Add a Comment

Comment by Ragnarok on September 16, 2012 at 2:38

Solas is spot on with that last comment. It is the imposed systems that have created the imbecilic half-wits they seems to love to hate. And of course, it's all very rational. Rationality, the refuge of the eugenicist.

Comment by A Solas on September 14, 2012 at 20:31

Sure, they (we) have to be trained to be incompetent to provide an excise for the Glorious Leaders to provide their "Solutions".
The sheer length of time spent in school and the resources put into it shows how much work it takes to destroy the natural critical capacities.
"For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them ?'"

-UTOPIA
by SIR THOMAS MORE-

Comment by Diane, Denizen on September 14, 2012 at 19:49

I think all boats should be raised equally, but the education system has to adopt a multiple intelligence approach (Howard Gardner) and children should have responsibility from an early age, even if it is non-challenging in nature. This is why I think all children from the age of say 13-14 should be taught to shoot, both pistol and rifle, its good discipline, steadies the nerves,brings on a sense of responsibility etc. What I see now with young people, boys particularly, they are not fit to have a BB gun, never mind an air pistol-simply because they are immature, irresponsible, simple dim and thick-this does not bode well for anyone!

Comment by A Solas on September 14, 2012 at 16:51

“About 99.5% of the entire population of the planet are as stupid and philistine
. . . as the great masses of the English. The important thing, it seems to me,
is not to attack the 99.5% . . . but to try to see that the 0.5% survives, keeps its
quality up to the highest possible level, and, if possible, dominates the rest. The
imbecility of the 99.5% is appalling—but after all, what else can you expect?”

“How do they expect democratic institutions to survive in a country where an
increasing percentage of the population is mentally defective? Half-wits fairly
ask for dictators. Improve the average intelligence of the population and selfgovernance
will become, not only inevitable, but efficient.”

“But if, as would be the case in a perfectly eugenized state, every individual is
capable of playing the superior part, who will consent or be content to do the
dirty work and obey? The inhabitants of one of Mr. Wells’s numerous Utopias
solve the problem by ruling and being ruled, doing high-brow and low-brow
work, in turns. While Jones plays the piano, Smith spreads the manure. . . . An
admirable state of affairs if it could be arranged. . . . States function as smoothly
as they do because the greater part of the population is not very intelligent,
dreads responsibility, and desires nothing better than to be told what to do. . . .”

“A state with a population consisting of nothing but these superior people could
not hope to last a year. The best is ever the enemy of the good. If the eugenists
are in too much of an enthusiastic hurry to improve the race, they will only succeed
in destroying it.”

“The ideal state is one in which there is material democracy controlled by an
aristocracy of the intellect. . . . The active and intelligent oligarchies of the ideal
state do not yet exist. But the Fascist party in Italy, the Communist party in Russia,
the Kuomintang in China are still their inadequate precursors.”

“We may either persist in our present course, which is disastrous, or we must
abandon democracy and allow ourselves to be ruled dictatorially by men who
will compel us to do and suffer what a rational foresight demands.”

http://theburningtree.wikispaces.com/file/view/BNW+Eugenics+Politic...

Came across this here http://www.gnosticmedia.com/how-darwin-huxley-and-the-esalen-instit...

Comment by A Solas on December 5, 2011 at 14:32

Hey Arausio, I hadn't read that abridgement before, having read it I have to say I have no idea what he was trying to say LOL. The dating is conspicious although I don't recall any of that group ever publibly expressing any remorse for their ideology, though they did change their phrasing and the names of their organisations.

I had the very same idea of Huxley as yourself after reading BNW and listening to a few lectures so I do see where you are coming from, I'll try and dig out those lectures...

I came across this, not one of the talks I was talking about but what do you make of the first 15 minutes?
Also notice how at the end he mentions how he is still hanging out with Julian and Bertrand.

http://matrixmasters.net/archive/Various/236-HuxleyEcologyPolitics.mp3
The Politics of Ecology - Aldous Huxley
1962 Centre for Democratic Institutions California

Most of the text is here too.
http://www.microdutch.org/guru/Huxley-Online/politics_of_ecology.html

Comment by arausio on December 5, 2011 at 2:17

Hi A Solas, thanks for your input. I would like to listen to the "Ivy League" talks you mentioned, and would be grateful if you can provide links to them.

