The Hideous Revolution: The X Club’s Malthusian Revolution of Science

By Paul Glumaz

INTRODUCTION:

While the 20^th and 21^st centuries have been shaped by British Imperial forces such as the Fabian Society and Rhodes Trust, the ideas and strategy advanced by these secretive organizations were in no way caused by them or even their founders. Rather, it is of dire importance to take a step back a little earlier in time to the period of great global upheaval following Lincoln’s miraculous victory of 1865 against the British-backed confederate uprising. We must do this in order to investigate the role of another grouping of individuals representing certain evil conceptions around which the dying British Empire re-organized itself. In doing this, the student of universal history will be aided in capturing in their mind’s eye, the birth of the core anti-human concepts in their modern incarnation which were later deployed most aggressively by both the Rhodes Trust and Fabian Society networks for the service of the British Empire.

THE CREATION OF A NEW EMPIRE OF ANTI-SCIENCE

At the beginning of the 19^th century, with the success of the American Revolution and its geopolitical implications especially following the re-affirmation of its founding principles in the form of the Union victory of 1865, there was a profound optimism about what humanity could discover and develop. On the continent of Europe and in the new American republic, there was an explosion of scientific investigation and invention accompanied by a growing interest in these matters by the general population.

At the same time a far flung private empire had emerged around the British East India Company that had consolidated control over global finance and the commerce of the seas. This empire saw in this emerging optimism a mortal threat to its power. It feared most of all the development of the nation state as the vehicle for expanding scientific progress. This progress would give nations the economic power to resist the empire. But most of all the spirit of progress itself would ennoble the people and make them unwilling to accept subservience to any system of tyranny.

How does an empire deal with this problem if their leading families are at best amateurs in science? By the 1830’s and 1840’s there was a desperate sense in Great Britain, the seat of the empire, that all would be lost if no counter could be found to the spirit of scientific optimism. So a new pseudo-science was created to crush this spirit. To accomplish this, a group of intellectuals was recruited from the lower classes who had the drive and the discipline that the leading families and their members lacked. This grouping was giving the full support and liberty of thought in order to put a new imperial strategy into motion. Thomas H. Huxley (1825-1875) was the leader of this group.

Although Huxley experienced a harsh and impoverished early life, he was inducted into the most prestigious scientific association in Great Britain, the British Royal Society, at the age of 25. This remarkable change of fortune, in a society of rigid class barriers based on birth reveals that Huxley was supported by powerful patrons.

By the time Thomas Huxley was 17 years of age, he had developed a lacerating, scornful, and sarcastic wit accompanied by a deep pessimism about the human condition. Unlike his well educated peers, Huxley had only two years of formal grammar school education. He was apprenticed at age 13, and again at 15 to different surgeons. While his peers attended Oxford or Cambridge, Huxley attended to the most impoverished in London’s slums, which were dying of typhoid, venereal disease, malnutrition, and alcoholism. Later Huxley attended medical school with funds borrowed from his family, showing great promise and winning prizes in anatomy. However his poverty prevented him from finishing his education to become a licensed physician.

In early life Huxley had developed superb drawing skills which were useful for making accurate drawings from microscopic observations. This skill enabled him to join the British Navy, as a surgeon’s assistant on the research vessel, H.M.S. Rattlesnake. His work on drawing newly discovered sea organisms off the coast of Australia, as part of the four year expedition, placed Huxley in the elite of the emerging discipline of Comparative Anatomy.

Upon returning from this expedition, Huxley was allowed to leave the British Admiralty, without penalty, long before his term of service was to end. Soon after, Huxley became a leading member of Britain’s scientific establishment.

By the 1870’s Huxley had achieved much of this revolution. As the leader of a small group of nine, who met monthly and called themselves the “X-Club,” Huxley and his group took over the institutions of science and education in Great Britain, and later the world.

In the latter part of the 18^th century as progress in science had begun to change the world in a very profound way, discoveries in geology and biological fossils began to contradict the accepted religious view of Creation. Up until this time the strict biblical view of Creation had never been challenged by science. Leading geologist Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875), in his work PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY, established that steady changes were the primary cause of most geological formations. He also showed that these formations developed over very long spans of time, in direct opposition to the interpretations of Scriptures.

In efforts to discover the origin and age of formations in geology, discoveries of numerous fossils occurred. Some of these fossils were of biological organisms that no longer existed. This caused great turmoil between science and religion.

In France, Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), and Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) were collaborators at the Museum of Natural History in Paris. From their work at the Museum, Cuvier founded the disciplines of Comparative Anatomy and Paleontology, while Geoffroy founded Teratology, the study of animal malformation.

