Bertrand Russell and the impact of science on society.
An intellectual aristocrat;
Russell is important because of the ideas he put down in writing
which would go on to influence modern globalists and the policy they create for the masses.
In short,
Bertrand Russell was a thinker for the New World Order,
an idea that his family had been dedicated to for who knows exactly how long.
This is from CatholicCulture.org
article called Bertrand Russell Prophet of the New World Order
In many ways,
what the Englishman Bertrand Russell stood for characterizes the idea and forces of the 20th century
which have emerged triumphant today.
Despite his reputation as a mathematician and philosopher of science;
Russell is known primarily for his work as a social philosopher
and an advocate of world peace.
Depending on your viewpoint,
he may have been one of the greatest peacemakers of the epoch or one of his greatest villains.
Bertrand Russell was born in 1872.
His public career began in 1900,
and spanned seven decades until he died in 1970.
He was a primary leader and spokesman for one of the great philosophical movements of the early century.
This movement consisted of physical and social scientists known as Positivists,
also known as the Vienna Circle.
Bertrand was the grandson of Lord John Russell,
a Prime Minister of Great Britain under Queen Victoria.
Bertrand's official title was Viscount Amberley,
the third Earl Russell.
He was also a popular author who wrote on a wide range of topics
such as culture, morality and politics.
《Text》THE IMPACT OF SCIENCE ON SOCIETY
The topic of this video is specifically one of his short books;
that has been cited and sourced by conspiracy researchers
before called The Impact of Science on Society.
In this work, Russell takes us on a journey through the mind of the globalists
and where they would like to see society go;
with an emphasis on the effects and impacts that science has and will have on culture, philosophy and freedom.
The overall thrust of the book depends upon the indoctrination of the masses.
Using science as a credible conduit to a world socialist
communist dictatorship;
ultimately ruled by an aristocratic elite
who have summarily subdued the masses;
taken away all rights and freedoms and replaced them with a totalitarian rule.
In a word, the New World Order.
I have a link in the description of this video to the book.
If you would like to download it and read it for yourself,
I highly recommend you do,
but I will be given a few quotes from it.
All the other sources will be cited in the description as well.
On page 6 Russell lays out the basis of the scientific worldview.
Out of the work of the great men of the 17th century a new outlook on the world was developed;
and it was this outlook,
not specific arguments,
which brought about the decay of the belief in portents,
witchcraft,
demonic possession and so forth.
I think there were three ingredients in the scientific outlook of the 18th century
that were specifically important.
Number 1;
Statements of fact should be based on observation,
not on unsupported authority.
Number 2;
The inanimate world is selfacting selfperpetuating system
in which all changes conform to natural laws.
Number 3;
The earth is not the center of the universe,
and probably Man is not its purpose if any;
moreover,
"purpose" is a concept which is scientifically useless.
So in number 1, he tells us to deny any supposed revelation of deity.
In number 2, he declares that naturalism is the scientific view.
And at number 3, he advocates stark nihilism
as a mature scientific perspective.
I thought that humans have inherent purpose as childish and should be tossed into the respective dust bit of history.
Regarding the philosophy of science, or the philosophy that an affinity with science may encourage;
Russell states on page 77;
The philosophy which has seemed appropriate to science has varied from time to time.
To Newton and most of his English contemporaries,
science seemed to afford proof of the existence of God
as the Almighty Lawgiver.
He had decreed the law of gravitation and whatever other natural laws had been discovered by Englishmen.
In spite of Copernicus, man was still the moral center of the universe,
and God's purposes were mainly concerned with the human race.
The more radical among the French philosophers,
being politically in conflict with the Church,
took a different view.
They did not admit that laws imply a lawgiver;
On the other hand,
they thought that physical laws could explain the human behavior.
This led them to materialism and denial of free will.
In their view,
the universe has no purpose and man is an insignificant episode.
The vastness of the universe impressed them and inspired in them a new form of humility
to replace that which atheism had made obsolete.
The point of view is well expressed in a little poem by Leopardi and expresses, more nearly
than any other known to me, my own feeling about the universe;
The poem is called The Infinite.
