The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship

Illuminating the Occult Origin of Darwinism

As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses. This article will show that the history and background of this ‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in Freemasonry.
The Epistemological Cartel

In The Architecture of Modern Political Power, Daniel Pouzzner outlines the tactics employed by the elite to maintain their dominance. Among them is: ‘Ostensible control over the knowable, by marketing institutionally accredited science as the only path to true understanding’ (Pouzzner, 75). Thus, the ruling class endeavors to discourage independent reason while exercising illusory power over human knowledge. This tactic of control through knowledge suppression and selective dissemination is reiterated in the anonymously authored document Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars:

    “Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems. Mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping. All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control.”
    – Keith, Secret and Suppressed, 203

The word ‘science’ is derived from the Latin word scientia, which means ‘knowing.’ Epistemology is the study of the nature and origin of knowledge. This elite monopoly of the knowable, which is enforced through institutional science, could be characterized as an “epistemological cartel.” The ruling class has bribed the ‘bookkeepers’ (i.e., natural and social scientists). Meanwhile, the masses practically deify the ‘bookkeepers’ of the elite, and remain ‘ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.’ The unknown author of Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars provides an eloquently simple summation: ‘The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?’ (Keith, Secret and Suppressed, 203).

In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley more succinctly defined this epistemological cartel:

    “The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work’ with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.”
    – Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 116

This is the ultimate objective of the elite: an oligarchy legitimized by arbitrarily anointed expositors of ‘knowledge’ or, in Huxley’s own words, a ‘scientific dictatorship.’

The New Theocracy

How did the ‘scientific dictatorship’ of the twentieth century begin? In earlier centuries, the ruling class controlled the masses through more mystical belief systems, particularly Sun worship. Yet, this would all change. In Saucers of the Illuminati, Jim Keith documents the shift from a theocracy of the Sun to a theocracy of ‘science’:

    “Since the Sun God (and his various relations, including sons and wives) were, after several thousands years of worship, beginning to fray around the edges in terms of believability, and a lot commoners were beginning to grumble that this stuff was all made up, the Illuminati came up with a new and improved version of their mind control software that didn’t depend upon the Sun God or Moon Goddess for ultimate authority.”
    – Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78

Priests and rituals were soon supplanted by a new breed of ‘bookkeepers’ and a new ‘methodology of bookkeeping.’ Keith elaborates:

    “As the Sun/Moon cult lost some of its popularity, ‘Scientists’ were quick to take up some of the slack. According to their propaganda, the physical laws of the universe were the ultimate causative factors, and naturally, those physical laws were only fathomable by the scientific (i.e. Illuminati) elite.”
    – Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78-79

This consciously induced paradigm shift facilitated the emergence of the elite’s new theocracy. The official state-sanctioned religion of this theocracy was ‘scientism’: the belief that the investigational methods of the natural sciences should be ecumenically imposed upon all fields of inquiry. This form of epistemological imperialism is not to be confused with legitimate science. Researcher Michael Hoffman makes this distinction in his book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare:

    “Science, when practiced as the application of man’s God-given talents for the production of appropriate technology on a human scale, relief of misery and the reverential exploration and appreciation of the glory of Divine Providence as revealed in nature, is a useful tool for mankind. Scientism is science gone mad, which is what we have today.” (Hoffman, 49)

Hoffman further elaborates on the folly of scientism:

    “The reason that science is a bad master and dangerous servant and ought not to be worshipped is that science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its own agenda, be it Darwinism or ‘cut, burn and poison’ methods of cancer ‘treatment’.” (Hoffman, 49)

It must be understood that this new institution of knowing is a form of mysticism like its religious precursors. Contemporary science is predicated upon empiricism, the idea that all knowledge is derived exclusively through the senses. Yet, an exclusively empirical approach relegates cause to the realm of metaphysical fantasy. This holds enormous ramifications for science. Do we really know what causes anything?

Although temporal succession and spatial proximity are self-evident, causal connection is not. Affirmation of causal relationships is impossible in science. What is perceived as A causing B could be merely circumstantial juxtaposition. Given the absence of known cause, all of a scientist’s findings must be taken upon faith. This is all one can deduce while working under the paradigm of radical empiricism. Thus, the elite merely exchanged one form of mysticism for another.

Returning to Pouzzner’s previous statement, ‘ostensible control over the knowable’ is achieved through the promulgation of ‘institutionally accredited science’ (Pouzzner, 75). Now, the elite had to meet two requirements to insure their epistemological dominance: a science specifically designed for their needs and an institution to accredit and disseminate it.
The British Royal Society

The new secular church and clergy of the elite originated within the walls of the British Royal Society. The creators of the Royal Society were also members of the Masonic Lodge. According to Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln in Holy Blood, Holy Grail:

    “Virtually all the Royal Society’s founding members were Freemasons. One could reasonably argue that the Royal Society itself, at least in its inception, was a Masonic institution – derived, through Andrea’s Christian Unions, from the ‘invisible Rosicrucian brotherhood’.” (Baigent, et al, 144)

Jim Keith makes it clear that the Masonic Lodge ‘has been alleged to be a conduit for the intentions of a number of elitist interests’ (Keith, Casebook on Alternative 3, 20). In service to the elite, the Royal Society Freemasons would re-sculpt epistemological notions and disseminate propaganda. Jim Keith provides a brief summation of the Royal Society’s role in years to come: ‘The British Royal Society of the late seventeenth century was the forerunner of much of the media manipulation that was to follow’ (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 79).

Before the advent of the British Royal Society, science (i.e., the study of natural phenomena) and theology (i.e., the study of God) were inseparable. The two were not separate repositories of knowledge, but natural correlatives. In Confession of Nature, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz established the centrality of God to science. According to Leibniz, the proximate origins of ‘magnitude, figure, and motion,’ which constitute the ‘primary qualities’ of corporeal bodies, ‘cannot be found in the essence of the body’ (de Hoyos).

