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 Not to be published.’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/

This piece is part of a new series from TAC, “Taking the Mask Off.” For more about the series, click here.

China may have fired the gun to set off the Covid-19 pandemic, but American public health experts may have loaded and cocked it.

Thanks to Freedom of Information Act litigation, The Intercept has obtained more than 900 pages of documents that confirm and detail what many observers have long suspected. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a subsidiary of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, provided more than $3 million in grant money that went towards research to make coronaviruses more transmissible in humans from 2014 to 2019. Some of that cash, a whole $600,000 worth, made its way to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which some believe to be ground zero for the Covid-19 pandemic’s outbreak. Blame China for its Covid coverup all you want, but the documents released by The Intercept thus far confirm America’s expert class shares at least some culpability for the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, if the ever-more-likely theory that Covid-19 leaked from a Chinese lab proves to be true.

The grant awarded to EcoHealth Alliance in June of 2014 forked over $3.1 million over the span of six years, stipulating the transfer of nearly $600,000 to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Using the grant money, EcoHealth planned to collect a vast number of bat samples from China and test them for novel or existing coronaviruses, survey large numbers of individuals who work with live animals (such as workers at wet markets), and test coronaviruses on humanized mice to see how different tissues react, which some scientists believe amounts to gain-of-function research. Gain-of-function research is a controversial field of virology involving the genetic alteration of viral pathogens to make them more infectious or dangerous (sometimes both) to humans. While proponents of gain-of-function research claim it can help scientists develop therapeutics and vaccines for viruses more quickly, critics claim it actually lays the groundwork for a potential pandemic, a scenario that may have played out with Covid-19. In April of last year, EcoHealth’s president, Peter Daszak, thanked Fauci for helping dismiss lab-leak Covid origin theories.

These NIAID-funded experiments weren’t just carried out at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as previous reports suspected. They were also conducted at Wuhan University’s Center for Animal Experiment, a far cry from Fauci’s denials.

The recently revealed documents also show the researchers knew they were playing with fire all along. “Fieldwork involves the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other Co Vs, while working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for fecal dust to be inhaled,” the grant approval admits. “There is also some risk of exposure to pathogens or physical injury while handling bats, civets, rodents or other animals, their blood samples or their excreta.”

The EcoHealth investigative and research team weren’t the only ones aware of the moral and health hazards associated with their research. The federal government issued a moratorium on gain-of-function research in 2014 after Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lab personnel were exposed to anthrax, only to repeal the ban just three years later in 2017.

To justify their reversal, the NIH put in place a review process performed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) called the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (P3CO) Framework for any NIH grant directed towards gain-of-function research. Simultaneously, the HHS adopted such a narrow definition of what constitutes gain-of-function research that some scientists claim the P3CO review process could be circumvented so easily that it rendered the entire review process obsolete. HHS’s updated definition created carve-outs for research involving enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (PPP) if they are either part of “surveillance activities” or “associated with developing and producing vaccines.”

NIH responded to a request for comment after publication deadline, providing this general statement:

NIH has never approved any research that would make a coronavirus more dangerous to humans. The research we supported in China, where coronaviruses are prevalent, sought to understand the behavior of coronaviruses circulating in bats that have the potential to cause widespread disease. The body of science produced by this research demonstrates that the bat coronavirus sequences published from that work NIH supported were not SARS-CoV-2. More importantly, because of similar research to understand coronaviruses, we were able to move swiftly to develop vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 and save lives.

In January, Harvard Professor of Epidemiology Marc Lipsitch, a longtime critic of gain-of-function research, pointed out other transparency issues surrounding the P3CO Framework. Even if a grant qualifies for a P3CO review, “none of the details of the analysis related to the HHS decisions approving the 2019 enhanced PPP experiments has been publicly released,” Lipsitch claimed in a journal article.

“Without a publicly released analysis of these experiments, there is no basis for understanding the HHS decision that the research is acceptable,” Lipsitch added.

Upon reviewing the EcoHealth grant documents, Rutgers University molecular biologist and a critic of gain-of-function research Richard Ebright told The Intercept that “the viruses they constructed were tested for their ability to infect mice that were engineered to display human type receptors on their cell” and that EcoHealth was working with MERS-related viruses—not just novel coronaviruses.

In the legislature, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a doctor himself, has been trying to hold Fauci and company to account for purportedly funding gain-of-function research—albeit to varying degrees of success.

Paul appeared on Hannity Tuesday night and took a well-deserved victory lap, but simultaneously conveyed the severe implications of The Intercept’s report. Paul claimed the documents proved that “they were taking viruses that were not as transmissible to humans and adding S proteins, which is how the virus attaches to the cell, from bat viruses out of the cave and lo and behold, they created viruses that are not found in nature more transmissible than when started—the very definition of gain of function.”

“And you’ve never heard one of the journalists that gets to interview Dr. Fauci, you have never heard one of them ask, ‘Why is it not gain of function?’ He just says, ‘Oh, it isn’t.’ Why is it not gain of function? The viruses are more transmissible to humans, why is it not gain of function?” Paul added.

Previously, Paul pressed the “good doctor” on whether or not NIAID funded gain-of-function experiments on bat-borne coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology when Fauci appeared before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in May.

“Gain-of-function research, as you know, is juicing up naturally occurring animal viruses to infect humans. To arrive at the truth, the U.S. government should admit that the Wuhan Virology Institute was experimenting to enhance the coronavirus’s ability to infect humans,” Paul asserted to open his line of inquiry for Fauci.

“For years, Dr. Ralph Baric, a virologist in the U.S., has been collaborating with Dr. Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Virology Institute, sharing his discoveries about how to create super viruses. This gain-of-function research has been funded by the NIH. The collaboration between the US. and the Wuhan Virology Institute continues. Drs. Baric and Shi worked together to insert bat virus spike protein into the backbone of the deadly SARS virus, and then used this man-made supervirus to infect human airway cells,” Paul claimed, referencing a 2015 study published in Nature and a 2017 study performed by Shi that altered coronaviruses found in bats to make them more transmissible to humans.

“Dr. Fauci, do you still support NIH funding of the lab in Wuhan?” Paul asked.

“Senator Paul, with all due respect,” Fauci responded, before telling the gentleman from Kentucky that he is “entirely, entirely and completely incorrect… The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Fauci added that if Baric was performing gain-of-function research, it was only in North Carolina.

Dr Fauci dissembled or tried to hide his long time support for ‘gain-of-function’ research which creates super-viruses that jump from animals to humans.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) May 11, 2021

Ebright, the Rutgers molecular biologist, tweeted that Fauci was “brazenly” lying in his exchange with Paul. “WIV started with a SARS-related coronavirus that does not infect human cells or lab animals and constructed variants that infect human cells and lab animals,” Ebright said in a follow-up tweet. “This meets—unequivocally—definitions for GOF under Pause and potential pandemic pathogen enhancement under HHS P3CO.”

Fauci is lying. Brazenly.

— Richard H. Ebright (@R_H_Ebright) May 11, 2021

Nevertheless, because EcoHealth’s research purportedly did not qualify as gain-of-function research, EcoHealth’s experiments continued apace and were unencumbered by the 2014 moratorium. Twenty-one other NIH gain-of-function pet projects weren’t so lucky, while ten, which were split evenly between the flu and MERS, received exemptions.

Just months before the first cases of Covid-19 cropped up in China, NIAID decided to renew the “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence” grant in July of 2019, and the project was not subject to P3CO review because the NIAID determined it did not constitute gain-of-function research that required HHS input, according to a report from the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF).

“After careful review of the grant, NIAID determined research in the grant was not gain-of-function research because it did not involve the enhancement of the pathogenicity or transmissibility of the viruses studied,” an NIH spokesperson told the DCNF.

“We would not submit research proposals that did not meet the definition, because otherwise we would need to submit everything,” the spokesperson added, providing confirmation that an HHS P3CO review only takes place after an NIAID referral.

The Trump administration ordered the NIH to cancel the EcoHealth grant in April 2020, Fauci told Politico in June.

At a July Senate hearing, Paul and Fauci squared off once again over the American public health apparatus’s purported funding of this controversial research. To break the ice, Senator Paul reminded Fauci that lying to Congress is a crime that could carry a prison sentence of five years.

“Viruses that in nature only infect animals were manipulated in the Wuhan lab to gain the function of infecting humans. This research fits the definition of the research the NIH said was subject to the pause in 2014 to 2017, a pause in funding on gain-of-function. But the NIH failed to recognize this, defines it away, and it never came under any scrutiny,” the senator pointed out. “Dr. Fauci, knowing it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement?”

