Eugenics, Fourth Industrial Revolution & the Clash of Two Systems Pt 3

Written by strategic-culture.org on June 3, 2021. Posted in Current News

As I outlined in my previous article on the Clash of the Two Systems, the end of the 19^th century saw a major clash between two opposing paradigms of political economy which has largely been scrubbed out of history books.

Just like today, the two opposing systems were characterized on the one hand, by a demand for centralized control of the world by a unipolar elite yearning to stand above the influence of sovereign nation states like modern gods of Olympus, while the other was premised on a “multipolar” design of a community of sovereign nation states working together on large scale infrastructure and technological progress.

One was premised on closed system Malthusian economic standards of adapting to diminishing returns while the other was founded upon standards of ongoing scientific progress generating creative leaps out of the constraints of limited resource baskets.

Today I would like to continue to trace the roots of those poisonous ideas which characterize today’s unipolar paradigm which masquerades behind a billionaire-authored “Great Reset” of world civilization. In this reset, we are told by the likes of Klaus Schwab that a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” will usher in not only vast automation and Artificial Intelligence operations at every level of society, but also a merging of humanity with machines.

Figures like Elon Musk and Google’s Ray Kurzweil assert this merging is needed in order to “stay relevant” in the next phase of our evolution. Davos-man Yuval Harari echoed that the levers of evolution will now be moved from the randomness of nature into the new gods running Google, Facebook and the WEF.

This Borg-like deterministic faith in the human-machine synthesis that pervades the thinking of all modern transhumanists is both cultish, creepy and just plain wrong. However, without a proper evaluation into the historic roots of these ideas that threaten to derail global civilization into a dystopian collapse, it is impossible to understand anything fundamental about the past 120 years of human experience, let alone see where the fatal flaws are within the Great Reset/Transhumanist operating system.

In part one of our series, we explored the eugenics-roots of transhumanism in some detail with a focus on Julian Huxley’s creation of UNESCO where the mandate to “make the unthinkable become thinkable” guided the restoration of a new eugenics during the Cold War.

In part two, we explored the rise of a new array of 19^th century British think tanks designed to disrupt the natural evolution of a new system of win-win cooperation during the end of the 19^th century. This new grand design was innovated by Thomas Huxley’s X Club in order to re-establish the British Empire as the only unipolar power on the earth.

Huxley’s design attempted to not only unify all branches of sciences under one descriptive model devoid of any actual creative discovery, but also attempted to use this new control of the definition of “scientific natural law” to justify an aggressive new imposition of imperial political economy onto the world.

The Dance of Math and Physics: Who Leads and Who Follows?

In the opening months of the new century, a major event took place that went far to apply Huxley’s mission. The Future of Mathematics Conference of August 1900 was a global event attracting over 160 of the greatest mathematicians who wished to tackle cutting edge problems in science and deal with the relationship of physics and mathematics. Obviously, these two fields danced together, but the question remained: which would lead and which would follow?

Considering the fact that the world population still numbered well below two billion at this time, the density of scientific discoveries across all domains was occurring at a rate unseen in human history. From new discoveries in biology, embryology, atomic physics, electromagnetism, aerodynamics and chemistry, the answer to the math vs physics question was increasingly becoming obvious.

The fact was that the growth of human knowledge was fast outpacing the limits of the mathematical language used by scientists. With time, new mathematical systems would be developed to describe the new creative discoveries being made, but no one could deny that creative thought was leading in this dance. What was also undeniable was the dramatic benefit that new ideas had to improve the conditions of countless lives through leaps in scientific and technological progress.

Hilbert and Russell Shape a New Paradigm

Two particularly important figures who played leading roles in sabotaging science during the 1900 Paris Conference and whose ideas are inextricably linked to the later evolution of eugenics, cybernetics and transhumanism were Cambridge Apostle Lord Bertrand Russell and Gottingen mathematician David Hilbert.

The duo aimed at nothing less than the reduction of the entire universe into a series of finite, internally consistent mathematical propositions and axioms.

During the 1900 conference, Hilbert announced his 23 problems for mathematics that would need to be solved by mathematicians of the 20^th century. While many of these problems were genuinely important, the most destructive for the purpose of this article centered around the need to “prove that all axioms of arithmetic are consistent” [problem 2] and “axiomatize those physical sciences in which mathematics plays an important role” [problem 6].

It took 13 years for Russell to achieve this objective in the form of his Principia Mathematica (co-authored with his former instructor and fellow Cambridge Apostle Alfred North Whitehead).

The name “Principia Mathematica” was chosen explicitly as an homage to Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” published 200 years earlier. At the time of the 1900 launch of the Russell-Hilbert project, both Euclid and Newton’s flat interpretations of physical space time were quickly crumbling with the advent of new discoveries by Riemann, Curie, Weber, Planck and Einstein who were all demonstrating that the shape of physical space time had a living, creative character.

With each creative discovery, a reciprocal interconnectedness between the “subjective” inner space of human cognition and the “objective” outer space of the discoverable universe was ever more firmly established.

Exemplifying this beautiful insight and passion to seek the unknown which was common among great scientists during this fertile revolutionary period, Einstein stated: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details”.

