This may sound either arrogant or forgetful, but I could not possibly remember the number of times I was in the same room or at the same protest as Desmond Tutu. And the main reason I know he was there is because I was there listening to him speak, often from a distance of not more than two meters or so.  I say this not to associate myself with the great man — though I’ll forgive you for thinking I’m a terrible, narcissistic name-dropper — but just to be sure we all know this all really happened, because I saw and heard it.

It seems very important to mention, because of the way this man is already being remembered by the world’s pundits and politicians.  As anyone could have predicted, Tutu is being remembered as the great opponent of apartheid in his native South Africa, who was one of the most recognized and most eloquent leaders of the anti-apartheid struggle there, for most of his adult life.

Being a leader in the movement to end apartheid in South Africa was probably the greatest achievement of the man’s life work, and it should come as a surprise to no one that this is the focus of his many obituaries, along with the Nobel he was awarded in 1984.  After Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination, he was remembered by the establishment in much the same way, as a leader of the movement against apartheid in the US.  The fact that he had become one of the most well-known and well-loved voices of the antiwar movement in the United States and around the world at the time of his death has largely been written out of the history books, a very inconvenient truth.

But as with Martin Luther King, many of the same political leaders commemorating Tutu today would have been unlikely to mention him a day earlier, lest Tutu take the opportunity to speak his mind.  This is certainly why he was not invited to commemorate his friend and comrade, Nelson Mandela, at Mandela’s funeral eight years ago.

Like King and so many others, we can be sure that all the praises of Desmond Tutu as the great moral compass of the world will be made safely, after he’s dead.  Before then would have been much too dangerous, and he was best ignored until then — at which point his passing can be used as an easy way for liberals and conservatives alike to talk about how they also opposed South African apartheid, eventually.

Looking back at Desmond Tutu’s life, searching for various references to protests I recall him speaking at, there’s a headline from the Washington Post on February 16th, 2003 — “thousands protest a war in Iraq,” in New York City the day before.  There were at least half a million people at the rally, on one of the coldest winter days anyone could remember.  What I recall most vividly is being behind the stage, which was even colder than most anywhere else at the protest, because it was also in the shade.  Huddling amid the frozen metal scaffolding were a variety of leftwing luminaries, including Desmond Tutu, Danny Glover, and Susan Serandon, who were getting all the attention from the media, allowing me to hang out with Pete and Toshi Seeger, since no one else wanted to talk to them, or me.

The following year there was a rally in Copley Square in Boston, Massachusetts against Israeli apartheid.  It was very windy, and there were hundreds of people filling the area in front of the big church there on Boylston Street.  I don’t remember who else spoke, but Tutu was the main speaker, and he spoke at length, after I sang “They’re Building A Wall” and other songs related to the anti-apartheid struggle in Palestine, as it was an event in solidarity with Palestinians.  Being such a well-known leader in the struggle against South African apartheid, when he would compare Israeli apartheid to the South African version, this was just the kind of support the movement to boycott Israel needed, and Tutu did his best to provide it, over and over again.

There were three overlapping social movements in the early 2000’s that I was involved with as a musician, all of which Tutu was deeply involved with.  I apologize for speaking of these movements in the past tense, but none of them are anywhere near as big or active as they were in the early 2000’s.  I’m talking about the global justice movement and the movement to cancel debt in the Global South, the movement against Israeli apartheid, and the movement against the US/UK invasion of Iraq.

At the time I wondered how it was that Desmond Tutu was showing up at so many of the same protests, conferences, and other events I was attending, promoting, or singing at.  There was a lot going on, and at the time I didn’t know Tutu was actually living in the United States much of the time in the early 2000’s, as a visiting professor in both Georgia and Massachusetts.  There were a lot of other South African radicals at so many of the rallies, especially around the global justice movement, such as representatives of the South African trade unions.  The South African poet, the late Dennis Brutus, was everywhere back then as well.

Journalism, they say, is the first draft of history.  The journalists, when given the job to cover Desmond Tutu, generally did so when it had something to do with South African apartheid, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which he chaired, etc.  The journalists aren’t present elsewhere.  Their bosses didn’t send them to cover the protests Tutu was speaking at in Boston or New York, for the most part.

Lots of other drafts of history are then rewritten, for the text books, and for the obituaries, when once again Desmond Tutu’s centrality to the struggle against South African apartheid will be highlighted, with most everything else papered over or ignored entirely.  Others will recall Tutu’s service to the global social movements that arose in the decades after apartheid, to which he gave the full weight of his moral standing — whether these movements were covered by the corporate press or not, whether most of us knew these movements existed or not.

Yes, for those of us who were involved with the social movements that were active when Tutu was a spry young man of 70 or so, we will remember him as a fierce critic of capitalism, of Israeli apartheid, and of US and British wars of aggression.  And we know why he is being praised now by media outlets and politicians who have had no time or space for him since 1998 or so.

Desmond Tutu failed to remain in his historical place.  Had he played his cards differently in the post-South African apartheid period, he could have been a very rich and even more venerated man, winning lots more awards and schmoozing with the world’s power brokers.  Instead, before his official retirement from public life at the age of 79, he spent his seventies campaigning around the world as part of social movements for equality, dignity, and peace, and being a thorn in the side of so many of the rich and powerful people praising him today.

Dead people can’t speak out in their own defense, which makes them much less dangerous than when they were alive (especially if they died of natural causes).  So it’s up to those of us who are still here to speak, and to remember.  Long live Desmond Tutu.  Long live Desmond Tutu’s vision of a world free of oppression — a world in which so many of the politicians praising him today would be in front of a truth and reconciliation commission tomorrow, if Tutu were calling the shots.  Amandla awethu.  Our time will come.

counterpunch.org

In Part 1 the question was discussed what was Aldous’ real intention in writing the Brave New World; was it meant as an exhortation, an inevitable prophecy or as an Open Conspiracy? An Open Conspiracy closely linked to not only H.G. Wells, who clearly laid out such a vision in his book by the same title, published in 1928, but a vision also in the vein of Aldous’ famous grandfather Thomas Huxley “Darwin’s bulldog” and mentor to Wells.

It is from here that we will continue to discuss what exactly were Aldous’ views on such matters, did he in fact believe in the need for a scientific dictatorship? A scientific caste system? Was he actually warning the people that such a dystopia would occur if we did not correct our course or was it all part of a mass psychological conditioning for what was regarded as inevitable, and that Aldous’ role was rather to “soften the transition” as much as possible towards a “dictatorship without tears”?

The War on Science

“ ‘A New Theory of Biology’ was the title of the paper which Mustapha Mond had just finished reading. He sat for some time, meditatively frowning, then picked up his pen and wrote across the title-page: ‘The author’s mathematical treatment of the conception of purpose is novel and highly ingenious, but heretical and, so far as the present social order is concerned, dangerous and potentially subversive. Not to be published.’ … A pity, he thought, as he signed his name. It was a masterly piece of work. But once you began admitting explanations in terms of purpose – well, you didn’t know what the result might be. It was the sort of idea that might easily decondition the more unsettled minds among the higher castes – make them lose their faith in happiness as the Sovereign Good and take to believing, instead, that the goal was somewhere beyond, somewhere outside the present human sphere, that the purpose of life was not the maintenance of well-being [as happiness and comfort], but some intensification and refining of consciousness, some enlargement of knowledge. Which was, the Controller reflected, quite possibly true. But not, in the present circumstance, admissible.”

– Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”

This is the credo for all scientific dictatorships, to forbid any search for knowledge whose purpose is the discovery of a universal truth, something that “is beyond, somewhere outside the present human sphere.” Something that is and will remain always true, and not just true so long as people are led to believe it is so.

Thus, a scientific dictatorship must deny purpose by all means and promote an artificial “cushy” conception of happiness and comfort, since the former makes for very bad servants/slaves and the latter for very good ones.

Purpose leads to unpredictability in the status quo, there are no sureties for an oligarchic system of governance in a world that is motivated by a purpose towards truth, beauty, and knowledge, as Mustapha Mond succinctly lays out.