Fauci refused to retract his statement, and claimed that grant money was not provided for gain-of-function research. As Paul continued to press, Fauci told the senator, “You do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly, and I want to say that officially. You do not know what you are talking about.”

Despite Big Tech and mainstream media’s tandem efforts to brush aside or belittle heretics like Paul, or worse, label them as conspiracy theorists to get them censored, the documents released by The Intercept seem to suggest that Senator Paul did indeed know what he was talking about. Fauci probably knows it, too, because for someone who claims to be above the partisan fray, the man dubbed “America’s Doctor” certainly has a knack for politics.

At this point, an admission of this caliber from the public health pontiff could expose him and his ilk to the will of the people, embodied in their democratically elected representatives. The president’s chief medical advisor is well aware that the ongoing tit-for-tat between himself and Paul isn’t just a debate in the marketplace of ideas. It’s a test of whether the country’s democratic institutions have the fortitude, or even the ability, to hold unelected bureaucrats like Fauci to account.

theamericanconservative.com

In these days of profound uncertainty, it is comforting knowing that certain fundamental truths still exist and serve as guiding lights through the dark waters.

Among the highest of those fundamental truths are those enunciated in 1967 by Reverend Martin Luther King who ruminated over the dangers of imperialism and nuclear war by stating “we still have a choice today: nonviolent co-existence or violent co-annihilation”.

When leaping ahead over five decades past the April 4, 1968 assassination of King to our present time, that truth stands as valid today as ever.

While asymmetric never-ending wars following the ‘Vietnam model’ have continued across the Middle East and while the world faces no shortage of modern Dr. Strangeloves giddy over the visceral power offered by the red button, humanity’s obligation to recognize the scientific truthfulness of King’s words have existential importance.

In the face of today’s lunge towards extinction, the Greater Eurasian Partnership and broader Belt and Road initiative spreading across the face of the globe has pulled more people out of poverty and despair at rates unseen in all history. Yet an under-appreciated aspect of this dynamic has taken the form of the ever-expanding “space silk road” which is what I’d like to discuss in this first of a two-part essay.

The Trans Geopolitical Roots of Space Exploration

Since the days of Jules Verne’s From the Earth to the Moon (1865), the dream of a new space-exploration driven age of mankind was something that animated the scientific imagination of the greatest minds of the 20^th century. A generation of German rocket scientists inspired by Fritz Lang’s 1929 Frau Im Mond (Woman in the Moon) innovated new aerodynamic and chemical designs that began making the impossible possible. With every new breakthrough, the realm of ideas that Jules Verne could only dream of became ever more a part of the field of potential shaping humanity’s available pathways.

Imperial geopoliticians seeking to keep humankind locked within a closed system of diminishing returns and monopolized resources on the face of the earth were certainly nervous at the new age that was unfolding.

Like so many technological innovations in human history, many of the breakthroughs in rocketry, space science and the atom which so profoundly altered the world during the 20^th century happened within the unfortunate momentum generated by wars both hot and cold. Today, many cynics who have drank heavily from the chalice of misanthropy, are quick to pounce on this unfortunate irony as proof that humanity only creates when we are busy killing each other. However, by changing our point of view a bit, we could just as easily conclude that this irony is proof that despite our frequent falls into barbarism (shaped more often than not by oligarchical interests manipulating nations into self-destruction), humanity has the power to create higher goodness even amidst strife. MLK put this in his own words when he said that “the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice”.

Is there a Scientific Case to be made for King’s Optimism?

While it is nice to hear such statements as those uttered by MLK, can we find evidence that this optimistic view of human nature stands on firmer ground than mere rhetoric?

I think there is.

For one thing, were the forces of evil truly more powerful than forces of good, than it stands to reason that the last 100,000+ years would have resulted in mankind either never having made it out of caves, or self-exterminating long ago, leaving the world a much better place in a state of “technology-free” balance.

And yet, here we are. Nearly nine billion members of our fragile species conglomerated on the face of our fragile planet spinning around a sun within a small neighborhood of a small galaxy amidst a cluster of galaxies which we have barely even begun to understand.

It was, after all, not long ago that humanity still believed that all observable spiral galaxies were contained within the confines of the Milky Way. It took the discoveries of Henrietta Swan Leavitt (1868-1921) in the early 20^th century to prove that this was not true and that ours was but one of a multitude of galactic islands in the universe (1). It was at this time that breakthroughs in aviation were allowing humanity to finally construct primitive airplanes and breakthroughs in electromagnetism and radiation were expanding our understanding of the structure of space time far beyond the visible zone of light waves, many octaves into the domain of radio waves below infrared and above ultraviolet into shortwave x rays and gamma radiation. With each cognitive leap into the unknown, boundary conditions of our collective knowledge were increased in tandem with our potential carrying capacity as new technologies beneficial to sustaining more people at higher standards of living were made available.

Of course, giving the cynic his/her due, it must be admitted that with each conceptual advance of mind’s grasp of the forces of matter, our freedom to create was increased along with our freedom to destroy.

In 1926, the brilliant Russian biogeochemist Vladimir V.I. Vernadsky (1863-1945) recognized that the thing dubbed the biosphere was not a closed system of Darwinian objects competing in a universe of diminishing returns, but was itself a singular system whose identity was more than the sum of parts, driven by 1) photosynthesis (the power of living matter to transform solar energy into work) 2) a tendency towards increasing the flow of atomic migration of elements, 3) a principle of ubiquity of all life which tended to expand to its fullest and generate new “technologies” to constantly overcome nature’s limits to growth and was 4) the intersection of a multitude of octaves of cosmic radiation from intergalactic space with the lithosphere mediated by nested magnetic fields. The conception outlined in Vernadsky’s Biosphere was that living matter and ecosystems were not localized to the earth, but were rather cosmic processes tied to the entire environment of the solar system and beyond. This concept was not only new but irrefutable and revolutionary. (2)

In 1957, a new milestone was reached as Russia’s Sputnik I satellite broke into orbit and mankind officially became the first space-bound species on record. As humanity extended its sphere of activity beyond the limits of the biosphere, yet more incredible new discoveries were made, such as the existence of nested positively and negatively charged magnetic fields dubbed the Van Allen Belts that were a part of a structure of Birkland currents shaping pathways within electromagnetic fields that allowed fluxes of coronal mass ejections emerging from the sun, and even other stars, to flow into the earth’s biosphere, driving the flow of evolutionary activity over long periods of time.

Scientists across the world soon found themselves looking to these invisible nested arrays of magnetic fields within our galaxy and the dense ocean of cosmic radiation and plasma in order to seek the causes of weather, ice ages, viruses, volcanism, extinction cycles and more. Frank Capra’s 1959 The Strange Case of Cosmic Rays sponsored by Bell Labs provides a glimpse into the trajectory of scientific thinking at this time.

John F. Kennedy Takes the Helm

After Sputnik’s breakthrough, it didn’t take long for humans to follow suite with Yuri Gagarin’s orbital voyage on April 12, 1961. Amidst the fog of assassinations, coups, asymmetric wars and psy ops of the Cold War, space flight continued to offer humanity a pathway out of hell. Seeking desperately for a creative exit from the Game Theory-driven rules of Mutually Assured Destruction, President John F Kennedy embraced the strategic value of space not merely as a geopolitical tool to beat the commies, as is so often portrayed in history books, but as a driving force that could transform the world and the rigged rules of the Cold War. Kennedy’s September 20, 1963 United Nations speech championing the establishment of a joint U.S.-Russian space program is a testament of this strategic outlook which has been too easily forgotten over the years. Additionally, Kennedy made it clear that space exploration generated long term goals and intentions that would “serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills”. The stochastic idea of economics defined as “hedonistic beasts with money seeking to maximize their pleasure and reduce their pain while buying low and selling dear” which free marketeers and libertarians advocated could never stand up to this higher conception of capitalism as outlined by Kennedy and the best American System traditions.

Nuclear technology that also emerged in the fires of war similarly found itself forged into tools of creation as well as destruction.

As nuclear bombs were built at record speeds on both sides of the Iron Curtain, civilian nuclear reactors began producing abundant, high quality cheap energy at such rates that for the first time, billions of people could be alleviated from poverty forever. While Russia was less fortunate with her efforts on the Moon, she landed 10 probes on the surface of Venus during the 1961-1984 Venera program and began applying nuclear reactor technology to space craft eventually sending out 30 nuclear reactor units in 30 yeas. In the USA, Kennedy unveiled a program for nuclear rockets under the NERVA program, and Project Rover which promised to offer humanity a means of flying not only to the moon and mars but to the furthest reaches of the solar system and beyond. As the NERVA and Phoebus rockets passed all tests with flying colors (3), programs were outlined to begin Mars colonization with plans to land on the red planet by August 1982.

