HOME     FORUM      A.B.C. PART 2:I      A.B.C. PART 2:II      A.B.C.PART 2:III

 Early Geneticist C.H. Waddington was another of the Tots and Quots insiders (circa 1940). He again is remembered partly in the context of his left-wing politics, which clearly are of the kind particular to the radical Tots and Quots society. His assertions being wholly materialist fundamentalism of the type that claims that all life and all of life must be explained in a solely mechanistic fashion in the terms of (the current, temporarily, understood level of) physics and chemistry. This is the materialist state religion which we have the misfortune to labour under to this day in Britain, it was adopted by communism, fascism and unbridled capitalism alike, all of whom interpret and manipulate the science to suit their own expediencies and ideologies. The glaring flaw in all this is that the science is always changing, and many scientists claim that perhaps as much as 60% of what we call ‘science’ is just plain wrong, including the unproven hypotheses which are commonly misrepresented as ‘fact’. In 1940 what Waddington ‘knew’ was ‘science’ is very different to what most scientists think they ‘know’ is science today, which again is very different to what scientists will think they ‘know’ is science tomorrow. In Waddington’s 1940 world there were all kinds of eugenics, hollow earth theories, Arian Nordic historic ‘fact’, geo magnetic forces which moved continents etc. Hilarious? But this is the reality, I’m 37 years old, almost 50% of the curriculum I was taught in school 20 plus years ago as ‘science’ has now been debunked, and it becomes clear with hindsight much of this bunk was clearly labelled ‘science’ due to it’s usefulness to expedite political ends. I can’t go into all the various topics here, it would take up to much text, and in large part the public has been hoodwinked into believing that these ‘scientific facts’ still stand, but upon cursory inspection very few of the theories you’ve been hearing throughout your lives represented as 'fact' have any real science behind them, and real science (real science = repeatable laboratory experiments with clearly repeatable conclusions) has disproven many of these theories at every turn, yet these theories continue to be misrepresented as 'fact' purely for ideological reasons. An example would be for me to mention that for political reasons I was taught at school that homosexuality was caused by the number of x and y chromosomes a person was born with, so it wasn’t just another slightly extreme perversion and morality and the law had to support the homosexual. This was in a lesson called ‘science’ at school, really they should of taught it in R.E. because it’s just a state religion, not real science, which later by the way disproved this x y excuse. If it were expedient to the powers of unbridled greed to do so then they would have just as easily introduced the opposite ideological dogma as ‘fact’ into the science classroom, homosexuality would have been the breeding ground of every hideous disease of the body and mind, and so not just another slightly extreme perversion and morality, they would assert, calls on us persecute the poor homosexual. If you don’t believe that this manipulation of science goes on let me just point out that the hypothetical interpretation of the ‘science’ of homosexuality that I’ve just used in the second example above is exactly what was taught in schools not just in Nazi Germany but all over Europe at one time. Politics rules ‘science’, capital, here now today in Britain rules politics.
 Look around you and it’s not hard to spot successful pseudo-scientism constantly being used to manipulate and control your life. The profitable interpretation of science is the one which is most frequently maintained. These days, in the new millennium we’ve had Y2k, we’ve had various bird-flu ‘pandemics’, 'swine-flu fever'* took over the whole world, then we had catastrophic global warming, with melting ice sheets which strangely didn’t really melt at all, caused by man made greenhouse Co2 (and we all saw the hockey stick that ‘proved it’). But then we found out Co2 is only 3% of total greenhouse gasses, and mans contribution to the Co 2 cloud is only 1% of it (manmade Co2 is therefore 0.003 of a percent of the greenhouse gases). Nobel winning industrialist billionaire Al Gore then went and bought himself sea-front property in a zone he was simultaneously claiming would soon be flooded by the catastrophic results of his hockey stick of ‘scientifically proven’ doom (now debunked). Environmental conservation is morally virtuous enough without scientism (the religion of the fool who knows it all) thrown into the mix, we don't need to base conservative decency on ideological pseudo-science, the only ideology that is righteous is the love of truth. Perhaps most disturbingly in 2001 we had three of the most massive concrete and steel reinforced buildings ever constructed dissolve instantaneously into powder because, we are told by mainstream science, of jet-fuel fires. One of these buildings didn’t even have any jet fuel in it, it just freefell and dissolved into powder because it was stood near to two other towers that did have jet fuel in them. If you can’t see that politics and more essentially capital controls mainstream ‘science’ then you need to think again about the world your living in.

