The Roots of Modern Eco-Terrorism:
From MK Ultra and the Unabomber to Maurice Strong and Yuval Harari
by Matthew Ehret
Strange things are happening.
Every few days, it has become customary to hear stories of trains carrying toxic waste derailing in rural food producing regions of the USA, or food processing plants going up in flames.
Meanwhile propaganda justifying the confiscation of property in the name of the greater good advances within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and UN Agenda 2030 while too few pay attention. Avowed Malthusians like Mark Carney, or Great Reset co-founder King Charles III advance the idea that humanity’s primary problem is climate change and overpopulation which apparently can only be tackled by radically reducing energy use, food production, and national sovereignty.
Rather than finding a mass movement of resistance towards this attack upon humanity, we have instead seen the spread of new pseudo-spiritual doctrines such as ‘Terror Management Theory’ promoted by evolutionary psychiatrist Sheldon Solomon who was featured in Michael Moore’s recent film Planet of the Humans. In this influential documentary, Solomon states:
“If we are to make progress, whatever that word means, or even to persist as a form of life, we’re going to need to radically overhaul our basic conception of who and what we are and what it is that we value. Because the people… both on the left and on the right that think we’re going to be able to discover more oil, or solar panel ourselves into the future, where life will look pretty much like it does now, only cleaner and better. I think that’s just frankly delusional… The only solution in principle, as Albert Camus put it ‘There’s only one liberty- to come to terms with death’, and thereafter anything is possible. I find that downright inspiring.”
In Solomon’s worldview, the causes of all disasters facing humanity are driven ultimately by our religious and other moral constructs which have simply been made up to avoid the fact of our ultimately meaningless lives and inevitable demise. The solution then, is to replace these destructive out-dated beliefs with a more relevant new scientific religion founded upon the enthusiastic embrace of death.
But how to get to this utopian promised land?
The case of the new film How to Blow Up a Pipeline is just one of many popular mass recruitment tools deployed to re-direct the pent up rage of alienated youth sitting on a decaying system.
In the case of the class of eco-activists dreaming about blowing up pipelines or eco-terrorists masquerading as ‘technocratic bureaucrats’ romping around Davos and Basel promoting global degrowth, it is worth noting that a consistent body of pseudo-intellectual books and peer-review sociological essays are a pre-condition for this unnatural momentum to tear down the foundations of civilization from either “bottom up” or “top down” directions.
The film How to Blow up a Pipeline was itself a product of the “sociological” book published in 2021 by Swedish eco-terror professor Andreas Malm of Lund University who has made a career advancing the case that human society’s only salvation is to destroy the dirty energy infrastructure sustaining modern life.
In a 2021 article in The London Guardian, Malm wrote:
“We could destroy the machines that destroy this planet. If someone has planted a time bomb in your home, you are entitled to dismantle it…This is the moral case which, I would argue, justifies destroying fossil fuel property. That is completely separate from harming human bodies, for which there is no moral case…The days of gentle protest may be long over”.
Naomi Klein became famous for her 2007 book ‘Shock Doctrine’ which demonstrated the origins of the IMF Shock Therapy policies in the bowels of CIA MK Ultra, where victims were broken down systemically through electro-shock and other forms of psychological warfare. She is an ironic fan of Malm and has called him “one of the most original thinkers on the subject” of climate change. The fact that Klein’s ardent embrace of radical degrowth and green energy systems would result in murderous economic shock therapy to the Earth’s population is an irony which the author has not reflected too deeply upon at this time.
Canadian climate guru David Suzuki also repeated Malm’s thesis at an Extinction Rebellion event in November 2021 saying:
“We’re in deep, deep doo-doo. This is what [we’ve] come to, the next stage after this, there are going to be pipelines blown up if our leaders don’t pay attention to what’s going on.”
In this essay, I would like to take some time to look at several intellectual stars who have risen to prominence justifying the need to declare war on civilization while at the same time tracing their influence to an infamous character named Theodor Kaczynski and the CIA’s MK Ultra project which ran the largest human guinea pig experiment in human history operating officially between 1953-1974. I will end by contrasting this diseased misanthropic self-mutilation with a healthier paradigm of technology, science, and government.
The Case of David Skribina, Eco-Terrorist Advocate
Throughout his works, David Skribina has advanced his thesis by assuming that mindless evolutionary forces shape technology’s growth as a force of nature ultimately using humans for its aims but with the ultimate destination of enslaving and then replacing humanity itself.