It is also the case that whenever one discovers a universal truth, it unifies rather than divides, truth is thus the very enemy of tyranny, for it offers clarity. And one can no longer be ruled over when they can see a superior alternative to their oppression.

Therefore, under the rule of tyranny, truth must when possible be snuffed out, otherwise it is contorted until it is no longer recognizable, it is broken into fragments of itself in order to create factions, schools of opposing thought that are meant to confuse and lead its followers further astray.

To deny purpose is thus the necessary condition to rule within a scientific dictatorship. Whether its controllers believe in purpose or not is irrelevant, since it is simply not admissible.

The question thus is, where does Aldous fit into all of this? For starters let us take a look at Aldous’ family roots to see if indeed the apple did not fall too far from the tree…

Aldous’ grandfather T.H. Huxley (1825-1895) had made a name for himself by the age of twenty-five and was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1950. Within a span of just a few years he would rise to become a leading member of Britain’s scientific establishment.

By the late 1700s, discoveries in geology began to contradict the accepted religious view of Creation. It was increasingly found that steady changes were the primary cause of most geological formations which developed over very long spans of time and that these changes had even led to the extinction of certain organisms/creatures. This was the first time that the biblical view of Creation was ever challenged as a mainstream argument within the sciences.

By the first part of the 1800s the scientific community was primarily in agreement that living processes and their environments did indeed “evolve.”

In the 1820s Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) and Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844), once friends, had come into severe disagreement over the origins of anatomical forms which lead to a historic debate in 1830, raising issues that have yet to be resolved to this day.

In 1838, upon reading Thomas Malthus’ “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” (who is known for calling for the courting of the plague to address the crisis of overpopulation), Darwin formulated his theory for “evolution” based on the “natural selection” of the fittest, he coined the term as an analogy of what he termed the “artificial selection” of selective breeding, with reference in particular to the practice of horse breeding. Darwin saw a similarity between farmers picking the best stock in selective breeding, and a Malthusian “Nature” selecting from chance variants.

That is, Darwin’s ideas of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” implied no directionality to evolution but rather was based upon Nature’s selection of random variants. But how does one part of an organism evolve without affecting the other parts of said organism?

According to Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, there is an inherent “potential” in evolution; the potential for change is inherent within the organism, and the shaping of its many parts occurs in a harmonic, coherent way. That is, change moves in a purposeful manner, not a random manner.

The evolution of wings for flight, the eyes for sight, the nervous system for thought; Geoffroy was stating that these were not the result of countless minute mutations occurring and being selected upon separate from the other, but that the transformations were occurring with the very intention to create forms of flight, sight and thought.

By Darwin rejecting this thesis, he created a paradox within his own theory. Either the potential for change is inherent in the organism in which many parts are able to change in a harmonic/coherent way, or it is not. However, if it is the latter, as Darwin claims it to be, random change of any part by itself without acknowledgement of the whole would more often than not lead to the death of the organism, as seen in studies of embryo formation, or would create a Dr. Moreau’s Island of freaks (which by the bye is another novel by our anti-hero H.G. Wells).

The elegant creations we actually do see arise through evolutionary processes would be an extreme rarity in such a world of randomness.

With everything we know today of the incredibly intricate details of biochemistry, the coordination of metabolic processes which occur in their thousands of “parts” would all need to evolve as randomly separate processes and yet, would also need to occur simultaneously and in conjunction with the other functioning parts. This would make Darwin’s concept for the selection of random variants within a coordinated functioning whole fundamentally impossible.

Not only is the evolution of the eye one of the miracles of evolution, it has countless variations upon itself, such that there is no one standard model for what is an “eye.” Are we thus to believe that this has randomly occurred not only once but thousands of times in each species with its own distinct variation of what is an “eye”?

In the early 1850s, Huxley had been introduced to Darwin and by the middle of the 1850s they were in close collaboration. Though Huxley never fully took to Darwin’s theory, he did become an avid defender and promoter of it nonetheless.

At the time there was strong opposition to Darwin and Huxley within Europe and the United States. James Dwight Dana (1813-1895), a contemporary of T.H. Huxley, was among the American leadership that opposed this view, and argued that evolution did progress with a directionality, using examples such as the observation that biological organisms were proceeding towards greater “cephalization.” That is, that evolution was forming a general trend towards increasingly sophisticated nervous systems that could respond and interact with their environment. Thus, evolution was towards greater forms of complexity with more sophisticated forms of function.

However, Thomas Huxley, “Darwin’s bulldog” was vehemently against this view of purposeful directionality in Nature. It did not matter that Darwin’s theory was just that, a theory, which still failed to explain much that was being observed in the evolutionary process.

Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss this in further detail (for more refer here), one cannot deny two major changes that occurred in “modern science” as a result of T.H. Huxley’s avid promotion of Darwin’s theory of evolution, that 1) Nature, and thus one could say the Universe, was not governed by purpose but rather by randomness, and that 2) man was but a beast, no longer to be among the children of God, no longer regarded as partaking in anything that was divine or sacred.

And if man is but a beast what does he care for higher truths? What more does a beast need than the simple forms of comfort and happiness?

Modern Science begets Modern Religion begets a Modern Utopia?

Before we go on to speak about Aldous’ brother Julian Huxley, I will say just a few words on his father Leonard.

Leonard Huxley published in 1926 his “Progress and the Unfit,” which was subsequently used to promote the Eugenics movement, to which H.G. Wells and Leonard’s son Julian were outspoken avid supporters of. Leonard also wrote favourably of his father T.H. Huxley’s views and that of Charles Darwin.

In his book, Leonard discusses how modern-day science is only to look at the interdependence of body and mind, that the existence of the soul has been discredited by modern science, and thus that conditions for improvement on the human condition must solely rely upon the social and biological.

He goes on to state that modern society has too long tolerated the proliferation of the feeble minded and so creates an ever-lasting burden for itself. He claims that mental defectiveness (which ranged from criminal behaviour, insanity, physical deformities and forms of mental retardation to addictions such as alcoholism and gambling, homelessness, owing massive debt etc. etc.) were all to be considered heritable qualities.

Thus, those in possession of such unwanted qualities should be segregated from society or sterilised. He acknowledges that such measures may appear immoral, but that it is only immoral when coercion is used against persons of “normal intelligence,” for those who are deemed abnormal, unable to use reason, such standards of morality do not apply. This also appertained to what were considered to be the “lower” races, to which, T.H. Huxley was outspoken in his view that the “white race” was indeed the most superior race of all and that the “black race” was amongst the most inferior.

With “modern science,” what stood in the way of the “mechanics of enforced good breeding” if humankind were to be regarded as no different from other beasts? And if we were judged to have no soul, the application of so-called “morality” was up for interpretation if not deemed entirely irrelevant.

Julian Huxley (1887-1975), the older brother of Aldous, after serving in WWI became a Fellow at New College Oxford, serving as Senior Demonstrator in the University Department of Zoology. In 1925 he moved to King’s College London to work as Professor of Zoology. However, after only two years he resigned his chair to work full-time for H.G. Wells and his son G.P. Wells on “The Science of Life.”

For those who are not too familiar with the views of H.G. Wells, I think it apt to share a quote, from part of his “new Bible” trilogy, “Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought” published in 1901:

“It has become apparent that whole masses of human population are, as a whole, inferior in their claim upon the future, to other masses, that they cannot be given opportunities or trusted with power as the superior peoples are trusted, that their characteristic weaknesses are contagious and detrimental to the civilizing fabric, and that their range of incapacity tempts and demoralizes the strong. To give them equality is to sink to their level, to protect and cherish them is to be swamped in their fecundity. “

I assure you, there is plenty more where that came from.

“The Science of Life,” which was also a part of Wells’ “new Bible” trilogy, was to give a popular account of all major aspects of biology as known in the 1920s. It is credited in introducing modern ecological concepts and emphasised the importance of behaviourism and Jungian psychology.