I have always viewed Brave New World as a critique of Social Darwinism. I am however opened to the possibility that I have taken the wrong view of it. Brave New World may well be a critique of "archaic" moral standards. To obtain certainty on this matter is of course impossible, like so much in this world we can only say what is probable.

I read the 1946 edition of Brave New World, and I may well have been influenced in my views of Huxley due in no small part to the Foreword contained within it. In his Foreword Huxley proposes a third alternative for the "savage".

Here's his abridgement:
In the meantime, however, it seems worth while at least to mention the most serious defect in the story, which is this. The Savage is offered only two alternatives, an insane life in Utopia, or the life of a primitive in an Indian village, a life more human in some respects, but in others hardly less queer and abnormal. ... Today I feel no wish to demonstrate that sanity is impossible. ... If I were now to rewrite the book, I would offer the Savage a third alternative. Between the utopian and the primitive horns of his dilemma would lie the possibility of sanity -- a possibility already actualized, to some extent, in a community of exiles and refugees from the Brave New World, living within the borders of the Reservation. In this community economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian, politics Kropotkinesque cooperative. Science and technology would be used as though, like the Sabbath, they had been made for man, not (as at present and still more so in the Brave New World) as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them. Religion would be the conscious and intelligent pursuit of man's Final End, the unitive knowledge of the immanent Tao or Logos, the transcendent Godhead or Brahman. And the prevailing philosophy of life would be a kind of Higher Utilitarianism, in which the Greatest Happiness principle would be secondary to the Final End principle -- the first question to be asked and answered in every contingency of life being: "How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man's Final End?"

Foreword In Full

Upon mature reflection, he may well have only added this foreword as a result of the horror show that was born out of the eugenics program as executed by the SS in Nazi Germany. Thus he presents Brave New World as a satire, in a grand act of cognitive dissonance.

It cannot be denied that Huxley moved in the same circles as some of those instrumental in the formation of Nazism. I just can't bring the hammer down and convict him of guilt by association, perhaps I am suffering from an acute case of doublethink, oh wait, that's 1984 not Brave New World. :)

I still view him as somewhat of a whistle blower, I guess more research needs to be done on my behalf.

I look forward to listening to those talks you mentioned.

Comment by A Solas on December 4, 2011 at 23:08

Hey Arausio, I haven't watched the video, although I may have seen it before.

I read Brave New World a few years ago and I wasn't sure what to make of A. Huxley, I listened to a lot of his talks and in most of them he seems "normal" and " reasonable" but there are some out there that were given at a couple of the "Ivy League" Uinversities that were never meant to be heard outside of that circle where he shows himself up for what he was.

Huxley was a Fabian Socialist and a Eugenecist and a complete Sociopath, just like his brother the 1st Director of UNESCO
They were both closelt afilliated with Planned Parenthood, British Eugenics Society, American Eugenics, Royal Society and so on..

Here's what Julian said in UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy

"Political unification in some sort of world government will be required... Even though... any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."

He was a very public member of the British Eugenics Society (http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/) there is no doubt which side of the fence he sat on when he made that comment as head of UNESCO.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/

Climate Change and HIV on their main page.

If this planet ever deprograms itself there won't be a hole deep enough for these rats to run for.

Comment by Diane, Denizen on December 4, 2011 at 22:30

Oh you got me there! Let me sleep on that so I can dig up a few points then ;)

Comment by arausio on December 4, 2011 at 22:27

Thanks for the response Diane. I'm always a bit miffed at the hostility shown towards Huxley. Perhaps if you have the time and inclination you could expand on the reasons for your hostility towards him.

"In reality who can take this man seriously, other than people with similar sick minds."

Nice example of the "same team fallacy" there Diane :)

I'm a little slow so could you answer the following questions for me, just what is "reality" and what is the criteria for taking someone seriously?

Comment by Diane, Denizen on December 4, 2011 at 21:01

In reality who can take this man seriously, other than people with similar sick minds.