Part 4 (series contents). Post Edition 3 (July 2, 2016)
Readers who want to add their knowledge are welcome to do so via email or comments. Messages may be edited for profanity and legal concerns.
Continuing from the outline presented in Part 3, some topics have already been covered, and I’m just going to move on to other topics and provide real-world parallels for each:
Censorship in the Novel: Elimination of Old Books, Old Ideas and Family
I provided some examples of what I consider mass censorship in Part 2, but I neglected to provide a reference from the novel.
In Chapter XVI (page 199 of the edition I have), John the Savage hears Mustapha Mond, Resident Controller for Western Europe, quote Shakespeare. Mond tells him that Shakespeare is “prohibited” because it is old and “we haven’t any use for old things here.” He tells John that they don’t want people to be attracted to old ideas and, in any case, they couldn’t understand Shakespeare’s Othello. Old books are banned for the sake of social stability:
. . . you can’t make tragedies without social instability. The world’s stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can’t get. . . . they’re not afraid of death; they’re blissfully ignorant of passion and old age; they’re plagued with no mothers or fathers; they’ve got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strongly about . . . (200-201)
Instead, art is made out of “practically nothing but pure sensation” (page 201).
The example I gave of e-books replacing printed books is preparation for mass censorship, and the disposal of old books by libraries is an example of covert censorship. Why would the oligarchy openly announce direct censorship, which would be opposed, instead of quietly preparing the ground for it through the progressive introduction of seductive Internet- and computer-based technology? See the documentary film, The Net: The Unabomber, LSD and the Internet at http://canadianliberty.com/?p=13273.
By the way, e-books become part of the data that becomes vulnerable to EMP blasts (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse), or at least EMP blasts become a plausible excuse or cover story for the mass disappearance of unwanted data.
Speaking of “pure sensation,” if almost everyone’s recreational activity is taken up with television, addictive pornography, Internet, video games, virtual worlds, and reading fiction of all kinds (electronic or not), where is the time and inclination left for reading non-fiction?
What would the gradual lead-up to the practical and mass-scale removal of unwanted information look like other than the world we see around us now?
Tiny minorities of the public may hold on to bits and pieces of challenging information in print form or otherwise, and that’s good, but will it make enough of a difference?
This could also relate to the caste system described in Huxley’s novel. People who are even capable of being interested in reality at all may become the “higher castes”–walking targets to be sent off to “the island” when they rock the boat.
Most others are just “educated” to fall out of the loop of actually being informed about anything outside of their job function, “carbon footprint” and other lifestyle conditioning.
Why aren’t people raising their figurative firewalls, raising their virtual shields to stop what is happening and defend what is good? Maybe YOU will. Good. But why would many readers dismiss what I’m saying?
Because people are completely brainwashed. Their heads are full of marbles. I know all about it. We’re all in the same boat. Most people want to be “positive” and “happy” as the world collapses around them–including their lives and families–or lack of families. Also observe the “health care” and its failure in your own life.
Note how the abolition of the family is portrayed in the above quotation about censorship from Brave New World. Then think about what the engineered transition to such a world would look like, and take a look our own lives in the here and now.
There are other factors, but this situation can be attributed to very organized systems of mind control–which people don’t want to acknowledge or do anything about. They just let themselves and their families be immersed in it.
Scientism and the Control over Science: Dogma, Propaganda, and Corruption
Moving on to a different topic that also involves control and censorship, the realm of “Science” a religious body with a capital ‘S’, “Science” as an institution of “consensus” and dogmatic, authoritative declarations about reality–as if that has anything to do with the supposed “scientific method” and how truth is supposed to be discovered through observation, inductive reasoning and testing. Testing means that anything in “science” can be challenged, examined and put to the test. Flaws in theories can be uncovered without the world falling apart or people being censored, intimidated and arrested for that matter. Right? Science is supposed to be a technique that uncovers the truth, isn’t it?
Here is an example from the novel of what happens when a citizen proposes a theory contrary to the Brave New World‘s regime and philosophy:
“A New Theory of Biology” was the title of the paper which Mustapha Mond had just finished reading. He sat for some time, meditatively frowning, then picked up his pen and wrote across the title-page: “The author’s mathematical treatment of the conception of purpose is novel and highly ingenious, but heretical and, so far as the present social order is concerned, dangerous and potentially subversive. Not to be published.” He underlined the words. “The author will be kept under supervision. . . . ” . . . once you began admitting explanations in terms of purpose-well, you didn’t know what the result might be. It was the sort of idea that might easily decondition the more unsettled minds among the higher castes-make them lose their faith in happiness as the Sovereign Good . . . (Chapter 12, page 160)
In this quote, you can also see one of the directions that some of the priests of science (or media and public relations) have taken in the modern world: the removal of the idea of a higher purpose other than the purposes of those who seek absolute power over all of us, who seek to replace the purposeful figure of a Creator with the collectivist human “God” of the World State, lording it over the randomly “evolving” human society, reinforcing their truth of “survival of the fittest.”