At the very end of the 900 page volume, it is written:

“To have a world encumbered for a time with an excess of sterile jazz dancers and joy riders may be a pleasanter way to elimination than hardship and death. Pleasure may achieve what force and sword have failed to do. The world can afford it; it is not a thing to fret about. It is only a passing fashion on a grand scale this phase of sterilized “enjoyment.” The great thing is that it should be able and willing to sterilize itself…The types that have a care for their posterity and the outlook of the race will naturally be the types which will possess the future.”

This, believe it or not, is H.G. Wells at his best behaviour, amply toned down so to speak. To Wells this is a rather humane proposition, since those who are considered of defective biological stock are simply to be sterilised but are otherwise free to mingle within society, free to live out a comfortable life of pleasures in all their degeneracies with no threat that such contaminants will continue on in the future breeds of humankind.

Thus, the age of pleasure will be more effective than the age of the sword (such as WWI), at diminishing the lower castes into a more “manageable” number. Within a generation, the human stock will be purified and a “Modern Utopia,” another book of H.G. Wells, can finally begin. Earth will become a paradise full of plenty, largely made up of a higher caste of reasonable, intelligent, healthy and attractive individuals and we will finally obtain world peace and harmony, until perhaps the next purge….

Besides Julian Huxley acting as Vice-President from 1937-1944 and President from 1959-1962 of the British Eugenics Society, he 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” that same year.

In it Julian lays out the need for a world government as the only means for avoiding war, and that the full sovereignty of separate nation states should be transferred over to this world government accordingly, under one political unity to which he expands upon, writing:

“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.” (For more on this refer here.)

In 1928, H.G. Wells publishes his “The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution,” where he calls for the reform of religion into a “modern religion,” which was only fitting now that science had become a “modern science.” In his concept of modern religion, he states that it will be necessary to strip religion down to its raw elements of service and subordination. Wells also wrote “The New World Order” in 1940, and no doubt, was a guiding influence on Julian’s outlook when he wrote the manifesto for UNESCO.

The reader should also know that T.H. Huxley was the mentor of H.G. Wells and introduced him to the writings of Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin.

[Refer to Part 1 of this series for an in-depth discussion on how H.G. Wells influenced the works of Aldous Huxley.]

The 20^th Century Descent of Man

At the very start of the 20^th century, the influential International Congress of Mathematicians organised a conference in Paris, France 1900. It was at this conference that David Hilbert, a leading mathematician at Göttingen University was invited to speak on the future of mathematics, where he stressed the need for the field of mathematics to “prove that all axioms of arithmetic are consistent” and to “axiomatize those physical sciences in which mathematics plays an important role.”

What Hilbert was calling for in his challenge for the future of mathematics was that all scientific knowledge be reduceable to the form of mathematical “logic” so to speak; that it be contained within a minimum of accepted truths and rules of derivation, which could be proven by consistent and complete formal mathematical proofs.

Thus, all scientific knowledge would in the future be deduced from such mathematical models, there was nothing left to “discover” in the typical sense of what defined scientific investigations during the 19^th century and earlier, they only need refer to the appropriate mathematical model.

In 1900, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead set out to meet Hilbert’s challenge which resulted in the “Principia Mathematica,” published thirteen years later.

Although Kurt Gödel would disprove the entire premise for the “Principia Mathematica” with his “incompleteness theorems” which show the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories, the “Principia Mathematica” is one of the most influential works of the 20^th century, on not only shaping modern logic but also formed the basis for the latter development of cybernetics and systems analysis by Russell’s student Norbert Wiener during WWII.

Before you conclude that Russell himself didn’t personally believe that irrationality was a fundamental force in the Universe simply because he tried formalizing said Universe, it is worth reading a section of his bitterly misanthropic view of humanity presented in his 1903 “A Free Man’s Worship”:

“That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand… Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”

Whether deterministic or random in view, the goal was the same, to promote a concept of the Universe that had no governing purpose, no directionality and no morality, that it was essentially a mechanism, discoverable by a few simple laws. This was not something new, the Enlightenment had already done much to emphasize individualism, skepticism and “science” reduced to the confines of empiricism and agnosticism.

With such a view our connection to the Universe becomes inconsequential, with the Universe seen as something cold, unknowable and ultimately dead or dying. Such a concept only further enforces that there is no real meaning to anything, there is no purpose, at least, it is not a purpose that we have any place in.

During the First World War, Aldous Huxley spent much time at the Garsington Manor, home of Lady Ottoline Morrell, a lover of Bertrand Russell, who believed (as Aldous and Julian would also), in the concept of open marriage. Although T.H. Huxley knew Russell’s parents, Lord and Lady Amberley, it was at the Garsington Manor that Aldous first met Bertrand Russell and the Bloomsbury Group.

It is also where he met his first wife Maria Nys, a wartime Belgian refugee who had been invited to stay with Lady Ottoline Morrell. Maria, who was bisexual, had entered into a several year love affair with Lady Ottoline starting at the age of sixteen. Maria did finally accept Aldous’ proposal and they were married in 1919 keeping an open marriage.

The Bloomsbury Group or Set, which met regularly at Lady Ottoline’s was an association of English writers, intellectuals, philosophers and artists which reflected in large part the influence of G.E Moore (who wrote the “Principia Ethica” in 1903) and Bertrand Russell who were amongst the founders of analytic philosophy. Alfred North Whitehead was also a member of the group.

As Dorothy Parker, American poet and writer, described them in a famous quote of hers, “they lived in squares, painted in circles and loved in triangles”.

Aldous Huxley would maintain a loose association with the Bloomsbury Group. It appears Aldous had a similar approach to Russell as he did with Wells, although he seems to have a serious dislike for both men, he nonetheless was greatly influenced by their works. In 1932, Russell exclaims in a letter to his publisher that the “Brave New World” was “merely an expansion of the two penultimate chapters of his ‘The Scientific Outlook,’ “ adding that “the parallelism applies in great detail, e.g., the prohibition of Shakespeare and the intoxicant producing no headache.” Russell went so far as to contemplate charging Aldous with plagiarism, to which his publisher dissuaded him from pursuing.

In Russell’s “The Scientific Outlook” published in 1930 he describes a caste system with the need for two separate modes of education, one for the elite ruling class and the other for the slave class. The ruling class is to be concerned with improving the scientific technique, while “the manual workers [are to be] contented by means of continual new amusements.”

Aldous echoes this sentiment in his “Brave New World Revisited,” where he writes:

“The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries.”

Although it is said that Aldous wrote the “Brave New World” as a satire of the works of H.G. Wells, and what appears to be the works of Russell as well, as already shown in Part 1 this is not true. Aldous is incorporating the ideas of Wells and Russell into his works, and though he may find these men dislikeable, he nonetheless never actually contradicts their views in any of his writings or lectures. The entire premise for his “Brave New World Revisited,” published in 1958, instead reinforces those very views.

Aldous makes it crystal clear that he considers the world to be overpopulated, that this is a crisis that must be checked, and that science and progress cannot be free to advance without limits. He restresses these very themes again in his last novel “The Island” as well.

In “Brave New World Revisited” he writes:

“The annual increase of numbers should be reduced. But how? We are given two choices – famine or pestilence and war on the one hand, birth control on the other…how can those who ought to take the pill, but don’t want to, be persuaded to change their minds?…In reducing the birth rate of those industrially backward societies where such a reduction is most urgently needed?…Or consider the backward societies that are now trying to industrialise. If they succeed, who is to prevent them, in their desperate efforts to catch up and keep up, from squandering the planet’s irreplaceable resources as stupidly and wantonly as was done, and is still being done, by their forerunners in the race?”

Here we need only replace the word “pill” with “sterilisation” and not much has changed.

In fact, as published in The Guardian, “Huxley was in favour of genetic breeding programmes to arrest the multiplication of the unfit. In a particularly unsavoury article, published in 1930 in the Evening Standard, he confessed anxiety about the proliferation of mental defectives and called for their compulsory sterilisation.”

Brave New World was written one year later in 1931.

