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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Made available to the Mailing List 3-Apr-2020.