The Epsilon Agenda – Introduction
Note for existing Members
If you have not already done so, please check out the Exordium page before engaging with the Epsilon Agenda series.
You may also find it worthwhile to review the Daddy Hoaxes page as a warm-up.
The working draft of this article was published approximately 1am on Thursday, 8-Jun-2017.
An accompanying video is already under construction and will be posted eventually. Stay tuned.
The Epsilon Agenda – Introduction
That all men are equal is a proposition to which, at ordinary times, no sane human being has ever given his assent.
–Aldous Huxley (‘Proper Studies’, 1927, Chapter 1)
Preface
I have been working on the broader concept of the Epsilon Agenda for some time now. Although many of the underlying ideas have been familiar to me for years – I first read Brave New World in 2014 – the fundamental thesis only occurred to me after I began investigating the topic of ‘birth trauma’. In about April of 2016 I was first exposed to Jeanice Barcello, whose work is specifically focused on birth trauma: both its effects on the individual and on society. This led me to reconsider everything I thought I knew about medicine, and within weeks I had put together the foundational research which ultimately led to what I will be sharing with you via this series.
Some new members of this site may feel that the Exordium page is somewhat ‘over the top’ (and at least one correspondent has said so directly). That is, some people may wonder why I would take so much time to warn new members of the site about the ‘black pills’ which one may encounter when engaging with or exposing oneself to what I call deep skepticism. I hope that in time I will look back and share that sentiment; I hope that when you finish reading/watching the Epsilon Agenda series, you too will think that I overstated the significance of some of my findings. I hope that, if you accept the evidence -> logic -> conclusions schema as presented, those conclusions do not have the same negative effects on you as they had on me when I first arrived at them.
It is one thing to ‘wake up’ to the fact that the TV lies (and gets away with it). It is one thing to ‘wake up’ to the fact that our educational institutions are central to propagating the lies. It is one thing to ‘wake up’ to the fact that although the vast majority of our contemporaries believe they live on a giant spinning ball, few if any of them can actually present a single valid reason to affirm that this is actually the case. Indeed, it is becoming more clear to myself, and possibly to you as well, that most people who claim to be ‘awake’ to these things are not actually awake to anything: they are merely parroting a new set of beliefs.
This is where an understanding of the Daddy Hoaxes, and the Epsilon Agenda to which they are related, can help to make sense of the seemingly senseless. Why are we lied to? Why do so few people seem to be able to even countenance the lies? Why would somebody who knows about the lies help keep the lies going? Why is this happening? Why does it seem to be getting worse?
My thesis is that this is all part of the same, single, overarching agenda. An agenda which sees myself, yourself, and everybody we care about, as insignificant, disposable, biological vessels. An agenda which is so overt that that it can be transmitted to us via popular culture and oft-promoted ‘fiction’, without ever arising the slightest of suspicions among the vast majority of us that something truly tremendous is afoot. An agenda which is, when fully considered, not even apparently ‘evil’, any more than a bear catching and eating a fish can be considered ‘evil’.
This has been for me perhaps the most daunting element of the Epsilon Agenda: it is greater than the whole of its parts, and nobody is going to stop it. Not me. Not you. Certainly not the ‘truth movement’ or any of the gaggle of morons who claim to be part of it. Those who cannot accept the ‘natural’ element of what is taking place will be the ones who may suffer as I did when the pieces of this jigsaw finally started coming together. Eventually I was able to overcome my own hubris and see my place in this for what it is. I remain reticent to say that I am ‘at peace’ with it, but I am much closer to ‘peace’ than I was at this time last year.
My hope is that by releasing this series in sections, while simultaneously publishing other pieces of content which reveal that I am still optimistic and (hopefully) humorous, I will be able to demonstrate that even if my thesis is true, it does not entail that we ought to be saddened by it, or that we ought to view our lives or this existence in a negative light as a result of it. Reality is reality, and as we improve our understanding of reality, we can shape our own interaction with reality as we wish. Note that I emphasise the word ‘understanding’. There is an apparent etymological significance to that term which begs reflection.
As with all of my work, you are under no obligation to read/watch it, or to agree with it. I do ask that if you see any flaws, error or omissions in what is presented, you take the time to point them out to me. You will be doing myself and my audience a great disservice if you keep these criticisms to yourself. My thesis could be wrong. It could be fallacious. It could be missing something. If this is the case, then only by others pointing out the problems can I seek to rectify them immediately.
That said, my confidence in the validity of the thesis grows with every passing week. It has been more than a year since I began seriously working on it in my own mind, and putting together the necessary research in piecemeal fashion . Now it is time to share the Epsilon Agenda with those who feel inclined to engage with it.
Introduction
As this is the first published component of the series, my intent here will be to offer an overview of the Agenda by way of a specific example. In this piece we will look at the early onset of puberty in children today. The article will follow a simple, logical structure, broken into sections as follows:
- A look at what I think the average person is liable to believe about the phenomenon
- The key researcher who brought the phenomenon to mainstream attention
- Other scientific research which reveals the significance of the issue
- Inferences and questions which follow from the evidence
- Aldous Huxley and Brave New World
- The Epsilon Agenda in a nutshell
1 – Public awareness/understanding of earlier-onset puberty
Most people today seem to be aware that children are generally entering puberty at a younger age now than they did in previous generations. If the average person wanted to learn more about why this is happening, or what the consequences might be, where would they go? Probably the internet, and there is a good chance that wikipedia would be their first (and perhaps only) port of call.
Based on my own anecdotal experience and conversations with others, I would suggest that most people under the age of 40 today would be likely to have a fair degree of trust in wikipedia, at least on major topics/articles, and in comparison with their trust in the regular news outlets. For what it is worth, this is corroborated by official polls. Whether or not you or I trust wikipedia, or consult it as a reliable basis for true information, the reality is that the masses often do.
So what does wikipedia have to say about the earlier onset of puberty?
That is it. The age at which humans begin to show signs of physical maturity has decreased ‘significantly’ in just a few generations, and scientists think it ‘could be linked to obesity or exposure to chemicals in the food chain’. This section of the article commands (maybe) 200 words of an 8,000-word article. Put another way, wikipedia affords the topic of ‘puberty’ an 8,000 word entry, but the fact that puberty is now taking place significantly earlier is given only about 2-3% of the article. This is remarkable in and of itself.
Of the citations provided in that section, one in particular (#71 in the screenshot above) is to a 2001 BBC article which has this to say on the matter:
Concerns had been raised that girls are experiencing the physical changes into womanhood at a much younger age, creating health problems and adding to the rising rates of teenage pregnancy…
But there is little change, according to the authors of the latest report.
Professor Peter Whincup, who carried out the survey, said: “The change has been small, but possibly it could be as much as six months, although that’s unlikely.
“It is difficult to say whether it will fall further. At the moment it does seem to be pretty stable.
How reassuring. A BBC article from 16 years ago says that there is barely any change taking place, and that the age of onset of puberty is ‘pretty stable’. How or why any individual thought this BBC article was worth inserting as a citation for a reference article (wikipedia or otherwise) is beyond me. In any event, we have now seen what a normie would be likely to read if they decided to inquire about the decreasing age of puberty on wikipedia.
What if somebody were to simply google the question?
The top search result is to a 2013 Guardian article which has this to say (my emphasis):
…in a wider historical context, the change appears far more stark: a study by Dr. Marcia Herman-Giddens found that in 1860, the average age of the onset of puberty in girls was 16.6 years. In 1920, it was 14.6; in 1950, 13.1; 1980, 12.5; and in 2010, it had dropped to 10.5. Similar sets of figures have been reported for boys, albeit with a delay of around a year.
Research constantly flags up the link between BMI (Body Mass Index, used to indicate if an individual is overweight or obese) and puberty. But there is more to it than that.
For example, one study found that children who had been adopted recently from a developing county to Denmark were 10 to 20 times more likely to develop precocious puberty than children in the developed country. The study also found that the difference could not be explained entirely by changes in nutrition, body weight, or body fat. Similar findings were found in studies of children immigrating to Sweden, France, Belgium, Switzerland and the United States.
Other factors that can influence biology relate to a child’s environment – stress, climate, light cycles and chemical exposures all have established links, though their magnitude is still not entirely understood.
As we will see shortly, the Guardian article is more relevant and accurate (according to accepted science today) than the BBC article highlighted earlier. That said, it is still missing some fundamentally important information. I provide this background here simply to give you an idea of what the average person might be liable to believe, if they ever wondered if there was any evidence that puberty was in fact beginning earlier, or why this was happening, and took the time to try to find out. This can then be contrasted with what the scientific data actually reveals, when looked at in detail.
2 – Marcia Hermen-Giddens and her 1997 ‘earlier onset of puberty’ study
The first scientific study to bring public awareness to the phenomenon of earlier-onset puberty was led by Dr Marcia Hermen-Giddens of the University of North Carolina. The study was officially published in the journal Pediatrics in April 1997, and immediately received mainstream attention. The following is from an article in the New York Times (9-Apr-1997; my emphasis):
Challenging medical dogma but supporting doctors’ observations, a new report shows that many girls are starting puberty far earlier than is widely considered normal. The findings suggest that the textbook timetable of puberty onset, which is based on decades-old research on British white girls, is either outmoded or irrelevant in this country.
