I wanted to read a short book so the librarian recommended me the book The Next Million Years by Charles Galton Darwin.

It’s from 1952.

The librarian told me that Charles Galton Darwin was the grandson of Charles Darwin.

Charles Galton Darwin comes from the Darwin family, and the Darwin family has had a lot of influence in the past, so you could say that Charles Galton Darwin probably has some influence too.

Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, was the founder of the Lunar Society. One of the members of the Lunar Society was Benjamin Franklin.

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). [1]

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. [2]

Charles Darwin got the credit for the theory of evolution, even though the credit should go to Alfred Russel Wallace. The theory of evolution is an essential core to UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).

The first edition of the Origin was published in London on 24 November 1859 . . . [3]

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. [4]

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). [5]

Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, created eugenics, which was the whole “superior” and “inferior” thing and the Darwins believed they were “superior”. Some people who got into eugenics were Winston Churchill, American Presidents like Herbert Hoover and Teddy Roosevelt, and of course Adolf Hitler.

Another cousin of Darwin, Francis Galton, wrote extensively on this principle and openly advocated selective breeding programs for the creation of tomorrow’s elite ruling class (Galton 1869, 24). [6]

The heir, at twenty-two, to a comfortable fortune, Francis Galton (1822-1911) could hardly be blamed for confusing nepotism with biological heredity. Galton’s first and most famous book, Hereditary Genius (1869), was an actuarial study of prominent men in government, religion, commerce, and the arts which proved, with redundant statistics and dozens of quaint notions about human development, what every adult has always known. To wit, that the children of bankers and generals and cabinet ministers are statistically much more likely to find their way into the professions and the corridors of political and economic power than are the children of charwomen, peasants, and ditch diggers.
To Galton, whose ignorance of socioeconomics was matched only by his painful ignorance of human biology—an ignorance made all the more appalling because Galton was in his fourth year of medical school when he came into his inheritance and promptly quit school—the reasons for the well-known tendency of the children of the mighty to take over their ranks were purely “in the blood.”
At the time Galton wrote his book, the mounting sanitary and medical benefits of the Industrial Revolution had been enjoyed, for over a generation, by the more affluent elements of British society. These health benefits were, in turn, directly responsible for the steep and swift decline in the infant- and maternal-mortality rates of the affluent families. Then, as now, falling infant-mortality rates were followed by a sharp and proportionate decline in the live-birth rates of the fortunate families who were the first to benefit from the new theories and practical applications of environmental hygiene.
Galton mistook this decline in the birth rates of the affluent families in British society as evidence of the “sterility” that he claimed reduces the birth rates of people of superior blood who move from the country to the city. At the same time, Galton saw the lag in the decline of the birth rates of the lower classes—a lag related directly to the fact that the depressed classes had as yet received almost none of the sanitary and medical benefits of the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions—as a population explosion of inferior strains of white Englishmen that threatened to swamp what Galton saw as the most suitable of all strains of the Anglo-Saxon race: his own. The specter of the more suitable children Galton never got around to fathering being dominated by the corporeal but, in Galton’s opinion, hereditarily unsuitable children of the nation’s miners and mill hands, drovers and servants, gnawed at the eminent Victorian until he came up with his famous solution to this “problem.”
The present name for this solution did not come as easily to Galton as did its nature. As he ultimately defined the “eugenic questions” of the “race,” they were:

. . . questions bearing on what is termed, in Greek, eugenes, namely, good in stock, hereditarily endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving the stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognisance of all the influences that tend in however remote a degree to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable [emphasis added] than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea.

