Huxley argues that “over-population” is a threat to freedom
Huxley, writing in the late 1950s, hypes his allegation that “over-population” is the “biological enemy of freedom” (17). He refers to “over-population” as an “indirect threat” or “menace” to freedom (11). He reasons that population increase will make freedom and democracy “impossible” and lead to dictatorial government (8).
In discussing this, he refers to The Next Hundred Years by Professors Harrison Brown, James Bonner and John Weir (1957) (9).
Huxley’s hand-waving reasoning is that “over-population” causes “economic insecurity and social unrest.” Because of rebellion, the government “must” “intervene” to preserve its “authority.” Unrest supposedly leads to “more control” by government (10). When times are bad economically, the government is “forced” to adopt greater powers; it “must” work out plans for handling the problems; and it “must impose” “restrictions” upon the activities of its “subjects (10).”
His supposed reasoning is just a string of hand-waving assumptions about the legitimacy of government and its authority. And that is how he weakly connects population and dictatorship. His book is supposed to be warning us about dictatorship, but Huxley is focused on population. Ironically, the fictional Brave New World (BNW) dictatorship is based on controlling the population.
Propaganda about Population: Hype and Emotional Rhetoric
Much of Huxley’s book is about propaganda techniques, so he knows how to use these himself.
He hypes “over-population” as a “dehumanizing” force (22) even though there is a logical contradiction with calling an increase in humans “dehumanizing.” Crowded cities and prisons can be dehumanizing. War is dehumanizing. However, where is the PROOF that the vast, empty spaces of this planet are “dehumanizing” (empty?), “over-populated”, or even lacking in resources? Deliberate policies have had the effect of HERDING human beings into crowded cities all these years. Listening to lies and being herded is dehumanizing.
Huxley uses emotion-laden adjectives to paint a picture of the population “problem” being “grim” and “becoming graver” (7). He uses the word “menacingly” (7). He talks about how “over-population” supposedly threatens natural resources, society’s stability and “well-being,” and how it is “the central problem of mankind (7).”
So the “central problem of mankind” is not nuclear weapons in his mind, at least with this book. And it is not officials running around doing evil to other people–such as forced sterilization, sending native children to residential schools or sending young people off to war. Speaking of nuclear weapons, one of Huxley’s relations, Charles Galton Darwin, who had the same beliefs as Huxley about population and eugenics, was, according to public biographies, involved with the Manhattan Project.
As with his brother Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley refers openly to his “scientific” eugenics beliefs (13, 14)–even though BNW is all about applied eugenics. These are the type of people who created the tax-funded United Nations and run the tax-funded universities.
He summarizes how the non-elite classes in his novel BNW were deliberately created (not born normally) to be mentally inferior. Moreover, they were constantly distracted by entertainment and drugs.
Even though the BNW dictatorship he “warns” us about includes the ultimate eugenics policies, Huxley complains (13) that breeding in the 1950s is unregulated and would lead to the majority being of “biologically poorer quality” (14) because of improvements in sanitation, etc.
Regulating reproduction has nothing to do with freedom, and yet Huxley pretends to be defending freedom.
He goes on and on, making his Fabian view of things very clear, arguing that the “health of the general population” may worsen because of supposed genetic flaws. Huxley wrote this in the 50s, but now the media hits us hard with news stories containing the same type of vague references to “genetic” flaws backed by the supposed “authority” of doctors and scientists.
Repeat, repeat, repeat– until we believe. What do we know? Whatever the media and appointed experts tell us. Whatever makes a good scare story and lets the social engineers take charge of everything–including our right and ability to have children.
Huxley presents a quotation from another eugenics believer, Dr. W. H. Sheldon (14), who argues that the failure to regulate reproduction was the cause of an alleged IQ drop since the early 1900s. If there was an IQ drop, this is likely a false explanation. What about industrialized food? It is good to recognize the other explanations for health problems–body and mind–before we are bombarded with more and more genetics propaganda. The novel Brave New World is all about reducing the IQ of the majority. Handing the elite more power to sterilize us–like they do in the Third World–is not going to improve our IQ or make us healthier.
We are not going to have a better world with “zero growth” and “zero carbon”– with less energy and more rationing of resources. We are being lied to. It is nonsensical to believe there is going to be less suffering in such a world.
