by Phillip D. Collins ©, Feb. 24th, 2005

As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses. This article will show that the history and background of this ‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in Freemasonry.

The Epistemological Cartel

In The Architecture of Modern Political Power, Daniel Pouzzner outlines the tactics employed by the elite to maintain their dominance. Among them is: ‘Ostensible control over the knowable, by marketing institutionally accredited science as the only path to true understanding’ (Pouzzner, 75). Thus, the ruling class endeavors to discourage independent reason while exercising illusory power over human knowledge. This tactic of control through knowledge suppression and selective dissemination is reiterated in the anonymously authored document Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars:

“Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems. Mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping. All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control.” Secret and Suppressed , 203 – Keith,, 203

The word ‘science’ is derived from the Latin word scientia, which means ‘knowing.’ Epistemology is the study of the nature and origin of knowledge. This elite monopoly of the knowable, which is enforced through institutional science, could be characterized as an “epistemological cartel.” The ruling class has bribed the ‘bookkeepers’ (i.e., natural and social scientists). Meanwhile, the masses practically deify the ‘bookkeepers’ of the elite, and remain ‘ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.’ The unknown author of Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars provides an eloquently simple summation: ‘The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?’ (Keith, Secret and Suppressed , 203).

In Brave New World Revisited , Aldous Huxley more succinctly defined this epistemological cartel:

“The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work’ with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.” – Huxley, Brave New World Revisited , 116

This is the ultimate objective of the elite: an oligarchy legitimized by arbitrarily anointed expositors of ‘knowledge’ or, in Huxley’s own words, a ‘scientific dictatorship.’

The New Theocracy

How did the ‘scientific dictatorship’ of the twentieth century begin? In earlier centuries, the ruling class controlled the masses through more mystical belief systems, particularly Sun worship. Yet, this would all change. In Saucers of the Illuminati , Jim Keith documents the shift from a theocracy of the Sun to a theocracy of ‘science’:

“Since the Sun God (and his various relations, including sons and wives) were, after several thousands years of worship, beginning to fray around the edges in terms of believability, and a lot commoners were beginning to grumble that this stuff was all made up, the Illuminati came up with a new and improved version of their mind control software that didn’t depend upon the Sun God or Moon Goddess for ultimate authority.” – Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati , 78

Priests and rituals were soon supplanted by a new breed of ‘bookkeepers’ and a new ‘methodology of bookkeeping.’ Keith elaborates:

“As the Sun/Moon cult lost some of its popularity, ‘Scientists’ were quick to take up some of the slack. According to their propaganda, the physical laws of the universe were the ultimate causative factors, and naturally, those physical laws were only fathomable by the scientific (i.e. Illuminati) elite.” – Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati , 78-79

This consciously induced paradigm shift facilitated the emergence of the elite’s new theocracy. The official state-sanctioned religion of this theocracy was ‘scientism’: the belief that the investigational methods of the natural sciences should be ecumenically imposed upon all fields of inquiry. This form of epistemological imperialism is not to be confused with legitimate science. Researcher Michael Hoffman makes this distinction in his book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare :

“Science, when practiced as the application of man’s God-given talents for the production of appropriate technology on a human scale, relief of misery and the reverential exploration and appreciation of the glory of Divine Providence as revealed in nature, is a useful tool for mankind. Scientism is science gone mad, which is what we have today.” (Hoffman, 49)

Hoffman further elaborates on the folly of scientism:

“The reason that science is a bad master and dangerous servant and ought not to be worshipped is that science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its own agenda, be it Darwinism or ‘cut, burn and poison’ methods of cancer ‘treatment’.” (Hoffman, 49)

It must be understood that this new institution of knowing is a form of mysticism like its religious precursors. Contemporary science is predicated upon empiricism, the idea that all knowledge is derived exclusively through the senses. Yet, an exclusively empirical approach relegates cause to the realm of metaphysical fantasy. This holds enormous ramifications for science. Do we really know what causes anything?