Comparative Anatomy compares living forms and fossil remains to establish anatomical differences among organisms as a means of classing them by specie, family, genera, order, etc. From these types of comparisons comparative anatomists hypothesize the origin of species through their anatomical similarities.

Cuvier argued that the anatomy of an organism of any species is so intricately coordinated functionally and structurally that no part of an organism could change without changing all the other parts of the organism. Such a change of one part by itself would result in the death of the organism. This is known as Cuvier’s “correlation of parts” principle. Cuvier viewed each species created for its own special purpose and each organ for its own special function. Curvier maintained that the anatomy of all organisms is determined by its function in the overall “economy of nature,” that each species exists in an “economy” involving all the other species.

Teratology was created to examine malformation in biological organisms. These malformations could be monstrous. Geoffroy also studied vestiges, or organs that have no function but may have had a previous function. These two areas were viewed by Geoffroy as windows into the inherent potential for change in an organism.

Geoffroy’s view differed from Cuvier. For Geoffroy, the anatomy of an organism determined a potential range of function. This range of potential function could be greater or different than the actual functions of an organism. For Geoffroy the development of an organism’s anatomy determined its functional possibilities Since Geoffroy thought that all animals exhibit the same fundamental plan, or “archetype,” he saw no reason why all organisms could not have evolved from a single progenitor.

From the studies of embryos of vertebrates Geoffroy came up with three parts of his “unity of composition” principle. One was the “law of development,” whereby no organ arises or disappears suddenly. This explained vestiges. The second was the “law of compensation,” that an organ can grow disproportionately only at the expense of other organs. The third was the “law of relative position,” that all the parts of all animals maintain the same positions relative to each other.

These three parts of Geoffroy’s “unity of composition” conception suggested that there were coordinated pathways for change within an organism within certain boundaries of proportion and harmonics. By the early 1820’s Cuvier and Geoffroy had come into severe disagreement over the origins of anatomical forms. This difference culminated in a historic public debate in 1830. The issues raised in this debate have not been resolved to this day.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829,) a contemporary of Cuvier and Geoffroy, developed the theory that “evolution,” as well as changes in biological forms are the product of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. He argued that organisms adapt to the environment and that these adaptations could be passed on by inheritance.

By the first part of the 1800’s a scientific sense that living processes and their environments “evolve” and change had emerged. The question of how this “evolution” occurred, or could be explained became the new battleground for conflicting world views.

It was Thomas Huxley’s intention to use the conflict between empirical evidence and the strict interpretation of Scriptures to usher in a profound cultural and political revolution. His intention was to bypass the issues of principle in the Cuvier/Geoffroy debate by focusing attention on an assumed, impossible to prove mechanism for evolution: random changes in the small. This mechanism to bypass the issues raised by Cuvier, Geoffroy, and Lamarck was found by Huxley in Charles Darwin’s work.

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was one of a number of wealthy heirs to the Wedgewood pottery manufacturing fortune. He was of ill health and with his fortune he retired to his estate to study biology. In 1838 after reading Thomas Malthus ON POPULATION, Darwin formulated a theory of “evolution” based on the “natural selection” of the fittest. Darwin’s theories and intentions to publish and promulgate this view of “natural selection” were well known to an inner group for decades. In the early 1850’s Huxley had been introduced to Darwin and by the middle of the 1850’s Huxley was in close collaboration with Darwin.

While Huxley subsequently became the principal champion of Darwin’s theories of evolution by “natural selection,” Huxley was well aware of the unscientific nature of Darwin’s thesis. Even though Darwin would call Huxley “my bulldog,” Huxley, the Comparative Anatomist, had a personal preference for the views of Cuvier on the question of “evolution.” Nonetheless Huxley played a leading role in forcing Charles Darwin to publish ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES in 1859.

In a personal letter to his friend and closest collaborator, Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817-1911), dated September 5, 1858, Thomas Huxley exposed something of his intentions for supporting the publication of Darwin’s work.

Wallace’s impetus seems to have set Darwin going in earnest, and I am rejoiced to hear we shall learn his views in full, at last. I look forward to a great revolution being effected. Depend upon it, in natural history, and everything else, when the English mind fully determines to work a thing out, it will do it better than any other…I firmly believe in the advent of an English Epoch in science and art, which will lick the Augustan (which, by the bye had neither science nor art in our sense, but you know what I mean) into fits. (1)

Thomas Huxley looked forward to a “great revolution,” even though he scientifically disagreed with Darwin’s ideas. Huxley’s conception was not just a revolution in science, but in art, and culture as well.. The issue was “licking the Augustan into fits.”

When Huxley wrote this comment to Hooker, although the British Empire ruled most of the world, it did not rule the world of culture. Nor did the empire control the culture internal to Great Britain, which was still influenced by a previous age.

