The 're-organization' of the world's societies, cultures, economies and politics seem to be occurring at an ever rapid clip. Groups like the WEF, UNESCO, the WHO and other hugely influential and interconnected bodies all seem to be telling us, and the governments of the world, 'how it's going to be', and why it is 'all for our own good'. A relatively small group of individuals are actually redefining what healthy means, how we should think about money, food, technology, ideologies, the weather, and even each other. These people have formed a technocratic infrastructure with a reach and a wrongheadedness that boggles the mind, and when the implications of their policies are realized, it terrorizes the heart.

But this juggernaut of pathological group-think did not spring up overnight, and did not come from nowhere. Someone, and their groups, had to have come up with the "scientific" and philosophical doctrines that dictated the "logic" and "reasoning" behind such transhumanist, socialist, authoritarian and eugenic policies and developments as we're seeing today. And who better to point out such information and make the connections than researcher and journalist Matthew Ehret (Canadian Patriot, Rising Tide Foundation). Join us this week on MindMatters as Matthew puts some giant historical figures in a whole new light, and shows how these famous personalities' thinking and huge influence have shaped an agenda for control that is as pervasive as it is monstrous.

MindMatters on LBRY

Running Time: 01:44:07

Download: MP3 — 116 MB

Here is the transcript:

Elan: Hello and welcome back to another Mind Matters show everybody. Today we're very happy to have back with us Matthew Ehret. Matthew is a major contributor to two sites, and the We've had Matthew on several months ago for a wonderful interview and we 're so happy to have him back. Matthew, welcome.

Matthew: Oh it's always great to be back with you guys.

Elan: Excellent. You recently put out an article that is called How The Unthinkable Became Thinkable: Eric Lander, Julian Huxley And The Awakening of Sleeping Monsters. You also have two other articles that are waiting in the wings that we've had a chance to read for the most part. The second in the series is called Eugenics, the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Clash of Two Systems as well as From Russell and Hilbert to Weiner and Harari, the Disturbing Origins of Cybernetics and Transhumanism.

We've had a chance to read these Matthew and I think what's so special about them is that they present a philosophical underpinning for all of the fourth industrial revolution, great reset, one world order, new technocracy developments that we're seeing on the world stage that we don't quite often get in most other pieces that we read. So maybe just starting with the first of the three, because you mention Unesco and the World Health Organization and a lot of these major organizations that have this massive impact on public policy. But they're underpinned by these philosophies that go back decades long that inform what it is that they're trying to do now, which is quite interesting.

So I wonder if you can give us a couple of key points about what is informing these organizations and how they're being used to implement these wide scale policies that we're seeing now?

Matthew: Absolutely. I guess the thing that got me on this particular path was that the 76 anniversary of Victory Day at the end of WWII had just passed and I had authored an article on "Isn't it about time to think about finally winning WWII, 76 years later?" The point that I try to get at polemically is that yes, although we're told, rightfully so, that the fascist machine was put down in 1945 and the Allies won and yada, yada, a big part of that tale was not finalized and that deals with what did not happen at Nuremberg.

When you start digging a little bit deeper than the surface appearance of things, a lot of the causes of WWII - by that I'm referring to the major financial institutions in the city of London, in Wall Street, the same financiers who had put Mussolini on Time Magazine's cover eight times before WWII even started, as the economic miracle solution to all of our woes. These forces - and this includes also people like Prescott Bush, the entire nexus of Brown Brothers, Harriman. Union Banking Corporation, the Rockefeller Foundation, all of these groups were never punished in Nuremberg.

In fact, when you get around to looking at what happened during the Cold War, these are the same organizations that reorganized themselves and ended up shaping much of the past 75 years of world history to the point that this is what are the dominant forces, even today.

So one of the things about Hitler specifically that was so destructive I think, was the rise and the full hog implementation of eugenics as a new scientific religion. It really was. Francis Galton, the cousin of Darwin who developed eugenics, made the point that it must become the new scientific religion to replace all obsolete religions that are not compatible with the scientific management of society.

So this had already been done in the United States, in Canada. Thirty-three states in the US by 1945 had already passed eugenics laws. Two provinces - Alberta and British Columbia - in Canada had done the same. Tens of thousands of people were sterilized based upon statistical science, if your parents, grand parents and great grandparents had a predisposition to a low IQ or criminal behavior and thus by taking linear extrapolations into your gene pool's future they were able to then justify scientifically, "Well, I'm sorry, you have to be sterilized."

That was one form of eugenics that was applied aggressively. But that is what Hitler used as his model in the 1930s, in 1933, for the first wave of eugenics laws inside of Nazi Germany. The major financiers behind this, like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation - the Josiah Macy Foundation was another big one - that were sponsoring the science that this is something you could get a degree for. It was actually seen as a very normal thing and even bad for your career if you questioned the science of eugenics. It was that ingrained as a scientific consensus.

People became disgusted with this. Hitler modeled his eugenics laws off of what the west had already been doing. He just went further and gave it much more support. So people were rightfully disgusted when the results of this policy became publicized in 1944, '45, '46 and people saw what were the horrors that befell the world because of this and it gave eugenics a very bad name.

A few years ago I read something that a friend had sent me. It was a PDF of the UNESCO, the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization manifesto, it's purpose and philosophy, written by Julian Huxley. I encourage people - you can get this easily online. That's what I used to found the basis of this first article in my series on Making the Unthinkable Become Thinkable. In it Huxley is very clear - again, just read the first 20 pages of this 90 page or so essay - the purpose of UNESCO and of the entire post-war system has to be to make eugenics - which he says it he most important of all sciences, it's the king of all sciences, eugenics - it has become unthinkable and we have to find a way to retool it so that this can become again thinkable - that's his words - and also to liberate people's minds from the belief in nationalism which is holding back an enlightened age, he says, and get them to accept a world government that would then be able to carry us into a new age of harmony and peace. But again, what kind of age of harmony and peace is this if you want eugenics to be your governing science of population control?

So this is something which, like you said, wasn't just Julian Huxley and UNESCO in 1946 but the World Health Organization when you read some of the writings of the first Director General who was a Tavistock social engineer and a psychiatrist named G. Brock Chisholm. It turns your stomach! Here's a guy who's a devout believer in not only world government but that's the purpose of the World Health Organization, to bring about an understanding that we need a healthy global system under a one world government, but also to liberate children from the belief in right and wrong that had been put into their minds by old people with old convictions from an obsolete age of mental sickness which he associates directly to nationalism, family traditions, religious dogmas. These are all obsolete and these, he says, are the cause of mental sickness.

So the purpose of psychiatry and psychoanalysis in his mind is to cleanse the young generation who were being born after WWII especially, from this. Being somebody who had worked with Tavistock, this is a dubious thing and one of the key guys who was his employer at Tavistock, Brigadier General John Rawlings Rees, becomes the head of the World Federation of Mental Health set up in that same year by UNESCO and the World Health Organization.

So these two organizations team up, they create the World Federation of Mental Health. Rawlings Rees is now on the board and he's the guy who, again, managed Tavistock. This is an organization set up as sort of the psychiatric wing of British Intelligence in the early 1920s. He took charge in 1930. It was funded by the Macy Foundation, the same organization with the Rockefellers that were funding eugenics, people like Ernst Rüdin, who was doing genetics research under Nazi Germany.

One of the focuses that they were looking at in Tavistock was how do you deconstruct a human being's mind so that they can be reconstructed as a blank slate from scratch. So they were operating on the model that a human being is kind of like a machine that you could erase the mainframe from, erase the operating system and just reprogram the machine if it's not operating the way you like it. That's been their model since before modern machine technology or computing technology was developed as it is today. That was always their philosophical model. It was John Locke, this idea that there's nothing intrinsic to the human soul, we are to be written upon by whoever is controlling the levers of society and that is all we are. The sum of the parts is just what is written.

So they were looking at shock therapy, so people who had been traumatized by WWI were the first case studies that they were looking at throughout the 1920s and they found these groups fascinating because they'd been through terrible things, torments that no human being should ever experience, and they found that this particular grouping of people would have been shell shocked or highly malleable, highly suggestible. They were easily disassociated from their former identities. If you're somebody looking at human beings like lab rats, you're like, "This is fascinating. We can use this knowledge. How can we extend this?"