Even in China, Premier Zhou Enlai had ensured that space pioneer Qian Xuesen had received state support to create a Chinese space program which began in earnest with the 1958 Project 581 which aimed to put a satellite into orbit. Although suffering many setbacks throughout the 1960s-1980s, the Chinese resiliently pushed forward, eventually becoming the third nation to send astronauts into space through their own efforts.

Despite the intrigue and evil that dominated geopolitics these precarious years, the call of a new age of cooperation continued to resonate with milestone achievements as the 1967 Space Treaty, 1969 Moon landing, and Apollo Soyuz 1975 cooperation between U.S. and Russian space agencies.

So What Went Wrong?

So why did the Apollo Program, which had generated revolutionary technologies in every branch of economics and medicine find itself dissolved by 1973 and advanced Saturn rockets retired into museums? Why were Kennedy’s offers to the Soviet Union dropped upon his death despite the fact that Khrushchev wrote of his desires that they happen? Why did NASA’s budget peak in 1964 maxing at 4% of GDP and find its funding drained into the war in Vietnam, never to rise again? Why were the nuclear rocket programs dismantled in 1972 despite having beaten all expectations? Why did the Apollo-Soyuz program fail to serve as the foundation for a new era of space diplomacy?

As I outlined in my previous article on The Dynamics of Nuclear Diplomacy, the answer to this strange set of anomalies is found in the rise of a new breed of misanthropic statecraft called “neo-Malthusianism” which took the levers of western foreign and internal economic policies over the dead bodies of pro-development leaders like Kennedy, Enrico Mattei, Dag Hammarskjold, Daniel Johnson Sr., Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. As the neo-Malthusian revolution was effected across western governments during this period, studies such as Limits To Growth began to promote a new wisdom of degrowth and conservation of ecosystems as a replacement for the “old wisdom” that cherished big infrastructure projects and scientific discovery as the driving ethic of humanity. “Ecosystems” under this new age of digital computer modelling were increasingly defined as closed, thermodynamic processes bounded by mathematical homeostasis, and humanity was expected to adapt to those supposed limits like any other beast within nature.

One of the founders of the Canadian branch of the Club of Rome was Maurice Lamontagne (former President of the Privy Council Office) who called out the problem of creativity itself in his 1968-1972 Science Policy Senate Reports:

“Nature imposes definite constraints on technology itself and if man persists in ignoring them the net effect of his action in the long run can be to reduce rather than to increase nature’s potential as a provider of resources and habitable space… But then, an obvious question arises: How can we stop man’s creativeness?”

Calling for a redirection of funding from science and discovery which had the troubling effect of increasing humanity’s power over nature and thus disrupting the mathematical equilibrium which Malthusian computer models demanded govern all reality, Lamontagne stated:

“The new wisdom prescribes that the additional R&D effort be devoted to the life sciences and social sciences rather than the physical sciences… to economic and social objectives rather than curiosity and discovery.”

The 1970s-1990s saw the largest onslaught on all domains of science policy that involved discoveries into the universe of the immeasurably large (space science) and immeasurably small (atomic science) which threatened to disrupt the formulas for population limits that the new breed of neo-Malthusian craved in their quest for total power under a New World Order.

In the next installment, we will review China’s re-activation of space exploration as a creative flanking maneuver to break humanity out of the rigged fixed rules of the Great Game while also reviving the dream of attaching our destiny to the infinite.

The author can be reached via his Substack account.

Notes

(1) Leavitt observed a correlation between the brightness and periodicity of pulsating stars which generated a system of triangulation of parallax that was used to determine relative distances of stars both within our own Milky Way and also other galaxies beyond.
(2) In his 1926 book ‘The Biosphere’, Vernadsky wrote: “The biosphere may be regarded as a region of transformers that convert cosmic radiations into active energy in electrical, chemical, mechanical, thermal, and other forms. Radiations from all stars enter the biosphere, but we catch and perceive only an insignificant part of the total. The existence of radiation originating in the most distant regions of the cosmos cannot be doubted. Stars and nebulae are constantly emitting specific radiations, and everything suggests that the penetrating radiation discovered in the upper regions of the atmosphere by Hess originates beyond the limits of the solar system, perhaps in the Milky Way, in nebulae, or in stars …The importance of this will not be clear for some time, but this penetrating cosmic radiation determines the character and mechanism of the biosphere.”
(3) Wernher von Braun stated at a 1966 NY Academy of Science conference: “The technology now available will enable us to accomplish the manned lunar landing in Project Apollo… For really serious manned exploration of the planets, however, to include manned landings, nuclear or electric propulsion will be required. And I would personally prefer a nuclear stage for a manned fly-by mission to Venus and Mars. And a manned Mars mission, which could be achieved by the mid-eighties, would very definitely require nuclear propulsion… The highly successful test firing program of the NERVA I engine lends confidence to the belief that a nuclear rocket stage can be designed.”

A disturbing trend has gained a foothold in the United States as members of the academic community are espousing virulent views on race that seem more guided by political prejudices and affiliations than any solid scientific research. The consequences of this misguided research, much of which casts hateful aspersions on white people, could lead to unthinkable disaster down the road.

“Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free.” – Hippocratic Oath.

The world recently got a glimpse behind the curtain of the college campus for a peek at what passes for intelligent discussion and debate. The experience was educational, to say the least. At a symposium sponsored by Yale University, Dr. Aruna Khilanani presented a lecture, entitled “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind,” yet another discourse on the inherent evils of the pale face tribe. Yet this particular monologue was unique given the speaker’s reference to cold-blooded violence.

“White people make my blood boil,” Khilanani complained. “I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step, like I did the world a f—ing favor.”

This, ladies and gentleman, is coming from the mouth and mind of a practicing psychiatrist.

The good news is that Yale University, in response to complaints about the lecture, restricted availability of the talk to “members of the Yale community;” the bad news is that the “Yale community” numbers in the tens of thousands so naturally a copy got dutifully leaked to the public. What will be interesting to see now is what happens to this doctor’s career after delivering such a hate-filled lecture. After all, the punishment for left-wing commentators going off the rails has a marked tendency to be far less severe than when a right-winger does the same.

Unfortunately, the tales of academics appearing to lose their marbles over white people does not end there.

This month, the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, which prides itself as “one of the world’s most respected publications in psychoanalysis,” created a firestorm with the publication of a study entitled, On Having Whiteness.

Authored by Dr. Donald Moss, a faculty member of both the New York Psychoanalytic Institute and the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis, “whiteness” is depicted as a “malignant, parasitic-like condition to which ‘white’ people have a particular susceptibility.”

An Abstract to the study explains that “[P]arasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate.”

Is there hope for the victims infected by this whiteness affliction? Better not hold your breath.

“Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions,” Moss advises, employing just enough psychobabble to confound layman and professional alike. “Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites—to reduce their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”).

How do my colleagues consider this scholarship? Anyone actuality take this seriously? #science #psychology

On Having Whiteness – Donald Moss, 2021 https://t.co/MTsfaj9DUU

— Dr.PhilipPellegrino (@DrPhilipPellegr) June 8, 2021

Notice the references this parody of a medical study makes to the current political climate by dropping the trigger word “reparation,” which many among the left and the Black Lives Movement believe is a necessary monetary curative for correcting the wrong of America’s slave years, and despite the fact that no small amount of American ‘whiteness’ spilled blood on the front lines of both the Civil War and civil rights movement.

At the same time, we also learn that if this chronic whiteness is not kept in check by some effective treatment (drugs, hypnosis, surgery?) the possessed may be led astray by the promise to be “great again,” an obvious allusion to Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ campaign slogan.

Dr. Moss, who is white, laments that there is no known “permanent cure” against whiteness, a remark that carries echoes of the so-called “final solution” sought by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party against those “parasites” accused of sucking the life out of the “superior” German host, namely the Jews, Gypsies and Christians.

While it may be tempting to ignore this particular study as a one-off fluke, an academic train wreck unlikely to be repeated again, that would be wishful thinking. First, this is not the first time that members of the academy have tossed around the concept of “whiteness,” which seems to be just a polite way of saying ‘white people’ without appearing too blatantly xenophobic and hypocritic.

In 2015, Lee Bebout, a professor from Arizona State University, created headlines for a course he was teaching called, U.S. Race Theory & the Problem of Whiteness. Although the course triggered a major panic attack at the time, such “Whiteness” courses are now a dime a dozen on college campuses across America, and woe to the person who attempts to challenge them. Following Bebout’s opening shot it was off to the hate races as academics jumped on their favorite white rocking horse.

