Edition 2 – January 15, 2017
For the contents of this series and links to related commentaries on Brave New World, see series contents.
Julian Huxley, the brother of Aldous, was an evolutionary biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, the first President of the British Humanist Association, the first Director of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), and a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund .
Why is Teilhard de Chardin’s version of evolution considered mystical, but the Huxley family’s biological version of evolution is not? Why isn’t Julian Huxley considered a mystic for also promoting transhumanism ?
Considering the men who originated modern science, it seems to me that evolution is more of an occult doctrine than a rational “scientific” theory, and that this also describes the theories of modern “science” in general .
The doctrine of “atheism,” if it’s for real, doesn’t seem to have a very rational basis either, considering the atheistic rejection of the Cosmological Argument .
These scientists (or public relations professionals) seem to be more concerned with science–not as a source of truth–but as a source of technology , as a source of tools for social control, and as a source of doctrines such as evolution, which seems to be more of a religious doctrine imposed on us by education and media so that we are more likely to accept its account of our origins (as just animals), and to accept being dominated by others (“survival of the fittest”), and to accept all policy changes imposed on us as “progress” and social “evolution.”
Quoting from Julian Huxley’s essay, “Eugenics and Society”, from Man Stands Alone :
The difficulty of finding an objective criterion of truth in social science cuts deeper. But it is based upon an intellectualist philosophy which hankers after abstract truth. It largely disappears if we take the more robust view that science is control as well as knowledge, and that these two aspects cannot be separated. . . .Thus in social science, experiment is not the remote preliminary to action that it is in natural science, but is itself partly action—both pure and applied science simultaneously. . . .
. . . Eugenics . . . is a branch of social science. It is not merely human genetics. . . . 
. . . The purpose of eugenics is on the one hand to study the presence of different inherited types and traits in a population, and the fact that these can be increased or diminished in the course of generations as the result of selection, unconscious or deliberate, natural or artificial, and on the other, eventually to use the results of this study for control. . . . 
I wonder about the different ways the public school system (in English-speaking countries and beyond) may have been used for social science experiments and actual social control. For example, in Ontario, Canada, in the 1970s, students who graduated from Grade 8 would be “streamed” into totally different high school classes (“basic,” “general” and “advanced”) based on academic performance. How could this not affect who eventually married who?
Page 68, 69:
. . . Science is simultaneously both theory and practice, both knowledge and control. . . . I would say that we cannot succeed in achieving anything in the nature of adequate positive eugenics unless we attempt the control of the social environment simultaneously with the control of the human germ-plasm . . . 
. . . The experiment is both an attempt to gain knowledge and an effort to realize a wish, a desired control. . . .
. . . We must attempt to control the change of social environment and at the same time to control the change of human germ-plasm, . . . IT IS THE RESULTS WHICH INTEREST US . . . 
Huxley emphasizes this point about getting practical RESULTS.
Charles Galton Darwin advocated the practical use of new religious creeds as long-term policy tools . In the same way, Julian Huxley sees the need to replace one set of religious “attitudes” with another set:
Huxley brings up the religious opposition to birth control and the separation of sex from reproduction. He also mentions the “recent technique of artificial insemination,” which has “opened up new horizons“.
. . . It is now open to man and woman to consummate the sexual function with those they love, but to fulfil the reproductive function with those whom on perhaps quite other grounds they admire.
This consequence is the opportunity of eugenics. But the opportunity cannot yet be grasped. It is first necessary to overcome the bitter opposition to it on dogmatic theological and moral grounds, and the widespread popular shrinking from it, based on vague but powerful feelings, on the ground that it is unnatural.
We need a new attitude to these problems [“problems” in his mind], an attitude which for want of another term we may still call religious. We need to replace the present attitude fostered by established religions by a new but equally potent attitude.
. . . we need to substitute social salvation for individual salvation, . . . we need to substitute the real possibility of evolutionary progress for other-worldly phantasies. . . 
So we come up against the concept of “evolutionary progress” again, which is how these people refer to the New World Order they are designing. Calling their plans “progress” helps to condition us to accept their plans but doesn’t change the grim reality and consequences of those plans.
Religion is a key factor in the desired control of the human social environment Huxley is talking about. Religion is a factor in education as well as reproductive morality, including what kind of interference is allowed in human genetics in the name of science. What people believe about the value of human life and the ability to act autonomously, or according to a conscience that is independent of the oligarchy’s control levers, either obstructs or enhances whatever “progress” or “results” Huxley wants to see. Traditional religious values that elevate the individual human life and conscience limit the “possibilities” and “opportunities” enjoyed by power-hungry, propaganda-wielding sadists who want to interfere with, alter, control or destroy.
Huxley thinks he and others like him–such as those who created Agenda 21 decades later–have the right to grab control over everything and everybody.
In the above quotations, Julian Huxley dismisses the importance of “abstract truth,” indicating that he sees control as the main purpose of science (and religion).
When people like Julian Huxley think of science, they (and many in the public also) think of the technological aspect of science, science as a tool for control over material resources, except that they’re always talking about resources that rightfully belong to OTHERS! But they also see SOCIAL science as A TOOL FOR CONTROL OVER HUMAN BEINGS, even though many of us have been raised to believe that we have rights as individuals and are supposed to make our own choices and decisions in life.