Dear to me always was this lonely hill >
And this hedge that excludes so large a part >
Of the ultimate horizon from my view. >
But as I sit and gaze, my thought conceives >
Interminable vastnesses of space >
Beyond it, and unearthly silences, >
And profoundest calm; whereat my heart almost >
Becomes dismayed. And as I hear the wind >
Blustering through these branches, I find myself >
Comparing with this sound that infinite silence; >
And then I call to mind eternity, >
And the ages that are dead, and this that now >
Is living, and the noise of it. And so >
In this immensity my thought sinks drowned: >
And sweet it seems to shipwreck in this sea. >
It's clear that Russell's view
is that humans are meaningless and unimportant to the higher order of the
"universe".
The reason this philosophy is so important to the New World Order is many.
But a few examples would be;
(1) Instill nihilism and hopelessness.
(2) Make people not believe in God therefore making it very easy to take away God given rights.
As Russell states on page 79;
Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways,
but the real task is to alter it.
From the point of view of technical philosophy;
this theory has been best developed by John Dewey,
who is universally acknowledged as Americas most eminent philosopher.
This philosophy has two aspects,
one thoretical and the other ethical.
On the theoretical side, it analyzes away the concept "truth",
for which it substitutes "utility".
It used to be thought that, if you believed Caesar crossed the Rubicon,
you believed truly, because Caesar did cross the Rubicon.
Not so, say the philosophers we are considering:
to say that your belief is "true"
is another way of saying that you will fnd it more proftable
than the opposite belief.
And so there it is.
The so called prestigious philosophers like John Dewey,
turning something noble and glorious like truth
into something as cold and sterile as mere utility.
In other words, whatever works, whatever gets the job done.
What's true today might not be true tomorrow.
The true essence of science
utilitarianism or pragmatism.
《Text》John Dewey shaped the modern American educational system.
In another one of Russell's works,
called The Scientific Outlook on page 77,
he admits the nature of science and the scientific method.
Induction;
All inductive arguments in the last resort
reduce themselves to the following form;
"If this is true, that is true;
now that is true, therefore this is true."
This argument is, of course, formally fallacious.
Suppose I were to say;
"If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing,
then this bread will nourish me;
now this bread does nourish me,
therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing."
If I were to advance such an argument;
I should certainly be thought foolish,
yet it would not be fundamentally different
from the arguments upon which all scientific laws are based.
On page 89 of Impact of Science on Society, Russell states;
And it is part of the scientific attitude;
that the pronouncements of science do not claim to be certain
but only to be the most probable on present evidence.
In his work called History of Western Philosophy,
speaking as a mathematician,
he admits about the nature of numbers on page 156 - 157.
Thus numbers are, in a certain precise sense, formal
The facts which verify various propositions
asserting that various collections each have two members,
have in common, not a constituent, but a form.
In this they differ from propositions about the Statue of Liberty, or the moon,
or George Washington.
Such propositions refer to a particular portion of space-time;
it is this that isin common between all the statements that can be made about the Statue of Liberty.
But there is nothing in common among propositions;
"there are two soand-so's" except a common form.
The relation of the symbol "two" to the meaning of a proposition in which it occurs
is far more complicated;
it's far more complicated than the relation of the symbol "red",
to the meaning of a proposition in which it occurs.
We may say, in a certain sense,
that the symbol "two" means nothing;
for, when it occurs in a true statement,
there is no corresponding constituent in the meaning of that statement.
We may continue if we like to say that numbers are eternal immutable and so on,
but we must add that they are logical fictions.
Basically, what he's saying is that numbers are symbols
of what they're attempting to represent.
Mathematics can do amazing things,
but it has limitations in the sense that it can't truly represent reality.
Many things we call scientific
numbers and theories that make them up
are based off mere fictions and abstractions.
How sure can we be that it always will be credible?
Perhaps scientific society isn't as rational
or as objective as it sounds.
On page 46, he talks about
how great science has been for tyrants.
People still shudder at the enormities of men like Caligula and Nero,
but their misdeeds fade into insignificance beside those of modern tyrants.