Huxley’s Hopelessness and Lying “Freedom” Policies
Huxley, writing in the 1950s, says there is still some freedom left, and he claims to value freedom, saying that “without freedom,” we can’t be “fully human,” and therefore freedom is “supremely valuable (122).”
And then in the last paragraph of Revisited, he frames the whole situation in hopeless and misleading terms:
Perhaps the forces that menace freedom are too strong to be resisted for very long. It is still our duty to do whatever we can to resist them.”
“Resist” means to follow his policy prescriptions–which lead to tyranny.
The same attitude of despair combined with strange and confusing messages is presented in Huxley’s novel Brave New World: The two so-called rebels failed to make much headway before they were caught. They didn’t seem too motivated or unified in the first place. Then they were exiled to an island, which would be a relief for them or anyone else. And the part with the “Savage” at the end became very weird and sadistic. The End.
And generations of us are exposed to Huxley’s novel, Orwell’s novels and similar science fiction.
Huxley can’t help himself from presenting a long list of Orwellian oxymoronic “solutions” for “freedom”. There is a whole chapter on “educating for freedom (101).” In addition, he has the nerve to string together the phrase “social organization for freedom.” Then there is “birth control for freedom (113).” And let’s not forget “legislation for freedom (113).”
“Legislation for freedom” should go against common sense. Nobody in the public–or media that “informs” us–reads legislation. They just repeat the story-telling justifications behind the laws they announce. Those who control the legislatures take advantage of an opportunity that empowers government and undermines our rights, granting governments new powers of search, seizure and arrest–and new spying powers, and so on.
The new laws are becoming cartoonish, but what about all of the laws that have been passed year after year for decades? If they keep trying to ban nutritional supplements–as unpopular and in-your-face as that–ask yourself what else have they done? With each new law, governments become stronger and more integrated with the private international oligarchy that Huxley acknowledges, and the rest of us become weaker with respect to our legal status and choices in life–including our individual control over resources.
Birth Control Policies
Because of his way of reasoning, Huxley concludes that the “birth rate” of “industrially backward societies” needs to be reduced urgently (116). Who has the right to decide that? Reduced by whom? By the way, have Western countries become “industrially backward” also?
“We are given two choices–famine, pestilence and war on the one hand, birth control on the other (115)”.
That’s how he frames birth control. Which will it be? War, famine, disease, or “birth control” procedures? Honestly, I think most people, especially in the Third World perhaps, but more and more in the First World also, receive quite a dose of all of these.
Huxley’s 1930s novel Brave New World refers to one segment of the female population using birth control while another segment was sterile.
In Brave New World Revisited, Huxley refers to “The Pill”, saying that it has “not yet been invented (115).” Revisited was published in 1958. According to Wikipedia (accessed July 31, 2014), the FDA approved “Enovid 10 mg for contraceptive use” on June 23, 1960. The Pill had already been “in general use for three years” because it had been approved for “menstrual disorders” on June 10, 1957.
Huxley wants people who “ought” to take it to be “persuaded to change their minds (116).” So this is a policy that was already decided by authoritarians like Huxley even though he claims to not know about this drug–just the marketing nickname “the Pill.” Logically it is going to have some impact on a woman’s body, so there were potentially many reasons for individuals to not like it. Even without access to health and safety information (presumably), Huxley still insists on pushing the Pill on those who “ought” to take it.
Huxley, in advance, characterizes and stigmatizes those who may not think it is a good idea. He refers to “social customs and the forces of cultural and psychological inertia.” It would have been better if people had been able to convey doubts and arguments across cultural and religious barriers. Instead, we have been carried along by one-sided elite propaganda ever since.
Gradually, because of changes in society, including economic changes (or eugenics signals) that push both parents into the workforce, it seems like more and more people are discouraged from starting families. I think we are being “persuaded” to have fewer children via these changes.
Conservation Policies: Food and Other Resources
The elite are just grabbing up all the resources–under Agenda 21 (“sustainable development”) especially–by promising to “save us” from countless problems in exchange for us handing over whatever property rights we have. We are to exchange whatever independence we have, along with the right to control our own lives–our birthright–for a bowl of pottage. Saving us is about blaming us. They let us stew in our propaganda-induced guilt-trips for being human: having babies, eating food, producing waste, etc.
Huxley claims that the growing population in the 1950s was putting pressure on “natural resources (115).” According to him, we should, as quickly as possible, “reduce the birth rate to the point where it does not exceed the death rate (115).”
