See Part I for how RAND and its creed “systems analysis” was created and how Albert Wohlstetter would ultimately become the kingpin of RAND.

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: the Fabian Society

For us to understand what ultimately made Albert Wohlstetter the man he became we must first start with the story of Bertrand Russell. And for this, we must begin with the Fabian Society.

The Fabian Society was founded on January 4^th, 1884 in London as an offshoot of The Fellowship of the New Life, which in turn was founded just one year earlier by Scottish philosopher Thomas Davidson. The Fellowship advocated pacifism, vegetarianism and simple living, under the influence of Leo Tolstoy’s ideas. (1) Some of its members also wanted to become politically involved in transforming society which led to the formation of the Fabian Society.

One of the nine founding members of the Fabian Society was Frank Podmore, who was also an influential member of the Society for Psychical Research.

Alfred Russell Wallace, William Crookes, F.W.H. Myers and renown psychologist William James’ work on mediums, telepathy and materializations led to the founding of the Society of Psychical Research, the Theosophical Society and their American branches.

Alfred Russell Wallace was a close associate of T.H. Huxley (Darwin’s bulldog) and co-founded the theory of natural selection alongside Charles Darwin.

The Fabian Society was extremely influenced by the ideas of Darwinism. Much of what they supported in terms of ideologies and philosophies was for the purpose of advancing Darwinism and saw Karl Marx’s newly published system as the perfect vehicle to carry Darwin’s logic into a controlling ideology to organize the masses.

Karl Marx himself was very much drawn to the ideas of Darwin, including two explicit references to Darwin and evolution in the second edition of Das Kapital. (2)

Marx would write in a letter that:

“Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.”

In a book review of the first volume of Das Kapital, Engels wrote that Marx was “simply striving to establish the same gradual process of transformation demonstrated by Darwin in natural history as a law in the social field.” (3)

The Fabian Society would define itself as a socialist movement, influenced by Karl Marx and the Marxist Social Democratic Federation soon founding England’s Labour Party in 1900. The party’s constitution was written by Fabian Society leader Sidney Webb and borrowed heavily from the founding documents of the Fabian Society.

Immediately upon its inception, the society featured such prominent eugenicists such as George Bernard Shaw, Thomas Huxley’s protégé H.G. Wells, Arthur Balfour, founder of Geopolitics Halford Mackinder and Bertrand Russell.

Prominent Theosophist Annie Besant would also become a member of the Fabian Society upon its inception, and was the leading speaker for both the Fabian Society and the Marxist Social Democratic Federation.

At the core of the Fabian Society were Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who would also help co-found the London School of Economics (LSE), with Rothschild funding, to propagate the Fabian Society outlook in 1895.

Harold Laski, one of Britain’s most influential intellectual spokesmen for Marxism, would become a Fabian Society member, a professor at the LSE (1926-1950), and a chairman of the British Labour Party (1945-1946).

Bertrand Russell would teach social democracy at LSE from 1895-1896 and from 1937-1938 lectured on the science of power. On the official site of LSE, Russell is credited as “one of the spiritual and financial founders of LSE…[whose] involvement in the early life of the School helped to define its ethos.”

The Coefficients club was also set up by Sidney and Beatrice Webb and included among its membership H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, as well as Leo Amery, Harold Laski, Halford Mackinder (who was Director of the LSE from 1903-1908), Alfred Milner and Clinton Edward Dawkins (the three times great uncle to the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins).

The name “Fabian” is derived from the Roman General Quintus Fabius, known as the Cunctator from his strategy of delaying his attacks against the invading Carthaginians until the right moment, and who’s fame is founded on having beaten Hannibal by never engaging in direct combat.

In the founding Fabian document it is written: “For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.”

Fabians would advocate the strategy of permeation, whereby you affect the change you want to see by slowly permeating all levels of society’s controlling structures. Once you have permeated sufficiently you can strike collectively and essentially take over from within. It would be a technique that the Trotskyists would become notorious for, such as with the French Turn.

As Matthew Ehret wrote in his “Origins of the Deep State”:

“The Fabian society program focused on broad social welfare programs such as universal health care, mass education, and better working conditions which were designed to attract the disenfranchised masses. Under the Fabian program, such programs held no substance in reality, as the true means to justify their creation was banned…[that is]…true scientific and technological progress…

This ruse was thus designed to merely bring the will of the lower classes under the deeper influence of a ruling oligarchy via the promise of ‘democratic socialism’ and a naïvely utopian ‘end of history’ ideal…The controllers of Fabian Socialism are not, nor have they ever been ‘democratic socialists’…”

At its heart, Fabianism was merely fascism with a “scientific” socialist face.

Matthew Ehret writes:

“The Round Table movement served as the intellectual center of the international operations to regain control of the British Empire and took on several incarnations over the 20th century. It worked in tandem with the Coefficients Club, the Fabian Society, and the Rhodes Trust, all of whom witnessed members moving in and out of each others ranks.”

Historian Carrol Quigley, wrote of this cabal in his posthumously published “Anglo-American Establishment”:

“This organization [the Round Table]…has been the most powerful single influence in All Souls, Balliol, and New Colleges at Oxford for more than a generation…it had a great deal to do with the formation and management of the League of Nations and of the system of mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1919 and still controls it.”

H.G. Wells was chairman of the League of Free Nations Association and published his call for “world peace” in his book “The Idea of a League of Nations” published in 1919.

The purpose was again to lure people in with glorious promises of a “social democracy” while in fact weakening nation states such that they would be unable to resists the coming of a new world empire.

H.G. Wells would publish “The New World Order” in 1940, and was no doubt the guiding influence on Julian Huxley’s outlook when he wrote the manifesto for UNESCO.

Bertrand Russell’s “Proposed Roads to Freedom”

In 1918, Russell publishes “Proposed Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism”. Here are some relevant quotes:

“My own opinion – which I may as well indicate at the outset – is that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which society should continually approximate, is for the present impossible…On the other hand, both Marxian Socialism and Syndicalism, in spite of many drawbacks, seem to me calculated to give rise to a happier and better world than that in which we live. I do not, however, regard either of them as the best practicable system…The best practicable system, to my mind, is that of Guild Socialism, which concedes what is valid both in the claims of the State Socialists and in the Syndicalist fear of the State by adopting a system of federalism among trades for reasons similar to those which have recommended federalism among nations.”

“The terrorist campaign in which such men as Ravachol were active practically came to an end in 1894. After that time, under the influence of Pelloutier, the better sort of Anarchists found a less harmful outlet by advocating Revolutionary Syndicalism in the Trade Unions and Bourse de Travail.”

“In England Marx has never had many followers. Socialism here has been inspired in the main by the Fabians…What remained was State Socialism and a doctrine of ‘permeation.’ Civil servants were to be permeated with the realization that Socialism would enormously increase their power. Trade Unions were to be permeated with the belief that the day for purely industrial action was pasts, and that they must look to Government (inspired secretly by sympathetic civil servants) to bring about, bit by bit, such parts of the Socialist programme as were not likely to rouse much hostility in the rich. The Independent Labour Party…was largely inspired at first by the ideas of the Fabians…It aimed always at cooperation with the industrial organizations of wage-earners, and chiefly through its efforts, the Labour Party was formed in 1900 out of a combination of the Trade Unions and the political Socialists. To this party, since 1909, all the important Unions have belonged, but in spite of the fact that its strength is derived from Trade Unions, it has stood always for political rather than industrial action.”

“Anarchism, which avoids the dangers of State Socialism, has dangers and difficulties of its own…Nevertheless it remains an ideal to which we should wish to approach as nearly as possible, and which, in some distant age, we hope may be reached completely…The system we have advocated is a form of Guild Socialism, leaning more, perhaps, towards Anarchism than the official Guildsman would wholly approve. It is in the matters that politicians usually ignore – science and art, human relations, and the joy of life – that Anarchism is strongest… ”

In his “Proposed Roads to Freedom” Russell makes it clear that he is most sympathetic to the philosophy of Mikhail Bakunin and Prince Kropotkin, who were both involved with the Mounte Verità society, a sister branch to the Theosophists (refer here for the relevance of this).

Interestingly, Russell’s proposed roads to freedom, that is, socialism, anarchism and syndicalism all lead to the same destination point…the League of Nations.