…the authors say the new study, which appears in the current issue of Pediatrics, is the first large-scale, multiracial investigation of exactly when American girls begin puberty. The research confirms what many doctors have suspected for years…
In the study, the average age when puberty began was just under 9 years old for African-Americans and roughly 10 to 10 1/2 for whites. Textbooks place the average age of puberty onset at between 11 and 12, according to the study.
Dr. Herman-Giddens said that she did not know whether American girls were maturing earlier than in the past because no comparable study had ever been done. Most prior studies looked only at girls 8 and older and did not include different races, she said.
Below is a basic overview of Herman-Giddens article published in Pediatrics:
Secondary Sexual Characteristics and Menses in Young Girls Seen in Office Practice: A Study from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network
Pediatrics | April 1997 | North Carolina | Link to full pdf
Results: Data were analyzed for 17 077 girls, of whom 9.6% were African-American and 90.4% white. At age 3,3% of African-American girls and 1% of white girls showed breast and/or pubic hair development, with proportions increasing to 27.2% and 6.7%, respectively, at 7 years of age. At age 8, 48.3% of African-American girls and 14.7% of white girls had begun development. At every age for each characteristic, African-American girls were more advanced than white girls. The mean ages of onset of breast development for African-American and white girls were 8.87 years (SD, 1.93) and 9.96 years (SD,1.82), respectively; and for pubic hair development, 8.78years (SD, 2.00) and 10.51 years (SD, 1.67), respectively.Menses occurred at 12.16 years (SD, 1.21) in African-American girls and 12.88 years (SD, 1.20) of age in white girls.
Conclusions: These data suggest that girls seen in a sample of pediatric practices from across the United States are developing pubertal characteristics at younger ages than currently used norms. Practitioners may need to revise their criteria for referral of girls with precocious puberty, with attention to racial differences.
Discussion: Our study found African-American girls entering puberty approximately 1 to 1.5 years earlier than white girls and beginning menses approximately 8.5months earlier. We have no explanation for the discrepancy in timing sequence between the African-American and white girls for either the onset of puberty and subsequent menses or appearance and spacing of the secondary sexual characteristics. Neither can we explain the earlier development among African-American girls in general.
The significant discrepancy between the onset of puberty among whites and blacks is significant for reasons beyond the scope of this article. Recall that we are told that that ‘race is only skin deep’ and that ‘race is a social construct’. If race were not biological, then why would there be such an obvious difference in onset of puberty between the racial groups? Are these empirical facts a mere imagination of society? I’ll return to these and related questions in another piece.
More pertinent to this discussion, Herman-Giddens’ study revealed that the onset of puberty was occurring earlier regardless of race. That is, generally speaking, all children were entering puberty earlier than previous generations. This may seem like a commonly-accepted fact nowadays, but Herman-Giddens’ study was groundbreaking at the time. Apparently it also caused some controversy. According to Business Insider (23-Oct-2012; my emphasis):
In the late 1980s, Marcia Herman-Giddens was working in a paediatric clinic at Duke University Medical Centre in North Carolina when she noticed a puzzling phenomenon.More and more girls aged eight or nine who visited the clinic had started to sprout pubic hair and breasts. At the time, medical orthodoxy held that the average age of puberty for girls in the west was over 11. The numbers of under-10s that Herman-Giddens was seeing did not fit with this scenario.
She began collecting data that eventually produced a study with the American Academy of Pediatrics that studied 17,000 girls and found that the average age of breast-budding among white girls was 9.9 years while for black girls it was 8.8.
The discovery was hugely controversial. Many doctors refused to accept the fact that more and more girls had begun to mature sexually before they had reached the age of 10.
“The Lolita syndrome [the prurient fascination with the sexuality of young girls] created a lot of emotional interest,” recalls Herman-Giddens, now at the University of North Carolina. “As a feminist, I wish it didn’t.”
Since then, it has also become accepted that the age of onset of puberty continues to decline. Herman-Giddens provided an editorial for a 2013 study and made note of this herself, as quoted in LiveScience (4-Nov-2013; my emphasis):
“With each new study in the past two decades, we hope the age of ‘early puberty’ has bottomed out,” Marcia Herman-Giddens, a researcher at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an editorial published with the new study in Pediatrics.
“When each ‘new study’ has been published, however, we find the trend toward early puberty has continued,” Herman-Giddens wrote.
We’ll look at some more studies in a moment. Note that as more and more studies have added further evidence to support the theory that children are indeed entering puberty earlier (and earlier), the topic has received some mainstream attention. Note also that within these mainstream articles, it is emphasised that even the scientists don’t know why it is happening. Consider the following from Time (22-Oct-2000; my emphasis):
It’s as if an entire generation of girls had been put on hormonal fast-forward: shooting up, filling out, growing like Alice munching on the wrong side of the mushroom–and towering Mutt and Jeff-like over a generation of boys who seem, next to the girls, to be getting smaller every year (see box).
What’s going on? Is it something in the water? That’s a possibility. Scientists think it may be linked to obesity, though they’ve also proposed a witches’ brew of other explanations, from chemicals in the environment to hormones in cow’s milk and beef. But the truth is that all anyone knows for certain is that the signs of sexual development in girls are appearing at ever younger ages. Among Caucasian girls today, 1 in every 7 starts to develop breasts or pubic hair by age 8. Among African Americans, for reasons nobody quite understands, the figure is nearly 1 out of every 2…
In retrospect, pediatricians and psychologists say, there have been hints for the past decade or so that something strange was going on. But it wasn’t until 1997 that anyone put her finger on it. That’s when Marcia Herman-Giddens, now an adjunct professor at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, published her famous paper in the journal Pediatrics. Herman-Giddens noticed in her clinical work that more and more young girls were coming in with breasts and pubic hair. Intrigued, she launched a major study of 17,000 girls to get a statistical handle on the problem.
The above is from a 2000 article, just three years after the original publication of Herman-Giddens research. The same ‘nobody knows why’ narrative continues to be repeated to this day, but with a twist: it is claimed that puberty originally began dropping because – get this – we are eating better than in the 19th century! Again from Business Insider (2012; my emphasis):
What factors lie behind this trend? Why are our children reaching biological adulthood at earlier and earlier ages? And what are the medical implications of this? Answers to these questions are still debated, although most scientists and health experts believe that the initial decline in the age in puberty was linked to general improvements in health in the west that began in the late 19th century. The trouble is that this drop, which was expected to stop, has simply continued at the same rate: a decline in four to five months in age of onset for each passing decade.
Journal of publication | Date of publication | City of lead author | Link to article
a) Puberty is occurring earlier even when controlling for rising obesity
Age at Puberty and the Emerging Obesity Epidemic
PLoS One | December 2009 | Copenhagen | Link to full article (pdf)
b) Puberty continues to occur earlier and earlier with each new cohort of children
Recent decline in age at breast development: the Copenhagen Puberty Study
Pediatrics | May 2009 | Copenhagen | Link to abstract
Results: Onset of puberty, defined as mean estimated age at attainment of glandular breast tissue (Tanner breast stage 2+), occurred significantly earlier in the 2006 cohort (estimated mean age: 9.86 years) when compared with the 1991 cohort (estimated mean age: 10.88 years). The difference remained significant after adjustment for BMI. Estimated ages at menarche were 13.42 and 13.13 years in the 1991 and 2006 cohorts, respectively.
Conclusions: We found significantly earlier breast development among girls born more recently. Alterations in reproductive hormones and BMI did not explain these marked changes, which suggests that other factors yet to be identified may be involved.
Onset of Breast Development in a Longitudinal Cohort
Pediatrics | December 2013 | Cincinnati | Link to full article
Results: The age at onset of breast stage 2 varied by race/ethnicity, BMI at baseline, and site. Median age at onset of breast stage 2 was 8.8, 9.3, 9.7, and 9.7 years for African American, Hispanic, white non-Hispanic, and Asian participants, respectively. Girls with greater BMI reached breast stage 2 at younger ages. Age-specific and standardized prevalence of breast maturation was contrasted to observations in 2 large cross-sectional studies conducted 10 to 20 years earlier (Pediatric Research in Office Settings and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III) and found to have occurred earlier among white, non-Hispanic, but not African American girls.
Conclusion: We observed the onset of thelarche at younger ages than previously documented, with important differences associated with race/ethnicity and BMI, confirming and extending patterns seen previously.
c) The earlier children enter puberty, the more likely they are to die sooner
Age at Menarche and Risks of All-Cause and Cardiovascular Death: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
American Journal of Epidemiology | June 2014 | Cambridge | Link to full article
Study characteristics: The 9 included articles provided data from 8 independent cohorts and, although they were published between 2006 and 2012, they covered a study period of 50 years (1959–2009). Sample sizes ranged from 1,031 to 267,400 women…
Discussion: Our meta-analysis showed a 3% lower relative risk of death from all causes associated with each 1-year delay in menarche, with consistent findings across studies. There was some suggestion that the association was nonlinear, with a 23% higher relative risk of death in women with early menarche (at <12 years of age), but no obvious protection of late menarche…
Although the association of menarche with risk of death from all causes is biologically plausible, the specific underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. Early menarche has been consistently associated with adult obesity. However, we found that the association between menarcheal age and death from all causes was still apparent in studies that adjusted for adult BMI, which indicates that mechanisms other than obesity may be involved. Low birth weight, rapid growth during infancy, and higher childhood BMI values are associated with earlier age at menarche; therefore, history of early menarche could reflect earlier adverse metabolic imprinting.
