|
The Ascendancy of the
Scientific Dictatorship
Part One: Illuminating the Occult Origin of Darwinism
by Phillip Collins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a
'scientific dictatorship.' Subtly and swiftly, the ruling
class seized control of science and used it as an 'epistemological
weapon' against the masses. This article will show that
the history and background of this 'scientific dictatorship'
is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed by the historical
tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in Freemasonry.
The Epistemological Cartel
In The Architecture of Modern Political Power, Daniel Pouzzner
outlines the tactics employed by the elite to maintain their
dominance. Among them is: 'Ostensible control over the knowable,
by marketing institutionally accredited science as the only
path to true understanding' (Pouzzner, 75). Thus, the ruling
class endeavors to discourage independent reason while exercising
illusory power over human knowledge. This tactic of control
through knowledge suppression and selective dissemination
is reiterated in the anonymously authored document Silent
Weapons for Quiet Wars:
Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth.
Natural science is the study of the sources and control
of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed
as economics, is the study of the sources and control of
social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems. Mathematics
is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be
king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology
of the bookkeeping. All science is merely a means to an
end. The means is knowledge. The end is control (Keith,
Secret and Suppressed, 203).
The word 'science' is derived from the Latin word scientia,
which means 'knowing.' Epistemology is the study of the
nature and origin of knowledge. This elite monopoly of the
knowable, which is enforced through institutional science,
could be characterized as an "epistemological cartel."
The ruling class has bribed the 'bookkeepers' (i.e., natural
and social scientists). Meanwhile, the masses practically
deify the 'bookkeepers' of the elite, and remain 'ignorant
of the methodology of the bookkeeping.' The unknown author
of Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars provides an eloquently
simple summation: 'The means is knowledge. The end is control.
Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?'
(Keith, Secret and Suppressed, 203). (See entire document
at: http://www9.pair.com/xpoez/money/silent.html)
In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley more succinctly
defined this epistemological cartel:
The older dictators fell because they could never supply
their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough
miracles, and mysteries.
Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work'
with the result that most men and women will grow up to
love their servitude and will never dream of revolution.
There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific
dictatorship should ever be overthrown (Huxley, Brave New
World Revisited, 116).
This is the ultimate objective of the elite: an oligarchy
legitimized by arbitrarily anointed expositors of 'knowledge'
or, in Huxley's own words, a 'scientific dictatorship.'
The New Theocracy
How did the 'scientific dictatorship' of the twentieth century
begin? In earlier centuries, the ruling class controlled
the masses through more mystical belief systems, particularly
Sun worship. Yet, this would all change. In Saucers of the
Illuminati, Jim Keith documents the shift from a theocracy
of the Sun to a theocracy of 'science':
Since the Sun God (and his various relations, including
sons and wives) were, after several thousands years of worship,
beginning to fray around the edges in terms of believability,
and a lot commoners were beginning to grumble that this
stuff was all made up, the Illuminati came up with a new
and improved version of their mind control software that
didn't depend upon the Sun God or Moon Goddess for ultimate
authority (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78).
Priests and rituals were soon supplanted by a new breed
of 'bookkeepers' and a new 'methodology of bookkeeping.'
Keith elaborates:
As the Sun/Moon cult lost some of its popularity, 'Scientists'
were quick to take up some of the slack. According to their
propaganda, the physical laws of the universe were the ultimate
causative factors, and naturally, those physical laws were
only fathomable by the scientific (i.e. Illuminati) elite
(Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78-79).
This consciously induced paradigm shift facilitated the
emergence of the elite's new theocracy. The official state-sanctioned
religion of this theocracy was 'scientism': the belief that
the investigational methods of the natural sciences should
be ecumenically imposed upon all fields of inquiry. This
form of epistemological imperialism is not to be confused
with legitimate science. Researcher Michael Hoffman makes
this distinction in his book Secret Societies and Psychological
Warfare:
Science, when practiced as the application of man's God-given
talents for the production of appropriate technology on
a human scale, relief of misery and the reverential exploration
and appreciation of the glory of Divine Providence as revealed
in nature, is a useful tool for mankind. Scientism is science
gone mad, which is what we have today (Hoffman, 49).
Hoffman further elaborates on the folly of scientism:
The reason that science is a bad master and dangerous servant
and ought not to be worshipped is that science is not objective.
Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement.
What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded.
Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data
from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown
Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its
own agenda, be it Darwinism or 'cut, burn and poison' methods
of cancer 'treatment' (Hoffman, 49).
It must be understood that this new institution of knowing
is a form of mysticism like its religious precursors. Contemporary
science is predicated upon empiricism, the idea that all
knowledge is derived exclusively through the senses. Yet,
an exclusively empirical approach relegates cause to the
realm of metaphysical fantasy. This holds enormous ramifications
for science. Do we really know what causes anything?
Although temporal succession and spatial proximity are
self-evident, causal connection is not. Affirmation of causal
relationships is impossible in science. What is perceived
as A causing B could be merely circumstantial juxtaposition.
Given the absence of known cause, all of a scientist's findings
must be taken upon faith. This is all one can deduce while
working under the paradigm of radical empiricism. Thus,
the elite merely exchanged one form of mysticism for another.
Returning to Pouzzner's previous statement, 'ostensible
control over the knowable' is achieved through the promulgation
of 'institutionally accredited science' (Pouzzner, 75).
Now, the elite had to meet two requirements to insure their
epistemological dominance: a science specifically designed
for their needs and an institution to accredit and disseminate
it.
The British Royal Society
The new secular church and clergy of the elite originated
within the walls of the British Royal Society. The creators
of the Royal Society were also members of the Masonic Lodge.
According to Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln in Holy Blood,
Holy Grail:
Virtually all the Royal Society's founding members were
Freemasons. One could reasonably argue that the Royal Society
itself, at least in its inception, was a Masonic institution
- derived, through Andrea's Christian Unions, from the 'invisible
Rosicrucian brotherhood' (Baigent, et al, 144).
Jim Keith makes it clear that the Masonic Lodge 'has been
alleged to be a conduit for the intentions of a number of
elitist interests' (Keith, Casebook on Alternative Three,
20). In service to the elite, the Royal Society Freemasons
would re-sculpt epistemological notions and disseminate
propaganda. Jim Keith provides a brief summation of the
Royal Society's role in years to come: 'The British Royal
Society of the late seventeenth century was the forerunner
of much of the media manipulation that was to follow' (Keith,
Saucers of the Illuminati, 79).
Before the advent of the British Royal Society, science
(i.e., the study of natural phenomena) and theology (i.e.,
the study of God) were inseparable. The two were not separate
repositories of knowledge, but natural correlatives. In
Confession of Nature, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz established
the centrality of God to science. According to Leibniz,
the proximate origins of 'magnitude, figure, and motion,'
which constitute the 'primary qualities' of corporeal bodies,
'cannot be found in the essence of the body' (de Hoyos).
Linda de Hoyos reveals the point at which science finds
a dilemma:
The problem arises when the scientist asks why the body
fills this space and not another; for example, why it should
be three feet long rather than two, or square rather than
round. This cannot be explained by the nature of the bodies
themselves, since the matter is indeterminate as to any
definite figure, whether square or round. For the scientist
who refuses to resort to an incorporeal cause, there can
be only two answers. Either the body has been this way since
eternity, or it has been made square by the impact of another
body. 'Eternity' is no answer, since the body could have
been round for eternity also. If the answer is 'the impact
of another body,' there remains the question of why it should
have had any determinate figure before such motion acted
upon it. This question can then be asked again and again,
backwards to infinity. Therefore, it appears that the reason
for a certain figure and magnitude in bodies can never be
found in the nature of these bodies themselves.