They started increasingly looking at group psychology. They took that knowledge and they were thinking, "Okay, what are different ways we can manage a group to have similar types of malleability functions?" A lot of the work that they did was also on children. Even today, I was caught by a big scandal last year in the Tavistock clinics over all of these transgendered kids who are being encouraged by the psychiatrists at Tavistock, which have experienced a 400% increase in transgender therapy and surgery of kids under the age of 18 and they're all being told, "This is what you should be doing" compared to just four years ago. A bunch of psychiatrists quit because they were repulsed. "We're actually encouraging these kids to go in this direction before they've even fully formed their own identity."

So you can see that they're still doing really shady stuff with the human psyche, even today, but that's what they were doing back then. This is what G. Brock Chisholm, this is what Brigadier General Rawlings Rees, who are shaping these post-WWII organizations with Julian Huxley the eugenicist who becomes the president of the British Eugenics Society. All of these guys are formulating these things, clearly laying out what their view of a healthy world order is going to be and putting it into motion to the point that even Whitney Webb made a recent point that many of the organizations working with Oxford's Astrazeneca are things like the Galton Institute which was just the British Eugenics Society renamed in 1989 or the Human Sterilization Society for Human Betterment, which was renamed the Engendered Health in the 1980s. No, that was renamed earlier. That was a really bad name.

But it's the same frigging organization and it's working directly with the Oxford Astrazeneca groups. And there are other ones too. There's a direct continuity. I think that was the overarching drive for that paper. I listened to some of the proceedings of this big CRISPR conference in 2015 which was the first historic conference unveiling human genetic modification technologies with CRISPR that had come out of the human genome project under Eric Lander who is today the science czar under Biden. He's a Rhodes Scholar mathematician who became a biologist, which is never a good match.

So he ran the human genome project. They made certain discoveries in terms of how you manipulate the human genome. CRISPR came out of this research using e-coli which could then be vectored to target certain DNA sequences to introduce certain mutations that you might want to have or suppress, which could be a good thing frankly. I'm not against the technology intrinsically. Under good humanistic hands this could do a lot of good, maybe, for humanity. That has to be discussed.

But the point is, when you look at the psychology of these characters who are coming out saying, "We have made the unthinkable become thinkable" and that's what David Baltimore, Eric Lander's former boss at the Whitehead Institute, that was his keynote address at the CRISPR conference. Then you just look at how these people are defining human beings, literally as the sum of parts, kind of like a machine, the same way these eugenicists did, it's a bad formulation of thinking.

Harrison: Yeah. Bad ideas lead to bad consequences. Through everything you've been saying and from reading your articles, you mention the psychology of these people and the psychology is very interesting. There are many components to it but one is their view of human nature. You mentioned that they see human nature as this infinitely malleable thing. "We can figure out how to shape humanity in our best image, according to our criteria."

But then inherent in that is this supreme egotism or arrogance that they know the best way to do it, that they have the criteria. So this is the recipe for disaster. I'm with you. I'm not against necessarily any of these technologies or even some of the ideas or intentions behind some of the ideas, but when you combine that with a person who thinks that they know the truth about how this can happen and how it should be done and then have these massive organizations that can then implement a policy on millions of people, if the idea is bad to begin with, then that will have negative results for tons of people.

So getting back to what you were saying about Huxley and one of the other guys and their criteria, that they want to essentially eliminate people's natural inclinations towards family life, religion and old beliefs and patriotism, "We'll just get rid of all that to create a better human" without considering that maybe those things are actually expressions of what human nature actually is and maybe by trying to mess with that you will actually create a monster. Look what happened in Hitler's Germany. I think you could say that that was a Frankenstein monster that got created there.

So there's this strange worldview, this arrogant elitism, "We know how to shape the world" and when you have a professional elite class with this kind of outlook and the ability to put into place, well you were talking about this idea of the human personality, looking at soldiers suffering from shell shock or PTSD, and saying, "What can we learn from this?" It's the same thing that they did with Pavlov because Pavlov was a great researcher and he found out some very important things. He was a great physiologist and actually a good psychologist in his later years. But in the system that he was living under the focus was on the materialistic aspects of his insights into human nature and animals and the transfer from that information on animals to humans, about transmarginal inhibition. He was talking about that. When you stress out an animal enough - and the same goes for humans - you can break down their mind and that puts them in such a state that something new can be born out of it.

Well it's true but there are limits to it. But also, in what hands are these things being done? I wanted to ask you about this: you made one reference to MK Ultra, because this is what parts of the MK Ultra program were all about: subjecting people to drugs and abuse and various types of environmental stimuli to break them down and to create something new. One of their ideas was the Manchurian Candidate, to be able to create the perfect spy, that you could create an alter personality that could then go and run missions and they would forget about it. But it was all based on this idea that the human mind could be broken down and then reborn from the ashes of the disintegration that was implemented.

It was an offhand reference to MK Ultra. I think you mentioned it in reference to being funded by or run by the same people involved in UNESCO and WHO. I just wondered if that was more of an offhand comment or if you'd found some ties between these organizations and that CIA program.

Matthew: There definitely were. The Macy Foundation in this whole story, plays a very important role and with some of the characters there's overlap. For example, Gregory Bateson who becomes a leading figure in MK Ultra is also working very closely with his wife Margaret Mead at the World Federation of Mental Health. She's actually the president of the World Federation of Mental Health for two years in 1952-53 at the apex of MK Ultra when it was just kicking off.

There's a lot of funding that is going through different black channels. Even to this very day there's a certain amount of opacity regarding where the funding was actually coming from. We've identified different aspects of it. A lot of it was private foundations. But the application of the research that was conducted and pioneered at Tavistock was used to guide a lot of the work being done in the MK Ultra experiments that were happening all over North America. A big center of this was in Canada in Montreal where you had the Allan Memorial Institute and here we had a guy named Ewen Cameron who was a major sociopathic psychiatrist who destroyed so many lives.

Even today there are lawsuits from survivors and families. These are people who had postpartum depression, things like that, and he would go for maximum mixtures of LSD, other forms of psychotropic drugs mixed with electroshock therapy, sensory deprivation, just to see what is needed to finally break the person into an empty shell where they could be created from a healthy personality type.

As a side note, Naomi Klein wrote a book - I don't really like Naomi Klein but she had a big research team, like 30 people working on this book called Shock Doctrine - and the first three chapters of that go through MK Ultra and it makes the point as well that there was always a self-awareness by a lot of the leading figures running MK Ultra, which went on for about 20 years officially. It was officially disbanded in 1973 but one could say it was just sort of normalized and changed gears in the 1970s.

But it was always designed to bring about shock therapy to nations. This is what guided a lot of the decision-making and policy-making for Pinochet, the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile or João Goulart in Brazil a little bit earlier which were Kissinger, Bechtel, Schulz-engineered regime changes back then to impose a massive shock on the people, a massive cleansing of the intellectuals and people who would be resistant, break their will and then bring about a privatized open market system controlled by the western financiers in London and Wall Street. This is what they also did in Russia later on in the 1990s.

So the idea was always to apply this on a broader sociological level globally to bring about a certain desired behavioral modification. People like Ewen Cameron are in constant correspondence with William Sargant who wrote Battlefield of the Mind, for example, a major manual for these psychiatrists throughout the decades to undermine western civilization, to put it frankly. That's a Tavistockian Fellow. William Sargant is directly working with Tavistock. G. Brock Chrisholm and Ewen Cameron are in constant dialogue, constantly sharing their data and their information.

So it's sort of like an enmeshment of multiple organizations that are overlapping with certain controllers at nodes that manage it. So not everybody knows what the whole is doing.

Harrison: Yeah.

Matthew: And I think that gets at the other part of how this sort of thing tends to operate. One of the key figures that I identified in part 3 in my article to understand this new fetish, this new sort of awakening where you have people like Ray Kurzweil who's a high level Google director and inventor, a big transhumanist, who speaks a lot about the singularity, the point where human beings merge with machines or Yuval Harari. He's another darling of the World Economic Forum, one of their spokesmen philosophers, popularizing the transhumanist agenda where we're going to be entering a new useless class where AI's going to render human beings effectively useless unless we merge with machines again. Or Elon Musk's Neuralink. Same agenda. Facebook has a big orientation towards this too.

It's a bit of a fantasy but there's a big fetish around this idea of playing god where people like Yuval Harari say, "Okay, there has been no cause, no directionality, no purposefulness" - he's an atheist and he's proud of it - "to the universe or to mankind until now. Now's the first time through all of this random mutation and randomness where we've come to a moment where intelligent design is finally going to govern the show. But the intelligent designers will not be god. It will be the people running Google," he says and Facebook. {laughter} That's his words. He's just trying to kiss ass to his masters.

