December 16, 2008

In the Minds of Men : Darwin and the New World Order by Ian T. Taylor


I wanted to learn how a lot of people can be manipulated into one religion, like creationism, and then when that’s of no use anymore you manipulate them into believing in another religion, which has a “Big Bang” and “primordial soup”.

So the librarian recommended me a book. What’s cool is that Mikhail Gorbachev and the presidential adviser, Jacques Attali, used the words “new world order” in their books and this book has it on the title, which is pretty cool. It’s In the Minds of Men : Darwin and the New World Order by Ian T. Taylor.

I believe that a new structure of international relations, which I here propose, combined with the absolute superiority of democratic nations in sophisticated conventional arms, provide guarantees that are quite sufficient for genuine national security in the new world order. [1]

. . . movements of resistance are unlikely to produce models of development able to compete with the hyperindustrialism of the new world order. [2]

Before I get talking about Charles Darwin I want to talk about some cool stuff that I liked in the book.

One cool thing was about different things that were found that people thought were newer techniques, but were actually ancient techniques. One was about the remains of wet batteries that were found in 1939 by Wilhelm Konig near Baghdad. It is believed that they were used for electroplating gold onto jewelry, and they are more than two thousand years old. The process wasn’t rediscovered until the eighteenth century A.D. And there are some other cool ancient technique findings too.

Remains of wet batteries were discovered in 1939, by Wilhelm Konig, near Baghdad. It is believed that the batteries were used for electroplating gold onto jewelry and were more than two thousand years old; rediscovery of this process was not made until the eighteenth century A.D. [3]

The extensive article by [Theodore A.] Wertime (1973) deals with the controversy regarding the beginning of iron smelting from ores. Iron artifacts have been found which date as early as 2500 B.C. but this is disturbing for the usual textbook sequence of Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. The author points out that the Black Sea coast is lined with self-fluxing sands containing 77 percent magnetite, which could permit smelting to be carried out at the unusually low temperature of 900°C. [4]

A mechanical device found in 1902 by marine archaeology at Antikythera, Greece, was discovered by gamma-ray techniques in 1973 to be a mechanism of unbelievable sophistication containing an epicyclic differential gear system. The mechanism was dated at 87 B.C. and, thus, the differential gear that we find in the back axle of the automobile today and which was believed to have been invented during the Industrial Revolution for textile machines was actually known to the Greeks eighteen centuries earlier. [5]

This small bronze horse had been produced in 450 B.C. by a casting technique rediscovered in the fourteenth century A.D. Suspected as a fake, modern technology has reinstated it as genuine. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Fletcher Fund, 1923) [6]

The author talks about human societies forming pyramids. When you control the top of the pyramid you then control everything below it.

It does not require great insight to see that power in human society takes the form of a pyramid, in which the mind-set of the general bulk of the structure largely reflects that of the mind at the top. Indeed, contrary to the common impression, modern governments are set up this way, with the apex of the pyramid often a mere figurehead representing the unseen wielders of power immediately beneath it. To control the apex is to control the nation. [7]

There’s a quote by Lord Acton that talks about the French Revolution in his Essays on the French Revolution:

The usual version of the causes of the French Revolution is that a grain shortage triggered rebellion in a people who had long been oppressed by a corrupt nobility and clergy. Many writers have observed, however, that there were other underlying causes, providing ample documentation to make their point. Lord Acton, in his Essays on the French Revolution, writes: “The appalling thing in the French Revolution is not the tumult but the design. Through all the fire and smoke we perceive the evidence of calculating organization. The managers remain studiously concealed and masked; but there is no doubt about their presence from the first” ([Douglas] Reed 1978, 136). [8]

People love to worship and they love religion. There is a quote by Karl Marx that says, “religion is the opium of the people”.

Whether we like to acknowledge it or not, man has a built-in propensity to worship some being greater than himself. Evidence from the most primitive tribes to the medieval cathedrals of Europe and the evangelical movement beginning in the 1960s and extending into the present day attest to this. [9]

And atheism is a religion. It was declared a religion by the United States Supreme Court in 1961.