Except among the upper classes in Rome,
daily life was much as usual even under the worst emperors.
Caligula wished his enemies had but a single head;
now he would have envied Hitler
the scientific lethal chambers of Auschwitz!
Nero did his best to establish a spy system which would smell out traitors,
but a conspiracy defeated him in the end.
If he had been defended by the N.K.V.D.,
he might have died in his bed at a ripe old age.
These are a few of the blessings that science has bestowed on tyrants.
This reminds me of a Wernher von Braun quote;
"Science does not have a moral dimension.
It is like a knife.
If you give it to a surgeon or a murderer, each will use it differently."
To be clear, I'm all about science.
However, the aristocracy is in total control of it,
and they aim to use its doctrines to brainwash us
and use its discoveries to control us.
We have to be aware of this.
《Text》Wernher von Braun (Hero of the Apollo program and former SS Nazi)
Speaking of failed dictatorships, on page 50, Russell states;
In future such failures are not likely to occur
where there is dictatorship.
Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine;
from a very early age, to produce the sort of character
and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable;
and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become
psychologically impossible.
Even if all are miserable,
all will believe themselves happy,
because the government will tell them that they are so.
This book was published in the 1950's
and is clear that what Russell is saying has since come to pass.
The food we eat is controlled by just a few corporations,
all of which are tied into the aristocracy.
They poison us through diet, they poison our tap water with hormones, fecal, waste and fluoride.
They set up regulatory agencies like the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration,
to make sure everything is okay by them;
and make sure it harms us and poisons us,
submitting us to their medical inquisition.
It's clear what they prefer to use science and its many wonderful advancements for.
Some of what Russell advocates for in the book borders on transhumanism.
On page 28 he states;
When such methods of modifying the congenital behavior
of animals and plants have been pursued long enough to make their success obvious;
it is probable that there will be a powerful movement for applying scientific methods to human propagation.
There would at first be strong religious and emotional obstacles to the adoption of such a policy.
But suppose (say) Russia were able to overcome these obstacles;
and to breed a race stronger,
more intelligent, and more resistant
to disease than any race of men that has hitherto existed;
and suppose the other nations perceived
that unless they followed suit they would be defeated in war;
then either the other nations would voluntarily forgo their prejudices,
or, after defeat, they would be compelled to forgo them.
Russell is sure that if humans aren't controlled completely by a world government,
that we will surely destroy each other.
Because of the power that science will give us;
because we, the useless eaters, are incompetent and can't direct our own lives,
especially with added responsibility.
On page 76 of his work he states;
But if human life is to continue in spite of science,
mankind will have to learn a discipline of the passions which, in the past,
has not been necessary.
Men will have to submit to the law, even when they think the law unjust and iniquitous.
Nations which are persuaded that they are only demanding the barest justice
will have to acquiesce when this demand is denied them by the neutral authority.
I do not say that this is easy;
I do not prophesy that it will happen;
I say only that if it does not happen the human race will perish,
and will perish as a result of science.
If you think about it, science has been responsible for insurmountable pain, death and suffering.
The scientific advancements of the early 20th century resulted
in whole new types of warfare such as biological
mustard gas, Zyklon-B, and napalm;
and air warfare, planes flying above and bombing out entire cities and villages.
It's obvious that the aristocracy have used these advancements to their benefit
in relation to commerce and calling the population;
which Russell has been a very open advocate of in this and other writings.
The answer in Russell's mind is an all encompassing world government.
On page 26 he says;
Since war is likely to become more destructive of human life than it has been in recent centuries;
unification under a single government is probably necessary
unless we are to acquiesce in either a return to barbarism
or the extinction of the human race.
The fork tongued Russell also admits that war is the reason
for the massive modern state on page 63.
It is mainly war that has caused the excessive power of modern States;
and until the fear of war is removed,
it is inevitable that everything should be subordinated to short-term efficiency.
And propagandizing people into supporting scientific dictatorship.
With the sly mind control of labels,
Russell states on page 44.
A scientific oligarchy, accordingly, is bound to become what is called "totalitarian,"
that is to say, all important forms of power will become a monopoly of the State.
