You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Fabian Society’ tag.

My past two posts — here and here — have centred on LSD and its use by the CIA in rendering a bright, innovative society drugged and compliant.

Today’s post concludes the story, which includes British intelligence dating from the Great War — World War I.

Aldous Huxley

When Aldous and Julian Huxley (first director of UNESCO) were studying at Oxford, their tutor was a fellow Fabian, H G Wells. Wells had also introduced Aldous to Aleister Crowley.

Wells headed British foreign intelligence during the First World War. He devised what he called

The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution”a “one-world brain” which would function as “a police of the mind.”

In her 1980 book The Aquarian Conspiracy author Marilyn Ferguson says that, in the 1930s, the British government sent Aldous Huxley to the United States

as the case officer for an operation to prepare the United States for the mass dissemination of  drugs.

Huxley went to California in 1937 and spent the whole of the Second World War there. When he wasn’t working as a screenwriter, he was establishing Isis cults:

In effect, Huxley and [Christopher] Isherwood (joined  soon afterwards by Thomas Mann and his  daughter Elisabeth Mann Borghese) laid  the foundations during the late 1930s  and the 1940s for the later LSD culture,  by recruiting a core of “initiates” into the Isis cults that Huxley’s mentors,  Bulwer-Lytton, Blavatsky, and Crowley, had constituted while stationed in India.

Huxley did not return to the UK until 1952. That same year, the CIA initiated MK-Ultra. It is possible that both British intelligence and OSS (Office of Strategic Services) were also involved. Allen Dulles was CIA director at the time MK-Ultra started. He had also been in the OSS when Albert Hofmann was conducting his early research on LSD.

Incidentally, James Warburg, whose banking family had an interest in Sandoz, had worked with Huxley. He founded the Institute for Policy Studies in 1963.

Huxley returned to the United States in 1952 accompanied by his family doctor, Humphry Osmond. Osmond had previously attended a seminar Huxley had organised in London. Osmond and another seminar participant J R Smythies wrote a paper called ‘Schizophrenia: A New Approach’:

he asserted that mescaline — a  derivative of the mescal cactus used in  ancient Egyptian and Indian pagan rites  — produced a psychotic state identical in  all clinical respects to schizophrenia.

On  this basis, Osmond and Smythies  advocated experimentation with  hallucinogenic drugs as a means of  developing a “cure” for mental disorders.

Dulles invited Osmond to play a prominent role in MK-Ultra.

Osmond, Huxley and Robert Hutchins — from the University of Chicago, also Ford Foundation programme director — planned a series of meetings through to 1953 regarding a second, but private, initiative concerning LSD and mescaline.  When Henry Ford II got wind of it, he sacked Hutchins. That said, the proposal was not dropped.

In 1953, Osmond began supplying Huxley with mescaline. In 1954, Huxley wrote The Doors of Perception, considered to be the first manifesto of the cult around hallucinogenic drugs.

Later that decade, he worked privately on LSD and mescaline research, recruiting candidates from his Isis cult centres from around California. Among them were luminaries such as Margaret Mead’s ex-husband Dr Gregory Bateson — also in the OSS working as an anthropologist — and the defrocked Anglican priest Alan Watts who went on to embrace Buddhism.

Bateson directed hallucinogenic experiments at the Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital. He was able to lure some of his subjects into Huxley’s Isis cult groups. Bateson was also the first to give LSD to Ken Kesey.

Watts launched the Pacifica Foundation which had two radio stations, one in San Francisco and another in New York City.

Late in 1960, Huxley was appointed visiting professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston. This enabled him to form a core group of insiders, among them Osmond, Watts, Leary and Alpert.

Whilst at MIT, Huxley wanted Leary to form a group of LSD users among the elite:

and lead a psychedelic conspiracy to brainwash influential people for the purposes of human betterment. “That’s how everything of culture and beauty and philosophic freedom has been passed on,” Huxley tells him. “Initiate artists, writers, poets, jazz musicians, elegant courtesans. And they’ll educate the intelligent rich.”

Nevertheless, only a few years later on the other side of the country in 1964, ‘Baby’ Jane Holzer — a young, beautiful New York socialite who spent much of her time at Andy Warhol’s drug-ridden Factory in Manhattan — said:

It was getting very scary at the Factory. There were too many crazy people around who were stoned and using too many drugs. They had some laughing gas that everybody was sniffing. The whole thing freaked me out, and I figured it was becoming too faggy and sick and druggy. I couldn’t take it.

Whilst at MIT, Huxley contacted the president of Sandoz. Sandoz was fulfilling a CIA contract for MK-Ultra, consisting of large quantities of LSD — 100 million doses — and psilocybin. By the late 1960s, these had flooded the streets. By the way, Leary was purchasing his LSD in large quantities from the pharmaceutical manufacturer as well, albeit privately.

In 1962, Huxley strongly influenced the founding of the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California, where he was one of the lecturers. Their purpose was to promote

behavior group therapy, for Zen,  Hindu, and Buddhist transcendental  meditation, and “out of body”  experiences through simulated and actual hallucinogenic drugs.23

As described in the Esalen Institute  Newsletter: “Esalen started in the fall of  1962 as a forum to bring together a wide variety of approaches to enhancement of  the human potential . . . including  experiential sessions involving encounter groups, sensory awakening, gestalt awareness training, related disciplines.  Our latest step is to fan out into the community at large, running programs in  cooperation with many different institutions, churches, schools, hospitals, and government.”24

My comments: First, I have not met any Briton yet who has a good thing to say about Aldous Huxley. Secondly, there are many American WASPs who also discount his opinions and lifestyle. Thirdly, it is quite possible that the UK government wanted to put the Huxleys in other roles — and keep the H G Wells people quiet — by transferring them to the US. That way, the UK would never have to hear from them again. It seems to have worked!

I do not think there was a conspiracy of the UK gaining supremacy over the US because, in order for the US to achieve smooth passage of the Nazi doctors and their families across the pond, diplomatic intervention would have been required. The British were in the best position to achieve this — in negotiations with the Germans and the French (who would also have had a say). Therefore, the British did what the Americans asked and … in return, the Americans got their Nazi doctors — and Aldous Huxley.

Later developments

Also in 1962, the Rand Corporation of Santa Monica, California, began a four-year experiment of marijuana, peyote and LSD. (During the Second World War, Rand had a pivotal role in determining the psychological effects bombing had on the population of German cities.) Rand researchers studied 30 humans in 1963 and concluded in their report, ‘Short-Term Effects of LSD on  Anxiety, Attitudes and Performance’ that

LSD improved  emotional attitudes and resolved anxiety problems.

It is of note that James Warburg’s Institute for Policy Studies became the US branch of the British Russell Peace Institute. Not surprisingly it drew its operatives from British-dominated institutions, including the US branch of the Tavistock Institute, National Training Labs.

Oddly, the SDS — Students for a Democratic Society — received financing from the IPS. The general idea for this unusual financing was to promote love — hedonistic pleasure — instead of war. It didn’t work in the IPS’s favour all the time, considering the violent student protests on university campuses and the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968.

According to Ferguson, all this would eventually progress to an American programme developed in May 1974

on how to transform the United  States into Aldous Huxley’s Brave New  World. The counterculture is a  conspiracy at the top, created as a  method of social control, used to drain  the United States of its commitment to  scientific and technological progress.

She refers to:

“Changing Images of Man,”  Contract Number URH (489~215O, Policy  Research Report No. 414.74, prepared by  the Stanford Research Institute Center  for the Study of Social Policy, Willis  Harman, director.

The 319-page  mimeographed report was prepared by a  team of fourteen researchers and  supervised by a panel of twenty-three  controllers, including anthropologist  Margaret Mead, psychologist B.F.  Skinner, Ervin Laszlo of the United  Nations, Sir Geoffrey Vickers of British  intelligence.

The aim of the study, the authors state,  is to change the image of mankind from  that of industrial progress to one of  “spiritualism.” The study asserts that in  our present society, the “image of  industrial and technological man” is  obsolete and must be “discarded”:

“Many  of our present images appear to have  become dangerously obsolete, however .  . .

Science, technology, and economics  have made possible really significant  strides toward achieving such basic  human goals as physical safety and  security, material comfort and better  health. But many of these successes  have brought with them problems of  being too successful — problems that  themselves seem insoluble within the set  of societal value-premises that led to  their emergence . . .

Our highly developed system of technology leads to higher vulnerability and breakdowns.  Indeed the range and interconnected  impact of societal problems that are  now emerging pose a serious threat to  our civilization . . . If our predictions of  the future prove correct, we can expect  the association problems of the trend to  become more serious, more universal  and to occur more rapidly.”

The report advised that change should come about quickly. Indeed, that is how it feels to many today: that we are too successful and have to lose our freedom of choice, action and thought.

Conclusion

It seems to me — whether good or bad drugs, CIA involvement, British activity and what not — that drugs can never succeed. They are simply a dangerous idea.

And, if Ferguson’s book is correct, we are well on the road to social control and technological mediocrity.

No wonder there is a drive to get us off alcohol and tobacco.

Drugs — stay away from them or risk your God-given personal identity, intelligence and integrity.

And for those who suspect a British conspiracy here, let me assure you the same thing is going on here: UK Decay (first coined by the now-defunct Spy magazine as ‘UK DK’ in the 1990s; I did not wish to copy their intellectual property directly). We have much unemployment among second-generation Britons, not to mention increased drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, ‘mum’s boyfriend’ syndrome and all the rest.

The same is going on in France, where Marseille is undoubtedly going to be renamed Detroit. Yes, it’s that bad.

So, this is not a conspiracy against America, but rather against the Western world. That said, I am sorry that so many Americans, particularly honest servicemen, were prey to government or intelligence programmes which ruined their minds and left them less than able to love their wives and children, head a household and hold down a job. May God help them and their families.

All this makes remembering our war dead next month sad and poignant. I’m sure they did not give their lives so that we could be drugged up to the eyeballs and live according to the dictates of the government. Surely that is what they least wanted for themselves and for future generations.

By chance a few days ago, I ran across an article from The Independent‘s archives.

The article is called ‘Hitler and the socialist dream’ by George Watson, who summarised his latest book for the paper. The book is called The Lost Literature of Socialism (Lutterworth); the article appeared on Sunday, November 22, 1998.

I wrote about this recently for Orphans of Liberty. My post below will organise Watson’s information in a slightly different format, with additional information on the Fabians. You might wish to read both or read Watson’s article in full. Emphases and sub-heads are mine.

Political misconceptions about Hitler

Watson says that after Hitler committed suicide (by cyanide), the world was so pleased to be rid of him that they no longer cared much about his political outlook.

Only a few years earlier in the mid-1930s, he writes:

By the outbreak of civil war in Spain, in 1936, sides had been taken, and by then most western intellectuals were certain that Stalin was left and Hitler was right. That sudden shift of view has not been explained, and perhaps cannot be explained, except on grounds of argumentative convenience. Single binary oppositions – cops-and-robbers or cowboys-and-indians – are always satisfying ...

Consequently:

By the outbreak of world war in 1939 the idea that Hitler was any sort of socialist was almost wholly dead. One may salute here an odd but eminent exception. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, Orwell saw the disaster as a “physical debunking of capitalism”, it showed once and for all that “a planned economy is stronger than a planless one” … “Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a socialist state.” These words were written just before Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union …

Furthermore, the West found both Hitler’s and Mussolini’s politics puzzling:

The first reactions to National Socialism outside Germany are now largely forgotten. They were highly confused, for the rise of fascism had caught the European left by surprise. There was nothing in Marxist scripture to predict it and must have seemed entirely natural to feel baffled. Where had it all come from? Harold Nicolson, a democratic socialist, and after 1935 a Member of the House of Commons, conscientiously studied a pile of pamphlets in his hotel room in Rome in January 1932 and decided judiciously that fascism (Italian-style) was a kind of militarised socialism

Bella Dodd, the late member (expelled after many years) of the Communist Party in the United States, says that her party controlled the political memes during the 1930s, which persist today. When I excerpted her book, School of Darkness in 2011 — also recommended for home schoolers and family reading discussions — she explained how this worked (Chapter 7):

Beginning in 1936 a prodigious effort was made by the Party in support of the Spanish Civil War, and this continued until 1939.  Perhaps no other activity aroused greater devotion among American intellectuals …

Since 1932 the Communist Party had publicized itself as the leading opponent of fascism … Its propaganda machine ground out an endless stream of words, pictures, and cartoons.  It played on intellectual, humanitarian, racial, and religious sensibilities until it succeeded to an amazing degree in conditioning America to recoil at the word fascist even when people did not know its meaning.

Today I marvel that the world communist movement was able to beat the drums against Germany and never once betray what the inner group knew well: that some of the same forces which gave Hitler his start had also started Lenin and his staff of revolutionists from Switzerland to St. Petersburg to begin the revolution which was to result in the Soviet totalitarian state.

There was not a hint that despite the propaganda of hate unleashed against Germany and Italy, communist representatives were meeting behind the scenes to do business with Italian and German fascists to whom they sold materiel and oil.  There was not a hint that Soviet brass was meeting with German brass to redraw the map of Europe.  There was no betrayal of these facts until one day they met openly to sign a contract for a new map of Europe — a treaty made by Molotov and Von Ribbentrop ...