Thus, atheism was formally declared to be a religion by the United States Supreme Court in 1961, together with Buddhism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others that do not teach a belief in the existence of God ([Wendel] Bird 1979). The Atheist Church of America and the American Ethical Union, for example, are both bona fide tax-exempt religious organizations. [10]

I learned about what humanism means. It’s where you get an “intelligent” and “superior” person to run your life instead of a God, if you want someone to run your life. It fits in with becoming Earth Emperor because the final humanist objective is socialist world government with a humanist elite in control. One thing to keep in mind though is a quote by Lord Acton that says, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

By denying an intelligent Creator, or even denying that he is vitally interested in the affairs of man, then men must look to man as the intelligence necessary to run the affairs of the world. This is humanism. [11]

Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley and one of the foremost evolutionists of his day, was an unabashed atheist. He pointed out in 1959 that Darwin’s real achievement was to “remove the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion” ([Sol] Tax and [Charles] Callender 1960, 3:45). [12]

The final humanist objective is socialist world government with, of course, the humanist elite in control. To some, this may appear the rational answer to the world’s problems, yet a moment’s thought on some of the horror stories made public and that are associated with big government should call to mind Lord Acton’s warning in 1887: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Acton 1972, 335). [13]

O.K. I’ll talk about Charles Darwin now.

His grandfather was Erasmus Darwin. Erasmus wrote Zoönomia, which had the “essence” of the theory of evolution. Erasmus was also the founder of the Lunar Society.

Erasmus was a physician, something of a poet, an instrument of the Industrial Revolution, and author of a massive two-volume work Zoönomia (1794-96); this work contained within it the essence of the theory that his grandson would announce to the world half a century later. [14]

The founder of the Lunar Society, Erasmus Darwin, had in 1794 written a book called Zoönomia in which he outlined his theory of evolution, anticipating not only [Jean Baptiste] Lamarck’s ideas but even the theory of natural selection; this book had the distinction of being placed on the Catholic Index; its popularity among independent thinkers was thus assured ([Desmond] King-Hele 1977). [15]

The Lunar Society was active between 1764 and 1800. It didn’t have more than fourteen members and it was the most influential group of men in England. Three members in the group were Josiah Wedgwood, founder of the famous pottery business, Erasmus Darwin and Benjamin Franklin.

While the French Revolution, and earlier the American Revolution, were acting out their destinies, influential forces at work in England were not only largely responsible for the Industrial Revolution, but were actively sowing the seeds of socialism. It has been acknowledged by [A.E.] Musson and [E.] Robinson (1969) and [R.E.] Schofield (1963) that the Lunar Society of Birmingham, which was active from about 1764 and 1800 and never had more than fourteen members, was the most influential group of men in England. This group’s influence continued long afterwards under the banner of The Royal Society. In an article on the Lunar Society, Lord Richie-Calder (1982) refers to the men it brought together as a company of “merchants of light”, a description used for just such a society in Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, written more than a century earlier ([N.H.] Webster 1924). The Lunar Society got its name from the fact that it met monthly at the time of the full moon. Included as its members were such names as Erasmus Darwin, who was Charles Darwin’s grandfather; John Wilkinson, a cannon maker; James Watt of steam engine fame; Matthew Boulton, a manufacturer; Joseph Priestly, a chemist; Josiah Wedgwood, founder of the famous pottery business; and Benjamin Franklin, a correspondent in the American colonies. These men recognized that knowledge was power, and by pooling information from various activities and investigations, they were responsible for a number of scientific discoveries that served as the driving force for the Industrial Revolution. [16]

The Darwins and the Wedgwoods believed that they were “superior” stock, so they bred with one another.

. . . the Darwins and the Wedgwoods who recognized in each other all the qualities of “superior” people. [17]

Charles Darwin’s dad, Dr. Robert Darwin, married the daughter of Josiah Wedgwood. The gross thing is that Charles Darwin married the youngest daughter of Josiah Wedgwood, Emma Wedgwood, which means Charles married his mother’s sister.