It looks like the apple did not fall too far from the tree after all…

[Part 3 will discuss Aldous’ role in shaping the Esalen Institute, the Vedanta Society, his relationship to William Sargant and the CIA’s MKUltra, and how Aldous’ form of ideological spirituality went on to shape the drug-counter-culture movement.]

The author can be reached at https://cynthiachung.substack.com/

In part one, we were introduced to China’s surveillance state and broader social credit system and asked: Is this type of undemocratic behaviour justified in the modern world?

If the west were truly a beacon of liberty and if nation states were the only forces negotiating global policy between each other acting out of a concern for their citizens’ well being, and national interests then certainly the answer would be a loud negative.

However, when one accepts the reality of a supranational power structure operating above nation states committed to a specific dystopic formula for a world order, then the picture changes a bit.

In order to maintain the perception that China is a villain in the minds of credulous consumers of most conservative media, it is asserted that China is an atheistic monstrosity committed to crushing religion. If one wishes to practice religion in China, we are told the consequences are jail, draconian social credit scores or even the loss of one’s life.

Although popular, this perception is entirely bogus.

As far as freedom of religion is concerned, China is a land which is home to over 50 million Christians and has over 65,000 churches of protestant and catholic denominations. Muslims make up the majority of the population in Xinjiang which hosts over 24,000 Mosques which is a far greater per capita number than anything found in the USA. Buddhist and Daoist temples abound across China as well. For a refutation of the Uyghur genocide myth, click here.

While China is a secular state, it has come a long way from the anti-religious outlook dominant during the dark days of the 1966-1976 Cultural Revolution. Even China’s constitution protects freedom of religion (article 36), with the simple caveat that “No state organ, social organization or individual shall coerce citizens to believe in or not to believe in any religion, nor shall they discriminate against citizens who believe in or do not believe in any religion. The state shall protect normal religious activities. No one shall use religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the state’s education system.” And most importantly: “Religious groups and religious affairs shall not be subject to control by foreign forces.”

So basically, freedom of worship is constitutionally protected as long as your religious group doesn’t have the smell of color revolution on it.

Despite the fact that it is required that Churches, Mosques, and Buddhist temples receive a government license to operate legally and conform to China’s overarching national priorities, thousands of underground Churches also exist across China and for the most part, government officials tend to look the other way.

When, however connections are made between those unlicensed churches and foreign intelligence agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, or Open Doors (all having vast CIA connections), then they are promptly shut down. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Daoists are thus encouraged to find less insurrectionary venues to practice their faith.

Most westerners who criticize China’s non-liberal relationship to its religious institutions tend to overlook the fact that the form of modern warfare relies heavily on infiltration, cultural manipulation, psy ops, and asymmetrical warfare from within target nations. One such organization is the NED-sponsored ChinaAid (based in Washington and Texas) which finances and coordinates networks of underground Churches as weapons for broader cultural warfare across mainland China.

This technique of utilizing religious cells as a cover for undermining China is nothing new, and actually goes back to the Taiping Rebellion organized over 160 years ago.

The Taiping Rebellion Bloodbath

During this twelve-year bloodbath (1853-1864), a synthetic Christian cult led by a failed school teacher named Hong Xiuquan unleashed a civil war that put the British East India Company on a fast track to crushing China during the second Opium War (1856-1860).

Hailed as a man-god by his devoted followers, Hong Xiuquan was little more than a useful idiot recruited by western intelligence operatives masquerading as protestant missionaries in 1843 and soon became convinced that he was the brother of Jesus himself. With his revelation, Hong became fanatically committed to cleanse China of evil spirits. This evil was not, however the hand of the British Empire that had bled China in the first Opium War (1839-1842) nor the plague of drugs more generally that had destroyed the lives of millions of his brethren. The “evil spirits” which Hong became obsessed with eradicating were rather Confucian and Buddhist thinking in general and the ruling government specifically!

The year of Hong’s great revelation (1842), was the same year that China lost the first opium war giving over Hong Kong to the British Empire along with a vast expansion of drug flows into the impoverished and drug addicted nation. Opium imports skyrocketed to 3200 metric tons per year by 1850 with every province of China soon forced to grow opium to service the ever-growing demand. What was not produced within China was supplied from British controlled operations in India, and the Ottoman Empire.

The Chinese messiah managed to institute a new government called the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom which soon gained control of one third of China’s southern territory making Nanjing its capital by 1851. Its program attracted over 30 million adherents to Hong’s particular brand of Christianity among the impoverished peasants quickly became converts under this synthetic cult. Part of the attraction was found in the Taiping Kingdom’s policy of equal distribution of all property and no private possessions.

Hong’s cousin and partner in crime was an anglophile trained by the British in Hong Kong name Hung Jen-kan. When Jen-kan returned to Taiping headquarters in Nanjing in 1859 he wrote:

“At present England is the mightiest nation of the world, owing to its superior laws. The English are noted for their intellectual power and national strength, are proud by nature and averse to being subordinate.”

Noted historian Michael Billington cited letters which Caleb Cushing’s agent, and protestant missionary in China, W.A.P. Martin had written to his handler amidst the chaos of the rebellion saying: “The Tartars [Qing] dynasty, too far gone in senility to afford any encouraging prospect of reformation, will now, perhaps, consider the expediency of recognizing its youthful rival [the Taiping] which, catching the spirit of the age, may be prevailed upon toe unlock the treasures of the interior and throw open its portals to unrestricted trade… Divide and conquer is the stratagem to be employed in storming the citadels of oriental exclusiveness”.

It is important to hold in mind that Cushing was a leading figure among the Boston Brahmins who made fortunes working with the British in the global opium trade and were always antagonistic to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution itself. Cushing and his fellow Brahmins had been hard at work by this time preparing the groundwork for a parallel Civil War in the USA while the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom were still active in the east.

One of the bargaining chips the British empire used in negotiating the terms of China’s humiliating defeat was the threat to recognize the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom as the legitimate government of China. Beijing was so deeply bled from years of internal civil war that they easily bent to this threat and agreed to every condition demanded by the British resulting in the 1858 Treaty of Tien Tsin and Convention of Peking which granted unlimited access to foreign missionaries (again often covers for foreign intelligence operations), unlimited drug production, and free trade among other abuses that crippled China for years.

By the time the second Opium war ended in 1860, the British saw no more use in maintaining their synthetic cult and like a silk farmer who extracted all the silk from his worms, proceeded to work with the government to burn the cult which was finally exterminated by 1865.

In all, this civil war resulted in 30 million Chinese deaths, and still weighs heavily on China’s mind.

In the wake of the rebellion and broader Opium War, life expectancy sank as 22.6 thousand tons of opium were being produced within China for domestic use by 1900. Poverty ran rampant, and Anglophile freemasonic groups shaped the policy of Triads in Hong Kong where HSBC pioneered global narcotics economics. The crushing of the spirits of the Chinese resulted in the backlash of the anti-Christian Boxer Rebellion that itself became a convenient excuse for western imperial powers to carve up China even further in retribution for damages to houses, rail lines and lives.

By 1910, only one year before Sun Yat-sen’s Lincoln-inspired republican revolution broke China free from the unwinnable Great Game, European and Japanese imperial interests had taken control of vast portions of China’s territory.

Whether we are looking at religious sects masquerading as Christian or Muslim fronts, or Asian scientology-esque Falun Gong cults run by nutty exiled messianic characters like Li Hongzhi who literally believes he is ordained by God to save humanity from interdimensional aliens, Xi Jinping has some messy problems to deal with both within China and abroad. Living in a 400 acre compound in upstate New York and controlling a vast array of cultural/intelligence platforms including Epoch Times, Li Hongzhi’s continuing role as an influence shaper tied to the worst elements of China’s exiled community (including criminal billionaire and Bannon partner Guo Wengui) should lead any rational person to understand why China has taken the position it has on cults like Falun Gong and religious groups more broadly.

In the next installment, we will look more deeply at one more aspect of psy ops in China with a focus on Jesuits, London’s Tavistock and other spiritual poisons threatening the free world.