The word Augustan refers to the Augustan Age, the cultural period associated with the Stuart Restoration in the 1660s. Its literary component continued into the middle 1700’s with influences that extended well into the Victorian era. Its literature was a mixture of many trends from Jonathan Swift and Daniel Defoe to Alexander Pope.

The Augustan Age was born from the idea that the Stuart Restoration was a new beginning, like the early period of the first Roman Emperor Augustus, after whom it was named. The Restoration ended a period of civil and religious war and placed the Church of England in control of culture and politics.

The Church of England promoted the view of the “divine right” of an Aristocracy of birth and a Monarch to rule, and promoted itself as the interpreter of that “divine right.” In the view of the emerging empire of the British East India Company, the Church of England’s antiquated theocratic views of politics based on birth and privilege were ineffective in preventing the world from being overtaken by science and the ideas of progress.

The emerging private empire of the British East India Company and the City of London maritime and financial power found itself in conflict with the theocracy and theology of the Church of England and its control over culture, science, and politics.

On the continent of Europe and in the U.S. there was strong opposition to Darwin and Huxley. In the U.S. one of the leaders who opposed them was Yale professor and geologist Benjamin Silliman (1779-1864.) His scientific journal, JOURNAL OF AMERICAN SCIENCE AND ART was the principal science publication in America for most of a century, and was known to have corresponded with the Crelle Journal of the European heirs to Leibniz. Benjamin Silliman inspired several generations of young scientists. One of these was James Dwight Dana, who also became Silliman’s son-in-law and successor as editor of the JOURNAL OF AMERICAN SCIENCE AND ART.

James Dwight Dana, (1813-1895), a contemporary of Thomas Huxley, developed from his own research the view that the directionality of the “evolution” of biological organisms seemed to proceed toward greater “cephalization.” That is, the “evolution” of biological organisms seemed to occur in the direction toward the greater power of the nervous system in animals to respond and interact with the environment. “Evolution,” in this way, had a direction toward greater development.

Generally science outside of Great Britain at this time conceived “evolution” as occurring in a non-random, directed way in which the cognitive powers of humanity represent the pinnacle of the evolutionary process. To Huxley this view of humanity was an anathema. It was in this context that he made the claim that all human beings are both descended from the apes, and that mankind is in reality just another ape. To this end Thomas Huxley published his MAN’S PLACE IN NATURE.

It was always Huxley’s intention to bring man down to the level of an ape. This was key to extinguishing the optimism in the culture that had emerged from the American Revolution. This was Huxley’s most effective and direct attack on the concept that human beings are fundamentally distinct from the animals.

The use of the idea that mankind is descended from the apes biologically, as the core of human identity, has so shaped the modern sense of human identity in direct opposition to the concept of the human species being distinct from animals, that it is almost impossible for people today to know that they have any identity other than that of an instinctively driven ape like creature.

Whatever case is made for the anatomical and biological similarity between apes and humans, the species distinction for humans is not biological. Whether or not apes or any other species going back to some ancient beginning have or have not some genetic material connection to humanity is beside the point. What makes us distinctly human is not biology, nor is it biologically determined. The human mind is outside the control of biological processes. Otherwise human will and scientific discoveries would be impossible.

This idea came to dominate human identity up to the present day. It became the assumption imbedded in Medicine, Psychology, Biology, Anthropology, and popular culture. This includes most emphatically the belief in the biological determinism of human behavior, character, and the potential to learn.

Under Thomas Huxley’s influence, the religious and political world increasing split into two groups. Those who found Huxley’s bestial views of mankind abhorrent were encouraged to embrace the emerging “Creationist” party. Those who thought “creationism” could not be sustained by the scientific evidence were encouraged to join Huxley’s Darwinian Episcopate. This deep split in society still afflicts us to this day.

Thomas Huxley characterized his opponent, Benjamin Silliman, as the scientist “with one eye on the facts and the other on Genesis.”(2) Benjamin Silliman rejected both Darwin and the Creationists.

Instead Silliman emphasized that God’s most essential work is being done by mankind through scientific discoveries. He held that while science may contradict one’s imperfect understanding of God, it is by man discovering God’s universal laws in the physical universe, that mankind is participating in God and is fulfilling God’s intention for man, as well as ultimately increasing mankind’s understanding of God.

Later when Prime Minister Gladstone on behalf of the creationists attacked Darwin and Huxley, the latter said of Gladstone: “It has always astonished me how a man after fifty or sixty years of life (Gladstone) among men could be so ignorant of the best way to handle his materials. If he had only read Dana, he would have found his case much better stated.” Huxley considered Silliman and Dana effective opponents.