. . . Dr. Robert Darwin, had one of the most successful medical practices in provincial England. Dr. Darwin had married the daughter of the Unitarian Josiah Wedgwood . . . [18]

. . . Darwin married Emma Wedgwood, his maternal grandfather’s youngest daughter. The Darwin family was intimately associated with the Wedgwood family, the same family of Wedgwood pottery fame today. Old Josiah Wedgwood was a Unitarian and friend of Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus, while the chemist Dr. Joseph Priestly (a Unitarian of missionary zeal) was included in this circle of friends. Josiah’s oldest daughter, Susannah, had married Robert, the son of Erasmus, and was thus Charles Darwin’s mother. Thus, Charles married his mother’s sister. [19]

It looks good on paper where you get one person who believes they’re “superior”, and you get another person who believed they’re “superior”, and then they have sex and make babies. You would think that the babies of two “superior” people would be “superior”, but it didn’t work out too well for Charles Darwin.

Darwin’s idea of inbreeding to produce superior stock can be seen to be a complete disaster in the case of his own ten children. Of the ten, one girl died shortly after birth; another died in childhood; his youngest son, Charles, was mentally retarded and lived only two years; Henrietta had a serious and prolonged breakdown at fifteen; and three sons suffered such frequent illness that Darwin regarded them as semiinvalids. Darwin’s last son, Charles Jr., was born mentally retarded and died nineteen months after birth. [20]

Some people that made evolution what it is today are Thomas Robert Malthus, Charles Lyell and Alfred Russel Wallace.

Thomas Robert Malthus wrote the Essay on the Principle of Population. He was influenced by a made-up story about goats and dogs on an island, he made up the data in his Essay and he laid the foundation for social Darwinism.

[Thomas Robert] Malthus would never have had a place in history had it not been for the publication, in 1798, of his Essay on the Principle of Population and the expanded version that appeared in five subsequent editions. Apart from the usual textbook explanations ([Diana] Simpkins 1974), the incident that inspired him to write the Essay in the first place is little known. According to [Karl] Polanyi (1957), Malthus received the following account, ascribed to Townsend by the French mathematician and revolutionary Condorcet. The scene is Robinson Crusoe’s island in the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of Chile. On this island Juan Fernandez landed a few goats to provide meat in case of future visits. The goats multiplied and became a convenient store of food for the privateers, mostly English, who were molesting Spanish trade. In order to destroy the food supply, the Spanish authorities landed a dog and a bitch which also, in the course of time, greatly multiplied and diminished the number of goats. “Then a new kind of balance was restored,” wrote Townsend. “The weakest of both species were among the first to pay the debt of nature; the most active and vigorous preserved their lives.” To which he added: “It is the quantity of food which regulated the number of human species.” Townsend then applied this principle to his suggested reform of the Poor Law. The Poor Law in England was instituted so that the poor should never go hungry, but also that they should be compelled to work. Townsend pointed out that the usual legal methods of compelling the poor to work were accompanied by much trouble, violence, and noise; “hunger will tame the fiercest animals” and, among the poor, “will teach them civility, obedience and subjection” while “goading them on to labour” (Polanyi 1957, 112). Fortunately for the British poor, Townsend’s reforms were never introduced, but Malthus became quite enthusiastic with this approach as we shall see.
The story of the goats and dogs certainly inspired thinkers like Malthus and later Charles Darwin, but as Polanyi points out, it was only a half-truth. Juan Fernandez duly landed the goats, but there is no record that the dogs were ever landed. Even if dogs had been landed, Polanyi argues, the goats inhabit inaccessible rocks while the beaches were teeming with fat seals—much more engaging prey for wild dogs. [21]

. . . it is seen that [Thomas Robert] Malthus contended that there is a discrepancy between the rate at which population multiplies and the rate at which sustenance for that population can increase. When he wrote his Essay in 1798 there was no real data to work from; the first national census in Britain was taken in 1801. But even the 1801 census data could not help, since this was a single event and could not be used to determine the rate of population growth. Malthus had actually based his vital formula on a selection of population figures taken at random from a variety of unreliable sources. He had made assumptions and approximations and juggled the figures until they came out neatly as the difference between a series of geometric and arithmetic progressions.
The increasing series of numerals, of course, appear very precise and scientific; after all, “figures cannot lie” or, to quote another source, “The mathematical basis for the Malthus argument is as certain as the multiplication table” ([Gertrude] Himmelfarb 1955, 55). It was quite impossible for Malthus to estimate how much land was totally or partially uncultivated, how much was fertile, and what it could produce in tons of food per acre, and so on. Even the time between generations was quite uncertain, so that the evidence to support his thesis was extremely speculative; all that can properly be said is that on paper, populations will tend to expand to fill the allotted space. That is not all, however. Not only was the evidence faulty and inconclusive but the very nature of the theory precludes the possibility of obtaining the evidence to prove it. If the population can never exceed the food supply, it can never be known that it is in fact the food supply that checks the population. For instance, other factors could check the population before the limit of the food supply is reached, and Malthus conceded “moral restraint” as one of these factors. [22]