Although temporal succession and spatial proximity are self-evident, causal connection is not. Affirmation of causal relationships is impossible in science. What is perceived as A causing B could be merely circumstantial juxtaposition. Given the absence of known cause, all of a scientist’s findings must be taken upon faith. This is all one can deduce while working under the paradigm of radical empiricism. Thus, the elite merely exchanged one form of mysticism for another.

Returning to Pouzzner’s previous statement, ‘ostensible control over the knowable’ is achieved through the promulgation of ‘institutionally accredited science’ (Pouzzner, 75). Now, the elite had to meet two requirements to insure their epistemological dominance: a science specifically designed for their needs and an institution to accredit and disseminate it.

The British Royal Society

The new secular church and clergy of the elite originated within the walls of the British Royal Society. The creators of the Royal Society were also members of the Masonic Lodge. According to Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln in Holy Blood, Holy Grail:

“Virtually all the Royal Society’s founding members were Freemasons. One could reasonably argue that the Royal Society itself, at least in its inception, was a Masonic institution – derived, through Andrea’s Christian Unions, from the ‘invisible Rosicrucian brotherhood’.” (Baigent, et al, 144)

Jim Keith makes it clear that the Masonic Lodge ‘has been alleged to be a conduit for the intentions of a number of elitist interests’ (Keith, Casebook on Alternative 3, 20). In service to the elite, the Royal Society Freemasons would re-sculpt epistemological notions and disseminate propaganda. Jim Keith provides a brief summation of the Royal Society’s role in years to come: ‘The British Royal Society of the late seventeenth century was the forerunner of much of the media manipulation that was to follow’ (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati , 79).

Before the advent of the British Royal Society, science (i.e., the study of natural phenomena) and theology (i.e., the study of God) were inseparable. The two were not separate repositories of knowledge, but natural correlatives. In Confession of Nature, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz established the centrality of God to science. According to Leibniz, the proximate origins of ‘magnitude, figure, and motion,’ which constitute the ‘primary qualities’ of corporeal bodies, ‘cannot be found in the essence of the body’ (de Hoyos).

Linda de Hoyos reveals the point at which science finds a dilemma:

“The problem arises when the scientist asks why the body fills this space and not another; for example, why it should be three feet long rather than two, or square rather than round. This cannot be explained by the nature of the bodies themselves, since the matter is indeterminate as to any definite figure, whether square or round. For the scientist who refuses to resort to an incorporeal cause, there can be only two answers. Either the body has been this way since eternity, or it has been made square by the impact of another body. ‘Eternity’ is no answer, since the body could have been round for eternity also. If the answer is ‘the impact of another body,’ there remains the question of why it should have had any determinate figure before such motion acted upon it. This question can then be asked again and again, backwards to infinity. Therefore, it appears that the reason for a certain figure and magnitude in bodies can never be found in the nature of these bodies themselves.”

The same can be established for the body’s cohesion and firmness, which left Leibniz with the following conclusion:

“Since we have demonstrated that bodies cannot have a determinate figure, quantity, or motion, without an incorporeal being, it readily becomes apparent that this incorporeal being is one for all, because of the harmony of things among themselves, especially since bodies are moved not individually by this incorporeal being but by each other. But no reason can be given why this incorporeal being chooses one magnitude, figure, and motion rather than another, unless he is intelligent and wise with regard to the beauty of things and powerful with regard to their obedience to their command. Therefore such an incorporeal being be a mind ruling the whole world, that is, God.” (de Hoyos)

Of course, this conclusion was antithetical to the doctrine of the scientific dictatorship, which contended that ‘the physical laws of the universe were the ultimate causative factors’ (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati , 78-79). Metaphysical naturalism (i.e., nature is God) had to be enthroned. Meanwhile, God’s presence in the corridors of science had to be expunged. To achieve this, the Royal Society created a Gnostic division between science and theology, thus insuring the primacy of matter in the halls of scientific inquiry (Tarpley).

