other sources

Dr. Richard Day’s Alleged 1969 Warning to Doctors

The account commonly called “The New Order of the Barbarians” concerns an address that Dr. Richard L. Day allegedly gave to approximately 80 physicians at a Pittsburgh Pediatric Society dinner in March 1969.

According to physician Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, Day described sweeping changes that powerful people intended to introduce before the beginning of the 21st century. Dunegan believed Day was warning his fellow doctors that medicine, family life, sexuality, education, religion, technology and government would be transformed as parts of a coordinated program.

There is an essential limitation, however: no recording, manuscript, official transcript, attendance list or contemporary notes from the speech have been publicly produced. The surviving account is primarily Dunegan’s reconstruction, recorded approximately 19 years later. It is therefore valuable as testimony but cannot be treated as a verified verbatim speech.

Who was Dr. Richard L. Day?

Richard Hoe Lawrence Day was born in New York City in 1905. He graduated from Harvard College in 1927 and Harvard Medical School in 1931.

His documented positions included:

These appointments are corroborated by Day’s professional profiles and his 1989 obituary. A 1965 medical-journal announcement also identified him as medical director of Planned Parenthood–World Population. JAMA Pediatrics announcement

Day was not an obscure or discredited physician. He was respected for research on premature infants’ body-temperature regulation and on the relationship between bilirubin, newborn jaundice and brain injury. In 1986, the American Pediatric Society presented him with its highest distinction, the John Howland Award. The presentation characterized him as a notably skeptical scientific investigator. Pediatric Research’s Howland Award profile, American Academy of Pediatrics archival collection

Day died in June 1989 at the age of 84.

The alleged Pittsburgh meeting

Dunegan supplied the following description years afterward:

• The occasion was a regular Pittsburgh Pediatric
  Society meeting.
• It was held at the LeMont restaurant in
  Pittsburgh.
• Approximately 80 people attended.
• Most were physicians, including pediatricians,
  pediatric surgeons and pediatric radiologists.
• Day spoke after dinner for approximately two
  hours.
• Day allegedly requested that nobody record the
  presentation or take notes.
• Dunegan said Day predicted that listeners would
  forget much of what he was about to tell them.
• Dunegan remembered the audience showing
  surprisingly little resistance.
• Day supposedly stopped because it was becoming
  late, while saying that much more could be discussed.

Dunegan recorded his first extended reconstruction in 1988. A later interview with anti-abortion activist Randy Engel provided further biographical information and explicitly identified the speaker as Richard Day. The complete circulated transcript combines those recollections and subsequent commentary.

Some online versions give March 20, 1969 as the exact date. That date has been repeated widely, but a publicly accessible original meeting program confirming it remains difficult to locate.

Day’s central alleged message

According to Dunegan, Day’s fundamental assertion was that social change was not occurring spontaneously. An organized but unnamed group supposedly possessed enough influence to direct political, cultural, technological and medical developments.

Day allegedly told the physicians that:

• An entirely new worldwide system would operate by
  the beginning of the 21st century.
• The program was larger than either capitalism or
  communism.
• Cooperation between leaders in the East and West
  was greater than the public realized.
• Many government officials did not know where
  important decisions were actually made.
• The people exercising the greatest influence were
  prominent private individuals rather than elected officials.
• The system was already sufficiently advanced that
  it could no longer be stopped.
• Doctors were being told beforehand so they could
  adapt more easily and help administer the changing social order.

The most widely repeated line—“Everything is in place and nobody can stop us now”—comes through Dunegan’s memory, not an original recording of Day.

“People will have to become accustomed to change”

Dunegan said Day repeatedly emphasized continuous change. Stable institutions, customs and expectations would supposedly be replaced so often that people would cease asking who was directing the changes.