Reflecting this same view in his own way, Max Planck stated “Science enhances the moral value of life, because it furthers a love of truth and reverence—love of truth displaying itself in the constant endeavor to arrive at a more exact knowledge of the world of mind and matter around us, and reverence, because every advance in knowledge brings us face to face with the mystery of our own being.”

Closed System Entropy Must Define the Universe!

Russell’s closed system entropic mathematics was a direct reflection of his misanthropic view of an entropy-destined humanity which can explicitly be seen in his 1903 statement:

“That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand… Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”

When pondering which set of metaphysical views has greater claim to truth featured above, it is worth asking the question: Who actually made demonstrable discoveries into creation and who merely formulated ivory tower models devoid of any actual element of discovery?

Part of the formula for success in Russell’s mind hinged on his obsession with mathematical equilibrium in all things. When applied to society, it was no wonder that Russell was a devout Malthusian and life long promoter of eugenics and population control. One of his many displays of this disgusting view was made in his 1923 Prospects of Industrial Civilization where the social engineer stated:

“Socialism, especially international socialism, is only possible as a stable system if the population is stationary or nearly so. A slow increase might be coped with by improvements in agricultural methods, but a rapid increase must in the end reduce the whole population to penury… the white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence…

Until that happens the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.”

Russell’s later writings in The Scientific Outlook (1930) extend his views of a stationary global society onto educational reform where he defines the need to have not one, but two separate modes of education: one for the elite master class who will become rulers and one for the inferior slave class. Russell outlines the two castes in the following cold-blooded terms:

“The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researchers of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play….

All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called `co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.”

For the ruling class: “Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world State and to their own order,” Russell explained, “members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific technique, and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements.”

All of Russell’s later writings promoting pre-emptive nuclear bombings of Russia, World Government run by a scientific dictatorship and teaching children to believe that “snow is black” must be read with his racist philosophical worldview in mind.

Norbert Wiener and the Rise of Cybernetics

In 1913, as Russell’s third and final volume of the Principia Mathematica was being printed, a young mathematics protégé arrived at Cambridge from the USA on a scholarship. This teenager’s name was Norbert Wiener and he soon found himself among a small group of boys closely mentored by Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert. Under Russell, Wiener was taught logic and philosophy while Hilbert taught him differential equations.

Speaking of Russell, Wiener said: “when I came to study under Bertrand Russell in England, I learned that I had missed almost every issue of true philosophical significance”. He called Hilbert “the one really universal genius of mathematics”.

Throughout his entire life, Wiener was possessed by the obsession to express Russell’s logical closed system in practical ways.

Despite the fact that a young Leibnizian genius named Kurt Gödel threw a major wrench into Russell’s Principia program through his brilliant 1931 demonstration that no logical system could ever be truly consistent with itself due to the self-reflexive nature of all existent systems, Russell pushed forward with the project full force and Wiener was Russell’s leading apostle.

Other Russellites whose theories of machine learning included such names as Alan Turing, Oskar Morgenstern, Claude Shannon and John von Neumann. While each mathematician had their own particular innovation to offer, they were all united by the unwavering faith that a human mind was a mixture of bestial impulses guided by closed-system machine logic and nothing more.

In a computer, the whole is but the sum of parts, and so too must it be in all information systems including human brains, ecosystems and the universe as a whole. “Metaphysical” principles like soul, purpose, God, justice and free will had no place in the minds of these human calculators.

By the end of WW2, Wiener’s work on feedback loops in aeronautics and radar led the mathematician to devise a new language for managing complex human systems which he soon discovered had application in business, military affairs and entire nations. The term he gave this new tool of control was “cybernetics”. Describing his invention, Weiner stated:

“Cybernetics, which I derived from the Greek word Kubernetes, or steersman, the same Greek word from which we eventually derive our word governor”.

By relying on binary closed system computer machines as his model for human minds, Weiner demanded that metaphysical concepts be assumed to have no existence beyond the merely physical characteristics of the measurable electrochemical properties of the brain.

Describing this computer- mind analog, Weiner stated: “It became clear to us that the ultra rapid computing machine, depending as it does on consecutive switching devices must represent almost an ideal model of the problems arising in the nervous system” and that “the problem of interpreting the nature and varieties of memory in the animal has its parallel in the problem of constructing artificial memories for the machine.”

Cybernetics for Global Governance

Forecasting the inevitability of systems of global information control (and thus total political control by a god like governing class) as well as artificial intelligence, Weiner wrote: “where a man’s word goes and where his power of perception goes, to that point his control and in a sense his physical existence is extended. To see and to give commands to the whole world is almost the same as being everywhere.”

The key to understanding the attraction of cybernetics to a scientific dictatorship desirous of total omniscience and omnipotence is the following: In the context of a large boat, only the helmsman need have an idea of the whole. Everyone else need only understand their local compartmentalized role.

With the application of cybernetics to the organization of economic systems (as carried forth by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developments’ Sir Alexander King and applied across governments of the trans Atlantic during the 1960s and 1970s), vast complex bureaucracies emerged with only small nodes of “helmsmen” embedded within the newly emerging deep state complex who had access to a vision of the whole. This was the perfect operating system for a supranational technocracy to use to control the levers of the New World Order.

This is taken from a very long article. Read the rest here: strategic-culture.org

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.