Conclusion: The current meta-analysis provides evidence for a consistent inverse association between menarcheal age and the risk of death from all causes. Early menarche appeared to be particularly detrimental in terms of death from all causes, but no obvious beneficial effect was observed for later menarcheal ages. The effect of menarcheal age on the risk of death from all causes appeared to be independent of adult BMI, possibly indicating other direct mechanisms linking pubertal maturation to later health.
d) The earlier that females enter puberty, the more likely they are to suffer from depression
Age at Onset of Puberty and Adolescent Depression: “Childrenof 1997” Birth Cohort
Pediatrics | University of Hong Kong | June 2016 | Link to full article
Results: Association of age at onset of breast/genitalia development with the presence of depression varied according to gender. Earlier onset of breast development was associated with higher risk of the presence of depression (odds ratio, 0.83 per 1 year increase in age of onset [95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 0.98]) adjusted for age, socioeconomic position, mother’s place of birth, birth order, secondhand smoke exposure, parental age, survey mode, gender-specific birth weight z score, BMI z score at 7 years, and parental marital status…
An odds ratio of 0.83 means that in 2 girls, otherwise similar in all other characteristics in the model, onset of breast development 1 year of age later in 1 girl compared with the other reduces the risk of adolescent depression by 17%.
Conclusion: Early onset of breast development was associated with high risk of the presence of depression. Whether these findings are indicators of the effects of hormones or transient effects of social pressures remain to be determined…
In other words, scientific studies (with significant sample sizes) reveal that:
- Children are entering puberty earlier and earlier (with no end apparently in sight)
- This is occurring across the BMI spectrum i.e. it is not purely a matter of rising obesity
- There is a correlation between early onset of puberty and earlier death
- There is (among females) a strong correlation between early onset of puberty and depression
That is the evidence. Conclusions, based on empirical data, as published in official, scientific studies.
Article continues below…
Not yet a Member of johnlebon.com?
Then you are missing out on:
*The JLB Discord server.
*The JLB Member forum.
*Over 300 hours of exclusive videos and podcasts.
*Dozens of exclusive articles and posts.
*The higher tiers of the infamous Hoax Hierarchy.
The website has gone from strength to strength since launching in 2016.
Here’s what one long-term Member has to say:
There’s never been a better time to join, with the Australian dollar at historic lows:
This means that non-Australians are able to get more bang for their buck!
Learn more about the benefits of Membership by clicking HERE 🙂
Article resumes…
4 – The logical inferences and questions which follow from the evidence
First, the earlier onset of puberty is not ‘natural’ or ‘good’, in the sense that there exists a correlation between it and both mental and physical health problems. Even if the causation between early-onset puberty and negative health outcomes is not necessarily established, the correlation alone suggests that this is not a ‘normal’ or ‘healthy’ thing.
Second, whatever is responsible for this earlier onset of puberty is not ‘passing’ or ‘going away’ – this is a trend without an apparent end. If the ‘experts’ cannot even tell us why this is happening, and their own data suggests that the trend is continuing, then why would anybody assume the trend will suddenly change or ‘even out’?
If one accepts the two inferences above as being logical, based on the data, then one is left with some serious questions, such as:
- Why isn’t this a bigger deal to the governments/medical industry which supposedly exist for our benefit?
- Why isn’t this a bigger deal to the average person, since most people are aware (to some degree) it is happening?
5 – Aldous Huxley and Brave New World
Even among the normies there is a general, rudimentary familiarity with Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, the dystopian novel in which ‘soma’ is used to allay anxiety and sexual conservatism is a thing of the past. As is the case with George Orwell’s 1984, there seems to be a giant gulf between what the average person believes the book is about, and what it is actually about.
a) The Huxley Clan
First, it is important to note that Huxley was one of a clan of eminent and respected figures within the fields of science, medicine, literature and academia. Among them are knights, professors, and Nobel Prize winners. Most relevant to Aldous’ work are his grandfather, Thomas Henry Huxley, and his brother, Julian Huxley.
b) Julian Huxley (1887-1875)
Aldous’ brother, Julian Huxley, was an evolutionary biologist and avowed eugenicist. He was knighted for his services to science, and served as the first director general of UNESCO (the science/education arm of the UN). Julian studied at Oxford and his son Francis went on to become a lecturer (of anthropology, no less) at Oxford as well. Among other things, Julian worked for the BBC, for Oxford University, and for the military, and also spent time working alongside ‘science fiction’ writer H.G. Wells in order to write a book. Remember, this is Aldous Huxley’s brother.
You can read Julian’s 1933 essay ‘The Vital Importance of Eugenics’ for yourself to get an insight into his thinking. You might note that Julian’s emphasis appears to be not on ‘creating a master race’, as is the standard narrative of eugenics given to us by school and TV (particularly with regards to the ‘Nazis’). Instead, the main thrust of his argument seems to be that dumb people create more dumb people who need a state to survive, and that the only way to stop their relative increase in the populace is to stop them from breeding.
Without going into too much detail here, I will point out that once can read between the lines when dealing with the works of people like Julian Huxley. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that those in control of the state were actually quite happy to have within their populace a percentage of people so mentally deficient they needed the state to survive. Suppose that for the state to maximise its own stability, it required a percentage of subjects who would fight to keep the state should anybody suggest radical change. Such a state, then, would not want to sterilise the mentally deficient, but merely to keep their numbers at an acceptable/desirable/efficient level.
Put another way, a eugenicist is not simply somebody who wants to produce a ‘master race’. A eugenicist can instead, for instance, be a philosopher or public policy-maker who deals in observations about the types of people who live, and the way in which they relate to the broader society or state in which they live. A eugenicist, therefore, may spend his time not arguing for the end of the mentally deficient, even if a surface-level reading of his work suggests this to be the case.
c) Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895)
Thomas Henry Huxley, the grandfather of both Aldous and Julian, was known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ for his promotion of the then-controversial theory of human evolution. He is also credited with coining the term ‘agnosticism’, and also for developing the theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Along with characters like John Tyndall, Huxley was a member of the ‘X Club’, which promoted the new ‘secular’ science (that is, theories about human evolution and so forth) and even helped create and popularise Nature (now a highly-regarded scientific journal).
According to Berkeley, Thomas wrote this to Charles Darwin in 1859:
I finished your book yesterday. . . Since I read Von Baer’s Essays nine years ago no work on Natural History Science I have met with has made so great an impression on me & I do most heartily thank you for the great store of new views you have given me. . . As for your doctrines I am prepared to go to the Stake if requisite. . .
One of Thomas’ most notable ‘achievements’ was his part in the 1860 Oxford evolution debate. It was recreated in the PBS series Evolution:
Again from Berkeley:
All accounts agree that Huxley trounced Wilberforce in the debate, defending evolution as the best explanation yet advanced for species diversity.
The Oxford University Museum of Natural History is more circumspect:
All sides claimed to have won the day – Wilberforce wrote (to Sir Charles Anderson, 3 July 1860): ‘On Saturday Professor Henslow…called on me by name to address the Section on Darwin’s theory. So I could not escape and had quite a long fight with Huxley. I think I thoroughly beat him.’ Huxley observed that he himself was ‘the most popular man in Oxford for a full four & twenty hours afterwards’. He left the meeting with new respect for the power of oratory, and later perfected the art and used it well on Darwin’s behalf.
The encounter was sparsely reported at the time, which is why there is still confusion about who said what, but almost a century after it took place colourful accounts began to circulate that have given the occasion a greater significance than it may have merited on scientific or cultural grounds.
Somehow, despite the fact that nobody actually knows what was said at this debate, and also the fact that it was not even a debate, this 1860 event has become part of scientism folklore. Consider the introduction of the wikipedia entry on Thomas:
Regardless of the 1860 debate or its role in the ‘triumph of evolution’, Thomas was certainly an influential member of the core group of scientists who helped to promote human evolution theory. Note that a student of Thomas’ was H.G. Wells, whose work The Time Machine is credited as introducing/pioneering the the concept of mechanical time travel (and therefore helping to popularise ‘science fiction’ as a genre); moreover, the story is premised on a fictional dystopia in which humans have evolved into separate species. Huxley’s influence therefore went beyond mere academia; his evolution theories permeated into public consciousness via fiction and helped create the world in which we live today, wherein most people fully believe they evolved from simpler species.
d) The significance of Huxley’s background
The information provided above is relevant for one primary reason: Aldous Huxley was not just some chump science fiction writer. If, for the sake of argument, we accept that the novel Brave New World was in fact written by one man, and his name was Aldous Huxley, it is not the case that his story was dreamed up in isolation by some remote individual. Clearly, even if only by osmosis, Aldous would have picked up on the themes and ideas running through the works of his grandfather and brother, men who promoted not only eugenics but the foundational ‘evolution’ theory framework which underpinned the concept of eugenics in the first place.
This is without considering the Royal/socialist/Fabian/Eselen links which can be found throughout the Huxley family tree and among their closest associates – an analysis which will be more appropriate in another piece. The central point being made here is that Huxley had reason to know things about the direction of society which an ordinary ‘science fiction’ writer might not.
Viewed in this light, any accuracy between Huxley’s ‘fictional’ future, and our present times, may be seen as more than mere coincidence.