In this account, constant change served several purposes:

1. It weakened people’s attachment to inherited standards.

2. It prevented society from using stable reference points to judge new policies.

3. It encouraged the belief that resistance was outdated or futile.

4. It made centralized decisions appear to be inevitable modernization.

5. It taught younger generations to accept conditions their parents would have resisted.

This is one of the more philosophical parts of Dunegan’s account. It is not a narrowly testable prediction.

The stated reason and the alleged real reason

Dunegan attributed another important principle to Day: major programs would have both an ostensible purpose and a real purpose.

The ostensible purpose would be publicly attractive—health, safety, convenience, equality, efficiency or environmental protection. The alleged concealed purpose would be to strengthen the emerging system.

That principle allows believers to reinterpret almost any public policy as secretly serving another objective. It also creates a serious evidentiary problem: if every explanation offered by officials is presumed false, the theory becomes difficult to test or disprove.

Population control

Population was reportedly Day’s first major subject. Dunegan said Day claimed that the world’s population had to be restricted to prevent overcrowding and exhaustion of resources.

The measures allegedly discussed included:

• Widespread availability of contraception.
• Government-supported family-planning programs.
• Greater acceptance of abortion.
• Social pressure toward smaller families.
• Delaying marriage.
• Separating sexual activity from reproduction.
• Technological reproduction without conventional
  sexual relations.
• Eventually requiring some form of permission to
  have children.
• Directing population policies differently in
  developed and developing countries.

What was already public in 1969

Concern about population growth was not secret in 1969. Books such as Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb had attracted widespread attention in 1968. Governments, foundations, universities and international organizations openly debated family planning.

On July 18, 1969—several months after the alleged Day talk—President Richard Nixon sent Congress a major message describing population growth as a serious challenge. Nixon proposed expanded family-planning services and a Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. He expressly stated, however, that these programs should not violate personal wishes, religious convictions or freedom of conscience. Nixon’s 1969 population message

Congress subsequently created the commission, and Nixon signed the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act in December 1970. Nixon’s signing statement

Thus, Day’s professional involvement in population policy is documented. A secret plan to require government permission for childbirth is not.

Sex without reproduction and reproduction without sex

Dunegan remembered Day discussing two parallel developments:

• Sexual activity would increasingly be separated
  from procreation through contraception and abortion.
• Reproduction would increasingly be separated from
  intercourse through artificial insemination and laboratory techniques.

These were not unimaginable concepts in 1969. Artificial insemination had existed for decades, reproductive biology was advancing and oral contraceptives had been available in the United States since 1960. The first child born through successful in-vitro fertilization, Louise Brown, arrived in 1978.

The development of IVF makes Dunegan’s recollection appear predictive, but it does not demonstrate secret knowledge. Physicians specializing in pediatrics, reproductive medicine or population policy would have been unusually well positioned to anticipate such developments.

Changes in sexuality and family life

According to Dunegan, Day predicted:

• Sex education would begin at younger ages.
• Traditional sexual standards would be weakened.
• Premarital sexual activity would become more
  accepted.
• Homosexuality would become increasingly visible
  and accepted.
• Divorce would become easier.
• Marriage would lose some of its cultural
  authority.
• Fewer people would live in conventional
  two-parent households.
• More women would enter long-term professional
  employment.
• Children would spend more time in institutional
  childcare.
• Governments and professional organizations would
  assume responsibilities previously belonging to parents.

Many of these developments did occur to varying degrees. But the United States was already experiencing the sexual revolution, feminist organizing, rising divorce rates, public controversy over sex education and the early gay-rights movement by 1969. The Stonewall uprising occurred in June of that year.

Consequently, such observations can be interpreted as extrapolations from existing trends rather than proof of an undisclosed master plan.

Religion

Dunegan said Day described traditional religion as an impediment because it gave people permanent moral standards that could resist continuous social change.

Day allegedly predicted:

• Established doctrines would be weakened.
• Religions would compromise their distinctive
  teachings.
• A generalized, non-dogmatic spirituality would be
  encouraged.
• Scripture would be revised or reinterpreted.
• Churches would assist social-change programs.
• The Roman Catholic Church would be a particularly
  difficult obstacle because of its teachings about abortion, contraception
  and sexual conduct.