But they really do have this godlike view and I think that the denial of the existence of the human soul as you pointed out, people like Ewen Cameron were devoutly opposed to the idea that there was a soul, that there is a soul, that there is a reason for us to feel connections to family, bonds to the past, hopes for the future. All of these things are ephemeral. They're not real. So they all have this machine-like view of human nature.

This indicates that they themselves are also sick. They are the ones who are ironically in need of this psychiatric help.

Harrison: Yeah. It's an expression of their own internal landscape. Then they project that internal landscape onto others. You see this with a lot of philosophers going back - I can list a few. There was Hobbs of course. I don't know about Machiavelli himself, but the Machiavellian philosophy. You can go back to Joseph de Maistre. It's a tough name, but he was the advisor to the last three Czars, Pobedonostsev. He pretty much had a worldview exactly like Hobbs or Maistre. Then Herbert Marcuse in the Frankfurt school.

A lot of these philosophers along with Karl Marx have what you could call a hollowed-out view of human nature. When you look at a lot of their personal lives, like Karl Marx, he wasn't really an upstanding type of guy, didn't have a very healthy family life. If you could peer into the private lives of a lot of these guys today I think there would be some surprises when you see how they actually live their lives. But their own internal psychology is probably the sickest but it's their writings and their ideas that then have the effect of going out into the world and creating mayhem.

So in a funny way, it's almost like a lot of what they're saying is true but if it was applied to them and not all the other people that they think that this should be applied to. It's like, "Well maybe we should isolate you guys on some island somewhere" {laughter} "so that you can't affect anyone and not have children and then everyone else can just live their lives like they should." I think maybe that would have a more positive effect on the world. {laughter}

Adam: That's a very ironic twist. I agree with what you're saying. Pretty much anything and everything that they're talking about doing to the wider population should really be inverted where it really only applies to them and then it would probably be fine and the world would be better off.

Matthew: Yeah, absolutely. The amount of dichotomization that they have both in terms of cutting themselves off from the process that they're trying to control and manipulate, they don't consider themselves part of the system that they want to control, which is why you get things like these disturbing quotes by Bertrand Russell talking about the two layers of education that need to be solidified and crystalized in this healthy scientific dictatorship where students can be convinced that snow is black, this famous quote.

But Bertrand Russell is very clear that for the education for the elites, for the masters, we have to encourage initiative, encourage innovation. These are things that we want to cherish as long as there's always a loyalty to their caste and if that loyalty is broken, off to the killing chamber. Sorry. And then he says that for the education system for the masses, for those who will be - he doesn't say it but the slave class, the Morlocks sort of - but for that mass education we have to encourage passivity, complacency, adaptability to popular opinion consensus. These are virtues that we want to encourage as the ideal of that education system.

In his scientific outlook in 1930 he has an addendum, "But sometimes the social engineers will encounter the odd case where a student from the lower caste will exhibit genius qualities that would make them applicable for membership of the higher ruling class. What do we do in those situations?" He says, "Well, after they're thoroughly tested through and through, if they should pass their tests and give up loyalty to their previous caste, then we should accept them in and welcome them in and if they don't and they fail their tests," - he loved this - "Off to the killing chamber."

It's like, are you serious?!?

Adam: So then you're really self-selecting for high IQ psychopathy, is essentially what they would be doing.

Matthew: Oh yeah!

Adam: To further entrench who and what they are and what they're trying to do. That made me think of, in terms of the education that you talked about, I think in the third article, you were talking about how guilt and popular opinion were going to be used as tools to educate and to keep people in line. I thought that was a very poignant thing to point out considering what's going on with all of the critical race theory, re-education and sensitivity training and all of those sorts of things which are really just doing exactly that, to create a permanent caste of a sort where you are forever guilty of being white and you should feel guilty about it...

Harrison: Or Asian.

Adam: Or Asian.

Matthew: Name it, right? Pick a category and you could find a reason to be guilty about it. The Josiah Macy Foundation, with the World Federation of Mental Health co-sponsored for two years a series of conferences, seminars and practical application of teaching methods in Germany in 1948/49/50/51 I think it went up to and they're applying this now to completely organize the transformation of the German educational system. It was largely under the guidance of Kurt Lewin who was a Frankfurt school psychiatrist. He ran a lot of this research.

I go through that a little bit in the article, but essentially the idea was to convince the entire population, especially starting with the young, that the fault of Nazism in WWII was the Fourth Reich gene, that there's something embedded in the German persona, genetically wired into their DNA which is fascist, war-like, imperialistic and the idea was to control via guilt.

One of the techniques that the Frankfurt school, but especially Tavistock innovated - people like Eric Trist is a big person in this, major, major influential person in this - were techniques to conduct mass brainwashing sessions in groups. So a teacher, for example, in a classroom wouldn't be a teacher, it would be somebody who would be a facilitator of bringing the group into a consensus. The techniques that would be utilized by these facilitators would be placed in bureaucracies, in unions. This is what happened throughout the 1950 and 1960. The entire United Nations and OECD bureaucracies were built up around these organizing principles, was guilt, shame.

You try to find ways of bringing out conflict and if there's anybody within the group who exhibits self-directedness, a capacity to question what the group is thinking or to question one of the underlying rules that you're trying to get the group to adhere to, you can channel the group's energy onto that individual, that student who's being creative and work on shaming them. Get the group to turn on the person so that you break their will and get them to ultimately acquiesce to the new condition. Once they do that they lose something of themselves, the more they get into the habit of acquiescing and giving up their sovereignty to get group think.

Increasingly these groups also sponsored things with the Frankfurt school. The Macy Foundation was, again, a big funder of this study published in 1949/50. The authoritarian personality came out of this research, that anybody who asserts that they have the knowledge of a truth of something are a potential fascist and Nazi so you can't trust anybody like that. So obviously yes, fascists do think that they have absolute truth of things. Yes, that's true. But does that mean everybody who think that they know a truth, like Martin Luther King, Jr., who says truths, does that make him a fascist? Well in their mind, yes.

So applied research and development, the engineering schools as well as people at Bell Labs, other things, started applying these new techniques that encouraged groupthink in science as well so that cells of scientists were set up to co-think through things and individual genius, individual initiative was discouraged. That was flushed out. That was to be subdued because it creates problems, disequilibrium in the system you're trying to control.

Looking at people like Julian Huxley, Norbert Weiner who was a student of Bertrand Russell, but Bertrand Russell himself as well - a lot of these people who are these social engineers - are all trying to model a highly controlled deterministic system of humanity but at the same time they need to get the system to behave like a stochastic process in its parts. A stochastic process is like the random molecules inside of a can of spray paint. There's a randomness function in the moving of the molecules as you're heating up the gas. But you know the boundary conditions of the gas are the structure of the can.

So they need everybody to act as closely as possible to randomized stochastic particles in the system but they have defined the system to be entropic, a closed system - that's what they say humanity is. They say we can be defined as an absolutely closed system and because it is closed there's a finite amount of energy to go around to move and maintain the parts and as the parts continue to move and use that limited energy, you get a diminishing return to all.

This is like the old idea that they re-tweaked of John Stuart Mill's approach to economics, that there's a diminishing return to each individual over a time function as you draw down the economic resources. So that system is always moving in a predictable way towards a heat death of the system, an ultimate inability to maintain the system, like your gas tank would be after it uses up all of the gasoline; it burns it all to move the pistons and at a certain point it's not going to make new gas. That's the sort of thinking that they've been trying to impose onto society.

Now the problem is, when you have individual initiative, when you have individuals who are inspired like Max Planck or Einstein or Madame Curie - pick a genius right? - individuals tend to break their mold. They tend to, when inspired by certain ideas of transcendental concepts of love of truth more than love of personal pleasure, of thinking of your progeny or the greater good, there are concepts like this that the positivist, the materialist would say, "These are just metaphysical garbage. It's illusion."

But is it? Because every time I see examples of people who are motivated by these things, they produce empirically validatable discoveries that are translatable into ways that create more energy in the system. All of a sudden I can sustain more people by the application of the discovery of the nature or structure of electricity, an application of that in the form of technological progress that I didn't have when I was ignorant of that knowledge. It was a phenomenon that was there in nature but we didn't know of it so we couldn't use it and populations were always subjected to former resource limits so we had a limited carrying capacity.