The same can be established for the body's cohesion and
firmness, which left Leibniz with the following conclusion:
Since we have demonstrated that bodies cannot have a determinate
figure, quantity, or motion, without an incorporeal being,
it readily becomes apparent that this incorporeal being
is one for all, because of the harmony of things among themselves,
especially since bodies are moved not individually by this
incorporeal being but by each other. But no reason can be
given why this incorporeal being chooses one magnitude,
figure, and motion rather than another, unless he is intelligent
and wise with regard to the beauty of things and powerful
with regard to their obedience to their command. Therefore
such an incorporeal being be a mind ruling the whole world,
that is, God (de Hoyos).
Of course, this conclusion was antithetical to the doctrine
of the scientific dictatorship, which contended that 'the
physical laws of the universe were the ultimate causative
factors' (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78-79). Metaphysical
naturalism (i.e., nature is God) had to be enthroned. Meanwhile,
God's presence in the corridors of science had to be expunged.
To achieve this, the Royal Society created a Gnostic division
between science and theology, thus insuring the primacy
of matter in the halls of scientific inquiry (Tarpley).
Blind Reverence to Science
Indeed, biases and presuppositions pervade the very fabric
of the elite's epistemic autocracy. Academia itself has
become the official church for this cult of epistemological
selectivity. Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias personally
encountered the enormous prejudicial hurdles of scientism
during a casual conversation with a few scholars, wherein
one scientist makes a shocking confession:
I asked them a couple of questions. 'If the Big Bang were
indeed where it all began, may I ask what preceded the Big
Bang?' Their answer, which I had anticipated, was that the
universe was shrunk down to a singularity.
I pursued, 'But isn't it correct that a singularity as
defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics
break down?'
'That is correct,' was the answer.
'Then, technically, your starting point is not scientific
either.'
There was silence, and their expressions betrayed the scurrying
mental searches for an escape hatch. But I had yet another
question.
I asked if they agreed that when a mechanistic view of
the universe had held sway, thinkers like Hume had chided
philosophers for taking the principle of causality and applying
it to a philosophical argument for the existence of God.
Causality, he warned, could not be extrapolated from science
to philosophy.
'Now,' I added, 'when quantum theory holds sway, randomness
in the subatomic world is made a basis for randomness in
life. Are you not making the very same extrapolation that
you warned us against?'
Again there was silence and then one man said with a self-deprecating
smile, 'We scientists do seem to retain selective sovereignty
over what we allow to be transferred to philosophy and what
we don't' (Zacharias, 64).
This 'selective sovereignty,' vigorously enforced by the
epistemic autocracy of the elite, effectively marginalized
dissenters and consummated the apotheosis of the 'bookkeepers.'
Hoffman explains:
The cryptocracy has successfully harnessed to its own ends
the huge potential for promoting secret political-occult
agendas to the public, by presenting them as unassailable
'objective scientific truth.' Since the bogey of 'science'
instills in secularists a sort of blind reverence, opponents
of political and occult agendas promoted through the propaganda
of scientism are quickly stigmatized as 'Neanderthal,' especially
with regard to their opposition to Darwinism, a dogma proved
false by Norman Macbeth in his magisterial Darwin Retried
and exposed as a cult by Gertrude Himmelfarb in Darwin (Hoffman,
49).
Suddenly, 'ostensible control over the knowable' became
the Divine Providence of god-like 'bookkeepers.' Meanwhile,
their opponents became heretics and were 'burned at the
stake' (i.e., marginalized by academia and other secular
institutions). Hoffman states:
The doctrine of man playing god reaches its nadir in the
philosophy of scientism which makes possible the complete
mental, spiritual and physical enslavement of mankind through
technologies such as satellite and computer surveillance;
a state of affairs symbolized by the 'All Seeing Eye' above
the unfinished pyramid on the U.S. one dollar bill (Hoffman,
50).
With the inculcation of the masses into scientism, the unfinished
pyramid is almost complete.
Evolution: The Occult Doctrine of Becoming
With the British Royal Society acting as their headquarters
of propaganda, the elite had created an institution to provide
credibility for their specially designed 'science.' Now,
they needed to introduce the 'science.' Recall that the
founding members of the Royal Society were all Freemasons.
Thus, whatever 'science' these men would design would be
derivative of Masonic doctrine. In The Meaning of Masonry,
W.L. Wilmhurst reveals the worldview underpinning the new
Masonic 'science':
This - the evolution [emphasis added] of man into superman
- was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the
real purpose of modern Masonry is not the social and charitable
purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting
of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect
their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality.
And this is a definite science, a royal art, which it is
possible for each of us to put into practice; whilst to
join the Craft for any other purpose than to study and pursue
this science is to misunderstand its meaning (Wilmhurst,
47).
Later in the book, Wilmhurst reiterates this theme:
Man who has sprung from earth and developed through the
lower kingdoms of nature to his present rational state,
has yet to complete his evolution [emphasis added] by becoming
a god-like being and unifying his consciousness with the
Omniscient - to promote which is and always has been the
sole aim and purpose of all Initiation (Wilmhurst, 94).
With God's effective exile from science, man's position
as imago viva Dei (created in the image of the Creator)
was summarily relegated to obsolescence. Now, Freemasonry
could introduce its occult doctrine of 'becoming,' the belief
in man's gradual evolution towards apotheosis.
According to Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Erasmus
Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, was the first to
promulgate the concept of evolution:
Dr. Erasmus Darwin (1731 - 1802) was the first man in England
to suggest those ideas which later were to be embodied in
the Darwinian theory by his grandson, Charles Darwin (1809
- 1882), who wrote in 1859 Origin of Species (quoted in
Daniel, 34).
The Lunar Society
Erasmus Darwin was the founder of the Lunar Society. According
to author Ian Taylor, the Lunar Society was active from
about 1764 to 1800 and its prominent influence 'continued
long afterwards under the banner of The Royal Society.'
The group's name owed itself to the fact that members met
monthly at the time of the full moon. The membership of
this group boasted such luminaries as John Wilkinson (who
made cannons), James Watt (who owed his notoriety to the
steam engine), Matthew Boulton (a manufacturer), Joseph
Priestly (a chemist), Josiah Wedgewood (who founded the
famous pottery business), and Benjamin Franklin. It is with
the Lunar Society that one begins to identify Erasmus' ties
to Freemasonry. (Taylor, 55)
Interestingly enough, in an article by Lord Richie-Calder,
Lunar Society members were assigned the very esoteric appellation
of 'merchants of light.' This was precisely the same description
used for the hypothetical society presented in Sir Francis
Bacon's New Atlantis (Taylor, 55). In her examination of
J.G. Findel's History of Freemasonry, Nesta Webster made
the following observation: 'Findel frankly admits that the
New Atlantis contained unmistakable allusions to Freemasonry
and that Bacon contributed to its final transformation'
(Webster, 120).
Researcher Ian Taylor adds:
Webster pointed out that one of the earliest and most eminent
precursors of Freemasonry is said to have been Francis Bacon,
who is also recognized to have been a Rosicrucian; the Rosicrucian
and Freemason orders were closely allied and may have had
a common source (Taylor, 445).
Still, these are tenuous ties at best. Are there any sources
that firmly establish a Darwinian/Freemasonic connection?
Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry conclusively confirms
a link:
Before coming to Derby in 1788, Dr. [Erasmus] Darwin had
been made a Mason in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of
Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland. Sir Francis Darwin,
one of the Doctor's sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge,
No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald was
made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804. The name of Charles
Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the Lodge but it
is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason (quoted
in Daniel, 34).