With Huxley’s “man an ape” viewpoint, Huxley became the most popular lecturer in what was known as the “workingman’s lectures.” His lectures on science deeply impacted the Socialists, the Communists, the Labor Movement, as well as the Anarchists. The cadre of these movements were all indoctrinated into the “materialist ape origins” of the human species. This included Karl Marx and especially Frederick Engels who totally embraced Huxley and his circle

At the core of the Communist and Socialist movements, and later the Soviet Union and its cultural catastrophe lies the spoor of Thomas Huxley. Their vision of a workingman’s utopia was strongly laced with the arsenic of Huxley’s pessimism about humanity. A utopia which rejects

the creative potential of the human species is a hellish place. The same Darwinian ideas of “evolution” were also at the core of Race Science. Many today would prefer to avoid discussing the fact that their most cherished views on “evolution” were the basis of the Race Science that Hitler practiced.

Huxley led the way by being one of the first to classify the human race into four racial categories; Europeans, Mongolians, Negro, and Australian. Each category was broken down into sub-categories, and classified according to various attributes, including intelligence. “Natural selection” was used to explain why the Europeans race was superior. Huxley also took the Darwinian revolution into all the religious institutions, for which he developed the anti-theological term “agnosticism.”

Huxley’s Darwinian revolution was exported to the rest of the world. His legacy continued into the 20^th century through his last major protegé, H.G. Wells, and his grandsons Aldous, and Julian Huxley, who collaborated extensively with H.G. Wells.

DARWINS FAMILY VALUES:

The original full title of Darwin’s 1859 work is ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR PRESERVATION OF THE FAVORED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) in his diary dated October 1838 tells us how he came up with his idea of Natural Selection:

“I happened to read for amusement Malthus ON POPULATION and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at least got a theory by which to work.” (3)

This entry appears roughly 21 years prior to the publication of Darwin’s work. Perhaps Darwin found this section from Malthus’s Essay on the Principle of Population amusing:

“…All children who are born beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons…Therefore…we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which compel nature to use…Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits…but above all we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they are doing a service to mankind by protecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disease.” (4)

Thomas Malthus’s “amusing” views provided the “scientific” and economic philosophical justification for the plunder, famine, genocide, and economic rape that the British East India Company meted out to colonial areas like India, and later China through the means of the drug trade. This view also justified increasing Ireland food exports to Great Britain in the midst of the potato famine. This genocidal viewpoint of Malthus became the “cause célèbre” of the private banking and commercial banking families and their “high society.”

Today we see the same exact view of Malthus within the British elite publicly exemplified by the likes of Prince Philip, and Prince Charles. Prince Philip’s comment that “in the event of being reincarnated, I would like to come back as a deadly virus to deal with the population problem,” is a more condensed and pithy version of Malthus.

In America this view is most publicly represented by the policies promoted by Al Gore, President Barak Obama, and the Green movement.

Charles Darwin was not just one individual who came up with a theory to explain evolution. Rather, he was an instrument of a network; much of it intermarried, which sought to justify mass murder.

Darwin was intimately connected to the Malthusian party of the time, the Whigs. In 1834 the Whigs passed the Poor Laws. At that time Darwin’s dining companion was Harriet Martineau, who many thought would marry Darwin’s brother Erasmus. Martineau was the Poor Law propagandist whose novels won the battle for rounding up the poor and incarcerating them in poor houses so they would stop having children and be made to work.

Darwin’s first cousin and brother-in-law, Hensleigh Wedgewood (1803-1891) was a well known legal figure, historian and, and author of the book, ON THE ORIGINS OF LANGUAGE. In his book, Hensleigh attacks the position of the German school of the Humboldt brothers on the development of languages. Hensleigh sought to show that human speech arose from animal grunts. Hensleigh’s concept on the origin of language is that there were no demarcation points between mere animal sounds and human speech in the gradual evolution of language. Hensleigh asserted that there was no difference between human beings and animals. Here we have first cousins promoting the same concept: One in the “evolution” of biology, the other in the “evolution” of Language. Is this a coincidence?

After Hensleigh’s first wife’s death, Hensleigh married Fannie or Frances McKintosh, the daughter of Sir James McIntosh. Sir James McIntosh, Fannie’s father, was the closest friend and collaborator of Thomas Malthus. They both taught at the British East India Company Haleybury College. Fannie while married to Hensleigh had an extended affair with Darwin’s brother Erasmus.So here we have Malthus’ closest friend’s daughter having an affair with Darwin’s brother while being married to Darwin’s brother-in-law and first cousin Hensleigh.

The next first cousin of Darwin, Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) founded the eugenics movement. Dalton credited Darwin as the inspiration for the eugenics movement. Galton promoted the idea of culling the “unfit” from the human population. Hitler’s racial hygiene policy had its beginnings with these two first cousins, Charles and Francis. This was not a coincidence.