In September 2018, for example, Jessie Daniels, a professor at the City University of New York, was at pains to explain the “suicide cult” associated with “whiteness” and how that tragic reality fails to flush with “white privilege” and “white supremacy.” After all, if life was just a bowl of cherries for white people, who needn’t suffer all “those life stressors associated with systemic racism,” they wouldn’t be killing themselves in record numbers, right? Data shows that since the mid-1990s, reports of mental distress among middle-aged whites have exploded nationwide, as have cases of suicide. The decline in mental health occurred concomitantly with an opioid epidemic that hit the white heartland particularly hard. For Daniels, the deadly epidemic was proof perfect of white privilege.

“Prescription drugs, including opioids, are more readily available in white communities than in communities of color,” Daniels writes, as she jumps right to a racist rationale behind the discrepancy. “African-Americans, in particular, are routinely denied access to pain medication, while whites have ready access to it.”

Yet Daniels’ conclusion is totally at odds with her premise, which says that white people report a higher rate of mental distress and disorders than other racial groups. This would naturally result in more white people being prescribed the morphine-like drug as compared to their black counterparts; nobody is deliberately keeping the medicine cabinet closed to blacks. Meanwhile, other studies have shown that blacks have a higher tendency not to take opioids to treat their ailments than white people. Whatever the case may be, it appears that white people can’t even become addicted to a readily available and highly addictive pain reliever without being labeled ‘racist’ on top of it.

And then there was the embarrassing spectacle during the four-year Orange Man Regime when a number of minority Democrats joined a ‘Walk Away’ movement to enter the Republican ranks. Despite a non-stop negative media campaign against Trump, exit-poll data from the 2020 election showed that a quarter to a third of Latino and Black citizens voted to reelect Trump. These independent-minded voters didn’t see any “racism” in the Republican leader wanting to secure the US-Mexican border, for example. Rather, they saw it as a way of protecting people on both sides of the border. But for the Democrats this betrayal in the ranks was simply too much to bear, especially when it was discovered that minorities were among the participants of the Jan. 6 ‘insurrection’ on Capitol Hill. What this stunning turn of events called for was an academic who could explain Donald Trump’s popularity among a demographic that the Republican maverick was accused of “hating.”

Enter Cristina Beltrán, associate professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University, who came up with the genius term “multiracial whiteness” to explain the defectors.

“And what are we to make of unmistakably White mob violence [of the Trump supporters] that also includes non-White participants,” Beltrán asks in an opinion piece. “I call this phenomenon multiracial whiteness — the promise that they, too, can lay claim to the politics of aggression, exclusion and domination.”

Later, the professor lets rip with this revisionist version of American history, which shows white people in a predictably dark light.

“Rooted in America’s ugly history of white supremacy, indigenous dispossession and anti-blackness, multiracial whiteness is an ideology invested in the unequal distribution of land, wealth, power and privilege — a form of hierarchy in which the standing of one section of the population is premised on the debasement of others. Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.”

At this point, some readers may be wondering about the paucity of such academic discussions as Black Lives Matter, with a noticeable white presence in their ranks, incidentally, were laying waste to numerous city blocks across the US following the death of George Floyd. Given the overwhelmingly left-wing, radical progressive bias inside of the US college system, not to mention in media and Hollywood, the answer seems obvious.

White people in the United States are currently on the receiving end of a systemic assault where they are being scapegoated for any and all ills afflicting the nation. These accusations demand and deserve a balanced hearing where both sides are equally heard.

Instead, a homogenous hate-filled message is being trumpeted across the heartland, which says that white people are the absolute root of all evil, which is of course utter nonsense. It seems ridiculous to even have to say it, but white people have been behind every civil rights movement in the United States, yet these acts are going completely unnoticed by those in academia. At the same time, if white supremacy and ‘systemic racism’ were genuine problems, America would not be a major destination for migrant flows as it now is.

It’s time for an honest discussion on this matter, where the good deeds of white Americans can be discussed and even celebrated – before they are memory-holed into oblivion and something truly unthinkable fills the void.

The New York Times has published an article on the contents of the hotly anticipated US government report on UFOs, as per usual based on statements of anonymous officials, and as per usual promoting narratives that are convenient for imperialists and war profiteers.

Together with one voice, the anonymous US officials and the “paper of record” which is supposed to scrutinize US officials assure us definitively that the mysterious aerial phenomena that have reportedly been witnessed by military personnel are certainly not any kind of secret US technology, but could totally be aliens and could definitely be a sign that the Russians or Chinese have severely lapped America’s lagging military development.

“The report determines that a vast majority of more than 120 incidents over the past two decades did not originate from any American military or other advanced U.S. government technology,” NYT was reportedly told by the officials. “That determination would appear to eliminate the possibility that Navy pilots who reported seeing unexplained aircraft might have encountered programs the government meant to keep secret.”

Oh well if the US government has ruled out secret US government weaponry programs, hot damn that’s good enough for me. Great journalism you guys.

One senior official said without hesitation that U.S. officials knew it was not American technology.

He said there was worry among intelligence and military officials that China or Russia could be experimenting with hypersonic technology https://t.co/bgYtohKC9O

— Jonathan Lemire (@JonLemire) June 4, 2021

“Intelligence officials believe at least some of the aerial phenomena could have been experimental technology from a rival power, most likely Russia or China,” the Times reports. “One senior official briefed on the intelligence said without hesitation that U.S. officials knew it was not American technology. He said there was worry among intelligence and military officials that China or Russia could be experimenting with hypersonic technology.”

“Russia has been investing heavily in hypersonics, believing the technology offers it the ability to evade American missile-defense technology,” NYT adds. “China has also developed hypersonic weaponry, and included it in military parades. If the phenomena were Chinese or Russian aircraft, officials said, that would suggest the two powers’ hypersonic research had far outpaced American military development.”

The article goes on to describe how the US military have been “unsettled” by aircraft moving and behaving in ways known technologies cannot explain. The implication of scary foreign adversaries having “outpaced American military development” to such an extent is of course that the US military is going to require a far bigger budget with far more intensive weapons development.

This would be the same New York Times that has consistently supported all of the US military’s devastating acts of mass murder around the world, by the way.

This won’t be the last time we hear the imperial media warning us that UFOs may be a sign of a frightening gap in technology leaving the US defenseless against far more powerful foreign foes, and they’ve already been priming us for it. Republican Rachel Maddow aka Tucker Carlson has been shrilly pushing this narrative for weeks now and demanding that the US government do more to address the fact that in alleged encounters with these aircraft, “our military was completely outmatched technologically by whatever these were.”

“UFOs, it turns out, are real, and whatever else they are, they’re a prima facie challenge to the United States military,” Carlson said on a segment last month. “They’re doing things the U.S. military does not allow, and they’re doing it with impunity. And they appear to be focused on the U.S. military.”

“Why isn’t the Pentagon more focused on this? It seems like a threat if there ever was one,” Carlson huffed.

In another segment Carlson had on military intelligence veteran Luis Elizondo, a leading figure in the steadily intensifying new UFO narrative which kicked off in 2017, claiming the aforementioned Senate report on the subject will reveal “an intelligence failure on the part of the US intel community on the level of 9/11.”

“If there’s a foreign adversary that can put a nuclear warhead within moments over Washington DC, okay, that’s a problem,” Elizondo told Carlson’s Fox News audience.

All this over some completely unverifiable testimony, and a few videos being confirmed by the Pentagon which can all be explained by easily identifiable mundane phenomena.

I can’t predict the future, but I won’t be at all surprised if we begin seeing this arms race angle become the dominant aspect of this UFO story in the coming months/years. It would certainly fit the pattern of the US war machine and mass media promoting completely unverifiable allegations about foreign governments to justify further cold war escalations.

In the early sixties President John F Kennedy falsely promoted the “missile gap” narrative, telling the public that the Soviet Union had surpassed the United States in nuclear weapons when he knew full well the US nuclear arsenal had always far surpassed the USSR’s in number, quality and deployment. Kennedy used this hawkish narrative to win an election and advance the largest peacetime expansion of US military power ever, leading directly to the events which gave rise to the Cuban Missile Crisis which came far closer to ending our world than most of us like to think about.

I have no idea what if anything is going on with these UFO phenomena, but I do know the world-threatening new cold war the US is waging against Russia and China is insane. There is no valid reason our planet’s dominant power structures cannot at the very least cease brandishing armageddon weapons at each other and begin collaborating toward a better world together.

Reject the propagandists and cold warriors, no matter how elaborate or bizarre their manipulations become. Keep an eye on these bastards, and help spread awareness of what they’re about.

caitlinjohnstone.substack.com

I’ve been learning as much as I can about the new UFO narrative the political/media class have been pushing in conjunction with the US military to prepare for the Senate report that’s due to be released this month.

