Pages

Monday, July 26, 2010

The Scientific Dictatorships Of The Future

Aldous Huxley was the grandson of 'Darwin's bulldog' Thomas Huxley and the brother of Julian Huxley who, amongst other things, became the first director of UNESCO in 1948. He is perhaps best known for his book 'Brave New World', published in 1932, which was his vision of a future society. 


Huxley gave the speech linked to below in 1962. At this time his ideas about what the future would hold had developed. He discusses what he calls the 'scientific dictatorships of the future'. Whilst not appearing to be as enthusiastic for this as Bertrand Russell it should be remembered that he was very much a part of the elite. What he says can, though, be taken as a warning. Although it can't really be doubted that much of what he describes has already come to pass.


I tend to agree with Huxley in his assessment that scientific dictatorships would much prefer the techniques he discusses than the more direct methods outlined by George Orwell in 1984. Not for any moral reasons but for the purely practical reason outlined in the quote below. It should also be noted that, in his typical ambivalent style, Huxley also suggests the best way of defeating this nightmare.


"Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism... A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers."

6 comments:

fellist said...

I’m a bit puzzled by the way people in truth circles, Jones, Watt, etc., talk about AH as though he’s one of the enemy. It seems pretty clear to me he stands in opposition to the Brave New World he predicted. I think they’re confused by his dispassionate, amused style.

"Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism.”

But only America has a popular tradition of anti-statism and decentralisation, and for those that care about the ethno-racial destruction the NWO promises, only America among the influential Western countries ever had the need to formalise an ethnonationalism (being White Nationalist for most of its existence).

So, among the White nations that want to remain, or return to being, free and White, Americans have by far the best material to begin working with. Not coincidentally I think, they also have the biggest and most hostile security state and the most aggressively anti-White government.

A race is on in all Western countries between the natives and the hostile elite/alien coalition, but I expect the American contest will be decided sooner than others and the result will be more predictive.

Revolution Harry said...

It's difficult to pin Huxley down but I suspect you may be right.

I regards to the 'ethno-racial destruction the NWO promises' I think we have to find a way of explaining what is going from a NWO perspective. In doing so we have to attempt to defuse in some way the assistance many ethnic minorities are unwittingly giving the agenda which, after all, is not in their best interests, even if it is misleadingly portrayed as being so. No small task I know.

The quote which best sums up what is happening comes from 33rd degree and former American grand master, Albert Pike.

Pike used the word [goyim] to mean "human cattle", the whole of humanity, whom he said were to be integrated into a mass of mongrelized humanity and enslaved body, mind and soul.

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=SatanPrince

fellist said...

But Harry, in the absence of Euro-awakening the non-Euro minorities of the west, in close alliance with their home countries, best serve their interests by both maintaining demographic control of their own homelands and bolstering their presence and power here. And the closer Western man comes to ruin, the more important it becomes for them to maximise their influence over the chief instruments of NWO control - the London and New York financial centres, western governments and war machines, the major global corporations, etc. Even if it could not prevent his homeland and civilisation from becoming the next target, the African or Asian only stands to gain advantage from having numbers here, divide-and-rule blowback.

***

Interestingly, we’re both talking as though a rational appeal to ethnic interests might be expected to work upon its audience (what would better motivate Pakistanis to political action than concern for the survival of Pakistanis into the future?), yet your take on who/what sits atop the NWO pyramid seems to forget that aspect of human nature that normally organises life to promote the basic interests of people like oneself.

A global political program or Luciferian religion coupled with ethnic supremacism (or just ordinary politics/religion coupled with ethnic survival) would tend to accumulate and maintain power much more effectively over the centuries than a similar program or religion that promised to destroy one’s own people -- who’d convert or be loyal to that? Pike, if quoted accurately there, is hardly a man with an idea to conquer the world. More likely ‘his’ idea was introduced through him into his own nation by others with the good sense to act in their own ultimate interests.

***

Pike as a younger man was deeply racially conscious and in better sourced quotes than Carr provides said that he would leave the Freemasons rather than sit with negroes as his equal. Not the man most likely to lead the White race into oblivion.

Revolution Harry said...

I think what I'm saying is that approaching the issues surrounding immigration and multiculturism from the perspective of an agenda to create a world government (NWO) is likely to be the most effective strategy. At present those behind the mass immigration policy have been able to present this as some sort of moral enterprise. In contrast, those who oppose it, for whatever reason, are painted as being, if not outright immoral, at the very least, not very 'nice'. Such is the power of the brainwashing surrounding these and other issues.

The truth, however, is actually the reverse. There is no moral dimension to mass immigration. Particularly when it is being done against the wishes of the majority and is only possible with a great deal of lies, hypocrisy and deception. Rather than write a long comment on this now I think I'll attempt a post some time soon to see if I can clarify my own thoughts a bit more.

I almost didn't use the Pike quote because I couldn't find mention of it apart from the Parr excerpt. That said it certainly seems as if 'mongrelisation' is the policy. Who knows why? Are 'whites' too rebellious? Whatever the reason it is profoundly immoral and wrong. However hard it is to understand why people would follow policies, programs or religions that would most definitely 'destroy one's own people' it's undeniably happening. The queen, top level royalty and aristocracy and the likes of Blair and Brown are all masons and have happily contributed to such policies. The list is extensive and includes all major political parties, the media and most denominations of Christianity.