Another of Darwin’s first cousins, Sir John Lubbock, Banker, Biologist, Member of Parliament extended Darwin’s ideas to the study of social institutions and family property. Lubbock developed the concept that inheritable property rights were the highest form of social evolution. That society gradually evolved through stages. The rate of “evolution” in these stages was different for each race. As a member of Huxley’s “X-Club”, Sir John also played a key political role in this revolution.

Thomas Huxley’s closest collaborator and co-founder of the “X-Club” was the botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817-1911.) Hooker and Huxley both become Presidents of the Royal Society in the 1870’s, and 1880’s. Hooker succeeded his father as the chief Botanist of the Empire.

Hooker is also Darwin’s closest friend and collaborator, and is intimately involved in everything Darwin does and writes. Thus Huxley’s closest collaborator is Darwin’s closest collaborator. Joseph Hooker married Frances Henslow, the daughter of John Stevens Henslow.

John Stevens Henslow (date),, Regis Professor of Botany at Oxford, was both the mentor of Darwin, as well as a tutor to the children of Queen Victoria. It was Darwin’s claim that Henslow, the father of his closest collaborators wife, was also the individual who influenced Darwin the most. Again what do we have? Darwin’s most influential mentor, Henslow, is the father-in-law to Darwin’s closest friend Hooker, who is the closest collaborator of Thomas Huxley.

The next major collaborator was Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) Spencer was also a member of Huxley’s “X-Club.” He was best known for having coined the phrases “survival of the fittest,” and “Social Darwinism.” Both Huxley and Spencer had first met at the salon of Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) which included Harriet Martineau, John Stuart Mill, and John Chapman, the publisher of the free-trade journal The Economist.

In Spencer’s PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGY (1855), Spencer rejected the idea of the human mind being anything more than a construction of atomic sensations. These atomic sensations represented the association of ideas which then became imbedded in the brain tissue and could be passed on by inheritance. He espoused a view that all phenomena, including human thinking could be explained by such means.

Along with Darwin, and Darwin’s cousin Sir Francis Galton, Spencer was the major proselytizer of the idea of the innate racial superiority of the upper classes. In Spencer’s grand universal scheme the “fittest” were the socially and economically most successful in society. Spencer espoused the view that the “savage” or inferior races of mankind were the “unfit” and would die out. Spencer was against all charities, child labor laws, women’s rights, and the education of the poor. Such measures, Spencer claimed, interfered with the laws of “natural evolution.”

By the 1870’s Spencer became the most widely read philosopher in the English speaking world. Spencer’s racist views and promotion of “Social Darwinism” had the greatest effect on our culture. It was the popularity of Spencer’s promotion of “Social Darwinism” that led to the adoption a feral like competitiveness in our culture. Competition for wealth, position and privileges became the dominant driver for one’s social sense of self.

As a result, most people today in their inner sense of identity are failed persons. Very few persons reach the pinnacle in the race to the top. Everyone that doesn’t spends time fantasizing that they had or worshiping those they think have reached the top. The sense of social solidarity and the sense of the general welfare of the nation necessary for the survival of a nation is deeply undermined by this feral competitiveness and this social “survival of the fittest” ideal of Herbert Spencer.

Huxley and Darwin’s German collaborator was the zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). Haeckel’s THE HISTORY OF CREATION was the most read book in the world explaining Darwin’s ideas scientifically. Haeckel also founded the discipline of Ecology. He was the first to develop concepts of “overpopulation” and “carrying capacity.” Haeckel also promoted the notion that the social sciences should be governed by the discipline of “applied biology”. “Applied biology” was Haeckel’s term for eugenics. Here we have Darwin’s closest German collaborator, whose extensive correspondence in German was translated by Huxley, promoting a view that all the social sciences should be based on applied eugenics.

Among Huxley’s and Darwin’s group of scientists there were two who eventually dissented. One of these was the explorer and zoologist Alfred Russell Wallace, while the other was the geologist Sir Charles Lyell.

Wallace was the “co-discoverer” of the principle of “natural selection” with Darwin. By 1864 Wallace had come into disagreement with Darwin and Huxley. Wallace had reached the conclusion that the evolution of matter in the universe could not have occurred in a gradual, or “natural selection” manner in three very critical instances.

One of these instances was the transition from inorganic to biological matter. The second was the transition from biological matter to the existence of consciousness in higher animals. The third was the transition from higher animals’ sense of consciousness to the ability to reason in mankind. To Wallace these three leaps could not be explained by Darwin’s theories.