One of the disconcerting things I’ve been seeing again and again from all the major players in this new narrative like Lue Elizondo and Christopher Mellon is the absurd assertion that not only is it entirely possible that the unknown phenomena allegedly being regularly witnessed by military personnel are extraterrestrial in origin, but that if they are extraterrestrial they may want to hurt us.

Mellon, the former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence who helped get the ball rolling on UFOs entering mainstream attention back in 2017 when he leaked three Pentagon videos to The New York Times, has stated that he sees extraterrestrial origin as an entirely possible explanation for these phenomena.

“We don’t even understand how you could do something like that,” Mellon said in a recent interview with CTV News of the inexplicable maneuvers and features these aircraft supposedly demonstrate. “We don’t even understand the science behind it. Not like somebody’s a couple generations of fighter jet behind us; I mean this is a whole difference of kind, not degree.”

In this new interview with CTV of Canada I had the opportunity to clarify my views on some of the current #UAP issues: https://t.co/zKxCGWi4NS

— Christopher K. Mellon (@ChristopherKMe4) May 27, 2021

Asked why the pilots of mysterious aircraft with incomprehensible scientific advancement might want to monitor the US military, Mellon said the following:

“Well probably for the same reason we do: to understand what kind of threat we could pose to them. Should a conflict arise they want to be able to engage us effectively, defeat us rapidly, at minimum cost of life and treasure, just as we would on the other side. We do similar kinds of things; we don’t have vehicles quite like this, but we’re certainly very actively monitoring military forces of other countries.”

The notion that UFOs could pose a threat to humans whether their alleged operators are from our own world or from another is being promoted by the main drivers of this strange new plotline, and it is being enthusiastically lapped up by many UFO enthusiasts who see framing these phenomena as a national security threat as the best way to get mainstream power structures to take them seriously and disclose information to the public.

This is bothersome for a couple of separate reasons. Firstly, it is of course bothersome because one ought to be bothered any time military and intelligence insiders make unsubstantiated claims that there’s a foreign threat to US security. The added notion that this foreign threat could be from another world carries all kinds of implications for what kinds of unprecedentedly radical policy and funding adjustments would have to be made in order to counter this supposed threat, and it would take an appalling amount of gullibility to believe that those adjustments would be made for that reason at this point in time instead of the very obvious reason that the US is in a new and escalating cold war with both Russia and China.

Everything Keeps Getting Weirder And Weirder

The Pentagon did not spontaneously evolve an interest in radical transparency, and it is not coincidental that this UFO stuff is coming out as we hurtle into a new cold war and a race to weaponize space.https://t.co/01PskO6yA6

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) May 22, 2021

Secondly, it’s bothersome because it just says so much about human madness that people believe UFOs could simultaneously be the product of an immensely advanced extraterrestrial civilization, and also be a threat. They could be one or the other, but not both.

Just in our own tiny blip of recorded history, humanity has matured mentally and emotionally during our time on this planet. We no longer accept it as normal for our governments to torture someone to death in the town square, for example, and owning another human being as property is now seen as reprehensible. We’ve still got a mountain of inner demons to conquer, but you also can’t deny that we’ve created a much more conscious and peaceful world for ourselves than the one we used to live in.

Imagine how much further an intelligent life form would have progressed if it began maturing millions of years earlier than ours. Imagine how emotionally and intellectually developed a civilization would have to be to make it past all the self-imposed dangers its own intelligence posed to it like the dangers human intelligence poses to us now, if it had passed the great test and cleared that hurdle in its maturation process, and then gone on maturing for thousands or millions of years past the point we’re at now.

When I bring this up online people tell me, “Well look at what the Europeans did when they met indigenous populations! That’s what happens when a more advanced civilization meets a less advanced one.”

You see this ridiculous notion pushed everywhere, including by supposedly smart people like Stephen Hawking, that Europeans meeting the indigenous people of Africa, Australia and the Americas is a good model for what we could expect from an encounter with a civilization millions of years more advanced than our own. This reveals a fallacious assumption that genocidal Europeans were in fact “more advanced” than the other humans they met around the world; they were a bit more technologically advanced, but any research on the horrific things they did to those people will show you that they were emotionally infantile by today’s standards. It also looks at humans who began developing on the same planet at the same time as comparable to extraterrestrials who would have begun developing long before us.

Beyond the fact that we have seen in our own experience that an intelligent consciousness will keep expanding its consciousness over time, the most glaring piece of evidence that UFOs could pose no threat to us if they are extraterrestrial is that if they did, they would have taken us out long ago. UFO encounters have been documented for generations; there is nothing humans could do to stop a sentient species that is orders of magnitude technologically superior to us, no matter what the movies say.

If extraterrestrials are here they clearly don’t want to hurt us, and why would they? What could we possibly have that they’d want? In the unlikely event that there is some kind of element or resource here that they need, there’s no reason to believe they couldn’t get it elsewhere, or indeed that they couldn’t create it themselves at the level of scientific understanding they’d necessarily be operating from.

The idea that a civilization could attain a level of advancement comparable to ours, successfully learn to share resources and collaborate enough to avoid wiping itself out, continue maturing for a very long time, master interstellar, intergalactic, and/or interdimensional travel, create aircraft that can operate in the way people who encounter them describe, and then fly across the universe to go kill a bunch of barely-evolved primates for some reason is just absurd on its face, and even if such a thing could happen it would have happened already. This is humans projecting their own particular madness onto a hypothetical species far more mature than our own, myopically assuming that our collective insanity is some kind of immutable quality of consciousness itself.

I’ve sat through so much video footage on this subject, and I just get so frustrated listening to all these military-minded men talking about the need to know what the “capabilities” of these things are and how to prevent them from posing a threat to “national security”. If we are in fact not alone in this universe and are in fact being visited by other civilizations, these are the absolute stupidest questions we could possibly be asking ourselves about them. Not how can we contact them, not is it possible to communicate with them, not what could we learn from them, not where are they from and what is their story, but how can we kill them if we need to.

I have no idea if we are being visited by ETs, but if we are the US military is literally the worst thing our species could possibly use to relate to them.

caityjohnstone.medium.com

As I outlined in my previous article on the Clash of the Two Systems, the end of the 19^th century saw a major clash between two opposing paradigms of political economy which has largely been scrubbed out of history books.

Just like today, the two opposing systems were characterized on the one hand, by a demand for centralized control of the world by a unipolar elite yearning to stand above the influence of sovereign nation states like modern gods of Olympus, while the other was premised on a “multipolar” design of a community of sovereign nation states working together on large scale infrastructure and technological progress. One was premised on closed system Malthusian economic standards of adapting to diminishing returns while the other was founded upon standards of ongoing scientific progress generating creative leaps out of the constraints of limited resource baskets.

Today I would like to continue to trace the roots of those poisonous ideas which characterize today’s unipolar paradigm which masquerades behind a billionaire-authored “Great Reset” of world civilization. In this reset, we are told by the likes of Klaus Schwab that a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” will usher in not only vast automation and Artificial Intelligence operations at every level of society, but also a merging of humanity with machines. Figures like Elon Musk and Google’s Ray Kurzweil assert this merging is needed in order to “stay relevant” in the next phase of our evolution. Davos-man Yuval Harari echoed that the levers of evolution will now be moved from the randomness of nature into the new gods running Google, Facebook and the WEF.

This Borg-like deterministic faith in the human-machine synthesis that pervades the thinking of all modern transhumanists is both cultish, creepy and just plain wrong. However, without a proper evaluation into the historic roots of these ideas that threaten to derail global civilization into a dystopian collapse, it is impossible to understand anything fundamental about the past 120 years of human experience, let alone see where the fatal flaws are within the Great Reset/Transhumanist operating system.

In part one of our series, we explored the eugenics-roots of transhumanism in some detail with a focus on Julian Huxley’s creation of UNESCO where the mandate to “make the unthinkable become thinkable” guided the restoration of a new eugenics during the Cold War.

In part two, we explored the rise of a new array of 19^th century British think tanks designed to disrupt the natural evolution of a new system of win-win cooperation during the end of the 19^th century. This new grand design was innovated by Thomas Huxley’s X Club in order to re-establish the British Empire as the only unipolar power on the earth. Huxley’s design attempted to not only unify all branches of sciences under one descriptive model devoid of any actual creative discovery, but also attempted to use this new control of the definition of “scientific natural law” to justify an aggressive new imposition of imperial political economy onto the world.

The Dance of Math and Physics: Who Leads and Who Follows?

In the opening months of the new century, a major event took place that went far to apply Huxley’s mission. The Future of Mathematics Conference of August 1900 was a global event attracting over 160 of the greatest mathematicians who wished to tackle cutting edge problems in science and deal with the relationship of physics and mathematics. Obviously, these two fields danced together, but the question remained: which would lead and which would follow?