This monolithic system has sufficient merits to be attractive to many people,
but to my mind its demerits are far greater than its merits.
For some reason which I have failed to understand,
many people like the system when it is Russian
but disliked the very same system when it was German.
I am compelled to think that this is due to the power of labels;
these people like whatever is labeled "Left"
without examining whether the label has any justification.
In the early 20th century, it was with the presidency of Woodrow Wilson,
he being our first progressive president.
There was a massive leftist movement that continues to this day called the Progressive Movement.
Referring to the early 20th century politics, Russell states on page 45.
many progressives were taken in by an argument for a new kind of oligarchy.
"We, the progressives" — so runs the argument —
"are the wise and good;
we know what reforms the world needs;
if we have power, we shall create a paradise."
And so, narcissistically hypnotized by contemplation
of their own wisdom and goodness;
they proceeded to create a new tyranny, more drastic than any previously known.
《Text》If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it. - Edward Bernays -
One of the other ways which Russell advocates in his book is the use of educational propaganda.
On page 103 he states;
The nations which at present increase rapidly
should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which,
in the West, the increase of population has been checked.
Educational propaganda, with government help,
could achieve this result in a generation.
There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy;
one is religion, the other is nationalism.
I think it is the duty of all who are capable of facing facts,
to realize and to proclaim;
that opposition to the spread of birth control,
if successful,
must inflict upon mankind
the most appalling depth of misery and degradation;
and that within another fifty years or so.
In conclusion,
it's clear that Russell and other globalist thinkers have a common agenda and goal;
the aristocracy that run the think tanks and governments have a disdain for we the people,
the useless eaters.
They believe it's better to poison us, dumb us down,
subject us to corporate and financial servitude;
unbeknownst to us and lead us like lambs to the slaughter to the New World Order;
ultimately resulting in a reduction of the population by at least 90%,
probably more like 95%;
as a result of endless war, violence, drug abuse,
medical inquisition, stress, disease, inoculations,
vaccinations and sterilization.
These people need to be exposed and their globalist doctrine is completely rejected.
This is not a left or right issue.
You have to step out of the dialectic to understand this completely.
I encourage you to check out a couple more documents that will help you understand the aristocracy's plan for you.
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars
Changing Images of Man
The Scientific Outlook by Bertrand Russell
History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
Coming back to this CatholicCulture.org article;
we can read a little bit more about
Bertrand Russell's real mindset
behind his philosophical and scientific "views".
Here is a passage from a letter Russell sent to his friend Gilbert Murray,
which gives some insight into his tumultuous state of mind as a young man.
"I have been merely oppressed by the weariness,
tedium and vanity of things lately,;
nothing seems worth doing or having done.
The only thing that I strongly feel worthwhile would be to
murder as many people as possible.
So as to diminish the amount of consciousness in the world."
In the same melancholy mood Russell composed a letter
to Lady Ottoline Morrell.
Speaking about his inner motivation,
he wrote that he has had about all the self-repression he can stand;
and his words bring to mind the image of a venomous snake about to lash out at its victim.
"There is a fierce hate in me,
a hate that is also a well of life and energy;
it would not really be good if I ceased to hate…
I used to be afraid of myself and the dark side of my instinct,
but now I am not."
《Alan Watt》Now the Webbs were interesting people;
because Sidney Webb was such a bureaucrat used to put
the members of the Fabian Society to hypnotic
trance and sleep, a deep coma almost.
With his bureaucrats, he had a special language of his own
which he was cultivating for all bureaucrats were all familiar with some of it today because;
it's mentioned over television news stations quite frequently.
They actually do talk about like that amongst themselves, by the way.
But the Webbs
led off what appeared to be
the street left wing labor organization
to get the heritage they call the people;
at moving into the next stage of scientific era you see
a technological age.
And that was her job, was to con them and to get them to come along willingly,
thinking it was all on your behalf.
So,
here's a statement from Bertrand Russell's
autobiography about the Webb themselves,
just to let you know where these people really had their mind.
He said on page 115
of The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell.
He says: Both of them, the Webb,
were fundamentally undemocratic
and regarded it as a function of a statesman to bamboozle or terrorize the populace.