Charles Lyell is the acknowledged father of evolution and he came up with the uniformitarian principle.

Charles Lyell, later Sir Charles, a quiet man with rather poor eyesight and King-maker to Darwin, the acknowledged father of the theory of evolution, died in 1875 and was buried in London’s Westminster Abbey. [23]

[Charles] Lyell’s uniformitarian principle applied to the fossils in rocks is really equally as important as the theory ascribed to Darwin; however, history has somehow managed to allow Darwin’s name to eclipse those who went before him. [24]

Alfred Russel Wallace kind of got screwed over, cause his ideas were pretty much stolen and taken over by Darwin. The first edition of Darwin’s Origin didn’t come out until 24 November 1859, but Wallace wrote stuff way earlier. Wallace’s “Sarawak law” is where the whole “man has evolved from some ancestral (preexisting) ape” came from. Wallace’s “Ternate” paper contained the survival-of-the-fittest process which was the “key” to the theory of evolution.

The first edition of the Origin was published in London on 24 November 1859 . . . [25]

During his expedition to Sarawak in the Malay archipelago, Wallace published a paper, in 1855, entitled On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species. It was concisely written and enumerated ten facts dealing with such observations as the geographical distribution of species. It also set out the entire theory of evolution, except for how the species change. The question of how was never far from Wallace’s mind as he wrote in his 1855 paper: “To discover how the extinct species have from time to time been replaced by new ones down to the very latest geological period, is the most difficult, and at the same time the most interesting problem in the natural history of the earth” ([Arnold] Brackman 1980, 319).
Wallace’s “Sarawak law”, as it came to be called, basically said that “every species had come into existence coincident both in time and space (geographic distribution) with a pre-existing closely allied species” (Brackman 1980, 314). This is exactly what the modern theory of evolution teaches in saying, for example, that man has evolved from some ancestral (preexisting) ape. By this time, Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin had become friends. Upon reading Wallace’s publication it was evident to both that here was a serious threat to priority of publication of the work that Darwin had been struggling with for more than twenty years.
Exactly three years after writing his Sarawak law, Wallace became ill on the small island of Ternate in the Molaccas between New Guinea and Borneo. The date was February 1858 and, as he recorded in his diary, he had an intermittent fever. One night during his illness he recalled the Essay by Malthus, which he had read some years before. Suddenly it all became clear in a moment’s revelation:

It occurred to me to ask the question, Why do some die and some live? And the answer was clearly, that on the whole the best fitted lived. From the effects of disease the most healthy escaped; from enemies the strongest, the swiftest or the most cunning; from famine the best hunters or those with the best digestion; and so on.
Then I at once saw, that the ever present variability of all living things would furnish the material from which, by the mere weeding out of those less adapted to actual conditions, the fittest alone would continue the face.
There suddenly flashed upon me the idea of the survival of the fittest. The more I thought it over, the more I became convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problems of the Origin of Species (Brackman 1980, 199).

A few days later Wallace wrote out his Ternate paper, which he entitled On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type. This was the document that contained the long-sought-for key to the theory of evolution: survival of the fittest was the mechanism, the how, by which the process operated (Brackman 1980, 326). The Ternate paper contained, in complete form, what is today known as the Darwinian theory of evolution, and Darwin received a copy from Wallace in June 1858; twelve months later Darwin published the book for which he is best known, On the Origin of Species. Even this title was taken from Wallace’s Ternate paper, but Wallace’s name was only mentioned in three minor places within the text. [26]

Charles Darwin received Wallace’s “Sarawak” paper in 1855, years before Origin came out in 1859, and Charles Darwin was shocked that someone else knew as much as he did about the evolutionary theory. So Darwin’s buddy and mentor Charles Lyell got Darwin working on writing a book immediately. Three years later, in 1858, Darwin got Wallace’s “Ternate” paper which gave the entire theory along with the “key” (survival-of-the-fittest), which Darwin didn’t get until after he read that I guess. So Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker told Darwin to write a shorter version for publication quickly. And then Lyell and Hooker presented some crappy documents of Darwin’s to the Linnean Society meeting before presenting Wallace’s “Ternate” paper, so Darwin got credit for the theory too, even though it should have just been Wallace.