In a recent interview on the topic Skribina outlined this concept explicitly stating:
“Technology advances with a tremendous, autonomous power. Humans are the implementers of this power, but we can’t really guide it and we certainly can’t stop it. In effect, it functions as a law of nature. It advances with an evolutionary force, and that’s why we are heading toward disaster… Technology is like a wave moving through the Earth, and the universe. For a long while, we were at the peak of that wave. Now we’re on the downside. Technology is rapidly heading toward true autonomy. Our opportunity to slow or redirect it is rapidly vanishing. If technology achieves true autonomy—we can take Kurzweil’s singularity date of 2045 as a rough guide—then it’s game over for us. We will likely either become more or less enslaved, or else wiped out. And then technology will continue on its merry way without us.”
The Relevance of the Unabomber’s War on Technology
Admittedly, this is a pretty scary concept of technology.
Almost any western observer will recognize this dystopic thesis borrowing from the sci-fi films 2001: A Space Odyssey, Terminator and The Matrix. You might also notice that this theory of the demonic force of technology is shared by transhumanists like Elon Musk, Klaus Schwab, or Yuval Harari (who differ from Skribina only where it relates to the “solution” to this fact. Where one side wishes to go to war with technological civilization, the other side believes that humans must merge with technology in order to “stay relevant”).
After reading some anti-technological treatises by Dr. Skribina, and other critics of industrial civilization, I was surprised to discover that one particular name emerged as a sort of modern prophet and great philosopher by the name of… Ted Kaczynski (aka: the Unabomber). Despite the fact that Kaczynski sits in a supermax prison due to his passion for mailing elaborate bombs to targeted ‘agents of industrial progress’ over the course of 25 years, killing three and injuring dozens, it just so happens that Kaczynski has kept up a superhuman network of pen pals with literally thousands of activist-intellectuals across the western landscape since his arrest in 1996.
Skribina himself has corresponded extensively with Kaczynski since 2003, and has brought Kaczynski’s theories of technology into his classroom for over a decade and wrote the forward to Kaczynski’s 2010 book ‘Technological Slavery’. In 2016, Skribina even described Kaczynski as a “prophet and potentially a kind of savior of humanity and the planet”.
The reason for Kaczynski’s rebranding from terrorist to enlightened intellectual had a lot to do with a 35,000 word manifesto ‘Industrial Society and Its Future’ published in The Washington Post and The New York Times in 1995 (an apparent condition of his pledge to stop murdering people).
Despite the fact that some executives at The Washington Post didn’t feel good about the prospect, none other than the head of the FBI directly intervened to make sure the manifesto was published.
Skribina described the prophet’s strategy in the following terms:
“Kaczynski killed in order to gain the notoriety necessary to get the manifesto into the public eye. And it worked. When it was published, the Washington Post sold something like 1.2 million copies that day—still a record. He devised a plan, executed it, and thereby caused millions of people to contemplate the problem of technology in a way they never had before.”
The manifesto immediately thrust the disjointed former MK Ultra guinea pig into intellectual stardom as he became an eco-anarchist folk hero who was no longer seen as a profoundly sick misanthrope, but rather a prophet of his time.
Ted Kaczynski built his elaborate grand theory upon a simple axiom which essentially equated “technology” with “evil cancer”. This axiom was justified with the following empirical observation: Human civilization, and the associated increases in population levels, could not have happened over the past several thousand years without technological progress (ie: discovered and applied techniques designed to make life better for people).
Fine. No problem there.
Sadly, Kaczynski then presumed a priori and without a shred of evidence that ALL such advances of technology occur only at the expense of 1) freedom of the people and 2) destruction to nature. If we were to chart out this process on a graph, it would look something like this:
Just to be clear: Kaczynski and his disciples have made no allowance for the misuse of technology by folly, corruption, or evil agendas. Adherents of this formula also believe in the unproven pristine existence of the savage pre-industrial human, following the thinking of Rousseau’s doctrine of the noble savage. Despite ample evidence of inter-tribal warfare, cannibalism, and even environmental decay induced by pre-industrial civilizations, these theoreticians prefer to shape their anthropological worldviews on films like Avatar and Fern Gully.
Any evidence that technology, industrial growth, and hydrocarbon energy have driven upshifts in quality of life is completely ignored. Similarly, all evidence that demonstrates that industrial activity has coincided with healthy ecosystems is equally ignored.
Embedded within his treatise, Kaczynksi states explicitly that humanity and our technological creations are not actually governed by ideas, or free will but rather mysterious mindless forces animated by pure cold utilitarianism devoid of causal intentions or ideas. Kaczynski states:
“The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.”