Linda de Hoyos reveals the point at which science finds a dilemma:

    “The problem arises when the scientist asks why the body fills this space and not another; for example, why it should be three feet long rather than two, or square rather than round. This cannot be explained by the nature of the bodies themselves, since the matter is indeterminate as to any definite figure, whether square or round. For the scientist who refuses to resort to an incorporeal cause, there can be only two answers. Either the body has been this way since eternity, or it has been made square by the impact of another body. ‘Eternity’ is no answer, since the body could have been round for eternity also. If the answer is ‘the impact of another body,’ there remains the question of why it should have had any determinate figure before such motion acted upon it. This question can then be asked again and again, backwards to infinity. Therefore, it appears that the reason for a certain figure and magnitude in bodies can never be found in the nature of these bodies themselves.”

The same can be established for the body’s cohesion and firmness, which left Leibniz with the following conclusion:

    “Since we have demonstrated that bodies cannot have a determinate figure, quantity, or motion, without an incorporeal being, it readily becomes apparent that this incorporeal being is one for all, because of the harmony of things among themselves, especially since bodies are moved not individually by this incorporeal being but by each other. But no reason can be given why this incorporeal being chooses one magnitude, figure, and motion rather than another, unless he is intelligent and wise with regard to the beauty of things and powerful with regard to their obedience to their command. Therefore such an incorporeal being be a mind ruling the whole world, that is, God.” (de Hoyos)

Of course, this conclusion was antithetical to the doctrine of the scientific dictatorship, which contended that ‘the physical laws of the universe were the ultimate causative factors’ (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78-79). Metaphysical naturalism (i.e., nature is God) had to be enthroned. Meanwhile, God’s presence in the corridors of science had to be expunged. To achieve this, the Royal Society created a Gnostic division between science and theology, thus insuring the primacy of matter in the halls of scientific inquiry (Tarpley).

Blind Reverence to Science

Indeed, biases and presuppositions pervade the very fabric of the elite’s epistemic autocracy. Academia itself has become the official church for this cult of epistemological selectivity. Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias personally encountered the enormous prejudicial hurdles of scientism during a casual conversation with a few scholars, wherein one scientist makes a shocking confession:

I asked them a couple of questions. ‘If the Big Bang were indeed where it all began, may I ask what preceded the Big Bang?’ Their answer, which I had anticipated, was that the universe was shrunk down to a singularity.

I pursued, ‘But isn’t it correct that a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down?’

‘That is correct,’ was the answer.

‘Then, technically, your starting point is not scientific either.’

There was silence, and their expressions betrayed the scurrying mental searches for an escape hatch. But I had yet another question.

I asked if they agreed that when a mechanistic view of the universe had held sway, thinkers like Hume had chided philosophers for taking the principle of causality and applying it to a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Causality, he warned, could not be extrapolated from science to philosophy.

‘Now,’ I added, ‘when quantum theory holds sway, randomness in the subatomic world is made a basis for randomness in life. Are you not making the very same extrapolation that you warned us against?’

Again there was silence and then one man said with a self-deprecating smile, ‘We scientists do seem to retain selective sovereignty over what we allow to be transferred to philosophy and what we don’t’ (Zacharias, 64).

This ‘selective sovereignty,’ vigorously enforced by the epistemic autocracy of the elite, effectively marginalized dissenters and consummated the apotheosis of the ‘bookkeepers.’ Hoffman explains:

    “The cryptocracy has successfully harnessed to its own ends the huge potential for promoting secret political-occult agendas to the public, by presenting them as unassailable ‘objective scientific truth.’ Since the bogey of ‘science’ instills in secularists a sort of blind reverence, opponents of political and occult agendas promoted through the propaganda of scientism are quickly stigmatized as ‘Neanderthal,’ especially with regard to their opposition to Darwinism, a dogma proved false by Norman Macbeth in his magisterial Darwin Retried and exposed as a cult by Gertrude Himmelfarb in Darwin.” (Hoffman, 49)

Suddenly, ‘ostensible control over the knowable’ became the Divine Providence of god-like ‘bookkeepers.’ Meanwhile, their opponents became heretics and were ‘burned at the stake’ (i.e., marginalized by academia and other secular institutions). Hoffman states:

    “The doctrine of man playing god reaches its nadir in the philosophy of scientism which makes possible the complete mental, spiritual and physical enslavement of mankind through technologies such as satellite and computer surveillance; a state of affairs symbolized by the ‘All Seeing Eye‘ above the unfinished pyramid on the U.S. one dollar bill.” (Hoffman, 50)

With the inculcation of the masses into scientism, the unfinished pyramid is almost complete.

Evolution: The Occult Doctrine of Becoming

With the British Royal Society acting as their headquarters of propaganda, the elite had created an institution to provide credibility for their specially designed ‘science.’ Now, they needed to introduce the ‘science.’ Recall that the founding members of the Royal Society were all Freemasons. Thus, whatever ‘science’ these men would design would be derivative of Masonic doctrine. In The Meaning of Masonry, W.L. Wilmhurst reveals the worldview underpinning the new Masonic ‘science’:

    “This – the evolution [emphasis added] of man into superman – was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the real purpose of modern Masonry is not the social and charitable purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality. And this is a definite science, a royal art, which it is possible for each of us to put into practice; whilst to join the Craft for any other purpose than to study and pursue this science is to misunderstand its meaning.” (Wilmhurst, 47)

Later in the book, Wilmhurst reiterates this theme:

    “Man who has sprung from earth and developed through the lower kingdoms of nature to his present rational state, has yet to complete his evolution [emphasis added] by becoming a god-like being and unifying his consciousness with the Omniscient – to promote which is and always has been the sole aim and purpose of all Initiation.” (Wilmhurst, 94)

With God’s effective exile from science, man’s position as imago viva Dei (created in the image of the Creator) was summarily relegated to obsolescence. Now, Freemasonry could introduce its occult doctrine of ‘becoming,’ the belief in man’s gradual evolution towards apotheosis.