Considering the fact that the world population still numbered well below two billion at this time, the density of scientific discoveries across all domains was occurring at a rate unseen in human history. From new discoveries in biology, embryology, atomic physics, electromagnetism, aerodynamics and chemistry, the answer to the math vs physics question was increasingly becoming obvious. The fact was that the growth of human knowledge was fast outpacing the limits of the mathematical language used by scientists. With time, new mathematical systems would be developed to describe the new creative discoveries being made, but no one could deny that creative thought was leading in this dance. What was also undeniable was the dramatic benefit that new ideas had to improve the conditions of countless lives through leaps in scientific and technological progress.

Hilbert and Russell Shape a New Paradigm

Two particularly important figures who played leading roles in sabotaging science during the 1900 Paris Conference and whose ideas are inextricably linked to the later evolution of eugenics, cybernetics and transhumanism were Cambridge Apostle Lord Bertrand Russell and Gottingen mathematician David Hilbert.

The duo aimed at nothing less than the reduction of the entire universe into a series of finite, internally consistent mathematical propositions and axioms.

During the 1900 conference, Hilbert announced his 23 problems for mathematics that would need to be solved by mathematicians of the 20^th century. While many of these problems were genuinely important, the most destructive for the purpose of this article centered around the need to “prove that all axioms of arithmetic are consistent” [problem 2] and “axiomatize those physical sciences in which mathematics plays an important role” [problem 6].

It took 13 years for Russell to achieve this objective in the form of his Principia Mathematica (co-authored with his former instructor and fellow Cambridge Apostle Alfred North Whitehead).

The name “Principia Mathematica” was chosen explicitly as an homage to Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” published 200 years earlier. At the time of the 1900 launch of the Russell-Hilbert project, both Euclid and Newton’s flat interpretations of physical space time were quickly crumbling with the advent of new discoveries by Riemann, Curie, Weber, Planck and Einstein who were all demonstrating that the shape of physical space time had a living, creative character. With each creative discovery, a reciprocal interconnectedness between the “subjective” inner space of human cognition and the “objective” outer space of the discoverable universe was ever more firmly established.

Exemplifying this beautiful insight and passion to seek the unknown which was common among great scientists during this fertile revolutionary period, Einstein stated: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details”.

Reflecting this same view in his own way, Max Planck stated “Science enhances the moral value of life, because it furthers a love of truth and reverence—love of truth displaying itself in the constant endeavor to arrive at a more exact knowledge of the world of mind and matter around us, and reverence, because every advance in knowledge brings us face to face with the mystery of our own being.”

Closed System Entropy Must Define the Universe!

Russell’s closed system entropic mathematics was a direct reflection of his misanthropic view of an entropy-destined humanity which can explicitly be seen in his 1903 statement:

“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.”

When pondering which set of metaphysical views has greater claim to truth featured above, it is worth asking the question: Who actually made demonstrable discoveries into creation and who merely formulated ivory tower models devoid of any actual element of discovery?

Part of the formula for success in Russell’s mind hinged on his obsession with mathematical equilibrium in all things. When applied to society, it was no wonder that Russell was a devout Malthusian and life long promoter of eugenics and population control. One of his many displays of this disgusting view was made in his 1923 Prospects of Industrial Civilization where the social engineer stated:

“Socialism, especially international socialism, is only possible as a stable system if the population is stationary or nearly so. A slow increase might be coped with by improvements in agricultural methods, but a rapid increase must in the end reduce the whole population to penury… the white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence… Until that happens the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.”

Russell’s later writings in The Scientific Outlook (1930) extend his views of a stationary global society onto educational reform where he defines the need to have not one, but two separate modes of education: one for the elite master class who will become rulers and one for the inferior slave class. Russell outlines the two castes in the following cold-blooded terms:

“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, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play…. All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called `co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.”

For the ruling class: “Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world State and to their own order,” Russell explained, “members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific technique, and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements.”

All of Russell’s later writings promoting pre-emptive nuclear bombings of Russia, World Government run by a scientific dictatorship and teaching children to believe that “snow is black” must be read with his racist philosophical worldview in mind.

Norbert Wiener and the Rise of Cybernetics

In 1913, as Russell’s third and final volume of the Principia Mathematica was being printed, a young mathematics protégé arrived at Cambridge from the USA on a scholarship. This teenager’s name was Norbert Wiener and he soon found himself among a small group of boys closely mentored by Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert. Under Russell, Wiener was taught logic and philosophy while Hilbert taught him differential equations. Speaking of Russell, Wiener said: “when I came to study under Bertrand Russell in England, I learned that I had missed almost every issue of true philosophical significance”. He called Hilbert “the one really universal genius of mathematics”.

Throughout his entire life, Wiener was possessed by the obsession to express Russell’s logical closed system in practical ways.

Despite the fact that a young Leibnizian genius named Kurt Gödel threw a major wrench into Russell’s Principia program through his brilliant 1931 demonstration that no logical system could ever be truly consistent with itself due to the self-reflexive nature of all existent systems, Russell pushed forward with the project full force and Wiener was Russell’s leading apostle.

Other Russellites whose theories of machine learning included such names as Alan Turing, Oskar Morgenstern, Claude Shannon and John von Neumann. While each mathematician had their own particular innovation to offer, they were all united by the unwavering faith that a human mind was a mixture of bestial impulses guided by closed-system machine logic and nothing more. In a computer, the whole is but the sum of parts, and so too must it be in all information systems including human brains, ecosystems and the universe as a whole. “Metaphysical” principles like soul, purpose, God, justice and free will had no place in the minds of these human calculators.

By the end of WW2, Wiener’s work on feedback loops in aeronautics and radar led the mathematician to devise a new language for managing complex human systems which he soon discovered had application in business, military affairs and entire nations. The term he gave this new tool of control was “cybernetics”. Describing his invention, Weiner stated:

“Cybernetics, which I derived from the Greek word Kubernetes, or steersman, the same Greek word from which we eventually derive our word governor”.

By relying on binary closed system computer machines as his model for human minds, Weiner demanded that metaphysical concepts be assumed to have no existence beyond the merely physical characteristics of the measurable electrochemical properties of the brain. Describing this computer- mind analog, Weiner stated: “It became clear to us that the ultra rapid computing machine, depending as it does on consecutive switching devices must represent almost an ideal model of the problems arising in the nervous system” and that “the problem of interpreting the nature and varieties of memory in the animal has its parallel in the problem of constructing artificial memories for the machine.”

Cybernetics for Global Governance

Forecasting the inevitability of systems of global information control (and thus total political control by a god like governing class) as well as artificial intelligence, Weiner wrote: “where a man’s word goes and where his power of perception goes, to that point his control and in a sense his physical existence is extended. To see and to give commands to the whole world is almost the same as being everywhere.”

The key to understanding the attraction of cybernetics to a scientific dictatorship desirous of total omniscience and omnipotence is the following: In the context of a large boat, only the helmsman need have an idea of the whole. Everyone else need only understand their local compartmentalized role.

With the application of cybernetics to the organization of economic systems (as carried forth by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developments’ Sir Alexander King and applied across governments of the trans Atlantic during the 1960s and 1970s), vast complex bureaucracies emerged with only small nodes of “helmsmen” embedded within the newly emerging deep state complex who had access to a vision of the whole. This was the perfect operating system for a supranational technocracy to use to control the levers of the New World Order.

One of the most enthusiastic practitioners of this new system during this period of transformation was Pierre Elliot Trudeau (the newly imposed Prime Minister of Canada) who shaped a vast cybernetics revolution of the Canadian government between 1968-1972 under the control of the Privy Council Office. During a November 1969 conference on Cybernetics in Government, Trudeau said: “We are aware that the many techniques of cybernetics, by transforming the control function and the manipulation of information, will transform our whole society. With this knowledge, we are wide awake, alert, capable of action; no longer are we blind, inert powers of fate.”

Trudeau worked closely with Sir Alexander King in the formation of a new organization that had a profound impact on global governance from 1968-present called the Club of Rome. Trudeau was a devout supporter of this new organization which became a center of neo-Malthusian revivalism during the early year 1970s. Trudeau even presided over the Canadian Club of Rome and allocated money to fund the MIT Club of Rome study “Limits to Growth” that became a bible for the modern environmental organization.