In 1794, Erasmus wrote a book entitled Zoonomia, which delineated
his theory of evolution (Taylor, 58). Being a Freemason,
there is little doubt that Erasmus cribbed liberally from
the Lodge's occult doctrine of 'becoming.' Before Erasmus
had penned his precursory notions of progressive biological
development, Freemason John Locke (1632 - 1704) extrapolated
the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation into the context of
metaphysical naturalism and formulated a theory of evolution
(Daniel, 33-34).
The British East India Company had imported the Hindu belief
in reincarnation to England where it would be adopted by
the British Royal Society. A prominent member of the Royal
Society, John Locke studied reincarnation extensively and,
working with the occult doctrine as an extrapolative inspiration,
developed his own evolutionary ideas. In fact, Locke's theory
of evolution received the support of the male members of
Darwin's family (Daniel, 33-34). Two centuries later, this
occult concept of 'becoming' would be transmitted to Charles
Darwin and On the Origin of Species would be born.
Metaphysical Naturalism: The Golem Reborn
Underpinning the concept of metaphysical naturalism is the
notion that life originated with lifeless matter. This notion,
dubbed 'spontaneous generation,' excludes the involvement
of a supernatural Creator. Thus, nature became a god creating
itself. Louis Pasteur, whose work established the Law of
Biogenesis, provided the most succinct summation of this
anthropomorphic mysticism:
To bring about spontaneous generation would be to create
a germ. It would be creating life; it would be to solve
the problem of its origin. It would mean to go from matter
to life through conditions of environment and of matter
[lifeless material]. God as author of life would then no
longer be needed. Matter would replace Him. God would need
to be invoked only as author of the motions of the universe
(Dubos, 395).
Like all of the 'false gods' of antiquity, the voracity
of this new deity was soon demolished. 'Spontaneous generation'
was proven impossible by the Law of Biogenesis. However,
this fact did not stop certain 'men of science' from chronically
deifying nature. For instance, Charles Darwin unconsciously
revealed his idolatrous impulses through statements like:
'natural selection picks out with unerring skill the best
varieties' (Hooykaas, 18).
Evident in such statements is the idea that nature is sentient.
After all, only a sentient being holds discriminative tastes
and, therefore, 'picks out' the recipients of its favor.
Moreover, such statements reveal that 'nature' itself is
a sovereign deity acting as the ultimate arbiter of life
and death. This meme has metastasized, presenting itself
today as the Gaia Hypothesis. This hypothesis holds that
the biosphere is a self-creating, self-sustaining, and self-regenerating
entity. [Ed. Note: The Gaia Hypothesis is a matter ripe
for conspiracy research. In particular, what are the possible
connections between the new quantum physics paradigm which
asserts that the universe is one big Mind and the idea that
human beings create their own reality?] Central to this
thesis is the contention that both the living and non-living
are inseparable [Ed. Note: or the new age concept that spirit
and matter are not separate but are at the extreme ends
of a vibrational continuum.] (Lovelock, 31-33).
Although the concept of 'spontaneous generation' was proven
scientifically bankrupt years ago, many continue to resuscitate
its corpse. Why does this theme of lifeless matter spontaneously
generating life continue to emerge? The answer is because
it has been with man for a very long time. It is derivative
of the golem, an occult concept presented in the Hebraic
Kabbalah. Thirty-third Degree Freemason Albert Pike revealed
that: 'all the Masonic associations owe to it [the Kabbalah]
their Secrets and their Symbols' (Pike, 744). According
to this occult text, the golem was an artificially created
man whose life was the result of supernatural intervention.
The late Isaac Bashevis Singer, who studied the Kabbalah
extensively, explained:
'the golem ' is based on faith ' that dead matter is not
really dead, but can be brought to life [emphasis added]'
What are the computers and robots of our time if not golems?
' The Talmud tells us of an interpreter by the name of Rava
who formed a man by this mysterious power' We are living
in an epoch of golem-making right now. The gap between science
and magic ' is becoming narrower'' (Hoffman, 115).
Drawing upon the esoteric doctrines of their occult heritage,
the Freemasonic members of the British Royal Society re-introduced
the golem to the public mind under the guise of 'metaphysical
naturalism.' Gradually, the corporeal machinations of nature
supplanted the miraculous Creator. Of course, these machinations
were only intelligible to anointed scientists of the epistemic
autocracy. Thus, the 'bookkeepers' of the elite became the
new expositors of 'miracles.' This virtual deification of
the 'bookkeepers' is evident in Singer's later statements
regarding the golem:
I was interested in the golem ' from my early childhood.
I was brought up in the home of a rabbi, and his sermons
often spoke of miracles, by the Baal Shem Tov and other
wonder rabbis. ' I realized early in my life that science
and technology had actually created a civilization of miracles.
Science is one long chain of miracles.' (Hoffman, 116).
Recall the words of Aldous Huxley in Brave New World Revisited:
'The older dictators fell because they could never supply
their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough
miracles [emphasis added], and mysteries.' The new dictators
do not intend to make the same mistake. With the effective
enshrinement of metaphysical naturalism, the British Royal
Society prepared to unleash their next golem. However, this
golem would be an artificially created ape-man presented
to the public imagination under the appellation of Darwinism.
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship
Part One: Illuminating the Occult Origin of Darwinism
by Phillip Collins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a
'scientific dictatorship.' Subtly and swiftly, the ruling
class seized control of science and used it as an 'epistemological
weapon' against the masses. This article will show that
the history and background of this 'scientific dictatorship'
is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed by the historical
tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in Freemasonry.
The Epistemological Cartel
In The Architecture of Modern Political Power, Daniel Pouzzner
outlines the tactics employed by the elite to maintain their
dominance. Among them is: 'Ostensible control over the knowable,
by marketing institutionally accredited science as the only
path to true understanding' (Pouzzner, 75). Thus, the ruling
class endeavors to discourage independent reason while exercising
illusory power over human knowledge. This tactic of control
through knowledge suppression and selective dissemination
is reiterated in the anonymously authored document Silent
Weapons for Quiet Wars:
Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth.
Natural science is the study of the sources and control
of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed
as economics, is the study of the sources and control of
social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems. Mathematics
is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be
king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology
of the bookkeeping. All science is merely a means to an
end. The means is knowledge. The end is control (Keith,
Secret and Suppressed, 203).
The word 'science' is derived from the Latin word scientia,
which means 'knowing.' Epistemology is the study of the
nature and origin of knowledge. This elite monopoly of the
knowable, which is enforced through institutional science,
could be characterized as an "epistemological cartel."
The ruling class has bribed the 'bookkeepers' (i.e., natural
and social scientists). Meanwhile, the masses practically
deify the 'bookkeepers' of the elite, and remain 'ignorant
of the methodology of the bookkeeping.' The unknown author
of Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars provides an eloquently
simple summation: 'The means is knowledge. The end is control.
Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?'
(Keith, Secret and Suppressed, 203). (See entire document
at: http://www9.pair.com/xpoez/money/silent.html)
In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley more succinctly
defined this epistemological cartel:
The older dictators fell because they could never supply
their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough
miracles, and mysteries.
Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work'
with the result that most men and women will grow up to
love their servitude and will never dream of revolution.
There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific
dictatorship should ever be overthrown (Huxley, Brave New
World Revisited, 116).
This is the ultimate objective of the elite: an oligarchy
legitimized by arbitrarily anointed expositors of 'knowledge'
or, in Huxley's own words, a 'scientific dictatorship.'