What do we encounter in the very first chapter of Brave New World? From page 10:
“Reducing the number of revolutions per minute,” Mr. Foster explained. “The surrogate goes round slower; therefore passes through the lung at longer intervals; therefore gives the embryo less oxygen. Nothing like oxygen-shortage for keeping an embryo below par.” Again he rubbed his hands.
“But why do you want to keep the embryo below par?” asked an ingenuous student. “Ass!” said the Director, breaking a long silence.
“Hasn’t it occurred to you that an Epsilon embryo must have an Epsilon environment as well as an Epsilon heredity?”It evidently hadn’t occurred to him. He was covered with confusion.
“The lower the caste,” said Mr. Foster, “the shorter the oxygen.” The first organ affected was the brain. After that the skeleton…
“But in Epsilons,” said Mr. Foster very justly, “we don’t need human intelligence.” Didn’t need and didn’t get it. But though the Epsilon mind was mature at ten, the Epsilon body was not fit to work till eighteen. Long years of superfluous and wasted immaturity. If the physical development could be speeded up till it was as quick, say, as a cow’s, what an enormous saving to the Community!
6 – The Epsilon Agenda (in a nutshell)
This section deals with the Agenda more broadly and so a basic understanding of the caste system in Brave New World, and how it is created, will be of benefit. If you have not previously read the book you can download it as a pdf or listen to it in audiobook fashion. The most relevant chapter to this thesis is chapter one, wherein the caste system process is explained. Basically, the people of BNW‘s dystopian future are developed and raised to fit into different castes – alphas, betas, gammas, deltas and epsilons. This is done via intentional retardation which is effected via several methods.
The caste system presented in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is no mere fictional device. The intentional retardation carried out ‘in vitro’ in BNW is analogous to the birth trauma inflicted upon children via the medical industry today; the ‘conditioning’ conducted throughout one’s formative years in BNW are analogous to the conditioning processes entailed by school, popular culture, and ubiquitous information technology. That is, we have all been intentionally retarded, no matter how smart we think we are. The average person today is so convinced that he is intelligent that he could never even countenance the possibility that he was supposed to be smarter than he is. Much, much smarter.
By way of ultrasound, hospital birth, formula ‘milk’, vaccinations, and processed ‘baby food’ (among other things), the typical young child today is physiologically retarded – significantly so. By way of school, television and, more recently, the internet, the typical young child today is mentally and psychologically retarded – significantly so. By way of the modern religion(s) of scientism and moral relativism, whereby it is taught that we were created out of nothing by nothing for nothing, the typical young child today is spiritually retarded. As they approach physical maturity, humans are further retarded by, among other things, alcohol and other drugs (including prescription ‘medications’).
Once they have reached a certain age, these humans are then kept busy in menial, mundane work. Increasingly they are ‘specially trained’ for their roles, spending several years at universities and colleges to learn how to, for instance, write reports or recite economic theory. Some spend up to seven years memorising which pills ought to be prescribed for which physical ailment. Increasingly these individualss go into debt in order to fund this education. Most jobs generally take up the bulk of their daytime hours every week, and are generally performed indoors and away from direct sunlight, which only exacerbates the physiological retardation. This education and/or employment gives those involved a sense of achievement, purpose and (perhaps most importantly) pride, making it even less likely that they will ever question the system in which they operate.
These creatures are literally retarded, and analogous to the ‘epsilons’ in Huxley’s Brave New World. They look human, and can communicate via a commonly-understood language (i.e. English). On a deeper level, however, the ‘humanity’ has been intentionally stripped from them. This has been done, in the eyes of those at the top of the biological caste system, for everybody’s benefit. The state is more stable and secure with an underclass of dependents entirely reliant upon it. The more capable of the retards are put to work in rearing the next generation, in roles such as ‘nursing’ and ‘teaching’, further reinforcing the necessity of the state’s continued existence: Everybody is dependent upon it, from top to bottom.
The dependence of each individual upon the collective is further entrenched by artificial social mores and culture. The youth are encouraged to be sexually promiscuous, weakening the bonds which might otherwise form in first-partner, monogamous relationships. Children are reared and socialised communally (in aptly-named ‘schools’), and few spend more time with their own parents than they do with promoters of the state doctrine (i.e. ‘teachers’). Moreover, rapidly changing notions of ‘correctness’ sever bonds between generations: the values of previous generations are vilified and demonised, often in public demonstrations, such that the youth are legitimately appalled by the opinions/behaviours of their own grandparents.
With rare exception, each individual feels fortunate to be alive in the present time, a sentiment often founded upon the doctrine that ‘in the past, things were worse’: People back then were less happy, and less healthy, and less safe. Few ever even question this notion; it is effectively taken on faith. This means that the entire system is self-perpetuating: no single individual is actually ‘responsible’ for the operation of the state, as it is comprised of an infinite number of willing and eager units, who happily partake in the continuation of the system, one which they feel lucky to be part of. So alien is the concept of truly questioning one’s places in the system that those who do are statistically more likely to commit suicide than they are to leave the system and live off the land.
Welcome to tardville. Also known as ‘earth’. If you accept this thesis, you might find it difficult to determine which is more saddening: that you were retarded and could have been so much more, or that those you love and care about are retarded and will never change. The only thing which you can change (at least in theory) is your own level of retardation. The system intentionally failed to teach you even basic logic at school. You can remedy this if you so choose. The physiological damage wrought by poor diet and alcohol/drugs can be healed by the body, if the body is given a chance to heal itself. The ongoing mental/psychological/spiritual retardation induced by way of TV/social media/etc can be reversed if exposure to the retarding influences is reduced/removed.
Once we realise, accept and understand what has happened, we can make genuine improvements to our lives. At least in theory.
If, however, we fail in practise to make significant changes to our own lives, then we are proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that we cannot change the system more broadly. We are in effect proving that the system is ‘natural’ (even if its effects appear not to be), that this is how things are supposed to be, that the essence of ‘humanity’ we think we possess is in fact already gone (and may not have ‘ever’ existed to begin with). The bear catches and eats the fish, and we call it ‘nature’. The humans retard themselves and we call it… ‘evil’? No, the retards call it ‘evil’, because they do not have the capacity to understand anything else. They were given a simple ‘good’ vs ‘evil’ dialectic through which to view most (if not all) issues for the rest of their lives.
Good vs evil. Me good, me enemy bad. Me feelings hurt, this man bad. Me made happy by this man, this man good. And so on.
This is why you have failed to convince many (if any) people to your way of thinking. Intelligent people, successful people, good, honest people, you have tried to get them to ‘wake up’ to the the lies of the Lie System and, if you are being honest, you know that you have generally failed. We all have. This is why ‘even the smart ones’ have proven incapable of realising even the most obvious of truths, such as ‘that plane is CGI’. It is not simply a matter of them being ‘too indoctrinated’. That is only one small part of a much bigger issue at play. These people are exactly as they are supposed to be. It is we, those of us who still seem to be able to think, who are abnormal.
Believe it or not, Huxley deals with this very issue in BNW. One of the protagonists is a character named Bernard Marx, who dislikes the hedonism and emptiness of society, even though he (as an ‘alpha’) is ostensibly successful within it. Bernard does not partake in the general social activities that all others do, and this leads people to view him as weird. It is rumoured that his differences are due to mistakes made during his ‘decanting’ (i.e. development as an embryo/infant). Whereas everybody else seems perfectly happy within the system, to the point of never even questioning it, Bernard is perpetually troubled by what he perceives as its shallowness.
I strongly recommend that, before you continue on with this series, you read (or listen to the audiobooks of) Brave New World. It is not simply a book about a dystopian future in which people stay happy by consuming ‘soma’. The surface narrative of the novel is merely a vehicle by which to consider and explore deeper philosophical questions. There may be things in this Introduction which at first glance do not make sense (or even seem offensive), but will make perfect sense once you see how far the analogies in Brave New World go. The ‘earlier onset of puberty’ is just one example, and a trivial one in comparison to the many others featured throughout Huxley’s story about a dystopian ‘future’.
To be continued…
There’s only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that’s your own self.
-Aldous Huxley
Not yet a Member of johnlebon.com?
Then you are missing out on:
*The JLB Discord server.
*The JLB Member forum.
*Over 400 hours of exclusive videos and podcasts.
*Dozens of exclusive articles and posts.
The website has gone from strength to strength since launching in 2016.
Here’s what one long-term Member has to say:
There’s never been a better time to join, with the Australian dollar at historic lows:
This means that non-Australians are able to get more bang for their buck!
Learn more about the benefits of Membership by clicking HERE 🙂
Made available to the Mailing List 3-Apr-2020. Made available to the public 19-Apr-2020. Minor edits made as part of Free Content promotion 14-Mar-2021.
Hello JLB 🙂
What a huge amount of work….and that was just the introduction!
I read the book quite a long time ago, might have to dl the audio version so i can catch up and enjoy the rest of it.
Thanks, Mezzie! I strongly recommend anybody who hasn’t read (or listened to) BNW take the time to do so again, and as soon as practicable. I know from my own experience that the story meant something very different to me when I re-read it recently than it meant to me even just a couple of years ago. It is as though the process of deprogramming allows us to see the same text in an entirely different light.
A very well structured and insightful article. BNW really seems much more of a blueprint of what’s currently happening than other famous dystopian novels. Important works of fiction are never really just “entertainment”. They’re scripts competing for the ruling elite’s attention, and ready to be more or less faithfully implemented in the real world.