Huxley claims the world is malnourished (7). This God-like entity–this elite group of special managers–arises to look upon the world. And lo, it perceives that many people are malnourished. Why not blame the Second World War or the Korean War? Why not blame the communist dictatorships? And what about the wars by colonial powers to fight rebellions in the 50s?
All of these would be more direct causes of human suffering and disruptions to the food supply, but never mind all that. This elite group represented by Huxley will just blame ordinary people, claiming that we are ignorant and do not know how to grow food or conserve soil.
The supposed experts have arrived and they are here to “educate” us about everything we do.
Huxley goes on about the “backward societies that are now trying to industrialize. If they succeed, who is to prevent them, in their desperate efforts to catch up and keep up, from squandering the planet’s irreplaceable resources . . . (117)” as the First World supposedly did also.
All of the points in this hyped up fear-mongering statement should be questioned.
What resources are “irreplaceable”? How much is there? How much of the rhetoric we have heard all of these years has any validity? It is just hypocrisy. A particular group of elites shoots off all the munitions they want all these years, and then they set up their “left-wing” (as if it’s separate) to lecture us about how we should let some authoritarians decide how they are going to ration resources. They have no right to lecture us, or tax us, or ration out our resources through their institutions.
In any case, Huxley’s slurs are mostly directed against the Third World: “backward”, “desperate”, “squandering”.
Huxley paints a picture of blame directed at the lowly serfs and provides the excuse to interfere and dominate while pretending to be humanitarian and concerned about conservation. Nowadays corporations and governments say they love the Earth. Of course they say that. That’s the agenda.
What is not on their agenda? Never mind civil liberties. Never mind privacy. Never mind rights and freedoms. Put all your data on the “Cloud.” Scan our bodies at airports. What about all the endless wars and the spreading of depleted uranium all over?
The brainwashing is complete and the “Earth” comes first now even as lip service–way ahead of human beings and their natural rights.
Huxley says there is a “race between human numbers and natural resources” and “time is against us”.
He means there needs to be CONTROL over the world. It’s a race in his mind to keep people from getting out of control. It’s not about freedom at all.
Huxley alleges that soil mineral content is being “squandered” by poor farmers (6). He claims the earth is “wounded and exhausted” (117).
Every culture knew how to produce food for thousands of years one way or another. They know–unless they’ve forgotten because of interference–what works best for their climate, their soil and lifestyle. Those who farmed already knew how to manage their soil. Huxley’s allegations are just story-telling in order to justify imposing standardized systems of food production on the world.
He says we must “increase food production” and create a “world-wide policy for conserving our soils and our forests (115).” He also asks, “Who is going to educate the human race in the principles and practice of conservation? (116).”
How can there be an elite group of “educators” for the “human race”! Why does everything have to be standardized and managed by a central group? We are supposed to believe it is just well-meaning idealism.
Huxley claims there will be “improved strains of food plants and domestic animals.” Who decides what needs “improved” and what “improved” means? Local people can determine themselves what natural strains work best and what makes for the best food supply.
If you are going to produce something you claim is “better” and ethically legitimate, then do not go to the government to pressure the government to make it “OK”. You give your potential customers–the farmers, or grocers and consumers–all the information and prove it to them. Let them decide if they want it. If it turns out to be harmful or dubious in one way or another, people will seek justice and they will throw it back in your face. And then you can run off back home to do something more productive. That is how it should be. That would be the “free market” some people talk about. That does not exist.
Is Huxley’s policy of “improved strains” a way to create plants that require specific fertilizers and pesticides? Is this a monopoly strategy to create dependency on central sources of supply? This whole strategy culminated in genetic modification of crops. Now we are even more in a position of ignorance and “trust” about what goes into our food.
Who suddenly has the authority to decide that “we” must “increase food production”?
People can solve their own problems in their area if they are left alone. But they are never left alone–not by their governments and not by the UN.
Aldous Huxley barely mentions, if at all, the United Nations in Revisited, but he is implying this new level of intervention in the world by unelected administrators such as at the UN.
What right does any group suddenly have to mandate a “world-wide policy” about anything? What gives any group the right to manage “our” forests and “our” soils?