I realized the origins of Mrs. Webb's
conceptions of government when she repeated to me her father's description
of shareholders meetings.
It is the recognized function of directors to keep shareholders in their place.
And she had a similar view about the relation of the government to the electorate.
So that's the kind of people who led,
and still do, by the way, the Labor Party.
It's a con job over the working people
because I've never had one of their own in the top and it never will happen.
Their leaders are always supplied to them.
She goes on to talk about her father as Beatrice Webb.
Her father's stories of his career had not given her any undue respect for the great.
After he had built huts for the winter quarters of the French armies in the Crimea,
he went to Paris to get paid.
And from then, of course, he talks about him putting up his huts
and so on as I said before in the destroyed areas across the planet.
He was a Halliburton off his day. He had all the contracts from governments.
And that's where the Potter family obtained the masses of their wealth.
So these characters were anything but working class.
Bertrand Russell also mentions that they hated Ramsay McDonald,
who was the frontman for the Labor Party.
They had nothing in common with them since they came from an upper class.
And they were rather hostile to him since he was uncouth and unlearned, et cetera.
In other words, the Webb for incredibly snobbish,
which is very common in Britain.
Even the accent gives away
your education and your state you're actually
but it's your date of birth,
the level of that, it's a caste system.
It has so much in common with India,
because Britain, England has a caste system,
pretty well identical to that of India.
And it may be one day we'll find out that the high brahmins of India
are the same bloodlines of those that run Britain;
and I would be really surprised if that's the case.
So Bertrand Russell,
the Webb,
H. G. Wells,
and Wells tried to take over the Favian Society at one point
and the Webbs put them back in his place.
Wells was a manic depressive himself
and he played with drugs, et cetera.
He had the usual upper class problems with sexual relations.
He had to have his wife,
he had different wives and they had to
sign contracts that they would do certain things for him in a sexual manner;
and promised to keep their mouths shut if they ever got divorced.
So no doubt had various fetishes.
And perhaps when his wife was beating him
with the whip, maybe he thought of the working classes getting beaten. Who knows?
Something turned him to strange man on.
So we have these types of characters running the left and the right wing.
Now, people who want to read
Dr biographer, Dr Russell
should think for themselves as they read it.
Remember, there's much more information about well,
Bertrand Russell and his own autobiography.
You'll find another book, it's called,
this particular one is called;
《Link》"In the Minds of Men"
Excellent book.
The subtitle is "Darwin and the New World Order".
And that was written by Ian Taylor who's a scientist in Canada.
And he goes through much more of these particular characters;
who changed society, changed history,
created the fads that became thought as reality like Darwinianism.
Then he says in fact in his own book, this one here "In the Minds of Men",
commenting on Bertrand Russell, he said that
he said Margaret Mead.
Margaret Mead of course was put out there to push for
abortion and so on.
And actually she was more than just an abortion and she wanted to also
start sterilization processes
much like Margaret Sanger had done before her.
For the mentally I'm fit as they called them.
And of course once they have an IQ level
which they claim is appropriate and everybody says that's fine, I'm above that well of;
of course, like every other while they have in the book and change it,
expand it, and that would have been a horror show if that decided come to pass.
But Mead became the darling of all humanists such as Bertrand Russell,
in 1929;
and Havelock Ellis, who cited her work often to promote
their own ideas of sexual liberation.
Because this free sex is what they called it free love
was started in the 1800's
by these same aristocratic people
that they wanted the people to emulate.
They wanted to destroy the family unit.
In fact, the family unit was the last vestige
of power which would stand up collectively against
too much intrusion by an elite.
And so the family had to go.
Once that was destroyed,
then the state became supreme ruler
directly to the individual which we see today.
Many women now probably over half have single parent families
and there's generally social workers from the state
involved in their lives all the time;
concerning the reading of their children or removing off their children.
And this again was planned
and discussed freely by guys like Bertrand Russell back in the 1800's,
Margaret Mead and Havelock Ellis and so on.
So this is a big rich club you see, of rich elitists.