Russell writes:

“If the peace of the world is ever to become secure, I believe there will have to be, along with other changes, a development of the idea which inspires the project of a League of Nations.”

Thus, Russell is all for minimising the power of the State until we can reach the “ideal,” in the form of a world empire.

The Unity of Science: Radical Positivists, Eugenicists, and Anarchists Unite

The Vienna Circle of Logical Empiricism was a group of philosophers and scientists who met regularly from 1924 to 1936 at the University of Vienna. The Vienna Circle’s influence on 20th-century philosophy, especially philosophy of science and analytic philosophy, is immense up to the present day.

The philosophical position of the Vienna Circle was called logical empiricism (aka: logical positivism). It was greatly influenced by such members as Ernst Mach, David Hilbert, and Bertrand Russell. The Vienna Circle was committed to the ideals of the Enlightenment and its aim was to make philosophy “scientific” with the help of modern logic.

This was very much along the line of what David Hilbert (member of the Vienna Circle) had called for at the International Congress of Mathematicians in 1900, whereby Hilbert put forth the thesis that all scientific knowledge should be reduced to the form of mathematical “logic.” Thus, all “scientific” knowledge would henceforth be solely deducible from mathematical models.

In 1900, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead (who taught Russell) set forth to achieve Hilbert’s challenge which resulted in the three volume “Principia Mathematica” published thirteen years later. The Principia would be the new Bible in many ways for generations of analytical philosophers and logical positivists.

Continuing along these lines, the Unity of Science Movement was organized in the late 1930s by former members of the Vienna Circle of Logical Empiricists, such as Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, and new members such as Ernest Nagel. The greatest aim being to create an encyclopedia that would establish how the unity of sciences should proceed, bringing together intellectuals to establish a fortress against the chaotic terrain of politics, which was extremely adverse to the “ideals” of a scientific way of life. All contributors to this process agreed that the progress of science should eventually create a “scientific world-conception,” helping to build (or control) a big picture of what science means.

“Encyclopedia and Unified Science” would be published by the movement with this aim. The first edition came out in 1938 and was co-written by Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, Charles Morris, John Dewey, Niels Bohr and Bertrand Russell.

Interestingly, science fiction was considered just as important as the logic of science to this world-conception.

Though H.G. Wells was not an official member of this movement, we should keep in mind that he was always committed to the same goals as Russell. Wells was not only a world famous writer of science fiction, but was also working on his own new secular Bible series in three books designed to unite all forms of knowledge. (4)

Among this trilogy is “The Science of Life” co-written with Julian Huxley, and meant to give a popular account of all major aspects of biology as known in the 1920s. It is credited with introducing modern ecological concepts and emphasised the importance of behaviourism and Jungian psychology (Jung was a member of the Mounte Verità society).

It also promoted Eugenics.

Julian Huxley, Vice President (1937-1944) and President of the British Eugenics Society (1959-1962) was the one to coin the term “transhumanism.” Julian was also the first director-general of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in 1946, to which he wrote its mandate “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy.”

Norbert Wiener was taught by Bertrand Russell at Cambridge and by David Hilbert at the University of Göttingen. He would go on to found “cybernetics.”

John Dewey, a member of the Unity of Sciences movement, would greatly dictate and shape a global educational reform, which was promoted by UNESCO, and has immense influence to this day.

It was clear that along with a world government, you would need a world-conception of what is regarded or approved of as “scientific,” all else would be thrown into the dust bin and would be considered unfit to shape policy. This was enforced by the construct of a global education system to implement the “right” sort of ideas and forbid the “wrong” sort.

Russell would put it forth most succinctly in his “The Scientific Outlook” (1931):

“The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researchers of psycho-analysis, behaviorism and biochemistry will be brought into play… all the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called “cooperative” i.e.: to do exactly what every body else is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished will be scientifically trained out of them.”

In 1953, Russell would update this creepy piece of work and make it even creepier, writing:

“It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment… This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.”

If you think that sounds awfully similar to Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World,” it is because it is, in fact Russell was contemplating charging Aldous with plagiarism.

Albert’s Radical Days

Albert Wohlstetter started at City College of New York (CCNY) in 1931. It was here that he would be mentored by Morris Raphael Cohen, a professor of philosophy and mathematics and a Russian émigré with a nihilist background.

In the 1930s, City College had developed a reputation as the “proletarian Harvard,” and this was very much due to Cohen, who started a Marx Circle at CCNY. This Marx Circle met regularly at the Henry Street Settlement House, which had been established by followers of the Fabian Society.

The Henry Street Settlement House was purchased by Jacob Schiff in 1895, likely through Rothschild funding (recall Rothschild also funded the London School of Economics which was started by the leading Fabians Sidney and Beatrice Webb). By the 1930s the settlement house was being used for classrooms and residences. Schiff was a financier who went on to receive the Medal of the Rising Sun from Japan in exchange for providing $200 million for the Japan-Russo war and then went on to pour millions into the Bolsheviks that overturned Czarist Russia in 1917.

While a Professor of Philosophy at CCNY (1912-1938), Morris Raphael Cohen came under the influence of philosopher Thomas Davidson, founder of the Fellowship of the New Life from which the Fabian Society arose in 1884. Cohen’s “Marx Circle” continued within Davidson’s enterprise. Cohen also studied under William James, co-founder of the Society for Psychical Research (connections to the Theosophists), while at Harvard University.

Cohen was also strongly influenced by Bertrand Russell, who in turn held Cohen in high regard. Cohen would write in his autobiography “A Dreamer’s Journey”:

“It was the study of Russell’s Principia Mathematic which I began soon after I was appointed to teach mathematics at City College in 1902, that finally liberated me…Russell came closer to being my philosophical god than any one before or since…”

Cohen would also mentor Ernest Nagel and Sidney Hook at CCNY. All of these men were close mentors/friends to Albert Wohlstetter. Hook would become a leader of the Marxist faction at CCNY.

Nagel cowrote “An Introduction to Logic and the Scientific Method” with Morris Raphael Cohen, in 1934.

Ernest Nagel, one of the founders of the Unity of Science Movement, earned his PhD from Columbia University in 1931 and went on to spend his academic career there, becoming the first John Dewey Professor of Philosophy at the University in 1955.

Upon graduating from City College in 1934, at the age of twenty- one, Albert enrolled at Columbia Law School. Albert abandoned law school, after a year, for a graduate program in mathematics. He wrote his MA thesis under the supervision of Ernest Nagel and under the watchful eye of his friend, the philosopher and mathematical logician Willard Van Orman Quine. (5)

Alfred North Whitehead was Willard Van Orman Quine’s thesis supervisor for his Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard University in 1932. It was Whitehead who introduced Quine to Bertrand Russell which began their correspondence.

Morton White was another one of Ernest Nagel’s doctoral students, and a close friend of Albert (6) who would join the Fieldites (a Trotskyist splinter group) along with Albert.

It should be clear thus far that, Albert was heavily under the influence of the Unity of Science movement thinkers, with Fabian Society overlap, since his days at City College New York.

During Albert’s time as a student at Columbia University (1934-1939), he would become very close friends with militant philosopher and Trotskyist Sidney Hook and found a mentor in Columbia’s highly respected Art Historian and Trotskyist intellectual Meyer Schapiro. (7)

The reader should be aware that Sidney Hook is credited as having converted James Burnham (who, like Hook, was also a professor in philosophy at the New York University) to Trotskyism, acknowledged by Burnham himself in his autobiography. In 1933, along with Sidney Hook, Burnham helped to organize the socialist organization, the American Workers Party (AWP).

In 1934, Trotskyists in the Communist League of America (CLA) did a French turn on the American Workers Party (AWP), in a move that elevated the AWP’s James Burnham into the role of a Trotsky lieutenant and chief adviser.

Sidney Hook earned a Ph.D. in philosophy from Columbia University, under the supervision of John Dewey. It was at Columbia that Hook began the project that was to occupy him throughout the 1930s, of seeking a synthesis between Karl Marx’s “dialectical materialism” and Dewey’s pragmatism.

In the late 1930s, Hook assisted Trotsky in his efforts to clear his name in a special Commission of Inquiry headed by John Dewey, otherwise known as the Dewey Commission.