Alexander King and the computer model made famous in the 1972 Limits to Growth that imposed a new schism between humanity’s desire to develop vs nature’s supposed desire to rest in mathematical equilibrium

Unlike Russell who denied all cases of anti-entropy, Weiner allowed for the existence of isolated islands of limited anti-entropy in the case of biology and human systems which tended to operate in ways that saw entropy (aka: the tendency of systems to collapse into equilibrium) decrease. However just like Russell, Wiener believed that cybernetics and information theory were shaped entirely by entropy, saying:

“The notion of the amount of information attaches itself very naturally to a classical notion in statistical mechanics: that of entropy.” [aka: the second law of thermodynamics]

In Wiener’s mind, the dominant law of the universe as a decaying finite place shaped by death which would inevitably destroy the limited states of anti-entropic life which occurred purely by chance in random parts of “space” and in “time” saying in 1954:

“it is highly probable that the whole universe around us will die the heat death, in which the world shall be reduced to one vast temperature equilibrium in which nothing really new ever happens. There will be nothing left but a drab uniformity.”

The Macy Conferences on Cybernetics

From 1943 until 1953, Wiener’s cybernetics and his information theory corollary became the rallying point for a new scientific priesthood that would gather together leading thinkers of every branch of knowledge in the same effort that was previously made under the 19^th century helmsman Thomas Huxley and his Royal Society X Club.

These conferences were funded by the Josiah Macy Foundation which had been created by General Marlborough Churchill (a cousin of Winston Churchill) in 1930 with the primary aim of conduiting funds towards eugenics research in both the USA, and Germany alongside its sister organization called The Rockefeller Foundation. The later operation would fund leading Nazi eugenicist Ernst Rudin from 1928 throughout the entire 1930s while sponsoring research led by the British and American eugenics societies.

As Anton Chaitkin points out in his British Psychiatry from Eugenics to Assassination, the Macy Foundation’s founder and controller Gen. Marlborough had formerly headed the military intelligence’s Black Chamber from 1919 until its disbanding in 1929. The Black Chamber interfaced closely with British Intelligence and served as the predecessor to what later became the National Security Agency (NSA).

Starting in 1945 and desperately in need to prevent the spread of the American System of Political Economy and an international New Deal that had been put into motion by anti-imperial president Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Macy Conferences on Cybernetics began meeting every six months bringing together Tavistock-connected psychiatrists, biologists, neurologists, computer engineers, sociologists, economists, mathematicians, and even theologians. Wiener described these conferences which shaped the course of the next 75 years saying “for human organization, we sought the help from the anthropologists Doctors [Gregory] Bateson and Margaret Mead while Dr. [Oskar] Morgenstern of the Institute of Advanced Study was our advisor in the significant field of social organization belonging to economic theory…Dr [Kurt] Lewin represented the newer work on the opinion of opinion sampling and the practice of opinion making”.

Social Engineering Drives the Post-War Order

For those who may not know, Dr. Bateson was a leading controller of the CIA’s MK Ultra program which ran from 1952-1973 as a multi billion-dollar covert operation designed to study the effects of depatterning both individuals and groups using mixtures of electroshock therapy, torture and drugs. Oskar Morgenstern was the innovator of “Game Theory” which played a dominant role in both military planning of the Vietnam War as well as economic systems for the next 70 years. Dr. Kurt Lewin was a leading psychiatrist from London’s Tavistock Clinic and member of the Frankfurt School that organized a concerted program to eliminate the sickness of national patriotism, belief in truth, and family love throughout the Cold War period.

A prominent conference member and planner of this operation was named Sir Julian Huxley- a leading eugenicist and imperial grand strategist who worked closely with fellow Fabian Society leader Bertrand Russell. Huxley shared Russell and Wiener’s devout belief in universal entropy saying in 1953:

“Nowhere in all its vast extant is there any trace of purpose, or even of prospective significance It is impelled from behind by blind physical forces, a gigantic jazz dance of particles and radiations in which the only over-all tendency we have so far been able to detect is that summarized in the second law of thermodynamics- the tendency to run down.”

As he was beginning to formulate his concept of “transhumanism” and while he was organizing the Macy Cybernetics Conferences, Julian found the time to create the United Nations Education Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1946 drafting its founding manifesto. His entropic view of biology and physics was clearly expressed in his bone chilling political views wherein he writes:

“The moral for UNESCO is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it- education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means of avoiding war… in its educational programme it can stress the ultimate need for a world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.”

Working in tandem with the World Health Organization- itself created by a Tavistock psychiatrist named G. Brock Chrisholm, and funded entirely by the Macy Foundation, Huxley organized the creation of the World Federation of Mental Health (WFMH) overseen by the Bank of England’s Montagu Norman and directed by the head of London’s Tavistock Clinic Maj. General John Rawlings Rees- whom Montagu directly appointed.

Chaitkin points out that among the first projects which the WFMH and Macy Foundation jointly organized were the “Conferences on Problems of Health and Human Relations in Germany” in 1949-1950 which ensured that the Frankfurt School’s Authoritarian Personality thesis was drilled into the minds of all German children. The goal was to persuade the German people that the whole fault of Hitler’s rise to power was not to be found in looking for international conspiracies or City of London/Wall Street manipulation… but rather in the “authoritarian psychological-genetic” disposition of the German people themselves. This program was overseen by Tavistock Director Kurt Lewin, who by this time became a leading figure of the Frankfurt School and innovator of a new brainwashing technique called “sensitivity training” which relied heavily on the use of guilt complexes and group pressure to break the will of a target group either in a classroom or in the workplace and absorbing any original thinkers into states of group think. Lewin’s work with the WFMH and Tavistock also became the foundation for today’s Critical Theory doctrines that threaten to undermine the entire scope of western civilization.

To the degree that individuals think for themselves and are inner directed by factors of 1) creative reason and 2) conscience, the group-think systems no longer behave according to the sort of statistically predictable rules of entropy and equilibrium which control-hungry oligarchs and technocrats demand. Erasing that factor of “unpredictability” by making the argument that all leaders who profess truth are simply “authoritarian personalities” and “new Hitler-types”, the virtue of mobs was raised above the virtue of individual genius and initiative which continues to plague the world to this day. (1)

Cybernetics Conferences evolved throughout the 1960s-1970s finding themselves increasingly integrated with international organizations like the United Nations, World Health Organization, NATO, and OECD. As this integration occurred, the new technocrats became ever more influential in setting the standards of the new world operating system. Meanwhile national governments found themselves increasingly cleansed of nationalist moral leaders like John F. Kennedy, Charles DeGaulle, Enrico Mattei, and John Diefenbaker resulting in the integration of systems analysis and cybernetics into the governing framework of the new international deep state.

While Julian Huxley coined the term “transhumanism” in 1957, the cult of Artificial Intelligence guided by a belief in the inevitable merger of man and machine grew increasingly with such major events as the man-computer symbiosis thesis of J.C.R Licklider of 1960 and the application of these systems into Department of Defense programs like wargames command systems, SAGE (Semi Automatic Ground Environment), and unmanned jet plane defense networks. DARPA’s Augmented Cognition Computer-Soldier dyads were yet another expression of this perverse idea with hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the creation of enhanced cyborg soldiers.

Over the years, followers of this new cult soon found themselves operating as helmsmen in the new global ship of earth giving rise to a new global elite class of technocrats and oligarchs loyal only to their caste and ideology, striving to shape their minds ever more closely to the model of idea computing machines capable of logic, but not love or creativity. The more that these cultish technocrats like Yuval Harari, Ray Kurzweil, Bill Gates or Klaus Schwab could think like cold computers, while getting the masses of the earth to do the same, the more the thesis that “computers must obviously replace human thought” could be maintained.

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

(1) Tavistock’s continued role as a global leader in gender transition therapy for children which has seen a 400% increase in cases of children processed through the facility between 2015-2020 is a sign that this operation is not a thing of the past but continues to exert influence on mental health to this very day.

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

There are reasons to be skeptical. After decades of stonewalling on the issue, suddenly American military chiefs appear to be giving credence to claims of UFOs invading Earth. Several viral video clips purporting to show extraordinary flying technology have been “confirmed” by the Pentagon as authentic. The Pentagon move is unprecedented.

The videos of the Unidentified Flying Objects were taken by U.S. air force flight crews or by naval surveillance and subsequently “leaked” to the public. The question is: were the “leaks” authorized by Pentagon spooks to stoke the public imagination of visitors from space? The Pentagon doesn’t actually say what it believes the UFOs are, only that the videos are “authentic”.

A Senate intelligence committee is to receive a report from the Department of Defense’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Task Force next month. That has also raised public interest in the possibility of alien life breaching our skies equipped with physics-defying technology far superior to existing supersonic jets and surveillance systems.

Several other questions come to mind that beg skepticism. Why does the phenomenon of UFOs or UAP only seem to be associated with the American military? This goes back decades to the speculation during the 1950s about aliens crashing at Roswell in New Mexico. Why is it that only the American military seems privy to such strange encounters? Why not the Russian or Chinese military which would have comparable detection technology to the Americans but they don’t seem to have made any public disclosures on alien encounters? Such a discrepancy is implausible unless we believe that life-forms from lightyears away have a fixation solely on the United States. That’s intergalactic American “exceptionalism” for you!