According to Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, was the first to promulgate the concept of evolution:

    “Dr. Erasmus Darwin (1731 – 1802) was the first man in England to suggest those ideas which later were to be embodied in the Darwinian theory by his grandson, Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882), who wrote in 1859 Origin of Species.” (quoted in Daniel, 34)

The Lunar Society

Erasmus Darwin was the founder of the Lunar Society. According to author Ian Taylor, the Lunar Society was active from about 1764 to 1800 and its prominent influence ‘continued long afterwards under the banner of The Royal Society.’ The group’s name owed itself to the fact that members met monthly at the time of the full moon. The membership of this group boasted such luminaries as John Wilkinson (who made cannons), James Watt (who owed his notoriety to the steam engine), Matthew Boulton (a manufacturer), Joseph Priestly (a chemist), Josiah Wedgewood (who founded the famous pottery business), and Benjamin Franklin. It is with the Lunar Society that one begins to identify Erasmus’ ties to Freemasonry. (Taylor, 55)

Interestingly enough, in an article by Lord Richie-Calder, Lunar Society members were assigned the very esoteric appellation of ‘merchants of light.’ This was precisely the same description used for the hypothetical society presented in Sir Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis (Taylor, 55). In her examination of J.G. Findel’s History of Freemasonry, Nesta Webster made the following observation: ‘Findel frankly admits that the New Atlantis contained unmistakable allusions to Freemasonry and that Bacon contributed to its final transformation’ (Webster, 120).

Researcher Ian Taylor adds:

    “Webster pointed out that one of the earliest and most eminent precursors of Freemasonry is said to have been Francis Bacon, who is also recognized to have been a Rosicrucian; the Rosicrucian and Freemason orders were closely allied and may have had a common source.” (Taylor, 445)

Still, these are tenuous ties at best. Are there any sources that firmly establish a Darwinian/Freemasonic connection? Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry conclusively confirms a link:

    “Before coming to Derby in 1788, Dr. [Erasmus] Darwin had been made a Mason in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland. Sir Francis Darwin, one of the Doctor’s sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge, No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804. The name of Charles Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the Lodge but it is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason.” (quoted in Daniel, 34)

In 1794, Erasmus wrote a book entitled Zoonomia, which delineated his theory of evolution (Taylor, 58). Being a Freemason, there is little doubt that Erasmus cribbed liberally from the Lodge’s occult doctrine of ‘becoming.’ Before Erasmus had penned his precursory notions of progressive biological development, Freemason John Locke (1632 – 1704) extrapolated the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation into the context of metaphysical naturalism and formulated a theory of evolution (Daniel, 33-34).

The British East India Company had imported the Hindu belief in reincarnation to England where it would be adopted by the British Royal Society. A prominent member of the Royal Society, John Locke studied reincarnation extensively and, working with the occult doctrine as an extrapolative inspiration, developed his own evolutionary ideas. In fact, Locke’s theory of evolution received the support of the male members of Darwin’s family (Daniel, 33-34). Two centuries later, this occult concept of ‘becoming’ would be transmitted to Charles Darwin and On the Origin of Species would be born.

Metaphysical Naturalism: The Golem Reborn

Underpinning the concept of metaphysical naturalism is the notion that life originated with lifeless matter. This notion, dubbed ‘spontaneous generation,’ excludes the involvement of a supernatural Creator. Thus, nature became a god creating itself. Louis Pasteur, whose work established the Law of Biogenesis, provided the most succinct summation of this anthropomorphic mysticism:

    “To bring about spontaneous generation would be to create a germ. It would be creating life; it would be to solve the problem of its origin. It would mean to go from matter to life through conditions of environment and of matter [lifeless material]. God as author of life would then no longer be needed. Matter would replace Him. God would need to be invoked only as author of the motions of the universe.” (Dubos, 395)

Like all of the ‘false gods’ of antiquity, the voracity of this new deity was soon demolished. ‘Spontaneous generation’ was proven impossible by the Law of Biogenesis. However, this fact did not stop certain ‘men of science’ from chronically deifying nature. For instance, Charles Darwin unconsciously revealed his idolatrous impulses through statements like: ‘natural selection picks out with unerring skill the best varieties’ (Hooykaas, 18).

Evident in such statements is the idea that nature is sentient. After all, only a sentient being holds discriminative tastes and, therefore, ‘picks out’ the recipients of its favor. Moreover, such statements reveal that ‘nature’ itself is a sovereign deity acting as the ultimate arbiter of life and death. This meme has metastasized, presenting itself today as the Gaia Hypothesis. This hypothesis holds that the biosphere is a self-creating, self-sustaining, and self-regenerating entity. Central to this thesis is the contention that both the living and non-living are inseparable (Lovelock, 31-33).

Although the concept of ‘spontaneous generation’ was proven scientifically bankrupt years ago, many continue to resuscitate its corpse. Why does this theme of lifeless matter spontaneously generating life continue to emerge? The answer is because it has been with man for a very long time. It is derivative of the golem, an occult concept presented in the Hebraic Kabbalah. Thirty-third Degree Freemason Albert Pike revealed that: ‘all the Masonic associations owe to it [the Kabbalah] their Secrets and their Symbols’ (Pike, 744). According to this occult text, the golem was an artificially created man whose life was the result of supernatural intervention. The late Isaac Bashevis Singer, who studied the Kabbalah extensively, explained:

    “’the golem ‘ is based on faith ‘ that dead matter is not really dead, but can be brought to life [emphasis added]’ What are the computers and robots of our time if not golems? ‘ The Talmud tells us of an interpreter by the name of Rava who formed a man by this mysterious power’ We are living in an epoch of golem-making right now. The gap between science and magic ‘ is becoming narrower’.” (Hoffman, 115)

Drawing upon the esoteric doctrines of their occult heritage, the Freemasonic members of the British Royal Society re-introduced the golem to the public mind under the guise of ‘metaphysical naturalism.’ Gradually, the corporeal machinations of nature supplanted the miraculous Creator. Of course, these machinations were only intelligible to anointed scientists of the epistemic autocracy. Thus, the ‘bookkeepers’ of the elite became the new expositors of ‘miracles.’ This virtual deification of the ‘bookkeepers’ is evident in Singer’s later statements regarding the golem:

    “I was interested in the golem ‘ from my early childhood. I was brought up in the home of a rabbi, and his sermons often spoke of miracles, by the Baal Shem Tov and other wonder rabbis. ‘ I realized early in my life that science and technology had actually created a civilization of miracles. Science is one long chain of miracles.’.” (Hoffman, 116)

Recall the words of Aldous Huxley in Brave New World Revisited: ‘The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles [emphasis added], and mysteries.’ The new dictators do not intend to make the same mistake. With the effective enshrinement of metaphysical naturalism, the British Royal Society prepared to unleash their next golem. However, this golem would be an artificially created ape-man presented to the public imagination under the appellation of Darwinism.