The Dewey Commission was initiated on March 1937 by the American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky. The commission proclaimed that it had cleared Trotsky of all charges made during the Moscow Trials (8) and made the claim that Stalin had framed Trotsky.

This Commission was a pseudo-judicial process set up by American Trotskyists and its sympathizers. It had no power of subpoena, nor official imprimatur from any government.

Thus, we find a very clear overlap between the Unity of Science Movement and the Trotskyists.

Albert would co-write at least one article with Morton White an article for the “Partisan Review” (9) which was a very influential Marxist magazine that had become more Trotskyist in its leaning. This was due to a new cast of editors, including Dwight Macdonald.

Dwight Macdonald is another close friend of Albert. (10)

Albert would actually join a communist group called the Fieldites, also known as the League for a Revolutionary Workers Party (LRWP), a splinter group from the “official” Trotskyists. In the case of the Fieldites, they had a reputation of having an even more aggressive stance against Stalin’s Soviet Union than the typical Trotskyists. So even more militant.

Interestingly, the founder of the Fieldites was Max Gould (his pseudonym was B.J. Field) a former Wall Street petroleum analyst and graduate from Columbia University. Field had been personally close to Trotsky (11) in the early 1930s and was one of the leaders of the CLA during the heated 1934 period before he was expelled. It was at this point that Field founded the LRWP in May 1934.

The LRWP soon found itself under investigation by the FBI for subversive activities.

Thus, one very big question that comes to mind is, if Wohlstetter was a card carrying member of the LRWP (12), how did he manage top security clearance as a leading nuclear strategist for the RAND Corporation during the McCarthyite era and to which the House Committee on Un-American Activities acted as a standing committee from 1945-1975?

Even Herman Kahn, another prominent RAND nuclear strategist had his security clearance temporarily removed due to his wife’s affiliation with a communist group. So why was Albert’s past never brought up?

Alex Abella offers a possible explanation for this in his “Soldiers of Reason,” where he writes:

“…the records of the group [LRWP] were lost when Field, moving files surreptitiously from an office in a horse-drawn lorry—this was 1934, after all—became involved in an accident at a busy intersection after his horse died. Afraid that he would be charged with the accident and that his radical activities would land him in an even greater jam. Field fled the scene, leaving all the files, publications, and membership rolls to be disposed of by New York City sanitation.”

It is this rather dubious story that is used to explain how all records of the LRWP were lost, never to be found again, and how Albert was very conveniently given a fresh start.

So yes, if we are going to be “fair” with Albert, he was never a faithful Trotskyist, but then again, who ever was? The entire group was notorious for infighting, factions, splintering and permeation tactics, with a long list of renunciations. The importance is rather on what were all these groupings, notably the Fabians, Unity of Science Movement and the Trotskyist all working towards, since it was no coincidence that they were always revolving in each other’s orbits.

Albert was steeped in Marxist doctrine in tandem with the ideologies from the Unity of Science Movement by a network of socialist philosophers that spans three generations, and thus it is absurd to claim that this was all just a coincidence or a “brief” phase of radical experimentation on Albert’s part.

Renunciations, switching titles and mock conversions were all part of the game.

A Road to Damascus? Trotskyists “Convert” to Radical Positivism

James Burnham would remain a “Trotskyist intellectual” from 1934 to 1940. Before this, James Burnham graduated from Princeton, followed by Balliol College, Oxford University (recall Carroll Quigley’s quote on Balliol’s connection to the Round Table and the Fabian Society) before becoming a professor in philosophy at the New York University where he met Sidney Hook and was converted to Trotskyism.

In February 1940, Burnham renounced both Trotsky and Marxism altogether, writing “Science and Style: A Reply to Comrade Trotsky,” explaining his reasons for this and why from now on he would be a follower of Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead and the new Encyclopedia of Unified Science:

“Do you wish me to prepare a reading list, Comrade Trotsky? It would be long, ranging from the work of the brilliant mathematicians and logicians of the middle of the last century to one climax in the monumental Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead (the historic turning point in modern logic), and then spreading out in many directions – one of the most fruitful represented by the scientists, mathematicians and logicians now cooperating in the new Encyclopedia of Unified Science.”

In 1941, Burnham would publish “The Managerial Revolution” which was a sort of guidebook to Fabian Society thinking at the time of how the world was to be ruled. In fact, Burnham was of the viewpoint that this vision had already won (for more on this refer here).

In his “The Managerial Revolution,” Burnham echoes the Fabian Society methodology and Russell’s “The Scientific Outlook,” writing:

“Nevertheless, it may still turn out that the new form of economy will be called ‘socialist.’ In those nations – Russia and Germany – which have advanced furthest toward the new [managerial] economy, ‘socialism’ or ‘national socialism’ is the term ordinarily used. The motivation for this terminology is not, naturally, the wish for scientific clarity but just the opposite. The word ‘socialism’ is used for ideological purposes in order to manipulate the favourable mass emotions attached to the historic socialist ideal of a free, classless, and international society and to hide the fact that the managerial economy is in actuality the basis for a new kind of exploiting, class society.”

Although Albert would never make such a dramatic public declaration as did fellow technocrat Burnham, it is clear where he ultimately pledged his allegiance by his promotion of systems analysis (part of the trifecta of information theory and cybernetics) behind everything he did at the RAND corporation. (For more on this story refer to Part 1 of this series)

Burnham would go on to work for the OSS, followed by the CIA and would become “the real intellectual founder of the neoconservative movement and the originally proselytizer, in America, of the theory of totalitarianism.”

This helps us to understand why so many of Alfred Wohlstetter’s acolytes were prominent neoconservatives, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

RAND, under the guidance of Albert Wohlstetter, would gain the power to execute the mission of the Fabian Society. The Hannibal moment of victory had come with their entry into the JFK administration as McNamara’s Whiz Kids, who would not only “manage” the Vietnam War, but all wars that ensued under the American flag.

With entry into the government, they now had access to influencing all national policy including housing, healthcare, and education. Their permeation had become absolute.

Albert and Roberta would continue living in Laurel Canyon (a center of the counterculture movement), promoting an image of Albert as the ever-loving and patient teacher to an endless stream of doting students who would see him as a father figure, rather than for what he truly was, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Notes

(1) Colin Spencer (1996), The Heretic’s Feast: A History of Vegetarianism, Fourth Estate, pg. 283.
(2) I. Bernard Cohen (1985), Revolution in Science, Harvard University Press, p. 345.
(3) Ibid.
(4) The three books to H.G. Wells’ self-declared “new Bible” were: “The Outline of History” (1919), “The Science of Life” (1929), and “The Work, Wealth, and Happiness of Mankind” (1932)
(5) Ron Robin (2016), “The Cold War They Made: The Strategic Legacy of Roberta and Albert Wohlstetter,” Harvard University Press, p. 40.
(6) Ibid, p. 38.
(7) Ibid, p. 40.
(8) The Moscow Trials occurred between 1936-1938 and concluded that Trotskyist cells were at the heart of a fifth column operation within Russia which were committed to overthrowing Stalin and bringing Russia into a pro-Fascist program.
(9) Wohlstetter, Albert; White, Morton Gabriel (Fall 1939). “Who Are the Friends of Semantics?”. Partisan Review. 6 (5): 50–57.
(10) Wreszin, Michael (1994). A Rebel In Defense of Tradition: The Life and Politics of Dwight Macdonald. New York: HarperCollins. p. 113.
(11) Ron Robin (2016), “The Cold War They Made: The Strategic Legacy of Roberta and Albert Wohlstetter,” Harvard University Press, p. 45.
(12) Alex Abella (2008), “Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire,” Harcourt Books, p. 76.

[Part 3 will go over Albert’s role in shaping the RAND/Whiz Kids management of the Vietnam War, and his relationship to Team B, the false dichotomy of Kissinger vs Brzezinski, and the Trilateral Commission.]

A miracle appears to be happening, as the multibillionaires of the World Economic Forum (WEF) appear to have grown consciences.

As if by magic, it appears that these gold collar elites no longer yearn for profit and power as they once had. As COP26 closes up its 12 day annual ceremonies, leading WEF-connected figures like Prince Charles, Jeff Bezos, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney and Klaus Schwab have announced a new system of economics that is based on virtue over profit!