It is ironic that “established religion” and its attitude of protecting the natural from the unnatural is demonized by Julian Huxley and targeted as opposition to his agenda for social control. It is Julian Huxley’s agenda that should be demonized, the agenda of dehumanization, the agenda of downgrading the status of non-elite human beings, the agenda of global scientific dictatorship as clearly described in his brother’s novel.
Modern science and the new religions—the new, modified versions of Christianity, the new combinations of mysticism – as promoted by the Huxley family and others closely connected with them, have their origins in an occult desire for power . They look for effects and phenomena and results, for tools and technology, for formulae. They want results. They believe in domination, “order”, “improving”, “progress”, making things supposedly better (the idea of eugenics).
Nowadays, we hear that an organism’s genetics can be modified, this being one of Bush’s new “possibilities” I think, but can nature really be improved upon? In Aldous Huxley’s novel, the lower classes are just damaged human beings, not improved human beings. With Julian Huxley’s transhumanism, promoted in terms of evolutionary progress, we could end up with a world full of modified humans, who are genetically and technologically “enhanced” to slave away in particular environments, but who are also mentally and physically limited to keep them in their place.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley, accessed December 18, 2016.
In the 1950s Huxley played a role in bringing to the English-speaking public the work of the French Jesuit-palaeontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who he believed had been unfairly treated by the Catholic and Jesuit hierarchy. Both men believed in evolution, but differed in its interpretation as de Chardin was a Christian, whilst Huxley was an unbeliever. Huxley wrote the foreword to The Phenomenon of Man (1959) and was bitterly attacked by his rationalist friends for doing so.
 Regarding the idea of the occult origins of modern Royal Society-based science, I credit the theme running through David Livginstone’s books. For example, see Transhumanism at http://www.conspiracyschool.com/transhumanism:
is an occult philosophy based on an interpretation of the story of the Book of Genesis, where the devil promised that if Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge” they would “become as gods”
. . . the personalities who shaped the modern scientific epoch were, for the most part, steeped in the occult.
As the American religious scholar Catherine Albanese suggested in her discussion of American Masonry, “if any genuinely new popular religion arose in New World America, it was a nature religion of radical empiricism, with the aim of that religion to conflate spirit and matter and, in the process, turn human beings into gods.”
Deliberately excluded from the Royal Society’s areas of study were typical university disciplines of metaphysics, divinity, morals, grammar, logic and rhetoric. Instead, studies were strictly secular, focusing on manufacture, machines and inventions and also the recovery of ancient skills and secrets . . .
With respect to atheism and the false conflict of faith vs. reason, see also Black Terror White Soldiers by David Livingstone at http://www.conspiracyschool.com/black-terror-white-soldiers:
. . . the Age of Scholasticism helped initiate a debate that has become one of the great founding fallacies of Western civilization, that of the supposed incompatibility of faith and reason, which has shaped its particularly distorted perception of religion. Thomas Aquinas imitated Avicenna’s use of what is known as the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, first mentioned by Aristotle. The Cosmological Argument is logical though it has rarely been acknowledged as such by those who have been put off by its simplicity. According to the argument, if everything has a cause then the first cause must be uncaused. If the first cause is uncaused then it must be eternal. And that is God.
However, the faith/reason misconception was given apparent validity by William of Ockham who rejected the Cosmological Argument. . . . (page 93)
Other alternative media credits for leads and concepts:
Jay Dyer (jaysanalysis.com) re. Royal Society’s occultism and radical empiricism, questioning the theory of evolution.
Alan Watt (cuttingthroughthematrix.com) for questioning evolution, exposing propaganda techniques, exposing cultural manipulation, and exposing Fabian authors such as the Huxleys.
https://www.dnalc.org/view/11739–Eugenics-and-Society-The-Galton-Lecture-given-to-the-Eugenics-Society-by-Julian-S-Huxley-Eugenics-Review-vol-28-1-1-.html is a link to a page from the same essay in a different publication. This copy includes the same quotation that starts with, “The difficulty of finding an objective criterion of truth in social science cuts deeper. . . . “. Essay: “Eugenics and Society” (The Galton Lecture given to the Eugenics Society), by Julian S. Huxley, Eugenics Review (vol 28:1) (1). The www.dnalc.org website belongs to Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (www.cshl.edu).
 From a speech at Maxwell Air Force Base War College in Montgomery, Alabama on 13 April 1991: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=19466#axzz2isMrKmcd, quoted at http://canadianliberty.com/?p=16876.
 New world of possibilities, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLoW-3gaTPo. Video shows Reagan’s Vice-President George Bush visiting Monsanto and promoting the company’s genetic modification of soy. The soy plant, the corporate representative says, is modified in order to make it more resistant to their herbicide (Round Up Ready). Then there is another segment which shows Bush’s VP Dan Quayle being explicit about the government policy on GMOs. In both cases, the policy justification (cover story I say) to allow these things is “dereg” or deregulation–resisting the “spread of unnecessary regulation” to make sure the U.S. remains a leader in biotech, so there’s the economic justification supposedly.
YouTube.com, Title: “George HW Bush – Genetically Modified Food Deregulation (1992).mp4”, uploaded December 5, 2010. Channel: Sun Zoo.