In Darwin and the Minds of Men,
it says Mead and Benjamin Spock.
Between them,
the pattern of North American charge rearing was radically changed;
and the fruits of their labors are now becoming evident in today's divorce statistics.
Mead born modest contribution to these statistics consisted of having three husbands
which would seem to refute the promise of a happy and graceful life.
She claims science showed to be possible with a liberated sexual lifestyle.
Ironically for both science and alleged happy life.
Meed, one of Americans leading scientists and a purported Christian,
died in 1978 in the arms of a psychic faith healer.
So another little clue that pops in down through the ages with feeding all these guys,
they're all Masons or eastern stars.
For the females, they all believe in the same
channeling experiences from entities
and the front
for Christian organizations that's their cover.
Bertrand Russell espoused the total Masonic doctrine
of evolution and great purpose behind it being a great power to grand architect of the universe;
and meet with into the fortune telling and tarot reading
and channeling, of course.
So these are the heroes who helped change society,
which they claimed was for the better.
So let's go back to another book of Bertrand Russell;
and this one is called
"The Impact of Science on Society".
This was a crisis, really,
on population control
on one level,
and it was also a treatise on
the methods of creating population control.
What we read here, this book was initially written or published, I believe in,
let me see, 1952.
This now is a good part of what became known
as the Earth Charter that Maurice Strong put forward.
And of course, it was one of the Rockefellers who actually wrote it for Maurice Strong.
But in reality, Bertrand Russell put all this stuff down in the 1950's.
He says;
Let us now bring together the conclusions;
which result from our inquiry into the various kinds of conditions
that a scientific society must fulfill if it is to be stable.
Now, he's talking about a society controlled by scientists,
a world run by experts.
He says;
First, as regards physical conditions.
Soil and raw materials must not be used up so fast;
that scientific progress cannot continually make good
the loss by means of new inventions and discoveries.
Scientific progress is therefore a condition, not merely of social progress,
but even of maintaining the degree of prosperity already achieved.
Given a stationary technique,
the raw materials that it requires will be used up in no very long time.
If raw materials are not to be used up too fast;
there must not be free competition
for their acquisition and use;
but an international authority to ration them
in such quantities as may from time to time seem compatible
with continued industrial prosperity.
And similar considerations apply to soil conservation.
Now here,
that which got written into the Earth's Charter
and then into the Agenda 21 from the UN Charter.
And then we find out that Bertrand Russell was writing at the 1950's.
And if you go back to his friend that he mentioned earlier,
his particular
friendship with,
let me see here,
John Stuart Mill, economist in the 1800's.
This is the same thing just reiterated over and over again. He had the plan made up in the 1800's.
To do exactly, that's what we're talking about here.
He goes on in The Impact of Science on Society, Bertrand Russell.
Second, as regards population.
If there is not to be a permanent and increasing shortage of food,
agriculture must be conducted by methods which are not wasteful of soil;
and increase of population must not outrun the increase in food production rendered possible by technical improvements.
At present neither condition is fulfilled.
The population of the world is increasing, and its capacity for food production is diminishing.
Such a state of affairs obviously cannot continue very long without producing a cataclysm.
Now, of course, that is all nonsense.
And if we go back even further to the 1700's,
where the precursor of John Stuart Mill
was that Malthus;
who also was an economist for the British East India Company, who dealt with the very same nonsense.
And there's always shouting
fear, fear, fear above Northwood,
and the population is just going out of proportions.
And he printed his book on population control.
This is Malthus,
2 years before the British did his first census.
He even quoted fake figures for his book, because that hasn't been done yet. The census, that is.
Back to the Impact of Science on Society, Bertrand Russell.
To deal with this problem it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population.
If this is to be done otherwise than by wars,
pestilences, and famines,
it will demand a powerful international authority.
My God, we do the same thing over and over, right?
This authority should deal out the world's food to the various nations
in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority.
If any nation subsequently increased its population
it should not on that account receive any more food.
The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling.
What method of preventing an increase might be preferred
should be left to each State to decide.
Each state in each country.