In a 1998 letter to his pen pal Derrick Jenson (whom we will soon find plays an important role in our story), Kaczynski wrote:
“I agree with you that civilization is a curse and should be eliminated — if possible. But unlike you I am not confident that civilization will go down in the reasonably near future. Even just the elimination of the techno-industrial system is very problematic, and we must exert ourselves to the utmost in an effort to assure that it will happen. That is why I strongly disagree with your statement that ‘it is our primary task’ to see that civilization goes down ‘at a minimum cost to human…life.’ I think we have a desperate struggle ahead of us, and if we pull our punches we are sure to lose.”
In that same referenced letter to Jensen, Kaczynski made his Malthusian proclivities explicit saying:
“If we are ever to get rid of the system, we will have to accept the consequences. The human race will have to pass through fire. When a species becomes too numerous, typically it reaches a point where it suffers a sudden population collapse, through starvation, epidemic, or whatever. The human race should be subject to the same law.”
Since Kaczynski is a follower of Thomas Malthus, let us see how the ‘great economist’ considered managing the useless class of society. In his 1799 Essay on Population, Malthus wrote:
“We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.”
How Kaczynski and Davos Oligarchs Are of One Mind
One shouldn’t be surprised to discover that the remarks on overpopulation outlined by Kaczynski are similar to the words of former World Wildlife Fund (WWF) president Philip Mountbatten who stated in a 1981 interview with People magazine:
“Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed—not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they’ll do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily.”
At the time, Prince Philip had worked closely with the vice president of the WWF and co-founder of WEF named Maurice Strong, who echoed this sick vision while discussing a “novel he’d like to do”, musing in 1990:
“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Dennis Meadows, a World Economic Forum member and co-architect of the Club of Rome’s infamous “Limits to Growth” report of 1972 (also co-sponsored by Maurice Strong) stated in blood curdling detail his hopes for a “clean” killing off of the global population to sustainable levels in a recent Feb. 2022 interview:
“I hope this occurs in a civilized approach. I imply in a non-public approach. A peaceable approach, however, peace does not imply everyone seems to be joyful. But it surely does imply that the street has been resolved by different means, not violence, which is what I imply. So there are 7 billion folks proper now however we’re going to have 1 billion folks. We now have to return down. I hope it occurs slowly and evenly.”
I suppose that Meadows’ desire for a “slow and even” killing makes him sound a bit more ethical than the more impatient eco-terrorist pathways chosen by Kaczynski, but from a rationally objective standpoint, the difference in opinion between the two men is purely cosmetic.
One billion is the magic number which Meadows and other computer-modelling oligarchs jump on which presumably would warrant a limited amount of freedom to the human grazing cows in this so-called “green” Brave New World.
Now what did the Unabomber’s pen pal Derrick Jensen do in the years following his correspondence with the Unabomber?
Derrick Jensen’s Deep Green Resistance
On top or becoming a guru for the ecology movement in his own right, publishing 50 books promoting eco-activism, Jensen co-founded a California-based eco-anarchy movement with deep penetration into Canada called ‘Deep Green Resistance’ in 2011.
Advocating the complete destruction of major infrastructure around the world in a bid to save nature from humanity, Jensen’s Unabomber-inspired resistance movement outlined its techniques of deploying ‘above grounders’ and ‘below grounders’ in a section called “Decisive Ecological Warfare”:
“The above grounders would work to build sustainable and just communities wherever they were, and would use both direct and indirect action to try to curb the worst excesses of those in power, to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, to struggle for social and ecological justice. Meanwhile, the under grounders would engage in limited attacks on infrastructure, especially energy infrastructure, to try to reduce fossil fuel consumption and overall industrial activity. The overall thrust of this plan would be to use selective attacks to accelerate collapse in a deliberate way.”
The Deep Green Resistance website outlines a five-fold strategy for their above and below grounders:
- Strategy A: Engage in direct militant actions against industrial infrastructure, especially energy infrastructure.
- Strategy B: Aid and participate in ongoing social and ecological justice struggles; promote equality and undermine exploitation by those in power.
- Strategy C: Defend the land and prevent the expansion of industrial logging, mining, construction, and so on, such that more intact land and species will remain when civilization does collapse.
- Strategy D: Build and mobilize resistance organizations that will support the above activities, including decentralized training, recruitment, logistical support, and so on.
- Strategy E: Rebuild a sustainable subsistence base for human societies (including perennial polycultures for food) and localized, democratic communities that uphold human rights.
