Science In War
Early in the war, whilst events were going badly for Britain and whilst the Quots and Tots were still struggling to further their agenda, they convened a dinner for the societies members with guests made up of powerful and influential figures, politicians, industrialists, publishers and the like. At the dinner they had put forth their proposals for using science in war (total war), with the aim of furthering their own strange-love agenda of science/politics and must have done so quite persuasively. The founder of the ‘Penguin’ publishing house Allen Lane, a sympathetic guest, suggested or acquiesced to the suggestion that a book should be published setting out the aims of the Quots and Tots group. Subsequently this book was wrote (eagerly, at white heat) by the club members and became in June 1940 the first and only Penguin book to be issued anonymously, under the title “Science in War”. In the first edition on it’s own front cover it announces that “…it has been written by 25 scientists, all of whom speak with authority in their own fields.”. The book itself, although it caused a stir in the nerd community of the day, was not pivotal in the events that followed hot on the heels of it’s publication, but it is helpful in providing insight into the ideals of the men who wrote it, and those men and their ideals were, in turn, pivotal in the events that followed and in creating the systems of control we still exist under today. From the time that ‘Science in War’ was written Zuckerman recalled “not one was yet a member of the Royal Society; in the end all were”.
It would be difficult to over emphasise the influence and pre-eminence the Royal Society has exerted in shaping the modern world, especially modern Britain.
The Quots and Tots called for an end to what they termed ‘the platonic’ approach to governance. The traditions and values of Britain being tied up with such a humane method of democratic governance was merely a nuisance to men with a strange love for science for sciences sake, above and at the cost of all else, who enthused on reducing all of life to a materialist experiment; (Science in War: “They failed wholly to understand that Scientific Management is applicable to any form of human organisation…”). In the final paragraph on the very final page of their tedious and distasteful book they sum up “Laissez-faire individualism and gentlemanly Civil Service government are now only obstructive and dangerous survivals. Private interest in the old sense should have no meaning in the war. The only effective organization is scientific, it is also the democratic one”. They gave lip service at the very last minute to democracy, obviously as an after-thought and for no other reason than pure expediency and their awareness of the propaganda techniques which they propose throughout their book as it fittted in nowhere else with any of their rationale except as a matter of expediency for a matter which they recognise as existential and therefore, in a rather forgetful last minute sort of a way were forced to include in their calculations . You can imagine their German counterparts ending their manifesto with the same sentence, but an equivalent with a slightly different afterthought tacked onto the end “…The only effective organization is scientific, it is also the National Socialist one”.
Science In War rails against the civil service who the authors obviously despised with passion which apparently (of their own confession) is owed to the fact that the civil service had the actual authority that they craved for themselves and its’ democratic duty was to act as a barrier to the likes of the Tots and Quots whom without any sort of proper mandate thought that they should nevertheless be in charge of absolutely everything for the simple reason that they thought they knew best. They pour scorn on the British universities and their tradition of Greek philosophical thinking and moral values which they dismiss as "intoxication with verbalism" and "Christian dogma". Blinded by their own psuedo-socialist political dogma, the nihilism and excitement of the times and their understandable (but ultimately perverted in concept and manifestation) passion for science it is perceivable that they were doing the country, themselves, all future generations and science itself a murderous disservice with these arguments, for what it really was that they argued with success to abolish was wisdom. Any twit with privilege enough to attend school can become a scientist, no wit or wisdom is required, and yet the two approaches, the platonic and the scientific approaches to governance and indeed to all problem solving are not mutually exclusive. Wisdom is not taught in any scientific textbook yet the scientific method and the results of the scientific method if approached and handled with wisdom are more likely to be beneficial. In the relationship between the two methods wisdom should be senior partner, science the junior, and through wisdom science should be managed, just as it was in the pre-'total war' system which the Tots and Quots sought to usurp. The Tots and Quots, opportunists to a man, reversed this relationship between wisdom and science and as history and the modern situation reveal this does not work in any beneficial manner, certainly not for the majority of the population, though clearly this reversed relationship can be harnessed so that it brings results for the few who govern plutocratically and reap the benefits of science's power without resorting to empathy and compassion. Compassion and empathy are the beginnings of wisdom.
“Hitler learned the lesson of 1918. We did not. He is teaching it to us.” This is how the writers of science in war, who were to go on after the war to become the British scientific establishment, lamented the situation in the summer of 1940 regarding the poorly developed social sciences which they maintained would be the ideal systems to carry over the scientific method into the realm of propaganda and public control. To be able to control the population satisfactorily they asserted that these sciences must be nurtured and invigorated to become the tools which enable the leaders to understand and efficiently manipulate the minds of the people. In Science in War They quote Dr. Goebbels* to support their arguments “The Government must diagnose with an almost scientific precision the peoples soul, must be informed of all psychiatry in citizenry”. The changes that occurred in the social sciences post WW2 are a matter of historic record, the experimental psychology, the change of psychiatry from ‘soft’ to ‘hard' science to mention only the tip of the iceberg. Political science and social science existed before WW2 but during and after the war they took off with a vengeance, with the clear and substantiated support of the scientific establishment, that is to say in large part those individuals already mentioned above who were members of the Tots and Quots.