Blind Reverence to Science

Indeed, biases and presuppositions pervade the very fabric of the elite’s epistemic autocracy. Academia itself has become the official church for this cult of epistemological selectivity. Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias personally encountered the enormous prejudicial hurdles of scientism during a casual conversation with a few scholars, wherein one scientist makes a shocking confession:

I asked them a couple of questions. ‘If the Big Bang were indeed where it all began, may I ask what preceded the Big Bang?’ Their answer, which I had anticipated, was that the universe was shrunk down to a singularity.

I pursued, ‘But isn’t it correct that a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down?’

‘That is correct,’ was the answer.

‘Then, technically, your starting point is not scientific either.’

There was silence, and their expressions betrayed the scurrying mental searches for an escape hatch. But I had yet another question.

I asked if they agreed that when a mechanistic view of the universe had held sway, thinkers like Hume had chided philosophers for taking the principle of causality and applying it to a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Causality, he warned, could not be extrapolated from science to philosophy.

‘Now,’ I added, ‘when quantum theory holds sway, randomness in the subatomic world is made a basis for randomness in life. Are you not making the very same extrapolation that you warned us against?’

Again there was silence and then one man said with a self-deprecating smile, ‘We scientists do seem to retain selective sovereignty over what we allow to be transferred to philosophy and what we don’t’ (Zacharias, 64).

This ‘selective sovereignty,’ vigorously enforced by the epistemic autocracy of the elite, effectively marginalized dissenters and consummated the apotheosis of the ‘bookkeepers.’ Hoffman explains:

“The cryptocracy has successfully harnessed to its own ends the huge potential for promoting secret political-occult agendas to the public, by presenting them as unassailable ‘objective scientific truth.’ Since the bogey of ‘science’ instills in secularists a sort of blind reverence, opponents of political and occult agendas promoted through the propaganda of scientism are quickly stigmatized as ‘Neanderthal,’ especially with regard to their opposition to Darwinism, a dogma proved false by Norman Macbeth in his magisterial Darwin Retried and exposed as a cult by Gertrude Himmelfarb in Darwin.” (Hoffman, 49)

Suddenly, ‘ostensible control over the knowable’ became the Divine Providence of god-like ‘bookkeepers.’ Meanwhile, their opponents became heretics and were ‘burned at the stake’ (i.e., marginalized by academia and other secular institutions). Hoffman states:

“The doctrine of man playing god reaches its nadir in the philosophy of scientism which makes possible the complete mental, spiritual and physical enslavement of mankind through technologies such as satellite and computer surveillance; a state of affairs symbolized by the ‘

All Seeing Eye‘ above the unfinished pyramid on the U.S. one dollar bill.” (Hoffman, 50)

With the inculcation of the masses into scientism, the unfinished pyramid is almost complete.

Evolution: The Occult Doctrine of Becoming

With the British Royal Society acting as their headquarters of propaganda, the elite had created an institution to provide credibility for their specially designed ‘science.’ Now, they needed to introduce the ‘science.’ Recall that the founding members of the Royal Society were all Freemasons. Thus, whatever ‘science’ these men would design would be derivative of Masonic doctrine. In The Meaning of Masonry, W.L. Wilmhurst reveals the worldview underpinning the new Masonic ‘science’:

“This – the evolution [emphasis added] of man into superman – was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the real purpose of modern Masonry is not the social and charitable purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality. And this is a definite science, a royal art, which it is possible for each of us to put into practice; whilst to join the Craft for any other purpose than to study and pursue this science is to misunderstand its meaning.” (Wilmhurst, 47)

Later in the book, Wilmhurst reiterates this theme:

“Man who has sprung from earth and developed through the lower kingdoms of nature to his present rational state, has yet to complete his evolution [emphasis added] by becoming a god-like being and unifying his consciousness with the Omniscient – to promote which is and always has been the sole aim and purpose of all Initiation.” (Wilmhurst, 94)

With God’s effective exile from science, man’s position as imago viva Dei (created in the image of the Creator) was summarily relegated to obsolescence. Now, Freemasonry could introduce its occult doctrine of ‘becoming,’ the belief in man’s gradual evolution towards apotheosis.