In a 2011 recruitment video, various devotees and priests of the Deep Green Cult, including Jensen himself, outline their reasons for going to war on modern civilization:
One of the cultish devotees featured prominently on the DGR recruitment videos explains candidly that they receive guidance from people involved in the military:
“The reason why we know this strategy can work is that we talk to people who have been involved in the military… and they tell us that going after critical nodes of infrastructure is a classic technique that’s been used hundreds or even thousands of times throughout history to win large scale conflicts and especially asymmetric conflicts.”
Are these eco-terrorists wondering why the American military are helping train them for eco-terrorism? Or perhaps they tell themselves the same thing that the Ukrainian Nazis or ISIS terrorists do, who are also receiving U.S. military support and training as part of their holy wars. Do these eco-terrorists suspect that they might be getting played as pawns on a geopolitical chessboard or do they actually think ‘we will take what we can get from them but we are still the ones in control’?
The Deep Green Resistance also features a news service site with a peculiar section titled ‘Underground Action Calendar’ which explicitly showcases a list of over one hundred cases of successful eco-terror acts against various rail and energy infrastructure systems across the Americas and Europe. The web page’s opening remarks state:
“The Underground Action Calendar exists to publicize and normalize the use of militant and underground tactics in the fight for justice and sustainability. We include below a wide variety of actions from struggles around the world, especially those in which militants target infrastructure, because we believe this sort of action is necessary to dismantle civilization.”
A small sample of the successful sabotage operations is featured below:
The full list can be accessed here.
Above and Below Grounders
Over the past two years a vast array of explosions of food processing facilities, granaries, and train derailments have rained down across North America and Europe.
Is this destruction caused by “underground” eco-terror campaigns?
Certainly ‘above grounders’ like Mark Carney, and other Davos creatures have done no small share of damage to the support system of humanity by forcing through Central Banker Climate Compacts to choke off dirty hydrocarbon energy, declare moratoria on nuclear power across Europe, and oversee the collapse of agro-industrial farms using draconian fertilizer quotas.
California’s Gavin Newsom recently demonstrated that he could dance with the best eco-terrorists by spending over $500 million dollars in tax payer money to destroy four hydro-electric dams in a bid to reduce the population of California, liberate the deserts, and give rivers back their
inalienable human rights. If a few thousand farmers get eliminated along the way, then that can only be assumed to be a blessing in disguise.
Across the USA, over 1,951 dams were demolished in the past decade, including 57 in 2021. While many onlookers champion this restoration of nature, the destruction to lives caused by the reduction of food production and affordable electricity is devastating.
Bug eating appears to have no limits to its production since Canada’s government has proudly unveiled the world’s largest cricket farm while at the same time declaring war on conventional farming with a threatened 30% reduction in food production by 2030.
In the USA, Biden’s 2023 infrastructure bill pours more money into “appropriate” green energy sources that are of such low quality that humanity’s means of production will collapse resulting in the deaths of millions of people worldwide — this following the US government sabotage of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
The Strange Case of Extinction Rebellion
In tandem with Deep Green Resistance, another outfit has grown out of the cynical cesspool of disenfranchised youth energy and billionaire patronage in England named Extinction Rebellion.
Although advocating non-violence on the surface, deeper ideological motives are seen clearly through the actual words of Extinction Rebellion co-founder Roger Hallam who said the following while speaking at an Amnesty International meeting on Feb. 4, 2019:
“We are going to force the governments to act. And if they don’t we will bring them down and create a democracy fit for purpose. And yes, some may die in the process.”
When members began questioning how Extinction Rebellion’s revenue from billionaires (who dominate the capitalist system they so despise) meshes with their modus operandi, Hallam comforted his army of eco-warriors by explaining that the oligarchs have feelings too, and are also suffering from climate depression:
“We’re dealing with people who cry at night, just as we do. We don’t want them to commit suicide. No! We want them to ring us up and give us that million quid.”
In a 2019 EIR study conducted by Dean Andromedas, a lengthy overview of the funding sources for Extinction Rebellion was carried out. Andromedas writes:
“According to Extinction Rebellion documents acquired by Breitbart News, the mega-speculator and financier of so many No-Good Organizations (NGOs), George Soros, topped XR’s list of eco-anxious donors, although the amount he gave was blacked out in the relevant document. Other European funds have come from the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, which gave no less than £121,140 (about $155,000). This is the foundation of the notorious, mercenary London-based hedge fund, The Children’s Investment Fund Management, founded and run by Sir Chris Hohn. The CEO of this foundation, which has an endowment of over £2 billion, is Kate Hampton, who also serves as Vice Chair of the key European Climate Foundation and a board member of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).”