This is where it gets dirty because they know what they're doing. At that level they know that they're doing something unnatural by trying to smother out the love of family, the love of nation, the love of humanity, metaphysics, personal genius, all these things. They know it's unnatural but they do it anyway because they need to smother that for their formulas to work of randomized stochastic moments of everybody just thinking about personal fleshly pleasures in the moment, don't think about the past, don't trust anybody over 30, don't think about the future, you'll be dead then, says George Bush Jr.

Meanwhile the people who are thinking about those things are just the small few groups within the accepted governing caste at the top who can see what the whole is doing. Nobody else has to see what the whole is doing because they're so busy myopically being blinded by the identity you've given them, crushing their will in school, they don't have the passion to care and they don't have the ability intellectually to even see what they're a part of. They don't think about context and thus you don't need to have everybody in on the conspiracy. It's a self-controlling system that needs very little input by the social engineers increasingly over time.

Adam: That seems to be the overarching theme for millennia I guess you could say. It seems to me that that mode of thinking and being is what it is. It is just something that exists. These people have existed for millennia. They will continue to exist until something drastic happens and changes. Eugenics has changed form.

Matthew: Mm-hm.

Adam: Malthusianism has changed form, but the essence of it, the essential idea has never gone away and that's what reading your articles really made clear to me; how all of this stuff is just drapery on the window that has forever been. There's a certain select percentage of the population who are looking to control and order society in their own image and for their own means and ends and will constantly look to justify it by any and every means necessary available to them at the time. So that changes.

In the 1700-1800s there was Malthusianism and then later it changed to a social Darwinian concept and now it has changed to a critical race theory.

Harrison: Transhumanism.

Adam: Transhumanism. So it constantly changes as the times change but the essence of it remains the same.

Matthew: Absolutely and it's so useful when you approach history from the standpoint of an organism. We as human beings can find analogs to nature in the sense that light has both a wave-like and particle-like quality to it and in many ways human beings can learn a lot by looking at that metaphor in the sense that we are all finite. We're born in time. There's a moment before which we didn't really exist, after which we won't exist as identities but during this timeframe we act, we live, we use our time in a certain way. We invest our energy and we may or may not contribute to the overarching wave of the human civilization, the continuity, this continuous non-discrete process of the flow and flux of humanity.

Some people contribute greatly. They amplify that wave and they contribute a lot to it. A Benjamin Franklin type of persona used their time really well. They didn't waste time and they contributed back into the system after they departed that still will have a durable effect long, long after they're dead. And then for a lot of people, that right to be a part of, to participate of ourselves back into the wave has been removed from us. It has been stolen from us because of the existence of this oligarchic, parasitical thing, this continuity of this self-organized self-described master elite class that you can find traces back even to Plato's Republic in book six where Plato describes exactly how this thing works. He does a real big no-no for the elite by demonstrating the cave allegory.

He's exposing it. He doesn't have the liberty in the world that he lives in to just come out and say things directly and I don't think he would even do it that way if he could because you don't make a discovery by just telling somebody a crystalized answer. You have to awaken cognitive dissonances. You have to induce a question first, right? And get the mind to move. But what he does by building up to the cave allegories, he demonstrates a scenario where people have lived their whole lives shackled with their necks forced to just look at a cave wall with shadows cast by an elite who emit sounds and shadows and move little objects. You pity the people, right? They think that that is reality.

He has the situation where one person, by whatever means, is now released and they find their way out of the cave to see that there's a higher light beyond simply the fire. There's the light of the sun outside of the cave. At first they instinctively want to go back into the cave where they're comfortable. But if they're courageous and they fight it out, they learn to adjust their eyes to see grass as it is and to see the light of the real world.

He makes the point that if you want to be qualified as a real philosopher - and this is what a lot of neo-Platonists today call themselves, Platonists but are not really - who are occupying seats in Cambridge or Oxford. Leo Strauss of the NeoCon teacher, he called himself a Platonist. They like that part where you have an idea of an elitist philosopher who can see the transcendental nature of reality and you can then understand how to manipulate the shadows of the people who are in the cave.

But Plato makes the point, if you want to be a real lover of wisdom, a real philosopher you've got to go back into the cave despite the fact that people might want to kill you by helping them become aware that their senses are not giving them reality.

So that's the challenging part that people run away from. But you have traces of this oligarchal thing throughout history and every time humanity organizes itself in a certain way, there are these moments where you see the potential for a creative evolution upshift is so high. In part 2 of my series I zero in on this one moment which is a useful historical inflection point that is very important to understand - it has been almost completely written out of our history books - after the Civil War.

That was a moment when not only did the British Empire exert all of its power and influence, money and everything to try to destroy the Union and undo the American Revolution from 80 years prior, but British intelligence was helping out the confederate south. British Canada was the confederate secret society headquarters where they carried out the assassination of Lincoln from Montreal, Canada. We were conducting things like the Albany raids from British Canada on behalf of the confederacy the entire time. The only thing that stopped that stopped that from going towards complete dismemberment of the Union back then was that Russia stepped in under Alexander II, the great liberator, and offered the Russian fleets as a direct message to the British imperialist and French imperialists who were prepared to openly come out fully, fully backing the confederacy and that was a message that "If you do that, that's casus belli (an act or event that provokes or is used to justify war) for Russia as well and that kept them sort of subdued.

So coming out of that process, Britain had exerted itself. It has wasted itself on opium wars, suppressing Indian rebellions in 1859-60. The Crimean wars were a huge expenditure to destroy Russia by sucking them into an unwinnable war in the Middle East against the Ottomans which were teamed up with the French and the British. That was 1856 when it ended, 1857.

Britain was really not getting a lot of respect at that point. People were waking up to this spider that had been lighting fires everywhere. I don't know if that's what spiders do, but anyway. People were waking up to the nature of the counterintelligence methods of this Iago style operation that the British had honed over many years. I don't say the British because it's not the British people but British intelligence, which took over Britain back in 1688 from Venice and from Amsterdam. But anyway that's a longer story.

But people were waking up to this evil, this Iago type of evil that would induce people to destroy themselves and from 1870, 1880, 1890, you had the spread globally of this other non-British system, this system that was then known as the American system of political economy. When you read the writings of Abraham Lincoln's economic advisor, Henry C. Carey, which I cite heavily in my works, like Unity of Law, not only is he taking direct aim at Darwin, at Huxley, at Mill, at Bentham, at Malthus, he's always targeting these guys, but he's making the point that real economics must not be founded upon the worship of money but rather on the cherishing of the human mind. How do you use money at the service of the nature of mind to make discoveries and translate those in new forms of technological progress.

The American system was always based not upon British free trade. If you look at Adam Smith, he publishes Wealth of Nations in 1776 on the commission of Lord Shelburne, who is the head of British Intelligence. The idea was to always create a logical, scientific justification for why nation states should never intervene on private financial interests and regulate or protect their financial system. Just do what you're good at." If you have a lot of land that's what you do," said Adam Smith. That's the British system. "Don't develop manufacturing. That's for Britain to do." Now ignore the fact that Britain actually didn't use free trade to develop its manufacturing.

So if you have slaves, you just use slaves. That's what you do as a cotton plantation. You don't need industry. You don't need infrastructure. So everybody would just do cash cropping and you make your money that way. You buy low, sell dear. There are certain rules of how human behaviour and economic behaviour worked under his system of hidden hands, invisible mysterious hands regulating things somehow. 'Don't think about it. Don't worry about it. That's for god to think about. You don't think about it. You're just a human being. You're a worm.'

So the American system was based on the use of protectionism, the directed flow of credit towards infrastructure, the Erie Canal, the transcontinental railways; things that would require many years to build. You couldn't just do it for purely greedy purposes. It's not communism because you want to still encourage private initiative and private enterprise. So you're giving contracts to private companies to build things, to do things that are real and money is both for your individual, personal interest as well as the interest of the whole. So it's a way of cultivating the character of the people towards uniting their individual self-interest with the general welfare, which is the ideal. That's the only way democracy could ever work, if you have that orientation.

So Henry C. Carey is working with people all over the world, with Czar Alexander II and his network in Russia, Sergey Witte, the transport minister and prime minister of Russia is applying the American system with scientists like Mendeleev who discovers the periodic table. Mendeleev is in America for several months in the 1876 Centennial Exhibition and he's studying the American system and he's made the chairman of the committee on the protective tariff for Russia. This is a scientist, right?! He's a total Russian patriot and he's working with these guys to bring in and build the trans-Siberian railway with locomotives built in Philadelphia - Baltimore locomotives.