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

Well, what else is new? Afghanistan is said to be the graveyard of empires, but turbulence in the Balkans often is also the precursor to an empire or two being buried in its wake. Not for nothing, in the fall of 1918, as the Salonica front was crumbling, Kaiser Wilhelm complained to his General Staff what a shame it was for the outcome of the Great War to be decided by 70,000 Serbs. Some decades previously, his chancellor Bismarck (who himself had more than a few drops of Serbian blood on his grandmother’s side) averred dismissively that the Balkan riff-raff was not worth the bones of a single one of his Pomeranian Grenadiers. By 1918 Wilhelm had learned better.

At the moment, it is Montenegro that holds centre stage in a brewing Balkan political storm. The ostensible provocation – the consecration of the country’s new Orthodox metropolitan – is as unlikely a trigger for a major crisis just as Montenegro (once celebrated in breezy operettas such as “The Merry Widow”) appears to be an unexpected mise en scène for a major geopolitical earthquake.

In the event, most Balkan eyes will be riveted on the old Montenegrin royal capital of Cetinje, where on September 5 an oddly controversial ecclesiastical consecration ceremony should take place in the local monastery, which also happens to be the metropolitan’s residence and symbolic headquarters. Why would a solemn religious rite in a monastery be anything but routine? Because it is scheduled to take place in a part of the world where everything offends someone, or has a double or even triple, or occult, significance which is thought to menace someone’s perceived self-interest, and because in that part of the world where everything is convoluted and simplicity is scarce, virtually nothing can be passed off as routine.

Without seeking for an explanation which goes back centuries (an approach that history-obsessed natives would undoubtedly prefer) we can probably manage to get a good grasp of it by backing up a mere couple of decades. The statelet of Montenegro, the only patch of Serbian territory to avoid falling under the Ottoman yoke, was a proud Orthodox principality (after 1910 recognized as a kingdom) which cherished its organically close ties to Russia to the extent that in 1905 in all seriousness it declared war on Japan, in solidarity with its Big Brother. After World War I Montenegro joined Serbia and Slavic lands that had formed part of defeated Austria-Hungary in the newly established Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In the interwar period, many ideologically naïve Montenegrins were unable to distinguish between the Russia for which they went to war with Japan and the new dispensation that had replaced it. Consequently, communism became “in” with a portion of the population, while another portion remained steadfast in its more sober Russophile yet also traditional Serbian nationalist convictions.

The split in Montenegrin society, pretty much down the middle, bore bitter fruit in the form of unrestrained factional slaughter during the dark and confused period of World War II Axis occupation. After 1945, the winners in the tragic civil war, waged within the context of anti-occupation resistance, sought to reshape Montenegro (as well as the rest of Yugoslavia) in their own ideological image. After ruthless extermination of traditionalist elements, the supporters of the new system decreed not just that God was dead, but also that everything Montenegrins had been told before about their identity was false. The “nation builders” who seized control of the country now informed their subjects that they were not Serbs at all but were partakers of a distinct Montenegrin ethnicity, with all the requisite appurtenances which always accompany such identity decrees issued from on high. Yes, eventually a “Montenegrin language” was also invented and adorned with two new symbols that no one had ever heard of or seen before, thought up by a committee of foreign linguists specially hired for the purpose.

With the advent of “democracy” in the 1990s, the fiefdom of Montenegro was turned over to a promising young politician by the name of Milo Djukanovic. Belying his youthful appearance (that was thirty years ago) Mr. Djukanovic displayed some remarkable political nimbleness by successfully combining newly prescribed, post 1990 political forms with the ideological substance inherited from the preceding not-so-democratic times. The resulting, breathtakingly hybrid, system of governance produced numerous ostensible anomalies. The rebranded old political elite, led by Djukanovic, took Montenegro into NATO, glibly talked Euroatlanticist “values” gibberish while never fully mastering their own “Montenegrin” dialect, with its two contrived but distinctively unique symbols, which they were disingenuously promoting for use by others, and in general it toed the new Washington-Brussels party line with old-time ideological fervour, and without ever missing a beat.

The seemingly eternal ascendancy of the refurbished old regime cabal, now conveniently repackaged as pro-NATO and “European” enthusiasts (sadly, an opportunistic conversion not in the least unique following the disintegration of the Eastern bloc), came to a screeching halt two years ago when quite possibly they made the biggest mistake of their political career. At some point, NATO overlords had apparently hinted to their Montenegrin vassals that in addition to its own language, airline (since gone into bankruptcy, as irony would have it), etc. the fledgling new Alliance “partner” was expected to seal its new identity with the formation of its own “church” (analogies to the Ukraine scenario are anything but accidental). Presto, the atheist crew steering Montenegro into NATO and values-based European “integrations” promptly undertook to comply. It composed a new law divesting the metropolitanate of the predominant Serbian Orthodox Church of its status and property, intending thus to set the stage for replacing it with the self-styled “Montenegrin Orthodox Church” that regime operatives had earlier brazenly set up as an NGO. It was again a re-enactment of the Ukrainian playbook, complete with feelers to Patriarch Bartholomew to bless the impious new arrangement.

And that is when all hell broke loose, to the infinite chagrin and gnashing of teeth of all concerned in this atheist-inspired religious swindle, but with very serious political implications.

Massive, spontaneous religious processions erupted throughout the tiny country in which over half of the population participated. They lasted for months and in the previously scheduled parliamentary elections of August 2020 a new majority coalition, though not as coherent as one might have wished, emerged to govern the country. Upon the advice of the late metropolitan Amfilohije, who subsequently passed away with a covid diagnosis, a new prime minister, Zdravko Krivokapic, was installed to struggle with the residual hydra of the previous regime. As it turned out, compared to the Montenegrin swamp, the Washington swamp that Trump had proposed to eradicate was a rather innocuous affair.

Months after taking office, prime minister Krivokapic has precious little to show for his efforts. Most key figures from the ancien régime are still firmly in place and sabotaging at every turn. They have already provoked numerous physical incidents, manipulating crowds of brainwashed identitarian “Montenegrins” fanatics to destabilise the country and prepare the conditions deemed necessary for the cabal’s political restoration.

Fast forward to the consecration of the new metropolitan on September 5. The cabal has made it clear that the consecration of the newly elected Serbian Orthodox Church metropolitan of Montenegro and the Littoral Joanikije in his Cetinje monastery would not be allowed because he is an agent of Serbia, a foreign state, and an official of the “foreign” Serbian Orthodox Church. This preposterous demand, made by elements of the preceding pro-NATO and pro-European Union regime, is equivalent to objecting to the investiture of the archbishop Paris at the Sacré-Cœur cathedral on the rationale that he is an agent of the Vatican.

Tensions are rising in Montenegro as September 5 approaches. Goons of old regime supporters are staging hostile demonstrations in front of the ancient monastery and threatening violence if the consecration proceeds as planned. The only comment so far of the U.S. and British embassies on this outrage, the extraordinary trampling of religious liberty in a NATO country fully on track for membership in the enlightened European Union, was an insipid appeal for “calm,” while endorsing the search for alternative venues for the “controversial” ceremony.

On September 5 blood may or may not be shed, but at the instigation of NATO’s Montenegrin foot soldiers feathers are guaranteed to fly. Empty Atlanticist “human rights” and respect for religion promises are again on ostentatious display. The perfidious weaponisation of a religious ceremony as a high potency political issue to generate social strife and even violence is part and parcel of the ominous chaos strategy for the Balkans that Western strategists are pursuing, whose general contours are increasingly visible even to the untrained eye.

You cannot make this up:

Priests and pastoral workers in Germany defied the Vatican Monday by conducting blessing ceremonies attended by same-sex couples.

Organizers held a day of protest on May 10 in response to the Vatican’s recent declaration that the Church does not have the power to bless same-sex unions.

The ceremonies, known as “Segnungsgottesdienste für Liebende,” or “blessing services for lovers,” were promoted using the hashtag “#liebegewinnt” (“love wins”). Organizers said that the services were open to all couples, including — and in particular — those of the same sex.