Another Extinction Rebellion co-founder is Gail Bradbrooke who had formerly worked for King Charles’ Business in the Community/Responsible Business Network which today is an integrated part of the World Economic Forum.
Another patron of Extinction Rebellion is hereditary peer Lord Anthony St. John, merchant banker, and director of multiple mining companies across South Africa. Not only is Lord St. John a vice chair of the All Party Parliamentary South Africa Group in the House of Lords, but is also a leading patron of Television for the Environment. This project was created by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and World Wildlife Fund-UK in 1984. The UNEP was itself created by Davos co-founder Maurice Strong who had also served as the vice president of the WWF. Since 2011, the World Wildlife Fund’s president has been none other than the former Prince (now King) Charles himself.
St John is also on the advisory board of “Successful Green” alongside Peter Merian (director of the Basel Stock Exchange) and Marcelo Cavalho de Andrade, President of the Earth Council Alliance (ECA). The ECA was itself the creation of Maurice Strong in 1992.
Of course, Extinction Rebellion professes peaceful non-violent resistance to the system, just like Deep Green Resistance, but that hasn’t stopped them from calling for filling the airfields of Heathrow Airport with drones in order to disrupt air-traffic controllers and put thousands of lives of passengers at risk.
This is something which would have made Ted Kaczynski proud as his first efforts at terrorism involved a bomb which failed to detonate on a passenger jet in 1979.
It also hasn’t stopped them from including a non-negotiable Net Zero by all governments by… 2025 (ie: an 85% elimination of all carbon dioxide emissions within the next two years). This irrational goal is actually considered a demand that, if satisfied, would result in massive death of people worldwide.
MK Ultra and World Government
In a June 2000 issue of The Atlantic, Alston Chase wrote of Kaczynski’s MK Ultra experience as part of a group of 22 victims selected for their high intelligence:
“From the fall of 1959 through the spring of 1962, Harvard psychologists, led by Henry A. Murray, conducted a disturbing and what would now be seen as ethically indefensible experiment on twenty-two undergraduates. To preserve the anonymity of these student guinea pigs, experimenters referred to individuals by code name only. One of these students, whom they dubbed “Lawful,” was Theodore John Kaczynski, who would one day be known as the Unabomber, and who would later mail or deliver sixteen package bombs to scientists, academicians, and others over seventeen years, killing three people and injuring twenty-three.”
Alston also noted in the Atlantic article that Henry A. Murray, chairman of the Department of Social Relations at Harvard, was himself a fanatical devotee of world government and used “science” to transform the very nature of humankind while working for the OSS, CIA, and Rockefeller Foundation. Writing to his fellow globalist Lewis Mumford, Murray stated:
“The kind of behavior that is required by the present threat involves transformations of personality such as never occurred quickly in human history; one transformation being that of National Man into World Man.”
One important piece of information left out by the Atlantic magazine review was that Murray was not only obsessed with re-programming humanity but was a close collaborator with MK Ultra contractors Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson who drove their “human reprogramming” project around the use of LSD and psilocybin.
A June 22, 2000 edition of the London Guardian even noted:
“By the late 50s… Murray had become quite interested in hallucinogenics, including LSD and psilocybin. And soon after Murray’s experiments on Kaczynski and his classmates were under way, in 1960, Timothy Leary returned to Harvard and, with Murray’s blessing, began his experiments with psilocybin.”
Here, the author was referring to Murray’s support for Leary’s Harvard Psilocybin Project which ran from 1960-62 (not coincidentally the same period that Kaczynski was going through his drug-assisted transformation) experimenting on large swaths of student guinea pigs and overseen directly by MK Ultra’s Sidney Gottlieb.
“In his autobiography, Leary, who would dedicate the rest of his life to promoting hallucinogenic drugs, described Murray as ‘the wizard of personality assessment’ who, as OSS chief psychologist, had monitored military experiments on brainwashing and sodium amytal interrogation. Murray expressed great interest in our drug-research project and offered his support.”
In a 1991 presentation titled ‘From Psychedelics to Cybernetics’, Leary described his recruitment to the Harvard program to transform human nature saying:
“In the year 1960, I was invited to come to Harvard University, and I was given a license by them. They asked me to come to Harvard to develop new ways of behavior change. Ha-ha! I didn’t know, and certainly they didn’t know, that that invitation to realize an opportunity to really bring about changes for the human psychology.”