The Darwin Project

In the article ‘Toward a New Science of Life,’ EIR
journalist Jonathan Tennenbaum makes the following the statement concerning Darwinism:

    “Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin’s so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.” (Tennenbaum)

Given Darwinism’s roots in occult Freemasonry and its expedient promotion of an emergent species of supermen (i.e., the elite), this is a fairly accurate assessment. Charles Darwin acted as the elite’s apostle, preaching the new secular gospel of evolution. Darwinism could be considered a Freemasonic project, the culmination of a publicity campaign conducted by the Lodge. Evidence for this contention can be found in controversial Protocols of the Wise Men of Sion.

Although an examination of the Protocols and a critique of their authenticity are not the purposes of this essay, it is important to address the questions surrounding their origins. After all, the Protocols have been employed throughout history in numerous genocidal campaigns against the Jews. However, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail provide evidence that the document may be Masonic in origin:

    “It can thus be proved conclusively that the Protocols did not issue from the Judaic congress at Basle in 1897. That being so, the obvious questions is whence they did issue. Modern scholars have dismissed them as a total forgery, a wholly spurious document concocted by anti-Semitic interests intent on discrediting Judaism. And yet the Protocols themselves argue strongly against such a conclusion. They contain, for example, a number of enigmatic references – references that are clearly not Judaic. But these references are so clearly not Judaic that they cannot plausibly have been fabricated by a forger, either. No anti-Semitic forger with even a modicum of intelligence would possibly have concocted such references in order to discredit Judaism. For no one would have believed these references to be of Judaic origin.”

Thus, for instance, the text of the Protocols ends with a single statement. ‘Signed by the representatives of Sion of the 33rd Degree.’ Why would an anti-Semitic forger have made up such a statement? Why would he not have attempted to incriminate all Jews, rather than just a few – the few who constitute ‘the representatives of Sion of the 33rd Degree’? Why would he not declare that the document was signed by, say, the representatives of the international Judaic congress? In fact, the ‘representatives of Sion of the 33rd Degree’ would hardly seem to refer to Judaism at all, or to any ‘international Jewish conspiracy.’ If anything, it would seem to refer to something specifically Masonic. And the thirty-third degree in Freemasonry is that of the so-called Strict Observance – the system of Freemasonry introduced by Hund at the behest of his ‘unknown superiors,’ one of whom appears to have been Charles Radclyffe (Baigent, et al, 192-3). Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln conclude:

    “There was an original text on which the published version of the Protocols was based. This original text was not a forgery. On the contrary, it was authentic. But it had nothing whatever to do with Judaism or an ‘international Jewish conspiracy.’ It issued, rather, from some Masonic organization or Masonically oriented secret society that incorporated the word ‘Sion’.” (Baigent, et al, 194)

Given the Masonic language, one can completely discard the racist contention that the Protocols constitute evidence of an ‘international Jewish conspiracy.’ Nevertheless, the document holds some authenticity:

    “The published version of the Protocols is not, therefore, a totally fabricated text. It is, rather, a radically altered text. But despite the alterations certain vestiges of the original version can be discerned’.” (Baigent, et al, 195)

The remnant vestiges of the original text strongly suggest Masonic origins. Having established the Masonic authorship of the Protocols, one may return to issue at hand: Freemasonic involvement in the promotion of Darwinism. Consider the following excerpt from the Protocols, which reads distinctly like a mission statement:

    “For them [the masses or cattle] let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the goyim [the masses or cattle] will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of it will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.”

Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism [emphasis added], Marxism, and Nietzsche-ism (reprint in Cooper, 274-5).

In addition to establishing the Lodge’s official sanction of Darwinism, this excerpt also reveals a direct relationship between Marxism, Nietzsche-ism, and evolutionary theory. 

It was the grandfather of Aldous Huxley, T.H. Huxley, who would act as the ‘official spokesman for the recluse Darwin’ (White, 268). Many years later, Aldous would propose a ‘scientific dictatorship’ in Brave New World Revisited. Whether Aldous made this proposition on a whim or was penning a concept that had circulated within the Huxley family for years cannot be determined. Given the family’s oligarchical tradition, the latter assertion remains a definite possibility. Yet, there may be a deeper Freemasonic connection, suggesting that the concept of a ‘scientific dictatorship’ may have originated within the Lodge.

T.H. Huxley was a Freemason and, with no apparent achievements to claim as his own, was made a Fellow of the Royal Society at the age of 26 (Daniel, 34). T.H. Huxley tutored Freemason H.G. Wells, who would later teach Huxley’s two grandsons, Julian and Aldous. Both Julian and Aldous were Freemasons (Daniel, 147). Given this continuity of Freemasonic tutelage within the Huxley family, it is a definite possibility that the Huxlian concept of a ‘scientific dictatorship’ is really Masonic. Considering Freemason H.G. Wells’ endorsement of a ‘scientific dictatorship,’ which he called a ‘Technocracy,’ this is highly likely.

The rest is history. With the publicity campaigns of the Royal Society and the avid defense of evolution apologist T.H. Huxley, Darwin’s theory would be disseminated and popularized. The seed had taken root and, in the years to come, numerous permutations of the elite’s ‘scientific dictatorship’ would emerge.

 Science Fiction: A Means of Predictive Programming

Aldous Huxley first presented the ‘scientific dictatorship’ to the public imagination in his book Brave New World. In Dope, Inc., associates of political dissident Lyndon LaRouche claim that Huxley’s book was actually a ‘mass appeal’ organizing document written ‘on behalf of one-world order’ (Dope, Inc., 538). The book also claims the United States is the only place where Huxley’s ‘science fiction classic’ is taught as an allegorical condemnation of fascism. If this is true, then the ‘scientific dictatorship’ presented within the pages of his 1932 novel Brave New World is a thinly disguised roman a’ clef – a novel that thinly veils real people or events – awaiting tangible enactment.