The communist publicists carefully took for their own the pleasant word of Loyalist and called all who opposed them “Franco-Fascists.” This was a literary coup which confused many men and womenViolent communist literature repeatedly lumped all of the Church hierarchy on the side of the “Fascists,” and, using this technique, they sought to destroy the Church by attacking its priests.  This was not a new tactic.  I had seen it used in our own country over and over again … 

It became obvious, as the extensive campaign went on, that some of the funds were coming from sources other than the collections.  It is now well known that the Soviet Union was doing everything in its power to bring the foreign policy of the United States into conformity with its own devious plans and that it did not hesitate to use trickery to do so.  It wanted the United States to support Soviet policy on Spain.  I did not understand this at the time ...

As one example of the puzzle that finally became a picture there is the story of the Erica Reed, which will serve as an example of hundreds of others.  It was supposed to be a mercy ship taking food, milk, and medicines to hard-pressed Barcelona.  It was chartered ostensibly by the North American Committee for Loyalist Spain.  In reality it was financed by Soviet agents

The “relief ship” with its supplies reached Barcelona where she was immediately ordered to Odessa.  And so the Erica Reed, ostensibly chartered by the North American Committee for Loyalist Spain, was sent to Odessa by her real charterer, the Soviet Union.  The Spanish people were expendable.

Private memoirs about Hitler’s Marxism appeared too late

Back now to George Watson’s article. As we know, books and television programmes about Hitler are ten a penny.

The better memoirs and biographies, such as those of insider Albert Speer, have been read by millions around the world.

However, others — equally useful — did not appear until the 1970s or 1980s, by which time, our minds were made up that Hitler was ‘right wing’.

Another reason why we continue to accept this point of view is that Hitler was careful not to mention Marxism publicly. As we shall see, private mentions were quite another matter.

Yet, the later memoirs from those who worked closely with him, some preserved from the postwar years, describe the Fuhrer’s political philosophy:

Shortly before they fell out in the summer of 1933, Hitler uttered sentiments in front of Otto Wagener, which were published after his death in 1971 as a biography by an unrepentant Nazi. Wagener’s Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant, composed in a British prisoner-of-war camp, did not appear until 1978 in the original German, and arrived in English, without much acclaim, as recently as 1985.

Watson also cites Hermann Rauschning, who knew Hitler well — before and after his accession to power.

Hitler’s admitted debt to Marxism

Watson writes:

It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources. His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone’s disciple.

Yet:

His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism” he once remarked, “as I do not hesitate to admit” … The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that “they had never even read Marx” … His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun”, adding revealingly that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on Marx

Socialism relies on eugenics and death — Fabians

During the same time frame — at the turn of the 20th century through the 1930s — the Fabians in England supported similar socialist ideals of a pure race. They were also big fans of the Soviet project.

Creating a pure race of intelligent, healthy, acceptable people could mean only that selective breeding — eugenics — would need to be established. This was also popular in Sweden and elsewhere in the West, including the United States (e.g. Margaret Sanger, a friend of the Fabians).

Watson explains:

… the socialist intelligentsia of the western world entered the First World War publicly committed to racial purity and white domination and no less committed to violence. Socialism offered them a blank cheque, and its licence to kill included genocide. In 1933, in a preface to On the Rocks, for example, Bernard Shaw publicly welcomed the exterminatory principle which the Soviet Union had already adopted. Socialists could now take pride in a state that had at last found the courage to act, though some still felt that such action should be kept a secret. In 1932 Beatrice Webb remarked at a tea-party what “very bad stage management” it had been to allow a party of British visitors to the Ukraine to see cattle-trucks full of starving “enemies of the state” at a local station. “Ridiculous to let you see them”, said Webb, already an eminent admirer of the Soviet system. “The English are always so sentimental” adding, with assurance: “You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.” A few years later, in 1935, a Social Democratic government in Sweden began a eugenic programme for the compulsory sterilisation of gypsies, the backward and the unfit, and continued it until after the war.

Hitler: socialism demands anti-Semitism

Therefore, it is not surprising that being unfit comprised racial or cultural differences. In the previous paragraph, the Swedes targeted gypsies or those lacking physical and intellectual vigour. Similar experiments occurred in the southern United States with poor blacks, those afflicted with Downs Syndrome or people whom authorities viewed as undesirable.

And where did all these ideas originate? With none other than Karl Marx. I recapped the mindset of famous Marxists the other day. Even though they are long dead, the ideology continues. That post is meant as a warning for the future, something to always keep in mind. Marxism isn’t dead, nor is communism. Socialism is alive and well, even in so-called ‘conservative’ circles and political parties.

Marx mixed it up with regard to the Jews, the late Richard Wurmbrand — a Lutheran pastor tortured in communist prison — wrote. In some instances, Marx railed against the Jews. In others, he said the contrary. With all the anti-Semitism (pogroms) rife in Eastern Europe during that time, however, it is not surprising that Marxist apologists picked up on it.

Marx, Wurmbrand’s book Marx and Satan tells us, was born into a Jewish family. His mother was Jewish but his father converted to Lutheranism before his son was born. Marx was raised in the Christian faith. As my post stated the other day, Marx turned against religion altogether and wanted it stamped out. What follows is but one example of this, an excerpt from an article he wrote for the New York Tribune in 1856:

We know that behind every tyrant stands a Jew, as a Jesuit stands behind every Pope. As the army of the Jesuits kills every free thought, so the desire of the oppressed would have chances of success, the usefulness of wars incited by capitalists would cease, if it were not for the Jews who steal the treasures of mankind. It is no wonder that 1856 years ago Jesus chased the usurers from the Jerusalem temple …

We still see similar thoughts on today’s conspiracy theory sites — left or right wing.

Anti-Semitism is a dangerous sentiment.

And most of the anti-Semites I have known have allied themselves with … the left wing.

Hitler wasted no time in pointing out the similarity between socialism and anti-Semitism. Watson writes:

The claim that Hitler cannot really have been a socialist because he advocated and practised genocide suggests a monumental failure, then, in the historical memory. Only socialists in that age advocated or practised genocide, at least in Europe, and from the first years of his political career Hitler was proudly aware of the fact. Addressing his own party, the NSDAP, in Munich in August 1920, he pledged his faith in socialist-racialism: “If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites – and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose.” There was loud applause. Hitler went on: “How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?” The point was widely understood, and it is notable that no German socialist in the 1930s or earlier ever sought to deny Hitler’s right to call himself a socialist on grounds of racial policy. In an age when the socialist tradition of genocide was familiar, that would have sounded merely absurd. The tradition, what is more, was unique. In the European century that began in the 1840s from Engels’s article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist, and no exception has been found.

Socialism and ‘moral laws’

Another important point about Marxism, socialism and communism is their rhetoric appeals to the setting right of imperfection, according to ‘moral law’.

Along with this comes the labelling of one’s enemies, whether individuals or nations. The skewed morality they use to justify anti-Semitism also becomes a similar hate with regard to many others. Wurmbrand cites Marx:

Marx hated not only the Jews, but also the Germans: “Beating is the only means of resurrecting the Germans.” He spoke about “the stupid German people … the disgusting national narrowness of the Germans” and said that “Germans, Chinese, and Jews have to be compared with peddlers and small merchants.” He called the Russians “cabbage-eaters.” The Slavic peoples were “ethnic trash.” He expressed his hatred of many nations, but never his love.

Marx wrote in his new year’s roundup of 1848 about “the Slavic riffraff,” which included Russians, Czechs, and Croats. These “retrograde” races had nothing left for them by fate except “the immediate task of perishing in the revolutionary world storm.” “The coming world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but entire reactionary peoples, to disappear from the face of the earth. And that will be progress.” “Their very name will vanish.”

Of course, in the Marxist-socialist-communist mind, once one’s perceived enemies are vanquished, the result will be utopia.

Hitler played with this in his unique National Socialism, evoking a certain nostalgia of a Germanic people that probably never existed. Watson tells us:

Hitler’s remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made utopian socialism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as Victorian socialism had done before it, an intense economic radicalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe …

The Jew, Hitler told Wagener, was not a socialist, and the Jesus they crucified was the true creator of socialist redemption. As for communists, he opposed them because they created mere herds, Soviet-style, without individual life, and his own ideal was “the socialism of nations” rather than the international socialism of Marx and Lenin.

What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.”

That was the National Socialist vision. It was seductive, at once traditional and new. Like all socialist views it was ultimately moral, and its economic and racial policies were seen as founded on universal moral laws. By the time such conversations saw the light of print, regrettably, the world had put such matters far behind it, and it was less than ever ready to listen to the sayings of a crank or a clown …

Conclusion

We would do well to think of this political ‘philosophy’ (for lack of a better word) when we read of the state encroaching on our freedom, proposing communitarianism.

We would also do well to consider the anti-Israel sentiments coming from mainstream Protestant pulpits.

Furthermore, the current Pope has a few questions to answer when he proposes that we all give more to the poor to create a more moral and just society. Odd that he never calls for a bit of tax relief for the middle classes which would enrich the Church’s coffers. He, too, sees a utopia created from environmentalism, moral law and wealth redistribution.

Left-wing dogma assumes many forms. We need to see it and call it out for what it is.

Aldous Huxley‘s Brave New World was published in 1932.

His student at Eton — Eric Blair, writing as George Orwell — published 1984 several years later in 1949.

Since then, debate about the two has been lively. Which is the more prophetic? Or will neither scenario happen?

I see both their scenarios in progress. One of the things that annoyed me in 1984 — the calendar year, not the book — was that many pundits on the Right and the Left said that we had nothing to worry about. The world was fine and Orwell was wrong.

None of them ever posited that 1984 didn’t necessarily have to occur then. Orwell got the year wrong, but how was he to know? It’s worth remembering that Huxley was a Fabian (as was his brother Julian, the brains behind the United Nations). It’s also worth knowing — for those readers overseas — that if any new ideas are going to be transmitted in the classroom, it will be at top public (private) schools such as Eton.

Although this is an #Octabber post, it focusses on what Huxley foresaw. Those who have read the book or seen the film know that everyone works and, in their spare time, take a drug called soma.

These are quotes about soma as Huxley introduced the drug in the book (pp. 218-26):

“Six years later it was being produced commercially. The perfect drug.”

[…]

“Euphoric, narcotic, pleasantly hallucinant.”

“Glum, Marx, glum.” The clap on the shoulder made him start, look up. It was that brute Henry Foster. “What you need is a gramme of soma.”

“All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.”

“Ford, I should like to kill him!” But all he did was to say, “No, thank you,” and fend off the proffered tube of tablets.

“Take a holiday from reality whenever you like, and come back without so much as a headache or a mythology.”

“Take it,” insisted Henry Foster, “take it.”

“Stability was practically assured.”

In real life, Huxley took mind-altering drugs in his later years.

For those who need a refresher, Henry Makow’s site recaps Brave New World brilliantly. Excerpted below are sections relating to a sexualised society and soma:

The novel describes a ‘mild dictatorship’ implemented by a ‘magical governance’ …

For these achievements, the Soma (psychotropic drugs) and television [radio and film at the time?] are essential.

… sex is a social activity, not a means of reproduction, and sexual activity, including homosexuality, is encouraged from early childhood. The fertile women are encouraged to take birth control.

The maxim ‘everyone belongs to everyone else’ is repeated often, and the idea of a ‘family’ is considered pornographic …

Of this scientific dictatorship, Huxley wrote (emphases in the original, those in violet are mine):

A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced because they love their servitude. As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.

In 1958, Huxley wrote an essay in which he discussed the Brave New World society, updated for a new, post-war era. This is what he had to say about drug use among the greater population (emphases mine below):

Soma was not only a vision-producer and a tranquil­lizer; it was also (and no doubt impossibly) a stimu­lant of mind and body, a creator of active euphoria as well as of the negative happiness that follows the re­lease from anxiety and tension

The ideal stimulant — powerful but innocuous — still awaits discovery …

We see then that, though soma does not yet exist (and will probably never exist), fairly good substi­tutes for the various aspects of soma have already been discovered. There are now physiologically cheap tranquillizers, physiologically cheap vision-producers and physiologically cheap stimulants.

That a dictator could, if he so desired, make use of these drugs for political purposes is obvious. He could ensure himself against political unrest by changing the chemistry of his subjects’ brains and so making them content with their servile condition. He could use tranquillizers to calm the excited, stimulants to arouse enthusiasm in the indifferent, halluciants to distract the attention of the wretched from their miseries. But how, it may be asked, will the dictator get his subjects to take the pills that will make them think, feel and behave in the ways he finds desirable? In all probabil­ity it will be enough merely to make the pills available. Today alcohol and tobacco are available, and people spend considerably more on these very unsatisfactory euphorics, pseudo-stimulants and sedatives than they are ready to spend on the education of their children. Or consider the barbiturates and the tranquillizers. In the United States these drugs can be obtained only on a doctor’s prescription. But the demand of the Ameri­can public for something that will make life in an urban-industrial environment a little more tolerable is so great that doctors are now writing prescriptions for the various tranquillizers at the rate of forty-eight millions a year. Moreover, a majority of these prescrip­tions are refilled. A hundred doses of happiness are not enough: send to the drugstore for another bottle — and, when that is finished, for another. . . . There can be no doubt that, if tranquillizers could be bought as easily and cheaply as aspirin, they would be con­sumed, not by the billions, as they are at present, but by the scores and hundreds of billions. And a good, cheap stimulant would be almost as popular.

Under a dictatorship pharmacists would be in­structed to change their tune with every change of circumstances. In times of national crisis it would be their business to push the sale of stimulants. Between crises, too much alertness and energy on the part of his subjects might prove embarrassing to the tyrant. At such times the masses would be urged to buy tran­quillizers and vision-producers. Under the influence of these soothing syrups they could be relied upon to give their master no trouble.

