in ,

Escaping the Brave New World: Transhumanism, Utopias and Eugenics

From the Canadian Patriot Review

What are the roots of the transhumanist movement that is currently shaping so much of today’s zeitgeist under such themes as Elon Musk’s Neuralink, Ray Kurzweil’s “singularity point”, and Klaus Schwab’s 4th Industrial Revolution?

In this Escaping the Brave New World Podcast, Chained Muse Editor David Gosselin and Canadian Patriot founder Matthew Ehret unpack the deeper history of transhumanism, Artificial Intelligence and the philosophical roots of the Great Reset by reviewing the eugenics movement that birthed both Adolph Hitler and many of the governing structures of the post-WW2. Among the most powerful of these power structures whose roots are founded in a deeply embedded commitment to eugenics and world government are: Julian Huxley’s creation of the United Nations’ Education Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), G. Brock Chrisholm’s role in creating the World Health Organization (WHO), John Rawling Rees’ creation of the World Federation of Mental Health and the disturbing ideas of Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener in the creation of a new science of social control called “cybernetics”, “machine-learning” and “transhumanism”.

Investigating these interconnected pro-eugenics social engineers and the institutions they created after WWII, takes us into a broader discussion of the battle in science and philosophy going back to the ancient dispute between Plato who believed in the immortality of the soul [see: Phaedo and Meno] vs Aristotle who asserted that human beings were nothing more than blank slates to be written upon by a hereditary master class [see: Politics].

This clash between two opposing paradigms of humanity, and Natural Law itself was replicated many times throughout history, with special emphasis on the debates between the 18th century renaissance scientist Gottfried Leibniz vs his opponents Isaac Newton [see: The Leibniz-Clark Correspondence], Rene Descartes [see: Specimen Dynamicum] and John Locke [see: New Essays on Human Understanding]. Each of Leibniz’s opponents represented imperial world views which demanded that mankind be defined as a soulless automaton made in the image of a soulless, immoral universe and its creator. The political-economic corollaries should be obvious to all thinking citizens.

The Platonic-Leibnizian worldview was again brilliantly taken up in the 19th century by none other than Abraham Lincoln’s leading economic advisor Henry C. Carey in his 1872 Unity of Law: Relations of Physical, Mental and Moral Sciences as he challenged the neo-Aristotelians blank slate agenda of his day which took the form of misanthropic statisticians Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin whose “might makes right” theories of society and biology were being used to justify the British Empire. To this point, Carey stated:

“Mr. Malthus was led to invent a law of population by means of which to relieve the rich and powerful from all responsibility for the existing state of things; giving them assurance that the poverty and wretchedness by which they were everywhere surrounded had resulted from the fact that the Creator had sent upon the earth large numbers of people for whom He had provided no table at which they might be allowed to eat, no materials by aid of which they might be clothed; thus furnishing the theory by aid of which subsequent writers have been enabled, as they supposed, to prove that, in the British Islands, man had become “a drug” and “population a nuisance”.

During this podcast, David and Matt review this sweeping battle by taking a close look at the 1900 Conference on the Future of Mathematics which saw mathematicians Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert demand the creation of a new all-encompassing closed system logic to impose upon the entire universe and human systems.

How was this project advanced over the ensuing decades? What role did Russell’s student Norbert Wiener play in this? How did Kurt Godel creatively throw a wrench in Russell’s project? How did MK Ultra fit into this operation between 1952-1972? What did a Jesuit Priest named Pierre Tailhard de Chardin have to do with this and how did T.H. Huxley’s grandchildren Aldous and Julian carry on the family torch?

All of these questions, and much more are explored in this episode of Escaping the Brave New World Podcast.

Click here to listen on Bitchute

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and in 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation . Consider helping this process by making a donation to the RTF or becoming a Patreon supporter to the Canadian Patriot Review

Help us grow. Support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.

What do you think?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Donald Duck
Donald Duck
May 17, 2021

You might well have included H.G.Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Bertrand Russell in you list of Eugenicists.

platon
platon
Reply to  Donald Duck
May 28, 2021

And Bill and Mengele Katz, Epstein, Maxwell, Albright and too many others to mention here.

penrose
penrose
May 17, 2021

Why would eugenics be part of the Brave New World we fear? Because we prefer quantity over quality? Because we find stupidity and ugliness to be far more desirable traits than intelligence and beauty? Because we are jealous of someone being better than we are?

I don’t have these ego problems myself.

FranBrown
FranBrown
Reply to  penrose
May 17, 2021

Eugenics is all very well, if you believe that the human race must strive to be absolutely perfect. By that reasoning, you have to accept that aberrations of conception must be destroyed before birth, or, that when an imperfect person is created, it must be destroyed before it can pass on whatever condition it has to the next generation. Hand in hand with eugenics, goes euthanasia (or murder by a better name) of those who Society does not feel worthy of life. And then again, how would anyone feel if they were on the list of those who were deemed… Read more »

Helga I. Fellay
Helga I. Fellay
Reply to  FranBrown
May 17, 2021

I essentially agree, but feel like Gates, Schwab, Soros etc. are all not just imperfect in the way we all are, but imperfect in the part that counts, they are psychopathic monsters instead of humans with a heart. IF (a big IF) you approve of the death penalty as a correct way of punishing violent criminals, then surely those you mentioned and others like them deserve the death penalty for having done so much evil to so many. But then again, I am against the death penalty period, because those implementing it are also imperfect and subject to erring. It’s… Read more »