According to Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, was the first to promulgate the concept of evolution:

“Dr. Erasmus Darwin (1731 – 1802) was the first man in England to suggest those ideas which later were to be embodied in the Darwinian theory by his grandson, Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882), who wrote in 1859 Origin of Species.” (quoted in Daniel, 34)

The Lunar Society

Erasmus Darwin was the founder of the Lunar Society. According to author Ian Taylor, the Lunar Society was active from about 1764 to 1800 and its prominent influence ‘continued long afterwards under the banner of The Royal Society.’ The group’s name owed itself to the fact that members met monthly at the time of the full moon. The membership of this group boasted such luminaries as John Wilkinson (who made cannons), James Watt (who owed his notoriety to the steam engine), Matthew Boulton (a manufacturer), Joseph Priestly (a chemist), Josiah Wedgewood (who founded the famous pottery business), and Benjamin Franklin. It is with the Lunar Society that one begins to identify Erasmus’ ties to Freemasonry. (Taylor, 55)

Interestingly enough, in an article by Lord Richie-Calder, Lunar Society members were assigned the very esoteric appellation of ‘merchants of light.’ This was precisely the same description used for the hypothetical society presented in Sir Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis (Taylor, 55). In her examination of J.G. Findel’s History of Freemasonry , Nesta Webster made the following observation: ‘Findel frankly admits that the New Atlantis contained unmistakable allusions to Freemasonry and that Bacon contributed to its final transformation’ (Webster, 120).

Researcher Ian Taylor adds:

“Webster pointed out that one of the earliest and most eminent precursors of Freemasonry is said to have been Francis Bacon, who is also recognized to have been a Rosicrucian; the Rosicrucian and Freemason orders were closely allied and may have had a common source.” (Taylor, 445)

Still, these are tenuous ties at best. Are there any sources that firmly establish a Darwinian/Freemasonic connection? Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry conclusively confirms a link:

“Before coming to Derby in 1788, Dr. [Erasmus] Darwin had been made a Mason in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland. Sir Francis Darwin, one of the Doctor’s sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge, No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804. The name of Charles Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the Lodge but it is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason.” (quoted in Daniel, 34)

In 1794, Erasmus wrote a book entitled Zoonomia, which delineated his theory of evolution (Taylor, 58). Being a Freemason, there is little doubt that Erasmus cribbed liberally from the Lodge’s occult doctrine of ‘becoming.’ Before Erasmus had penned his precursory notions of progressive biological development, Freemason John Locke (1632 – 1704) extrapolated the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation into the context of metaphysical naturalism and formulated a theory of evolution (Daniel, 33-34).

The British East India Company had imported the Hindu belief in reincarnation to England where it would be adopted by the British Royal Society. A prominent member of the Royal Society, John Locke studied reincarnation extensively and, working with the occult doctrine as an extrapolative inspiration, developed his own evolutionary ideas. In fact, Locke’s theory of evolution received the support of the male members of Darwin’s family (Daniel, 33-34). Two centuries later, this occult concept of ‘becoming’ would be transmitted to Charles Darwin and On the Origin of Species would be born.

Metaphysical Naturalism: The Golem Reborn

Underpinning the concept of metaphysical naturalism is the notion that life originated with lifeless matter. This notion, dubbed ‘spontaneous generation,’ excludes the involvement of a supernatural Creator. Thus, nature became a god creating itself. Louis Pasteur, whose work established the Law of Biogenesis, provided the most succinct summation of this anthropomorphic mysticism:

“To bring about spontaneous generation would be to create a germ. It would be creating life; it would be to solve the problem of its origin. It would mean to go from matter to life through conditions of environment and of matter [lifeless material]. God as author of life would then no longer be needed. Matter would replace Him. God would need to be invoked only as author of the motions of the universe.” (Dubos, 395)

Like all of the ‘false gods’ of antiquity, the voracity of this new deity was soon demolished. ‘Spontaneous generation’ was proven impossible by the Law of Biogenesis. However, this fact did not stop certain ‘men of science’ from chronically deifying nature. For instance, Charles Darwin unconsciously revealed his idolatrous impulses through statements like: ‘natural selection picks out with unerring skill the best varieties’ (Hooykaas, 18).