The New Theocracy
How did the 'scientific dictatorship' of the twentieth century
begin? In earlier centuries, the ruling class controlled
the masses through more mystical belief systems, particularly
Sun worship. Yet, this would all change. In Saucers of the
Illuminati, Jim Keith documents the shift from a theocracy
of the Sun to a theocracy of 'science':
Since the Sun God (and his various relations, including
sons and wives) were, after several thousands years of worship,
beginning to fray around the edges in terms of believability,
and a lot commoners were beginning to grumble that this
stuff was all made up, the Illuminati came up with a new
and improved version of their mind control software that
didn't depend upon the Sun God or Moon Goddess for ultimate
authority (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78).
Priests and rituals were soon supplanted by a new breed
of 'bookkeepers' and a new 'methodology of bookkeeping.'
Keith elaborates:
As the Sun/Moon cult lost some of its popularity, 'Scientists'
were quick to take up some of the slack. According to their
propaganda, the physical laws of the universe were the ultimate
causative factors, and naturally, those physical laws were
only fathomable by the scientific (i.e. Illuminati) elite
(Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78-79).
This consciously induced paradigm shift facilitated the
emergence of the elite's new theocracy. The official state-sanctioned
religion of this theocracy was 'scientism': the belief that
the investigational methods of the natural sciences should
be ecumenically imposed upon all fields of inquiry. This
form of epistemological imperialism is not to be confused
with legitimate science. Researcher Michael Hoffman makes
this distinction in his book Secret Societies and Psychological
Warfare:
Science, when practiced as the application of man's God-given
talents for the production of appropriate technology on
a human scale, relief of misery and the reverential exploration
and appreciation of the glory of Divine Providence as revealed
in nature, is a useful tool for mankind. Scientism is science
gone mad, which is what we have today (Hoffman, 49).
Hoffman further elaborates on the folly of scientism:
The reason that science is a bad master and dangerous servant
and ought not to be worshipped is that science is not objective.
Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement.
What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded.
Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data
from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown
Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its
own agenda, be it Darwinism or 'cut, burn and poison' methods
of cancer 'treatment' (Hoffman, 49).
It must be understood that this new institution of knowing
is a form of mysticism like its religious precursors. Contemporary
science is predicated upon empiricism, the idea that all
knowledge is derived exclusively through the senses. Yet,
an exclusively empirical approach relegates cause to the
realm of metaphysical fantasy. This holds enormous ramifications
for science. Do we really know what causes anything?
Although temporal succession and spatial proximity are
self-evident, causal connection is not. Affirmation of causal
relationships is impossible in science. What is perceived
as A causing B could be merely circumstantial juxtaposition.
Given the absence of known cause, all of a scientist's findings
must be taken upon faith. This is all one can deduce while
working under the paradigm of radical empiricism. Thus,
the elite merely exchanged one form of mysticism for another.
Returning to Pouzzner's previous statement, 'ostensible
control over the knowable' is achieved through the promulgation
of 'institutionally accredited science' (Pouzzner, 75).
Now, the elite had to meet two requirements to insure their
epistemological dominance: a science specifically designed
for their needs and an institution to accredit and disseminate
it.
The British Royal Society
The new secular church and clergy of the elite originated
within the walls of the British Royal Society. The creators
of the Royal Society were also members of the Masonic Lodge.
According to Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln in Holy Blood,
Holy Grail:
Virtually all the Royal Society's founding members were
Freemasons. One could reasonably argue that the Royal Society
itself, at least in its inception, was a Masonic institution
- derived, through Andrea's Christian Unions, from the 'invisible
Rosicrucian brotherhood' (Baigent, et al, 144).
Jim Keith makes it clear that the Masonic Lodge 'has been
alleged to be a conduit for the intentions of a number of
elitist interests' (Keith, Casebook on Alternative Three,
20). In service to the elite, the Royal Society Freemasons
would re-sculpt epistemological notions and disseminate
propaganda. Jim Keith provides a brief summation of the
Royal Society's role in years to come: 'The British Royal
Society of the late seventeenth century was the forerunner
of much of the media manipulation that was to follow' (Keith,
Saucers of the Illuminati, 79).
Before the advent of the British Royal Society, science
(i.e., the study of natural phenomena) and theology (i.e.,
the study of God) were inseparable. The two were not separate
repositories of knowledge, but natural correlatives. In
Confession of Nature, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz established
the centrality of God to science. According to Leibniz,
the proximate origins of 'magnitude, figure, and motion,'
which constitute the 'primary qualities' of corporeal bodies,
'cannot be found in the essence of the body' (de Hoyos).
Linda de Hoyos reveals the point at which science finds
a dilemma:
The problem arises when the scientist asks why the body
fills this space and not another; for example, why it should
be three feet long rather than two, or square rather than
round. This cannot be explained by the nature of the bodies
themselves, since the matter is indeterminate as to any
definite figure, whether square or round. For the scientist
who refuses to resort to an incorporeal cause, there can
be only two answers. Either the body has been this way since
eternity, or it has been made square by the impact of another
body. 'Eternity' is no answer, since the body could have
been round for eternity also. If the answer is 'the impact
of another body,' there remains the question of why it should
have had any determinate figure before such motion acted
upon it. This question can then be asked again and again,
backwards to infinity. Therefore, it appears that the reason
for a certain figure and magnitude in bodies can never be
found in the nature of these bodies themselves.
The same can be established for the body's cohesion and
firmness, which left Leibniz with the following conclusion:
Since we have demonstrated that bodies cannot have a determinate
figure, quantity, or motion, without an incorporeal being,
it readily becomes apparent that this incorporeal being
is one for all, because of the harmony of things among themselves,
especially since bodies are moved not individually by this
incorporeal being but by each other. But no reason can be
given why this incorporeal being chooses one magnitude,
figure, and motion rather than another, unless he is intelligent
and wise with regard to the beauty of things and powerful
with regard to their obedience to their command. Therefore
such an incorporeal being be a mind ruling the whole world,
that is, God (de Hoyos).
Of course, this conclusion was antithetical to the doctrine
of the scientific dictatorship, which contended that 'the
physical laws of the universe were the ultimate causative
factors' (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78-79). Metaphysical
naturalism (i.e., nature is God) had to be enthroned. Meanwhile,
God's presence in the corridors of science had to be expunged.
To achieve this, the Royal Society created a Gnostic division
between science and theology, thus insuring the primacy
of matter in the halls of scientific inquiry (Tarpley).
Blind Reverence to Science
Indeed, biases and presuppositions pervade the very fabric
of the elite's epistemic autocracy. Academia itself has
become the official church for this cult of epistemological
selectivity. Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias personally
encountered the enormous prejudicial hurdles of scientism
during a casual conversation with a few scholars, wherein
one scientist makes a shocking confession:
I asked them a couple of questions. 'If the Big Bang were
indeed where it all began, may I ask what preceded the Big
Bang?' Their answer, which I had anticipated, was that the
universe was shrunk down to a singularity.
I pursued, 'But isn't it correct that a singularity as
defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics
break down?'
'That is correct,' was the answer.
'Then, technically, your starting point is not scientific
either.'
There was silence, and their expressions betrayed the scurrying
mental searches for an escape hatch. But I had yet another
question.
I asked if they agreed that when a mechanistic view of
the universe had held sway, thinkers like Hume had chided
philosophers for taking the principle of causality and applying
it to a philosophical argument for the existence of God.
Causality, he warned, could not be extrapolated from science
to philosophy.
'Now,' I added, 'when quantum theory holds sway, randomness
in the subatomic world is made a basis for randomness in
life. Are you not making the very same extrapolation that
you warned us against?'