Sir Charles Lyell had been a collaborator of Darwin since 1837. Lyell was also a friend and early promoter of Huxley. Nonetheless Lyell had become very concerned that Darwin and Huxley were using “gradualist” evolutionary ideas to promote a “catastrophic criminal view of mankind.” Lyell strongly believed that human beings possessed the faculties of reason that in no way could have emerged from Darwin’s “natural selection.” (5)

Another contemporary of Darwin and Huxley who had initially helped to promote Huxley into the Royal Society was Sir Richard Owen (1804-1892.) Huxley and Owen would engage in a bitter struggle over fundamental issues of science and evolution which lasted 40 years. Owen adopted the view of “archetypes” as opposed “natural selection.” Since “archetypes” were seen as showing God’s design, the battle of “archetypes” versus “natural selection” became in essence the battle of the Church of England versus the British East India Company crowd. Owen would later call Huxley a “pervert with some perhaps congenital defect of mind for denying the divine in Nature.” (6)

THE NEXT GENERATION

The transition from Darwin and Huxley to the next generation was marked by a change from “theory” to “practice.” The theories that were developed in the Malthusian Darwinian revolution such as “natural selection”, “survival of the fittest,” the “descent of man from the apes,” “eugenics,” gave way to the preparations for the mass murder of those deemed “unfit.”

The most notable son of Charles Darwin was Leonard Darwin (1850-1943.) Leonard became the President of the British Eugenics society (1911-1928) succeeding his half-cousin Francis Galton. Leonard Darwin’s most important successor was Ronald A. Fisher (1890-1962) who pioneered the study of statistics in genetics on which modern Darwinism was based. Fisher was notorious for refusing to shift away from his racist and eugenicist views after the defeat of Hitler. The modern Darwin-ophile, Richard Dawkins, claimed that Ronald Fisher was the “greatest of Darwin’s successors.”

Another son of Darwin was Horace Darwin. Horace was the co-founder with Ronald Fisher of the Cambridge Eugenics Society with John Maynard Keynes. So here we have two of Darwin’s sons leading the way to establish the means to “cull” the human species of the “unfit.” Who are the “unfit?”. The “unfit” are you, me, most of the human race, and any person or group so deemed.

The principal son of Thomas Huxley was Leonard Huxley (1860-1933) who was the literary preserver and edifier of the Darwinian revolution and the father of its most successful promoter in the 20^th Century, Julian Huxley (1887-1975.) Thomas Huxley named his son Leonard in honor of Darwin’s somewhat older son Leonard. Huxley’s first wife was Julia Arnold, the niece of educator Mathew Arnold, and the mother of Julian and Aldous Huxley..

Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) was a Victorian poet and Inspector of Her Majesty’s Schools. While not a member of Huxley’s “X-Club,” he was a regular dining guest their meetings. Arnold’s literary views were the forerunner of the Fabian Society. Arnold’s primary concern was the problem of the children of the emerging middle class. Arnold viewed the Classical education of these children as the most serious threat to the empire. He led a campaign to dump Latin, Greek and the Classics in the education of the middle class.

A key leader in the third generation of Malthus’ Darwinian revolution was Darwin’s grandson, Charles Galton Darwin (1887-1962.) Charles Galton Darwin was the leading British physicist during WWII. He ran Britain’s National Laboratories and led the British side of the Manhattan Atomic Bomb Project. After WWII Charles retired to direct the British Eugenics Society till his death in 1962. Charles Galton Darwin was also the godson of Sir Francis Galton.

In 1952 Charles Galton Darwin published the NEXT MILLION YEARS as his contribution to furthering eugenics and the Darwinian revolution. NEXT MILLION YEARS recast the issue of eugenics not in terms of racial hygiene, but in terms of curbing population growth. Charles estimated that the time it would take for mankind to biologically evolve into a new species would be a million years. In the meantime Charles saw the principal problem being that human beings were essentially “wild animals” that had not been domesticated, though he believed every effort should be made to do so.

It was the British Eugenics Society and its American extension which launched the Hastings Center on Euthanasia in the U.S. in the 1960’s. It was the Hastings Center and its leading operative, Ezekiel Emmanuel, which crafted Obama’s Health Care Reform to “cull” “poor,” the “elderly,” and relieve society of the financial burden of the “unfit.”

The granddaughter of Charles Darwin, Charles Dalton Darwin’s sister Margaret, married Geoffrey Keynes, the brother of John Maynard Keynes. The great-grandson of Charles Darwin, and son of Charles Galton Darwin, George Pember Darwin (1928-2001) married Angela Huxley the great-grand-daughter Thomas Huxley.

And so it goes.

In Germany, the second generation of Darwinians were led by leaders such as Alfred Ploetz (1860-1940.) Ploetz was an ardent follower of both Darwin and Haeckel and became a leading member of the British Eugenics Society. He extensively toured the U.S. to popularize the eugenics movement in America. Ploetz was the first to name and develop the “branch of medicine” called “racial hygiene.” On returning to Germany in 1936, Ploetz with his brother-in-law and protegée Ernst Rudin, was appointed by Adolph Hitler to oversee the implementation of mass murder based on “racial hygiene.”