As things now stand, the tranquillizers may prevent some people from giving enough trouble, not only to their rulers, but even to themselves. Too much tension is a disease; but so is too little. There are certain occasions when we ought to be tense, when an excess of tranquillity (and especially of tranquillity imposed from the outside, by a chemical) is entirely inappropri­ate …

As well as tranquillizing, hallucinating and stimulat­ing, the soma of my fable had the power of heighten­ing suggestibility, and so could be used to reinforce the effects of governmental propaganda. Less effectively and at a higher physiological cost, several drugs al­ready in the pharmacopoeia can be used for the same purpose.

Meanwhile pharmacology, biochemistry and neurol­ogy are on the march, and we can be quite certain that, in the course of the next few years, new and better chemical methods for increasing suggestibility and lowering psychological resistance will be dis­covered. Like everything else, these discoveries may be used well or badly. They may help the psychiatrist in his battle against mental illness, or they may help the dictator in his battle against freedom. More probably (since science is divinely impartial) they will both en­slave and make free, heal and at the same time destroy.

So, Aldous Huxley laid it all out before us 55 years ago. This is the future.

Note that he disapproved of tobacco and alcohol. He approved of drugs.

Tobacco stimulates the brain and enables convivial conversation. A drink or two — especially at the pub — encourages relaxation as well as friendly chat.

The combination of tobacco products and moderate alcohol in a pub or tavern get people talking — and thinking. Modern governments cannot have too much of that amongst the citizenry, hence, the smoking bans nearly everywhere.

Whilst I heartily recommend Brave New World as mandatory reading for adolescents and adults, I disagree with his stance on mind-altering substances, legal or illegal.

Shouldn’t this make us think twice about why governments — along with Julian Huxley’s United Nations — are driving us away from cigarettes or beer and towards drugs?

My thanks to reader Magnetic01 who sent me a link last week about Tobacco Control’s plans for Singapore.

The March 2012 article from Tobacco-free Singapore concerns what seems to be an Asia-Pacific proposal for the moment:

The proposal to create a tobacco-free generation, by denying access to tobacco to those born from 2000 onwards, received strong support when it was presented at a meeting of the Human Rights and Tobacco Control Network (HRTCN) as part of the pre-conference activities associated with the World Conference on Tobacco Or Health (WCTOH) taking place here in Singapore.

It also gave me this week’s names to follow up on in Tobacco Control. Some I have researched. Others are connected with those who are mentioned in the Singaporean article.

Interestingly, the same news about banning tobacco to those born in 2000 and after later appeared in July 2012 in an Australian newspaper The Age. (H/T: Angry Exile at Orphans of Liberty.) In the article, Cameron Nolan, the winner of the 2012 Australian Fabians Young Writers Competition, proposes the same for Australia. (I have purposely underscored one important word in the preceding sentence.) However, from this, we can see that Nolan’s idea is not an original one.

Professor Ruth Malone is one of the people mentioned in the Tobacco-free Singapore article. Dr Malone works with a lady named Lisa Bero at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), where Tobacco Control’s Stanton Glantz also works.

Lisa Bero

In addition to Malone’s and Glantz’s, Bero’s name will be one to watch out for as we move forward in the war against personal choice.

A fulsome article by David Holmes dated May 19, 2012, in The Lancet, introduces us to Bero (emphases mine):

Ruth Malone, one of Bero’s colleagues at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) and Editor of Tobacco Control, describes Bero as a “real pioneer in terms of studying the things that influence science outside the ‘science’ itself, and particularly the role of industry in shaping it”. But Bero’s exploration of the seamier side of science has attracted some unwelcome attention. “A few death threat letters from individuals who were smokers or maybe libertarians”, Bero recalls, “to stop me interfering with people’s lives. I don’t really take these seriously”. Thankfully her University does, as do the police, who once carted off a package that turned out to be from a PhD student in South Africa who sent Bero a homemade device for delivering inhaled medicines. Cue Bero’s raucous laughter.

Since completing her Pew Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship at the Institute for Health Policy Studies at UCSF in 1990 Bero has been a constant thorn in the side of tobacco companies, most recently in a review with Malone which suggests that measures to “denormalise” the tobacco industry, such as advertising bans and plain packaging, are an effective way to control tobacco use. But her eclectic research interests also extend to examining the influence of corporate sponsorship and researcher conflicts of interest on efficacy and adverse event data from drug trials. The goal of all this investigation of bias “is to design effective ways to facilitate the translation of the best available research into policy”.

As a member of the Cochrane Collaboration, Bero takes a keen interest in how meta-analyses are conducted and influenced …

Originally hailing from New Orleans, Bero’s laid back manner belies the rigour and the passion with which she deals with her work. From the very start of her career she has specialised in taking the path of most resistance. Having quit after 1 year of graduate school to go backpacking with her future husband, Bero went back to finish a PhD in pharmacology in 1987, and had worked for only a year on a National Institute on Drug Abuse postdoc on the molecular basis of opiate addiction when she decided to transfer to the Pew programme to follow her passion for health policy. Some colleagues counselled Bero against “throwing away her promising career”, but in the end she became the first ever basic scientist to get in the programme, “and that really just changed my life”, she says …

“I’ve been actively discouraged from doing what I do, and I’ve had people who are my peers who say they would never do what I do because they would be afraid for their career advancement”, says Bero. This is one reason why she is so devoted to mentoring junior researchers, especially when they “go against the grain”. For Bero, the work trumps ambition every time. “It hasn’t made me popular, but I don’t really want to be popular. I think it has some impact, and if I’m not getting any response then well, jeez, nobody noticed what I’m doing”. Thankfully, Bero is impossible to ignore.

Fret not, Lisa, we’ll be keeping an eye out for you in future Tobacco Control news.

The Cochrane Collaboration

As stated above, Bero is a member of The Cochrane Collaboration:

…  an international network of more than 28,000 dedicated people from over 100 countries. We work together to help healthcare providers, policy-makers, patients, their advocates and carers, make well-informed decisions about health care, by preparing, updating, and promoting the accessibility of Cochrane Reviews – over 5,000 so far, published online in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, part of The Cochrane Library. We also prepare the largest collection of records of randomised controlled trials in the world, called CENTRAL, published as part of The Cochrane Library.

Our work is internationally recognised as the benchmark for high quality information about the effectiveness of health care.

The Collaboration believes that effective health care is created through equal partnerships between researcher, provider, practitioner and patient

The Cochrane Collaboration’s contributors are a mix of volunteers and paid staff who are affiliated to the organisation through Cochrane entities: healthcare subject-related review groups, thematic networks – called ‘fields’ -, groups concerned with the methodology of systematic reviews, and regional centres. 

Many are world leaders in their field of medicine, health policy, research methodology or consumer advocacy, and our entities are situated in some of the world’s finest academic and medical institutions.

There is no one place or office that is ‘The Cochrane Collaboration’. Our contributors and entities are based all around the world and the majority of our work is carried out online …

The Cochrane Collaboration is named after Archie Cochrane (1909-1988), a British epidemiologist, who advocated the use of randomised controlled trials as a means of reliably informing healthcare practice. We are an independent, not-for-profit organisation, funded by a variety of sources including governments, universities, hospital trusts, charities and personal donations.

Their headquarters and Tobacco Addiction Group are based in Oxford. The Cochrane Collaboration issues their Chris Silagy Award annually for outstanding work in a particular field. In 2009, the award went to an English Lit major, Kate Cahill (BA), a member of the Tobacco Addiction Group, who –much like Stanton Glantz transferring mysteriously from Engineering and Applied Mechanics to Cardiology within two yearsmade the move from a publishing career to the University of Oxford’s Department of Primary Health Care Services as a data manager and clinical trials administrator.

Where is the transparency here? How do these people in completely unrelated fields move into such prominent positions in Tobacco Control — under the guise of ‘health’ — to denormalise smokers? And what is an English major doing campaigning against smoking, when some of the world’s best writers partook of the plant in creating their best work?

Essentially, we taxpayers fund Cochrane’s work, smokers even more so. This international list of contributors shows that the majority are public or state-operated institutions.

The Cochrane Collaboration attempts to address a myriad of health-related issues, some more useful than others. They are not solely about Tobacco Control, although they make it clear that they intend to influence health policy around the world through their various entities.

It will be interesting to see what we hear from the Cochrane Collaboration going forward, especially with regard to lifestyle choices.

Archie Cochrane, by the way, was a Scot who was a member of the British Battalion of the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War. Hmm. ‘Nuff said.

My thanks to reader Magnetic01 who sent me a link last week about Tobacco Control’s plans for Singapore.

The March 2012 article from Tobacco-free Singapore concerns what seems to be an Asia-Pacific proposal for the moment:

The proposal to create a tobacco-free generation, by denying access to tobacco to those born from 2000 onwards, received strong support when it was presented at a meeting of the Human Rights and Tobacco Control Network (HRTCN) as part of the pre-conference activities associated with the World Conference on Tobacco Or Health (WCTOH) taking place here in Singapore.

It also gave me names to follow up on in Tobacco Control which you shall see in this week’s and future posts. Others are connected with those mentioned in the Singaporean article.

Interestingly, the same news about banning tobacco to those born in 2000 and after later appeared in July 2012 in an Australian newspaper The Age. (H/T: Angry Exile at Orphans of Liberty.) In the article, Cameron Nolan, the winner of the 2012 Australian Fabians Young Writers Competition, proposes the same for Australia. What appears to be an original idea comes second-hand.

Richard Daynard – from tobacco to food

In the Tobacco-free Singapore article we discover that Richard Daynard was one of the ‘distinguished guests’ supporting this proposal.

ActivistCash.com provides background on Daynard (emphases mine):

Fellow trial lawyers call Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) board member Richard Daynard “greedy,” and “a bit more mercenary than people think he is.” He has been described by The American Lawyer as a zealot, by any standard.” Known as the “intellectual godfather of tobacco litigation,” he’s now leading the charge to take away consumers’ food choices. Daynard told the New York Times in April, 2004 that PHAI “will file suits against the food industry within the year.”

“We’re not doing this to make trial lawyers rich,” Daynard insists, talking about obesity lawsuits. But Daynard received more than $1 million for his tobacco attack. When that million wasn’t enough, Daynard later sued two attorneys for a bigger share of tobacco litigation settlements, claiming he had a handshake agreement for five percent of a multi-billion-dollar windfall in legal fees. The Boston Globe reported in 2003 that he and his wife reinvested their tobacco ransom, using “some of the legal fees earned in that battle to fund the attack on obesity”

Daynard co-authored an article with PHAI [Public Health Advocacy Institute] chairman Anthony Robbins extolling “public health professionals who know that overweight and eating habits are not principally a matter of personal choice.” But Daynard achieved his own physique the old fashioned way. When asked how he lost 25 pounds, he simply said: “I ate a lot less.”

Daynard has an 11-page curriculum vitae (resumé). He graduated from the highly-regarded Bronx High School of Science and won a prestigious Regents Scholarship to Columbia University.  We do not know in what he earned his summa cum laude Bachelors degree, however, he was later a Faculty Fellow in Columbia’s Sociology Department between 1968 and 1970.

Daynard attended Harvard Law School and obtained his JD in 1967. After his aforementioned stint in Columbia’s Sociology Department, he returned to Boston, where he earned a Ph.D. in Urban Studies and Planning at MIT. He combined his Ph.D. study with career employment, as it took him ten years to finish his degree.

Looking at the time during which he studied (late 1960s – early 1970s) and his subjects of study — Sociology and Urban Studies and Planning — it would not be a stretch to conclude that Daynard is left-of-centre, to say the least.

Daynard worked for Boston’s Northeastern University School of Law from 1972 to 2006. He served as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs between 2004 and 2006.

It is interesting to note that Daynard was an instructor in Psychiatry at Tufts University (north of Boston) between 1976 and 1989. One must have a medical degree in order to practice psychiatry. What qualifies someone who taught Sociology and has degrees in Urban Studies and Planning to teach Psychiatry for 13 years when this medical discipline involves prescribing drugs for mentally disturbed patients?

Pages 2 through 11 of Daynard’s CV are almost exclusively related to Tobacco Control. Among the highlights are the following:

– Principal Investigator, Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute, 2005 – 2008 (p. 3)

– Co-principal Investigator, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Public Health Preparedness for Legislative and Regulatory Initiatives, 2008-2009 (p. 3)

– Principal Investigator, National Cancer Institute, Use of Personal Responsibility Rhetoric to Impede Public Health Measures, 2009-2014 (p. 3)

– Wrote model for Massachusetts ordinances banning smoking in public places, 1975 (p. 4)

Therefore, it is apparent from this small sampling that Daynard is well connected. Tobacco Control knows him well, even if we do not. Daynard has written and spoken extensively against tobacco in many countries around the world.

In October 2010, he gave a lecture at the University of California San Francisco’s Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Attendance was mandatory for all Fellows:

Richard Daynard presents the following three topics; (1) tobacco litigation & the overall tobacco control strategy; 2) his project to bring women’s and children’s rights advocates and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) into the tobacco control effort, by showing how tobacco control is a pressing women’s and children’s rights issue; and (3) his project to phase out smoked tobacco, which in its US form is a project to persuade the FDA to reduce nicotine levels in smoked products below addictive levels.

Over the past decade, Daynard has been repurposing his knowledge and experience from Tobacco Control to Food Control. In 2006, this item about junk food in American schools appeared in Wikinews:

Last week’s announcement that most soda manufacturers will stop selling their sugary products in U.S. schools did not mention that avoiding lawsuits was part of the motivation for the self-imposed ban. Some of those who threatened legal action to stop the soda sales are patting themselves on the back over the agreement, while lamenting that the deal did not go far enough, and now plan to press for more restrictions.