According to the COP26 website, “95 high profile companies from a range of sectors commit to being ‘Nature Positive,’ agreeing to work towards halting and reversing the decline of nature by 2030.”

Prince Charles has boasted that he has coordinated 300 companies representing over $60 trillion to get on board with a global green transition, and after meeting with the Prince on November 2, Jeff Bezos announced his new $2 billion Earth Fund to protect nature’s ecosystems with a focus on Africa. Even Prime Minister Mario Draghi has joined Mark Carney on this new green path, as both men have moved beyond their old Goldman Sachs money worshipping days and embraced a better destiny. At the Nov 1 G20 Summit, Draghi embraced Prince Charles’ Green Markets Initiative and threw Italy’s full support behind the de-carbonization initiative.

The Prince himself (who also happens to be the nominal creator of the Great Reset Agenda launched in 2020), spoke as an enlightened statesman saying to the world’s leaders “as the enormity of the climate challenge dominates peoples’ conversations, from news rooms to living rooms, and as the future of humanity and Nature herself are at stake, it is surely time to set aside our differences and grasp this unique opportunity to launch a substantial green recovery by putting the global economy on a confident, sustainable trajectory and, thus, save our planet.”

Among the new array of financial mechanisms which we see being brought online in this war against humanity involve Bezos’ new Earth Fund, and Sir Robert Watson’s Living Planet Index (unveiled in 2018 at the World Economic Forum) and the new Rockefeller Foundation-sponsored Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG) which seeks to turn global ecosystems worth an estimated $4 quadrillion into financial equity controllable by new private corporations (dubbed “natural asset companies”).

On its website, the IEG stated: “In partnership with the New York Stock Exchange, IEG is providing a word-class platform to list these companies for trading, enabling the conversion of natural assets into financial capital. The NAC’s equity captures the intrinsic and productive value of nature and provides a store of value based on the vital assets that underpin our entire economy and make life on earth possible… In 2021, we began seeking regulatory approval to bring the first natural asset transactions to the capital markets. Our vision is to bring to market hundreds of Natural Asset Companies representing several trillion dollars’ worth of natural assets.”

These new companies will become the stewards of new protected zones across the globe which the UN demands encapsulate 30% of the earth’s surface by 2030 and much more by 2050.

Is this time to rejoice, or is something darker at play?

To answer this question it is worth asking: Does this new virtue-driven order have anything to do with lifting people out of poverty or ending economic injustice?

Sadly, it is designed to do very much the opposite.

As we are coming to see, and as statesmen around the world are beginning to point out, this new order has more in common with oligarchical obsessions with controlling human cattle, and less to do with actually preserving the environment. The thousands of tons of CO2 emitted by private jets at Davos and COP26 represents on small aspect of this disingenuity.

Obrador Calls out the Game

On October 30, Mexico’s President Lopez Obrador called out this new virulent form of colonialism while presiding over a ceremony in celebration of the ongoing construction of the $6.7 billion high-speed Maya Train now being built in the southern regions of Mexico. The project which would dramatically uplift living standards in Mexico by driving the growth of industrial and infrastructure production has fallen far behind schedule due in large part to vast legal battles led by indigenous groups who have been used as proxies by foreign interests to defend Mexico’s ecosystems. In many of the legal cases opposing the project, the argument has made that since several species of insect, fauna and even some leopards will be affected by the new railways, then the project must be ground to a halt and buried.

In his remarks to a journalist inquiring into the rail project, Obrador said:

“One of the things which they [the neoliberals] promoted in the world, in order to loot at ease, was the creation or promotion of the so-called new rights. So, feminism, ecologism, the defense of human rights, the protection of animals was much promoted, including by them. All these causes are very noble, but the intent was to create or boost all these new causes so that we don’t remedy—so that we don’t turn around and see that they were looting the world, so the subject of economic and social inequality would be kept out of the center of debate….The international agencies which supported the neoliberal model, which is a model of pillage where corporations grab national property, the property of the people—these same corporations financed, and continue to finance, environmentalist groups, defenders of ‘liberty.’ ”

Many people have been confused over these remarks since they cannot conceptualize how neoliberal monetarists that have parasitically driven the new age of pillage under globalization would also support such ‘new rights’ groups outlined by Obrador.

For nations of the global south who feel resentment that their rights to support their people by having their lands and resources kept off limits, they are told not to worry, since streams of money will be showered upon them from on high. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of monopoly money will be sprayed onto the developing sector as rewards for remaining undeveloped. If that isn’t sufficient, then carbon exchange markets will be set up so that poor nations can sell their un-used carbon quotas to private polluting companies (perhaps the same companies controlling the African cobalt mines which seek a monopoly in controlling the renewable energy sector). That is another way they can make money which at least can keep them warm at night as kindling since the world’s poor will not have to worry about having nature-killing hydro electric dams mucking up their pristine environments.

Even in the west where Biden’s 30×30 executive order has been signed into action, farmers will be offered money to stop grazing on soon-to-be protected lands, while a supposedly grassroots-based WWF-connected American Prairie Reserve (with a $160 million endowment) can be seen pushing a program designed to take 5000 square miles of grazing land in Montana out of use and converted into a pure ecosystem.

As President Obrador has alluded to, today’s billionaire-funded conservation movement simply seeks to take earth’s ecosystems out of bounds of any human economic activity under a new global feudal system of controls.

Even the indigenous populations which such billionaires profess to admire as role models for global “good behavior” are being monetized by these new green indices, with monetary values being placed not only on keeping land and water untouched, but also the very cultural ecosystems of indigenous groups around the world receiving dollar values which wealthy green financiers will somehow be able to invest into. To the degree that such immutably fixed patterns of indigenous lifestyles remain unchanged by the toxic pollution of modern technology or infrastructure, the more these eco-assets will be worth for whomever professes to invest in them. This may not be scientific but it is sick.

The term ‘feudal’ is in no way used for hyperbolic purposes, as we can see a stark parallel to the 12^th century Europe, except that today’s aspiring feudal lords manage such companies as Blackrock, Vanguard, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and State Street and seek to punish all serfs from infringing on properties which only the nobility may control. Blackrock alone manages over $9 trillion in assets and $21.6 trillion in technology platforms and along with Vanguard is fast becoming one of the largest real estate owners in the USA with Bill Gates having recently become the largest owner of American farmland.

The Deeper Imperial Roots of Conservationism

With this vast imperial landgrab in mind, one should not be surprised to discover that the modern conservation movement actually finds its origins not in Greenpeace activists fighting poachers as mythmakers have cooked up, but rather in the bowels of the British Empire. It was this empire that innovated “nature conservation” regions in India during the late 19^th century specifically to keep the poor of India under control after having destroyed India’s once powerful textile sector. The practice was applied across India during the greatest density of famines struck southern India in 1876 killing tens of millions. It was amidst this darkness that British Imperial overlords took the opportunity to create “The Imperial Forestry Department’ in 1876 putting two fifths of India’s lands under “protection” and off limits to humans. This ensured no starving subject could use the protected zones which they had relied upon for survival for decades for food, or water.

The Nazi embrace of both Anglo-American funded science of eugenics on the one side and the Reich’s embrace of nature conservationism were also not unconnected. Herman Goring, who served as Minister for German Forests believed in a poisonous worldview that held that: 1) nature is pure and thus good due to its pure unchanging natural order while 2) humanity is impure and thus un-natural due to our aspirations for progress. This dangerous equation resulted in seemingly innocent programs launched by the Fuhrer and Goring to cleans the German ecosystems of all foreign and thus un-natural fauna and flora in order to return the forests of Germany to their supposedly pure pre-industrial states. The worship of nature was an integral part of the new master race and the weeding out of impurities extended itself to human genetics following racial theories advanced by British eugenicists and anthropologists.

Julian Huxley’s New Eugenics Revolution

Upon Hitler’s defeat, the repackaging of eugenics took the form of British Eugenics Society Vice President Julian Huxley’s outline in the founding Manifesto for UNESCO where he said:

“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilization is dysgenic instead of eugenic, and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability and disease proneness, which already exist in the human species will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. 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 is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Putting this new eugenics into practical action took on many heads of a hydra in the post WWII years. The particular hydra head most relevant to the thrust of this article took the form of another project Julian created in 1948 called the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) followed soon thereafter by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961 which he co-founded alongside two misanthropic princes named Philip Mountbatten and Bernhardt of the Netherlands.