One of the leading promoters of eugenics in the more recent period was Sir Crispin Tickell. Sir Tickell was the President of the Royal Geographical Society and a leading government official and adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In the 1980’s Sir Tickell created the British Government funded “climate change “ movement to implement mass murder based on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Sir Crispin Tickell’s great-grand-father was Thomas Huxley.

And so it goes on, generation after generation, of policies intended to cause mass genocide.

By the year 1900 Darwinism was on the wane in the scientific community. It lacked the experimental proof that it needed to justify its tenets. Darwinism was under attack from many quarters. It lacked most of all some discovery of an intermediate form, or “missing link” between man and ape.

At last this “missing evidence” came in the form of the discovery at Piltdown, where the jaw of an ape was fused with the cranium of a human. Even having found this fabricated link between man and ape could not stem the erosion of Darwin’s influence in the scientific community during the 1920’s and 1930’s. The fossil evidence did not exist to support the theory of “natural selection.”

It fell to Huxley’s grandson, Zoologist Julian Huxley to come to the rescue of the Darwinian revolution. Early in Julian Huxley’s career, Julian had replaced Leonard Darwin as head of the British Eugenics Society. With the help of Thomas Huxley’s last major protegé, H.G. Wells, Julian Huxley launched a revival of Darwinism. This revival was named the “evolutionary synthesis,” or the “new synthesis,” or the “modern synthesis.”

Under Julian Huxley’s direction a number of disciplines were merged. These were biochemistry, genetics, population studies, and ecological field studies. By merging these disciplines a new model was created that no longer needed the intermediate fossil evidence. In the “new synthesis” the human “animal” was governed by biochemical and genetically determined processes down to the predisposition in all areas of behavior, intelligence, disease, sexual preferences, even altruism.

The basics of the “new synthesis” are as follows: The genes or the DNA are continuously impacted by background radiation and other factors which cause mutation, or small changes in the DNA, and its sequences. This is called “genetic drift.” This “genetic drift” is supposedly constant. The DNA is supposed to be the blueprint that passes on inherited characteristics. Then the environment acts on these inherited changes in the organism and selects out those changes that benefit the survival of individual organisms. Over time this leads to new species and evolution.

Also involved is the concept of “gene pool.” If a group of organisms of one species become isolated geographically from others of the same species, the isolated part will tend to develop a separate “gene pool” and there would be a more rapid rate of differentiation between the two populations. The “new synthesis” like the older version of “natural selection” has no directionality. The driver for the “new synthesis” is random changes in the small caused by the impact of background radiation. In the “new synthesis” human beings are determined by internal biochemical processes not by mind or will. Controlling human behavior with drugs is a key aspect of the “new synthesis” of Julian Huxley.

Julian Huxley’s collaborator H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell promoted an “open conspiracy” in which one of the components of control over the population would be biochemical. Julian Huxley’s brother, Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD was one of the literary products of this “new evolutionary synthesis. The novel BRAVE NEW WORLD is the world we live in today.

While the use of drugs by the British Empire to enslave populations, as was done in China, was not new, the “new synthesis” broadened and expanded this tradition to attempt to enslave the whole human race. Whether it is Ritalin in the schools, or heroin on the streets, enslaving the human species to drugs is one of the intended outcomes of the continuing Malthusian Darwinian revolution.

The continuing Darwinian revolution has two goals. The first goal is to extirpate the higher faculties in all but a very few of the human population in order to make slaves of the rest. Denying and stifling the cognitive potential of all but a few human beings is the core policy of the empire. The second goal is to cause the population to be reduced to one to two billion people from the current close to seven billion people. At one to two billion people not much industrialization is needed to sustain the population. Without the need for industrialization and scientific progress, one can restrict the need and number of cognitive individuals to perhaps only a few of the very elite who run the empire. Otherwise, increasing economic development also means increasing population which in turn increases the potential for creativity and more cognitive beings to emerge who might somehow escape the mental control of the empire, and create problems for it.

H.G. Wells and Julian Huxley both collaborated in producing a very popular 1500 page book in 1939, THE SCIENCE OF LIFE. This book was what began the popular revival of Darwin in the population, . The last paragraph of the SCIENCE OF ECOLOGY SECTION on page 1011 stated: “Unrestrained breeding, for man and animals alike, whether they are mice, lemmings, locusts, Italians, Hindoos, or Chinamen, is biologically a thoroughly evil thing.” (7)

The Darwinian revolution also infected other areas and disciplines. Two developments of importance which occurred in the 1860’s in the “procession through the institutions” of Huxley’s group of associates. One was the founding of the “X Club” with nine members. The second was the formation of The Metaphysical Society (1869-1880.).