Richard Daynard, a law professor and president of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, which threatened the soft-drink industry with lawsuits, said in an institute press release, “The industry agreement with the Clinton Foundation and American Heart Association comes after sustained pressure from potential litigation and negotiations with public health groups and their lawyers. It is a credit to the role of litigation and the legal system as a component of effective public health strategy.”

“This agreement demonstrates the potential of public health litigation to help control the obesity epidemic,” he said.

Daynard’s course syllabus at Northeastern for Interdisciplinary Approaches to Policy and Advocacy is comprised of materials which:

including concepts of social justice, will be considered. The use of studies from different disciplines for policymaking and advocacy with respect to tobacco control and obesity prevention will provide illustrative examples.

These are just a few of the titles from other authors and topics from the course:

– Anne Marie Thow, et al. ”The effect of fiscal policy on diet, obesity and chronic disease: a systematic review”

– Study – Price increase & cigarettes – TBD

– Matthew C. Farrelly, et al. “The Impact of Tobacco Control Programs on Adult Smoking”

– Donley T. Studler, “U.S. Tobacco Control: Public Health, Political Economy or Morality Policy?

The Public Health Advocacy Institute, “A Time for Action: Policy Recommendations from PHAI’s Fifth Conference on Public Health, Law and Obesity

– Jamie F. Chriqui, et al. “What Gets Measured, Gets Changed : Evaluating Law and Policy for Maximum Impact”

Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI)

ActivistCash.com tells us that Daynard is still on the board of Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI). It describes PHAI as:

a lawsuit lounge where food cops and trial lawyers swap strategies to litigate away consumers’ food choices.

Located in Boston with a board composed of faculty members from the Northeastern University School of Law and Tufts University School of Medicine, PHAI’s goal is to attack food makers through lawsuits. Along the way, it is creating the next huge payday for trial lawyers, who are trying to demonize popular foods by using their template for attacking tobacco.

In addition to publishing papers laying out a game plan for fat lawsuits against food makers, PHAI’s main contributions to America’s growing anti-obesity jihad are its conferences, euphemistically titled “Legal Approaches to the Obesity Epidemic.” PHAI’s first conference, held in June 2003, was “intended to encourage and support litigation against the food industry.” The second conference, held in September 2004, was similarly motivated. Richard Daynard, director of PHAI’s Obesity and Law project, bragged to the New York Times in April 2004 that PHAI itself “will file suits against the food industry within the year.”

Shortly following its inaugural litigation-pushing confab, PHAI threatened eight large food companies with legal action. The group demanded food makers do the impossible — or else. To prevent costly lawsuits, PHAI warned, companies would have to prove that their actions had actually reduced obesity across the entire U.S. population by affecting Americans’ “buying and consumption of fat, total calories, and other contributions to obesity.” Food companies, in other words, could only get off the lawsuit hook by forcing consumers to change their behavior. What those consumers actually wanted was of no consequence

Who are the people behind PHAI? The group’s chairman, Anthony Robbins, told the Boston Globe that Public health is more like police work than it is about medical careBoard member Mindy Lubber runs an investment firm tied to the Ralph Nader-founded state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs). Another board member — PHAI’s former executive director, Ben Kelley — was instrumental in perpetrating what the Los Angeles Times called “the biggest TV scam since the Quiz Scandals” when he ran a front group for trial lawyers looking to sue automakers. And PHAI “managing attorney” Jason Smith is a board member of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a radical group that named cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal as an honorary “national vice president” in 1995.

This may sound like a motley crew of unlikely tort warriors. But at the end of PHAI’s 2003 conference, the group formed five committees — including one to promote obesity lawsuits among major law firms. In other words, PHAI was going lawyer shopping.

Tobacco Control’s John Banzhaf and other PHAI connections

It will come as a disappointment to those of us who enjoy our comfort meals, snacks and soft drinks to find out that PHAI have enlisted Tobacco Control’s heavy hitters. Never doubt for a second that anti-tobacco tactics and people are being used to undermine your personal food choices. One of these masterminds is John Banzhaf, who founded ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) in 1967. Today, ASH is an international organisation which survives largely off of taxpayers’ money.

As with Stanton Glantz, there appears to be an interesting anomaly here, as Banzhaf also made the move from Engineering to Tobacco Control. Similarly, Daynard seems to be qualified to teach Psychiatry although he has a background in the Humanities. We’ll see more of these anomalies in future posts on the topic.

More from ActivistCash.com:

PHAI wouldn’t have much of a conference on obesity lawsuits without George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, who claimed at the 2004 conference that he started the fast-food lawsuit movement when a reporter called him in 2002 and he prattled on about supposed similarities to tobacco cases. Banzhaf — who served as a legal advisor to fast-food plaintiffs in 2002 and 2003 — justified his position at the 2003 National Food Policy Conference, held by the Consumer Federation of America. At that event, Banzhaf railed: “I can’t sue to make people exercise more … But we can do something about fast food.”

While the public overwhelmingly opposes blaming restaurants and food companies for the nation’s weight, Banzhaf warned New York Daily News readers: “Somewhere there is going to be a judge and a jury that will buy this, and once we get the first verdict, as we did with tobacco, it will open the floodgates.” At the 2004 PHAI conference he reiterated: “When lawyers see how lucrative these are they will all join in.” He also insisted to CBS Sunday Morning: “We’re going to sue them and sue them and sue them.”

In true ambulance-chasing fashion, Banzhaf even broached the notion of suing doctors for not trimming down their patients. At the 2003 conference, he asked: “Can physicians who do not advise overweight or obese or morbidly obese patients to lose weight, to take reasonable efforts to help them do so, might ought [sic] to be subject to malpractice action?” He made the exact same point at the 2004 conference, saying simply: “Let’s sue some doctors.”

Banzhaf’s target list is long. At one point during the 2003 conference proceedings, PHAI director Anthony Robbins interrupted Banzhaf to question whether he really advocated a system that could pit “fat people” against “thin people.” Banzhaf’s reply? “Absolutely.”

Parents are also in Banzhaf’s crosshairs. He suggested to the 2004 conference participants that they “go after parents with TVs in their [kids’] rooms.” Parents who allow children to become obese, Banzhaf insisted, should be disadvantaged in custody cases, just as a parent’s smoking habits have been included in some custody agreements.

The wacky legal theories don’t stop there. Banzhaf has threatened to sue the Seattle School Board — and individual school board members — for making soft drinks available to teenagers in school. He raised the possibility again at PHAI’s 2004 conference. He has also discussed going after milk producers because the famous “Got Milk?” ads don’t always mention the benefits of skim milk

At the 2004 PHAI confab, the assembled food cops discussed Banzhaf’s favorite question in a session titled “Are Some Foods Addictive?” Just two days before the 2003 conference, he sent letters to six fast-food chains demanding that they display “warning” notices about the allegedly “addictive” nature of fatty foods. Otherwise, he said, they could expect a big fat lawsuit. Banzhaf even claimed that fast food “can act on the brain the same way as nicotine or heroin.”

Apparently some at PHAI take Banzhaf’s farcical notion seriously. In an article accompanying the 2004 conference, Daynard and his co-authors complained of supposedly “addictive high calorie sodas.”

A primary source of the “food addiction” theory is the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), the medical front-group for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PCRM president Neal Barnard’s contribution to the cause is an aggressive effort to convince an unsuspecting public that meat, cheese, and chocolate are “addictive.” Barnard told a 2003 FDA panel that cheese is merely “dairy crack … the purest form of the drug [milk]. Barnard’s name also appears four times in the plaintiff’s brief as an “expert” source in one of the obesity cases Banzhaf advised.

PCRM sent its top legal counsel, Mindy Kursban, to the inaugural PHAI meeting and nutritionist Amy Joy Lanou to the 2004 gathering. Former PCRM analyst and 2004 PHAI speaker Michele Simon has also endorsed the addictive foods farce.

The ‘master script’

ActivistCash gives us an insider view as to how Banzhaf, Daynard and their affiliated organisations plan to steer Food Control’s fight:

At the end of PHAI’s 2003 conference, board member Richard Daynard insisted that the movement needed a “master script,” and he stressed that lawsuits might fail without broader support. He suggested a combination of grassroots organizing, boycotts, and shareholder activism, all tied together with celebrity spokespersons. “Political will is everything,” Daynard told Seed Magazine. “The majority of judges and jurors are also parents.”

Part of PHAI’s public-relations strategy is to apply the tactics that made Daynard and Banzhaf successful in suing tobacco companies, including the creation of groups like PHAI. As recently as November 2003, phone calls to a number distributed during PHAI’s first conference were directed to a recorded message from the Tobacco Control Resource Center — a parallel organization run by Daynard …

Daynard and Robbins co-authored an article called “Food Litigation: Lessons From the Tobacco Wars,” in which they write: “In the absence of proof that particular food industry practices cause obesity, suits seeking compensation for obesity-related injury are unlikely to succeed.” For most people, that would mean “case closed” — but not for greedy trial lawyers and control-starved public-health zealots ...

You cannot be trusted to make your own decisions

When smokers have criticised ‘experts’ and lobby groups for depriving them of personal choice, non-smokers have often responded by saying that smokers are selfish complainers and that food and drink consumption hurts no one but the individual consumer.

However, as smokers have warned for several years now, the people behind what I call ingestion movements almost always elevate one group at the expense of another until it’s that group’s turn. Therefore, in arguments for tobacco bans, they said, ‘This has nothing to do with obesity or alcohol which affect only the person eating or drinking. This is about secondhand smoke which kills people.’

Yet, now that tobacco is restricted and denormalised nearly everywhere in the Western world, the authoritarians can turn their attention to food and drink. This is exactly what started happening a decade ago, as ActivistCash relates:

PHAI supporters don’t believe that consumers are smart enough to make their own food decisions. PHAI director James Hyde told conference attendees that personal responsibility is a “myth.” Robbins seems to believe that human beings have no more decision-making ability than animals, telling the Rutland Herald in 2003: “We’re being fattened like a herd.” In a 2003 article in Poverty & Race, Robbins, Daynard and PHAI director Wendy Parmet extol “public health professionals who know that overweight and eating habits are not principally a matter of personal choice.” (When asked by a reporter in 2003 how he lost 25 pounds, Daynard simply said: “I ate a lot less.”)

PHAI’s invited speakers sing the same anti-personal responsibility tune. “With so many mothers working,” Philip James told PHAI trial sharks, “I think maybe we need to highlight the role of the ‘Nanny State.'” James, a 2003 and 2004 speaker and head of the International Obesity Task Force (IOTF), would replace parents with big government. Complaining to news outlets about “high-pressure marketing” to children, he claimed that “the idea that you can have a modified system, or that parents should control it, is nonsense.”

In an article accompanying the 2004 conference, James and his IOTF colleagues Neville Rigby and Shiriki Kumanyika argued: “This ‘personal responsibility’ approach has … clearly failed.”

Scheduled 2004 PHAI speaker Margo Wootan (who canceled at the last minute) urged a different public-health conference to “move beyond personal responsibility.” PHAI speakers Marion Nestle and Kelly “Big Brother” Brownell declared in TIME magazine that “personal responsibility is a trap” and “a failed experiment.” And, of course, there’s always Banzhaf, who whined in 2003: “All these platitudes about, ‘people should eat less,’ ‘responsibility,’ all this crap!”

From this, what can we conclude?

Tobacco and Food Control are —

– Leftists lining their pockets via multi-million dollar lawsuits

– Actively working towards an authoritarian, totalitarian society

– Consciously antagonising people into opposing groups which loathe each other

– Convincing legislators and media that Westerners are no longer capable of leading their own lives responsibly

– Destroying the family unit and bringing in the state as ‘nanny’ for adults and ‘parent’ for our children

Honestly, if you still think these guys and gals are conservatives, libertarians or interested in health, please read and reread these posts and research a bit more independently.

There was a time not so long ago when the words ‘public health’ meant potable water and protection from contagious diseases like cholera.

It is incumbent for us to make our family, friends and neighbours aware of this scam. These people are not interested in us, only in their personal power and fortunes gained at our expense.

Nearly two years ago to the day, Churchmouse Campanologist published a précis of the Communist infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church.  The post concerned the memoirs of a Communist agentAA-1025: The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle.  Please consult the post for shocking revelations and a link to further excerpts from the agent’s book.

A number of my Protestant readers might take exception to the Catholic Church for various theological and scriptural reasons.  In many aspects, I would agree with them.  However, whatever infiltration or weakening happens in the Catholic Church occurs in Protestant denominations, too.  Communist infiltration was also occurring in Protestant churches in America as far back as the 1930s.

Personally, I believe that the methods of Communist influence are both direct and indirect today.  The paedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church could not have happened without years of subversion and the co-opting of useful idiots as enablers.  And it would not surprise me if the same dark forces which engineered this perversion in the seminaries and parishes then decried all of it as corruption in the Church.

Similarly, in the Protestant churches we have more entertainment and feel-good preaching than solid study of Scripture.  From praise bands to the Emergent Church movement, our worship moves us inevitably closer to Man than to God.  Again, my hypothesis is that this is a combination of conscious subversion with the co-opting of useful idiots.

Protestant subversion

As far as the Protestant situation is concerned, theologians drifted into Modernism, a notionally Christian offshoot of Marxism, and was furthered by leftists.  A few brief excerpts from this post will help set the scene:

Walter Rauschenbusch (1861 – 1918), Professor of Church History at Rochester Theological Seminary, is known as the ‘Father of the Social Gospel’.  You might be interested to know that John D Rockefeller funded this seminary, along with many others in the United States.