Evident in such statements is the idea that nature is sentient. After all, only a sentient being holds discriminative tastes and, therefore, ‘picks out’ the recipients of its favor. Moreover, such statements reveal that ‘nature’ itself is a sovereign deity acting as the ultimate arbiter of life and death. This meme has metastasized, presenting itself today as the Gaia Hypothesis. This hypothesis holds that the biosphere is a self-creating, self-sustaining, and self-regenerating entity. Central to this thesis is the contention that both the living and non-living are inseparable (Lovelock, 31-33).

Although the concept of ‘spontaneous generation’ was proven scientifically bankrupt years ago, many continue to resuscitate its corpse. Why does this theme of lifeless matter spontaneously generating life continue to emerge? The answer is because it has been with man for a very long time. It is derivative of the golem, an occult concept presented in the Hebraic Kabbalah. Thirty-third Degree Freemason Albert Pike revealed that: ‘all the Masonic associations owe to it [the Kabbalah] their Secrets and their Symbols’ (Pike, 744). According to this occult text, the golem was an artificially created man whose life was the result of supernatural intervention. The late Isaac Bashevis Singer, who studied the Kabbalah extensively, explained:

“’the golem ‘ is based on faith ‘ that dead matter is not really dead, but can be brought to life [emphasis added]’ What are the computers and robots of our time if not golems? ‘ The Talmud tells us of an interpreter by the name of Rava who formed a man by this mysterious power’ We are living in an epoch of golem-making right now. The gap between science and magic ‘ is becoming narrower’.” (Hoffman, 115)

Drawing upon the esoteric doctrines of their occult heritage, the Freemasonic members of the British Royal Society re-introduced the golem to the public mind under the guise of ‘metaphysical naturalism.’ Gradually, the corporeal machinations of nature supplanted the miraculous Creator. Of course, these machinations were only intelligible to anointed scientists of the epistemic autocracy. Thus, the ‘bookkeepers’ of the elite became the new expositors of ‘miracles.’ This virtual deification of the ‘bookkeepers’ is evident in Singer’s later statements regarding the golem:

“I was interested in the golem ‘ from my early childhood. I was brought up in the home of a rabbi, and his sermons often spoke of miracles, by the Baal Shem Tov and other wonder rabbis. ‘ I realized early in my life that science and technology had actually created a civilization of miracles. Science is one long chain of miracles.’.” (Hoffman, 116)

Recall the words of Aldous Huxley in Brave New World Revisited : ‘The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles [emphasis added], and mysteries.’ The new dictators do not intend to make the same mistake. With the effective enshrinement of metaphysical naturalism, the British Royal Society prepared to unleash their next golem. However, this golem would be an artificially created ape-man presented to the public imagination under the appellation of Darwinism.

The Darwin Project

In the article ‘Toward a New Science of Life,’ EIR

journalist Jonathan Tennenbaum makes the following the statement concerning Darwinism:

“Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin’s so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.” (Tennenbaum)

Given Darwinism’s roots in occult Freemasonry and its expedient promotion of an emergent species of supermen (i.e., the elite), this is a fairly accurate assessment. Charles Darwin acted as the elite’s apostle, preaching the new secular gospel of evolution. Darwinism could be considered a Freemasonic project, the culmination of a publicity campaign conducted by the Lodge. Evidence for this contention can be found in controversial Protocols of the Wise Men of Sion .

Although an examination of the Protocols and a critique of their authenticity are not the purposes of this essay, it is important to address the questions surrounding their origins. After all, the Protocols have been employed throughout history in numerous genocidal campaigns against the Jews. However, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail provide evidence that the document may be Masonic in origin:

“It can thus be proved conclusively that the Protocols did not issue from the Judaic congress at Basle in 1897. That being so, the obvious questions is whence they did issue. Modern scholars have dismissed them as a total forgery, a wholly spurious document concocted by anti-Semitic interests intent on discrediting Judaism. And yet the Protocols themselves argue strongly against such a conclusion. They contain, for example, a number of enigmatic references – references that are clearly not Judaic. But these references are so clearly not Judaic that they cannot plausibly have been fabricated by a forger, either. No anti-Semitic forger with even a modicum of intelligence would possibly have concocted such references in order to discredit Judaism. For no one would have believed these references to be of Judaic origin.”