Again there was silence and then one man said with a self-deprecating
smile, 'We scientists do seem to retain selective sovereignty
over what we allow to be transferred to philosophy and what
we don't' (Zacharias, 64).
This 'selective sovereignty,' vigorously enforced by the
epistemic autocracy of the elite, effectively marginalized
dissenters and consummated the apotheosis of the 'bookkeepers.'
Hoffman explains:
The cryptocracy has successfully harnessed to its own ends
the huge potential for promoting secret political-occult
agendas to the public, by presenting them as unassailable
'objective scientific truth.' Since the bogey of 'science'
instills in secularists a sort of blind reverence, opponents
of political and occult agendas promoted through the propaganda
of scientism are quickly stigmatized as 'Neanderthal,' especially
with regard to their opposition to Darwinism, a dogma proved
false by Norman Macbeth in his magisterial Darwin Retried
and exposed as a cult by Gertrude Himmelfarb in Darwin (Hoffman,
49).
Suddenly, 'ostensible control over the knowable' became
the Divine Providence of god-like 'bookkeepers.' Meanwhile,
their opponents became heretics and were 'burned at the
stake' (i.e., marginalized by academia and other secular
institutions). Hoffman states:
The doctrine of man playing god reaches its nadir in the
philosophy of scientism which makes possible the complete
mental, spiritual and physical enslavement of mankind through
technologies such as satellite and computer surveillance;
a state of affairs symbolized by the 'All Seeing Eye' above
the unfinished pyramid on the U.S. one dollar bill (Hoffman,
50).
With the inculcation of the masses into scientism, the unfinished
pyramid is almost complete.
Evolution: The Occult Doctrine of Becoming
With the British Royal Society acting as their headquarters
of propaganda, the elite had created an institution to provide
credibility for their specially designed 'science.' Now,
they needed to introduce the 'science.' Recall that the
founding members of the Royal Society were all Freemasons.
Thus, whatever 'science' these men would design would be
derivative of Masonic doctrine. In The Meaning of Masonry,
W.L. Wilmhurst reveals the worldview underpinning the new
Masonic 'science':
This - the evolution [emphasis added] of man into superman
- was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the
real purpose of modern Masonry is not the social and charitable
purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting
of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect
their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality.
And this is a definite science, a royal art, which it is
possible for each of us to put into practice; whilst to
join the Craft for any other purpose than to study and pursue
this science is to misunderstand its meaning (Wilmhurst,
47).
Later in the book, Wilmhurst reiterates this theme:
Man who has sprung from earth and developed through the
lower kingdoms of nature to his present rational state,
has yet to complete his evolution [emphasis added] by becoming
a god-like being and unifying his consciousness with the
Omniscient - to promote which is and always has been the
sole aim and purpose of all Initiation (Wilmhurst, 94).
With God's effective exile from science, man's position
as imago viva Dei (created in the image of the Creator)
was summarily relegated to obsolescence. Now, Freemasonry
could introduce its occult doctrine of 'becoming,' the belief
in man's gradual evolution towards apotheosis.
According to Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Erasmus
Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, was the first to
promulgate the concept of evolution:
Dr. Erasmus Darwin (1731 - 1802) was the first man in England
to suggest those ideas which later were to be embodied in
the Darwinian theory by his grandson, Charles Darwin (1809
- 1882), who wrote in 1859 Origin of Species (quoted in
Daniel, 34).
The Lunar Society
Erasmus Darwin was the founder of the Lunar Society. According
to author Ian Taylor, the Lunar Society was active from
about 1764 to 1800 and its prominent influence 'continued
long afterwards under the banner of The Royal Society.'
The group's name owed itself to the fact that members met
monthly at the time of the full moon. The membership of
this group boasted such luminaries as John Wilkinson (who
made cannons), James Watt (who owed his notoriety to the
steam engine), Matthew Boulton (a manufacturer), Joseph
Priestly (a chemist), Josiah Wedgewood (who founded the
famous pottery business), and Benjamin Franklin. It is with
the Lunar Society that one begins to identify Erasmus' ties
to Freemasonry. (Taylor, 55)
Interestingly enough, in an article by Lord Richie-Calder,
Lunar Society members were assigned the very esoteric appellation
of 'merchants of light.' This was precisely the same description
used for the hypothetical society presented in Sir Francis
Bacon's New Atlantis (Taylor, 55). In her examination of
J.G. Findel's History of Freemasonry, Nesta Webster made
the following observation: 'Findel frankly admits that the
New Atlantis contained unmistakable allusions to Freemasonry
and that Bacon contributed to its final transformation'
(Webster, 120).
Researcher Ian Taylor adds:
Webster pointed out that one of the earliest and most eminent
precursors of Freemasonry is said to have been Francis Bacon,
who is also recognized to have been a Rosicrucian; the Rosicrucian
and Freemason orders were closely allied and may have had
a common source (Taylor, 445).
Still, these are tenuous ties at best. Are there any sources
that firmly establish a Darwinian/Freemasonic connection?
Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry conclusively confirms
a link:
Before coming to Derby in 1788, Dr. [Erasmus] Darwin had
been made a Mason in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of
Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland. Sir Francis Darwin,
one of the Doctor's sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge,
No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald was
made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804. The name of Charles
Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the Lodge but it
is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason (quoted
in Daniel, 34).
In 1794, Erasmus wrote a book entitled Zoonomia, which delineated
his theory of evolution (Taylor, 58). Being a Freemason,
there is little doubt that Erasmus cribbed liberally from
the Lodge's occult doctrine of 'becoming.' Before Erasmus
had penned his precursory notions of progressive biological
development, Freemason John Locke (1632 - 1704) extrapolated
the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation into the context of
metaphysical naturalism and formulated a theory of evolution
(Daniel, 33-34).
The British East India Company had imported the Hindu belief
in reincarnation to England where it would be adopted by
the British Royal Society. A prominent member of the Royal
Society, John Locke studied reincarnation extensively and,
working with the occult doctrine as an extrapolative inspiration,
developed his own evolutionary ideas. In fact, Locke's theory
of evolution received the support of the male members of
Darwin's family (Daniel, 33-34). Two centuries later, this
occult concept of 'becoming' would be transmitted to Charles
Darwin and On the Origin of Species would be born.
Metaphysical Naturalism: The Golem Reborn
Underpinning the concept of metaphysical naturalism is the
notion that life originated with lifeless matter. This notion,
dubbed 'spontaneous generation,' excludes the involvement
of a supernatural Creator. Thus, nature became a god creating
itself. Louis Pasteur, whose work established the Law of
Biogenesis, provided the most succinct summation of this
anthropomorphic mysticism:
To bring about spontaneous generation would be to create
a germ. It would be creating life; it would be to solve
the problem of its origin. It would mean to go from matter
to life through conditions of environment and of matter
[lifeless material]. God as author of life would then no
longer be needed. Matter would replace Him. God would need
to be invoked only as author of the motions of the universe
(Dubos, 395).
Like all of the 'false gods' of antiquity, the voracity
of this new deity was soon demolished. 'Spontaneous generation'
was proven impossible by the Law of Biogenesis. However,
this fact did not stop certain 'men of science' from chronically
deifying nature. For instance, Charles Darwin unconsciously
revealed his idolatrous impulses through statements like:
'natural selection picks out with unerring skill the best
varieties' (Hooykaas, 18).
Evident in such statements is the idea that nature is sentient.
After all, only a sentient being holds discriminative tastes
and, therefore, 'picks out' the recipients of its favor.