Dunegan and Engel, both strongly opposed to abortion, interpreted later religious changes through this framework. Their own religious and political commitments must be considered when evaluating how they remembered and presented Day’s alleged remarks.

Education

The educational changes attributed to Day included:

• Children entering formal education at younger
  ages.
• Schools assuming functions previously performed
  by families.
• Traditional subjects receiving less emphasis.
• More vocational specialization.
• Students being placed on occupational tracks at
  younger ages.
• Schooling lasting longer for some students but
  becoming more controlled.
• Education being treated as continuing retraining
  because jobs and technology would constantly change.
• Schools teaching attitudes and conduct as well as
  academic information.
• Private education becoming more expensive or
  difficult to maintain.

Some of these claims resemble real developments, but others are so general that almost any modern school system could be presented as confirmation.

Medicine and the loss of the independent physician

This portion of the alleged address would have been especially relevant to Day’s audience.

Dunegan said Day predicted that physicians would:

• Lose their status as independent professionals.
• Become salaried employees of large organizations.
• Function more like highly trained technicians.
• Follow institutional rules rather than rely
  exclusively upon personal judgment.
• Spend less time with individual patients.
• Become dependent upon centralized medical
  records.
• Face pressure to contain costs.
• Participate in decisions about which patients
  should receive expensive treatment.
• Advertise their services like other businesses.
• No longer enjoy exceptionally high income or
  social authority.

Several of these trends did develop through hospital systems, insurance networks, health-maintenance organizations, corporate medical practices, utilization review and managed care. Nevertheless, organized and prepaid medical practice already existed before 1969. Anyone involved in national health policy could have foreseen increasing institutional control as medicine became more technically complex and expensive.

Dunegan also attributed to Day the prediction that hospitals might be designed so that they could function like secure institutions or detention facilities. No documentation has been found showing that Day or a government agency instituted a general hospital-to-prison conversion program.

Electronic medical records and loss of privacy

Day allegedly spoke about centralized computer records containing:

• Medical histories.
• Financial information.
• Employment information.
• Criminal records.
• Educational records.
• Personal identifying information.

Dunegan believed this predicted modern databases and electronic medical records.

Computers were already being used by government, universities, banks and large corporations in the 1960s. Public concern about computerized personal dossiers was sufficiently advanced that Congress held privacy discussions during the following decade. Day could reasonably have anticipated wider computerization without possessing secret information.

The prediction was directionally accurate, but the claim that every database was part of one coordinated system remains unsupported.

Electronic money

Dunegan recalled Day forecasting:

• Declining use of cash.
• Greater reliance on electronic financial
  transactions.
• A system in which purchases could be traced.
• The possibility of restricting an individual’s
  access to money electronically.
• Personal identification connected to the
  financial system.

Credit cards and electronic banking were already developing rapidly in the 1960s. BankAmericard—later Visa—began in 1958, while automated teller and electronic-transfer technologies were emerging during the same period.

It is therefore inaccurate to treat the idea of electronic payments as inconceivable in 1969. The more extreme claim—that a central authority would use a cashless system to control every person—has not been established by the Dunegan material.

Personal identification and surveillance

Dunegan said Day anticipated:

• More comprehensive personal identification.
• Extensive computer records.
• Monitoring through communications systems.
• Tracking individuals’ purchases and movements.
• Reduced practical anonymity.
• Technology eventually allowing people to be
  located quickly.

Modern smartphones, internet services, credit-card systems, facial recognition and location tracking make these recollections appear striking. Nevertheless, Dunegan recorded them in 1988, not 1969. By 1988, computerized databases, electronic transactions and sophisticated surveillance technology were already realities. Without a contemporary record, it is impossible to determine precisely how Day originally phrased these ideas.