*(In Science in War 1940 the Tots and Quots treat Dr Joseph Goebbels with a sort of fanfare which they don’t spare for anyone else mentioned as examples or quoted in their book, a sort of jealous reverence and accord, putting themselves in complete concurrence with his techniques. It puts one in mind of the manor with which David Cameron would speak of Tony Blair in the days when Cameron was in opposition and Blair was the 3rd term Prime Minister).
It was of course not only scientists and journalists like Crowther who were members of the Tots and Quots, there were politicians involved too. Hugh Gaitskell was one of the best well known, becoming Labour's chancellor of the exchequer briefly from 1950 to 1951 in which year Labour lost the general election. Later, from 1955 to 1963 he was the leader of the labour party in opposition until his untimely death. The nature of his death led to suspicion of murder, a supposed KGB plot to ensure that Wilson (alleged to be a KGB plant) became prime minister. More details can be found in Peter Wrights ‘Spycatcher’ and recently declassified MI5 files show this suspicion was taken extremely seriously, leading to surveillance, bugging and phone tapping operations on Wilson.
In fact it was not just the death of Gaitskell, that brought suspicion onto Wilson, who as Labour leader and twice as prime-minister (1964-1970 and 1974-1976) was constantly under suspicion of being a Soviet agent by western intelligence services like MI5 and the CIA. It was KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn who claimed that the KGB had assassinated Gaitskell so that Wilson could take control of the Labour Party, and despite MI5 taking Golitsyn’s information sceptically they still suspected Wilson of being a Soviet agent. Peter Wright, ex-MI5 officer and author of the book Margaret Thatcher tried to suppress - ‘Spy-catcher’ - states that CIA Director James Angleton told him that Wilson was a communist spy.
In fact the situation pertaining to the suspicions about Wilson had become so serious that unbeknown to most of the public there were real moves in Britain in the late sixties and early seventies towards organising a military coup de’tat to depose him and bring into power an ‘interim emergency government’. In 1970 Wilson himself claimed to BBC reporters that MI5 had been moving to try to depose him in the late sixties and then again, about the time of the miners strikes of 1974. In 1974 this went as far as military manoeuvres taking place, ostensibly as a exercise based on the possibilities of IRA terrorism, but some claim these manoeuvres, unsanctioned by the government and which were aimed at taking military control of the countries infrastructure, were a dry run at a military coup and also a show of strength.
In 1976 Hubert "Hugh" Kinsman Cudlipp, Baron Cudlipp, related in his memoirs a meeting that took place between himself, Cecil King (owner of Mirror Group Newspapers and chairman of International Publishing Corporation later Director of the Bank of England ), Lord Mountbatten of Burma and Solly Zuckerman* who was at that time the Chief Scientific advisor to the government. The subject of the meeting being coup de’tat. Cudlipp recalled: "[Cecil] awaited the arrival of Sir Solly and then at once expounded his views on the gravity of the national situation, the urgency for action, and then embarked upon a shopping list of the Prime Minister's shortcomings...He explained that in the crisis he foresaw as being just around the corner, the Government would disintegrate, there would be bloodshed in the streets and the armed forces would be involved. The people would be looking to somebody like Lord Mountbatten as the titular head of a new administration, somebody renowned as a leader of men, who would be capable, backed by the best brains and administrators in the land, to restore public confidence. He ended with a question to Mountbatten- would he agree to be the titular head of a new administration in such circumstances?"
According to Cuddlip' memoirs at that point Mountbatten asked for the opinion of Zuckerman, who stated that the plan amounted to treason and left the room. Mountbatten expressed the same opinion, and King and Cudlipp left.
Shortly after this King was dismissed as the head of International Publishing Corporation, but soon found himself as the Director of the Bank of England.
*(Please note the relationship between the soon to be head the Bank of England and Zuckerman is conspiratorial by definition. Bear this in mind when looking at the link between Zuckerman and Baron Rothschild which is detailed below. The Rothschilds along with others [likely including the Windsors] are the main shareholders in the Bank of England. The publicised claims which state that since 1946 the Bank of England has been a nationalised corporation are clearly false, because the Bank of England is a profit making corporation, and hence we have the unavoidable incurrence of debt incurred nationally as a systemic by-product of the creation of our currency. We will look at this system in detail in the soon to be published second chapter of this book. For now it will have to suffice for me to explain that usually the shareholders in corporations must (by law) publicly publish their interests in that corporation but a special act of law [1946 BoE Act] allows an exception [secrecy] for the Bank of England. When one examines the 1946 Bank of England Act which ostensibly nationalised the BoE we discover that the profits from the creation and issue of money are divided between the Crown and the shareholders, with 25% of the profits going to H.M. treasury and the remaining 75% of the profits going into the hands of the shareholders who received them previously, before the act. The foremost amongst these shareholders was and still is the Rothschild family. This explains to whom our national debt is owed, these are the plutocrats whose power is in secrecy and the control of capital. It’s not only our own national debt, similarly the national debt of almost every country on earth is owned by the central banks of each of these countries (including the U.S), the central banks which are the monopoly and power base of the banking houses who have partnerships in all these corporations - they are the plutocrats of unbridled capitalism, an invisible global empire of capital.
There are now only five nations in the world left without a plutocratically controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya. Until very recently the number of countries without a central bank was seven and included Afghanistan and Iraq).
GO TO PAGE 5 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOME FORUM A.B.C. PART 2:I A.B.C. PART 2:II A.B.C. PART 2:III