CNA Deutsch, CNA’s German-language news partner, reported that ceremonies took place in around 80 cities in Germany as well in Zürich, Switzerland’s largest city.

More:

In the Augustinian Church in Würzburg too all couples — expressly including same-sex couples — were invited to “come and get” the individual blessing in a backroom, after the service.

Ahem! More:

The order of service varied from place to place. A participant who attended the blessing ceremony in Cologne told CNA Deutsch that the ceremony was like a “political event.” The event was led by a female pastoral counselor in liturgical robes, who explained that she had already quit her church service.

After some political statements, the Gospel was read aloud, followed by a speech. Finally, the song “Imagine” by John Lennon was played.

Perfect, just perfect: the anthem of Boomer atheism, performed by rebel clerics and laity of a dying church, to celebrate the blessing of gay partnerships. And you watch: nothing will be done to the priests and lay leaders who participated in this.

UPDATE: Whaddaya know, Douthat just posted a column about this situation, putting it in wider context. Excerpts:

Improvised new religious systems regularly accompany hare-brained Western “nation building” schemes. Montenegro and Macedonia [now “northern,” of course] could be cited as examples. The Ukraine is no exception. The formation, beginning in 2014, of an active Ukrainian “anti-Russia,” to use Nikolay Starikov’s apt expression, could not be completed without concocting its own pseudo-ecclesiastical infrastructure. We outlined that process some time ago (and here).

Essentially, in the implementation of the Ukrainian religious operation the office of the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople played a key role. Going back almost a century, the patriarchal office has in the theological sense been filled by Western stooges. But in the nitty-gritty political and intelligence sense, its vassalage, encompassing a close working relationship with NATO political centers and Western special services, dates back to at least the period immediately following World War II.

That cosy relationship bore ample fruit after the Ukrainian crisis was exacerbated in the aftermath of the 2014 Maidan coup. The radical reconfiguration of the Ukraine as a NATO arsenal and forward post strategically situated on Russia’s border presupposed certain factors of social cohesion that could hold it together. One of those factors was the whipping up of extreme Ukrainian nationalism. It was given particular impetus by the massive and multigenerational influx of World War II Ukrainian Nazi collaborators and their descendants who had taken refuge in the U.S., Canada and other Western countries while waiting for their hour to strike. The other factor was the calculated intrusion of the Ecumenical Patriarch, at his curators’ behest, and after receiving a hefty bakshееsh from the Poroshenko government, into the chaotic Ukrainian religious situation. While the majority of Ukrainians remain faithful to the autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is in communion with the Moscow Patriarchy, there are numerous competing splinter groups operating without canonical recognition. The brilliant hare-brained idea of Western “experts” was to consolidate these canonically irregular factions around an equally illegitimate hierarch who would then be anointed by our old friend, the self-presumed Orthodox “Eastern Pope” in Constantinople. And voilà!, now you’ve got your native religion to go along with the nationalist fervour and political megalomania. All the building blocks of the “new nation” are thus nicely in place.

It passed largely unnoted, but the recent rise in tensions and NATO Ukraine’s bellicose behaviour on the political and military fronts was anticipated late last year by a quiet visit paid to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew by Ukrainian Prime Minister Dinis [Denis, presumably] Schmygal, on 30 November 2020. It is reported that Schmygal was accompanied by several other cabinet ministers as well as some clergy from the canonically dubious church structure known as the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OKU), the very same outfit which Schmygal’s host had recently decreed into existence.

According to a well-informed German source, “more details about the meeting have only recently become known. The Ukrainian Prime Minister has assured the Constantinople Hierarch that Kiev is ready to implement all measures required by the Constantinople Patriarchate to strengthen the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OKU). This includes the official support of the OKU and the guarantee of congregational transfers from the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (OUK) to the canonically disputed OKU. In January 2019, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, ‘recognized’ the OKU, newly founded from several schismatic churches, by awarding it a tomos – which is a church charter. In the opinion of most other Orthodox churches, he has thus exceeded his competencies as ‘first among equals’.”

In the “opinion of most”, that much is correct, but to be exact not all Orthodox churches because the Ecumenical Patriarchy has been frantically busy arm-twisting wherever possible to gain some semblance of legal recognition for its illegitimate Ukrainian progeny, much as its Western directors have been doing on behalf of their Kosovo entity. So far, the Patriarchy has scored some successes with the Greek and Alexandrian, as well as partially with the Cypriot, Orthodox Churches.

But the disclosure about these high-level talks that is of the greatest interest by far, especially in light of the border provocations which subsequently took place during the first months of this year, is the Ukrainian side’s apparent commitment to their patriarchal host. It is, no less, than to accelerate by state interference the transfer of parishes from the canonically established church in the Ukraine to the canonically problematic agglomeration of schismatic factions to which Bartholomew awarded a veneer of legitimacy in 2019. It does not require much analytical sophistication to see clearly the operation of the identical political mind-set which inspired in the recent weeks the projected use of force to “solve” the Donbass and even the Crimean situations.

Indeed, completely ignored by globalist media, a deliberately instigated religious war has been raging in the Ukraine since the 2014 coup. That has, in fact, recently been reaching crescendo and in visible coordination with plans for forceful NATO-Ukrainian interventions on the military and political fronts that were simultaneously being laid.

In the poignant film that follows, the appalling situation on the ground is eloquently portrayed:

The tragic persecution of the Ukrainian faithful, forcible takeover of their parishes, the systematic despoiling of their property, and denial of their right to worship as they choose, all of which is everyday reality in the NATO colony of Ukraine – none of that triggers the slightest notice or arouses the concern of “human rights” and “rule of law” advocates. Least of all does it perturb anyone at the Office of International Religious Freedom.

Russian historian and distinguished public intellectual Dr. Natalia Narochnitskaya was spot on in her Christmas homily delivered to cultural notables in Kaliningrad a few months ago when she said that “The world needs Russia precisely for being Russia, and therefore Russia must remain true to herself!”

“In our time,” she pointed out, “when beauty and adherence to norm are denounced as something vulgar and annoying, while sin and perversion are touted as symbols of sophistication, when all spiritual and historical sanctities of our people are being trampled underfoot, it is more vital than ever to avoid falling into perfidiously set traps. A huge role in this belongs to the Orthodox Church – the pillar and foundation of the Truth, but as well to all who are engaged in the fields of education and enlightenment.”

“Our mission,” Dr. Narochnitskaya continued, “is to pass our historical heritage on to future generations. Contemporary Russia, which is in the process of re-establishing its national and religious substance, is slated to become the world’s major powerhouse on the spiritual stage.”

These solemn thoughts call for serious reflection in the West, on the part of those at least who are still capable of it. Dr Narochnitskaya is, of course, just a prominent private citizen, but her views nevertheless reflect the thinking and the temperament of Russia’s establishment and, more importantly, the ordinary people. The contrast between the vision for her country that she espouses and the nihilistic meanderings of the paladins of what remains of Western culture and spirit is stupendous.

Most strikingly, she does not project Russia’s “superpower” role on a geopolitically reconfigured planet in terms of military and physical dominance, but primarily as a free spiritual gift to a wounded world. To anomic Western ears her discourse necessarily sounds archaic, putting in the centre of her conceptual framework long forgotten and by now nearly incomprehensible notions such as sin, beauty, truth (and with upper-case T, no less), norm, and perversion. And, most shocking of all, she upholds what in the contemporary West is the laughable concept of nurturing and passing on to coming generations a common core of spiritual values rooted in their country’s cultural and historical experience.

Several decades ago, James Burnham wrote his famous treatise “Suicide of the West.” While blaming liberalism for the West’s decadence, Burnham argued that it was what in 1964 he saw as an American retreat from empire and the role of global policeman that signified the weakness and decline of the Occident. He was partially correct in his analysis, insofar as he foresaw the corrosive impact that the encroachment of what he termed “liberalism” would have on the West’s vitality and will to survive. Hence the “suicide” diagnosis featured in the title. But with all his acuity, Burnham was still unable to step out of the brute power matrix typical of Western reasoning ever since the Schism. Never mind all the “shining city on the hill” sanctimonious cant, for noble Burnham also the ultimate and fundamental test of a civilization’s viability was its ability to physically dominate and crush others.