Such is often the case with ‘science fiction’ literature. According to researcher Michael Hoffman, this literary genre is instrumental in the indoctrination of the masses into the doctrines of the elite:

    “Traditionally, ‘science fiction’ has appeared to most people as an adolescent genre, the province of time-wasting fantasies. This has been the great strength of this genre as a vehicle for the inculcation of the ideology favored by the Cryptocracy. As J.H. Towsen points out in Clowns, only when people think they are not buying something can the real sales pitch begin. While it is true that with the success of NASA’s Gemini space program and the Apollo moon flights more serious attention and respectability was accorded ‘science fiction,’ nonetheless in its formative seeding time, from the late 19th century through the 1950s, the predictive program known as ‘science fiction’ had the advantage of being derided as the solitary vice of misfit juveniles and marginal adults.” (Hoffman, 205)

Thus, ‘science fiction’ is a means of conditioning the masses to accept future visions that the elite wish to tangibly enact. [Ed. Note: SF also widely uses Darwinian notions and language to project a fantastic future. This is another area of potential research.] This process of gradual and subtle inculcation is dubbed ‘predictive programming.’ Hoffman elaborates: ‘Predictive programming works by means of the propagation of the illusion of an infallibly accurate vision of how the world is going to look in the future’ (Hoffman, 205). Memes are instilled through the circulation of ‘mass appeal’ documents under the guise of ‘science fiction’ literature. Once subsumed on a cognitive level, these memes become self-fulfilling prophecies, embraced by the masses and outwardly approximated through the efforts of the elite.

If the concept of ‘predictive programming’ seems fantastic, consider the case of H.G. Wells. Wells was mentored by T.H. Huxley, grandfather of Aldous. In turn, Wells would tutor Aldous and his brother, Julian. All of these men were members of the Freemasonic Lodge (the significance of which will be revealed shortly). Wells would author several ‘mass appeal’ tracts disguised as science fiction novels. Most notable of these novels was The Shape of Things to Come. Researcher Jim Keith offered the following assessment of Wells’ The Shape of Things to Come:

    “Interestingly, deceptively, the book is presented as a work of science fiction, but within its pages is Wells’ best guess of how the New World Order would come to pass, from a 1930s perspective.”

While primarily a work of propaganda that pushes the one-world worldview of Wells and other internationalists during the first half of this century, the book is particularly revealing in that it also exposes many of the strategies that are to be employed (Keith, Mind Control, World Control, 13).

Of course, not all of Wells’ prophecies were 100% accurate. In his examination of The Shape of Things to Come, Keith concluded that:

    “Wells was no prophet as regards to his timeline, only a science fiction writer privy to the plans of men with an interest in promoting the coming of the dictatorial world-state. His crystal ball is somewhat cloudy on certain details.”
    – Keith, Mind Control, World Control, 16

However, Wells’ novel did exhibit a strange degree of precision. Jim Keith enumerated the various instances of uncanny accuracy in Wells’ The Shape of Things to Come. Among one of the synchronicities Keith found in the text was Wells’ description of the elite’s primary apparatus for the amalgamation of the world’s economic systems:

    “Not surprisingly Wells places the City of London – the international center of banking culture – and its financial credit as responsible for knitting together world economic life over the previous hundred years. With these innovations in communications and finance, but also with the frustrations and wars inherent (so he says) in the existence of independent national states and sovereignties, came about the gradual dawning of the idea of the World-state.”
    – Keith, Mind Control, World Control, 14

Another instance of uncanny accuracy was Wells’ prognostications concerning a second global war and a proliferation of infectious diseases:

    “Wells has World War II beginning in 1940 in Poland, over an imagined slight taken by a Nazi over the actions of a Pole of Jewish origin. He characterizes World War II as it was, as an orgy of violence, and has the fighting end in 1949 – staying remarkably close to the actual dates of the conflict – only to be followed by another scourge, that of rampant disease, ‘The Raid of the Germs.’”

Given the present-day climate of AIDS, Ebola, Mad Cow disease, and other resistant viral strains – and the persistent rumors of the military engineering of those same diseases – perhaps Wells’ dating in this particular should have been moved forward a few years (Keith, Mind Control, World Control, 16).

One of the most elucidating revelations found in The Shape of Things to Come was the group that Wells claimed would be central to the formation of a one-world government:

    “Wells places responsibility for the creation of the New World Order in the lap of scientists of the future
    [emphasis added], the group he dubs the ‘Technocracy’.”
    – Keith, Mind Control, World Control, 16

Wielding ‘ostensible control over the knowable,’ the scientists of this ‘Technocracy’ would implement a Fabian strategy of ‘gradual ideological assimilation’ (Keith, World Control, Mind Control, 16-17). Incrementally, this network of scientists would engineer the amalgamation of nation-states into a global government. Again, the Huxlian theme of a ‘scientific dictatorship’ emerges. This is the future that the masses have been conditioned to accept through predictive programming.

The Sirius Connection

In Morals and Dogma, 33rd Degree Freemason Albert Pike bestows special honor upon Sirius, a heavenly body that ‘still glitters in our Lodges as the Blazing Star’ (Pike, 486). Indeed, Sirius represents a foundational axiom of the Masonic Craft. Pike explains that the star is: ”an emblem of the Divine Truth, given by God to the first men, and preserved amid all the vicissitudes of ages in the traditions and teachings of Masonry’ (Pike, 136). As Pike continues, he reveals that Sirius has also held numerous other appellations: ‘The Blazing Star in our Lodges, we have already said, represent Sirius, Anubis, or Mercury, Guardian and Guide of Souls’ (Pike, 506).

Whatever its name, the star represents an entity of great esoteric significance to Freemasonry:

    “In the old Lectures they said: ‘The Blazing Star or Glory in the centre refers us to that Grand Luminary the Sun, which enlightens the Earth, and by its genial influence dispenses blessings to mankind’.” (Pike, 506)

A little later, Pike reiterates: ”the Blazing Star has been regarded as an emblem of Omniscience, or the All-Seeing Eye, which to the Ancients was the Sun’ (Pike, 506). Recall that, before the external characteristics of the oligarchs’ control apparatus were cosmetically altered to present a ‘scientific dictatorship,’ the elite ruled through institutionalized Sun worship (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78-79). Within these statements, Pike provides a brief glimpse of the god of Freemasonry. Although the topographical features of its theocracy have changed, the deity has remained the same and his identity is associated with the star called Sirius.