FranBrown
FranBrown
Reply to  Helga I. Fellay
May 17, 2021

I’m inclined to agree Helga, eugenics is not a good idea, inasmuch as there is no moral or ethical way it could be carried out. How far do we go with eugenics? Where do we stop? Do we destroy a life because his or her imperfection is merely a mole on the end of their nose? And who sets the criteria if we know that we all have imperfections of some kind? Because that means there is nobody to judge what criteria should be set. It is a complex issue and I think one which can never be solved to… Read more »

penrose
penrose
Reply to  FranBrown
May 18, 2021

RE: Eugenics is all very well, if you believe that the human race must strive to be absolutely perfect. First let me observe, Fran, that many of your posts on the forum are quite good. In this case, however, you have started with the classic mistake of ramping up the suggestion “let’s do better” to “let’s make the world perfect.” Quite a leap, I must say. Suppose that I know a woman who is an alcoholic and a hard drug addict. She is going to continue with these come hell or high water. Do you think that if I made… Read more »

FranBrown
FranBrown
Reply to  penrose
May 18, 2021

Just because you can sterilise someone doesn’t mean you should. We are autonomous beings and have the right to self determination, freedom of will. The alcoholic/drug addict exists, I’ve seen and nursed many, but I haven’t the right to criticise and suggest that society takes away their rights.

penrose
penrose
Reply to  FranBrown
May 18, 2021

Speaking of the Brave New World, let’s look at the last 130 years. WW1, Communism, WWII, fire bombing of cities, nuclear bombing of cities, Korean War, War in Vietnam, etc etc etc, on and on.

This is the Brave Old World. How do we escape from that. By more of the same?

penrose
penrose
Reply to  FranBrown
May 18, 2021

RE: We are autonomous beings and have the right to self determination.

Oh really? Do we have the right to rob banks or commit murder? To not pay taxes. If the government tries to draft a young man into military service, does he have the right to claim autonomy and tell them to get lost?

Does every welfare mother have the right to produce as many children as she wants to collect more of my taxes? I don’t think so!

penrose
penrose
Reply to  FranBrown
May 18, 2021

So you are willing to let multiple children be born into the world into who knows what misery just to avoid violating the “rights” of a drug addicted alcoholic?

As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

platon
platon
Reply to  FranBrown
May 28, 2021

I disagree. I think that psychopaths, which Kurt Vonnegut warned against an influx of due to genetic deformities, should be sterilised: for their and our own safety and peace of mind.

platon
platon
Reply to  penrose
May 28, 2021

Whose version of ‘perfect’? There are as many versions of that as there are of ‘bad’.

penrose
penrose
Reply to  FranBrown
May 18, 2021

RE: “Hand in hand with eugenics, goes euthanasia (or murder by a better name)”

Not really There is a quite simple procedure called “sterilization” (aka fixing) which you may have heard of which can help control both the quantity and quality of the human population. Right now we have a big problem with both quantity and quality. If we as the “intelligent” species don’t address and make progress with this problem, Mother Nature will do it for us, and the results may be quite painful if not terminal.

FranBrown
FranBrown
Reply to  penrose
May 18, 2021

It does not stop at sterilising those whom one would wish to “treat” to prevent further conception. The concept goes on to exterminate anyone you don’t agree with for any reason, vis a vis the starving, gassing and cremation of 6 million Jews in WW2, just because they were Jews. It continues in the genocide of many Africans today because some are not of the same tribe as those who have been infiltrated by communist or Islamic thought, the Tutsi and the Hutu, the Igbo and the Yoruba and many others. I still say that practising eugenics is morally and… Read more »

platon
platon
Reply to  FranBrown
May 28, 2021

Klaus Schwab and Bill Katz and his lovely (soon to be ‘former’) husband, Mengele Katz, as well as the perfect Jeffrey Epstain, think (thought) they are (were) already perfect.

platon
platon
Reply to  penrose
May 28, 2021

No, but because, unlike you, most people know that they are not God.

Eirenae
May 19, 2021
Rate this article :
     

Most comments reflect a lack of comprehension of the profound debate between M.Ehret and D.Gosselin. All of Aldous Huxley’s novels, the same is true for H. Wells reflect a pessimistic negative view of the human being and its unique capabilities.These writers leave you behind depressed. If you follow Huxley’s “Brave New World ” distopia you might end up committing suicide. He misuses his command of language to shape the readers mind in an negative direction. No one on earth has the right impose Eugenics, Euthanasia, Sterilization etc. upon other humans under any pretext! Wo are we, to decide that one… Read more »

penrose
penrose
Reply to  Eirenae
May 19, 2021

How is life in La-La Land? Anything bad ever happen there? Everybody cheerful, happy, and smiling? Is the government always honest and decent? Very good!

China Warns West: Russia-China Alliance ‘Far Mightier than USSR-Warsaw Pact’

Blinken Heads To Reykjaviv To Meet Lavrov As Summit in Doubt