We can only speculate how Burnham would react, if he were alive today, to political correctness, cancel culture and other proliferations of the liberal scourge he so feared and warned against in his day. How would he comment on a Canadian father being jailed for refusing to use a male pronoun in addressing his “trans-gender” daughter, or on the introduction in the California ethnic studies school curriculum of mandatory obeisance to an Aztec human sacrifice divinity as a counterweight to alleged white racism, or the initiative in Oregon to do away with “correct answers” in mathematics classes because they promote “white supremacy”? Or the production of limited edition (only 666 pairs) Air max 97 Nike sneakers dedicated to the Evil One, complete with a pentagram and a drop of human blood in each shoe? How is that for the resounding triumph of “liberalism”?

Foreign Minister Lavrov had a point in a recent interview when he said that within an amazingly short period of time the East and the West seem to have simply switched places.

In this confrontation that is deontological, or in the realm of values, rather than about who has the better hypersonic missiles or can win an arms race, Dr. Narochnitskaya has made it very clear what spiritual legacy she expects to be bequeathed to Russia’s future generations. What will be the inheritance of their misgendered Western counterparts? Satanic sneakers?

The dead-end reached by the West in the deontological competition was keenly noted by Russian political scientist Sergei Karaganov in a recent Serbian “Sputnik” interview. “What is in progress is a clash between people and nations who support normal human values and the part of the Western elite which preaches post-human values.” Speaking for his country Karaganov pointedly stressed that “we stand for human values and that is potentially a far sharper disagreement than what used to exist between communism and capitalism.”

Has Russia any sympathizers in the West?

“Yes, of course she does,” Karaganov was quick to respond. “Not just in the West but throughout the world, ninety percent of which consists of normal people who share belief in normal values, who wish to live and bear their children in peace, for elders to be respected, and that people should be free to devote themselves to what they most highly cherish – family and fatherland.”

Such unapologetically bold and refreshing talk has not been heard in the West in a very long time.

“The ill-conceived `love of thy neighbor’ has to disappear, especially in relation to inferior or asocial creatures. It is the supreme duty of a national state to grant life and livelihood only to the healthy and hereditarily sound portion of the people in order to secure the maintenance of a hereditarily sound and racially pure folk for all eternity…”

– Dr. Arthur Guett, Nazi Director of Public Health, 1935

The words spoken by Dr. Guett 85 years ago should send shivers down the spine of anyone following the radical transformations of healthcare policy now underway within the Five Eyes zone of influence.

“As many people are now aware, embedded within the $1.9 trillion COVID relief package is a $40 billion program to revive and expand the corpse of Obama Care’s enrollment protocols and the worst aspects of State directed medical resource allocation for the most vulnerable (and financially burdensome) of society. While few details have been unveiled beyond a mass expansion of enrollment into the plan on a revived healthcare.gov, several red alarms have been raised which began with the appointment of Obama-care architect Ezekiel Emmanuel to Biden’s COVID task force last year and the re-ascendency of hives of cost-cutting behaviorists to positions of power.”

Before I proceed, a small disclaimer is in order.

Just because I am about to viciously criticize Biden/Obama-care, and the accelerated expansion of euthanasia across Five Eyes nations, it does NOT mean that I support free-market “greed-is-good” HMOs that were brought online by Nixon in 1973.

As I wrote in my recent trilogy exposing the contrived debates between “statist” Malthusian John Maynard Keynes vs “individualist” Malthusian Friedrich von Hayek, the schism of top down vs bottom up economic thinking which has brainwashed several generations of Americans is a chimera with no bearing in reality. Real economics that befits human life and dignity has always defended the whole of society while also protecting the unalienable rights and liberty of each individual within society.

If you are a technocrat looking down upon the world from your ivory mathematical tower at the impending crises hitting civilization, one thing is certain to smack you in the face: The western population concentrated in the Trans Atlantic nations is facing a demographic time bomb the likes of which has never been seen in history.

Even before COVID-19 annihilated much of the world economy, the baby boomer demographic time bomb was discussed by think tanks and policy makers far and wide. During the past 25 years, young people increasingly put off having children (with a 4.4% collapse in birthrates during the Dec. 2019-Dec 2020 year of COVID). During this time, the baby boomer generation born between 1945-1960 increasingly found themselves beset with grey hair, and increased healthcare needs in their old age. While technological advances has extended average life expectancies from 61 years (in 1935) to 81 years today, the demographic imbalance of young : old means that society will essentially be incapable of supporting itself under current dynamics.

For example:

By 2030, it is currently estimated people over the age of 85 will triple while seniors between 65-85 will double. The financial costs of sustaining this demographic will skyrocket as healthcare services double from their currently massive $1.4 trillion/year to $3 trillion/year by 2050 (in the USA).

As cost-effectiveness experts look at this dismal trend, all they can see is a cold numbers game. These experts don’t tend to see humans with cognitive powers and souls and they certainly don’t recognize the existence of such immaterial notions as the “sacred” which might prevent the culling of lives in order to satisfy monetary constraints.

They certainly don’t recognize the injustices of a system that allows trillions of dollars to be spent for Wall Street bailouts and Middle East wars but which fails to provide the medical resources to service its own population fairly. The experts I am talking about who once ruled America under Barack Obama and who have resurged into power under Biden only see the cold fact that 80% or more of the healthcare costs absorbed throughout one’s life occur after 65 years of age. These experts can only think in terms of adapting to scarcity and supposedly “fixed limits” but never eliminating scarcity through systemic changes that place human life and creative thought on a higher priority than mere money.

With ever fewer young people entering the work force (and with the financial system itself set to meltdown under hyperinflation), two options present themselves:

• Recognize that the system is broken and transform it in such a way that national spending priorities are re-directed towards large-scale, long term infrastructure building and cooperation with other nations among the multipolar alliance

OR

• Work within the rules of the broken system and cull the human herd to diminish costs associated with “scarce medical resources”.

The Genocidal Mind of Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel

As it stands, the individual most responsible for reviving Obamacare and the associated “Independent Payment Advisory Board” (IPAB) of cost-effectiveness “experts” under Joe Biden is the same figure who crafted the original Affordable Care Act (aka: Obamacare) in 2009. While acting as Obama’s health advisor from 2009-2011, Ezekiel Emmanuel wrote a bone chilling study called “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions” in the Lancet. In this revealing document, Ezekiel’s vision for a new ethic of healthcare management was enunciated with the “Complete Lives System” that would be used to justify who among the needy of society competing for scraps of the shrinking pie, will receive care (i.e: expensive cancer screenings, treatments, drugs), and who will be left to die when he wrote:

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 to 40 years gets the most substantial chances, whereas the youngest and the oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”

Overthrowing the entire edifice of Judeo-Christian values that defined human life as sacred as well as the pesky Hippocratic oath which prevents physicians from doing any harm willfully to their patients, Emmanuel describes exactly what he intends by his “priority curve” and “attenuated chances” for the young and old saying:

“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20 year old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as yet-unfulfilled projects… adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investment that will be wasted without a complete life: infants by contrast, have not yet received these investments… it is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three year old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent dies.”

That’s right: Emmanuel’s “cost-effective” curve asserts that the life of a 20-year-old is more worthy of life than that of a 3-year-old, or 75 year old. In the latter two cases, society has invested either too little to make that young life worth saving or has invested too much already (relative to the financial worth of the low QALY senior).

In a more recent 2014 article published in the Atlantic, called ‘Why I Hope to Die at 75’, Emmanuel explained his belief that anyone attempting to prolong their life beyond 75 is delusional, selfish and pathetic stating: “I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop.”

When Obama came to power in 2008, many were confused with his decision to destroy any actual proposals for universal health coverage for which he had apparently campaigned (such as Rep. John Conyers single-payer Bill H.R. 676). Instead of supporting Conyer’s bill, Obama and his hive of Economic Behaviorists only amplified the power of the private HMOs by forcing citizens to purchase coverage while infusing billions of tax payer funds into private insurers.