According to Pike, Sirius was responsible for imparting numerous innovations to mankind:

    “He was Sirius or the Dog-Star, the friend and counselor of Osiris, and the inventor of language, grammar, astronomy, surveying, arithmetic, music, and medical science; the first maker of laws; and who taught the worship of the Gods, and the building of temples.” (Pike, 376)

It is interesting to note that, among his various contributions, this Freemasonic deity was responsible for the introduction of several forms of science. Does Sirius also represent the Lodge’s ‘ostensible control over the knowable?’ Is the Dog-Star a symbol of the elite’s ‘scientific dictatorship?’ Michael Hoffman further elaborates on the identity of Sirius:

    “The mythical Satanic bringer of civilization to earth was supposed to be an alien from the star system Sirius, around whom the Egyptians and all subsequent Hermetic systems constructed their elaborate and obsessive religio-astronomic observances. This star Sirius also served as an astronomic secret code, an allegory of the illusory quality and inherent ‘trickiness’ of the material world.” (Hoffman, 26-27)

This Freemasonic mythology of extraterrestrial intervention in human evolution may be poised for a return. Given the impossibility of spontaneous generation, Darwinism has faced a major obstacle to its unquestioned primacy. Recognizing this obstacle, scientific materialist Francis Crick presented a theory bearing an uncanny resemblance to the Sirius myth. According to Crick, technologically advanced extraterrestrials ‘seeded’ the earth with life billions of years ago. Whether Crick was privy to the occult doctrines of the elite or was simply following the natural course of Darwinism’s memetic metastasis, one thing is certain, he and other proponents of similar ‘extraterrestrial intervention’ theories are paving the way for the re-introduction of Freemasonic mysticism to mainstream science.

There is a distinct possibility that the agentur of the elite are already in the process of facilitating the re-introduction of this myth. With the voracity of Darwinism in question, the effectiveness of this meme has been declining and, with it, the influence of the ruling class. Of course, this is something that the elite cannot allow to happen. Consider the following account of Linda Moulton Howe. During a meeting with Richard Doty, an intelligence officer with the United States military, Howe was presented with a briefing paper regarding alien visitation. In its body, Howe read an interesting claim regarding the crumbling theory of Darwinism: ‘It stated that all questions and mysteries about the evolution of Homo sapiens on this planet had been answered and that project was closed’ (Howe, 151).

How convenient! By what means did these extraterrestrials facilitate the evolutionary process? Reiterating the basic contentions of Crick, the paper stated that:

    “’these ETs have come at various intervals in the earth’s history to manipulate DNA in already existing terrestrial primates and perhaps in other life forms as well. To the best of my memory, the time intervals for this DNA manipulation specifically listed in the briefing paper were 25,000, 15,000, 5,000, and 2,500 years ago.” (Howe, 151)

Faced with the impossibility of spontaneous generation and the inexorable collapse of Darwinism, the elite could now be invoking an ‘extraterrestrial intervention’ myth cribbed from their own doctrines. Given Richard Doty’s military intelligence connections, this remains a very real possibility. The Freemasonic doctrine of Sirius has circulated within military intelligence groups for quite some time. According to researcher James Shelby Downard, there exists a cult of Sirius adherents at the highest levels of the CIA (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 49). Researcher Jim Keith elaborates:

    “He cites as one of their ritual locations the telescope viewing room of the Palomar Observatory in California. There, he says, the adepts of the Sirius-military intelligence cult enact rituals in the telescopically-focused light of the Dog Star, in imitation of the Egyptian priesthood, astral rays bathing the viewing chamber and the participants when the telescope is aimed Sirius-ward.”
    – Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 49

Keith proceeds to cite the case of military intelligence officer Michael Aquino:

    “Utter madness? Tell that to Colonel Michael Aquino of U.S. military intelligence, the admitted head of the satanic Temple of Set, a deity [Set] identified in occultism with Sirius. Aquino makes no bones about the fact that he is the head of his offshoot of Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan, known to draw many of its leaders from military circles. Again, we see the strange conjunction of Sirius, occultism, and military intelligence.”
    – Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 49

Those who comprise this ‘strange conjunction’ could also be responsible for the perpetration of a disinformation campaign, derivative of Masonic doctrine and designed to maintain the waning dominance of Darwinism.

Darwinism Dismantled

Providing a complete and comprehensive delineation of the various concepts constituting Darwinism is a daunting task. The theory itself is a dense amalgam of ‘isms,’ thinly veiled occult concepts, philosophical doctrines, and ideologies. Again, Tennenbaum’s statement that Darwinism ‘is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons’ seems succinct and accurate. Yet, with what outside sources do these ‘absurdly irrational propositions’ find their proximate origins?

One of the major influences on Darwin was Thomas Malthus, an Anglican clergyman who had received the blessings of French deist Jean-Jacques Rousseau and radical empiricist David Hume (Keynes, 99). Malthus authored Essay on the Principle of Population, a treatise premised upon the thesis: ‘Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetic ratio’ (Malthus, 6). Although Malthus articulated his observations in succinct mathematical equations, the labyrinthine and complex machinations comprising the natural order typically defy such overly simplistic reductionism. Nonetheless, Malthus concluded that society should adopt certain social policies to prevent the human population from growing disproportionately larger than the food supply.

Malthus’ genocidal policies specifically targeted the poor. For instance, one of his proposals suggested the implementation of the following measures:

    “Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.” (Malthus, 412)

Through the promotion of hygienically unsound practices amongst impoverished populations, Malthus believed that the ‘undesirable elements’ of the human herd could be naturally culled by various maladies. The spread of disease could be further assisted through discriminative vaccination and zoning programs. Yet, amongst one of Malthus’ most shocking proposals was his suggestion concerning children:

    “We are bound in justice and honour formally to disclaim the right of the poor to support. To this end, I should propose a regulation be made declaring that no child born’ should ever be entitled to parish assistance’ The [illegitimate] infant is comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place’ All children beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this [desired] level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons.” (Malthus, 411, 430-1)

The dictum underpinning Malthus’ logic would later be reiterated as ‘survival of the fittest.’ According to researcher Ian Taylor, the metastasis of this dictum ‘can be traced from Condorcet to Malthus, to Spencer, to Wallace, and to Darwin’ (Taylor, 65).

Another one of the many constituent worldviews comprising Darwinism is Hegelianism. According to philosopher Georg Hegel, a pantheistic world spirit was directing ‘an ongoing developmental (evolutionary) process in nature, including humanity,’ which bodied itself forth as a ‘dialectical struggle between positive and negative entities.’ This conflict always resulted in a ‘harmonious synthesis’ (Taylor, 381-2). The same dialectical framework is present in Darwinism.