Thus, for instance, the text of the Protocols ends with a single statement. ‘Signed by the representatives of Sion of the 33rd Degree.’ Why would an anti-Semitic forger have made up such a statement? Why would he not have attempted to incriminate all Jews, rather than just a few – the few who constitute ‘the representatives of Sion of the 33rd Degree’? Why would he not declare that the document was signed by, say, the representatives of the international Judaic congress? In fact, the ‘representatives of Sion of the 33rd Degree’ would hardly seem to refer to Judaism at all, or to any ‘international Jewish conspiracy.’ If anything, it would seem to refer to something specifically Masonic. And the thirty-third degree in Freemasonry is that of the so-called Strict Observance – the system of Freemasonry introduced by Hund at the behest of his ‘unknown superiors,’ one of whom appears to have been Charles Radclyffe (Baigent, et al, 192-3). Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln conclude:

“There was an original text on which the published version of the Protocols was based. This original text was not a forgery. On the contrary, it was authentic. But it had nothing whatever to do with Judaism or an ‘international Jewish conspiracy.’ It issued, rather, from some Masonic organization or Masonically oriented secret society that incorporated the word ‘Sion’.” (Baigent, et al, 194)

Given the Masonic language, one can completely discard the racist contention that the Protocols constitute evidence of an ‘international Jewish conspiracy.’ Nevertheless, the document holds some authenticity:

“The published version of the Protocols is not, therefore, a totally fabricated text. It is, rather, a radically altered text. But despite the alterations certain vestiges of the original version can be discerned’.” (Baigent, et al, 195)

The remnant vestiges of the original text strongly suggest Masonic origins. Having established the Masonic authorship of the Protocols, one may return to issue at hand: Freemasonic involvement in the promotion of Darwinism. Consider the following excerpt from the Protocols , which reads distinctly like a mission statement:

“For them [the masses or cattle] let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the goyim [the masses or cattle] will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of it will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.”

Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism

[emphasis added], Marxism, and Nietzsche-ism (reprint in Cooper, 274-5).

In addition to establishing the Lodge’s official sanction of Darwinism, this excerpt also reveals a direct relationship between Marxism, Nietzsche-ism, and evolutionary theory. This relationship shall be examined in

part two of this article.

It was the grandfather of Aldous Huxley, T.H. Huxley, who would act as the ‘official spokesman for the recluse Darwin’ (White, 268). Many years later, Aldous would propose a ‘scientific dictatorship’ in Brave New World Revisited. Whether Aldous made this proposition on a whim or was penning a concept that had circulated within the Huxley family for years cannot be determined. Given the family’s oligarchical tradition, the latter assertion remains a definite possibility. Yet, there may be a deeper Freemasonic connection, suggesting that the concept of a ‘scientific dictatorship’ may have originated within the Lodge.

T.H. Huxley was a Freemason and, with no apparent achievements to claim as his own, was made a Fellow of the Royal Society at the age of 26 (Daniel, 34). T.H. Huxley tutored Freemason H.G. Wells, who would later teach Huxley’s two grandsons, Julian and Aldous. Both Julian and Aldous were Freemasons (Daniel, 147). Given this continuity of Freemasonic tutelage within the Huxley family, it is a definite possibility that the Huxlian concept of a ‘scientific dictatorship’ is really Masonic. Considering Freemason H.G. Wells’ endorsement of a ‘scientific dictatorship,’ which he called a ‘Technocracy,’ this is highly likely.

The rest is history. With the publicity campaigns of the Royal Society and the avid defense of evolution apologist T.H. Huxley, Darwin’s theory would be disseminated and popularized. The seed had taken root and, in the years to come, numerous permutations of the elite’s ‘scientific dictatorship’ would emerge.

Continued in

Part Two

References

About the Author