 (Just having mentioned the various animal flu scares we’ve lived through recently it might be interesting to note that it is from these cons, which have been going on from time immemorial, that we derive the word ‘charlatan’. The word comes from French charlatan, a seller of medicines who might advertise his presence with music and an outdoor stage show).

 It’s apparent that in the 1930’s fervent atheism and religious dedication to materialist secularism and humanism was a common factor amongst the Tots and Quots, characterised most infamously by Tots and Quots inner circle member Julian Huxley the brother of science-fiction writer Aldois Huxley, the author of “Brave New World”. Julian Huxley was known to of visited the Soviet Union at least twice, although it is said that Huxley lost his enthusiasm for totalitarian Stalinism circa 1950 when Stalin had some Soviet scientists who shared Huxley’s enthusiasm for genetics thrown into the gulags. This incident in the Soviet Union (the worlds largest 'country') was part of an episode in which the political distortion of science to bring about a pre-decided conclusion for political and doctrinal reasons was given a name, “Lysenkoism, named after the infamous Soviet scientist Lysenko, who distorted even already widely known science to fit with Marxist doctrine. For doctrinal reasons Stalin had made the views of the biologist Lysenko official soviet dogma, Lysenko had at first claimed, erroneously, to be a agricultural expert in order to weasel his way into a totalitarian Soviet government obsessed with such things as agricultural 3 year plans and which had the ideological belief that peasants planting grain was always a good thing. To assist him in this end, portraying himself as an absolute genius, Lysenko stole directly other peoples work and also misrepresented it. With the co-operation of the Soviet propaganda machine and the personal backing of Joseph Stalin the charlatan Lysenko misrepresented himself to the Soviet public as a great scientific master-mind, despite the ongoing failures and mediocre successes of his work. Lysenko Lambasted the Soviet scientists who were working in the field of genetics at the time, criticising them angrily he claimed the entire field of study pointless, and castigating them publicly, utilising his status as a media science ‘star’ he co-operated with Stalin to have them all, every geneticist in the Soviet Union, thrown into the gulags… and all this because their scientifically obtained conclusions, facts about genetics which were commonly known all around world, didn’t correspond with Marxist dogma and the expediencies of internationalist communism. The official theory most infamously purported by Lysenko and supported by Stalin was that genetic characteristics adjusted through generations due to environmental reasons, so therefore if you pruned trees before they reproduced then eventually after several generations of doing this you’d end up with a new species of tree that didn’t have any leaves, or similarly if you cut some-ones hand off or gave them a sun tan and continued to do this through several generations you’d have yourself a race of one handed dark skinned people. This piece of political correctness was of course expedient to the internationalist communist cause because it allowed Joseph Stalin to claim that there was no difference in race or social tendency which could not be overcome by a relatively short period under the unbridled socialist system that is known as communism.
 It was this ‘Lysenko period’ circa 1950 which put Huxley off his previous utopian idealisation of the Soviet state. Julian Huxley couldn’t stand the vilification of the field of genetic research which he personally was so predisposed towards, he had been for most of his life a prominent figure in the British Eugenics society, making the following argument in writing on multiple occasions “
no-one doubts the wisdom of managing the germ-plasm of agricultural stocks, so why not apply the same concept to human stocks?” Huxley was one of many privileged intellectuals at the time who being born wealthy believed that the lower classes in society were genetically inferior. This by Huxley (1941), puts forth his view clearly:"The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. Therefore... they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilisation

