Continued from Part 1
Reviewing the links contained in this article:

Wikipedia article on The X Club:

“The X Club was a dining club of nine men who supported the theories of natural selection and academic liberalism in late 19th-century England. Thomas Henry Huxley was the initiator: he called the first meeting for 3 November 1864…

“… its members are believed to have wielded much influence over scientific thought. The members of the club were George Busk, Edward Frankland, Thomas Archer Hirst, Joseph Dalton Hooker, Thomas Henry Huxley, John Lubbock, Herbert Spencer, William Spottiswoode, and John Tyndall …

“… After Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, the men began working together to aid the cause for naturalism and natural history. They backed the liberal Anglican movement that emerged in the early 1860s, and both privately and publicly supported the leaders of the movement…

“…A key aim was to reform the Royal Society, with a view to making the practice of science professional. In the 1870s and 1880s, the members of the group became prominent in the scientific community and some accused the club of having too much power in shaping the scientific landscape of London…

“…Between 1870 and 1878, Hooker, Spottiswoode, and Huxley held office in the Royal Society simultaneously, and between 1873 and 1885, they consecutively held the presidency of the Royal Society…

“…Five members of the Club held the presidency of the British Association for the Advancement of Science between 1868 and 1881. Hirst was elected president of the London Mathematical Society between 1872 and 1874 while Busk served as Examiner and eventually President of the Royal College of Surgeons. Frankland also served as President of the Chemical Society between 1871 and 1873….”

So Huxley and the X Club worked hard to promote the theory of evolution in society, even via the Church. The article mentions how they wanted to make the main scientific institution into a professional body. So doesn’t that ensure more uniformity of thought? Since all the respected scientists eventually become paid by very rich people with agendas and by tax money?

So they just do what they’re told and go along. And so we have this amazing world today of uniformity and compliance, in which scientists work for governments and the Military Industrial Complex, and the big Foundations who fund academic research.

Not to mention professional journalists too and the scientists who promote man-made climate change “science” for example. Whether or not evolution is correct, I mean it’s very convenient if your argument is based on how “professional” you are, meaning how much your living depends on you conforming to those in power, and how quickly you take over the major points of influence in society. Are your ideas valid? Or are you just keeping your job? Are you just part of the machine?

That way those with more power make sure their message is heard in society. And evolution is not just a biological theory. It’s loaded with implications about our status as human beings (just another animal?), and also about the idea of “progress” and being made to accept technological, political and social changes in society in the name of “evolution”, changes that are already being planned and made by those with the most power.

This is the implication of the idea of “survival of the fittest”. If you take that to it’s limit, it becomes those with power deserve to have power, and so everything they say through their propaganda becomes true and real. And disobeying the government or going against established ideas would just become unthinkable for most people as society “evolves” into supposed perfection.