It's interesting that this, written in the 1950's, became
a part of Agenda 21 pretty well word for word;
which tells you this is an old plan run by the same people,
the same elite group down through the ages.
Bertrand Russell,
in applying winded here,
and it is a lot of cock pretty well by the way the things rehearsed here.
Okay, he goes on page 116 of
The Impact of Science on Society.
He says;
Are mere numbers so important that, for their sake,
we should patiently permit such a state of affairs to come about? Surely not.
What, then, can we do?
Apart from certain deep-seated prejudices, the answer would be obvious.
The nations which at present increase rapidly
should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which,
in the West, the increase of population has been checked.
"The increase of population has been checked." - I remember that
statement there, now how did they check the population increase in the west.
That, because it was at that time in the 1800's,
right through they started inoculations.
And if you follow the statistics of the British Medical Association;
we did careful follow ups and all those who were inoculated,
everybody who was inoculated against these particular diseases died of them.
That's how they checked the population increase.
I'll go on here.
Educational propaganda, with government help,
could achieve this result in a generation.
There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy;
one is religion, the other is nationalism.
I think it is the duty of all who are capable of facing facts
to realize and to proclaim;
that opposition to the spread of birth control,
if successful,
must inflict upon mankind the most appalling depth of misery and degradation;
and that within another fifty years or so.
So he was predicting here that by the year 2000,
we'd be walking all over each other and crawling over each other to get to work,
as if there is any work left.
He says;
I do not pretend that birth control is the only way
in which population can be kept from increasing.
There are others, which, one must suppose,
opponents of birth control would prefer.
War, as I remarked a moment ago,
has hitherto been disappointing in this respect.
Now I repeat that for the hard of thinking.
"War, as I remarked a moment ago,
has hitherto been disappointing in this respect."
So he's admitting that they used war to kill off the people.
And if you look at the history of Britain since the Rothschilds took over,
it's been one war after another.
So they're very disappointed and killed enough off. You see.
If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation
survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full.
Well, that's a nice statement to make, isn't it?
"That Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation."
"Survivors could appropriate freely without making the world too full."
There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences
the consciousness of the devout,
or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists.
The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant,
but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness;
I repeat that part, really high minded people he's talking about himself and his own glasses say,
are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's.
However, I am wandering from the question of stability, to which I must return.
There are three ways of securing a society
that shall be stable as regards population.
The first is that of birth control;
the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars,
and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority.
While he's in the powerful minority groups, we can suggest this.
All these methods have been practiced;
the first, for example, by the Australian aborigines
the second by the Aztecs,
the Spartans, and the rulers of Plato's Republic;
the third in the world as some Western internationalists hope to make it
and in Soviet Russia.
(It is not to be supposed that Indians and Chinese like starving
but they have to endure it because the armaments of the West are too strong for them).
They hadn't built up China, of course, to be the manufacturer of the world by then.
That wasn't his department.
Of these three, only birth control
birth control avoids extreme cruelty
and unhappiness for the majority of human beings.
Meanwhile, so long as there is not a single world government;
In double repeating that thing again.
there will be competition for power among the different nations.
And as increase of population brings the threat of famine,
national power will become more and more obviously
the only way of avoiding starvation.
There will therefore be blocs in which the hungry nations band together
against those that are well fed.
That is the explanation of the victory of communism in China.
Now, it's interesting that Lord Bertrand Russell,
who talks about the victory of communism in China.
He went over to China in the 1920's
and it wasn't the Soviets
who went over to train the Chinese in communism.
Bertrand Russell was sent from England to do it.
And he taught in universities basic theories in communism
to the very young.
Those young students became the first leaders of the communist parties and throughout China.
So once again we have the central hub, London and the aristocracy,
running both sides of the fence here, capitalism and communism;
because between the two of them terrorize the world and going the third way, which is the compromise between the two;
which is a small dominant elite
who would then rule over the minds of the people
who be run in a communistic fashion;
by layers and layers and layers of bureaucracies.
This is the fascism coming together, you see,
with the tickle and the hammer of communism. This is the third way.
This is it.
