|
Perm. Vertegenwoordiger VN
Geregistreerd: 7 mei 2004
Berichten: 13.621
|
Hier een zeer intessant artikel dat zeer goed samenvat over wat deze draad werkelijk om draait:
Citaat:
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.
[Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion]
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).
|
__________________
Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself. – Rumi
|
3 oktober 2006, 21:30