Otto von Bismarck is doing the same thing in Germany, creating the Zollverein, the customs union with a protective tariff to unify for the first time, the German states under a real unified nation but vectored on these American system principles of internal developments, long-term credit. The Meiji restoration is beginning to do the same thing with Henry C. Carey's collaborator, E. Peshine Smith, who's an American economist in Beijing becoming the advisor to the government and they're unveiling Baldwin locomotives in Japan. France's Sadi Carnot, the president who was later assassinated in 1895 was also applying the same thing.

You've got this all over the world, in Argentina the Dragos Plan. The foreign minister is a follower of Carey and doing the same thing in South America. In Brazil the same thing is happening.

So globally you have what the empire is petrified of at this point - the disintegrating effect of sovereign nation states blossoming all over the world like little fires that they can't put out anymore. They were trying to snuff them but they're just popping up left and right, these creative fires of sovereign expression where nations are developing full spectrum economies. You can read the writings of a lot of these guys. H.G. Wells talks about this crisis of the empire, how this had to be stopped.

Who's H.G. Wells? He's not only a founder of predictive programming in the 1890s and onward but he's a leading Fabian Society ideologue. He's a student of Thomas Huxley, a direct student under the normal school in London under Huxley, one of his prodigies. And Huxley is one of the key guys who diagnoses the problem of the empire. 'Why are they incapable of generating the creative solution to this problem?' I'm getting déjà vu. We talked about this in our last interview. They got too comfortable with their hegemony and the elite class became too stagnant and decadent and didn't have the ability to have that mental flexibility to deal with the problem of human creativity.

So Huxley was somebody from a low quality, dirty blood family in the mind of an imperialist but he was really misanthropic and creative and he was adopted by the system. He was recruited to become one of the management consultants, I guess you could say. If your business is in a crisis you might want to hire a management consultant firm to evaluate the structure and do reforms to see if you can rehabilitate the business. The British East India Company, the City of London, all of that is one integrated business, so called. And they had to do a reform, a cleansing out.

So what was done, as part of the Royal Society and he was appointed with a lot of privileges, to organize something called the X Club, he became the controller of a figure named Charles Darwin whose grandpa was a really good guy but he got corrupted over time or a little misanthropic I guess I should say. Darwin's not a bad guy. He's sympathetic.

But anyway, Thomas Huxley's job was to come up with a scientific system that would validate the British empire's continuity and, under the X Club in 1865, to bring together the leading scientists of Britain who each had different fields of specialization in chemistry, sociology, philosophy and everything and bring them together to create a unified, internally consistent body of knowledge that would have certain characteristics, like the elimination of all ideas of creative leaps in nature, that there would be a gradualist interpretation of nature, that the idea of the subjective and objective would be that a wall would be imposed upon the scientists and naturists, that nature and science would be something that would be purely descriptive in nature. The role of the person looking at nature would no longer be considered a part of, which was actually how a lot of the great discoveries were made. People were thinking about how they were thinking about the process that they were trying to understand.

The continentalist school of people like Alexander and Wilhelm von Humboldt, who created a massive scientific movement was all based upon the internal esthetical subjective qualities being reflected in nature as well because we're made in the image of nature. ''We're part of nature so why would these things also not be embedded in some form in nature," is how they were all thinking.

So this is what Darwinism was, a useful explanatory model of biology that was based on gradualism, no creative leaps, randomness in the small, so all qualitative attributes that would grow and emerge in fossil records would be accounted for simply by slow gradualism and randomness so that there would just be a random function of mutation happening on some level that would be trying random things out and every once in a while the dice would role just right and it would work and that would account for why things progressed as the weaker would be subdued by the stronger.

But Darwin admits in his writing that he was inspired by reading Thomas Malthus's essays on population. That's what gave him the theory by which to work, he says in 1858. "I didn't know what to do and then I read Malthus's theory by which societies progress by the strong beating out the weaker in a world of diminishing returns," and then he was like, "Yes! That's it!" And Alfred Wallace describes the same thing.

So this was obviously very useful for people like Huxley and his controllers as a system. So the X Club was the first sort of major think tank run out of the Royal Society as well as in Cambridge, what became the node of the new systems controls and out that emerged slight tweaks with social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer was one of the participants of these X Club meetings. They created things like Nature Magazine as a propaganda instrument to promote their Darwinistic view at the expense of all the other theories of biology.

We're told it's either Darwinism or nothing or you're a creationist. No, not really. When you look at what other scientists were making penetrating discoveries in biology, with this Humboldtian idea of a creative directedness, a purposefulness in the universe. James Dwight Dana was looking at cephalization and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. There's value there. There's Coullier and Karl Ernst von Baer who was looking at morphogenetic fields of a certain sort, how the whole is being organized by certain harmonics of the body which are tied to the harmonics of the biosystem of nature.

So there were all these fruitful discoveries that were being brushed aside as crazy creationism and only scientific Darwinism was true. But then Herbert Spencer adds to that by extrapolating that back onto human society, that we eventually weed out the weeds in the garden, the weak being beaten out by the strong and then Galton comes out - the cousin of Darwin - and develops that a little bit further in the form of eugenics which wins over Darwin. Darwin was like, "Yeah, you've made a total convert out of me." As I said, Darwin is a sympathetic guy because he really did want to figure things out. He didn't know or fully understand how he was being used for political purposes and he described, later on in his life writing to a family member this sad thing, "I used to feel joy in my younger years for the poetry of Keats. I used to find joy in music and I can't find joy in any of these things anymore." And he says self-consciously, "I think maybe it's my overly-developed analytical brain."

It's sad. It's tragic. So these guys are all essentially taking, as you said, the system of empire that was already there for thousands of years. Thomas Malthus is inspired by Hobbs. He's a Hobbsian. Hobbs was just the leviathan. "We always need one singular leviathan to control the chaos of the selfish individual bits and parts and particles of the masses within the system. That's the only way we can get order." If that's your idea of the good governance - order and equilibrium/mathematical stability - then any time of creative innovation that offsets the equilibrium is bad. That becomes evil.

The unfortunate thing is it turns you actually evil. If you believe in those assumptions then you have to make the conclusions that Thomas Malthus makes in his essay on population, first edition where he says, "We have to court the plague. We have to use the gifts that nature gave us of war and starvation and pandemics as a responsible scientific manager in order to check some population. We have to dispose of poor babies if room can't be made for them by the deaths of old persons. You have to unfortunately encourage those things to happen."

So not everybody who thinks like a Malthusian or a eugenicist - or today transhumanist - are not in on it. They're not necessarily intrinsically bad people but the unquestioned assumptions that they have about the nature of the system that they're a part of forces them into certain conclusions about how to manage the over excess of people.

Elan: I think that's a crucial point Matthew because what you're doing with these articles is going back. You're looking at the assumptions based on the assumptions based on the assumptions and then you take these quotes from guys like Bertand Russell that you were paraphrasing earlier where he talks about the two types of people. If it wasn't there in black and white, you wouldn't believe that these famous figures were actually saying these things so explicitly and you wouldn't consider the implications of all of their ways of thinking and the types of policies that they were trying to implement, but there they are!

I nearly fell off my chair when I read that. And there are several more that illustrate the point that in the trappings of highly educated, highly connected, highly sophisticated individuals with a great command of language and of a matchless network of other people and culture and society and politics, there is this psychopathic will to enforce certain ideas that are anti-human when it comes right down to it.

Matthew: Yeah.

Elan: And to understand that these figures are pillars foundational to a lot of the organizations that are calling the shots and making very rapid advancement in medical tyranny, in economics, in globalism, to understand that these were the voices, these were the leading figures that helped set the groundwork for the movements, the juggernauts that are pushing forward in all of these various agendas that we're watching unfold before our very eyes right now. I like the fact that you put this in the context of the great reset and Klaus Schwab. Schwab is part and parcel of this whole lineage of anti-human thinkers who have mastered the language of presenting their policies as progressive and positive and life-affirming when just to dig a little deeper is to realize that it's so much about control on a massive level.

Fortunately I think we are seeing pockets of light come forward. We are seeing movements. We are seeing more conservative groupings that are, at least in their various corners of influence, speaking out against many of the things that we're seeing. But it's work! I think everybody is waiting with bated breath a little bit and looking to see where we can make progress or headway in at least stemming the tide of all of these collective movements towards one world policy.

Matthew: I think one thing that is extraordinarily important in thinking especially about people like Bertrand Russell, these are all people who are celebrated philosophers. He's celebrated as a great pacifist. His history of western philosophy is still a source book for most philosophy departments across the world. So his interpretation also of the science history is a standard. His interpretation of what Einstein discovered, Einstein's method is the standard upon which, when people think about what Einstein did, they're often thinking about not Einstein, but Bertrand Russell's interpretation of Einstein. Or when they're thinking of Leibnitz, one of the first things that Bertrand Russell published was a book on Leibniz, on the science of Leibniz's method. He becomes the standard bearer for all of these things.