Moreover, such statements reveal that 'nature' itself is
a sovereign deity acting as the ultimate arbiter of life
and death. This meme has metastasized, presenting itself
today as the Gaia Hypothesis. This hypothesis holds that
the biosphere is a self-creating, self-sustaining, and self-regenerating
entity. [Ed. Note: The Gaia Hypothesis is a matter ripe
for conspiracy research. In particular, what are the possible
connections between the new quantum physics paradigm which
asserts that the universe is one big Mind and the idea that
human beings create their own reality?] Central to this
thesis is the contention that both the living and non-living
are inseparable [Ed. Note: or the new age concept that spirit
and matter are not separate but are at the extreme ends
of a vibrational continuum.] (Lovelock, 31-33).
Although the concept of 'spontaneous generation' was proven
scientifically bankrupt years ago, many continue to resuscitate
its corpse. Why does this theme of lifeless matter spontaneously
generating life continue to emerge? The answer is because
it has been with man for a very long time. It is derivative
of the golem, an occult concept presented in the Hebraic
Kabbalah. Thirty-third Degree Freemason Albert Pike revealed
that: 'all the Masonic associations owe to it [the Kabbalah]
their Secrets and their Symbols' (Pike, 744). According
to this occult text, the golem was an artificially created
man whose life was the result of supernatural intervention.
The late Isaac Bashevis Singer, who studied the Kabbalah
extensively, explained:
'the golem ' is based on faith ' that dead matter is not
really dead, but can be brought to life [emphasis added]'
What are the computers and robots of our time if not golems?
' The Talmud tells us of an interpreter by the name of Rava
who formed a man by this mysterious power' We are living
in an epoch of golem-making right now. The gap between science
and magic ' is becoming narrower'' (Hoffman, 115).
Drawing upon the esoteric doctrines of their occult heritage,
the Freemasonic members of the British Royal Society re-introduced
the golem to the public mind under the guise of 'metaphysical
naturalism.' Gradually, the corporeal machinations of nature
supplanted the miraculous Creator. Of course, these machinations
were only intelligible to anointed scientists of the epistemic
autocracy. Thus, the 'bookkeepers' of the elite became the
new expositors of 'miracles.' This virtual deification of
the 'bookkeepers' is evident in Singer's later statements
regarding the golem:
I was interested in the golem ' from my early childhood.
I was brought up in the home of a rabbi, and his sermons
often spoke of miracles, by the Baal Shem Tov and other
wonder rabbis. ' I realized early in my life that science
and technology had actually created a civilization of miracles.
Science is one long chain of miracles.' (Hoffman, 116).
Recall the words of Aldous Huxley in Brave New World Revisited:
'The older dictators fell because they could never supply
their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough
miracles [emphasis added], and mysteries.' The new dictators
do not intend to make the same mistake. With the effective
enshrinement of metaphysical naturalism, the British Royal
Society prepared to unleash their next golem. However, this
golem would be an artificially created ape-man presented
to the public imagination under the appellation of Darwinism.
The Darwin Project
In the article 'Toward a New Science of Life,' EIR journalist
Jonathan Tennenbaum makes the following the statement concerning
Darwinism:
Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars
of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult
religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity
whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based
on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come
from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced
from the outside, for political-ideological reasons (Tennenbaum).
Given Darwinism's roots in occult Freemasonry and its expedient
promotion of an emergent species of supermen (i.e., the
elite), this is a fairly accurate assessment. Charles Darwin
acted as the elite's apostle, preaching the new secular
gospel of evolution. Darwinism could be considered a Freemasonic
project, the culmination of a publicity campaign conducted
by the Lodge. Evidence for this contention can be found
in controversial Protocols of the Wise Men of Sion.
Although an examination of the Protocols and a critique
of their authenticity are not the purposes of this essay,
it is important to address the questions surrounding their
origins. After all, the Protocols have been employed throughout
history in numerous genocidal campaigns against the Jews.
However, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail provide evidence
that the document may be Masonic in origin:
It can thus be proved conclusively that the Protocols did
not issue from the Judaic congress at Basle in 1897. That
being so, the obvious questions is whence they did issue.
Modern scholars have dismissed them as a total forgery,
a wholly spurious document concocted by anti-Semitic interests
intent on discrediting Judaism. And yet the Protocols themselves
argue strongly against such a conclusion. They contain,
for example, a number of enigmatic references - references
that are clearly not Judaic. But these references are so
clearly not Judaic that they cannot plausibly have been
fabricated by a forger, either. No anti-Semitic forger with
even a modicum of intelligence would possibly have concocted
such references in order to discredit Judaism. For no one
would have believed these references to be of Judaic origin.
Thus, for instance, the text of the Protocols ends with
a single statement. 'Signed by the representatives of Sion
of the 33rd Degree.' Why would an anti-Semitic forger have
made up such a statement? Why would he not have attempted
to incriminate all Jews, rather than just a few - the few
who constitute 'the representatives of Sion of the 33rd
Degree'? Why would he not declare that the document was
signed by, say, the representatives of the international
Judaic congress? In fact, the 'representatives of Sion of
the 33rd Degree' would hardly seem to refer to Judaism at
all, or to any 'international Jewish conspiracy.' If anything,
it would seem to refer to something specifically Masonic.
And the thirty-third degree in Freemasonry is that of the
so-called Strict Observance - the system of Freemasonry
introduced by Hund at the behest of his 'unknown superiors,'
one of whom appears to have been Charles Radclyffe (Baigent,
et al, 192-3). Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln conclude:
There was an original text on which the published version
of the Protocols was based. This original text was not a
forgery. On the contrary, it was authentic. But it had nothing
whatever to do with Judaism or an 'international Jewish
conspiracy.' It issued, rather, from some Masonic organization
or Masonically oriented secret society that incorporated
the word 'Sion' (Baigent, et al, 194).
Given the Masonic language, one can completely discard the
racist contention that the Protocols constitute evidence
of an 'international Jewish conspiracy.' Nevertheless, the
document holds some authenticity:
The published version of the Protocols is not, therefore,
a totally fabricated text. It is, rather, a radically altered
text. But despite the alterations certain vestiges of the
original version can be discerned' (Baigent, et al, 195).
The remnant vestiges of the original text strongly suggest
Masonic origins. Having established the Masonic authorship
of the Protocols, one may return to issue at hand: Freemasonic
involvement in the promotion of Darwinism. Consider the
following excerpt from the Protocols, which reads distinctly
like a mission statement:
For them [the masses or cattle] let that play the principal
part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates
of science (theory). It is with this object in view that
we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind
confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the goyim
[the masses or cattle] will puff themselves up with their
knowledge and without any logical verification of it will
put into effect all the information available from science,
which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together
for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction
we want.
Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty
words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for
Darwinism [emphasis added], Marxism, and Nietzsche-ism (reprint
in Cooper, 274-5).
In addition to establishing the Lodge's official sanction
of Darwinism, this excerpt also reveals a direct relationship
between Marxism, Nietzsche-ism, and evolutionary theory.
This relationship shall be examined in part two of this
article on this website (www.biped.info).
It was the grandfather of Aldous Huxley, T.H. Huxley, who
would act as the 'official spokesman for the recluse Darwin'
(White, 268). Many years later, Aldous would propose a 'scientific
dictatorship' in Brave New World Revisited. Whether Aldous
made this proposition on a whim or was penning a concept
that had circulated within the Huxley family for years cannot
be determined. Given the family's oligarchical tradition,
the latter assertion remains a definite possibility. Yet,
there may be a deeper Freemasonic connection, suggesting
that the concept of a 'scientific dictatorship' may have
originated within the Lodge.