Thus, from the Greek word for “wellborn,” Galton coined the word “eugenic,” meaning pertaining to racial improvement by boosting the birth rate of the wellborn to the levels where they speedily prevailed over the less suitable strains or socially less wellborn classes.
While he was at this lexicographic crossroads, Galton also created the word for the opposite of “eugenic.” The word was “kakogenic,” derived from the Greek word kakos, meaning “bad.” “Kakogenic” (or “cacogenic” or its much more commonly used synonym, “dysgenic”) means “of low birth and tending towards, or productive of, racial degeneration.”
With these two words, Galton now brought into being the cult of eugenics, which today is recognized as having approximately the same relationship to the legitimate biological science of genetics that astrology bears to astronomy, or numerology to mathematics. “He had in view,” wrote Karl Pearson, Galton’s foremost interpreter, “eugenics not only as a science, not only as an art, but also as a national creed, amounting, indeed, to a religious faith.”
As a science, eugenics would deal with the factors, as yet admittedly unknown to Galton, that in his view tended to improve or impair superior racial breeding stock in our species.
As a religion, eugenics was to provide the moral and spiritual motivation to encourage increased fecundity in families of Anglo-Saxon, noble, wellborn, affluent (Galton always equated fat bank balances with the noblest of all human qualities), and thus superior human breeding stock.
To the palpably class-conscious Francis Galton, only the breeding successes of the eugenics movement could prevent the superior hereditary qualities of the “race” from being overwhelmed by the rising tides of equally white, equally Anglo-Saxon, equally Protestant Englishmen of inferior hereditary and bank balances. As the high priest and theologian of this Victorian racist cult, Galton even established its very “scientific” scale of racial values. [7]

. . . the Darwins and the Wedgwoods who recognized in each other all the qualities of “superior” people. [8]

The passing of the flame from the Old World to the New was effected as early as 1912, at the First International Congress of Eugenics, held at the University of London a year after [Francis] Galton’s death.
The president of the Congress was Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin . . . The English vice-presidents of the Congress of Eugenics included a future Prime Minister, First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill; the Bishop of Oxford; the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone; and the president of the College of Physicians, Sir Thomas Barlow. The German vice-presidents included M. von Gruber, professor of hygiene at Munich, and Dr. Alfred Ploetz, president of the International Society for Race Hygiene. The American vice-presidents included Gifford Pinchot, a future governor of Pennsylvania; Charles W. Eliot, president emeritus of Harvard University; Alexander Graham Bell; David Starr-Jordan, president of Stanford University; and Charles B. Davenport, listed on the program as secretary of the American Breeders’ Association. [9]

By 1921, when the Second International Congress of Eugenics was convened at New York’s American Museum of Natural History under President Henry Fairfield Osborn, time had provided no new scientific or moral justifications for such a congress. Nevertheless, the concepts aired at this world congress of scientific racism were to become the conventional opinions of a majority of America’s academic, editorial, and political leaders for generations. Since we are still paying vast human and fiscal costs—in such preventable conditions as having one of the industrialized world’s highest infant death rates—for the wholesale application of these eugenics ideas to public policies, the modern reader has much to gain by a quick review of what was said, and by whom, at this congress.
Major Leonard Darwin, son of the great Charles Darwin, president of the First Congress of Eugenics in 1912 . . . was a vice-president and honored guest of the second world convocation. If the future Prime Minister of England, Winston Churchill—a vice-president of the 1912 Congress—was not among the members of the 1921 Congress’s General Committee, the soon-to-be President of the United Sates, Herbert Hoover, was. As were, among many other notables, college and foundation presidents and intellectuals: the future governor of Pennsylvania, Gifford Pinchot; the chief psychologist of the U.S. Army, Robert M. Yerkes; and the chairman of the Psychology Department of Columbia University’s Teachers College, Edward L. Thorndike. The principal benefactress of the American eugenics movement, Mrs. E. H. Harriman, contributed generously to help met the dollar costs of the Congress. She delivered her checks to the chairman of its Finance Committee, Madison Grant. [10]

. . . I had the distinct feeling that little had changed relative to man and his cultural environment since the days when President Teddy Roosevelt was issuing ukases against the fecundity of unworthy breeding stocks. And when President Coolidge, after Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1924, proclaimed, “American must be kept American,” as he signed the bill to make us Judenrein. And when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt accepted the judgments of John B. Trevor and Charles B. Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin in the matter of relaxing or not relaxing the barriers the very same 1924 Immigration Act had raised against sanctuary in America for Jews, Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, Slavs and other holocaust-threatened species.
The power of truly bad ideas survives their originators for lifetimes without end. [11]