Anyway, it’s undoubtedly true that humanity is being dumbed down or retarded in various ways, through “scientific”, medical, cultural and other means. Probably we’ve all lost at least some of our potential, as you infer in the article, but I think we can still “save” ourselves as long as we retain enough intelligence to turn off our “entertainment” (i.e. brainwashing) machines, or at least filter out their most dangerous messages, and avoid falling for artificial, and ultimately dangerous and fallacious, alternatives to the Laws of Nature.
In fact, what is Huxley’s “caste systems” if not an artificial alternative to nature’s own caste system, composed of the different human races (divided not only by different characteristics, but also by their suitability to different environments)? And what are the countless “genders” currently being created if not artificial and pernicious alternatives to the two natural sexes?
I think all these artificial alternatives are to be rejected also because we’re not really unique individuals in the way we’ve been conditioned to accept in our era. Different races and sexes are the natural blueprints, models or “ideas” from which each individual derives their own defining characteristics. Each one of us is a unique individual, yes, but we’re composed of “material”, genetic and otherwise, coming not only from our parents and ancestors, but also from our race, our sex, and even other models or blueprints like zodiac signs (I don’t know whether they are influenced by stars or something else, but I definitely see similar characteristic in individuals of the same sign).
What the ruling elites are trying to do is mix together all the natural blueprints to mold the resulting mixed individuals into artificial (and supposedly more controllable by themselves) castes like the ones Huxley writes about. And they started this process by telling us that we are, at the same time, all different and all equal, and not really bound by any natural model or category.
That’s why we have to strive to maintain our natural differences, i.e. the different genetic pools from which different types of individuals can be formed.
To clarify what I think, I’ll give just one relevant example. You, JLB, are definitely a most unique individual, and unfortunately you’re destined to die one day, like all of us. But the genetic and “energetic” (for want of a better term) pool from which you came, and to which you can contribute through procreation, will continue to produce other individuals in various ways similar to you, no matter how few. Let’s call it the “White race” pool, with more specific subcategories like red haired males born under the sign of Leo, for example (there can be more subcategories at play, but these will suffice enough for now).
So we can’t be immortal as individuals, but by “sexually transmitting” our defining characteristics, or at least by defending the survival of our racial group, we make sure that people more or less substantially like us will exist in the future. That when we will close our eyes once and for all, other eyes similar to ours will open and observe the world.
That’s why it’s essential, I think, to preserve natural differences between humans, avoiding their being substituted by artificial ones. This may very well be the most effective way through which we can fight against the ruling elites’ nefarious plans.
I’m sorry if I digressed too much, but this is something your article here inspired me to say. I hope it makes enough sense to you and possibly other readers.
Thank you very much for the detailed comment. There are a couple of elements I want to respond to directly:
BNW really seems much more of a blueprint of what’s currently happening than other famous dystopian novels. Important works of fiction are never really just “entertainment”. They’re scripts competing for the ruling elite’s attention, and ready to be more or less faithfully implemented in the real world.
Have you had the chance to listen to much of what Huxley had to say about his philosophies and insights? Having previously been convinced by the likes of Jan Irvin that Huxley is/was evil, I am now not nearly so sure. Is the man who can most accurately see where the ship is headed, and articulate his predictions via story, somehow responsible for where the ship is headed? Is he necessarily connected to, or able to influence, the captain of the ship?
To make the point of my analogy more clear: what if where society is headed is beyond the control of any one man, and Huxley merely connected the dots for those willing to pay attention?
To make my point more clear again: I am now open-minded to the idea that what is going to happen is going to happen. I am open-minded to the idea that it was always going to happen. Some of us can see it, others cannot. How do we know Huxley wanted this, or that he was evil? When I listen to him speak, I do not hear the thoughts or expressions of what I would consider to be an evil, or even a nefarious, individual. Perhaps there is ‘more to the story’…
I think we can still “save” ourselves as long as we retain enough intelligence to turn off our “entertainment” (i.e. brainwashing) machines, or at least filter out their most dangerous messages, and avoid falling for artificial, and ultimately dangerous and fallacious, alternatives to the Laws of Nature.
I agree with these sentiments entirely. Nobody is forcing me to eat crap food or to spend time with negative people or to drink poison. Nor are they forcing parents to inject children with toxins or send them to retardation clinics (‘school’). The internet has effectively been given to us. Why is that? We can use it to teach ourselves and to help one another. Was this an unforeseen consequence of creating the ‘internet’? Or is there some malevolence at play?
So we can’t be immortal as individuals, but by “sexually transmitting” our defining characteristics, or at least by defending the survival of our racial group, we make sure that people more or less substantially like us will exist in the future. That when we will close our eyes once and for all, other eyes similar to ours will open and observe the world.
Sadly I do not have the time to go into detail here, but I will try to share my thoughts on this succinctly: when we but into the concepts of ‘time’ and ‘death’ as taught to us, we can then buy into the notion of a future in which we do not exist. I do not personally accept the foundational concepts/beliefs in question, and therefore do not perceive of a future without me. This is very confronting to a lot of people. I will go into more detail as soon as practicable.
That’s why it’s essential, I think, to preserve natural differences between humans, avoiding their being substituted by artificial ones. This may very well be the most effective way through which we can fight against the ruling elites’ nefarious plans.
Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with your fundamental or overall notion completely. It does not seem to me to be a coincidence that white people are traumatised into racial guilt from a young age. Like a neutering of the spiritual and psychological essence which is most threatening to those who might plan to retard the masses even further.
JLB, I just saw and read your reply to my comment. I’m not sure how I had missed it for so long, but I did, so without further ado, here are a couple of observations (or counter-observations, if you will) it inspired me.
First of all, when you suggest that Huxley, far from being evil, just had a stronger capacity to see the direction humanity was headed and foretell it, I beg to differ. I think the future he envisioned in BNW is so unnatural that it could never manifest itself, even just in part, in the “real world” if ruling elites were not steering it in a certain, unnatural direction.
When I say “unnatural” I mean not in harmony with, and even in opposition to, natural laws and natural human tendencies (actually, such an unnatural vision could be in harmony with only one tendency of humans as a mass or herd: that to conform to the direction their leaders want them to go). In other words, it seems to me that such a future could have “come true” only if artificially imposed by ruling elites implementing their plans. For me, BNW is an example of “predictive programming” among many others.
Does this mean that A. Huxley was evil? Well, I’ve read his “Perennial philosophy” book, to which you may be referring, so I know he was capable of expressing profound and sometimes enlightening spiritual concepts. In this, though, he’s doesn’t seem different from many freemasonic authors who consider themselves spiritual or enlightened, and are actually inspiring at times.
They may even be genuinely convinced that they’re acting in the interest of humanity, but in reality the higher echelons of power in their movement has only jewish interests in mind, freemasonry being admittedly an offspring of judaism, or a form of it for the “useful idiots” among gentiles. In fact, at the core of freemasonic meddling with the world I recognize a fundamental precept of judaism you may be familiar with: Tikkun Olam, “repair the world” (or more likely destroy it).
And lastly, I look forward to a more in-depth explanation of the following part of your answer to my comment: “when we buy into the concepts of ‘time’ and ‘death’ as taught to us, we can then buy into the notion of a future in which we do not exist. I do not personally accept the foundational concepts/beliefs in question, and therefore do not perceive of a future without me”.
It could be a very interesting perspective, but I have difficulty imagining where a professed and very effective skeptic like yourself could base it on…
I would be interested to know how you would define the term ‘natural’, especially as it applies to humans and their behaviour. It seems perfectly natural to me that smarter humans will use their intellectual superiority to control the dumber humans, just as the more powerful gorillas will use their strength to control the weaker gorillas. It has occurred to me that the only reason I ever thought differently was to do with my conditioning frowing up, chiefly via TV and school. ‘We are all the same, we are egalitarian’, blah blah blah. Now, who benefits from teaching the retarded children (i.e. the masses in school) that ‘everybody is the same’, and that ‘everybody is equal’? Think about it.
Was Huxley ‘evil’? Did he think he was acting in the best interests of the masses (and/or some abstract concept of ‘humanity’)? I don’t know. That is one of my basic points: I don’t know. Around this time last year I got caught up in the Jan Irvin boobytrap of assuming malice on the part of Huxleys (and whoever they front for), and it did me no good whatsoever. Now I state openly and plainly that I simply do not know their ultimate intentions or motivations, let alone their ‘morality’. By allowing myself to entertain other possibilities than ‘the Huxleys are evil’ or ‘the people who run the show are evil’, I have been able to significantly expand my appreciation of the realities of this world in which we live. The ‘good vs evil’ dialectic seems to me to act as a strong hindrance on genuine thinking.
Regarding the Jews, I would be interested to know when you think they took control of the world. Who was running the show before them, and how did the Jews wrest control? Or have the Jews always been running the show? As you know, I am very open-minded, so I look forward to perusing the evidence on which you base your beliefs. If I could determine that a single, monolithic group were indeed responsible for the operation of society, and all of its ills, things would be so much more straight-forward for me. I could go back to the old ‘good vs evil’ dialectic in which I used to believe.
Regarding ‘death’, I do not believe in it the way we are conditioned to, which is probably why I do not fear it the way that most people do (including those who claim not to), which is probably why I have been so willing to do what I have done over the past few years. What have I got to lose? Convince a human to fear death and you will never be more than a believable threat away from controlling their actions. Fear is an incredibly powerful phenomenon; to call it an ’emotion’ is to understate its significance.