One of the slogans in a trailer for the 2016 film, X-Men: Apocalypse in bold letters is “Only the strong will survive”:
By the way, once again, endlessly, we see the promotion of the destabilizing idea of “apocalypse.”
The following quote is attributed to the establishment-promoted celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins, FRS – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins (Fellow of the Royal Society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society#Fellows) like Julian Huxley: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley:
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
This doesn’t mean that various forms of mysticism that seem (key word being “seem”) to be contradictory to the atheist message are not also promoted by the controlled media–and that includes the use of religion. This includes, in my view, the promotion of ideas of apocalypse, moral “relativity”, “quantum” uncertainty about reality, ancient aliens, and magical thinking. However, all of this noise probably leads to the same result: people being confused and being controlled by “false prophets” of various kinds. And possibly the majority of people will end up sliding into the default option of pretending that there is no higher Creator, that there is no purpose outside of organized human gangs, thus allowing the World State to replace the old gods, old religions and old mythologies with the new god, the new religion and new mythologies.
I am not trying to dismiss the possibility of real spiritual experiences, but we should ask if “atheism” is really free from associations with mysticism? The Royal Society was replete with full-on mystics like Isaac Newton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton’s_occult_studies).
Also, the Fabians who Huxley associated with were directly tied to Annie Besant and Theosophy. See https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Pease_History_of_the_Fabian_Society-2.pdf (The History of the Fabian Society, by Edward R. Pease, and it looks like Besant started out as an atheist. See chapter III, pdf page 28).
The Lucis Trust, who promote the works of Theosophist Alice Bailey, is also connected with the United Nations (See: https://www.lucistrust.org/about_us/support_un and https://www.lucistrust.org/store/category/alice_bailey_books_p).
I have pointed out another couple of connections between mysticism and the United Nations in this post: http://canadianliberty.com/?p=23200.
For some reason–power being part of the reason, along with submission to human institutions by the isolated, atomized individual who is lacking a family–the personal God of traditional religions is their target.
Here are some further comments from Mustapha Mond on how the novel’s scientific dictatorship viewed science:
all of our sciences is just a cookery book, with an orthodox theory of cooking that nobody’s allowed to question, and a list of recipes that mustn’t be added to except by special permission from the head cook (Chapter 16, page 206).
In my view, what we have in our society is a set of dogmas which the oligarchy’s establishment academic agencies claim to be “scientific” but the promotion of these dogmas is not for the purpose of truth, but in order to achieve certain ulterior effects or power over humanity, our minds and bodies, to make us believe, for example, that we are just animals and that there is nothing special about being human, thus allowing them to do what they want to us via “science.” This includes everything from political action, social engineering, and vaccination to merely the shoring up of the establishment’s image in the face of potential criticism.
If people were more willing to question what they consume in the media or in their education when it comes to science and other topics, my view is that very few ideas would hold up to scrutiny, because the media and education systems (and entertainment systems) spend their efforts on topics that matter to the oligarchy, and what matters to the oligarchy is that we CHANGE into what they want us to be, and that we THINK what they want us to think. And anything that has to do with truth and reality, and testing statements, etc. will never work to serve those kinds of objectives.
What is true about “Science”? Doctrines, Policies, Fraud, Engineering of Society, Drugs and Vaccines, Peer Review
Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/contact-us) wrote the following in the April 11, 2015 edition:
“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. . . .
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. . . .
“Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?” See http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext (pdf: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf).
The following quotation is from “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption” by Marcia Angell JANUARY 15, 2009. See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/:
. . . The theory that psychiatric conditions stem from a biochemical imbalance is used as a justification for their widespread use [psychotropic drugs], even though the theory has yet to be proved. . . .
. . . Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. . . .
(The quote is referenced in this article also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/)
The following quote is from a paper written by Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD (Neural Dynamics Research Group, Dept. of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia): “The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?”
http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BSEM-2011.pdf (I believe this is a publication of the British Society for Ecological Medicine).
. . . Deliberately concealing information from the parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule could thus be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.