Between 1959 and 1962 Julian had risen to become president of the British Eugenics Society and had put the finishing gloss on a new field of scientific misanthropic theology which he dubbed ‘Transhumanism’ alongside a Jesuit collaborator named Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

If you haven’t guessed, Transhumanism was merely another form of re-packaged eugenics serving the spiritual needs of a new priesthood of elitist social engineers that would be expected to manage the gears of a new technocratic feudal machine. This neo-paganism is not intrinsically different from the cultish beliefs of the Nazi Thule society of the past which gave spiritual direction to the members of Hitler’s government.

The neo-Malthusian revival that these eugenicists would spearhead through the end of the 1960s took the form of a new array of international organizations which incorporated systems analysis, and cybernetics, which aimed to control nation states and ecosystems alike. This took the form of the World Economic Forum’s early embrace of the Club of Rome’s computer models outlined by Aurelio Peccei (and incorporated into Schwab’s second official Davos meeting in 1973). These new models aimed to impose fixed immutable limits to humanity’s growth potential beyond which no technology or scientific discovery could ever penetrate. The fact that these same multibillionaires managing the overhaul of the world economy as it transitioned into a neo-liberal looting operation were simultaneously funding the growth of this new array of “new rights” groups led by a growing armada of non-governmental organizations, ecology protection and human rights groups is not a coincidence.

Today’s involvement of both Julian Huxley’s WWF and IUCN (no renamed Conservation International) as partners with the Intrinsic Exchange Group should not make any honest lover of nature in any way comfortable.

Much more obviously remains to be said both about the history of conservationism, and how it is being used once again to conduct a new age of population control, or how it has been used to disrupt large scale infrastructure projects across the world for over 120 years, or how nature reserves across the global south have supported narco terrorist groups.

However, for the time being, it is sufficient to note that the world’s developing sector is generally not going to accept being sacrificed on the altar of a new Gaia cult managed by a priesthood of Davos billionaires. Based on the momentum we see being driven by the Greater Eurasian Partnership, the Belt and Road Initiative and ambitions from Latin American and African leaders to finally break free of centuries of imperial manipulation, it is becoming increasingly obvious that COP26’s utopic computer models are increasingly breaking down when confronted with the reality of humanity’s creative power to leap outside of the fixed rules of imperial games when a true crisis moves us into action.

The author delivered a presentation on this topic which can be viewed here.

As we approach the long-awaited COP26 summit in the UK, one gets a sense of a creepy cultish mode of speaking among some of the top echelons of imperial thinkers setting the cultural tone for the proceedings which profess to profoundly transform a new epoch in human history. World Economic Forum shining stars like Yuval Harari, Klaus Schwab, and Ray Kurzweil speak giddily about an impending evolutionary shift where human society will become something more than human.

Renowned futurist and lead Google Engineer Ray Kurzweil gave this moment of bifurcation a name: “The Singularity”. In 2005, he described this moment saying: “Our version 1.0 biological bodies are likewise frail and subject to a myriad of failure modes… The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains… The Singularity will represent the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but that transcends our biological roots. There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine or between physical and virtual reality.”

Kurzweil and Harari even predicted the date 2050 to be the magical moment which the new age of human-machine unification will be consolidated, as artificial intelligence, bio-engineering babies with CRISPR technology, and interfacing our brains with microchips in the ‘internet of things’ will finally see the birth of a new species.

In a 2018 WEF sermon, Harari said:

“We are probably among the last generations of homo sapiens. Within a century or two, Earth will be dominated by entities that are more different from us, than we are different from Neanderthals or from chimpanzees. Because in the coming generations, we will learn how to engineer bodies and brains and minds. These will be the main products of the 21^st century economy.”

Other modern geniuses in today’s secular pantheon of demigods like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk have poured billions into ventures such as Neuralink and Facebook’s brain-chip interface plans to advance this new age and “keep humans relevant” in the face of machines that will certainly send our frail species to the dinosaurs.

Will God play a role in these futurist equations?

Of course not. Modern evolutionary science has proven that all talk of God, soul, meaning, and purpose are absurd.

All we have is complexity, bifurcation (transformation of states), and random stochastic motion of atoms in a nihilistic world of chance. Luckily, intelligent design has finally emerged in this new era out of the chaotic whimsy of all past epochs… and those intelligent designers are found among Harari’s sponsors who control such power structures as Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other power structures sitting atop the pyramidal hierarchy in this new dystopia. (1)

Listening to any of them talk, you sort of get the feeling that Harari and his elite group of Davos philosophers wish to become the high priests of a new synthetic religion named Transhumanism.

Before one gives in to the notion that either “The Singularity” or “Transhumanism” are in any way novel concepts that arose in the minds of these luminaries of the Great Reset, rest assured, that as powerful as these modern priests may appear to be, creative they are not.

In fact the very essence of the Singularity and Transhumanism find their origins in the earliest formulations of Galton’s eugenics and Nietzsche’s cynical revival of the old theories of Gorgias.

Galton, Darwin and Nietzsche: The Rise of the Ubermenschen Cult

It was Friedrich Nietzsche who taught, following Gorgias’ student Callicles 2000 years earlier, that it is only by courageously severing ourselves from the illusory force of our conscience, that we may tap into the creative energy and strength needed to impose our will onto the weak in a struggle for survival. The new human to emerge out of this struggle of ‘will to power’ over the weak and unfit would become a new breed of elite Uber menschen capable of directing evolution according to scientific principles.

The Nietzschean eugenicists orbiting the elitist and ironically inbred world of Francis Galton absorbed this immoral ethic into their new scientific religion which utilized statistics to decide whose lives would be worth preserving, and whose worth eliminating via euthanasia, sterilization or selective breeding.

In his essay Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope and Aims (1904) Galton said that this new science: “must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious, tenet of the future, for eugenics co-operate with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races…. I see no impossibility in Eugenics becoming a religious dogma among mankind.”

The most important keystone giving structural cohesion to the theories of both Nietzsche and Galton were found in the writings of a work published in 1859 titled The Origin of Species by one Charles Darwin. If Darwin’s theories explaining the causes of new species fell, then so too would any arguments held by the devotees of Nietzsche and Galton’s eugenicists.

Why?

In simple terms: Darwin’s theory (which simply re-packaged the ideas outlined earlier by Thomas Malthus) demands that it be assumed that new species arise from randomness and gradual change devoid of creative leaps. The Darwinian model broke with other theories that sought to find directionality, purpose, harmony, and reason in nature by imposing random mutations on the very small

These random mutations were akin to dice constantly being rolled on a roulette table which occasionally give the “winner” of evolutionary craps that bigger claw, or faster sprint or prettier feather needed to beat out the weaker, slower or less pretty competitor in the race for satisfying our appetites within a world of diminishing returns. Since randomness replaced the “outdated” concept of motive force inherent in deism, no over arching directionality were permissible in this Darwinian universe. Only change and complexity devoid of morality.

Of course, this theory didn’t satisfy the actual fossil records which were devoid of creative leaps, or randomness (or basic common sense for that matter), but that was nothing a vast amount of propaganda couldn’t hope to solve.

Religion was of course a major problem, and even though it is often asserted arrogantly that all opponents of Darwinism were simple minded creationists who all adhered to a literal interpretation of scripture, the truth is far different. Figures like James Dwight Dana, Benjamin Silliman, Charles Cuvier, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Karl Ernst von Baer all approached evolution from the standpoint of harmonics (how do parts within a whole and how do species fit into a biosphere)? They also addressed, to varying degrees such matters as purpose, intention and creative change.

Within the first years of the 20^th century, the overarching spirit of God was not fully broken, and cultural optimism still prevailed as a dominant force even among scientists. Discoveries made by great minds like Max Planck, Dimitry Mendeleev, Madame Curie, Albert Einstein, and countless others only confirmed the belief that the universe was not only ordered and reasonable, but also that a profound harmony existed within the human species and all of creation. Those who lived within this optimistic cultural field believed that it were both necessary and possible to end imperialism and establish a world of peace, justice and cooperation likened to St. Augustine’s City of God on this earth before the new millennium.