Television, entertainment and shortened attention spans

Day allegedly described television and entertainment as tools capable of changing conduct. Dunegan remembered predictions that:

• Television would occupy more of people’s leisure
  time.
• Programming would contain increasing violence and
  sexual material.
• Entertainment would gradually normalize formerly
  unacceptable conduct.
• News would become increasingly managed and
  simplified.
• Information would be delivered in shorter
  segments.
• People’s ability to concentrate on long,
  difficult arguments would decline.
• Music and popular culture would be used to affect
  young people’s behavior.

Television’s persuasive power was already widely recognized by advertisers, political campaigns and communications researchers in the 1950s and 1960s. The first nationally televised presidential debates occurred in 1960. These observations were prescient in places but did not necessarily require confidential information.

Drugs, alcohol and law enforcement

According to Dunegan, Day said that society would publicly condemn drug use while allowing or encouraging enough availability to create instability and dependency. He also allegedly predicted:

• Increased drug consumption.
• Alcohol being used as a social escape.
• Harsh penalties for selected drug offenses.
• More prisons and detention capacity.
• A carefully managed balance between disorder and
  governmental response.

The later War on Drugs, mass incarceration and widespread addiction are sometimes cited as confirmation. Yet drug use and public anxiety over narcotics were already prominent in the 1960s. President Nixon issued a special message to Congress on narcotics and dangerous drugs in July 1969.

No evidence in the Dunegan account establishes that Day personally directed drug policy or had advance knowledge of a unified plan to promote addiction.

Gun control

Dunegan attributed to Day a prediction that private gun possession would be restricted. The supposed strategy was gradual regulation rather than immediate confiscation.

Gun-control debate was already intense when the alleged speech occurred. Congress had passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 following the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. Forecasting further disputes or regulation in March 1969 would therefore have been neither extraordinary nor secret.

Travel, roads and movement

Other claims involved:

• Greater regulation of travel.
• Fewer completely independent travel choices.
• Streets being renamed or rerouted.
• Older neighborhoods becoming unfamiliar.
• Public transportation and urban planning shaping
  people’s movement.
• Private automobiles becoming more expensive to
  operate.
• Identification being increasingly necessary for
  travel.

Some later accounts connect these statements to airport security, vehicle restrictions and digitally monitored travel. But those connections are retrospective. Dunegan’s language is too broad to establish that Day predicted particular systems such as modern airport screening or GPS tracking.

Euthanasia and care for older people

Dunegan remembered Day saying that:

• Society would emphasize dying with “dignity.”
• Expensive treatment for the very old would be
  questioned.
• People would become more accepting of medically
  assisted death.
• The social image of death would be softened
  through careful terminology.
• Younger generations would be educated to accept
  such practices.

Debate about euthanasia existed long before 1969. What changed later was the growth of hospice care, advance directives, withdrawal of extraordinary treatment and, in certain jurisdictions, legally regulated medical assistance in dying.

These are not all equivalent. Hospice treatment and a patient’s refusal of burdensome treatment should not automatically be described as involuntary population control. Dunegan’s interpretation sometimes places ethically different practices under one sinister heading.

The claim that cancer cures were being suppressed

One of the most serious allegations is that Day said scientists could cure nearly every cancer but that knowledge was being withheld to allow people to die and reduce the population.

There is no credible documentation establishing that a universal cancer cure existed in 1969 and was stored at the Rockefeller Institute. Cancer is not one disease but a large family of biologically different diseases. Treatment has advanced unevenly because different cancers require different approaches.

Some cancers now have very high survival rates; others remain difficult to treat. That pattern is inconsistent with the claim that one comprehensive cure was discovered and deliberately hidden.

This passage survives only through Dunegan’s memory and should not be reported as medical fact.

Induced heart attacks and assassination

Dunegan also attributed to Day the assertion that an assassination could be made to resemble a natural heart attack.