When Hitler’s Thousand-Year Reich fell in 1945, it was revealed by the German Central Association of Sterilized Persons that at least two million human beings had had been ruled in the Eugenics Courts to be eugenically unfit (dysgenic) and sterilized against their will during the twelve years of the Nazi version of [Harry H.] Laughlin’s Eugenical Sterilization Law. Under the voluntary sterilization law of the Weimar Republic overthrown by Hitler, between 1927 and 1933 a total of less than 500 Germans—about 85 people a year, most of them women whose health would have been jeopardized by pregnancy—had been voluntarily sterilized. Under the Nazis, an average of 165,000 Germans of both sexes were sterilized annually against their will—at the rate of 450 forced sterilizations per day. [12]

So now onto Charles Galton Darwin and his book The Next Million Years.

He called this book The Next Million Years because “. . . in the evolution of life, how long does it take to make a new species? The answer is a million years. That is the reason for the title I have chosen for this essay—for a million years to come we have got to put up with all the defects in man’s nature as it is now.” [13]

Charles Galton Darwin says on page 46 what this book is about. He says, “I am trying to imagine what an historian of a million years hence, engaged in preparing a universal history of the human race, would select from our own past history as worthy of notice.” [14]

He considers man to be an animal. He says that “. . . man is and will always continue to be essentially a wild and not a tame animal.” [15]

Man is an animal, but a social animal . . . [16]

. . . I shall regard man as a biological specimen like any wild animal . . . [17]

There is no prospect of man’s nature imitating an insect’s, but it is much more nearly imaginable that his development should go, like that of the dogs, into a set of breeds each specialized for a particular purpose. We all of us know of whole human families which possess gifts specialized in some particular direction, and if the specialization were narrowed and the gifts improved till all competitors were surpassed, such a family would have turned itself into a breed. But all past history contradicts this tendency, for it suggests that wherever there have been such groups they have not increased further in their specialized skills, but that after a very few generations they have tended to merge back into the general population. I will give some examples, though my knowledge of history is hardly deep enough to cite them with any confidence.
A first example may be drawn from the sanctity of royal blood, which has been a prevalent idea in many countries, and which would give opportunity for the in-breeding that is essential for the production of a specialized breed. The most extreme case is that of the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt whose blood was counted as so sacred that the reigning house had to be perpetuated by brother-and-sister marriages. Biologists no longer now regard close in-breeding as necessarily deleterious, but still the possibility of its evil effects might throw doubt on any positive conclusions we could draw from the Ptolemies. But the only conclusions that can be drawn are entirely negative; the record of the dynasty is not very impressive, it is neither much better nor much worse than that of other dynasties that had not been in-bred, and in the end it collapsed, as did the other dynasties, under the irresistible might of the Romans. Neither in this extreme case, nor in other more modern ones, is there any sign of a tendency for a breed to arise that is specialized for kingship. [18]

On pages 184 and 185 he talks about something cool. He says, “It always comes back to the same point, that to carry out any policy systematically in such a way as permanently to influence the human race, there would have to be a master breed of humanity, not itself exposed to the conditions it is inducing in the rest. The master breed, being wild animals, would be subject to all the fashions, tastes and passions of humanity as we know it, and so would never have the constancy to establish for generation after generation a consistent policy which could materially alter the nature of mankind.” [19]

And then Charles Galton Darwin talks about some conditions you can induce on the “inferiors”.

One of the conditions you can induce on the “inferiors” deals with hormones and drugs. He says, “The artificial use of hormones has already been shown to have profound effects on the behaviour of animals, and it seems quite possible that hormones, or perhaps drugs, might have similar effects on man. For example, there might be a drug, which, without other harmful effects, removed the urgency of sexual desire, and so reproduced in humanity the status of workers in a beehive. Or there might be another drug that produced a permanent state of contentment in the recipient—after all alcohol does something like this already, though it has other disadvantages and is only temporary in its effects. A dictator would certainly welcome the compulsory administration of the “contentment drug” to his subjects.” [20]

Another condition you can induce on the “inferiors” deals with manipulating the genes of the “inferiors”. He says, “The genes of man, like those of every other animal, control the development of every part of his body, and this includes his brain . . .” [21] He also says, “If a dictator should ever aspire to bring about some really permanent change in humanity, he could do it if, and only if, he knew how to alter some of the human genes, for only so could the changed quality become anchored as a fixed character of the race.” [22]