 Huxley’s brand of ‘socialism’ may seem strange to us with the benefit of our hindsight, indeed the above quote reads more like something you’d discover if you looked inside the secret diary of David Cameron, but in the thirties the full form of the socialism we know today had not fully ‘evolved’ and nor had the full form of Soviet communism, which developed and changed during the twentieth century in line with various dictators that came and went. Huxley and others who had in the 30’s and 40’s harboured dreams of utopian socialism deviated away from following Soviet style communism by the early 50’s due to the slowly emerging truth of the scientific purges and ‘Lysenkoism’ that were the real daily realities in the communist block.
  When it is said that 'Lysenkoism' put eugenicists like Julian Huxley off totalitarian communism it is highly likely that this means that it was simply the fact that Lysenko’s specific genetic theories were being adopted by the communists that put them off their sympathies for Marxism/Stalinism, as Lysenko’s theory of genetics ran counter to the spirit of their own theories of eugenics. It’s doubtful whether it was “Lysenkoism” as in the fully evolved meaning of this word as a general description for ideological science (‘Lysenkoism’ later came to mean and define any case pertaining to the distortion of science to fit a pre-determined end for political or doctrinal reasons) that made them think twice about how marvellous a place for science the communist bloc really was because if Stalin’s policies had supported their own interpretations of the science of genetics, so that the Soviet 'Lysenkism' (I.e. bias) had leant towards the eugenicist’s views then it seems obvious that eugenicists like Huxley would have been perfectly happy to continue supporting Soviet communism.

 The Lysenko incident was a very blatant misrepresentation of science, yet in the twentieth century it had been effective enough to convince the people of the massive Soviet bloc, who had faith in Lysenko as a ‘great scientist’. It had proven that control over scientific vision could be used to effectively control a diverse international population. This was the dawn of modern political correctness, the system that’s purpose today is to expedite international unbridled greed through implementation of what has been called ‘communitarianism’ by freedom activists and alternative political parties.

 As in the case of Julian Huxley people previously sympathetic to the Soviet cause diverged away from the course of Soviet politics in the 50’s as knowledge of the realities of Stalinism replaced the fantasies of pure Marxism that had seduced so many utopian radicals. Like Julian Huxley the famous and controversial Geneticist C.D. Darlington was also in the Tots and Quots inner circle. Darlington was known for his leanings towards anti-authoritarianism and his membership of the Tots and Quots probably reflects that. He came from the down to earth town of Chorley in Lancashire. Later in life as the truth about the gulags and science purges in the Soviet Union became known outside the U.S.S.R. Darlington objected to the Lysenkoism that was widely prevalent, and still is prevalent in the field of genetics, producing interpretations of science with a strong globalist political bias. Darlington like Huxley was left wing and also like Huxley was a eugenicist - both men would of obviously preferred the left to have a eugenicist policy to be biased towards, but this was obviously not politically expedient for the internationalist left at that time (but just wait until either fascism, communism or most likely unbridled capitalism succeed in total global dominance, then you will see that ‘science’ suddenly does take on a eugenicist bias… when it’s expedient to their greedy ends).

 Darlington refused to sign the UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organisation) Statement of Race, which in the post-war world of 1950 asserted scientific arguments that were contradictory to the eugenicist theories of race typified in the extreme by the Nazis* which had contributed to bringing the planet into world war. The U.N., with globalisation as it’s goal, resolved that scientists would now discover the science which would abolish the concept of race entirely, and they decided that the science would show that the world should even drop the use of the word “race” all together, because that’s how wrong they decided the science would show any concept of race to be; And guess what… by some amazing chance this is exactly what the ‘science’ did show… or was purported to show, at first.
 In the end they had to rewrite and re-issue the statement four times, the re-writes took 28 years. When UNESCO first decreed the science should be found ‘scientists’ jumped to the task, but only the same type of scientists as Burnal, the Quots and Tots card carrying communist mentioned above as authoring “The Sociology of Science” in 1939, the first book on the sociology of science, the man Sheehan quotes with “
Science is communism”. Yes these ‘scientists’ who did the first draft were all sociologists to a man, no other scientists would put there names to it, not one single geneticist signed it. Despite this in the introduction to the Statement on Race the U.N. took the usual steps that any and every ideological power always take in such circumstance, and lied, the introduction stating that "The competence and objectivity of the scientists who signed the document in its final form cannot be questioned". Yet the competence of the ‘scientists’ was questioned, and as for “the objectivity of the scientists” well the claim that it cannot be questioned is just absolutely typical of the modus-operendi involved in political correctness.
*(The UNESCO Statement of Race in 1950 was expatiated by the premise that awareness of race is typified by the eugenicist antics of Nazis. But this premise is, in the authors opinion unfair and unrepresentative. The fact is world war two isn’t the only thing that’s ever happened in mankind’s time on earth, awareness of race is typical of most racial groups throughout history without resulting in eugenicist policies. You could just as easily say racial awareness is as typical to the Jewish people (since the dawn of history) as it was to the Germans from 1922 to 1945. If you don’t like the Jews as an example, as indeed it could be said that they themselves have been mixed up in interracial violence preceding from the 50’s up to today then you could just as easily pick the peace loving pygmies of Umbuto Gorge as your example, or the aborigines or the Inuit (previously known as Eskimo). Awareness of race does not automatically equal eugenic policy. People have murdered other people for being different to them since the beginning of mankind, but it took ideological scientists to dream up the science of eugenics. Scientism [the idiotic belief that science in any given period provides all the answers to everything] was the genesis of eugenics, and scientism in connection with political correctness [I.e. globalist ideology] has now given us the other extreme with the denial of the realities of race. When we throw the ideological scientist out of the room then we can perhaps finally start living in peace and happiness. As races we have differences, this is self evident, but we are part of a whole, a community of racial families, we’re all part of humanity and we can love each other with, or even for, our differences. In the end all we need is truth, not ideology).