Dr Rauschenbusch grew up in a German Lutheran family but became a Baptist pastor prior to his professorship.  His status as a professor gave him the platform to become an influential theologian.  He wrote two books, Christianising the Social Order and A Theology for the Social Gospel.  He considered himself steeped in ‘higher criticism’ and well-versed in socialism.  He proposed a more relevant and compassionate Gospel designed to change the emphasis and direction of American Protestantism.  He also introduced the idea of an earthly Kingdom achieved through socialism. He posited that Jesus didn’t come to save sinners but had a ‘social passion’ for society.

In 1907, he met with the Fabians (socialists) in England … they proposed propaganda and infiltration to achieve their goals.  In Rauschenbusch’s case the  targets were to be universities, seminaries and churches.

A year later John D Rockefeller helped Rauschenbusch and the Fabian Revd Harry Ward — remember this name — to fund the establishment of the Federal Council of Churches. This would eventually become the National Council of Churches. We now have the World Council of Churches, which is very much aligned with the United Nations and global agendas.

In 1953 the Revd Harry Ward’s name popped up in the McCarthy hearings on Un-American Activities.  Here is what the transcripts from July 1953 said (emphasis in the original).

Manning Johnson, a former senior member of the Communist Party, answered questions from Robert Kunzig, Chief Counsel for the committee.  What follows is part of his testimony:

– William Z Foster, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA, said, ‘Communists must ever be keen to cultivate the democratic spirit of mutual tolerance among the religious sects … A still greater lesson for us to learn, however, is how to work freely with religious strata for the accomplishment of democratic mass objectives… A very serious mistake of the American left wing during many years … has been its attempt arbitrarily to wave aside religious sentiments among the masses.  Reactionary forces [mainly concerned Christians] have already known how to work take advantage of this shortsighted sectarian error … In recent years, however, the Communist Party, with its policy of ‘the outstretched hand’ has done much to overcome the harmful left-wing narrowness of former years and to develop a more healthy cooperation with the religious masses.’

– Deceit was a major policy of Communist propaganda and activity:  ‘They made fine gestures and honeyed words to the church people which could be well likened unto the song of the fabled sea nymphs luring millions to moral decay, spiritual death and spiritual slavery.’

– The Revd Harry F Ward also headed the Methodist Federation for Social Service, or the Methodist Federation for Social Action.  He ‘was invaluable to the Communist Party … because through it the Party was able to get contacts with thousands of ministers all over the countryQuite a few ministers, for example, participated in the united front known as the American League Against War and Fascism … In fact, they were so deeply involved through Harry F. Ward that they became the spokesmen — the advocates, the builders and the leaders of this most important Communist front that engaged in everything from simple assault on a government to espionage, sabotage and the overthrow of the Government.’

– The Communists infiltrated and poisoned the religious organisations of America wherever possible: ‘Once the tactic of infiltrating religious organisations was set by the Kremlin, the actual mechanics of implementing the ‘new line’ was a question of following … the church movement in Russia, where the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through infiltration of the church by Communist agents operating within the church itself … The infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions … In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries and divinity schools.  The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen …  The idea was to divert the emphasis of clerical thinking from the spiritual to the material … Instead of emphasis toards the spiritual matters of the soul, the new and heavy emphasis was to deal with those matters which, in the main, led toward the Communist program of ‘immediate demands’ [or ‘felt needs’].

Catholic subversion

Agent AA-1025’s account, published posthumously after the nurse tending him found the manuscript among his effects when he died in hospital, described his own indoctrination into Communism and entry into the priesthood:

[When young, Michael, the future agent] decided to run away from home and met a friend who introduced him to his uncle who was a high-ranking official in the Russian Secret Police.

Michael had completed 6 years of study and by now was 20 years old. He was called to the office of The Uncle who told him: ‘I am now going to send you to practice a militant and international atheism. You will have to fight all religions, but principally the Catholic, which is better organized. To do so, you will enter a seminary and become a Roman Catholic priest… ‘

The Uncle gave further instructions to Michael: ‘The ten persons who will be directly under your orders will never know you. To reach you, they will have to pass through me. Thus you will never be denounced. We already have in our service numerous priests in all countries where Catholicism is implanted, but you will never know one another. One is a bishop. Maybe you will enter into contact with him, it will depend upon the rank that you reach. We have spies everywhere and particularly old ones who follow the press of the whole world.’

Agent AA-1025 — Michael — already foresaw the vagaries of Vatican II, the most heinous reform to ever take place in the Catholic Church:

‘Some day, you will see married priests and mass said in vernacular tongues.’ I remember with joy that I was the first one to say these things in 1938. That same year, I urged women to ask for the priesthood

Someone was charged to watch attentively all the Vatican writings, in order to detect even very small details capable of displeasing one category of individuals. The quality of those who criticize the Pope does not matter, the only important thing is that he be criticized. The ideal thing, of course, would be that he displeased everybody, that is, reactionaries as well as modernists.

I also prophesied, and we were then in 1940, the disappearance of altars, replaced by a table completely bare, and also of all the crucifixes, in order that Christ be considered as a man, not as a God. I insisted that Mass be only a community meal to which all would be invited, even unbelievers…

Mass must only be a community meal for the greatest welfare of human fraternity

The Saints must disappear before God, although it is much easier to kill God than His SaintsThen, we will proceed to suppress Judgement, Heaven, Purgatory and Hell. This is all very easy… Many are well disposed to believe that the Goodness of God surpasses all crimes. AIl we have to do is to insist on this Goodness. A God Whom no one fears, quickly becomes a God about Whom no one thinks. Such was the end to be reached.

Always drive minds towards a greater charity, a larger fraternity. Never talk about God, but about the greatness of man. Bit by bit, transform the language and the mentalities. Man must occupy the first place. Cultivate confidence in man who will prove his own greatness by founding the Universal Church in which all good wills shall melt together…

We could try to rationalise these developments over the past century, but we would be mistaken.  It has happened and is happening.  Those pointing to an absence of Scripture or doctrine must look further back than the present to see what is happening.

Monday: More Catholic testimony about Communist infiltration

This week’s posts have been examining New Age and globalist thinking with regard to Christianity.

There appears to be a two-pronged approach.  One is for the elites, which includes ways to transform and micromanage other people’s behaviour.  The other is on popular thought, to prepare people to accept these new behaviours.  Today, we look at what the elites develop and learn from each other.

Since the end of the Second World War a fusion of United Nations programmes and management theory have been rolled out to international leaders in politics, business and churches.  The end result is to change the way governments control their populations at home, school, work and church.

On the face of it, these look appealing and innovative, until one begins asking questions as to what impact they will have on individual members of society.

What follows is by no means a complete list of transformational change organisations and agents but a few examples to give you an idea of what is happening in our world today and how these plans may affect each of us.

UNESCO

Julian Huxley, a Fabian, was UNESCO’s first Director-General.  In 1947, he explained how this agency would work (emphases in the original):

Unesco [UN Educational, Social and Scientific Organization] also can and should promote the growth of international contacts, international organizations, and actual international achievements, which will offer increasing resistance to the forces making for division and conflict. In particular, it can both on its own and in close relation with other UN agencies such as the FAO [Food & Agriculture Organization] and WHO [World Health Organization], promote the international application of science to human welfare. As the benefits of such world-scale collaboration becomes plain (which will be speedily be the case in relation to the food and health of mankind) it will become increasingly more difficult for any nation to destroy them by resorting to isolationism or to war. Page 14

Unesco must pay special attention to international education – to education as a function of a world society, in addition to its function in relation to national societies, to regional or religious or intellectual groups or to local communities. p. 29-30

Conclusion: …The task before UNESCO… is to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available and also the first time that man has had the means… of laying a world-wide foundation for the minimum physical welfare of the entire human species. And it is necessary, for at the moment, two opposing philosophies of life confront each other from the West and from the East … p. 62

“…society as such embodies no values comparable to those embodied in individuals; but individuals are meaningless except in relation to the community.” p. 62

Here are a few brief points from UNESCO’s Declaration of Principles on Tolerance with notes from Berit Kjos:

“Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures… It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement.” [appreciating lifestyles that clash with our faith?]

“Tolerance… means that one’s views are not to be imposed on others.” [Would this end our freedom to share the gospel with others?]

“Intolerance… is a global threat.”

And here are extracts from UNESCO’s 1994 Declaration on the Role of Religion in the Promotion of a Culture of Peace:

8. Peace entails that we understand that we are all interdependent…. collectively responsible for the common good.

11. We must… cultivate a spirituality which manifests itself in action…

19. Our communities of faith have a responsibility to encourage conduct imbued with wisdom, compassion, sharing, charity, solidarity, and love; inspiring one and all to choose the path of freedom and responsibility. Religions must be a source of helpful energy.

22. We will promote dialogue and harmony between and within religionsrespecting the search for truth and wisdom that is outside our religion. We will establish dialogue with all, striving for a sincere fellowship…

WHO

Berit Kjos has researched the World Health Organisation (WHO).  This is what she has discovered:

WHO was officially established as a specialized UN agency in April 1948. By that time, its first Secretary-General, Dr. Brock Chisholm, a Canadian psychiatrist, had already demonstrated his intolerance for Christianity. Two years earlier, he had written a report titled “The Re-Establishment of Peacetime Society.” It was published both in the prestigious magazine Psychiatry and in an international socialist newspaper published by Alger Hiss. Its message was clear: Christianity must be eradicated! Here are some excerpts:

“The responsibility for charting the necessary changes in human behavior rests clearly on the sciences working in that field. Psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, economists, and politicians must face this responsibility.

“…it has long been generally accepted that parents have perfect right to impose any…fears, superstitions, prejudices, hates, or faith on their defenseless children. It is, however, only recently that it has become a matter of certain knowledge that these things cause neuroses.

“There is something to be said… for gently putting aside the mistaken old ways of our elders if that is possible. If it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even violently’ …

Some years ago, school children were practicing compliance by signing the Healthy Practices Pledge. It sounded innocuous at first — just promise to

– “brush with a fluoride toothpaste,”

– choose “snacks such as fruits and vegetables,” and

– “make our home a smoke-free zone”

– then sign the pledge. But the contract was open-ended. It suggested that other “healthy” behaviors would be added later. What if the next part of the contract added “cooperation with” and “tolerance for” something that conflicted with a child’s faith? What if a refusal to sign the contract would bring ridicule and persecution? Would your child be ready to follow God, even when pressured to embrace contrary values?

General Systems Theory (GST)

A number of management theories have also played their part in bringing about a falsely unified global society.  Berit Kjos brings us this helpful summary from The Issues of Management:

GST was originally proposed by Hungarian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1928. He proposed that ‘a system is characterized by the interactions of its components and the nonlinearity of those interactions.’ Kuhn (the originator of the “paradigm shift”) applied the GST to culture and society, and he saw cultures as interlinking subsystems of a broader planetary society. In 1980, cosmologist Stephen Hawking then expanded systems thinking to the global platform by introducing the ‘Chaos Theory’ that claims the ‘interconnectedness of all things’— (i.e. the beating of a butterfly’s wings in Asia creates a breeze in America). As a result, GST becomes very esoteric when taken to its logical conclusions:

“GST is symptomatic of a change in our worldview. No longer do we see the world in a blind play of atoms, but rather a great organization.” (13)

– “According to GST, nothing can be understood in isolation but must be seen as part of a system.” (14)

– If one accepts the theory that the world is an interconnected and interdependent holistic system (and within that system is an infrastructure that is analogous across systems), one must logically conclude that [James Lovelock’s 1979] Gaia Hypothesis is true …

– The Gaia Hypothesis is, in essence, nothing more than ancient worship of the Mother Earth Goddess…

Now note the mention below of Rick Warren’s mentor, the late Peter Drucker:

“…one can conclude that GST is an esoteric belief system based on a merger of Darwinism and eastern mysticism—much like what one would now term ‘New Age’. GST contends that man is moving to the next level of evolution, but in order to reach this plateau, mankind must be ascribe to a common, universal consciousness, or belief system (“old beliefs” must transition to “new beliefs”). Drucker confirmed his adherence to this concept by the development of the ‘3-legged stool’ model. The legs are representative of the corporate system, the state, and the ‘private sector’.  He top of the stool signifies the reaching of that which he terms as ‘community’ or consensus of these three separate sectors (or subsystems) of society. Drucker … spent the last half of his life concentrating on this ‘private sector’ (churches and non-profits) because this segment offers the platform for the dialectical consensus to unite all of humanity to bring about the ‘jump phenomenon’ (16) to the next level of “societal evolution”. According to the GST and the Gaia Hypothesis, the ‘old system’ must break down in order for the “new system” to break through.”

Note this paragraph in particular (emphases mine):

… the non-profit sector –and the Evangelical Church in particular, posed the greatest threat to achieving the synthesis of “community”–or at least it did– until Hybels, Buford, Warren, and Co. began to transition their constituents by the hundreds of thousands to a position that aligned with the whole systems model.”

Networking

This isn’t about social networking — online or offline — but about technology and futurism effecting harmony and health around the world.  Berit Kjos tells us more (emphases mine below):

One of the mantras of the New Age “Aquarian” movement is “think globally, act locally.” … the purpose of networking was to transform the world. It would happen by restructuring the world from the tiny cellular all the way up to global governance.

None of this could be achieved without a computer … The computer is able to collate large amounts of data and oversee the complexity of networking processes. The computer also provides a feedback mechanism for data collection, monitoring, and assessing for compliance

The cellular hierarchical structure is an emerging structure of global governance transcending the nation-state. The Gaia Peace Atlas (Pan Books, 1988) contains a vivid picture of future governance models on pp 238-9, stating that in the future, “hierarchical, centralized ‘authority’ will give way to a network of interlocking levels of governance.” The title of the book is a reference to James Lovelock’s “Gaia Hypothesis,” in which he refers to the Earth in terms of this Greek goddess, and humanity as both an organism and a deity.