Another cool thing Charles Galton Darwin talks about deals with civilization. He says, “Civilization has taught man how to live in dense crowds, and by that very fact those crowds are likely ultimately to constitute a majority of the world’s population. Already there are many who prefer this crowded life, but there are others who do not, and these will be gradually eliminated. Life in the crowded condition of cities has many unattractive features, but in the long run these may be overcome, not so much by altering them, but simply by changing the human race into liking them.” [23]

Some other things he talks about . . .

He talks about Europe becoming one and North America becoming one. He says, “If the fuel problem is solved completely, so that mechanical power and transportation is available in the future to a greater extent even than at present, then the provinces will be large; for example, the whole of Europe may well be one, and the whole of North America another.” [24]

He also talks about world government. He says, “If then there is ever to be a world government, it will have to function as governments do now, in the sense that it will have to coerce a minority—and indeed it may often be a majority—into doing things they do not want to do.” [25] He goes on to say, “If transportation is easy, world conquest will be easier both for military reasons and because the more uniform culture should make the world government more acceptable.” [26]

What I learned from this book is to look ahead. I might not have power like guys like this Charles Galton Darwin has, but it doesn’t mean I can’t look ahead too.

So I’ve been practicing looking ahead, and here is a sample:

When reading the books Tragedy & Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley, the guy who was a Georgetown professor and an instructor at Princeton and Harvard, he shows you how politics is just a show for the public. All you have to really do is control the main characters in politics and then you control it.

In fact on two occasions, in 1904 and in 1924, J.P. Morgan was able to sit back with a feeling of satisfaction to watch a presidential election in which the candidates of both parties were in his sphere of influence. In 1924 the Democratic candidate was one of his chief lawyers, while the Republican candidate was the classmate and handpicked choice of his partner, Dwight Morrow. Usually, Morgan had to share this political influence with other sectors of the business oligarchy, especially with the Rockefeller interest (as was done, for example, by dividing the ticket between them in 1900 and in 1920). [27]

At all of these meetings, as at the Peace Conference itself, the political leaders were assisted by groups of experts and interested persons, sometimes self-appointed. Many of these “experts” were members or associates of the international-banking fraternity. . . . The importance of these committees of experts can be seen in the fact that in every case but one where a committee of experts submitted a unanimous report, the Supreme Council accepted its recommendation and incorporated it in the treaty. In cases where the report was not unanimous, the problem was generally resubmitted to the experts for further consideration. [28]

Voting in Parliament is on strict party lines, and members are expected to vote as their party whips tell them to, and are not expected to understand the contents of the bills for which they are voting. [29]

This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known. [30]

This Cecil Bloc was built up by Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, Viscount Cranborne and third Marquess of Salisbury (1830-1903). The methods used by this man were merely copied by the Milner Group. These methods can be summed up under three headings: (a) a triple-front penetration in politics, education, and journalism; (b) the recruitment of men of ability (chiefly from All Souls) and the linking of these men to the Cecil Bloc by matrimonal alliances and by gratitude for titles and positions of power; and (c) the influencing of public policy by placing members of the Cecil Bloc in positions of power shielded as much as possible from public attention. [31]

This brief sketch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs does not by any means indicate the very considerable influence which the organization exerts in English-speaking countries in the sphere to which it is devoted. The extent of that influence must be obvious. The purpose of this chapter has been something else: to show that the Milner Group controls the Institute. Once that is established, the picture changes. The influence of Chatham House appears in its true perspective, not as the influence of an autonomous body but as merely one of many instruments in the arsenal of another power. When the influence which the Institute wields is combined with that controlled by the Milner Group in other fields — in education, in administration, in newspapers, and periodicals — a really terrifying picture begins to emerge. . . . The picture is terrifying because such power, whatever the goals at which it may be directed, is too much to be entrusted safely to any group. . . . No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner Group accomplished in Britain — that is, that a small number of men should be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of the documents relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period. [32]