 In this situation, and again in 1951 when he not only refused to sign the first re-written and revised version of the UNESCO Statement on Race but also organised a boycott of it by his fellow geneticists Darlington’s refusal to sign was a difference of opinion with other members of the Tots and Quots such as Zuckerman, Bernal and Crowther who were advising UNESCO upon it’s Statement and was one of the most unusual and clear brakes with the societies modus operandi, that is to say using science as social control with a radical left wing bias. As stated above UNESCO probably wouldn't of included a 'science' component at all if it wasn't for the Tots and Quots agent J.G. Crowther.  But ultimately Darlington still believed as Zukerman and co. that materialist mechanistic science was the be all and end all of life, Darlington probably merely disagreed about the interpretation of the science, being a self described Darwinist eugenicist”*.

*(Although the digression would take me too far from the topic I intend to write a second document, soon, on the Darwins and their theories of evolution and eugenics [eugenics was invented by Charles Darwin’s cousin; think Father Ted and Dougal].)

 Lancelot Hogben was another scientist and Tots and Quots insider in the 30’s ,40’s. and 50’s. Like the Tot’s and Quots leader Solly Zuckerman he was primarily a zoologist. Hogben was, as par for the course within the Tots and Quots a fervent atheist, and was also a conscientious objector and a member of the Independent Labour Party, which was a sort of Fabian controlled pseudo communist party with internationalism (globalisation) at the core of it’s dogma. Hogben’s zoological interests included injecting frogs with piss, and thanks to this (and probably largely on account of his membership in the Tots and Quots, who all became members of the Royal Society - see below) he achieved membership of the prestigious ‘Royal Society’ science club. Because the Tots and Quots was such a highly successful subversive group leadership of it must have been a highly coveted position, indeed Solly Zuckerman the leader of the group became the first ever ‘Chief Scientific Advisor’ to the the UK government. As we shall see (mentioned below) it was suspected that Zuckerman’s fellow Tot (or Quot) and fellow zoologist Lancelot Hogben was intensely jealous of his comrade-leader’s position, so much so that MI5, in files declassified in 2009, speculate that Hogben was behind the sneaky attempt to set Zuckerman up by method of a faked letter of application to join the communist party sent in Zuckerman’s name. If this letter had been believed then Zuckerman’s access to the highest level of classified material would probably have been restricted (details provided below). Hogben’s anger may also of been aroused by the fact that by the 1950’s it was becoming clear that Solly Zuckerman was not the pure Marxist that his co conspirators had taken him for, indeed with the help of a declassified MI5 file we will see (discussed below) that Zuckerman, the leader of the Tots and Quots was under the aegis of Baron Rothschild all along.

GO TO PAGE 4                  Page 1           Page 2           Page 5

HOME              A.B.C. PART 2:I              FORUM              A.B.C. PART 2:II       A.B.C. PART 2:III