Darwin received [Alfred Russel] Wallace’s “Sarawak” paper in 1855, which came as a shock, because he realized that someone else was as close as he was himself to the answer to life’s riddle. His friend and mentor, Charles Lyell, persuaded him to begin writing a book immediately on all that he had thus far discovered. Three years later, in 1858, he received a bigger shock when Wallace’s “Ternate” paper arrived, giving the entire theory complete with the elusive “key”, the survival-of-the-fittest as the mechanism by which selection took place and caused one species to diverge to another. Darwin was now persuaded by his friends, Lyell and [Joseph] Hooker, to stop work on the “big book” and prepare instead an abstract, a shorter version, for publication as quickly as possible. In what was described as a “delicate arrangement”, Lyell and Hooker then conspired to present to the Linnean Society meeting on 1 July 1858 Darwin’s 1844 sketch (which did not mention divergence), followed by Darwin’s copy of his letter to Asa Gray of 5 September 1857 (which purportedly did mention divergence), then finally Wallace’s “Ternate” paper of March 1858.
Asa Gray was in the United States, and Wallace was safely out of the way in the Malayan jungle; Darwin’s priority was thus established by presenting the documents in a chronological but unorthodox order. The protocol of science would dictate that, as a “paper”, Wallace’s presentation should have been made first. Correspondence for the period just prior to the July meeting is mysteriously missing, and there seems to be no record of the actual letter received by Gray. All of Gray’s replies to Darwin for this crucial period are also missing. Moreover, Darwin admitted editing his copy of the letter for the Linnean Society. All told, a great cloud of suspicion hangs over Darwin’s claim of priority to the vital divergence principle. Darwin was embroiled in a disease-ravaged household at the time of the meeting and did not attend, so that he did not in fact present a preliminary joint paper with the Wallace paper and “with a fineness of character” share the priority with Wallace, as it is commonly reported. It would, in fact, be another year before Darwin made his formal disclosure in his now famous Origin of Species ([Arnold C.] Brackman 1980, 58; J.L. Gray 1939; [George] Sarton 1930). [27]

So when the theory came out it was known as the Darwin-Wallace theory, but then Wallace’s name quickly got dropped because he was born on the “wrong side of the tracks” and he got too much into spiritism.

. . . shortly after its inception as the Darwin-Wallace theory, the name Wallace was dropped, for reasons that will soon become apparent. Thereafter, the theory of evolution has always been associated exclusively with Darwin’s name although in recent years there has been a move on the part of some within the scientific establishment to drop Darwin’s name and elevate the theory to the “law of evolution” by fiat rather than by facts. [28]

Wallace had been writing and publishing throughout his prolonged unemployment and had acquired a healthy reputation as a great naturalist, but there were two factors that militated against his being completely accepted into the circle of the scientific elite. Class was a very real sociological barrier in nineteenth century England, and Wallace had had the misfortune to have been born on the “the wrong side of the tracks”. The university education had become a way of crossing the barrier, but at that time the opportunity was largely a matter of being born into a family of sufficient means and connections. In contrast to Darwin, or even Thomas Huxley who had only just made it across the class barrier, Wallace had none of these attributes.
The second factor had to do with Wallace’s “dark side”; he dabbled with spiritism; this activity more than anything else caused him to be alienated from the scientific circle. During his early travels in the Amazon, Wallace had befriended the Indians and had been allowed to enter into some of their black arts. At the time he dismissed much of this activity as heathen superstition. However, upon his return to England he found there was a fashionable interest in the occult and, carried out in the more genteel Victorian setting, he plunged into table-rapping and oui-ja boards with enthusiasm. Many well-known Victorians such as Conan Doyle, John Ruskin, and Lord Tennyson were also involved with spiritism and frequented seances, but Wallace evidently went too far and exposed himself to ridicule by becoming actively involved in the Society for Psychical Research. [29]