The reason was simple: Conyers’ bill didn’t mandate cuts to healthcare spending, but rather amplified spending for health services while providing healthcare to all Americans with no strings attached. Obama’s controllers had other ideas, as the former president stated in 2010:

“We believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional $1 trillion in the decade after that.”

A paradox arises: How was Obama planning to extend medical coverage to the 27 million uninsured while cutting $1 trillion in health expenditures over a decade?

Quality Adjusted Life Years and Death Panels

Ezekiel Emmanuel made the point in his 2009 report that the key to cost cutting in health care would be found in the application of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) under the control of independent panels of experts. The QALY system was itself pioneered under Britain’s National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) and Liverpool Care Pathway System which were driving forces behind the corruption of Britain’s National Healthcare System (NHS) from 1999-present. The former head of NICE (Sir Michael Rawlins) defined QALYs in the following terms in a March 2009 interview with Time Magazine:

“It’s based on the cost of a measure called the ‘quality-adjusted life year.’ A QALY scores your health on a scale from zero to one: zero if you’re dead and one if you’re in perfect health. You find out as a result of a treatment where a patient would move up the scale. If you do a hip replacement, the patient might start at 0.5 and go up to 0.7, improving 0.2. You can assume patients live for an average of 15 years following hip replacements. And .2 times 15 equals three quality adjusted life years. If the hip replacement costs £10,000 to do, it’s 10,000 divided by three, which equals £3,333. That figure is the cost per QALY.”

Another co-architect of Obamacare alongside Emmanuel was a fellow named Sir Donald Berwick (knighted in 2005) who stated candidly that “the decision is not whether or not we will ration care- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Another key behaviorist assigned to create Obamacare was MIT professor Jonathan Gruber who created a scandal when he admitted on camera to using obscurantist language and secrecy when he said “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass”.

Another leading Obama-era behaviorist who has also returned to power under Biden is Cass Sunstein (Obama’s regulatory czar) who wrote “once we know that people are human and have some Homer Simpson in them, then there’s a lot that can be done to manipulate them.”

The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) which Berwick wished to guide U.S. health reform gives us another insight into the genocidal nature of this utilitarian approach to health services. According to Professor Pullicino, over 130,000 deaths/year were caused by the LCP which had gained influence over hospitals, hospices, nursing homes in the UK between 1995-2013. The LCP had essentially pressured hundreds of healthcare providers to put millions of sick and elderly (and expensive) patients onto “End of Life” lists without their consent resulting in forced dehydration and morphine drips to accelerate deaths despite the fact that life-saving treatments were still available. The scandal caused by these revelations resulted in the LCP’s dissolution in 2014 although the Daily Telegraph pointed out that the program was merely rebranded and continues to this day.

Together, Berwick, Gruber and Emmanuel ensured that hospitals would be penalized for overtreating patients, and cancelled Medicaid coverage for swaths of cancer drugs and screenings for patients whose needs outpaced their QALYs. This logic may work when deciding to scrap an old car but creates severe moral dilemmas when applied to grandma.

You might now ask: But why must doctors abide by the demands of an independent board of cost-cutting experts? Why would doctors not simply reject the demands that abrogated their Hippocratic oaths and consciences?

With 2/3^rd of all doctors beholden to other larger employers (vs the 85% of U.S. physicians who were self-employed in 1963), the pressure to abide by rules of scarcity and cost-effectiveness mandates imposed by technocrats have grown immensely. As surgeries, cancer screenings and ambulatory services have been drastically cut under COVID protocols, hospitals which rely on government funding have suffered financially and have been losing $50 billion/month according to Rick Pollack (President of the American Hospital Association) who recently stated “I think it’s fair to say that hospitals are facing perhaps the greatest challenge that they have ever faced in their history.”

Euthanasia in North America

After decades of lobbying funded in large measure by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations globally, there are currently five nations which have completely legalized euthanasia (Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Columbia) while nine states in the USA have followed suite.

In Canada, euthanasia laws were first passed in 2016 with fairly strict restrictions requiring patients be terminally ill with a prognosis of six months or less while also being mentally sound directly before death is induced.

Yet, just after the U.S. elections in 2020, and under the fog of COVID, Canadian House of Commons passed the Medical Assistance in Dying Act (Bill C7) which entirely removed all safeguards including requirements of a “reasonably foreseeable” death, long waiting periods and requirements of mental competency immediately prior to death.

Should the Senate pass the bill later this month as is currently expected, anyone suffering from depression (which has radically skyrocketed among the elderly and incapacitated locked in isolation from their friends and loved ones under months of COVID lockdown) may now request death at 9am in the morning and be killed by noon. The typical long waiting times that gave depressed people a chance to self-reflect is now long gone.

Similar euthanasia protocols have ramped up across Australian as several states and territories have seen assisted suicide protocols applied under COVID-19. Among them Tasmania has announced euthanasia will be legalized on March 5, 2021, and Queensland will bring the “service” online by May 2021. Victoria was the first state to usher in euthanasia in June 2019 and Western Australia’s euthanasia laws will take effect in mid-2021.

Rather than allowing oneself to get sucked into the abyss of bioethical mind games surrounding medical assisted suicide, it is more useful to keep these following questions in mind:

WHY are medical resources so supposedly scarce among the most developed sectors of the world?

Why do nations in across the trans Atlantic face such shortages of hospitals, doctors, screening treatments?

Why do hospitals continuously find themselves closing their doors while per capita beds decrease with every year? (1)

Why do citizens tolerate trillions of dollars spent on never-ending regime change wars abroad and bailouts to Wall Street speculators while accepting the idea that money for healthcare is intrinsically limited?

Revisiting Hitler’s T4 Health Reforms

After the Nuremburg hearings saw 7 of the 23 Nazi doctors (including Dr. Guett) put to death for their role in Hitler’s Tiergarten Fier health reforms, Nuremburg counsel Dr. Leo Alexander wrote in 1949:

“Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in basic attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, then finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the non-rehabilitatable sick”

In his essay, Dr. Alexander described the growth of the euthanasia laws in fascist Germany as the concept “lives unworthy of life” was first introduced into health policy. Under the guidance of “expert panels”, the T4 health codes soon became a driving force of eugenics that saw 270,000 non-Jewish Germans killed starting with handicapped children and elderly before the policy was expanded to embrace Jews, Gypsies and other target “unfit” groups.

As investigative journalist Nancy Spannaus wrote in 2013:

“The implication was clear. However, Hitler did not give his general order for killing off the insane (and others) until the war began, and resources became even scarcer. The order was written by hand by Hitler in October 1939–and backdated by him to the first day of the war, in September. In preparing it, he had stated that he “considered it to be proper that the `life unworthy of life’ of severely mentally ill persons be eliminated by actions that bring about death.” In this way, “a certain saving in hospitals, doctors, and nursing personnel could be brought about.” The title of Hitler’s order was “The Destruction of Lives Unworthy of Life,” and the standard was, as the order said, that the patients “considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health, be accorded a mercy death.”

The fact that the organizations promoting the rise of this eugenics policy throughout Nazi Germany and North America included such powerhouses as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Human Sterilization League for Human Betterment (today renamed “Engender Health”) which have all taken leading roles in the World Health Organization over recent decades is more than a little concerning. The fact that these eugenics organizations simply re-branded themselves after WWII and are now implicated in modern RNA vaccine development alongside the Galton Institute (formerly British Eugenics Association), Oxford’s AstraZeneca, Pfizer and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation should give any serious thinker pause as we consider what patterns of history we are willing to tolerate repeating in our presently precarious age.

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

(1) In 1980, the USA had 5810 community hospitals spread across 3000 counties with 6 beds allocated per 1000 people (987,000 beds total for 227 million citizens). By 2013, total beds had fallen by 25% and 15% of the hospitals had disappeared resulting in 3 beds/1000 people despite the fact that the population had grown by 130 million.