The “X Club” sponsored and launched two press organs to support their revolution. One was the weekly READER, and the other was Natural History Review of which Huxley was part owner. Both these publications were used in the early 1860’s to promote the pro-Darwinian view. Thomas Huxley was the leading editor and polemicist in these publications. These two publications failed, and were replaced by a fully “X Club” backed publication that was launched in 1869 called NATURE, a magazine still in existence.

The formation of The Metaphysical Society brought together the most prominent men of science, religion, culture, and philosophy to a monthly dinner and discussion.. The purpose of the Society was to meet and discuss fundamental issues such as “Is God knowable?” or “What is a Lie?,” or “the ethics of belief” or “what is death?” Present were leading clerics, writers, philosophers, politicians, and scientists. Among the rotating chairman were Thomas Huxley, Sir John Lubbock, and Mr. Gladstone, the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

From eye witness descriptions, everyone was cordial and the discussions would generally come down to Huxley demonstrating that “the working hypothesis of science” laboring gradually over the years through empirical work was far superior to all the metaphysical speculation about anything and that God was empirically unknowable. (8)

At an early age Thomas Huxley’s interest in Philosophy had led him to study Emmanuel Kant in German. Huxley had also become a convert to the Scottish philosopher Sir William Hamilton (1788-1856.) Both Kant and Hamilton maintained that God was unknowable. Based on the proposition of the unknowability of God, Huxley launched a movement in philosophy, religion, and science which he termed “agnosticism.” The aim of this movement was to eliminate any scientific conceptions that involved universal principles. Huxley’s “agnosticism” became the governing ideology, or the new ”religion” of the empire..

This new “religion” of “agnosticism” was not to be for the masses. This was the new “religion” of the functionaries of the empire; the “scientists,” the “academics,” and the enlightened “liberal clerics.” As for the masses, they would be given all the “irrational feelings” and “beliefs” they would want, but not the knowledge of universal principles.

In an “agnostically” administrated empire, the masses can kill each other in perpetual conflict over “their” religious feelings. Under Huxley’s “agnostic” Darwinian Episcopate, a person of science cannot assert the truthfulness of the existence of God. Nor can a person of science assert conversely that God does not exist. Both assertions maintain that human beings have a capacity to know, whereas an “agnostic” cannot know and by not knowing has no responsibility for mankind or the future.

So what can be proven as far as fundamental principles involving the lawfulness of the universe according to “agnosticism” which now rules the sciences? NOTHING! So what is left? What is left is STATISTICS! That is the statistics of things “bumping” into each other. Take the erroneously impossible, popularly accepted orthodox “law” of today’s scientific community concerning the government of our universe: the “second law of thermodynamics.” All the “second law of thermodynamics” represents is statistical projections of “heat loss” of “things” “bumping” into each other projected onto an unknowable (agnostic) universe. “We don’t know anything but statistical probabilities.” In the agnosticism of “modern science” there is no causality other than the “bumping” into each other of “things” in ways we can never fully understand, other than they are “bumping” into each other.

What about Darwinism? It’s the same thing! Random mutations in ways we can never know create “statistical probabilities” for increased survival for “random” changes caused by “random” events. In other words, human beings are unable to know the existence of any real causation, just statistics. Or to put it in another way, the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Universe is unknowable to the human species. All we can know is our “bumping” into “things.”

This is the Empire! These are the chains that bind our people to a bestial view of themselves. We don’t strive to develop ourselves to our full human and intellectual capacity because deep down we don’t believe we can. We are just animals, not really human. Darwin and Huxley and their Malthusian revolution give us the excuse to reject our potential to develop, and spare us the responsibility of doing so.

The universe is not governed by statistically random processes! To believe so is to believe in the irrational. Not knowing the cause of things does not make it random. To substitute randomness for causality is not just unscientific it is insane. How is it possible to discover the reason for evolution, if anything but randomness as an explanation is outlawed?

The real issue and the truths behind the revolution of Darwin and Huxley were political. Neither Thomas Huxley, nor his grandson Julian Huxley cared much for whether there was any truth in Darwin’s theories. The issue for them was never truth, or Science. The issue for them was who was going to control the ideas that govern the thinking of those who influence and run society! The issue was how and who would control “science,” and for whom. Without the Darwinian-Huxley revolution in the sciences, the empire of Malthusian genocide would have been defeated long ago. We would now be colonizing the solar system instead of entering a dark age collapse of civilization.

In conclusion, in this age, the essence of being human is to wage war against this hideous revolution and recover the lost promise of the potential of our species.