You mention my skepticism as though that ought to work against my disbelief in ‘death’. Perhaps we have different ideas of what skepticism is all about. Tell me, how much experience do you have of being dead? What empirical insights can you share with us about your ‘death’?
I agree with you, John, that’s natural for smarter humans to use their intellectual superiority to control dumber ones, and this is what had created the now much demonized “colonialism”, for example, with more advanced European cultures and societies controlling less developed ones – I like the word “dumber”, but let me be “diplomatic” too, for once 🙂 – exploiting them but also leaving them modern infrastructures and a taste of civilization they wouldn’t have had otherwise (and probably it would have been better if they hadn’t, considering how things have turned out).
But gradually, and at an exponentially quicker pace after WW2, not necessarily the smartest but the most deceitful and devious humans have taken control, by waging an often secretive war to ethnic groups different from their own, as their sacred texts prescribe, and “by way of deception”, as in the motto of their modern intelligence agency. It’s through the program of brainwashing and mind control they have instigated (Marx, Freud, Bernays, movies and tv, etc.) that the masses have been conditioned to take on unnatural tendencies and behaviors like egalitarianism, homosexualism, atomistic individualism, and so on.
I see these things as induced, not as a natural human developments, because these bad seeds would not have taken root in the average human mind if a malevolent gardener (one who already knew those were bad, artificial or “GMO” seeds) had not put them there. And who benefits from the havoc that these lethal seeds have created in the West, as you rightly ask? Well, if you check, the creators and most important promoters and “spreaders” of these mental viruses all belong to the same ethnic group which, in its own country, does the opposite of what it preaches in others, and is also the one that has always professed, pretty openly in fact, its hatred for the West and its values, so…
But I shouldn’t even tell you these things, since you are and extremely capable researcher and I think you know them already, or at least you could and should. So if your research has brought you to different conclusions, I’d be very interested in hearing your explanation of how and why the West has come to the terrible state in which it finds itself these days. Who do you think is behind all this? Or do you think it all happened “naturally”? I’m all ears.
But first, for what it’s worth, here’s my answer to your direct question: “Who was running the show before them, and how did the Jews wrest control? Or have the Jews always been running the show?”
I don’t really know, since as you have discovered yourself we can’t really trust history as it’s come down to us, but it would seem that it was the Romans. In fact, their empire was destroyed in a similar way, by braiwashing the Romans through Christianity, a Jewish invention, a formidable tool to weaken strong and powerful people through suicidal concepts like “love your enemies”, “turn the other cheek”, and many other absurd and counter-productive recommendations.
So yes, since the spread of Christianity and its main script, the Bible, the Jews have gained more and more control over the rest of the world, later also through financial means (the banking system, which they demonstrably control), and of course the media (which they admittedly and once again demonstrably run).
I won’t say more for now, but one day maybe, if the opportunity arises, I’ll tell you about my theory of a “Love Conspiracy”… 😉
So while I wait anxiously for any alternative explanation you may give, only one thing troubles me a little, and it’s connected to what you ask about death: “Tell me, how much experience do you have of being dead? What empirical insights can you share with us about your ‘death’?”
Well, I don’t remember having been dead before already (and I don’t remember my birth either), but I’ve seen this thing called death happen to people around me (including my parents, for example, and in addition to animals and all other more or less sentient beings that experience as well), and what I know for sure is that after it they’re not around anymore, at least not in their physical form, so for all (practical) intents and purposes, it can be said that they have disappeared from this world. And since I seem to be a human being too, I have every reason to think that, with “death”, I will disappear from this world like the others, and not much evidence on which to base any possible belief in different subsequent forms of life.
So if for you what happens to others is not enough evidence to see death as a form of disappearance from this world that you will have to endure too, well then there’s the risk that skepticism, in such an extreme form, becomes not acknowledging anything until it comes and bites you in the ass…
But this is just an assumption on my part (and possibly a wrong one, of course), because you haven’t made your position clear yet, both on the JQ and on the death issues (not that I know of, at least), and I hope you will soon. Like you, I’m open-minded and always willing to learn something new, especially from people I hold in high esteem like you.
But I shouldn’t even tell you these things, since you are and extremely capable researcher and I think you know them already, or at least you could and should. So if your research has brought you to different conclusions, I’d be very interested in hearing your explanation of how and why the West has come to the terrible state in which it finds itself these days. Who do you think is behind all this? Or do you think it all happened “naturally”? I’m all ears.
This is my point: I don’t know who is responsible, or why they are doing it, or even when they began. This is simply the reality into which I have become. I could, if I wanted a simple answer, a solitary boogeyman to hate, blame all of this on the Jews. After all, there seems to be a Jew underneath every rock: finance, media, cultural marxism. If it seems evil, there is almost certainly a Jew or two to be found among the people at the top and/or the start. This is no coincidence to anybody with a capacity to think. This all has something significant to do with Jewry – it is blindingly obvious.
But does this mean that the Jews came out of nowhere? That somebody else was in charge, and the Jews took over? Please, explain it to me. Who was in charge before the Jews and what happened to them?
This is no mere rhetorical question. On a deep level, if you truly think about this for long enough, I suggest that you are destined to come to the same conclusion as me: whatever is going on here is deeper than biology or religion. It is existential. There is good, there is bad, and the elite Jews today are either the physical manifestation of the bad, or the agents of it. But did the Jews create evil? Who created the Jews?
Can you see where I am going with this?
But first, for what it’s worth, here’s my answer to your direct question: “Who was running the show before them, and how did the Jews wrest control? Or have the Jews always been running the show?”
I don’t really know, since as you have discovered yourself we can’t really trust history as it’s come down to us, but it would seem that it was the Romans. In fact, their empire was destroyed in a similar way, by braiwashing the Romans through Christianity, a Jewish invention, a formidable tool to weaken strong and powerful people through suicidal concepts like “love your enemies”, “turn the other cheek”, and many other absurd and counter-productive recommendations.
The ‘romans’? Really? Next you will tell me that slaves built the pyramids in Egypt thousands of years ago. I suspect you know full well that you are buying into and propagating a story for which you have no real evidence. The story suits your preconceived notions which is precisely why you buy into and propagate it. This is a very natural, human thing to do. When we have established or accepted an overarching narrative, we pick and choose the stories which fit into or support the narrative.
In my case, I have no overarching narrative to support or reinforce with stories. This will become more evidence and clear as I progress through the History Hoax material in store.
I won’t say more for now, but one day maybe, if the opportunity arises, I’ll tell you about my theory of a “Love Conspiracy”… ?
I look forward to it. For me personally the idea of ‘love’ us sold to us on TV is as infantile as any other concept they push down our throats. The idea that a wise man would choose his life partner based on the kinds of butterflies-in-the-stomach feelings which children experience in ‘puppy love’ is utterly insane to me. Then again, most guys I know today did not put that much thought into their ‘decision’ of who to ‘settle down’ with.
Boy are we in a mess.
So if for you what happens to others is not enough evidence to see death as a form of disappearance from this world that you will have to endure too, well then there’s the risk that skepticism, in such an extreme form, becomes not acknowledging anything until it comes and bites you in the ass…
If there is ‘risk’ it is in living a life fearful of something you have no experience of i.e. ‘death’ i.e. cessation of being. You can spend your life in such a state if it pleases you. It has been so long since I believed in ‘death’ that I fully admit I find it difficult to fully relate to those who still do.
‘One day I will no longer be.’ Even as a child this seemed absurd to me.
But this is just an assumption on my part (and possibly a wrong one, of course), because you haven’t made your position clear yet, both on the JQ
So far as I am aware, I am the only person in Australia who has brought critical attention to the fact that four of this country’s five wealthiest families are Jewish. Other than making ridiculous taunts like ‘gas the kikes, race war now’, what exactly do I have to do to be more clear? You have spoken positively in the past of outlets where this kind of nonsense is tolerated. Is that what you would prefer? ‘Gas the kikes, race war now’?
Let me state it plainly: I have met and known several Jews (or people who identify as Jews) who have nothing to do with how the show is run, and who are in some cases even more obvious victims of the system than some of my fellow gentiles. Anybody who thinks that all ‘Jews’ are their enemy, or are responsible for the evils of the world, is as clueless to me as the person who denies that underneath every evil rock is a bunch of Jews. Again: finance, media, cultural marxism. Jews galore! It is almost comical how many Jews there are in these fields. It is not simply over-representation, it is saturation. There is something going on here.
If I were starting my own colony from scratch, would I want any Jews around? No. There is some sick shit in their book. I would not want to be around anybody who wants anything to do with such a book. But I also would not want any TV-believers around. Or people who ultrasound/vaccinate their own children. Or people who feed their children poison or let their children watch TV. In other words, in my ideal world, there wouldn’t be many other humans around. Not modern humans, anyway. To focus on one subset of modern humanity and blame them for the entire system is to me an unfortunate way to see and interact with the world.
There is something much deeper and more significant going on.
Nice article!
Peeling away the layers of retardness like peeling and onion (without tears tho).
I really am a dumb and slow witted person, so it is surprising to me that i have the understanding that i do. Maybe im smarter than i think? My mom took excellent care of me for the first couple years, im sure that helped.
I read where you wrote about taking LSD. One of the few factoids I heard about Aldous is that he took LSD on his death bed. I always picture the old guy in bed in 2001 a space oddesy whenever I imagine that scene.