Timothy Leary had been recruited to the cause of re-tooling humanity under a new drug based pagan religion by Aldous Huxley, with whom the Harvard professor collaborated for years. Describing his interaction with Huxley as the two planned this final revolution, Leary wrote in 1983:
“We had run up against the Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good natured pluralism and scientific paganism had arrived.”
For this new scientific paganism to wash away the pollution of 2000 years of Judeo-Christian civilization, some things must burn down of course.
Cybernetics and the ‘Science of Eugenics’
It is worth holding in mind that these social engineering programs to re-write human nature and induce a global reset of civilization were driven by the ideological underpinnings of Cybernetics (the science of control) as developed by acolytes of Lord Bertrand Russell led by Russell’s disciple Norbert Wiener. Timothy Leary and Bateson were themselves devotees of cybernetics.
In Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social/Behavioral Sciences, Dr. Lawrence S. Bale discusses Bateson’s leading role in the Macy Conferences on Cybernetics after WWII, and noted his leading role in shaping and infusing this new system of control into anthropology:
“Gregory Bateson embraced the concepts and vocabulary of cybernetics because this interdisciplinary field offered a more rigorous formulation of theoretical concerns with which his work had already been dealing. In fact, Bateson’s biography offers ample evidence that long before he first encountered cybernetic theory, a systems approach to the biology and the behavioral sciences were for him not a foreign concept.”
As this author outlined in ‘The Revenge of the Malthusians and the Science of Limits’ published on Unlimited Hangout, it was Cybernetics that became the chosen conduit for the “reform” of eugenics after 1945 with the same rotten wine made unpalatable by Hitler, repackaged in new wine skins.
Under this new “science”, governing systems formerly associated with the growth of human creativity and defense of freedom became instruments for control.
After World War II, cyberneticists demanded that humanity be modeled upon the analogue of a binary computing system with feedback loops controlled by one center of central command. This would be a sum of parts with nothing metaphysical such as “souls”, “dignity”, “God” or “justice” having any permitted role to play within the closed system process. These were treated as “unscientific” abstractions and nothing more.
It should also be noted that this system was the driving force for the multi-headed monstrosity that came to be dubbed “Transhumanism” by Sir Julian Huxley in 1954 who also served his hereditary masters as a godfather of the modern conservation movement founding the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in 1947 and World Wildlife Fund in 1961. The fact that Huxley was also acting president of the British Eugenics Society during this time should also not be ignored.
The central command structure made possible by cybernetics had found earlier expression in the “World Brain” fantasized by the Fabian Society’s H.G. Wells in 1938.
In his 1901 ‘Anticipations’, Wells had already dictated his grand vision for humanity by describing this eugenics-driven world government as “a new republic”:
“The new ethics will hold life to be a privilege and a responsibility, not a sort of night refuge for base spirits out of the void; and the alternative in right conduct between living fully, beautifully and efficiently will be to die. For a multitude of contemptible and silly creatures, fear-driven and helpless and useless, unhappy or hateful happy in the midst of squalid dishonour, feeble, ugly, inefficient, born of unrestrained lusts, and increasing and multiplying through sheer incontinence and stupidity, the men of the New Republic will have little pity and less benevolence.”
In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, this was the transhuman control system above all the test-tube alphas, betas and deltas represented by the figure of Mustapha Mond.
Describing the showdown between the Shakespearean ‘womb-born’ outsider named John Savage and Aldous’ character of Mustapha Mond, we find the kernel of the oligarchical program laid out in its most transparent expression (of course safely hiding behind the veneer of “fiction”):
“‘A New Theory of Biology’ was the title of the paper which Mustapha Mond had just finished reading. He sat for some time, meditatively frowning, then picked up his pen and wrote across the title-page: ‘The author’s mathematical treatment of the conception of purpose is novel and highly ingenious, but heretical and, so far as the present social order is concerned, dangerous and potentially subversive. Not to be published.’ … A pity, he thought, as he signed his name. It was a masterly piece of work. But once you began admitting explanations in terms of purpose – well, you didn’t know what the result might be. It was the sort of idea that might easily decondition the more unsettled minds among the higher castes – make them lose their faith in happiness as the Sovereign Good and take to believing, instead, that the goal was somewhere beyond, somewhere outside the present human sphere, that the purpose of life was not the maintenance of well-being [as the lower forms of happiness and comfort], but some intensification and refining of consciousness, some enlargement of knowledge. Which was, the Controller reflected, quite possibly true. But not, in the present circumstance, admissible.”