In Circle of Intrigue, occult researcher Texe Marrs reveals the Hegelian structure intrinsic to Darwinian evolution. The organism (thesis) comes into conflict with nature (antithesis) resulting in a newly enhanced species (synthesis), the culmination of the evolutionary process (Marrs, Circle of Intrigue, 127). Of course, in such a world of ongoing conflict, violence and bloodshed are central to progress. Thus, Darwin’s theory ‘gave credence to the Hegelian notion that human culture had ascended from brutal beginnings’ (Taylor, 386).

Yet, Darwinism’s roots go deeper than Hegelianism, returning to an esoteric source that has been there since the beginning. Hegel’s ideas did not originate with himself, but Fichte (Sutton, America’s Secret Establishment, 34). Who was Fichte? Antony Sutton reveals that he was a ‘Freemason, almost certainly Illuminati, and certainly promoted by the Illuminati’ (Sutton, America’s Secret Establishment, 34). In fact, Hegel’s dialectical logic reiterates the Masonic dictum :Ordo Ab Chao (Order out of chaos). Again, it seems that the bedrock upon which Darwinism rests is Freemasonry, a channel for elitist interests.

The French Revolution: An Abortive Scientific Dictatorship

According to academia’s officially sanctioned historians, the French Revolution was little more than a rebellion of the commoner against a corrupt aristocracy and religious institution. However, in Essays on the French Revolution, Lord Acton made an interesting observation:

    “The appalling thing in the French Revolution is not the tumult but the design. Through all the fire and smoke we perceive the evidence of calculating organization. The managers remain studiously concealed and masked; but there is no doubt about their presence from the first.” (Reed, 136)

Who were the ‘studiously concealed and masked managers’ that orchestrated the French Revolution? In Morals and Dogma, Albert Pike revealed that it was Freemasonry that ‘aided in bringing about the French Revolution’ (Pike, 24). Indeed, the French Revolution represented the first full-scale attempt to tangibly enact the Masonic vision of a ‘scientific dictatorship.’

The Lunar Society, which was the precursor to the Freemasonic Royal Society, was intimately connected to the revolutionary movement in France. Freemason Benjamin Franklin acted as the ‘shuttle diplomat between the French and English Utopian idealists.’ The son of James Watt was accused of being a French agent by Edmund Burke in the British House of Commons. Joseph Priestley had pledged his wholehearted support to the revolutionary French National Assembly. Fellow Lunar Society member James Keir hosted a dinner to commemorate the fall of the Bastille. Most notably, Freemason and Lunar Society founder Erasmus Darwin actively supported the Jacobins (Taylor, 56).

Who were the Jacobins? William Hoar reveals that they were ‘agents of the Bavarian-bred Illuminati who operated out of the Club Breton” (p. 2).

The French Revolution exhibited all of the hallmarks of a ‘scientific dictatorship’:

    A humanistic philosophy emphasizing man’s evolutionary ascent towards apotheosis: After the Legislative Assembly rejected God as the object of man’s worship and praise, the National Convention paraded a woman representing Athena from the convention hall to the chapel of Notre Dame. There, the Goddess of Reason took her place on the high altar (Scott, 306). In a Masonic context, this ritualistic enthronement of human reason represented the unification of man’s consciousness with the Omniscient, which is the ultimate end of evolution (Wilmhurst, 94). In other words, human reason became the ultimate source of moral precepts and man became God.

    A Malthusian depopulation campaign: Under the direction of Illuminist Robespierre, the new revolutionary government began carrying out a massive depopulation campaign that became known as the Terror. While Robespierre’s goal of eliminating 15 million ‘useless eaters’ was never realized, the Terror was successful in claiming the lives of some 300,000 Frenchmen, 297,000 of which were members of the lower and middle working classes. It should come as little surprise that Thomas Malthus was educated under the combined tutelage of two supporters of the French Revolution: Gilbert Wakefield and Lunar Society member Joseph Priestley (Taylor, 59).

    A Hegelian framework: Recall the Hegelian structure intrinsic to evolution (Marrs, 127). In hopes of accelerating France’s evolution towards a ‘scientific dictatorship,’ the architects of the revolution promulgated a classic Hegelian dialectic: the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. The synthesis of these two polar extremes resulted in the subversion of individualism and the maintenance of class stratification.

Of course, the rest is history. The revolution swiftly degenerated into a bloodbath and many of the conspirators were slaughtered by the very mobs they had created. Yet, the esoteric symbol of this abortive ‘scientific dictatorship’ remains. Long after she was enthroned in the cathedral of Notre Dame, Athena was transplanted upon new shores. Occult researcher Texe Marrs explains in Dark Majesty:

    Today, statues of this Illuminist Goddess of Reason are found throughout the U.S.A.; one stands astride the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. Another is atop the dome of the Capitol building in Austin, Texas. Her statue has been erected in town squares and city parks. But the most fantastic idol of the Goddess of Reason, the most majestic statue of the pagan lady who bears the torch of light, who illuminates, uplifts, and frees mankind, is found in New York’s harbor.

    Towering above the shimmering but polluted waters, she holds in her outreached arm and hand a torch of fire and light. A gift of the Masonic Order, the modern inheritors of the Illuminati heritage, the Statue of Liberty was sculptured by Frederic Bartholdi, a member of the Masonic Lodge of Alsace-Lorraine in Paris, France. The statue is an esoteric idol of great significance to the secret societies plotting the New World Order.

Did the French Revolution truly end or did it simply change venues? Has America been designated the new headquarters of the elite’s next ‘scientific dictatorship?’ One thing is certain, although she is no longer worshipped in the cathedral of Notre Dame, the Goddess of Reason has never relinquished her crown.