Such scientists didn’t believe this passively of course, but acted as living proofs of principle by 1) making discoveries of principle, 2) sharing those discoveries with others and 3) translating those discoveries into new forms of scientific and technological progress.

To the degree that this were done (and to the degree that political economic systems conformed to this reality), the Nietzschean science of eugenics was an impossible pill to swallow.

Enter Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Born in 1881 in Auvergne, France, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was enrolled in a Jesuit school at 14 and when the order was barred from France in 1901, finished his studies in England where he fell under the influence of a leading modernist theologian named George Tyrrell. The modernists were obsessed with reconciling Christianity with the new ethics and science emerging in the modern age. One of the most difficult challenges confronted by Jesuit modernists within the church during this period was reconciling the two seemingly irreconcilable systems of Christianity and Darwinism. Where Christianity saw mankind as sacred, the mechanistic universe of Darwinian evolution denied the existence of the divine in humanity or the broader universe.

Harmonizing these two worlds became Chardin’s new mission in life.

It wasn’t long before Chardin’s talents were recognized as the young man had already acquired a following of devotees amidst his own classmates and even some superiors of the order. After teaching paleontology in Cairo for three years (1905-1908), Chardin was called to return for a relaxing holiday in Piltdown England, when lo and behold, one of the greatest discoveries in history occurred during a short walk as Chardin discovered a skull and bone fragments in a field. It was 1912 and the skull and jawbone were hailed as the long awaited “missing link” between ape and man whose absence frustrated gradualist Darwinians for decades. International press trumpeted the new discovery as the great proof that Darwin was right, and soon a team of British archeologists were deployed by the Royal Academy to finish the excavation work. Although Chardin quickly became a celebrity, rumblings of doubt among the scientific community persisted- especially among dentists. Why were there no teeth found amidst the Piltdown Man? Why did the jawbone look so similar to that of an orangutang?

Despite the excavation site being remarkably unprotected, with bystanders frequenting the site to poke around freely for weeks, Chardin soon returned once more on holiday and conveniently stumbled on a tooth that no one else saw. This second earth shattering discovery again sent his meteor ever further into space and it wasn’t until years later (1953!) that scientists studying the remains conclusively proved that the Piltdown Man really was a monkey jaw died and shaved along with a human skull. The true owner of the tooth found by Chardin was a dog (painted and shaved carefully to fit the jaw).

In the wake of WWI, Chardin found himself stationed in China, where he would live out the next 20 years of his life.

The Truth of Chardin’s Misanthropic Faith

His theories of a new neo-Darwinism Christianity became extremely popular among wide groupings of his fellow Jesuits, but also sparked concern in Rome where influential bishops and Cardinals were troubled by his work which began challenging fundamental dogma of the Church itself and even the nature of the divinity of Christ, the nature of sin, forgiveness, and mass. It was just too much for the Church to bear and Chardin was soon deprived of his rights to teach or publish his theories and was told instead to focus on missionary work.

To this command Chardin was disgusted, having demonstrated a rather deep antipathy for the Chinese and the poor in general (he never bothered to learn even the rudiments of the Chinese language despite being forced to live there for over 20 years).

Chardin’s racism was seen early on, when in 1929 he wrote: “Do the yellows [the Chinese] have the same human value as the whites? [Father] Licent and many missionaries say that their present inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I’m afraid that this is only a ‘declaration of pastors.’ Instead, the cause seems to be the natural racial foundation…Christian love overcomes all inequalities, but it does not deny them.”

In another letter in 1936, Chardin lays out his hate for both the equality of races and nationalism which he believes should be replaced by a new scientific religion:

“The philosophical or ‘supernatural’ unity of human nature has nothing to do with the equality of races in what concerns their physical capacities to contribute to the building of the world.…As not all ethnic groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean they must be despised—quite the reverse…In other words, at one and the same time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races. Now the second point is currently reviled by Communism…and the Church, and the first point is similarly reviled by the Fascist systems (and, of course, by less gifted peoples!).”

Piltdown Man Hoax 2.0

While avoiding as much human contact with the Chinese as possible, Chardin kept himself extremely busy travelling all over China, Tibet, Xinjiang, Burma and even the USA between 1923-1945. At one point Chardin spent some months in Peking where he joined a Rockefeller Foundation-funded expedition that uncovered a new missing link in 1926. The suspicion that the earlier Piltdown Man was a hoax was spreading across the scientific community, but that didn’t stop Chardin from publishing several scientific papers on his new find creating a new sensation across the world.

Finally, a missing link between ape and man was really discovered and Darwin’s theory could finally be said to be proven true! It was even given a name: Peking Man.

Sadly, anyone wishing to investigate these claims were hard out of luck as the hundreds of bone fragments were quickly plopped in a crate to be sent to the USA for further examination, when they were mysteriously lost, never to be found again. Chardin strangely seemed to feel no remorse over this loss and made zero attempt to track down the prized find. He simply told his friends that there was no point crying over spilt milk and that everyone should go about their day with a renewed faith that Darwinism must be accepted as the essence of Christianity.

To demonstrate the enduring strength of this Piltdown Hoax 2.0, scientists to this very day treat it as a fait accompli and continue to write apologetics for the missing bones.

Creating a New Religion

If there is any doubt that Chardin saw himself as a new Moses carrying out a total insurgency against Christianity, let them simply read his letter to a friend in 1936 “What increasingly dominates my interest is the effort to establish within myself, and to diffuse around me, a new religion (let’s call it an improved Christianity if you like) whose personal God is no longer the great Neolithic landowner of times gone by, but the Soul of the world.”

In a letter dated March 21, 1941, he wrote: “I cannot fight against Christianity; I can only work inside it by trying to transform and convert it. A revolutionary attitude would be much easier, and much more pleasant, but it would be suicidal. So I must go step by step, tenaciously.”

While many are attracted to such concepts as “the soul of the world” and “a personal god” it is worth asking what sort of new religion and God was Chardin creating?

First of all, Chardin’s new Darwinian Christianity professed to gloss over the problematic randomness function inherent in Darwin’s original directionless system by inserting a form of directionality… but not one encumbered by the idea of morality, purpose or “better/worse”. Instead, Chardin’s directionality would be tied to a future “Omega Point” at which moment humanity would somehow bifurcate into a new evolutionary organism akin to Ray Kurzweil’s idea of “The Singularity” now in vogue.

In Chardin’s system, this future omega point is teleologically driving the increased rate of complexity across time with the entire universe divided into four phases: 1) the big bang creation of the universe (cosmogenesis), 2) the emergence of life (biogenesis), 3) the emergence of cognition (homogenesis) and 4) the spiritual convergence of humanity (Christogenesis). The third phase was also dubbed the age of the Noosphere by Chardin, while the fourth phase is the Omega Point.

Chardin’s Noosphere would be a very different beast from the Noosphere of the Brilliant Russian Academician Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945) who was locked into his own parallel fight against the mechanists attempting to crush the soul of science in Russia and which will be the feature of a future article.

Beyond Good and Evil

Replacing the concept of moral change (change for better or worse according to a universal standard of right vs wrong), Chardin introduces the idea of “quantitative complexity”. In fact, in his neo-Darwinian system, acts of evil become themselves acts of pure nature devoid of any moral judgement.

In his Comment je vois les Choses, Chardin says: “In our modern perspective of a Universe in a process of cosmogenesis, the problem of evil no longer exists.” Events are “essentially subject to the play of probabilities of chance in its arrangements… it is absolutely unable to progress toward unity without engendering [evil] here or there by statistical necessity”.

The very act of bloodshed, war and evil on the earth were merely necessary events on the path of life governed by that beautiful future Omega Point whereby humanity would evolve into a transhuman species of loving cyborgs. Former Jesuit historian Malachi Martin wrote that: “Teilhard was not overly shocked by bloodshed, regarded violence as a necessary concomitant of Evolution, and seemed to have enjoyed war- what he saw of it. Death, bloody or otherwise, was what he called a ‘mutation’.”

Since evil had no actual existence in Chardin’s system (statistics and complexity being the simple effect of Darwinian forces in a struggle for survival), there is nothing stopping him from extolling the virtues of racially targeted eugenics in a closed system of limited resources. In Human Energy, Chardin writes:

“What fundamental attitude…should the advancing wing of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? The earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate, racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally still, how should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving what is so often no more than one of life’s rejects?…To what extent should not the development of the strong…take precedence over the preservation of the weak?”