T.H. Huxley was a Freemason and, with no apparent achievements
to claim as his own, was made a Fellow of the Royal Society
at the age of 26 (Daniel, 34). T.H. Huxley tutored Freemason
H.G. Wells, who would later teach Huxley's two grandsons,
Julian and Aldous. Both Julian and Aldous were Freemasons
(Daniel, 147). Given this continuity of Freemasonic tutelage
within the Huxley family, it is a definite possibility that
the Huxlian concept of a 'scientific dictatorship' is really
Masonic. Considering Freemason H.G. Wells' endorsement of
a 'scientific dictatorship,' which he called a 'Technocracy,'
this is highly likely.
The rest is history. With the publicity campaigns of the
Royal Society and the avid defense of evolution apologist
T.H. Huxley, Darwin's theory would be disseminated and popularized.
The seed had taken root and, in the years to come, numerous
permutations of the elite's 'scientific dictatorship' would
emerge.
Continued in Part Two on this site (www.biped.info).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Reading
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination
of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century
by Phillip Collins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Baigent, Michael, Richard Leigh, & Henry Lincoln, Holy
Blood, Holy Grail, Delacorte Press, New York, 1982.
Carr, William Guy, Pawns in the Game, Omni/Christian Book
Club, Palmdale, California, 1958.
Carlson, Ron, Ed Decker, Fast Facts on False Teachings,
Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 1994.
Clarke, Arthur C., Childhood's End, Ballantine Books, New
York, 1953.
Chambers, Claire, The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revolution,
Western Islands, Appleton, Wisconsin, 1977.
Cooper, William, Behold a Pale Horse, Light Technology Publishing,
Sedona, Arizona 1991.
Daniel, John, Scarlet and the Beast: Volume II, JKI Publishing,
Tyler, Texas, 1994.
de Hoyos, Linda, 'The Enlightenment's Crusade Against Reason,'
The New Federalist; American Almanac, February 8, 1993.
Dubos, Rene', Louis Pasteur: Freelance of Science, Charles
Scribner's Sons, New York, 1976 (Reprint).
Editors of Executive Intelligence Review, Dope Inc., Washington,
D.C. 1992.
Hoar, William P., Architects of Conspiracy, Appleton, WI:
Western Islands, 1984.
Hoffman, Michael, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare,
Independent History & Research, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho,
2001.
Hooykaas, Reijer, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science,
Chatto and Windus, London, 1972 (Reprint).
Huxley, Aldous, Brave New World Revisited, Bantam Books,
New York 1958.
Huxley, Julian, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy,
Public Affairs Press, Washington D.C., 1947.
Galton, Francis, Hereditary Genius, Macmillan, London, 1869.
Keith, Arthur, Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, New York, 1947.
Keith, Jim, Casebook on Alternative Three, Illuminet Press,
Lilbum, Georgia 1994.
Keith, Jim, Mind Control, World Control, Adventures Unlimited
Press, Kempton, Illinois, 1997.
Keynes, John, Essays in Biography, Macmillan, Toronto, Canada,
1933.
Keith, Jim, Saucers of the Illuminati, Illuminet Press,
Lilbum, Georgia 1999.
Keith, Jim, Secret and Suppressed, Feral House, Portland,
Oregon 1993.
Lovelock, James, Ages of Gaia NY. Norton Co. 1988.
Malthus, Thomas, An Essay on the Principle of Population
as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society, Reeves
and Turner, London, 1887 (Reprint).
Marrs, Texe, Dark Majesty, Living Truth Publishers, Austin,
Texas, 1992.
Marrs, Texe, Circle of Intrigue, Living Truth Publishers,
Austin, Texas 1995.
Pike, Albert, Morals and Dogma, L.H. Jenkins, Inc., Richmond,
Virginia, 1942.
Pouzzner, Daniel, The Architecture of Modern Political Power:
The New Feudalism, http://www.mega.nu:8080, 2001.
Reed, Douglas, The Controversy of Zion, Dolphin Press, South
Africa, 1978.
Scott, Walter, The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte, Vol. 2, Ballantyne,
Edinburgh, 1827.
Still, William, New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret
Societies, Huntington House Publishers, Lafayette, Louisiana,
1990.
Sutton, Antony, America's Secret Establishment, Liberty
House Press, Billings, Montana 1986.
Sutton, Antony, The Secret Cult of the Order, Veritas Publishing
Company PTY. Ltd., Bullsbrook, Western Australia 1983.
Taylor, Ian T., In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New
World Order, TFE Publishing, Minneapolis, MN 1999.
Tarpley, Webster, 'How the Venetian System Was Transplanted
Into England,' The New Federalist, June 3, 1996.
Tennenbaum, Jonathan, 'Towards a New Science of Life,' Executive
Intelligence Review, Vol. 28, Number 34, Sept. 7, 2001.
Webster, Nesta, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements,
Christian Book Club of America, Hawthorn, California, 1924.
White, Carol, The New Dark Ages Conspiracy, The New Benjamin
Franklin House, New York 1980.
Wilmhurst, W.L., The Meaning of Masonry, Gramercy Books,
New York 1980.
Zacharias, Ravi, Jesus Among Other Gods, Word Publishing,
Nashville, Tennessee, 2000.
© 2003 Joan d'Arc. No graphics or text may be reproduced
without the permission of the owner.
In the article 'Toward a New Science of Life,' EIR journalist
Jonathan Tennenbaum makes the following the statement concerning
Darwinism:
Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars
of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult
religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity
whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based
on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come
from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced
from the outside, for political-ideological reasons (Tennenbaum).
Given Darwinism's roots in occult Freemasonry and its expedient
promotion of an emergent species of supermen (i.e., the
elite), this is a fairly accurate assessment. Charles Darwin
acted as the elite's apostle, preaching the new secular
gospel of evolution. Darwinism could be considered a Freemasonic
project, the culmination of a publicity campaign conducted
by the Lodge. Evidence for this contention can be found
in controversial Protocols of the Wise Men of Sion.
Although an examination of the Protocols and a critique
of their authenticity are not the purposes of this essay,
it is important to address the questions surrounding their
origins. After all, the Protocols have been employed throughout
history in numerous genocidal campaigns against the Jews.
However, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail provide evidence
that the document may be Masonic in origin:
It can thus be proved conclusively that the Protocols did
not issue from the Judaic congress at Basle in 1897. That
being so, the obvious questions is whence they did issue.
Modern scholars have dismissed them as a total forgery,
a wholly spurious document concocted by anti-Semitic interests
intent on discrediting Judaism. And yet the Protocols themselves
argue strongly against such a conclusion. They contain,
for example, a number of enigmatic references - references
that are clearly not Judaic. But these references are so
clearly not Judaic that they cannot plausibly have been
fabricated by a forger, either. No anti-Semitic forger with
even a modicum of intelligence would possibly have concocted
such references in order to discredit Judaism. For no one
would have believed these references to be of Judaic origin.
Thus, for instance, the text of the Protocols ends with
a single statement. 'Signed by the representatives of Sion
of the 33rd Degree.' Why would an anti-Semitic forger have
made up such a statement? Why would he not have attempted
to incriminate all Jews, rather than just a few - the few
who constitute 'the representatives of Sion of the 33rd
Degree'? Why would he not declare that the document was
signed by, say, the representatives of the international
Judaic congress? In fact, the 'representatives of Sion of
the 33rd Degree' would hardly seem to refer to Judaism at
all, or to any 'international Jewish conspiracy.' If anything,
it would seem to refer to something specifically Masonic.