Similar cellular networking diagrams for global governance can be found on pages 126-7 of influential futurist Ervin Laszlo’s A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order (Braziller, 1974). (Note: These diagrams look the same as the models for cell church systems popular within evangelicalism.) Page 150 shows a “Design for a World Homeostat,” i.e., a centralized global government structure. Laszlo insists that the “world model must be hierarchical, with levels ranging from any local system or action and decision, through intermediate levels. To the global level of the world system as a whole” …

Another leader in the move towards systems-based global governance is Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, who wrote a paper entitled Framework for Preparation for the year 2000: The 21st Century and the Third Millennium (Quinnipiac College Press, 1994) in which he described his vision for the future. By the year 2010 he saw mankind evolving into a new species: …

The next phase of our evolution will therefore be a cosmic, spiritual age in which the Earth becomes a true showcase in the universe, with human beings in perfect physical, mental, moral, affective and spiritual union with the universe and time.“ (p. 22)

… on September 11, 1984, Donald Keys … a founder of the Luciferian one-world organization Planetary Citizens, delivered an address about “Transformation of Self and Society” at a “Light of the Mountains Forum” symposium called “Toward a Global Society.” Keys said:

We’re at a stage now of pulling it all together. It’s a new religion called ‘networking.’ . . . When it comes to running a world or taking people into a New Age, . . . don’t anyone think for a moment that you can run a planet without a head. . . . This planet has to be managed . . . . We have meditations at the United Nations a couple of times a week. The meditation leader is Sri Chinmoy, and this is what he said … ‘ . . . The United Nations is the chosen instrument of God … One day, the world will . . . treasure and cherish the soul of the United Nations as its very own with enormous pride, for this soul is all-loving, all-nourishing, and all-fulfilling.'” (p. 131)

Global Spirit

Global Spirit‘s formal name is The World Commission on Global Consciousness & Spirituality.

Two of its co-chairmen are the aforementioned Ervin Laszlo and Robert Muller.  Its objectives include, among other things:

– Create a new notation for global grammar/global perspective.

– Increase awareness of how one’s mentality affects one’s reality.

– Develop global wisdom, ethics & spirituality through deep dialogue.

Its recommended reading list includes:

– A New Earth: Awakening Your Life’s Purpose by Eckhart Tolle.

– The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom by Don Miguel Ruiz.

– The Empathic Civilization: The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis by Jeremy Rifkin.

– Global Shift: How A New Worldview Is Transforming Humanity by Edmund J. Bourne.

The Dalai Lama and Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu are two of its World Commission Members.

Global Spirit has 17 Global Councils on everything from religion to science to corporate responsibility to youth leadership to women to the arts.  So, every aspect of a person’s life is covered here.

Global Council participants include Robert Redford, Susan Sarandon, Bono, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Mikhail Gorbachev, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich and a host of veritable unknowns who must be very powerful people indeed.

Note the use of the word ‘networking’ and the notion of ‘think globally, act locally’:

Since its Inauguration in l998 the World Commission (WC) has taken as one of its highest priorities the importance of forming powerful networks, partnerships and collaborations in the interest of fostering growing circles and forces for creative transformation on a planetary scale …

The Commission has come to realize increasingly that it is vital now to engage in deep systematic networking to help convene, harness and augment further conscious collaboration. We realize that there is already an awesome and growing range of initiatives already proceeding in more localized and scattered ways which are directly aligned with the mission and vision of the Commission. Indeed, it is now clearer than ever that such concerted networking is a moral imperative if the Commission is to have a real impact for mass change in the 21st Century.

… Furthermore, in our ongoing deliberations and retreats over the past three years the Commissioners have identified a number of fundamental areas of concern which have emerged as pressing priorities in fulfilling our collective mission.

These will affect us one way or another.  Have no doubt that what we do in our leisure time, what we think, the way we worship, the way we work are all influenced by means beyond our control.

Tomorrow: Oprah and Rick Warren — vital tools in globalisation efforts

This is really weird.  As I’ve said before, I don’t know about all the trends in American society, but, inevitably, they seem to come to our sceptred isle sooner or later.

Take, for instance, the Zeitgeist films, which a UK blog, Revolution Harry, aptly discussed a few weeks ago in ‘New Age Communism: The “Zeitgeist” Agenda’.  I had read it when it first appeared on March 6, 2011, but because it didn’t mean anything to me, I forgot about it.

Then, Linda Kimball of Patriots and Liberty commented on one of my posts at the end of March, which got me thinking about it again.  This is what Linda said in response to my ‘Dissecting American leftist rhetoric’ (emphases mine):

At bottom, the Left’s bloodlust is grounded on a view of evil. In the secular “Gnostic” materialist view, private property is the great evil because it causes envy. Atheist Communism was an attempt at erasing all conditions that cause envy.

In its’ occult Neo-Platonist, Gnostic counterpart, matter is the great evil. In this view, God the Father created the matter into which the divine spark fell, thus becoming trapped within matter (body).

Whether secular materialist or occult Neo-Platonist, both converge on the condemnation of God the Father simultaneous to the exaltation of Lucifer as the first free thinker and liberator of mankind. By extension, all people who worship God the Father are evil while all who exalt Lucifer are good.

Slowly but surely the West has been falling into unconscious satanism. As the rest of the world becomes infected by Western “thought,” it too will fall into unconscious satanism.

Revolution Harry’s aforementioned post says something similar about the Zeitgeist series and its parent, the Venus Project:

I’d seen the first two films and felt a little uneasy about them. The section in the first film ‘exposing’ Christianity was deeply flawed and the ‘solution’ proposed in Zeitgeist Addendum, namely the Venus Project, seemed more than a little suspect …

I did feel, however, that there was more to the Zeitgeist Movement … I’d come to understand that much of the so called ‘Truth Movement’ was a controlled ‘psy-op’ with one of its main aims, in simple terms, being to steer those who had woken up to the Orwellian New World Order being developed, in the direction of a ‘good’ world government. In addition this ‘good’ world government would have New Age (Theosophic) overtones.

The reason I’m writing about this is that it will help shed light on the next few posts about New Age influences on the Church.  Bear with me, as a common thread links the secular and the Christian movements in this direction.

Harry mentioned ‘New Age (Theosophic) overtones’ and Linda Kimball ‘the exaltation of Lucifer’. Helena (‘Madame’) Blavatsky (1831-1891) developed Theosophy and co-founded the Theosophical Society.  Blavatsky taught:

that all religions were both true in their inner teachings and problematic or imperfect in their external conventional manifestations.  Her writings connecting esoteric spiritual knowledge with new science may be considered to be the first instance of what is now called New Age thinking.[11]

… she wrote: “It is ‘Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god,‘ and this without any allusive metaphor to its wickedness and depravity.”[23] In this reference Blavatsky says that he whom the Christian dogma calls Lucifer originally was never the representative of the evil but, on the contrary, was the light-bringer (which is the literal meaning of the name Lucifer). According to Blavatsky the church turned him into Satan (which means the opponent) to fit him into the newly framed Christian dogmas. A similar view is also shared by the Christian Gnostics, ancient and modern.

It should be noted that Theosophy was a prominent belief not only amongst ‘esoteric thinkers’ in the United States but among Fabians in Britain.  One of Mme Blavatsky’s closest disciples was Annie Besant, who became a close companion of Fabian George Bernard Shaw.  Shaw sponsored her for membership in the Fabian Society.  At the time Besant joined the Fabians, they were more interested in spiritual advancement than politics, although, as my regular readers already know, they went on to found the Labour Party and the London School of Economics.

At the turn of the 20th century, one of Besant’s protegés, Englishman Charles Webster Leadbeater (pron. ‘led-better’), an ex-Church of England clergyman and author on the occult, teamed up with Anglo-Catholic priest James Ingall Wedgwood (yes, the china family) to form the Liberal Catholic Church.  (This church has no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church, incidentally.)  It is a fusion of Catholicism with Theosophy and still exists today.

Another prominent English theosophist, Alice Bailey (1880-1949), founded Lucifer (now Lucis) Trust and is often referred to as the founder of the New Age Movement.  She wrote of ‘the Christ’, saying that:

the new Christ might be “of no particular faith at all”, that he may be from any nation, race, or religion, and wrote that his purpose of returning will be to “restore man’s faith in the Father’s love” in a close personal relationship with “all men everywhere”.

She stated that no one particular group can claim Him—that the New Age Christ belongs to whole world, and not to Christians alone, or to any nation or group. (Bailey, p 109) Bailey was highly critical of mainstream Christianity; she wrote that much of the Church’s teaching about Christ’s return is directly opposed to His own intentions and that “The history of the Christian nations and of the Christian church has been one of an aggressive militancy” (Bailey, p 110)

And for the Rick Warren watchers out there, here is how Bailey interpreted ‘discipleship’.  Bear in mind what Warren says about ‘deeds over creeds’.  Bailey’s perspective was

discipleship means work—serviceand the evolution of those sensitivities and powers that enhance that labor. Disciples will never gain such powers or awareness unless and until they will be used solely for unselfish service. (Bailey, p. 38)

So, when Rick Warren talks about getting closer to Christ through serving church and community, this is what he means.  Is he reading Alice Bailey’s works?  If he is typical of today’s Baptist pastors, we are on the road to perdition.

The New Age theosophical interest in Eastern religions developed from Mme Blavatsky’s years spent in India.  This is what she said in The Key to Theosophy (emphases in the original):

Q. What are the objects of the “Theosophical Society”?
1. To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction of race, color, or creed.
2. To promote the study of Aryan and other Scriptures, of the World’s religions and sciences, and to vindicate the importance of old Asiatic literature, namely, of the Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian philosophies.
3. To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature under every aspect possible, and the psychic and spiritual powers latent in man especially.

Alice Bailey, originally an Anglican, also lived in India.  She also felt the influence of Eastern religions (emphases mine):

Bailey wrote that, in 1919, she was contacted by a Master known as The Tibetan (later associated with the initials D.K., and eventually the name Djwhal Khul) …

Bailey associated … spiritual hierarchy and its branches with the system of Sirius, the planet Venus, and the mythical land of Shambhala (which she spelled “Shamballa”), the residence of Sanat Kumara, “Lord of the World”. Bailey wrote, “The energy of Sirius by-passes (to use a modern word) Shamballa and is focused in the Hierarchy. […] The entire work of the Great White Lodge is controlled from Sirius….”[90] Monica Sjoo, in an essay about the New Age movement, explained her interpretation that “Bailey taught that the Hierarchy of Masters exists in Shambhala and that Venusians founded this fabled city some 18 million years ago on the sacred Gobi island, which is now in the Mongolian desert.”[91] It may be noted here that, in Bailey’s concept, “city” is figurative since she states that Shamballa is not physical in the common usage of that word but is rather located in “higher ethers.”

Hold that thought on Venus.  Before we go into that, here’s what she had to say on religion.  Doesn’t this sound a lot like what the Emergent guys and Rick Warren say?

Bailey taught a form of universal spirituality that transcended denominational identification, believing that, Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals and orientals are all the sons of God.” She stated that all religions originate from the same spiritual source, and that humanity will eventually come to realize this, and as they do so, the result will be the emergence of a universal world religion and a “new world order.”[151][152] Bailey described a world where there would be no separate religions but rather “one great body of believers.” She predicted that these believers would accept unified truths based on brotherhood and “divine sonship”, and would “cooperate with the divine Plan, revealed to them by the spiritual leaders of the race.” She wrote that this was not a distant dream but a change that was actually occurring during the time of her writing. (Bailey, p 140)

Despite her focus on unity of religion, Bromley and Hammond point out that Bailey and other “occultists” “…hammered home the central idea, ‘The East is the true home of spiritual knowledge and occult wisdom.’[153]

Author Steven Sutcliffe wrote that Bailey’s “World Goodwill” organization was promoting groups of “world servers” to, as he quotes Bailey, “serve the Plan, Humanity, the Hierarchy and the Christ.”[154]

Okay, enough.  There is much more at the links.  However, here are the takeaways you can discuss with family members, particularly high school and university students who find this an attractive philosophy:

– The God of Theosophy-New Age is not the God of the Bible

– Christians refer to ‘Christ’, not ‘the Christ’

– We have no divinity in us

– Discipleship does not mean service but following Christ

– Not all are saved: ‘Enter by the narrow gate’

– The Bible says nothing about utopia or one-world harmony: ‘My Kingdom is not of this world’

Now, on to the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist films, which have won UN-sponsored endorsements. Revolution Harry reproduced a post from Henry Makow’s site, ‘New Age Communism: The “Zeitgeist” Agenda’.  Here are a few excerpts:

After the negative reception Zeitgeist received for it’s gratuitous anti-Christian content written by “Acharya S,” we hoped that was the end of Zeitgeist.

But a year later in 2008, filmmaker Peter Joseph was back with “Zeitgeist Addendum.” (Joseph’s real name seems to be P.J. Mercola.) This time P.J. seemed to kowtow to a wild eyed little old man named, Jacques Fresco.

Joseph said, ” Zeitgeist is the activist arm of the Venus Project”. The Venus Project is 94-year old control freak Jacque Fresco, born in the Bronx in 1917. It is associated with the UN

Fresco started out as an aircraft designer with a government contractor during the 1930’s.