Here I present the documentation which appears to show that the JCVI made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for “herd immunity”, a concept which with regards to vaccination, and contrary to prevalent beliefs, does not rest on solid scientific evidence as will be explained. As a result of such vaccination policy promoted by the JCVI and the DH, many children have been vaccinated without their parents being disclosed the critical information about demonstrated risks of serious adverse reactions, one that the JCVI appeared to have been fully aware of. It would also appear that, by withholding this information, the JCVI/DH neglected the right of individuals to make an informed consent concerning vaccination. By doing so, the JCVI/DH may have violated not only International Guidelines for Medical Ethics (i.e., Helsinki Declaration and the International Code of Medical Ethics) but also, their own Code of Practice (http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@ab/documents/digitalasset/dh_115363.pdf).
The transcripts of the JCVI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufacturers on strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. . . .
So do I think it’s possible for a powerful and wealthy gang to create a world government that issues “scientific” declarations about reality? Here is the evidence of the power of money and corruption.
Also, concerning the “peer review” process: “Major publisher retracts 64 scientific papers in fake peer review outbreak” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/18/outbreak-of-fake-peer-reviews-widens-as-major-publisher-retracts-64-scientific-papers/ By Sarah Kaplan, 18 August 2015, Washington Post.
In the latest episode of the fake peer review phenomenon, one of the world’s largest academic publishers, Springer, has retracted 64 articles from 10 of its journals after discovering that their reviews were linked to fake e-mail addresses. The announcement comes nine months after 43 studies were retracted by BioMed Central (one of Springer’s imprints) for the same reason. . . .
See also “The Problems with Peer Review” at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/.
“Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals”
By Richard Smith
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr; 99(4): 178–182.
So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.
Hoaxes and Propaganda via Major Media to Promote the Theory of Evolution and Societal EVOLUTION towards World Government and Collective “Intelligence”
From what I can see, the play Inherit the Wind (was promoted in my high school in Canada) and the movie Inherit the Wind are biased propaganda because of their totally inaccurate portrayal of the events and personalities surrounding the Scopes Monkey Trial. The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial confirms that the public believes these fictional accounts are portrayals of actual history. Creationists present a totally different account of events, e.g. http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/scopes.htm, http://www.themonkeytrial.com/. This is an example of how are society is guided by propaganda. Part of that is to present a false choice between a particular version of creation and the theory of evolution, and to demonize those, UNFAIRLY, such as Christians, who believe that human beings have a special status in the eyes of God. That doesn’t suit the designs of slave masters. It’s just an observable fact that the theory of evolution has been shoved in my face since I was a child by the public school system and media–and with the very minimum of “evidence”, if any at all. Many will react against what I’m saying here, but I think a few readers will recognize that validity of my point.
By the way, someone can agree with or admire aspects of Darrow or Mencken without condoning hoaxes and propaganda, or admire Bryan without being a Christian socialist. We don’t need to take one “side” or the “other side” as if there are “sides”. We have to look at the facts and think for ourselves.
For more information about the weak arguments and how bad “evidence” for evolution is left in textbooks for decades, I recommend Ian Taylor’s book In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order. See http://canadianliberty.com/?p=11782 and http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/index.htm.
The theory of evolution has been promoted constantly since T. H. Huxley, Aldous Huxley’s grandfather, also because I believe it promotes concepts such as survival of the fittest and that society and man are also evolving in some way collectively and naturally, as if some natural process is guiding societal developments instead of the deliberate plans of human elites, that things are always getting “better”, that our nature is always supposedly changing. And maybe it is as we are affected by toxins of various kinds. And Charles Galton Darwin–related to the Huxleys–openly writes about using hormones in The Next Million Years (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=12667). And what are we eating? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogens).
For a relatively recent example, see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/, Scientific American “How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology” [Excerpt from Flying Dinosaurs: How Fearsome Reptiles Became Birds,by John Pickrell.], 15 November 2014
This article explains how National Geographic, in 1999, promoted a fake fossil that supposedly was a missing link between dinosaurs and birds.
Archaeoraptor was soon dubbed the ‘Piltdown bird’ and the ‘Piltdown chicken’ by the press, in reference to the biggest fossil hoax of all time, in which faked remains of putative early hominids were dug up from Piltdown in England in 1912.
Ian Taylor describes the Piltdown Hoax in his book. See
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMh08.htm#TaylorIMMhT_PiltdownMan. Taylor notes the involvement of Teilhard de Chardin:
Just as the disagreement appeared to be leading to acrimony, Father Teilhard de Chardin, from a local Jesuit seminary, found one of the missing canine teeth on the same site, and this quickly settled the argument. . .