So when people even criticize the problems of Einstein or the problems of Leibniz or the problems of many things, or the problems of western civilization, they're actually not dealing with the thing itself. They're dealing with the scarecrow that's been created that creates these false debates and discussions with assumptions, like the fact that Bertrand Russell spent a couple of years in China working with Joseph Needham, one of his colleagues who was part of this operation. He teaches a class and Mao is a student, a young Mao. They're bringing in the Princeton Skull and Bones operation into a brainwashing operation of the young elites in China and he is re-training the intelligentsia of China who become influenced by his interpretation of what is western civilization.

So why are you going to believe this guy who hates western civilization and is a part of an operation to destroy it? Why are you going to take his word on what western civilization actually is? But then the belief that there's this absolute wall between eastern culture, which is a feeling, intuitive culture versus western culture which is this logical, left brain enlightenment civilization, there's this wall of divide between these two worlds that cannot have harmony. That's bullshit! It's not true at all!

So you look at the level that Bertrand Russell is operating on is much more subtle, much more long game than a lot of people realize, but coming out of this process as we are all born into a sick system, it's so useful to just get into the mind, the top-down thinking of somebody who thinks on that level of a whole. You have to think like a Bertrand Russell to a degree, but think about the sorts of mind who they hate and despise as well. By reading the writings of somebody like a Leibniz, you can get your mindset into a state where you're not just focusing on one thing but you're looking at how a multitude of different things all intersect in one idea and that's why people like Leibniz are able to make penetrating breakthroughs in everything he touches. He figures out a way of thinking that allows him to tap into languages. He develops an understanding and application of 18 languages easily, discovers the infinitesimal calculus, makes penetrating discoveries into history. He's a statesman organizing at grand strategies, the founder of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, the German Academy of Sciences. Czar Peter the Great makes him his privy counsellor and he reorganizes the legal system of Russia as he's organizing the Russian Academy of Sciences which is created a few years after he dies.

You can see why Bertrand Russell's ilk are working so hard to take control of the narrative of what a Leibniz is because Leibniz was on the verge of becoming the prime minister of the woman who's going to become the heir to the British throne, Sophia Hanover, who's his student. She's next in line for the throne of Britain after Queen Anne dies and he's working with different anti-imperialist groups like Robert Harley, who's the prime minister of England, Jonathan Swift who's working with Harley to create a national Bank of England, a national land bank in opposition to breaking the control of the Bank of England that had just been set up after the glorious revolution in 1694.

So these guys are all trying to create, to bring back a real patriotic, humanistic policymaking process within Britain in opposition to this parasitical thing trying to then take over. Leibniz is in the middle of so many things. He's working with missionaries who are tied to the Chinese government under Kangxi emperor and he's having back and forths with these groups looking at what are the different scientific discoveries in Asia. Leibniz discovers and creates the first calculating machines using a binary system that he develops from the I-Ching. He develops a grand strategy of infrastructure worked out and he's writing about the Russian/Chinese alliance that could build infrastructure together, great works with the focus on science, on arts, on creativity, unifying these different domains of human thought into institutions that would transcend individual lives.

He's an institution creator and his view of this in his writings on China, he actually has a Chinese magazine called Nova Cinema (I can't pronounce it, it's a Latin name) but it's his news on China. He's writing his strategies for breaking the control of oligarchy by getting these different cultures to unify, to work together on building great products together that would uplift everybody in between Russia and China and also Europe. He's having interactions with John Winthrop in America who is also a leading scientist and he's having thousands of correspondences, cutting edge stuff.

So Bertrand Russell - I think this is the thing - to understand the growth of AI, what I try to get to in part 3 of my series is you've got to look at Bertrand Russell's project which he sets up in 1900 at a future of mathematics conference. So he's working with this guy David Hilbert and Bertrand Russell and Hilbert together launch a program to try to mathematize all of science because if you look at the 1880s, 1890s, the question is which is controlling which. Is it physics controlling mathematics or is it mathematics which is leading in the dance between physics? Which is going to control how the mind operates when it's trying to penetrate and map out an understanding of the universe.

A lot of discoveries are happening, right? Discoveries of radiation, Curie's discoveries are all happening. The world of the quantum is of action, the Planck constant is being opened up at that moment in 1900. There's discoveries in every field and it's becoming clear that mathematics is not holding the solutions to these discoveries because the math only describes what is known up until that moment but a new discovery requires both understanding your math but then leaping outside of it. Then later on you can find a way to find mathematical symbolic expression for your discovery which has certain constants about it. But it rarely ever happens - I don't think it ever happens - because of the math.

What these guys are basically trying to do, what Hilbert sets out in his 23 problems at this future of international mathematics conference that brings together the brightest minds of mathematics around the world - and some of the 23 problems he sets out are legit problems, like the Riemann problem, the nature of prime numbers that are not forecastable. Even today we don't know how to forecast the next prime number. There's no formula organizing their unfolding that we can identify.

So these are all legit problems. But then there's some of them early on like number two and number six which call for total systemization and reduction of all mathematics into a new unified language of self-internal consistency that can be represented as logic and that logic can also be represented mathematically that would create a purely formalistic cage that could describe the entire universe, that could be reducible to a limited set of axioms and postulates.

So the idea of the infinite of transdentals would be eliminated from that and the mind, which is finite in their model - the mind is the brain and the brain is finite because it's the sum of our senses - there is no metaphysics that mean anything that has value in that world, then if you can reduce everything, you could then just do purely deductive or inductive extrapolations of either a phenomenon that you would observe and describe mathematically down to 'this because this because this' because of this assumption, this poor axiom. And then you could extrapolate outwards that way too and in their world you could have a mathematical description of the entire universe from beginning to end in time as a limited thing. Also in space because as soon as you put boundary conditions on it in time you also put boundary conditions on space because it can only grow at a certain speed, or whatever.

You've got problems right there, right? Because all of a sudden you have to assume now the existence of a universe outside of which there is no universe or before which there was not a universe. So that's already a problem but they don't want to look at that.

So what Bertram Russell then sets out to do is to achieve this goal of mathematizing the universe in the form of a three volume set of the Principia Mathematica published between 1910 and 1913. In 1913 one of his star pupils is a young mathematics protégé from America, ...

Elan: Norbert Wiener.

Matthew: Yeah, that's him. Wiener is now brought to Trinity College in Cambridge. He's met by Russell, brought into Russell's small coterie of talented young boys. These guys like doing that, whether it's Milner in Milner's kindergarten or whether it's William Yandell Elliot and the Chatham House of Harvard and his young boys of Kissinger and Brzezinski.

So Norbert Wiener is part of this little group. Ludwig Wittgenstein is another one who's a member of this. Russell himself is a Cambridge apostle and he and another Cambridge apostle named Alfred North Whitehead, who was Russell's teacher at Cambridge earlie,.they, together, fulfill this project of drafting this Principia which spends something like 80 pages just to prove mathematically why two plus two is four or something. It's a success! It's considered the major breakthrough in mathematical logic ever. Untouchable. Young Norbert Wiener puts himself on a life's mission to find a practical application for this to create ways of applying this to human society's governance.

Now one of the core assumptions of Bertrand Russell's world view that I quote in I think my third paper, is the view on entropy. He's of the view that entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, is an absolute, fundamental quality of the universe and ultimate thus that the universe is going to die, a heat death and it's only when we embrace that despair that we can achieve human health, that the human being could become - actually he says it right here. I just pulled it up as a quote. This is Bertrand Russell in 1903. He says that,
Man is the product of causes that have no pre-vision in the end they were achieving.
It's just random.
That his origin, his growth, his hopes and his fears, his loves and his beliefs are but the outcomes of accidental co-locations of atoms, that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling can preserve individual life beyond the grave.
He's offended by Socrates's proof of the immortality of the soul in the Phaedo.
All the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all of the inspiration, all of the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins. All these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.
I just think that that quote by Russell is sad on the one hand. It's like somebody just telling you how depressed they are about their belief in the purposelessness of their life and they're just demanding that you find the same despair that they have. "Just be as weak as I am. Look at me, I'm drowning. Come down into the fucking depths of the water like me." "Well I'm already up here not drowning, enjoying the oxygen. Why would I go down there with you?"