Pure Nietzsche, Galton and Malthus (the latter also wearing the frock of a holy man).

Embracing Eugenics

While Chardin is certainly a racist, in his defense he believed in vastly expanding eugenics for all races, and called for employing the best of science to improve the human gene pool:

“For a complex of obscure reasons, our generation still regards with distrust all efforts proposed by science for controlling the machinery of heredity, of sex-determination and the development of the nervous systems. It is as if man had the right and power to interfere with all the channels in the world except those which make him himself. And yet it is eminently on this ground that we must try everything, to its conclusion.”

In 1951, Chardin re-amplified his call for a science and religion of eugenics:

“So far we have certainly allowed our race to develop at random, and we have given too little thought to the question of what medical and moral factors must replace the crude forces of natural selection should we suppress them. In the course of the coming centuries it is indispensable that a nobly human form of eugenics, on a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and developed. Eugenics applied to individuals leads to eugenics applied to society.”

Chardin’s Omega Point here takes on ever greater meaning as the masquerade of “Christ consciousness” and “global love” is torn from the sweet veneer of his message and the full misanthropic eugenical fanaticism of a high priest in some dystopic scientific dictatorship can now be seen. Chardin’s close friendship with the founder of Transhumanism (and leading eugenicist) Sir Julian Huxley here takes on new meaning as well.

Julian and Pierre: High Priests of Transhumanism

Writing of his admiration of Huxley in 1941, Chardin said to a friend: “I am continuing to work towards a better presentation, clearer and more succinct, of my ideas on the place of man in the universe. Julian Huxley has just brought out a book, or rather a series of essays, called The Uniqueness of Man, in a way so parallel to my own ideas (even though without integrating God as the term of the series) that I feel greatly cheered.”

It is no paradox that the radical atheistic Huxley and the Jesuit priest Chardin found in each other, a kindred spirit.

Julian had been hard at work for decades trying to salvage his grandfather’s work in re-packaging Darwin alongside H.G. Wells and J.B.S. Haldane under a new system called The New Evolutionary Synthesis (outlined in Huxley’s Uniqueness of Man cited by Chardin above). This ‘New Synthesis’ was essentially identical to Chardin’s thesis except devoid of any pretense to harmonize with Biblical scripture.

Chardin was so moved by admiration not only for Julian but the entire Huxley clan, that he wrote his 1949 ‘Man’s Place in Nature’ as an homage to Thomas Huxley’s 1904 ‘Man’s Place in Nature and Other Anthropological Essays’. Julian in turn was so moved by Chardin’s thesis that he wrote the introduction to the priest’s famous treatise The Phenomenon of Man.

In his Future of Man, Chardin wrote that his Omega Point “represents our passage, by translation or dematerialization, to another sphere of the Universe: not an ending of the Ultra-Human but its accession to some sort of Trans-Human at the ultimate heart of things”

Julian Huxley paid homage to Chardin’s Peking man hoax while discussing his parallel views of Transhumanism in 1957 writing in his New Bottles for New Wine:

“I believe in transhumanism: once there are enough people who can truly say that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Peking man. It will at last be consciously fulfilling its real destiny.”

It is here worth keeping in mind that Julian wasn’t merely an ivory tower commentator, but an extremely active grand strategist, having acted as President of the British Eugenics Society, founded the world’s first environmental organizations (the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and its off-shoot the World Wildlife Fund) and also founded United Nations Education Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1946. In the manifesto for UNESCO, Huxley had explicitly called for reviving eugenics as the most important of all sciences while inducing humanity to accept a world government.

Cybernetics (the science of control using binary processing and machines as models for human minds and society as a whole) was emerging onto the scene by 1945. Chardin tapped directly into this current with a robust enthusiasm of a religious cult leader, even calling for a merging of humanity with machines long before it became cool. In his Future of Man we see Chardin ask rhetorically:

“How can we fail to see the machine as playing a constructive part in the creation of a truly collective consciousness?.. I am thinking, of course, in the first place of the extraordinary network of radio and television communications which… already link us all in a sort of “etherized” universal consciousness. But I am also thinking of… those astonishing electronic computers which, pulsating with signals at the rate of hundreds of thousands a second, not only relieve our brains of tedious and exhausting work but, because they enhance the essential (and too little noticed) “speed of thought,” are also paving the way for a revolution in the sphere of research… all these material instruments… are finally nothing less than the manifestation of a kind of super-Brain, capable of attaining mastery over some super-sphere in the universe.”

Towards the end of his life, a friend asked him how he feels about his works still being banned from publication by the Church. He responded by saying “I have so many friends now, in good strategic positions, that I have no fear of the future. I have won the game.”

When he died in 1955, Chardin’s works were still largely banned as heresy by the Vatican. His work continued to spread as a sort of Soviet-era samizdat recruiting ever more converts to his particular “new and improved Christianity”. The logic used by Chardin’s followers in support of this new cybernetics-brand of religion in opposition to the dogmatic traditionalists of the Vatican was that since the times were changing, so too must religion. The world of the nation state, industrial growth and individualism was a thing of the outdated conservative era. The post-nation-state world of collective planetary consciousness was upon us as society moved towards a mystical omega point. This faith meant that Christianity had to evolve with the times like any creature wishing to avoid extinction within a Darwinian fight for survival.

Over the ensuing decades, followers of Chardin played a major role in shaping the outcome of the Church’s decentralization and liberalization in the form of Vatican II launched by Pope John XXIII in 1962. These same networks concentrated in Ibero-America innovated a new form of doctrine called “Liberation Theology” with the logic that Marxism was the purest expression of Christ’s message and that all true Christians were obliged to take up La Revolutione against capitalism around the world during the dark days of the Cold War. When asked what should be done about the stagnant catholic Church, Chardin called for this new revolutionary Marxist-merger by saying “a good dip into Marxism might start things moving again.”

While Pope John Paul I and II tried to push back against this deconstruction of Christianity, a touch of poison and a couple of assassin’s bullets brought the Holy See quickly back into line, as the ground was set for a full Jesuit takeover of the Church and integration of Christianity into a new eugenics-driven religion.

These topics will be unpacked in a future article.

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

Notes

(1) Harari continues his 2018 speech saying: “For four billion years, nothing fundamental changed in the basic rules of the game of life. All of life was subject to the laws of natural selection, and to the laws of organic biochemistry. But this is now about to change. Science is changing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design. Not some intelligent design of some God above the clouds. But our intelligent design, and the intelligent design of our clouds. The IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud. These are the new driving forces of evolution.”

Today’s world is gripped between two possible futures: on the one hand, a multipolar alliance in defense of sovereign nation states has organized itself around a paradigm of long-term thinking, scientific optimism and win-win cooperation, while a unipolar paradigm of world government, depopulation and zero-sum thinking pushes a program of Great Resets, controlled pandemics and war.

Gaining insight into these two opposing paradigms is more important now than ever before, and one important place to start is the disturbing mind of Great Reset Architects who are today pushing society into a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” where it is believed that automation, and Artificial Intelligence will render most of humanity obsolete. As the World Economic Forum’s star philosopher Yuval Harari has repeatedly described this outlook: “Technology may disrupt human society and the very meaning of human life in numerous ways ranging from the creation of a global useless class to the rise of data colonialism and digital dictatorships”.

In the first article in this series, I reviewed the re-organization of the eugenics movement after WW2 as it followed Sir Julian Huxley’s demand that “the unthinkable be made, once again thinkable”.

In this second segment, we will leap back a little further in time to better understand what caused the rise of the perversion of science known as “eugenics” as a new scientific religion in the 19^th century, before continuing with part three (From Russell to Wiener: The Rise of Cybernetics and Transhumanism).

The Closed System Assumptions of Social Darwinism

There are a few fundamental things that should be understood about the science of eugenics, otherwise known as “the science of cleansing the human gene pool of undesirable pollution” which emerged at the end of the 19^th century.