As Wallace’s name became more closely associated with society’s fringe element it was not politic to leave it associated with the fledgling Darwin-Wallace theory and his name was dropped quickly and quietly; Darwin was surely not displeased to see the theory become his very own. [30]

So Darwin has his own theory and now you have to advertise it. One of the biggest advertisers at the time was Thomas Huxley. Basically what they did was what Carroll Quigley says, where you get groups, organizations, people, etc. that the “bourgeois cattle” think are all separate, but they’re really connected, and you get them all to say, “Go Evolution. Go Darwin”. Then the “bourgeois cattle” will say, “Yay Evolution. Yay Darwin.”

The greater part of its [, The Times,] influence arose from its position as one of several branches of a single group, the Milner Group. By the interaction of these various branches on one another, under the pretense that each branch was an autonomous power, the influence of each branch was an autonomous power, the influence of each branch was increased through a process of mutual reinforcement. The unanimity among the various branches was believed by the outside world to be the result of the influence of a single Truth, while really it was the result of the existence of a single group. Thus a statesman (a member of the Group) announces a policy. About the same time, the Royal Institute of International Affairs publishes a study on the subject, and an Oxford don, a Fellow of All Souls (and a member of the Group) also publishes a volume on the subject (probably through a publishing house, like G. Bell and Sons or Faber and Faber, allied to the Group). The statesman’s policy is subjected to critical analysis and final approval in a “leader” in The Times, while the two books are reviewed (in a single review) in The Times Literary Supplement. Both the “leader” and the review are anonymous but are written by the members of the Group. And finally, at about the same time, an anonymous article in The Round Table strongly advocates the same policy. The cumulative effect of such tactics as this, even if each tactical move influences only a small number of important people, is bound to be great. If necessary, the strategy can be carried further, by arranging for the secretary to the Rhodes Trustees to go to America for a series of “informal discussions” with former Rhodes Scholars, while a prominent retired statesman (possibly a former Viceroy of India) is persuaded to say a few words at the unveiling of a plaque in All Souls or New College in honor of some deceased Warden. By a curious coincidence, both the “informal discussions” in America and the unveiling speech at Oxford touch on the same topical subject. [31]

. . . the belief system of a whole generation can be turned around by a handful of intelligent men . . . [32]

One may well wonder how such a grand cover-up was possible. It is not difficult to surmise how when something of the conspiratorial nature of nineteenth century British science, with T.H. Huxley as the grand master, is understood. It has been exposed by [William] Irving (1955) and more recently by [Cyril] Bibby (1972). The latter describes how the X Club—the members could never agree on a name—was formed by [Thomas] Huxley in 1864 and consisted of nine members who, with one exception, were all presidents and secretaries of learned societies; the one exception was Herbert Spencer, whom we shall meet in the final chapter. These nine were men at the top of their profession, handpicked for their views, and holding personal influence on almost every famous scientist in the world, as well as on many distinguished radicals.
Neither Darwin nor [Charles] Lyell were members, but their views were held in the very highest esteem. The members met for dinner always immediately before each meeting of the Royal Society, at which time strategy was plotted. By this means, British science was literally “governed”, from 1864 until 1884, by Huxley and his disciples, and, with their combined influence over the scientific press it was little wonder that the 1876 report of the demise of Huxley’s B. haeckelii was never made public. [33]

. . . on 30 June 1860 at the Oxford meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. The first edition of the Origin had been judiciously placed in sympathetic hands high in church and state. The second edition had been assured of public success by good fortune appointing Thomas Huxley to write the influential London Times (26 December 1859) book review of the previous month . . . [34]