There is historical evidence that intelligence agencies researched toxins and covert delivery mechanisms. The 1975 Senate Church Committee displayed a modified pistol capable of firing a small poison dart, and CIA assassination-planning records contain discussions of poisons.

That history establishes that covert poison technologies were investigated. It does not independently establish that Day possessed such a method, that the alleged 1969 statement was made or that particular public figures were killed this way. A general possibility should not be turned into an accusation about a named death without case-specific evidence.

New or manufactured diseases

Dunegan said Day warned that new diseases would appear for which no effective treatment was available. He later speculated that AIDS might have been manufactured.

This distinction is crucial:

• Dunegan’s AIDS interpretation was made after AIDS
  had emerged.
• AIDS was not mentioned by name in 1969.
• Dunegan offered no laboratory or documentary
  proof that HIV was manufactured.
• Modern genetic and epidemiological research
  traces HIV’s origin to cross-species transmission of simian
  immunodeficiency viruses, followed by human circulation decades before
  AIDS was recognized in the United States.

Dunegan’s speculation should never be transformed into a direct Richard Day prediction.

Weather modification

Certain extended transcripts say Day discussed influencing weather for military or political purposes. Weather modification was a real research field during the Cold War. The United States conducted cloud-seeding work, including Operation Popeye during the Vietnam War.

That documented history means discussion of weather modification in 1969 would have been plausible. It does not establish the ability to control all major storms, create earthquakes or manipulate the global climate with precision.

War, nationalism and world government

Dunegan remembered Day describing a future in which:

• National sovereignty would weaken.
• International institutions would become stronger.
• Wars could be used to reorganize governments and
  economies.
• Regional alliances would lead toward a wider
  system.
• Patriotism would be discouraged when it
  interfered with international integration.
• Different political systems might outwardly
  compete while cooperating behind the scenes.

International integration was already a major postwar development. The United Nations, NATO, European Economic Community, World Bank and International Monetary Fund all existed before 1969. Predicting continued international organization was reasonable. Claiming that all conflicts were staged by one controlling group requires considerably stronger evidence than Dunegan provided.

Evaluating the alleged predictions

Why the account remains influential

The Dunegan recordings continue to attract attention for several understandable reasons:

• Some remembered predictions resemble later
  technological and social developments.
• Day genuinely occupied influential positions in
  medicine and population policy.
• Government secrecy and documented abuses make
  people reluctant to dismiss warnings automatically.
• The speech’s claimed secrecy adds to its
  mystique.
• The testimony brings numerous anxieties together
  into one explanatory narrative.
• Modern surveillance, corporate medicine and
  electronic financial systems make parts of the account feel contemporary.

But the same features also encourage confirmation bias: accurate-looking generalizations are emphasized, failed or vague predictions receive less attention, and events arising from many independent causes are attributed to a single unseen organization.

Overall conclusion

There are really three separate historical questions:

1. Was Richard Day an influential pediatrician and former Planned Parenthood medical director?
Yes. That is well documented.

2. Did Lawrence Dunegan publicly say that he heard Day deliver this extraordinary address in 1969?
Yes. Dunegan recorded that account in 1988 and expanded upon it later.

3. Can every statement in the circulated transcript be verified as something Day actually said in 1969?
No. There is no original recording, speech manuscript, contemporary transcript or adequate independent corroboration.

The safest historical description is therefore:

In 1988, Dr. Lawrence Dunegan recorded his recollection of a remarkable address he said Dr. Richard Day had delivered to Pittsburgh physicians in 1969. Dunegan attributed numerous predictions and disclosures to Day, but the contents of the alleged address remain uncorroborated by an original recording or contemporary documentary record.

The account deserves investigation, especially by searching the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society’s archives, local newspaper society columns, the University of Pittsburgh medical archives, LeMont restaurant event records, Planned Parenthood’s historical files and the papers of physicians who may have attended. Until such material appears, however, Dunegan’s testimony should be presented as an important but unverified recollection—not a proven transcript of a secret 1969 program.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form