He's like, "No, you're wrong. You're a delusional fool if you think that oxygen is healthier or your natural state. Here, take this ball and chain, hold onto it and get into the water {laughing} and come down with me. I'll show you. I'll prove it to you."

Elan: And not only that, this is the way you SHOULD be thinking. This is the way you MUST think and I have all of these people around me who believe the same and you ought to think this way and we're going to make sure that you think this way.

Matthew: Well said. That's exactly...

Harrison: Because science.

Elan: Because science.

Matthew: Because science. {laughter} Yeah, because science. No, exactly. Mockery. And that's how they corral the herd, is through largely mockery and elitism. "Oh you don't want to be seen sounding like you're denying this obvious truth that all of these smart people believe, you want to be overheard believing too, right?" I guess that modern art, that abstract painting, I guess that really IS pretty deep. At first I just thought it was somebody shitting on a canvas. No, I guess it is deep. Yeah. {laughter} Wouldn't be judged by these smart people that you think are around you.

Harrison: The funny thing with that quote is that it's quite beautifully written, right?

Matthew: There's a poetic quality in it.

Harrison: Yeah. So there's the poetic quality that he's imbuing this nihilistic diatribe in. It's a funny juxtaposition that even in the act of defending the meaninglessness of the universe, part of him is striving to put it in a coherent and beautiful form, the very things that he denies exist and have any meaning.

Matthew: Absolutely. A lot of these guys working with Russell like George Bernard Shaw, who's another anti-human, pro-eugenics Fabian Society leader, has got a certain poetic quality, as does H.G. Wells. It's a total perversion of creativity though and they're walking self-contradictions, like you said.

I just finished reading Norbert Wiener's books on cybernetics in the human use of human beings. This guy is living his life's mission to fulfilling this, to create a language for the governing class to manage the system. You've got to keep in mind, in the 19th century again, not only did you have this burst of national sovereignty spreading around the world where the whole was finally being organized as a community of principle, a harmony of parts working together with no absolute dichotomized class struggles or anything like that. It was an idea of a love of the future, a love of progress that was unifying the behaviour of foreign policy around the world.

William Gilpin, the former bodyguard of Lincoln and the first governor of Colorado becomes the champion of the world land bridge of rail through the Bering Strait where the American-built Trans-Siberian would connect through Alaska into Canada and connect to the Transcontinental of the US. It grids all the way through Africa. This was also accompanying a burst of inspiration, of optimism that was accompanying discoveries in science, of all fields.

So it was a lot of uncertainty, a lot of rich potential and the unipolar system of empire that could only control in this homogenized, leviathan-like anti-creative way, was disintegrating. So you had the Fabian Society created in 1886. You had the round table movement in Oxford created in 1902 with the Rhodes Trust will of Cecile Rhodes which created the round table movement as an international grouping of think tanks that coordinated the new British empire policy to recapture the United States.

The first version of this was an imperial federation but then it transmogrified into the League of Nations later on. That's what the round table movement created as their next phase when the first one didn't work. They were like, "Okay, let's do a one world government that way and get rid of nation states and create a one world military, a one world economy out of the Bank of England."

That didn't work and they're all interfacing with each other. So the X Club is sort of the ideological driving seat through Cambridge and the Royal Society of London is sort of playing into that. That's creating the guideposts but then you have these doers think tanks, the Fabian Society as part of the infiltration of governments, the indoctrination of talented elites and their redeployment back into whatever target country you want to subvert. They're doing that through the London School of Economics. That's their school, that Mackinder is the director of, the founder of geopolitics.

Then you have Oxford doing the same thing with a different branch of talented people through the Rhodes Scholarship program. Throughout the 20th century you can see these groups interfacing so much. It's like different flavours of the same evil, setting up things like the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, the American roundtable movement.

So you've got that going on. Norbert Wiener is now in WWII. He's in charge of developing systems of radar. He's doing a lot of work on feedback loops. They have to figure out when you want to shoot down a plane or a missile, there's a time function. There's time that it takes to get back the information back of the position and velocity of the plane. Then the person controlling the guns or the missiles, the anti-aircraft missiles then have to plug in the data, the positions and then shoot it down. That's a lot of equations.

So he's looking at the problems of information systems. How do you accelerate the density of the time function, right? How do you forecast a linear extrapolation of a thing's velocity and momentum into the future to shoot down where it will be? So you've got these different ideas that have a usefulness obviously in warfare and other things. Knowing what the weather is going to be in a couple of days is useful. These things are useful.

But then he's coming back now, always governed by the Bertrand Russell challenge of formulating now a comprehensive system. This is what Huxley was trying to do with the X Club earlier. And he calls it cybernetics. It's based on a Greek word gubernare which is where government comes from and the idea of cybernetics is that you have a helmsman in a boat that is the only person who needs to know what the boat is doing. There's only one person of the thousands of people who might be in this giant boat each doing their localized special thing. Only one helmsman needs to have knowledge of celestial astronomy, the knowledge of what all of the parts are doing. But nobody else does. They can just focus on their local thing.

This is like, "Ah-ha!" And the Macy Foundation which had been also co-sponsoring, like I mentioned, all of this eugenics work, they become the sponsor of the Macy Conferences on Cybernetics between 1943 and 1953. Wiener is the trendsetter, the guy who's managing, pulling this stuff together. He's creating systems of information systems theory, the idea of self-learning machines, that machines can do essentially what the human beings can do but better. That's Norbert Wiener putting this stuff out in the formulation that we currently have today. That's him.

And he's only using case studies that don't involve real human creativity. He's using case studies of playing chess and how you could create a situation where a computer could learn from past chess moves and incorporate that into improving the computer's quality. It's like, "Yeah! That's proven to be true with Go and Chess" because these are all games that are defined by a fixed set of rules that you could plug in. That's chess! Teach you to think in a certain way like a computer that also induces maybe some rage in a lot of people too because there's more to the human mind than that. But he doesn't look at that. He just looks at all of these case studies where we think like that.

So obviously yes, you can make an argument that computers can replace us and do that job better. But in terms of making discoveries like Max Planck was doing or like for example, what's his name? The uncertainty principle. Einstein's young friend.

Harrison: Heisenberg?

Matthew: No, not the unprovable theory.

Harrison: Gödel?

Matthew: Kurt Gödel, yeah, who develops in 1932 is horrified by this line of thought and Gödel is a real follower of Leibniz, not the Bertrand Russell kind and Gödel writes this on formally undecidable propositions of the Principia Mathematica in 1932 which pisses of Russell. Alfred Whitehead's class here, he's like, "Okay, you got us!" But in this beautiful little booklet he uses their technique of using mathematical logic to prove that there can be no closed self-consistent system of descriptive math. There's nothing you could say that could be 100% thoroughly, internally consistent based upon its own internal assumptions because there's always implied something outside of every system. He does it in a way that I'm not smart enough to fully, fully internalize his whole thing but he does it in a really, really clear way and it demonstrates that the universe ultimately - unlike what Bertrand Russell or Norbert Wiener want to believe - is that there is an openness, an open system quality to everything, including something as specific as math which is a reflection of a higher reality.

So despite that, despite the fact that a machine couldn't do what he did, they continue on with their project and the Macy conferences throughout this 10 year period. It happens every six months. They're bringing together sociologists, people like Eric Trist, Kurt Lewin, like I said from the Frankfurt school, are frequent participants. Herbert Marcuse is coming through this thing, Adorno. A lot of Frankfurt school people, a lot of Tavistock people, a lot of physicists, a lot of mathematicians, a lot of scientists. John von Neumann, Oscar Morgenstern who were game theorists are also frequent participants and they're trying to create this new comprehensive logic.

The Macy Foundation also was a major sponsor of LSD. So a lot of the spread of LSD happened directly because of the Macy Foundation's role in doing that work, including getting Ken Kesey into the process, sponsoring Aldous Huxley's work. Aldous Huxley was recruiting different people like - what's his name - the guru of LSD?

Elan: Timothy Leary?

Matthew: Yeah, yeah, him, who describes his own discussions with Aldous Huxley in a book he wrote. No, no, it was an interview he gave in the 1970s where he was like, "Yeah, the CIA is great!" He's openly talking about how the CIA definitely sponsored and brought LSD around all these campuses and that's just awesome. {laughing} And he talks about how Aldous Huxley told him that the real enemy to humanity is monotheistic religion and the time has come for a new humanistic paganism which can only be done by this philosophy built around doors of perception. Again, these guys just love it.