There is evidence to indicate that a cadre of keen and influential minds had been skillfully prepared to be apostles of the new faith for some time before the publication Darwin’s Origin. The first edition of the Origin was published in London on 24 November 1859, and contemporary accounts give rise to the oft-repeated statement that an eager public bought up the entire first issue of 1,250 copies on the first day. That the publisher, John Murray, sold the entire issue is not in doubt, but the assertion that it was bought by an eager public has been seriously questioned by [Richard] Freeman (1965, 21), since the book was not even advertised. What seems more probable is that most, if not all, the first issue was bought up at the dealer’s auction by an agent of [Charles] Lyell and [Joseph] Hooker a week or so before the official date of publication. These copies were then sent gratis to known sympathizers in positions of influence. This was not an uncommon practice, and two incidents strongly suggest that this is precisely how Darwin’s theory of evolution was promoted. [35]

To keep the theory popular and going and believable is to only hire people that’ll conform to that theory at university and government research labs. If they don’t conform then just don’t hire them.

The situation was no different from any university or government research laboratory of today. The candidate for employment first had to show evidence of conforming to the ideas of the establishment; once accepted, conformity was expected in order to ensure continuation of salary and promotion. The system virtually guarantees maintenance of any theory—regardless of whether the theory is sound or not—held by the man with ultimate authority. Not only that but in the hierarchical system, promotion from within ensures that the theory is perpetuated generation after generation. [36]

A lot of the reason why the “bourgeois cattle” are so into evolution now is cause of UNESCO, which is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO works to monitor and control what enters the human mind. The first head of UNESCO, known as the director general, was Julian Huxley, the grandson of Thomas Huxley. Julian Huxley says, “. . . the general philosophy of UNESCO should it seems, be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background.”

One of the principal architects of world humanism in this century was Julian Huxley, biologist and grandson of Thomas Huxley. As first director general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which is the body that attempts to monitor, if not control, all that enters the human mind. Julian Huxley in his framework policy included the following aim:

Thus the general philosophy of UNESCO should it seems, be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background. Evolution in the broad sense denotes all the historical processes of change and development at work in the universe. It is divisible into three very different sectors: the inorganic or lifeless, the organic or biological, and the social or human (J. Huxley 1976, 16). [37]

That’s it.

Daniel Kemp


1. Mikhail Gorbachev, The Search For A New Beginning : Developing a New Civilization (San Francisco : HarperSanFrancisco, c1995.), 9-10

2. Jacques Attali, Millennium : Winners and Losers in the Coming World Order Trans. Leila Conners and Nathan Gardels (New York : Random House, Inc., c1991), 75

3. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men : Darwin and the New World Order (Toronto : TFE Publishing, c1984), 444

4. Ibid., 444

5. Ibid., 444

6. Ibid., 38

7. Ibid., 33

8. Ibid., 34

9. Ibid., 340

10. Ibid., 394-395

11. Ibid., xviii

12. Ibid., 394

13. Ibid., 423

14. Ibid., 120

15. Ibid., 58

16. Ibid., 55

17. Ibid., 127

18. Ibid., 117

19. Ibid., 126

20. Ibid., 127

21. Ibid., 59-60

22. Ibid., 64

23. Ibid., 72-73

24. Ibid., 71

25. Ibid., 354

26. Ibid., 77-78

27. Ibid., 130-131

28. Ibid., 73

29. Ibid., 75

30. Ibid., 75-76

31. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment : from Rhodes to Cliveden (New York, N.Y. : Books in Focus, 1981), 114

32. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men : Darwin and the New World Order (Toronto : TFE Publishing, c1984), 228

33. Ibid., 189

34. Ibid., 357-368

35. Ibid., 354-355

36. Ibid., 51-52

37. Ibid., 397-398

Put in Books
  • uGuX SEO

    I found your site from WF. I agree with much of your perspective.

    What did you think of Ben Stein’s latest documentary?

  • Daniel Kemp

    @uGuX SEO: I haven’t seen it. Is it good?

  • uGuX SEO

    It discusses the “monopoly” of teaching evolution, but it is also somewhat pro-God.

    I thought it was well-done, but a ton of movie critics got offended. 😉

  • blah

    Ben Stein is an idiot. He was the worst economic advisor to listen to in this latest downturn (Mr. Goldilocks) and his documentary is even more inane.

  • Diannawhyte

    One thing to keep in mind though is a quote by Lord Acton that says, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Thats not lord Acton, its a direct quote from machievelli

  • Mrnotoffended

    Has this guy read ‘The Plan 3.0’?