Believe it or not your posts cheer me up. It cheers me up that Im not the only Bernard Marx. And you remind me of something i read about how the best leaders speak the thoughts that are latent in the mind of their followers.
Thanks, mate. It is funny how you say ‘without tears’. I suspect that for some people, serious delving into topics like birth trauma may be a little bit upsetting, at least at first. I know it was for me.
I also consider myself a pretty stupid person in many respects. Some of the things I fail to pick up on, some of the things I forget, the way I seem to need to learn the same lesson many times over before I get it through my head, etc etc. This leads (led) me to wonder just how stupid the average person must be, if I can see that what is on TV is a lie, when they simply cannot see. Just how far gone are these people? Well, I think the Epsilon Agenda goes a long way to explaining it.
As for LSD, I have mixed feelings about that drug and the others marketed as ‘psychedelics’. On the one hand I have my own experiences with them and the value I can see in them. On the other hand I am somewhat familiar with the official alternative account about where they ‘came from’ and who was behind them. The thing here is that I am now far more skeptical of people like Jan Irvin and the narratives they push, so I will have to go back and study the ‘psychedelic’ story from the ground up. For the time being, I will remain cautious with LSD (I haven’t done it about a year and don’t plan to do it again), but at the same time will remain open-minded to the possibility that it could be a ‘good drug’ (in the right circumstances).
Did Aldous really do LSD? I wonder.
Your final paragraph is lovely. Thank you very, very much.
I had written something once about gardening and how it surprised me that a bodacious garden came from constanty killing things (thinning and weeding) and not from nurturing. In good soil beautiful plants grow on their own, the gardener is there to carry out murders, and of course to bring water.
But with people you cant murder, so dilution?
Bodacious. That is a fantastic word. I am going to try to add that to my regular vocabulary.
You are quite right about the nature of modern gardens: they are the product of mutilation and torture, nor nurture. When somebody pointed this out to me for the first time, last year I think, I was already in a herb-induced state of paranoia, and it kind of tripped me out a bit. Yes, a modern garden is not as nature seems to want it to be. Even just the covering of the ground with general suburbia: nature is stressed by our mere presence, as we currently live. If we could hear it screaming, we would probably always hear it screaming. Some might even suggest that if we listen close enough, we can in fact hear it, in our hearts.
This is one reason why I personally do not indulge in the herb so much any more. Looked at from a certain perspective, modern life is one big horror show, and the herb has a tendency to put us into a state whereby that becomes the default perspective. Some people tell me this is not their experience, and I would not try to argue with them. They may well be right; different drugs affect different people in different ways. But I have seen the paranoia in people other than myself: there is a latent state of anxiety which the herb seems to bring to the fore, and this is no good state for any sane man to be in – at least, not on a regular basis.
Very interesting again JLB. You may find it interesting to look into how cattle are pushed into early puberty. The basic technique is removing a baby from its mother early, and feeding it a “highly concentrated” diet, aiming to have it gain weight twice as fast as one still on mother’s milk.
They’ve succeeded in significantly reducing the average age of puberty with weaning and diet alone. And of course breed is a huge factor; some will begin at 10-11 months and others at 17-27 months.
You may find it interesting to look into how cattle are pushed into early puberty. The basic technique is removing a baby from its mother early, and feeding it a “highly concentrated” diet, aiming to have it gain weight twice as fast as one still on mother’s milk.
I did not know that, but it does not surprise me one iota. I’m still staggered at how few people seem to know or care that humans are going into puberty earlier and earlier – and science itself admits to having no answers as to why!
If ever we needed a simple, straightforward example of how hopeless and apathetic the masses are, this is it.
Hi John, I’m writing a new comment because there’s no “reply” button to hit on your last comment, but I’m referring to the thread started by my comment that begins with “A very well structured and insightful article…”.
I’m insisting because you touched a couple of essential topics that should be better clarified, according to the standards that you set for your research, at least as I understand them. And I’m speaking as a supporter of yours, but a constructively critical one. I’m sure you can appreciate this.
I’ll start with the topic of death, only to say that to base your “disbelief in death” exclusively on the subjective perception that even as a child you found the statement “One day I will no longer be” absurd is not enough. I think you need to back it up with some more objective facts, as you usually do for subjects you deal with.
The other topic is Jews. You seem to agree with me when you write “there seems to be a Jew underneath every rock: finance, media, cultural marxism. If it seems evil, there is almost certainly a Jew or two to be found among the people at the top and/or the start. This is no coincidence to anybody with a capacity to think. This all has something significant to do with Jewry – it is blindingly obvious”.
But then you add:
“But does this mean that the Jews came out of nowhere? That somebody else was in charge, and the Jews took over? Please, explain it to me. Who was in charge before the Jews and what happened to them? This is no mere rhetorical question. On a deep level, if you truly think about this for long enough, I suggest that you are destined to come to the same conclusion as me: whatever is going on here is deeper than biology or religion. It is existential. There is good, there is bad, and the elite Jews today are either the physical manifestation of the bad, or the agents of it. But did the Jews create evil? Who created the Jews?
Can you see where I am going with this?”
Not really, to be honest. It seems that you’re taking a detour here. I never said nor implied that the Jews came out of nowhere. I don’t know where they came from, nor who created them, and you don’t seem to know either, or if you do you’re not saying it.
As for who was in charge before them, I answered “I don’t really know, since as you have discovered yourself we can’t really trust history as it’s come down to us, but it would seem that it was the Romans”, but you react as if I were being positive about this. and then you start assuming that I believe in all the history crap (“Next you will tell me that slaves built the pyramids in Egypt thousands of years ago”) and accusing me of “buying into and propagating a story for which you have no real evidence”. Why are you putting words in my mouth and even thoughts in my head? From what I’ve learned from your brilliant Thinking 101 series, it seems that you’re setting up a strawman argument here.
And anyway, I think our first order of priority should be to try and find out if there’s someone behind what’s happening especially in Western countries, who that might be, and how possibly to stop them, And then we can worry about who created them and who was there before them. It’s like when someone attacks you: first you identify the attacker, then you try and stop him, and only later you can worry about who sent him and what his motivations could be.
That said, I think the Jews may be programmed as “agents of the bad” (to use your expression) both through the mind viruses contained in “sacred books” like the Talmud and through traumas like the circumcision that can enhance certain traits inherent to their racial makeup (like the tendency to live off and exploit what other people create through hard work). But I look forward to discover what your research will yield on the subject.
It’s also interesting when you say that “there’s a Jew underneath every evil rock”, but then you seem eager to specify that it’s not “all of them”. Well, of course it can’t be “all Jews” that are responsible for most (but not all) evils of the western world. It’s elite Jews, and most of the others yes are victims of the kind of conditioning they go through since a few days after birth, but also help in spreading it and benefit from the material privileges they get from it (no “poor Jews”, apparently). I thought that was implied, but evidently you can never be too specific. Anyway, the objection “it’s not all Jews” is pretty trite and, to be honest, I didn’t expect it from you.
And as for your sarcastic (and a bit “strawmannish” too) “gas the kikes, race war now” remark (which is usually meant as ironic, because no Jew was ever really gassed in the first place, as you know), I do think it’s pretty obvious that there’s a race war against Whites all over the world, and I do think Jewish supremacism is its primary source. And if you find this ridiculous, as you say, please try and paint a more convincing picture of the current situation and its causes, possibly based on facts.
I’ll start with the topic of death, only to say that to base your “disbelief in death” exclusively on the subjective perception that even as a child you found the statement “One day I will no longer be” absurd is not enough. I think you need to back it up with some more objective facts, as you usually do for subjects you deal with.
On the first sentence, you have misrepresented my position. I never said anything about ‘basing’ my disbelief in death on my subjective experience/thoughts as a child. I noted that as a child the notion of ‘not existing’ seemed absurd to me. Earlier I explained that I have no empirical evidence of cessation of existence and never will. From a very basic logical perspective, it is impossible for an entity to experience non-experience. You say I need to ‘back it up with more objective facts’, but do not explain why. If you personally are convinced that you will stop existing, that is fine by me, I am not trying to convince you to my way of thinking.
Regarding the Jews, we seem to be in furious agreement: There are Jews at the top of evil (cultural marxism, pornography, and so forth), and at the top of the visible elements of the system (finance, media, etc). There are also plenty of Jews who have nothing to do with any of this, and seem to be ‘victims’ of the system just like the rest of us. Can we agree on that much? If so, then making Jews out to be our enemy seems to me an absurd direction or strategy. There are also white people at the top of the evil and visible elements of the system. Are all white people our enemy now, too? Of course not.
The reality is that there is a system of control, built atop (but every bit a part of) the system in which we find ourselves. I go to work, I do what I am told. You go to work, you do what you are told. We spend our money on whatever pleases us. How far up the system does one have to be before they get to make the ultimate decisions? I can’t imagine that there are more than a handful of people who make the big decisions (e.g. dilute the white race), but am open to evidence that my instincts on this one are wrong. In the meantime, I see lots of people, even near the apparent ‘top’ of the system, who are ultimately doing their jobs. This is a system.
You can’t tell me who was in charge before the Jews, and nobody else can either. If the Jews are really in charge, they either took over from somebody else, or have always been in charge. If we can’t even establish which of these scenarios is the case, then where exactly can the conversation go? Like trying to point the finger at the enemy in the dark. We don’t even know if the enemy is in the room!