. . . But just who was the hoaxer? As with the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays, this may forever remain the butt of speculation, but today suspicion is cast on either of two men. Both lived near the Piltdown site, both had the opportunity to acquire the fossil parts, particularly the jaw, since the ape was not native to the British Isles, and, more significantly, both had the special anatomical knowledge. The Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is one popular suspect (Gould 1979)and, rather surprisingly, Arthur Conan Doyle is the other (Winslow and Meyer 1983). . . .
COINCIDENTALLY, UNESCO chief Julian Huxley promoted the unorthodox mystical works of Teilhard de Chardin, although Huxley claimed not to have the same beliefs. And what did Teilhard de Chardin teach? He taught his Omega Point theory, which is all about man gradually evolving culturally, socially and spiritually towards an ideal society. See the collection of essays by Julian Huxley in Evolutionary Humanism (1992, Prometheus Books. Originally published as Essays of a Humanist by Harper & Row in 1964). See my comments at http://canadianliberty.com/?p=17056.
The Omega Point doctrine is described here:
The Omega Point is a spiritual belief that the universe is evolving toward a higher level of material complexity and consciousness. The term was coined by the French Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955). Teilhard argued that the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos, namely Christ, . . .
The Phenomenon of Man (Le phénomène humain, 1955) is a book written by the French philosopher, paleontologist and Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. In this work, Teilhard describes evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity, culminating in the unification of consciousness. . . .
. . . In Teilhard’s conception of the evolution of the species, a collective identity begins to develop as trade and the transmission of ideas increases. Knowledge accumulates and is transmitted in increasing levels of depth and complexity. This leads to a further augmentation of consciousness and the emergence of a thinking layer that envelops the earth. Teilhard calls the new membrane the “noosphere” (from the Greek “nous”, meaning mind), a term first coined by Vladimir Vernadsky. The noosphere is the collective consciousness of humanity, the networks of thought and emotion in which all are immersed. . . .
There is more in the following article, “Teilhard de Chardin and Transhumanism” by Eric Steinhart in the Journal of Evolution and Technology – Vol. 20 Issue 1 –December 2008 – pgs 1-22: http://jetpress.org/v20/steinhart.htm:
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was among the first to give serious consideration to the future of human evolution. His work advocates both biotechnologies (e.g., genetic engineering) and intelligence technologies. He discusses the emergence of a global computation-communication system (and is said by some to have been the first to have envisioned the Internet). He advocates the development of a global society. Teilhard is almost surely the first to discuss the acceleration of technological progress to a Singularity in which human intelligence will become super-intelligence. . . .
Again with the Huxleys, Julian Huxley promoted transhumanism. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism:
The biologist Julian Huxley is generally regarded as the founder of transhumanism, after he used the term for the title of an influential 1957 article. (The term itself, however, derives from an earlier 1940 paper by the Canadian philosopher W. D. Lighthall.) Huxley describes transhumanism in these terms:
Up till now human life has generally been, as Hobbes described it, ‘nasty, brutish and short’; the great majority of human beings (if they have not already died young) have been afflicted with misery… we can justifiably hold the belief that these lands of possibility exist, and that the present limitations and miserable frustrations of our existence could be in large measure surmounted . . . The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself — not just sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in another way, but in its entirety, as humanity.
So you see the concept of humanity “evolving” towards a collective global identity which includes the idea of a world government. This has already been happening to us. And on top of that, there is supposed to be created some kind of controlling network of super-intelligence. Besides human intelligence agencies, I believe this ultimately refers to the Internet and whatever it is designed to become–see my commentary on The Net: http://canadianliberty.com/?p=13273.
These ideas of a collective, guiding “intelligence” are clearly described and promoted also in his non-fiction work The Open Conspiracy by Fabian author H. G. Wells. See http://canadianliberty.com/?p=1511, and also in A Brief History of the Future by European Banker and French government adviser Jacques Attali. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_the_Future#Hyperdemocracy.
Also note that even the UN Agenda 21 document from 1992 implies a vast public-private effort of data collection, cataloging and surveillance over all resources (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=23243). For whatever reason, since then, we have these systems called “Google Earth” and “Google Street View.”
There is a lot more that can be said about “Smart Meters”, “Smart Cities”, “Internet of Things” and “Smart Dust” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartdust and http://canadianliberty.com/?p=23243). A lot of planning and insanity frankly goes into setting yourself up as GOD.
Credits for Research Leads and some concepts (no endorsement implied):
5) Some concepts in David Livingstone’s interviews. See http://www.conspiracyschool.com/ and http://www.gnosticmedia.com