Herein lies the rub for those “scientific managers” wishing to control society under “scientific principles”, and here also lies the core issue which poor Ted Kaczynski and his armada of ideological eco-anarchist clones spread across the trans-Atlantic world cannot comprehend. The ‘IDEA’ of science and technology which these oligarchist “scientific social engineers” are committed to is a chimera. It is an idea which only exists within the perverse ivory tower abstractions which have no bearing upon the nature of those systems which they wish to govern like Gods.
The Enduring Problem of Discoveries for Oligarchists
A discovery made in the mind of a Marie Curie, Dimitry Mendeleev, Benjamin Franklin, or Max Planck has the unique effect of creating new spheres of potential to move, discover, and grow in qualitative ways that would have been impossible before their discoveries were made.
For example, prior to the discovery of electricity, humanity’s limits to growth and associated “carrying capacity” were very different from those which the discovery had created after the 19th century.
Once the discovery was made and communicated to others, a new power to direct this force towards beneficial ends was made possible and new inventions could then be created.
Soon, messages which formerly took months to transmit across the ocean now occurred in seconds and the production of useful goods began to occur in ways no one living before the 19th century could have dreamed. More people could be sustained at higher standards of living and where life expectancy had sat below 40 years of age in the USA prior to 1850, skyrocketed to 79 years on average by 2019.
Unlike the theorists of Kaczynski and his acolytes, this tendency did not have a “life of its own” as some demonic force, but occurred through an intensive moral fight over ideas, and free choices of individuals to live and even die for their principles.
If an imperial master-class of elites wished to dominate the system under a unipolar world government as the British Empire had desired, then the application of technology would be infused by those perverse intentions to destroy and enslave the masses for the benefit of a few.
Throughout the 19th and early 20th century, this insidious system was better understood as ‘The British System’ of social order which was defined by figures like Jeremy Bentham whose Hedonistic Calculus formed the backbone of today’s Behaviorist economists and Thomas Malthus whose “law of overpopulation” formed the basis of the “dismal science” of the utilitarian cult of transhumanism. British liberalism of Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill promoted the notion that “value” was rooted in hedonistic impulses to “buy low, sell dear” and avoiding pain to maximize pleasure. Invisible hands were imagined to shape the hedonistic impulses of the market place and national governments were expected to castrate themselves by abrogating their rights to use national banking, protectionism or regulation of private capital in the general welfare.
Behind the ivory tower theories advanced across global universities, the real world application of this system saw a systemic destruction of nations everywhere it was applied, and a worldwide web of dependency under the control of the City of London and British East India Company.
Under British Free Trade and Malthusian population laws, Indian textiles were systemically destroyed and the “Chinese dragon” was subdued with a program of mass opium consumption that would stain the 19th century. With these two targets brutalized, the City of London quickly took control of world textile manufacturers which created a primary export market for southern slave plantation cotton and a new set of addictions began: the addiction to the easy money derived from cheap slave labor from America’s plantations. This proto globalization established a global closed system of controls onto all nations through cash cropping, free trade, speculation, and drugs.
By 1840, over 20% of the British population was employed in textiles under such anti-human conditions that Charles Dickens described in his Tale of Two Cities and other writings. Meanwhile Britain purchased 80% of the cotton produced by the slave states of the USA encouraging an addiction to slave labor, in no way different from the system of dependency overseen by the World Bank and IMF in the days of globalization.
In opposition to this rapacious system, Abraham Lincoln’s economic advisor Henry C. Carey outlined a different concept of world systems that recognized value to be located in the power of creation of each individual citizen and each individual nation state.
“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labour of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving the labourer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits. One looks to increasing the necessity of commerce; the other to increasing the power to maintain it. One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace…One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”
In the Lincoln/Carey system of American Constitutional economics, every nation had the obligation to supply their own vital needs by the use of protectionism, regulation, and national banking as seen in Lincoln’s greenbacks. Internal improvements driven by new discoveries, and large-scale infrastructure would allow humanity to always create more energy than the system consumed thereby leaping over the limits to growth.
Henry C. Carey also attacked Malthus by name saying: “Of all contrivances for crushing out all Christian feeling and for developing self-worship, that the world yet has seen, there has been none entitled to claim so high a rank as that which has been, and yet daily is, assigned to the Malthusian Law of Population.”
A century after the Civil War, President Kennedy also took aim at the rot of the closed system ideologues then beginning to latch onto the levers of policy and culture saying: “Malthus argued a century and a half ago that man, by using up all his available resources, would forever press on the limits of subsistence, thus condemning humanity to an indefinite future of misery and poverty. We can now begin to hope and, I believe, know that Malthus was expressing not a law of nature, but merely the limitation then of scientific and social wisdom.”