So there's a lot of overlap here, right? And so Norbert Wiener is creating a logic of a highly compartmentalized governing structure which is then adopted by the OECD, a lot of United Nations organizations. It's infesting bureaucracies, this idea of cybernetics and you've got this over-bloating of every government. In Canada, one of the biggest participants and adherents of this is Pierre Elliot Trudeau who writes - and I've got a little quote from him in part 3 - in 1969 right as he's doing his major reform of the Canadian government around the privy council office which is like the node, the central nervous system node. He says,
Cybernetics has given us a tool to direct human civilization for the first time ever. We will not let this go.
And he does it. For the next four years he's organizing and overhauling the entire Canadian government and creating this giant, maximal over-bloated bureaucracy and only again, him and a small coterie of people like Maurice Lamontagne who is a co-founder of the Club of Rome with Alexander King. Alexander King is coming in and out of Canada because it's a maximum controlled zone at that point. And they're actually creating that here where just a small group of helmsmen control the levers of the system.

Every time there's national leaders that arise that tend to resist this thing, like John F. Kennedy or Bobby Kennedy or Enrico Mattei in Italy or you've got this across the board, they're eliminated and you've got these either petrified people like Lyndon Johnson or outright technocrats like Henry Kissinger and George Schultz who are overseeing the implementation of these sorts of things across the US. That becomes the basis for today's modern deep state. So when people talk about deep state, they have to have this in their mind otherwise it's just a mystical weird thing.

Elan: I just wanted to comment. It's very interesting to see how son Justin is carrying on so well in the footsteps of his dad in Canada, the polite Canadians.

Matthew: Oh yeah.

Elan: I'm wondering Matthew if you wanted to make a closing point and then I think, given the sprawling nature of all of this information and research, if we might have you on again in the near future and to continue this, especially where it gets into the contemporary deep state and how all of these organizations are now, as you illustrate in your first article, manifesting all of these ideas.

Matthew: Yeah, sure. I think one of the things that, again, I couldn't implore people to do any more fervently is to just read the things that scare the oligarchy. One of the themes that I've been hammering at, I'm going to make this part 4 and part 5 of my series is what was Leibniz actually doing? What was his method of thinking? Why was he at war with the Newtonians in the Leibniz/Clark correspondences? Why did the Newtonians in the Royal Society that had just taken over England, need to steal the discovery of the calculus from Leibniz and say Newton did it? They created a whole scandal around that where obviously Isaac Newton plagiarized these things and many other things, including his inverse square law from modern Pythagoreans like Leibniz or Kepler or Huygens or Ditmas or Pascale. These were people who were making discoveries.

So I think by reading those sorts of writings of Leibniz, which are available, they're not for specialists only. You could be a layman and still get a lot of deep insight into the nature of the human mind, government, economics, everything out of that, as well as the nature of the universe. People like Norbert Wiener is saying directly that the high priest of cybernetics is Gottfried Leibniz. He says that. And he's sort of doing what Russell's doing. "Yeah, we love Leibniz. He's the founder of modern information systems theory. It's great! Cybernetics. That's Leibniz." It's like, no it's not! Leibniz believed in human creativity.

When Leibniz was striving and what Kurt Gödel died doing - you've got to keep this in mind as well - Gödel died by starvation. He died - and this is serious - in 1972 Kurt Gödel died because he discovered and he wrote about this, that there was an ongoing conspiracy led by Bertrand Russell to destroy Leibniz's writings. Even today, 90% of Leibniz's writings are not available for public access. You can't get them. He takes Oscar Morgenstern, who doesn't believe him, to a reference library and says, "Look, there's these references to the existence of these different Leibniz works. Let's go and try to find them." And Oscar Morgenstern writes in 1952, "Can you believe it? They were all removed. They were all gone."

This is documented by Kurt Gödel's biographer who writes this and documents this transaction. But Gödel, like I said, he dies. Why does he die? Why does he starve? Because he's convinced that there's a conspiracy to poison and kill him by Bertrand Russell and he's probably on some degree right and he won't eat food unless his wife serves it to him. She gets sick for a couple of weeks and can't feed him and he dies.

So you've got this thing which is very much afraid of a quality of creative genius that was exemplified by people like Max Planck. I know Harrison, you read Planck's philosophy of physics. Pure Leibniz right there. Einstein as well was a major fan and a practitioner of this. It produces a living refutation of their system because the only way you can refute that human beings are not replaceable by machines is to tap into your non-machine-like qualities of thought. If you don't do it, that's the problem, why most people think that Elon Musk is really brilliant right now. They think he's a really brilliant genius! He's a synthetic personality. He's obviously like a cardboard cut out who really believes crazy shit that obviously human beings will be replaced by AI unless we merge with machines. Or that windmills and solar panels will obviously take over the energy needs of all society, obviously at the singularity. It's like, no! Scientifically that's not true. Anybody who has half a brain and looks at basic facts knows that that's not true but you believe it.

So you're a synthetic personality. You're like many of these cardboard cutouts peppering our landscape historically, like Newton or Darwin, who never discovered anything. There's political motives behind it but people believe it because they have not tapped into those inner qualities of heart/mind that they have access to, or they should if they were given those opportunities in a non-oligarchical system of education and culture. So we have to sort of take it upon ourselves to read the writings of those original sources like Plato, read and immerse yourself over a month of reading through Plato's dialogues. See what happens in your mind. Take notes. Read Leibniz's discourses on metaphysics. Don't go to the Monadology, the last thing he wrote, the condensement of a lot of his ideas. You've got to go through some other stuff first.

But read the writings of Planck, of Einstein on their views on philosophy and method and you will find those things being much more in coherence with your own powers of reason. It'll be much more natural to do than you would even imagine. It's not based on memorizing shit you're being told to memorize to pass a test in high school, which is why I failed all my math tests in high school. I wanted to know. Why is this symbol true? Why is this formula true? I couldn't get an answer, so I'm like, "I can't hold that in my mind."

But try to actually look at what Leibniz does. He's actually taking through why is the infinitesimal calculus right. He's actually taking you through "Here's the physical experiment I did. I used this hanging chain. It had these forces of gravity that are infinitely changing at every infinitesimal moment and I can now develop questions, paradoxes that I can test out to see what is the unifying characteristic of a hanging chain. And since all hanging chains can be made different, is there a unifying process that can describe them all at a differential as well as an integral and at a differential moment as well as the integral as a whole. The one and the many.

So it's doable. It's accessible. It's more accessible than people might realize and I would say if they want, on the Rising Tide Foundation website, every week we host weekly lectures with experts from various fields. That's every Sunday. People can just write an email to and get an invite to our live Sunday afternoon lectures. We also do meetings. We have study groups that meet up during the weeknights. We meet over Zoom and work through these things. Right now we're about to start on Leibniz's discourses on metaphysics starting this Wednesday, so if people want to be a part of those things and read along and do the work, they can do that. Again, just send the email out.

On the Rising Tide Foundation website, if they go to the very bottom of, my wife and I, Cynthia, who runs this with me, has set up a digital library of Alexandria where there's an index of some of the greatest minds that we know about and we just put them in alphabetical order and found original writings that you can just click on, Leibniz or Bernotsky or Einstein and just get their original writings online.

I don't know how long it will be made available online. Things are shaky right now but they're there. The resources are there. That's all I'm saying.

Elan: I don't think this conversation would be complete unless someone made a brief mention of Resurrection Ertuğrul. We're finally about 40 percent into season 5 Matthew {laughter} where Ertuğrul is talking to his sons and says "The foundation of the state, the strength of the state is the family." It was a very basic, simple but powerful talk he gives his sons, one of them being Osman, the future of the Turkish state. So we did manage to throw in a Resurrection Ertuğrul in there. {laughter}

But really, a fascinating discussion of all of these ideas and interests and organizations. I do hope you include that story about Gödel and Russell and the Stalinization of Leibniz's works. That sounds like just an incredible story in and of itself. What can I say? It's such a pleasure to listen to you and to talk to you and go over these truths. We look forward to speaking with you again and reading these articles. Once again, and is where you can find a lot of these articles. Also strategicculturefoundation and is where we're going to be publishing some of these things as well.

So as always, a real pleasure Matthew. Thank you.

Matthew: And thank you guys for again setting up this oasis of ideas on the internet. I really appreciate the work that you guys go through as well and it's always a pleasure to be on. And any time you want to have this chat again - and we can continue this into so many directions - let me know.

Elan: Will do.

Harrison: Will do. Thanks Matt. Take care.

Matthew: Bye.