What does he mean by “our”? Some mystical global collective consciousness? They want you to think so. It really means there is some elite authority that establishes itself over our minds–through institutions and media–as if the planet is a ship that needs a Star Trek Captain or an elite “Council” to steer us in some “direction” decided by them. And eventually they showed us a picture of “our” Earth from space to focus the attention.
The resources of a particular area naturally and logically belong to those who live there. They don’t belong to a group of elites posing as “we are the world.” If we refuse to believe that local people have a right to their own resources, then we end up accepting that “might makes right” and that the strong have the right to rule the weak. That is all there is to it.
It sounds so righteous for some group to be so concerned about the whole earth and running everyone’s life. This is imperialism. The rhetoric is an excuse for domination. And it starts with our minds which are already immersed in it.
These outside groups–empowered by tax-payers in the name of “development” and “aid”–or empowered by an effective story about “feeding the hungry”, “fighting communism” or “fighting terrorism”–insert themselves in a local area and interfere.
Here are some references that expose part of what has gone on all these years while we have been kept in the dark:
The Secret Team by L. Fletcher Prouty is partly about how the CIA helped establish a United States government presence all over the world–training people in the American way of running big government.
The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins presents an amazing picture of economic pressure and threats being applied to foreign governments so that they would build engineering projects they couldn’t afford, etc.
The Fog of War documentary tells you something about Robert McNamara’s World Bank activities. No need for “theories.” When was the last time you participated in a World Bank election?
I mentioned loss of property rights earlier. Huxley himself states that “power follows property (118).” Never mind “left” and “right”. That’s all fake. More and more property is brought under centralized control through “environmental” and other excuses as the power is drained away from regular people.
Huxley admits that the “means of production are fast becoming the monopolistic property of Big Business and Big Government” (117).
This agenda has escalated since he wrote this. One of its under-reported milestones is the 1992 UN Agenda 21 agreement, which is about the cataloging and surveillance of all resources on Earth. Click here or search the UN website.
Nowadays we have “Earth Hour”, courtesy of Julian Huxley’s World Wildlife Fund, which trains us to switch off the lights once a year. And this is certainly symbolic of what is expected of us.
Various unelected groups–backed by government legislation for “sustainable development” or “smart growth”–involve themselves in the planning of local municipalities, and designate land for “watersheds,” marshlands, “endangered species” and many other things. It is made to seem so holy, but it is just a power grab–physically, politically and spiritually. It is an imposition of a value system that has been gradually imposed on us. We take it for granted.
The problem is this idea of “planning”? Who is doing the planning? Someone else. Not you and me in most cases. We are not involved. We let other people run our lives. Private agencies are doing the planning, leading the local politicians, following instructions from higher levels of government, following the doctrines and legislation regarding “sustainable development.”
If we don’t know what that term means, then why are we letting it happen? Are children learning this ideology in school–while celebrating Earth Day? Then they are being raised to serve the system. And that system is an anti-human feudal class system of “earth first” and humans last, individual rights last, respect for human life last.
I don’t even bother calling it “socialism.” It is all socialism–plus a new kind of religion. We are immersed in it, and it’s not even the best word to use. The major parties are all part of it. “Left” and “right” does not exist at the top. That is all theater for our benefit. Central planning has been going on for years.
Some of the servants of this system are radicalized true believers. Others have been drawn in by the honey pot of taxpayers’ money. Since the older morality was neutralized, people become less resistant to opportunism and also more open to the new indoctrination that human beings (with lesser status they think) are some kind of pest.
The “God” of this world is the embryonic global State with its partner corporations. The daily messages we receive from this “God” direct us, remind us, distract us and help us make the expected adjustments.
Instead of central planning, we should be left alone to plan our own lives, our own resources and our own personal agendas. This world is completely different from what we are told to believe and completely different from what it should be.
These people like Huxley want this world to be standardized–as in the novel Brave New World. Huxley pretends to be against tyranny and for freedom, but in this 1950s non-fiction book he is laying out policies for global control–control over resources and food production, control over reproduction, and control over education.
For example, “education”–as a means to indoctrinate the whole world in “sustainable development”–is a big part of the final draft document at the 2012 UN meeting in Brazil–the 20th anniversary of Agenda 21. You can search for each instance of the word “education” in this document and read the context. (The sections on education are quoted here also.)
Value for value. If you appreciate this post, consider donating a small amount to encourage more research and commentary.