During his short-lived presidency, Kennedy launched a vast array of energy, transportation, and aerospace projects across the continent of the Americas and offered these tools to Africa where he fought alongside Pan African leaders Kwame Nkrumah and Haile Selassie of Ethiopia to build major hydro electric dams against the will of the JP Morgan steel interests.
Contrast this positive philosophy of technological growth to the misanthropic Morges Manifesto published in 1961.
Written by Sir Julian Huxley, this manifesto served as a constitution for the new ecology movement which other oligarchs like Prince Philip and Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands launched that same year. Instead of recognizing the evil misshaping humanity in the imperialist system of exploitation, as had been recognized by Henry Carey, Lincoln, and John F Kennedy, this hereditary elite sought to convince the world that it was technological progress itself which was the intrinsic enemy of nature. These oligarchical ecologists went on to oversee the murder of anti-Malthusian leaders during the 1960s while also establishing new institutions of control such as the Bilderberg group or its junior partner at Davos in 1971. Such organizations became the “controlling nodes” of cybernetics/transhumanist management of humanity over the ensuing 70 years.
These Malthusian cyberneticists demanded that humanity be defined by a sum total of alienated and atomized individual particles who all adhere to the assumption that they must either 1) adapt to the reality of technology’s inevitable elimination of humanity’s free will as seen by the sad case of Wells’ devotee Noah Yuval Harari, OR 2) go to war against the system (which they perceive as their intrinsic enemy) in the form of the Unabomber, or billionaire funded activists revolving around Extinction Rebellion, and Deep Green Resistance.
Just as Aldous Huxley imagined a drug called ‘soma’ and entertainment of ‘feelies’ mixed with love-less sex as imperative cultural norms that all subjects in his dystopian novel had to adapt to in a hedonist world of sensualism; the LSD and psilocybin cultural matrix which Huxley devoted himself to (while recruiting Timothy Leary) in conjunction with the new high priests of cybernetics emerging out of MK Ultra would be the necessary foundations for a new era of feudalism and willful depopulation.
World Economic Forum intellectual guru Yuval Noah Harari outlined this Huxleyian view of the supposed inevitable future in a recent speech saying:
“I think the biggest question in economics and politics in the coming decades will be ‘what to do with all these useless people?’ I don’t think we have an economic model for that… the problem is more boredom and what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life when they are basically meaningless, worthless? My best guess at present, is a combination of drugs and computer games”.
IDEAS, Not Cold Utility, Shapes Human History
Recall the core assumption of Ted Kaczynski:
“The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.”
In this simple statement, Kaczynski exposed the fact that he denies:
1) Free Will, since the system that has shaped humanity grows exploitatively under its systemic impulse to rape and destroy until freedom and nature are gone, and,
2) The causal role of IDEAS both right and wrong in shaping history.
As much as eco-terrorists like the Unabomber, Andreas Malm, David Skribina, Roger Hallam, or Derrick Jensen would hate to admit it, the fundamental assumptions of humanity, technology and history are IDENTICAL with those of death cultists like Prince Philip, Yuval Harari, and Maurice Strong.
While one side has chosen to adapt to those supposed consequences of technological progress and become alphas in the emergent Brave New World, the other side has simply chosen to go maximum John Savage and burn it all down.
The choice was always a false dichotomy.
This is exactly the nature of the ‘double bind’ trap outlined by Gregory Bateson himself as the basis for inducing schizophrenia among a confused target population. Bateson took note of the effects of schizophrenia that could be induced (often with the assistance of hallucinogenic cocktails) that a victim will often break down into a schizophrenic state when confronted with contradictory messages. For example, we are taught from an early age to “be good to others”. If information is presented that demands we conclude that in order to be good, we must do things that involve killing our fellow humans, then we would predictably feel some form of mental dissonance.
Some people might believe that they must save nature from humanity, as outlined by Huxley’s Morges Manifesto, by influencing the system from above in order to promote policies that justify shutting down industrial civilization, thereby killing billions of people.
Others might encounter the same false claim that “technological growth = evil” and then express their “goodness” by declaring war on industrial civilization from below.
Either way, the effects lead to the same techno-feudal dystopia.
The only way to break the bind, is to change one’s fundamental axioms and recognize that it isn’t technology which is intrinsically good or evil, nor is overpopulation a genuine problem, but rather it is our willingness to tolerate evil ideas shaping the behaviour of technology and political systems that results in those systems turning fascist and collapsing into dark ages.