ANY EFFORT to write an account of the influence exercised by the Milner Group in foreign affairs in the period between the two World Wars would require a complete rewriting of the history of that period. [33]

The ability of the Milner Group to mobilize public opinion in regard to the League of Nations is almost beyond belief. It was not a simple task, since they were simultaneously trying to do two things: on the one hand, seeking to build up popular opinion in favor of the League so that its work could be done more effectively; and, at the same time, seeking to prevent influential people from using the League as an instrument of world government before popular opinion was ready for a world government. In general, The Round Table and The Times were used for the latter purpose, while the League of Nations Union and a strange assortment of outlets, such as Chatham House, Toynbee Hall, extension courses at Oxford, adult-education courses in London, International Conciliation in the United States, the Institute of Politics at Williamstown, the Institute of Intellectual Cooperation at Paris, the Geneva School of International Studies and the Graduate Institute of International Studies at Geneva, and the various branches of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, were used for the former purpose. The Milner Group did not control all of these. Their influence was strong in all of them, and, since the influence of J. P. Morgan and Company was also strong in most of them and since Morgan and the Group were pursuing a parallel policy on this issue, the group were usually able to utilize the resources of these various organizations when they wished. [34]

In the book In The Minds of Men by Ian T. Taylor it says, “Change and Progress. The empty and often fraudulent promises of political candidates and especially the advertising agencies have led us to equate the word “change” with progress. However, when optimal conditions already exist any change can only result in regression.” [35]

In Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1970 book Between Two Ages he says, “Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the steppingstones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society.” [36]

So they can get their guy that just reads his scripts to rise up and become their “charismatic personality” so then the “inferiors” will be like, “Oh my, this guy is a charismatic guy who is going to bring change and hope.” And then the “inferiors” hope will rise. Then all they have to do is have something happen to their charismatic guy so then the hope of the “inferiors” will become dashed. Maybe they would have something happen to their Vice President.

Alexander Haig, who was Secretary of State when there was that Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, said, “Constitutionally, gentlemen, you have the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State in that order, and should the President decide he wants to transfer the helm to the Vice President, he will do so. He has not done that. As of now, I am in control here, in the White House, pending return of the Vice President and in close touch with him. If something came up, I would check with him, of course.” [37]

So then the Secretary of State would move up and help transform the United States into a highly controlled society.

I don’t know if they’ll actually do that. I’m just practicing looking ahead.

That’s it.

Daniel Kemp

Footnotes:

1. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men : Darwin and the New World Order (Toronto : TFE Publishing, c1984), 58

2. Ibid., 55

3. Ibid., 354

4. Ibid., 77-78

5. Ibid., 397-398

6. Ibid., 127

7. Allan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus : The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism (New York : Knopf : distributed by Random House, 1977, c1976), 12-14

8. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men : Darwin and the New World Order (Toronto : TFE Publishing, c1984), 127

9. Allan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus : The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism (New York : Knopf : distributed by Random House, 1977, c1976), 136

10. Ibid., 277

11. Ibid., 525

12. Ibid., 135

13. Charles Galton Darwin, The Next Million Years (London, Rupert Hart-Davis, c1952), 78

14. Ibid., 46

15. Ibid., 115

16. Ibid., 77

17. Ibid., 77

18. Ibid., 126-127

19. Ibid., 184-185

20. Ibid., 183

21. Ibid., 81

22. Ibid., 82

23. Ibid., 99

24. Ibid., 191

25. Ibid., 193

26. Ibid., 193

27. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope : A History of the World in Our Time (New York : Macmillan ; Collier-Macmillan, 1966), 74

28. Ibid., 271

29. Ibid., 468-469

30. Ibid., 950

31. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment : from Rhodes to Cliveden (New York, N.Y. : Books in Focus, 1981), 15

32. Ibid., 197

33. Ibid., 227

34. Ibid., 259

35. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men : Darwin and the New World Order (Toronto : TFE Publishing, c1984), 466

36. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages : America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York : Viking Press, c1970), 253

37. “Alexander Haig”, Time Magazine, April 2, 1984, p. 22 of 24 page article, <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954230-22,00.html>, retrieved on 8 January 2009