Also, the alleged sightings of UFOs invariably are associated with U.S. military training grounds or high-security areas.

Moreover, the released videos that have spurred renewed public interest in UFOs are always suspiciously of poor quality, grainy and low resolution. Several researchers, such as Mick West, have cogently debunked the videos as optical illusions. That’s not to say that the U.S. air force or naval personnel were fabricating the images. They may genuinely believe that they were witnessing something extraordinary. But as rational optics experts have pointed out there are mundane explanations for seeming unusual aerial observations, such as drones or balloons drifting at high speed in differential wind conditions, or by the crew mistaking a far-off aircraft dipping over the horizon for an object they believe to be much closer.

The military people who take the videos in good – albeit misplaced – faith about what they are witnessing are not the same as the military or intelligence people who see an opportunity with the videos to exploit the public in a psychological operation.

Fomenting public anxieties, or even just curiosity, about aliens and super-technology is an expedient way to exert control over the population. At a time when governing authorities are being questioned by a distrustful public and when military-intelligence establishments are viewed as having lost a sense of purpose, what better way to realign public respect by getting them to fret over alien marauders from whom they need protection?

There is here a close analogy to the way foreign nations are portrayed as adversaries and enemies in order to marshal public support or least deference to the governing establishment and its military. We see this ploy played over and over again with regard to the U.S. and Western demonization of Russia and China as somehow conveying a malign intent towards Western societies. In other words, it’s a case of Cold War and UFOs from the same ideological launchpad, so to speak, in order to distract public attention from internal problems.

However, more worrying still is that there is a dangerous reinforcing crossover of the two propaganda realms. The fueling of UFO speculation is feeding directly into speculation that U.S. airspace is being invaded by high-tech weapons developed by Russia or China.

U.S. lawmakers are demanding answers from the Pentagon about whether the aerial “encounters” are advanced weaponry from foreign enemies who are surveilling the American homeland at will. Some U.S. air force aviators have recently expressed to the media a feeling of helplessness in the face of seeming superior technology.

At a time of heightened animosity towards Russia and China and febrile talk among Pentagon chiefs about the possibility of all-out war, it is not difficult to imagine, indeed it is disturbingly easy to imagine, how optical illusions about alien phenomena could trigger false alarms attributed to Russian or Chinese military incursions.

The stoking of UFO controversy appears to be a classic psyops perpetrated by U.S. military intelligence for the objective of population control. Its aim is to corral the citizenry under the authority of the state and for them to accept the protector function of “our” military. The big trouble is that the psyops with aliens are, in turn, risking the exacerbation of fears and tensions with Russia and China.

With all the Pentagon-assisted chatter, it is more likely that an F-18 squadron could mistake an errant weather balloon on the horizon for an alien spacecraft. And amid our new Cold War tensions, it is but a small conceptual step to further imagine that the UFO is not from outer space but rather is a Russian or Chinese hypersonic cruise missile heading towards the U.S. mainland.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the leftwing cancel cult now running amok through the unguarded halls of academia is that highly intelligent people, with absolutely no racial or political ax to grind, are being forced to defend themselves and their respective fields from the most outrageous accusations, time that would be much better spent on valuable research.

While mathematicians over the millennia have successfully solved some of the most perplexing problems, like the Poincaré Conjecture and Fermat’s Last Theorom, they will probably have more difficulty arriving at a solution for appeasing the woke mob now banging on their door.

Difficult as it may be to fathom, the radical progressive inquisition has a beef with the cloistered community of number crunchers, made up as it is, according to the woke crowd, of closet racists and white supremacists. Needless to say, this latest accusation has sent shockwaves through the academic community.

This month, Sergiu Klainerman, professor of mathematics at Princeton University, explained to the journalist Bari Weiss how he has personally witnessed “the decline of universities and cultural institutions as they have embraced political ideology at the expense of rigorous scholarship.” Klainerman admitted that he had “naively thought” that the STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) would be not be touched by this “ideological takeover.” Much to his chagrin, he was mistaken.

“I was wrong,” he admitted. “Attempts to ‘deconstruct’ mathematics, deny its objectivity, accuse it of racial bias, and infuse it with political ideology have become more and more common — perhaps, even, at your child’s elementary school.”

The story gets better. As an émigré of the formerly communist regime of Romania, Klainerman makes an observation that should give any freedom-loving American tremendous pause. The former denizens of the totalitarian Soviet state, he explained, viewed the field of mathematics as “a great equalizer: those from socioeconomically disadvantaged families had a chance to compete on equal footing with those from privileged ones.”

“Mathematics also granted me an escape from the intoxicating daily drum of party propaganda — a refuge from the crushing atmosphere of political and ideological conformity [italics added].”

Today, Klainerman’s dramatic life has come full circle as he finds himself struggling against a different sort of oppression, that is, the cancel cult – what some have called ‘Cultural Marxism’ – that has descended on college campuses around the country like a brain fog. It’s not communist theory, however, which is promulgating the lie of racism inside of the mathematic disciplines, but rather one of the wealthiest capitalists of our time, Bill Gates.

Klainerman takes issue with a shocking document financed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and endorsed by various State of California educational entities, entitled, ‘A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction, Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction.’ The very first paragraph gives away the entire scheming plot:

“This tool provides teachers an opportunity to examine their actions, beliefs, and values around teaching mathematics. The framework for deconstructing racism in mathematics offers essential characteristics of antiracist math educators and critical approaches to dismantling white supremacy in math classrooms by visibilizing the toxic characteristics of white supremacy culture.” [This opening paragraph provides a citation to a 2001 paper entitled, ‘White Supremacy Culture,’ yet that document fails to mention either the study of mathematics, or the university setting where such implied racism is said to occur. In other words, “racism in mathematics” is a priori accepted as fact].

Political correctness. pic.twitter.com/9scWze34uD

— James Lindsay, super-antiracist (@ConceptualJames) March 10, 2021

How do you know if your classroom is – wittingly or unwittingly – promoting a white supremacy culture? According to the document that happens when “[T]he focus is on getting the “right” answer,” apparently an anal retentive trait of the fastidious Caucasian tribe. The quotation marks around “right,” incidentally, appear in the original, suggesting that there really is no “right” answer in the field of mathematics.

That sort of thinking was tossed around back in August when James Lindsay, of New Discourses, posted a memorable meme that quipped: “2+2=4: A perspective in white, Western mathematics that marginalizes other possible values.” This blew up the Internet when enraged wokesters, who have made it their life mission to rage against every sort of scientific, biological and mathematical fact, responded that sometimes 2+2 could equal 5. You know, just like a born male can sometimes suffer menstrual cramps. It is worth considering how these same people would respond at their local grocer if the cashier tried to charge them for five apples instead of four. But I digress.

To take the observation a bit further, Klainerman was not really going out on a limb when he said that without the precision of mathematical certainty, “bridges would collapse, planes would fall from the sky, and bank transactions would be impossible.”

Other clues that your math class is a hotbed of white supremacist ideology is when your teacher requires students to “show their work in only one way;” math is taught in a “linear fashion” and skills are taught sequentially; expectations are “not met.” The reader is not informed as to what those expectations are.

The irony is that in this effort to root out “racism” in the classroom, the authors of this document are themselves guilty of the very same sin as they attempt to assign attributes and stereotypes to an entire race of people. It requires little imagination to guess what the response would be if such “racial profiling” were turned around and applied to other races of people. Meanwhile, the notion that mathematics could be rooted in racism is simply absurd. The beauty of mathematics is that there can only be one correct answer to every problem, and talented students – regardless of skin color – all have the freedom to pursue this discipline.

Indeed, mathematics is the most straightforward of all disciplines, which means that the final result is not determined by any subjective feelings of the teacher. Although there may be isolated cases where a particular educator may give preferential treatment to some students at the expense of others, that cannot be a logical reason to forward the preposterous charge that the world of mathematics is brimming with white supremacists.

In fact, the field of mathematics, which has been built on the work of the ancients, like the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Egyptians, is in reality the very least segregated, the least racist, of disciplines. It is open to anyone who is willing and able to excel at number crunching, which may make it an easy target to be tarred as an exclusive white man’s club.

Academics must begin confronting this unfounded criticism head on, lest the radical progressives succeed in convincing the world through aggressive bully tactics that 2+2 really does equal 5, and that math teachers are imbued with innate racism. Otherwise, the very foundation of Western civilization, dependent as it is on mathematical precision, will simply collapse from within.