《Author》In another book
put out
by Russell;
《Text》Bertrand Russell 1872 - 1970. British philosopher, mathematician, and an adamant internationalist. Books: The Scientific Outlook [1931], The Impact of Science on Society [1952]
called The Scientific Outlook,
written as far back as 1931.
He has this to say.
Now this kind of writing
for the Bertrand Russell Society;
that did recruit lots of people from the Ivy League universities to work for this agenda
all hoping they would be part of a future elite.
This stuff was taken seriously and still is. This is still the same agenda.
This is what he said from that book.
Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy.
It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology;
will give governments much more control over individual mentality
than they now have even in totalitarian countries.
Fichte laid it down
that education should aim at destroying free will.
So that after pupils have left school
they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives;
of thinking or acting
otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished.
For the hard of thinking I would repeat that.
Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy.
It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology;
will give governments much more control over individual mentality
than they now have even in totalitarian countries.
Fichte laid it down
that education should aim at destroying free will.
So that, after pupils have left school
they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives;
of thinking or acting
otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished.
Diet, injections, and injunctions
will combine, from a very early age,
to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs;
that the authorities consider desirable,
and any serious criticism of the powers that be
will become psychologically impossible.
Listen again. - Diet,
injections, injections.
What have we gone after? All of the food. They've altered all of the food.
Injections, Huh?
You thought polio and all that was to prevent polio.
These injections they give you mumps, rubella,
whooping cough, etc.
Really.
We see the effects all around us as the IQ plummeted.
Diet, injections
think think think, injections
and injunctions;
will combine from a very early age, very early age
to produce a sort of character and a sort of beliefs
that the authorities consider desirable;
and any serious criticism of the powers that be
will become psychologically impossible.
Are you beginning to understand why you get that stare?
That when the eyes turn off, you know, glazed
when you start telling them what's happening.
Are you beginning to see why?
It's not that they just don't want to understand, you see, most cannot
have been
put out of action.
Gradually, by selective breeding;
selective breeding;
the congenital differences between rulers and ruled
will increase until they become almost different species.
Again, for the hard of thinking I'll repeat it slowly.
Gradually by selective breeding;
Remember the guy who is telling you was a product of selective breeding
as are all the old nobilities. He goes on.
the congenital differences between rulers and ruled
will increase until they become almost different species.
A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable
as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.
That was also actually from the Impact of Science on Society,
1953.
This is from the Scientific Outlook, 1931.
In like manner,
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.
That's what he means about the technocrats
Zbigniew Brzezinski went on about.
Because these guys are on the same big club at the top.
Technocrats would have the scientific power.
Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious,
punctual, thoughtless and contented.
Do you know anyone who is like that?
Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile;
"Docile"
industrious,
punctual,
thoughtless and contented.
Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important.
In order to produce it, all the researches
of psycho-analysis, behaviorism,
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,"
That is this is the definition of his version of cooperative.
to do exactly what everybody is doing.
Co-op, cooperative.
"to do exactly what everybody is doing." - Sameness.
Initiative will be discouraged in these children,
and insubordination,
without being punished,
will be scientifically trained out of them.
Once again,
once again boys and girls,
let's get out our super here.
"In like manner,
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."
Now that's why the foundations set up
the different
schemes
and grants
anniversaries
at universities.
Scholarships were the way to go.
All the scholarships
were to recruit into the fold of technocrats
obedient,
hire;
but yet still indoctrinated people that would control the rest.
There are actually layers of as you see,
layers of society and technocracy.
And cooperative is to do exactly what everybody is doing.
Sameness, sameness, sameness, all saying the same thing, doing the same thing, having the same opinions.
All from television and media and magazines
and experts.
Because they have no thoughts of their own.
"Initiative will be discouraged in these children
and insubordination without being punished
will be scientifically trained out of them".
Groupthink has been used in schools, you see, for years.
The reason it was because Russell was a guy who came up with it all,
a long time ago and experimented
on them.
He, Huxley and many others
using different techniques;
and a lot of medical personnel too
and those involved in the creation
of particular
organisms that affect your physiology.
The Charles Galton Darwin's
who suggested that we change the hormonal
streams of male and female saw been done.