The Rise of the Modern Scientific Dictatorship

Darwinism shares the Hegelian framework with two other belief systems. In The Secret Cult of the Order, Antony Sutton states: ‘Both Marx and Hitler have their philosophical roots in Hegel’ (Sutton, 118). It is here that one arrives at the Hegelian nexus where Darwin, Marx, and Hitler intersect. Recall that Nietzsche-ism, Darwinism and Marxism were all mentioned together in the Protocols of the Wise Men of Sion. This was no accident. Nazism (a variant of fascism) sprung from Nietzsche-ism (Carr, XIV). Communism sprung from Marxism. Both were based upon Hegelian principles. Moreover, both were ‘scientific dictatorships’ legitimized by the ‘science’ of Darwinism. Ian Taylor elaborates:

    “However, Fascism or Marxism, right wing or left – all these are only ideological roads that lead to Aldous Huxley’s brave new world [i.e. scientific dictatorship], while the foundation for each of these roads is Darwin’s theory of evolution. Fascism is aligned with biological determinism and tends to emphasize the unequal struggle by which those inherently fittest shall rule. Marxism stresses social progress by stages of revolution, while at the same time it paradoxically emphasizes peace and equality. There should be no illusions; Hitler borrowed from Marx. The result is that both Fascism and Marxism finish at the same destiny – totalitarian rule by the elite.” (Taylor, 411)

The interest of both Hitler and Marx in Darwinian evolution is a matter of history. While he was living in London, Karl Marx attended lectures on evolutionary theory delivered by T.H. Huxley. Recognizing the odd synchronicity between the communist concept of class war and the Darwinian principle of natural selection, Marx sent Darwin a copy of Das Kapital in 1873. Enamored of evolution, Marx asked Darwin the permission to dedicate his next volume to him six year later. Troubled by the fact that it would upset certain members of his family to have the name of Darwin associated with an atheistic polemic, Charles politely declined the offer (Taylor, 381).

Numerous authors have established firm connections between Darwinism and Hitler’s Nazism. Darwinian Arthur Keith documented the strong links between Hitler’s racialist goals and the doctrine of evolution (Taylor, 409). In fact, in Evolution and Ethics, Keith candidly stated: ‘The German Fuhrer as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution’ (Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 230).

In an analysis of Mein Kampf, contemporary author Werner Maser reveals that Darwin was the crucible for Hitler’s ‘notions of biology, worship, force, and struggle, and of his rejection of moral causality in history.’ Finally, researcher Alfred Kelly provides a comprehensive history of Darwinism’s popularization in Germany (Taylor, 409).

Returning to the Hegelian nexus that binds Darwinism, Marxism, and Nazism, both the fascist and communist ‘scientific dictatorships’ represented tangible enactments of the dialectical framework resident in evolutionary theory. Marx was greatly influenced by Hegel (Taylor, 381). The concept of class struggle, which paralleled Darwinian natural selection, resulted from Marx’s redirection of the Hegelian dialectic towards the socioeconomic realm. The proletariat (thesis) comes into conflict with the bourgeois (antithesis), resulting in a classless Utopia (synthesis). Marx, however, rejected the concept of a world spirit and relocated the revolution’s causal source within the proletariat itself.

The same Hegelian framework was resident within Hitler’s genocidal Final Solution. The German people (thesis) came into conflict with the Jew (antithesis) in hopes of creating the Aryan (synthesis). In both the case of communism and Nazism, the results were enormous bloodbaths. This is the natural consequence of Darwinian thinking and the legacy of the ‘scientific dictatorship.’

In applying the ideas of Darwin, both communists and fascists have murdered millions. Both of these groups find their origins in the elite (the Illuminati), who are still pursuing the same objectives today. According to the Darwinian mantra of ‘survival of the fittest,’ victory will demand bloodshed. Humanity may stand to inherit the ‘scientific dictatorship’s’ bloody legacy in the very near future.

Eugenics and the Coming Global Scientific Dictatorship

Integral to Aldous’ Brave New World is the practice of eugenics, which is closely aligned with Darwinism. Eugenics finds its origins with Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton. Galton first introduced the concept of eugenics in Hereditary Genius, a racist polemic advocating a system of selective breeding for the purposes of providing ‘more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing over the less suitable’ (Galton, 24). In truth, Galton was not the originator of this concept. Sordid traditions of selective breeding and inbreeding had long been practiced by the ruling class to maintain the ‘genetic purity’ of their future stock. Galton merely assigned this tradition the appellation of ‘eugenics’ and popularized it as a legitimate science.

In fact, this very same tradition was practiced by Darwin himself. In hopes of maintaining the ‘genetic superiority’ of his bloodline, Darwin married the youngest granddaughter of his maternal father. Researcher Ian Taylor reveals the results of this inbreeding project:

    “Darwin’s idea of inbreeding to produce superior stock can be seen to be a complete disaster in the case of his own ten children. Of the ten, one girl, Mary, died shortly after birth; another girl, Anne, died at the age of ten years; his eldest daughter, Henrietta, had a serious and prolonged breakdown at fifteen in 1859. Three of his six sons suffered such frequent illness that Darwin regarded them as semi-invalids while his last son, Charles Jr., was born mentally retarded and died in 1858, nineteen months after birth.” (Taylor, 127)

Yet, in spite of eugenics’ historical failure, the concept was vigorously promulgated within the scientific community. In 1901, the statistics department of London’s University College became the headquarters for the Eugenics Education Society. Motivated by Galton’s vision of a future utopia ruled by a genetically engineered elite, the Eugenics Society would grow into a successful political movement. Aldous Huxley’s eugenically regimented ‘scientific dictatorship’ presented in Brave New World was drawing closer to realization. Given his role in the tangible approximation of Aldous’ roman a’ clef, it is appropriate that one of the many accolades the scientific community bestowed upon Galton was the Huxley medal (Taylor, 405).

However, the agenda of eugenical regimentation required an international machination by which it could be promulgated globally. That international machination was the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous, was the first director general of UNESCO and penned the organization’s manifesto in 1947. Entitled UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy, this document presents the following mission statement:

    “Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” (Huxley, UNESCO)

As the unthinkable becomes thinkable, the fictional becomes factual and Brave New World becomes a reality. In 1977, author Claire Chambers clearly delineated the UN’s role as a global scientific dictatorship:

    “ Since its inception, the U.N. has advanced a world-wide program of population control, scientific human breeding [i.e., eugenics], and Darwinism.” (Chambers, 3)

In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley prognosticated: “the twenty-first century’ will be the era of World Controllers” (Huxley, 25). Aldous Huxley’s ‘scientific dictatorship’ may not be confined to the pages of classic literature for much longer.