And the thirty-third degree in Freemasonry is that of the
so-called Strict Observance - the system of Freemasonry
introduced by Hund at the behest of his 'unknown superiors,'
one of whom appears to have been Charles Radclyffe (Baigent,
et al, 192-3). Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln conclude:
There was an original text on which the published version
of the Protocols was based. This original text was not a
forgery. On the contrary, it was authentic. But it had nothing
whatever to do with Judaism or an 'international Jewish
conspiracy.' It issued, rather, from some Masonic organization
or Masonically oriented secret society that incorporated
the word 'Sion' (Baigent, et al, 194).
Given the Masonic language, one can completely discard the
racist contention that the Protocols constitute evidence
of an 'international Jewish conspiracy.' Nevertheless, the
document holds some authenticity:
The published version of the Protocols is not, therefore,
a totally fabricated text. It is, rather, a radically altered
text. But despite the alterations certain vestiges of the
original version can be discerned' (Baigent, et al, 195).
The remnant vestiges of the original text strongly suggest
Masonic origins. Having established the Masonic authorship
of the Protocols, one may return to issue at hand: Freemasonic
involvement in the promotion of Darwinism. Consider the
following excerpt from the Protocols, which reads distinctly
like a mission statement:
For them [the masses or cattle] let that play the principal
part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates
of science (theory). It is with this object in view that
we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind
confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the goyim
[the masses or cattle] will puff themselves up with their
knowledge and without any logical verification of it will
put into effect all the information available from science,
which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together
for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction
we want.
Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty
words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for
Darwinism [emphasis added], Marxism, and Nietzsche-ism (reprint
in Cooper, 274-5).
In addition to establishing the Lodge's official sanction
of Darwinism, this excerpt also reveals a direct relationship
between Marxism, Nietzsche-ism, and evolutionary theory.
This relationship shall be examined in part two of this
article on this website (www.biped.info).
It was the grandfather of Aldous Huxley, T.H. Huxley, who
would act as the 'official spokesman for the recluse Darwin'
(White, 268). Many years later, Aldous would propose a 'scientific
dictatorship' in Brave New World Revisited. Whether Aldous
made this proposition on a whim or was penning a concept
that had circulated within the Huxley family for years cannot
be determined. Given the family's oligarchical tradition,
the latter assertion remains a definite possibility. Yet,
there may be a deeper Freemasonic connection, suggesting
that the concept of a 'scientific dictatorship' may have
originated within the Lodge.
T.H. Huxley was a Freemason and, with no apparent achievements
to claim as his own, was made a Fellow of the Royal Society
at the age of 26 (Daniel, 34). T.H. Huxley tutored Freemason
H.G. Wells, who would later teach Huxley's two grandsons,
Julian and Aldous. Both Julian and Aldous were Freemasons
(Daniel, 147). Given this continuity of Freemasonic tutelage
within the Huxley family, it is a definite possibility that
the Huxlian concept of a 'scientific dictatorship' is really
Masonic. Considering Freemason H.G. Wells' endorsement of
a 'scientific dictatorship,' which he called a 'Technocracy,'
this is highly likely.
The rest is history. With the publicity campaigns of the
Royal Society and the avid defense of evolution apologist
T.H. Huxley, Darwin's theory would be disseminated and popularized.
The seed had taken root and, in the years to come, numerous
permutations of the elite's 'scientific dictatorship' would
emerge.
Continued in Part Two on this site (www.biped.info).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Reading
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination
of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century
by Phillip Collins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Baigent, Michael, Richard Leigh, & Henry Lincoln, Holy
Blood, Holy Grail, Delacorte Press, New York, 1982.
Carr, William Guy, Pawns in the Game, Omni/Christian Book
Club, Palmdale, California, 1958.
Carlson, Ron, Ed Decker, Fast Facts on False Teachings,
Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 1994.
Clarke, Arthur C., Childhood's End, Ballantine Books, New
York, 1953.
Chambers, Claire, The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revolution,
Western Islands, Appleton, Wisconsin, 1977.
Cooper, William, Behold a Pale Horse, Light Technology Publishing,
Sedona, Arizona 1991.
Daniel, John, Scarlet and the Beast: Volume II, JKI Publishing,
Tyler, Texas, 1994.
de Hoyos, Linda, 'The Enlightenment's Crusade Against Reason,'
The New Federalist; American Almanac, February 8, 1993.
Dubos, Rene', Louis Pasteur: Freelance of Science, Charles
Scribner's Sons, New York, 1976 (Reprint).
Editors of Executive Intelligence Review, Dope Inc., Washington,
D.C. 1992.
Hoar, William P., Architects of Conspiracy, Appleton, WI:
Western Islands, 1984.
Hoffman, Michael, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare,
Independent History & Research, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho,
2001.
Hooykaas, Reijer, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science,
Chatto and Windus, London, 1972 (Reprint).
Huxley, Aldous, Brave New World Revisited, Bantam Books,
New York 1958.
Huxley, Julian, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy,
Public Affairs Press, Washington D.C., 1947.
Galton, Francis, Hereditary Genius, Macmillan, London, 1869.
Keith, Arthur, Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, New York, 1947.
Keith, Jim, Casebook on Alternative Three, Illuminet Press,
Lilbum, Georgia 1994.
Keith, Jim, Mind Control, World Control, Adventures Unlimited
Press, Kempton, Illinois, 1997.
Keynes, John, Essays in Biography, Macmillan, Toronto, Canada,
1933.
Keith, Jim, Saucers of the Illuminati, Illuminet Press,
Lilbum, Georgia 1999.
Keith, Jim, Secret and Suppressed, Feral House, Portland,
Oregon 1993.
Lovelock, James, Ages of Gaia NY. Norton Co. 1988.
Malthus, Thomas, An Essay on the Principle of Population
as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society, Reeves
and Turner, London, 1887 (Reprint).
Marrs, Texe, Dark Majesty, Living Truth Publishers, Austin,
Texas, 1992.
Marrs, Texe, Circle of Intrigue, Living Truth Publishers,
Austin, Texas 1995.
Pike, Albert, Morals and Dogma, L.H. Jenkins, Inc., Richmond,
Virginia, 1942.
Pouzzner, Daniel, The Architecture of Modern Political Power:
The New Feudalism, http://www.mega.nu:8080, 2001.
Reed, Douglas, The Controversy of Zion, Dolphin Press, South
Africa, 1978.
Scott, Walter, The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte, Vol. 2, Ballantyne,
Edinburgh, 1827.
Still, William, New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret
Societies, Huntington House Publishers, Lafayette, Louisiana,
1990.
Sutton, Antony, America's Secret Establishment, Liberty
House Press, Billings, Montana 1986.
Sutton, Antony, The Secret Cult of the Order, Veritas Publishing
Company PTY. Ltd., Bullsbrook, Western Australia 1983.
Taylor, Ian T., In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New
World Order, TFE Publishing, Minneapolis, MN 1999.
Tarpley, Webster, 'How the Venetian System Was Transplanted
Into England,' The New Federalist, June 3, 1996.
Tennenbaum, Jonathan, 'Towards a New Science of Life,' Executive
Intelligence Review, Vol. 28, Number 34, Sept. 7, 2001.
Webster, Nesta, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements,
Christian Book Club of America, Hawthorn, California, 1924.
White, Carol, The New Dark Ages Conspiracy, The New Benjamin
Franklin House, New York 1980.
Wilmhurst, W.L., The Meaning of Masonry, Gramercy Books,
New York 1980.
Zacharias, Ravi, Jesus Among Other Gods, Word Publishing,
Nashville, Tennessee, 2000.
© 2003 Joan d'Arc. No graphics or text may be reproduced
without the permission of the owner.
|