Please, be straightforward: What is it that you would like me to do? What is it that you would like me to say? What is your answer? Your solution? I am all ears.
RE: That there is only ‘half a dozen’ people deciding to dilute the white race.
It seems to me there would be millions (many of them university educated whites) actively aiding the dilution of the white race. Whether through their rhetoric about evil whitey’s sins, their own political actions, or their own decision to produce mixed-race children.
I guess what you’re getting at is where does that idea that whites are evil and have committed evil come from in its conception. This is impossible to know for sure, the motives are equally unclear (most whites are dumb sheep who do what they’re told, even without forced immigration – which, if anything, just angers and alienates them). That said, there are many white people who benefit from the stratification of their race. Many white people today would seem happy to die in a world where there was no white generation after them.
Personally, I don’t think white genocide is any different to overall genocide. All races are being genocided through miscegenation, a white parent and a black parent produce a child that is akin to neither of them. You may anecdotally observe the way Asians behave and work trivial jobs obediently, this seems to be their nature – it can then be no wonder that you’d wish to fill every country of the world with them. This is all part of the ‘Epsilon Agenda’ it would seem. The mixed-race slave class with no connection to history or future, self-loathing, lost, and unable to think for themselves.
John, I don’t want you to say or do anything in particular. We’re just having a debate, which should allow us both to strengthen our respective arguments. Works for me, at least.
It’s just that your reasoning seems kind of specious when you talk about death here and say “I have no empirical evidence of cessation of existence and never will. From a very basic logical perspective, it is impossible for an entity to experience non-experience”. Your statement may be logically correct, but it doesn’t solve the problem. We see people “cessate their existence” all around us all the time, but this is not evidence enough for you because you can’t experience it firsthand? So if one is to be executed and sees other prisoners having their head chopped off, he won’t think he’s about to share the same fate in a few minutes? After all, how do you know that your head can be chopped off until it’s chopped off, right? That’s what I meant when, in a previous comment, I wrote about the risk of extreme skepticism as “not acknowledging anything until it comes and bites you in the ass”.
As for the Jews, I know we agree on the main points. I just don’t understand why you worry so much about things like “it’s not all of them” or “who was there before them?” or “who created them?”. If you say this because you know that you’re gonna come up with answers soon, then I look forward to hearing them. Anyway, since most probably you’ll never have empirical evidence of who was in power before the Jews or created them, it may be more productive concentrate on what we know empirically (i.e. they’re in control now) and what we can do about it.
Which brings me to your last question: “What is your answer? Your solution?”
I can tell you just what I’m doing on a personal level, i.e. trying to recover what I think Jewish conditioning of the West has taken away from us. Some things should be obvious here, like stop watching tv and beware of programming through “entertainment” in all its forms, and of course questioning everything we don’t really know to be true, especially when it doesn’t seem beneficial to us personally or to our group.
Yes, our group, because one of the most important things Jewish conditioning (or better brainwashing) has contributed in taking away from us is our capacity to organize ourselves in groups with common interests to express and defend. Because until we keep acting as individuals incapable of organizing themselves in larger units, we will never manage to even try and resist to an ethnic group formed by people who stick together, protect each other and act as a whole (although of course what the interests of the group are is usually established by more powerful members of the group, but that’s inevitable, I think).
That’s also why the objection “it’s not all Jews” is ultimately irrelevant. Jews generally act as a group, pursuing what they perceive as their group’s interests. It doesn’t matter how “good” they can be individually, because they’re programmed to stick with their own and do “what’s good for the Jews” (with very few possible exceptions like Bobby Fischer, for example).
Another important thing to get back, especially if we are men, is our ability to fight physically in different, let’s say “aided” and “unaided” ways, which was taken away from us by the “love and peace at all costs” scam perpetrated in order to make most of us weak and helpless, especially when the attempted “White genocide” will manifest itself more and more as physical attacks. Anyway, it’s in the nature of men to fight also physically, so we must be able to do it, even as a last resort.
So I think that keeping fit, as you do, is an essential prerequisite but it’s not enough. That’s why I took up kick boxing (and other forms of self-defense) at 52, although I had never punched anybody in the face before (nor taken a punch in the face). I know I’ll never be anything like Rambo, but to try and develop at least a minimum of fighting capacity helps me feel more complete as a man.
And maybe it will also come in handy in the violent times that seem to lay not too far ahead for us. Times in which being skilled intellectually won’t be enough to survive. Unless, of course, one doesn’t believe in death…
I just wanted to add a short comment here for now JLB.. as ‘one’ of my ‘to-do’ items of the Challenge Yourself project, was to read my book every day, to ensure I work through my book list..
After completing Propaganda: Edward Bernays.. in the first week, I finally embarked on Brave New World.. and I am up to chapter six.
Whilst being aware of the premise of this ‘book’ I was not prepared, for the full impact, from reading its words..
This is one disturbing document created in the guise of a ‘story’! It is something I am not reading, without constantly pausing, in an attempt to get my mind around the reality of this tale.. and one that was published to the masses in the 1930’s.. and acknowledging that this is straight from the mind (minds) – at this stage of the plot – of a sick and twisted cult, with its pedophile slant..
I have planned to add a more detailed post, based on my thoughts up to know, from its six chapters, its connections, its connections that I think ‘I’ have made.. and my gosh EVERYTHING else there is !
Right now, I am focused on this entire subject matter, we will call The Epsilon Agenda.. The War Hoax.. and of course 9/11.. all of which are so very intricately weaved, by this very creative Cult !
To be continued..
Whilst being aware of the premise of this ‘book’ I was not prepared, for the full impact, from reading its words.
It is amazing, isn’t it? I long suspected, but only more recently have become convinced, that almost nobody actually reads books any more. Especially on places like r/conspiracy, 1984 and Brave New World are constantly referenced, but only in trivial fashion i.e. cliches about ‘Orwellian surveillance’ or ‘love your servitude’ respectively.
In other words, for so long I mistakenly conflated peoples apparent awareness of one or two themes of these books, with the notion that they had actually read them. No, almost nobody reads books any more. Those who do read these books will generally only flip through them, and forget what they had read by the next day. I am not exaggerating.
This is why I am apparently the first person to point out the fake missiles in 1984 as analogous to Crazy Kim’s fake missiles. It is not because I am so smart or wise, it is simply because I am the only content creator in this entire scene who is actually studying these books. The only one!
It is both amusing and, to some extent, horrifying. Our attention spans have been so diminished by instant gratification flashing screens that even those of us who supposedly know about a book’s importance, and consider ourselves interested in ‘deeper truths’, find ourselves unable to sit down and read the books in silence (let alone study them).
If I ever sit down and write a book, I think I might call it ‘Nobody Reads Books Anymore’. More honest truth on the front cover than most people will ever find in the countless books sitting idle on their shelves.
“Our attention spans have been so diminished by instant gratification flashing screens.. ”
And how true is this, I mean literally how true.. ? It reminds me of the comment I added to your Paying For Truth segment, in response to another comment, highlighting aspects of ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’.. which is so significant, and relevant to your statement above, I need to add again here..
When Winston was first encountering O’Brien.. and the impression he made on him, but to emphasize my point, ‘how’ he described it..
“..he had a trick of resettling his specs.. curiously disarming.. civilized.. A gesture, which if anyone still thought in such terms, might have recalled an Eighteenth century nobleman, offering his snuff box.. Something in his face suggested it irresistibly.. he had the appearance of someone you could talk to.. if you could cheat the Telescreen..”
And as for the ‘Kim Jong-un’ character.. his role on the ‘World Stage’ (?).. the ‘Korean War’ story.. and err.. The War Hoax.. without going too deep in this comment here, just looking in to all this, even on its surface layer, is revealing enough !
If I said to you, or anyone.. what do you think is meant by the use of the familiar term: “..honest John..” what would you come up with, if someone, was described as an ‘honest John’, and more to the point ‘why’?
Apparently, and something I was completely oblivious to, the ‘Honest John’ was a rocket, and the first “nuclear-capable surface-to-surface missile” (yes, that’s right.. ‘nuclear’..) employed around 1954, for use in this Korean War story.. and, yet another production, straight from the California Laboratory..
Now tell me, does this strike you, or anyone with a functioning mind, capable of ‘thinking’.. of a befitting ‘name’ to give a military weapon, designed to ‘kill’ and not just this, but to decimate, with its’nuclear’ capabilities.. that from what the masses are being fed.. can wipe out countries, even humanity.. ?
And the official version, of why this name was given to this deadly missile ?
Surely it is no Syncy Thing JLB.. that we have another ‘war missile’ known as the ‘Snark’.. which officially, was named after a fictional story courtesy of the world-wide purveyor of ‘Nonsense Literature’ Lewis Carroll..?
And on the subject of Syncy Things.. and Nonsense Literature.. according to officialdom, from ‘The Cult Productions’, as I now describe it.. the title, or rather the words – Brave New World, were taken directly from the story by ‘Shakespeare’, (?) in The Tempest.. the very words of which were spoken by the character ‘Miranda’, who was the daughter of Prospero, the Duke of Milan (and I will come back to this subject, of ‘Dukes’ and such like..) with Prospero, wanting to free up his time to study ‘magic’.. and which reminds us of a central premise of this ‘book’ Brave New World.. and its technological ‘sorcery’ for the masses..
JLB.. is it just us ?