After WWII he founded R[e]vell Plastics.  If you ever assembled model airplane kits you probably bought some of his products.  If you were into model airplane kits in the 1950’s-60’s, you remember the powerful airplane glue in the box, and you may recall getting headaches or even passing out.

In Zeitgeist Addendum, Fresco shows his plastic model Utopia.  He explains that all current social problems will be solved by technology.  For example, his solution for drunk driving is cars that won’t start if alcohol is detected.  That sounds good……..to a control freak.  In reality, when you create more technology you have to create more solutions to solve the problems it creates.  To see what I mean, visit the technological utopias in the movie “Brazil” (1985).

Fifty years ago, Fresco’s R[e]vell model airplane kits included a powerful toxic airplane glue in the box. That glue was eventually banned because the breathing the vapor killed brain cells.  If the engineer is infallible, was lowering intelligence of boys during the 1950’s-60’s part of his plan?

It was actually quite alarming at the time and probably the first media scare I can recall.  Anyway:

Plato’s Republic is the 2500-year-old blueprint of the New World Order.   Plato wrote it as a fictional dialogue proposing humanity be ruled by a special class of people he called “the Guardians”.   The premise [of] Plato’s utopia is that the majority of people aren’t entitled to their opinion, and for the good of society need to be told what to do from cradle to  grave.

That sounds not only like the elites but like Rick Warren, too.  Think of the Daniel Plan, where Saddleback Church maintains not only a database but checklist of activities participants are required to complete and fill in online.

Meanwhile, it transpires that Jacque Fresco was a Communist Party member but left because they did not share his enthusiasm for technology.

An article at an Irish site, Sovereign Independent, tells us that

Fresco spoke at the 10th anniversary of the UN’s Earth charter last year and subsequently attended Mikael Gorbachev’s congress, which you will find on thevenusproject.com hidden away in the Netherlands section. Hell even if for some reason you think rubbing shoulders with those mid level elites is okay, what about Fresco’s co-speaker Ervin Laszlo, (who he “spent time with”) who FOUNDED the Club of Budapest, with Aurelio Peccei, founder of the CLUB OF ROME, full of lovely illuminati globalists, who want a one world order, unified, worshipping the earth, under a new age religion. What about him being invited to dinner in the Dutch queen’s palace? As in Queen Beatrix…. of Bilderberg.

Fresco’s Venus Project:

is an organization that is founded on the ideas, designs, and direction presented here. It represents many years of research and dedication on the part of its originator and Project Director, Jacque Fresco. Its 25-acre research and design center is located in Venus, Florida where the future is taking shape today. The function of The Venus Project is to design, develop, and prepare plans for the construction of an experimental city …

This new experimental city would be devoted to working towards the aims and goals of The Venus Project, which are:

1. Conserving all the world’s resources as the common heritage of all of the Earth’s people

4. Reclaiming and restoring the natural environment to the best of our ability …

12. Assisting in stabilizing the world’s population through education and voluntary birth-control to conform to the carrying capacity of the earth.

13. Outgrowing nationalism, bigotry and prejudice through education

15. Arriving at methodologies by careful research rather than random opinions

17. Providing not only the necessities of life but also offering challenges that stimulate the mind, emphasizing individuality rather than uniformity.

18. Finally, preparing people intellectually and emotionally for the possible changes that lie ahead.

Apparently, the workers will be robots and society will be cashless as:

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Furthermore:

Only nutritious and healthy food would be available

Ugh.  Sounds terrible.

Back to Richard Evans at Henry Makow — he mentions another Fabian, Bertrand Russell:

Lord Bertrand Russell wrote in his 1951 book “Impact of Science on Society” that the electronic cashless society will be a form of social control.

Like Lord Russell, Fresco is a plutocrat whose retirement hobby is social engineering and raising an army of useful idiots..  During the Cold War hoax, Russell  founded  the “Pugwash movement” which used the fear of nuclear holocaust  to trick hippies into holding rallies in Washington DC begging for world government.   They must have been high, or didn’t have the vocabulary  to comprehend his wordy books …

Zeitgeist One told people to lose their faith in their religion,

Zeitgeist 1,2,& 3 told people that private property, savings, elected national democracy, and the right to your own opinion caused the economic crash, the ‘war on terror’, and ‘global warming’.

Now The Venus Project (Jacque Fresco) is telling you to withdraw all your money, savings and all and throw it away.

If there were any doubt that Zeitgeist has been predictive programming to coincide with the ‘flash mob’ ‘Global revolution’, the last 11 minutes of Zeitgeist Moving On leave no doubt.

He explains this last sentence in the comments:

I intended the article review of the last 11 minutes to show how the revolutions in the Middle East aren’t coming from the people at all. It’s a psychological operation.

I see I should have made that the only message of the conclusion.

He tells us what the next Zeitgeist project will include:

Fresco’s vision of a[n] atheist Utopia alienated Buddhists, Hindus, and those into the galaxy of “new age” peopleAware of that, Peter Joseph is currently working next installment for 2012, dropping the ‘Zeitgeist’ branding,  titled “Earth 2.0”.

It will push exactly the same cashless, collective society, but Zeitgeist’s open atheism will be candy coated with a section on human consciousness as God.  Quantum metaphysics Cabala camouflage will replace Jacque Fresco’s overt assault on faith and metaphysics.

Wow — we have really got ourselves into a muddle during the last century.

Oh, yes, I almost forgot:

JACQUE FRESCO: “If we try to visualize the future without families, there’s fear, so when we make movies we put families in there. There will be no families. Those people won’t want children. We do a survey of the carrying capacity of the earth, and that tells us how many people the earth can support” …

CLUB OF ROME:  “This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet.”

Tomorrow: More New Age and UN influences on today’s Christianity

Last year, one of my most popular posts was ‘The Fabian Society, the Third Way and modern British thought’.  If you’d like an eye-opening post with your morning coffee, it’s ideal.

Prior to that, I featured posts on the Frankfurt School on May 21 and May 23, 2010.  Since then, I’ve found a couple more insightful links, one of which is at Catholic Insight, ‘The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to corrupt’.  I’ll include a few excerpts below to fill in the gaps before I continue with the main post, which is a continuation of yesterday’s regarding gay ‘weddings’ in church.  Emphases below are mine.

What was the Frankfurt School? Well, in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was believed that workers’ revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. But it did not do so. Towards the end of 1922 the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider what were the reasons. On Lenin’s initiative a meeting was organised at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.

The aim of the meeting was to clarify the concept of, and give concrete effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution. Amongst those present were Georg Lukacs (a Hungarian aristocrat, son of a banker, who had become a Communist during World War I ; a good Marxist theoretician he developed the idea of ‘Revolution and Eros’ – sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction) and Willi Munzenberg (whose proposed solution was to ‘organise the intellectuals’) … Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat’) ‘It was’, said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007) the conservative author and co-founder of the ‘National Review’, a meeting ‘perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.’

Lenin died in 1924. By this time, however, Stalin was beginning to look on Munzenberg, Lukacs and like-thinkers as ‘revisionists’. In June 1940, Münzenberg fled to the south of France where, on Stalin’s orders, a NKVD assassination squad caught up with him and hanged him from a tree.

In the summer of 1924, after being attacked for his writings by the 5th Comintern Congress, Lukacs moved to Germany, where he chaired the first meeting of a group of Communist-oriented sociologists, a gathering that was to lead to the foundation of the Frankfurt School.

This ‘School’ (designed to put flesh on their revolutionary programme) was started at the University of Frankfurt in the Institut für Sozialforschung. To begin with school and institute were indistinguishable. In 1923 the Institute was officially established, and funded by Felix Weil (1898-1975) …

Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s director from 1923-1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and he believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research.

Originally supporters of the Third Reich, they had a falling out with Hitler, left the University of Frankfurt, where they had been teaching, and headed for the most prestigious universities in the United States.  Naturally, Americans — particularly academics — looked kindly upon these men and women as political refugees.

The School included among its members the 1960s guru of the New Left Herbert Marcuse (denounced by Pope Paul VI for his theory of liberation which ‘opens the way for licence cloaked as liberty’), Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, the popular writer Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and Jurgen Habermas – possibly the School’s most influential representative.

Like Antonio Gramsci, they intended to change long-established codes of behaviour for people in the Western world.  In particular, they wanted to break down people’s ties to family and the Church — the two obstacles to widespread acceptance of Marxism.  Gramsci envisaged a ‘long march through the institutions’ — home, church, school — which would take decades in order to succeed.  The Frankfurt School had the same objective — the ‘quiet’ revolution — which also was a long-term project.

How many of the following are familiar to you today?

… the School recommended (among other things):

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’

Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’

The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness’. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.

Now for two notes about the Fabians.  One from this article concerns Bertrand Russell, who collaborated with members of the Frankfurt School.  In 1951, he wrote in his book The Impact of Science on Society about the importance of mass psychology, which

has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.

The other note — similar in prediction — concerns another Fabian, Aldous Huxley, whose brother Julian helped found the United Nations. Gospel Nous Ministries’ ‘A Crisis in American Leadership: Exploiting our Moral Vagrancy (Part Four)’ cites part of his speech at Berkeley in 1962:

If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent. It’s exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely.

It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy, who have always existed and presumably will always exist, to get people to (actually) love their servitude.

Pass the soma!  I know my regular readers are aware of the danger here, but for any drive-bys: please wake up!

Anyone thinking that a) airport security pat-downs keep passengers safe, b) police targeting ‘low-hanging fruit’ offences instead of property crime gives us a more orderly society and c) that the many diversity laws in place bring equality really needs to read more about what these actions really mean.

This is what is really happening — it’s only a partial list of a long litany:

Confusion between civil and human rights.  Last week in the Telegraph, journalist Charles Moore discussed Parliament’s rejecting voting rights for prisoners.  No problem there, except that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), closely associated with the European Union, said that voting is a basic human right.  Most people believe that it is a civil right.  When you violate the law and are incarcerated, you have broken your contract with society and are thereby deprived of certain civil rights — e.g. voting and freedom of movement — as part of your punishment. However, John Hirst, who has campaigned for prisoners’ ‘human right’ to vote, said in the comments (February 12, 2011):

The ECHR has ruled that the UK is guilty of human rights violation by denying human beings their human right to vote. What part of that simple position do you not understand? The UK must toe the line of get out of Europe. Europe demands that Member States abide by Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law. Three basic objectives which the UK says it will meet. But it has been shown to have failed to meet them.

Overemphasis on ‘humanistic psychology’ and ‘values clarification’The aforementioned Catholic Insight article notes that what used to be civics and citizenship classes focussing on constitutions and government are now comprised of coursework with regard to ‘choices’ in life.  They explain that secular humanism springs from the designs of the Fabian Society, the Frankfurt School and their many present-day apologists. Abraham (‘hierarchy of needs’) Maslow, whom many of us studied at university, was part of the Frankfurt School and helped develop this concept. It is about more than his affirming ‘self-actualisation’ one studies in Psych 101. Therefore, he was surprised at the overwhelmingly positive reception Catholic nuns gave him after a speech:

On April 17th, 1962, Maslow gave a lecture to a group of nuns at Sacred Heart, a Catholic women’s college in Massachusetts. He noted in a diary entry how the talk had been very ‘successful,’ but he found that very fact troubling. ‘They shouldn’t applaud me,’ he wrote, ‘they should attack. If they were fully aware of what I was doing, they would [attack]’ (Journals, p. 157).

Increased clout of special-interest groups. Allow me to preface this by saying that what consenting adults do in their private life is no business of mine.  However, when special-interest groups expect the taxpayer to fork out for their advancement and entertainment, we have a disconnect.  The Christian Institute’s site reported in 2009 that the gay activist group Pride wanted money from Canterbury (Kent) City Council to help open … a gay bar:

The council refused, arguing that it has already provided £4,000 in grants for the group to promote its causes.

According to the council’s website, it has endorsed at least two Pride in Canterbury events in the last two years.

But Mr [Theo] Grzegorczyk thinks this is not enough. He said: “For all those who have questioned whether or not the Equality Duty is practical or necessary: here is your answer.

“This is a council who have been able to wiggle their way out of engaging with members of their own community, simply because the law doesn’t require it.

“Fortunately, Canterbury City Council won’t be able to use that defence much longer.”

The hypocritical destabilisation of childrenIn September 2010, Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens (Christopher’s brother) analysed gay activist Peter Tatchell’s opposition to the papal visit.  He describes:

what I believe is the hypocrisy of his attempt – and that of the Left in general – to wage war on the Pope by employing the charge of condoning or failing to act against paedophilia …

For on June 26, 1997, Mr Tatchell wrote a start­ling letter to the Guardian newspaper.

In it, he defended an academic book about ‘Boy-Love’ against what he saw as calls for it to be censored …

Personally, I think he went a bit further than that. He wrote that the book’s arguments were not shocking, but ‘courageous’.

He said the book documented ‘examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal’ …

And he concluded: ‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful’

What he said in 1997 remains deeply shocking to almost all of us. But shock fades into numb acceptance, as it has over and over again. Much of what is normal now would have been deeply shocking to British people 50 years ago. We got used to it. How will we know where  to stop? Or will we just carry on for ever?

As the condom-wavers and value-free sex-educators advance into our primary schools, and the pornography seeps like slurry from millions of teenage bedroom computers, it seems clear to me that shock, by itself, is no defence against this endless, sordid dismantling of moral barriers till there is nothing left at all.

Yet when one of the few men on the planet who argues, with force, consistency and reason, for an absolute standard of goodness comes to this country, he is reviled by fashionable opinion.