Much of the above could possibly be explained away by brainwashing etc but it doesn't explain the rationale of the very elite. What is it that drives them? Although it seems as if the elite do worship/revere lucifer to some degree it's still not completely clear (to me at least) what that entails. It's something I'm still trying to understand.

I knew Pike was involved with the KKK but I haven't studied him that much to be honest. There's many who've been changed as they've ascended the degrees of freemasonry, who knows. I agree his involvement with the KKK doesn't quite chime with the 'mongrelisation' statement. The one thing that does spring to mind though is the Bertrand Russell quote below.

“Gradually, by selective breeding the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species.”

I suspect that the vast majority of the 'rulers' will be 'white' and those same rulers are only too happy to 'mongrelise' the troublesome, rebellious 'white' masses who want too much and don't make very good serfs. Pike almost certainly considered himself to be in the ruling class.

Cheers,

Harry.

fellist said...

approaching the issues surrounding immigration and multiculturism from the perspective of an agenda to create a world government (NWO) is likely to be the most effective strategy

Possibly. It certainly can persuade some people who would run a mile at the mention of EGI or mongrelisation (and vice versa).

and have happily contributed to such policies

That’s an overstatement. We do not know how happy they have been about it, and we certainly do not know that they have ‘contributed’ in a real sense, i.e., have themselves because of personal commitment to the agenda deliberately advanced it farther than someone else in their position may have done. A politician in ‘power’ in Europe or America is on a very short lease with regard to his range of options about policy and direction, and I daresay most are compromised in some fundamental way or have psychological flaws which make them quite easy to control (Jeff Gates at criminalstate.com writes really well about that subject).

And to be a European royal is to have survived a century in which most of your extended family were murdered or removed from power by forces obviously more powerful than European royalty. We suffer a little bit for having most of the research about this stuff coming from America. Just as American housewives go ga-ga over Fergie or Paul Burrell who are jokes to us, the American conspiracy researcher is also inclined to go OTT on the influence of the royals. It’s a colonial thing.

The royals obviously have to engage with the system and culture somehow and any ‘normal’ person in that position would inevitably make some statement or action that a conspiracy researcher could point to as evidence of complicity. If most people mindlessly agree with the hype about over-population why wouldn’t the royals? But for every comment by Prince Philip about population reduction there are twenty politically incorrect jibes about incompetent Indians or cannibalistic South Sea islanders that gently reinforce the British man in the street’s instinct for cultural and ethnic self-preservation. It’s even plausible that the comments about population are made partly to boost his PC bona fides after so many race gaffes, it could be the only issue where he’s in line with contemporary ‘right thinking’ and can get a pat on the back from the media that generally mocks him. And the Prince of Wales has arguably done more than anyone else in Britain to popularise organic food (and so undermine the agenda Alex Jones talks about in his recent vid ‘Food: The Ultimate Secret Exposed’). He’s also been the most outspoken critic of the jarring, alien architectural styles that psychologically divorce us from our history and culture. Aside from those issues, where his interventions seem wholly to our benefit, his only known role in history is hubby to Diana.

I’m defending them here, but really I have no respect for the royal family and feel by their inaction they have fundamentally betrayed us.

Revolution Harry said...

"... and have happily contributed to such policies."

I tend to agree with what you say about politicians in general but I was being more specific in regards to high level freemasons such as Blair and Brown. Both have shown nothing but an eagerness to pursue policies that are to the detriment of the native populations of Britain. The 'socialist' Blair has been well rewarded for his betrayal and Brown was ever eager to seize any opportunity to further the globalist agenda. I expect his reward will be a 'top job' somewhere within the control system.

As for the Royals I think it's a mistake to see European royalty as necessarily all 'on the same side'. Those that didn't 'play the game' were taken out. I suspect this also has something to do with the bloodlines they seem to place a great deal of importance on. The German strain we appear to be lumbered with are said to be part of the elite controlling bloodlines. Of course It's nigh impossible to prove this but 'by there fruits shall ye know them'.

The top royals control English freemasonry, the Queen herself is its Grand Patron. The Grand Lodge in Great Queen (Semiramis/Isis) street is said to be the mother lodge of world freemasonry. I'm afraid I can't see the royal family as anything other than key players in the unfolding agenda we face.

Surely Prince Phillip's politically incorrect jibes about 'foreigners' ties in perfectly with his desire to reduce the world's population. 'White' people are around 10% of the earth's population so it's logical to assume that it's in the other 90% where he'd like to see the reductions made.

Charles can talk all he likes about organic food but it's unaffordable to most people. I'd eat nothing but organic food if I could afford it. I suspect the royals eat it courtesy of Duchy farms owned by Charles. Things like this and his championing of traditional architecture are probably carefully designed to give him a 'man of the people' persona. Don't forget Charles' intention is to become 'Defender of the Faith*s* when he's crowned. He's not on 'our' side.