This “science” grew out of the application of Darwin’s theories of natural selection and “survival of the fittest” to human society’s weeding out of the unfit and was premised on certain fundamental assumptions, not the least of which included: 1) that humanity is a system entirely shaped by material forces of environmental constraints and genetics, 2) that this system was fundamentally closed and hence entropic (subject to immutable laws of diminishing returns guided by an inevitable heat death), 3) that the creative force of genetic mutations guiding the appearance of new biological mechanisms was fundamentally random and 4) that this randomness could only be overcome by the rise of a new era of social engineers managing humanity on all levels-economic, psychological, cultural and even genetic.

Imagining the future age when the science of eugenics would replace world religions, the school’s founder Sir Francis Galton (cousin to Charles Darwin) mused in 1905: “It is easy to let the imagination run wild on the supposition of a whole-hearted acceptance of eugenics as a national religion”.

The Late 19^th Century: A Clash of Two Systems

The paradigm shifting breakthroughs made in science and statecraft by the end of the 19^th century resulted in a new petro-chemical/electronic age. New discoveries in atomic physics made by Beckerel, Roentgen, Curie, Rutherford, Planck and Einstein were additionally changing humanity’s idea of space, time, energy and matter. The practical application of these discoveries in the form of scientific and technological progress at the service of humanity was quickly destroying the foundations of Thomas Malthus’s supposed “laws of population” which assumed that human invention could never outpace nature’s limits always requiring a “scientific priesthood” to control population growth from above the control of nations.

Despite the fact that a genuine hope for a new age of discovery and progress was becoming realized, something darker was at play.

It was at this time that leading forces representing the British Empire were busy trying to resolve an existential challenge: National Sovereignty had proven itself much stronger than anticipated by the financier oligarchy centered in London and something new was emerging that could possibly undermine systems of Hobbesian “zero-sum” geopolitics forever.

The preservation of the union largely thanks to a strategic Russia-U.S. alliance resulted in a major defeat for British forces both in the City of London as well as Wall Street, the slaveocracy of the South and British Canada. A new global system was quickly emerging as Lincoln-admiring statesmen quickly adopted the “American System of Political Economy” to liberate their nations from the manipulation of the Empire. Where the American System was a fundamentally open system- premised as it was upon unbounded technological progress and the subservience of money to national sovereignty, the British system was fundamentally closed, premised on the worship and control of money by private financiers, debt slavery and speculation. Where one focused on production, the other only parasitically looted.

Henry C Carey (leading economic advisor to Abraham Lincoln) had made this dichotomy explicit as he foresaw the global nature of the oncoming U.S. Civil War elaborated in his 1852 Harmony of Interests:

“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labor of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the laborer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”

In 1872, Carey was busy directing an international array of economists around the globe who were assisting dozens of governments in the implementation of this system when he wrote an anti-Malthusian economic treatise called Unity of Law. It was here that the great economist fully laid out his comprehensive theory of economic science as a non-zero sum system of cooperation and creative growth among great cultures:

“The great nations of the earth should each and all profit by development of the powers, mental, and physical, of each and every other; each and all growing in power for self-direction as each and every other more and more obtains power for controlling and directing the great natural forces; the harmony of all international interests being as perfect and complete as we know to be that of the individuals of which nations are composed.”

By 1890, Carey’s optimistic vision of a new epoch for civilization was beautifully expressed by Colorado’s first Governor, and Lincoln’s former bodyguard William Gilpin whose 1890 Cosmopolitan Railway featured in-depth studies of rail projects uniting all parts of the world together under a new culture of scientific and technological progress for all. Gilpin was explicit that this system would be funded by national banks generating long term productive credit, protectionism and universal education for the good of each and all.

Gilpin wrote of this future post-colonial world:

“The weapons of mutual slaughter are hurled away; the sanguinary passions find a check, a majority of the human family is found to accept the essential teachings of Christianity IN PRACTICE… Room is discovered for industrial virtue and industrial power. The civilized masses of the world meet; they are mutually enlightened, and fraternize to reconstitute human relations in harmony with nature and with God. The world ceases to be a military camp, incubated only by the military principles of arbitrary force and abject submission. A new and grand order in human affairs inaugurates itself out of these immense concurrent discoveries and events”

The Empire Strikes Back

Empires never disappear without a fight, and the British Empire was no exception. Before the British-orchestrated Civil War in the USA was finished, a new imperial grand strategy was reformulated in the ideological nerve center of Cambridge and the Royal Society.

Out of these networks came a new breed of imperial management under the form of Huxley’s X Club (c.1865) led by a young talented misanthrope named Thomas Huxley (aka: ‘Darwin’s Bull Dog”) who was tasked with formulating a new grand strategy for the preservation of the empire.

Knowing that the most important level of warfare is found in the scientific conceptions held by society (since our standard for political self-regulation is ultimately founded upon and informed by standards and laws found in nature), Huxley’s X Club aimed at uniting all major branches of physics, biology, economics and sociology under a singular coherent interpretation based on gradualist, descriptive, reductionist science. This would be a new unified, internally consistent science that would iron out the evidence of all creative leaps which shape all of living and non-living nature. This group realized that if nature could be modelled as a closed, decaying and random process then it would also be devoid of any actual notion of principle, justice, or morality. This would be a conception of nature which empires could forever justify the exploitation of their victims.

Although Malthus’s theories (and their economic corollaries in the works of Mill, Smith and Ricardo) had formerly done the job of “scientifically justifying” the empire, something more sophisticated was needed as the world was quickly seeing through the fraud as Carey demonstrated in his widely read “Unity of Law” (1872):

“Mr. Malthus was led to invent a law of population by means of which to relieve the rich and powerful from all responsibility for the existing state of things; giving them assurance that the poverty and wretchedness by which they were everywhere surrounded had resulted from the fact that the Creator had sent upon the earth large numbers of people for whom He had provided no table at which they might be allowed to eat, no materials by aid of which they might be clothed; thus furnishing the theory by aid of which subsequent writers have been enabled, as they supposed, to prove that, in the British Islands, man had become ‘a drug’ and ‘population a nuisance’.”

To put the new imperial grand strategy into motion, two new think tanks were soon brought online.

The first of the two was called the Fabian Society created in 1884 by a nest of eugenics-loving intellectuals led by Sidney and Beatrice Webb alongside “slaughter useless eaters” George Bernard Shaw. Soon the group attracted leading imperial luminaries to its fold including Thomas Huxley’s student H.G. Wells, Lord Halford Mackinder, John Maynard Keynes and Lord Bertrand Russell. The group soon established a school from which to indoctrinate talented young members of the global elite named the London School of Economics.

In 1902, a second think tank called the Round Table Group was established in Oxford under the control of “race patriots” George Parkin and Lord Alfred Milner. Soon branches of “Roundtables” across all Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth were created as outlined by Professor Carrol Quigley’s post-humously published Anglo-American Establishment. The funding for this group was paid for by the fortunes of racist diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes and its mandate was illustrated in Rhodes’ 1877 will:

“Let us form the same kind of society, a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his Country. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed.”

The Rhodes Trust set up shop in Oxford where young talent from across the commonwealth were soon brainwashed under Rhodes Scholarships becoming a new generation of imperial high priests guided by Rhodes’ edict that a new Church of the British Empire be established. These think tanks would coordinate British policy with a two-fold aim: 1) the destruction of all creative open system thought in political economy and science 2) the subjugation of the race to a new global feudal order managed by a master class.

In his manifesto entitled Imperial Federation (1892), the man who would become the co-founder and director of the Rhodes Trust (George Parkin), wrote of the inevitable collapse of the empire, unless the “disintegrating forces” of sovereign nation states could be destroyed:

“Has our capacity for political organization reached its utmost limit? For the British people this is the question of questions. In the whole range of possible political variations in the future there is no issue of such far reaching significance, not merely for our own people but for the world at large, as the question whether the British Empire shall remain a political unit… or yielding to disintegrating forces, shall allow the stream of the national life to be parted into many separate channels.”

These new think tanks wasted no time in putting a new grand strategy into action.

One of the primary forces who would guide the application of the anti-creative science of empire was Fabian Society leader and Cambridge Apostle, Lord Bertrand Russell and his cohort David Hilbert who launched a new project in 1900 that would attempt to shackle the entire universe into a very small mathematical box devoid of all creative vitality. This box would soon take on the name “cybernetics” and “information systems theory” by disciples of Russell and Hilbert. This system would later serve as the foundation for the growth of Transhumanism, Artificial Intelligence and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com