Parents’ taxes fund state power over their own children.  We have no choice but to pay taxes.  Many go towards necessary services, but when it comes to schools, parents may be on a losing wicket when it comes to withdrawing their children from sex education courses.  Gay Labour MP — and former Anglican priest — Chris Bryant has proposed a Sex and Relationships Education Bill which, if passed, would make it difficult to opt out of sex ed classes in schools.  The Revd Peter Ould, a married Anglican priest who describes himself as ‘post-gay’, is rightly concerned:

This is a serious issue. At present, parents can remove their children from … sex education … and they can do this at any age. The amendments to the 1996 Act proposed by Bryant mean that a child can only be withdrawn on their own volition (not the parents’) and that that can only happen if they are of “sufficient maturity” … (I cannot see a definition of “sufficiently mature” that will cover children under the age of 12) …

Chris Bryant’s proposals make the State the institution with the legal right and final authority to provide a moral framework for children. The inability of parents to remove their child from a class on sex and relationships education mean that in this area the School can educate children in a manner directly contradictory to the parents’ wishes and [there] is no legal recourse. The non-definition of the term “sufficient maturity” can easily allow a Secretary of State, if s/he was so minded, to raise the bar so high for a child’s absence from these classes that all children are de facto mandated to attend.

Sanctimonious politicians whose minds are in the gutter.  In my 2010 post on the Fabians and Labour politicians, I wrote that they presented themselves very well on television and radio interviews.  Between 1997 and 2010, they articulately pointed out the shortcomings of British taxpayers who smoked, drank and ate too much.  If we were not guilty of any of those, then we consumed too much electricity and gas.  We drove too much.  We didn’t get enough exercise.  We didn’t read to our children enough.  The list was endless.  But did you know that one of these MPs, Harriet Harman, in an earlier incarnation as legal officer in 1978 for the organisation now called Liberty, wanted to lower the age of consent to 14 and to decriminalise incest? British readers should also note that at that same time Patricia Hewitt — later a Secretary for Health (!) under Tony Blair — was the general secretary for what was then the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL):

It also defended self-confessed paedophiles in the press and allowed them to attend its meetings

In NCCL’s official response to the Government’s plans to reform sex laws, dubbed a “Lolita’s Charter”, it suggested reducing the age of consent and argued that “childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage”. It claimed that children can suffer more from having to retell their experiences in court or the press.

The near-inability to disagree without being vilified.  Fellow blogger Dick Puddlecote sent me the link to a Michael White article in the GuardianWhite, a leading left-wing journalist, has the temerity to argue the case for traditional marriage:

There’s no way around the biological fact that no amount of high-tech chicken basting can eliminate the need for a female egg and a male sperm to make a baby. On that fact rest all successful societies since the year dot …

… of course, an ever larger number of straight couples are busily persuading each other that they don’t need to marry, or stay married, in order to lead happy and enduring family lives.

I merely note in passing that the ever more permissive society in the rich west is barely 40 years old, has always been contested and is piling up problems different from the more conformist societies it replaced – but problems none the less …

Naturally, the comments following the article ripped his editorial to shreds: ‘not what we expect from The Guardian‘.  They also criticised another Guardian article, about torture victims whose religious faith gave them hope and kept them alive.

Our society is in such a sad state today.  The inability to criticise will become socially ingrained unless we keep speaking out about where morality, responsibility and our society are going.  Speak up, speak out — before it’s too late.  Choose your medium: letters, phone calls, emails, blogs or social networks.  But, please, say something and spread the word!

(Yes, this was a long post, but it was important to paint the portrait, past to present.  If you got this far, my thanks!)

On March 3, 2010, Churchmouse Campanologist featured a post entitled ‘UN plan for global mental health: change or be changed’.  It contained various cuttings from UNESCO, WHO and DHSS documents outlining plans to change the way we eat and think.

Now it’s becoming reality in a big way Stateside.  On June 13, 2010, Zero Hedge featured an article called ‘Obama Begins “Lifestyle Health Modification” Program, Mandating Behavioural Changes Within US Society’.  The US President claims the Constitution supports him in what many conservatives and libertarians see as nanny state interference.  See what you think:

Last week, with little fanfare, among the ever deteriorating oil spill crisis, the White House quietly noted the issuance of an executive order “Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council“, in which the president, citing the “authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America” is now actively engaging in “lifestyle behavior modification” for American citizens that do not exhibit “healthy behavior.” At least initially, the 8 main verticals of focus will include: smoking cessation; proper nutrition; appropriate exercise; mental health; behavioral health; sedentary behavior; substance-use disorder; and domestic violence screenings. Eventually we fully anticipate that the program will also target such wholesome activities as screening for precious metal holdings, monthly minimum usage of available revolving credit (and a minimum threshold thereto) and the susceptibility of an individual to stay current on one’s mortgage. Additionally, the president will establish yet another Advisory Group, composed of “experts” picked from the public health field, and one which tracks the successful uptake by the US population of the precepts for a better functioning society that the president deems important …

It goes on to quote from an executive order.  Obama likes these and many predicted he would use them to his and the government’s advantage.  Here are a few excerpts (emphasis in the original for (g) and I have emphasised (c)):

From the Executive Order, defining the duties of the Council:

Sec. 3. Purposes and Duties. The Council shall:

(a) provide coordination and leadership at the Federal level, and among all executive departments and agencies, with respect to prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the United States;

(b) develop, after obtaining input from relevant stakeholders, a national prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care strategy that incorporates the most effective and achievable means of improving the health status of Americans and reducing the incidence of preventable illness and disability in the United States, as further described in section 5 of this order;

(c) provide recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the most pressing health issues confronting the United States and changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition;

(d) consider and propose evidence-based models, policies, and innovative approaches for the promotion of transformative models of prevention, integrative health, and public health on individual and community levels across the United States;

(e) establish processes for continual public input, including input from State, regional, and local leadership communities and other relevant stakeholders, including Indian tribes and tribal organizations;

(f) submit the reports required by section 6 of this order; and

(g) carry out such other activities as are determined appropriate by the President.

Hmm. This is hardly John F Kennedy’s Presidential Council on Physical Fitness from the 1960s. Interesting that this is not devolved to states, insurance companies or individual employers to devise.  This is social engineering on a 300m+ scale.  So, in addition to the 16,000 new IRS agents who will be evaluating your personal health care plan in a few years’ time, Americans will now have an additional public body (cast of hundreds of thousands) telling them they’ve had one soft drink too many.To those who think this is a good idea (a miniscule number of my regular readers but possibly a few of the drive-bys who happen to see this posted), here are a few points to consider:

– People are under a great deal of stress economically at the moment.  Hence the rise in obesity as well as the stabilisation of cigarette smoking and alcohol intake. 

– No one is better to judge their own health and happiness than the individual.  Some heavy people and smokers live longer than others who die of cancer or heart attacks at an early age. 

– The WHO and anti-everything movements use spurious — junk — science to validate their claims for social engineering.  This is now a money-spinning industry with a wide variety of interests, among them pharmaceutical companies and cancer charities.  In some countries, like the UK, sin taxes help buoy up cancer charities who then want more of one’s money in private contributions to further this agenda.

What about food corporations and the ubiquitous corn-based sweeteners used in so many products?  Why not tackle these?  Diabetes Health points out:

… a little fructose is fine. It becomes a problem only when someone consumes high levels of fructose or HFCS [high-fructose corn syrup], which is now present in virtually all commercial foods …

If HFCS is one of the first ingredients listed on a food label, don’t eat it. Make a mental list of the worst culprits, such as regular soft drinks and many highly sweetened breakfast cereals. HFCS alone won’t make you fat, but when HFCS is high on the ingredient list, the food is not the best choice. As part of a lifestyle that has many of us eating too much and moving too little, we’re putting our health at risk if we don’t choose our foods carefully.

Up until the middle of the last century, most people handled their own health problems.  People had herb gardens and families believed in taking regular castor oil and physics.  Other than that, many raised their own poultry (even in town) and grew their own vegetables.  They also smoked and drank.  Even during Prohibition, the man of the house was legally allowed to brew his own beer and make his own wine for family use. 

Let’s look at two of the world’s oldest people and their lifestyles.  Suite 101 contains posts on health and the elderly.  Earlier this year, they carried an article, ‘Those Who Live Longest Make Their Own Rules’.  Here are a few excerpts:

Based on the lifestyle choices of the world’s oldest individuals, eating chocolate, fried chicken and other favorite, usually frowned-on foods, drinking alcohol, and even smoking are okay. It helps to live in the country and be active most of the time. It’s a definite plus to be female. Above all, it helps to feel contented with your lot, and to have a sunny, happy disposition …

Jeanne Calment of France, the world’s oldest person who died at age 122 in 2007, was known for her zest for life; she took up fencing at age 85, rode a bicycle at 100 years old, and also smoked until age 117. When asked, Calmet said she’s lived so long due to large amounts of olive oil in her food and as skin moisturizer, eating a kilo of chocolate a week, and drinking port wine, as well as her sense of humor. “I will die laughing,” she predicted. (Cnn, 1). She’s described as having a sunny, happy disposition. (Pythia, 1)

Sarah Knauss of Pennsylvania who died at age 119 in 1999 said she enjoyed her life because she had her health and could do things. Her favorite things to eat were milk chocolate turtles, cashews, and potato chips. She’s described as being a “sweet lady.” Her daughter said nothing fazed her, and that was why she lived so long. (Gerontology, 1).

Gertrude Baines of California who lived to be 115 and died in September 2009, lived on her own until she was 107, and loved to eat crispy bacon and munch on sweets, fried chicken, and ice cream. She liked to watch TV shows such as Jerry Springer. Baines credited her longevity to a temperate lifestyle. (Infoplease, 1).

The problem is today that fewer Westerners are happy.  My hypothesis is that it’s because of increasing government control over our lives.  If you have someone telling you what to do every moment of the day — doctors’ orders before you leave for work, your employer at work, your family at home in the evenings and a few more public health announcements before you go to bed —  you will feel angry because you feel helpless.  You’re stressed.  And when people are stressed, their bodies start pumping out cortisol.  Health researchers have been investigating a possible link between cortisol and obesity for several years.  As with so much of today’s science, there is much to-ing and fro-ing.  Until we really know, why should we allow governments to monitor our health when no one is really sure what factors are to blame?
Many of us take vitamin or enzyme supplements.  Yet, when I was in the US I passed by several health shops which featured large posters warning customers of a possible upcoming ban on these supplements, which save many people time and money by enabling them to treat their own aches and pains.  LifeExtension reports (emphases mine):

Against a background of regulatory missteps on pharmaceutical approvals, rather than focus upon strategies designed to speed the approval process for promising, lifesaving drugs and tighten the safety assessment around dangerous drugs to protect patients, the Dietary Supplement Safety Act (S. 3002) was introduced in 2010. This new bill sought to overturn key aspects of DSHEA and provide dramatic expansion of FDA power to regulate dietary supplements as new drugs.

Despite coordinated attempts by career bureaucrats and the pharmaceutical lobby to push the bill forward, a citizen backlash erupted over the Dietary Supplement Act of 2010. Health-conscious citizens correctly saw the bill as an attempt to expand FDA power and protect pharmaceutical profit. The efforts of informed citizens helped sideline the Dietary Supplement Act of 2010.

However, subsequent to the sidelined Dietary Supplement Safety Act, new language was quietly incorporated into the Wall Street Reform Bill (H.R. 4173), a bill aimed at curbing some of the wild Wall Street practices responsible for the current economic crisis. The fact that new language on dietary supplements was added to a bill designed to curb abusive Wall Street behavior is a sad testament to the use of misdirection on the part of some career bureaucrats to push an agenda.

The new language serves to expand bureaucratic authority on the part of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to regulate health claims on dietary supplements in such a way as to greatly increase cost. By mandating the conduct of trials similar to the type of registrational studies used by pharmaceutical companies to obtain FDA drug approval, the new language added to the Wall Street Reform Bill will demand that dietary supplements adhere to pharmaceutical standards of scale for cost.

Since the estimated cost of approval for a new pharmaceutical drug is about $1 billion dollars (US), the new language effectively seeks to ban dietary supplements from the marketplace. Dietary supplement companies do not have the resources to spend this amount of money on natural ingredients that are not patentable, and the dietary supplement industry will not be able to fulfill the proposed FTC requirements in the bill.

Rather than dramatically expand bureaucratic power and protect pharmaceutical profit at a time in our history when our elected officials seem focused on extravagant spending on health care, the type of flawed legislation embodied by S. 3002 and H.R. 4173 serves as a stark warning.

I don’t have a solution except to recommend preparing your own meals from scratch and taking things in moderation.  I do wonder what the American health care system with its constant checks for wellness is actually doing for the stress levels of its patients.  A century ago, they didn’t have these preventive programmes and regular checkups.  Could the healthy do without them?  Would it be possible to move to a catastrophic health insurance policy and rely on pay-as-you-go clinics for the occasional treatment?

Why give the government and health providers more control over your life than necessary?

In closing, I leave you with a passage from the preface to an online book from 1933, Red Medicine.  Note the mention of New York Times dictatorship apologist Walter Duranty and Fabian Sidney Webb (emphasis mine):

WHEN A RUSSIAN becomes ill the Government does something about it. In fact, the Government has already done something about it, for Soviet Russia has decided that the health of the individual is the concern of society as a whole. Indeed, the Soviet Union is the one nation in the world which has undertaken to set up and operate a complete organization designed to provide preventive and curative medical care for every man, woman, and child within its borders.

This vast and fascinating experiment in socialized health may not turn out as well as its originators expected, or it may turn out better. In any case it is an experiment that the rest of the world cannot afford to ignore.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,533 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

October 2021
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,660,660 hits