See also:
www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/contents.htm
Credit Suisse Research Institute “Global Wealth Report” (2018)
Social disparity has reached an extreme level and current statistics indicate that an ultra-rich segment (>1% of the total population) owns ≈50% of the worlds entire wealth, i.e., ≈$140 trillion are owned by a infinitesimal small minority of humanity; but see the Credit Suisse Research Institute “Global Wealth Report” from 2018.
URL: www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/research/research-institute/global-wealth-report.html
- Global Wealth Report 2018 (PDF)
- Global Wealth Databook 2018 (PDF)
. (2018). Global Wealth Databook 2018. Credit Suisse doi.org/10.1038/nbt0910-907
Show/hide publication abstract
The Network of Global Corporate Control
. (2011). The Network of Global Corporate Control. PLoS ONE, 6(10), e25995.
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025995
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
Plato – The Republic
‘In which case, the wisdom of a city founded on natural principles
depends entirely on its smallest group and element – the leading and
ruling element — and the knowledge that element possesses. The class
which can be expected to share in this branch of knowledge, which of all
branches of knowledge is the only one we can call wisdom, is by its nature,
apparently, the smallest class.’
Socrates in dialogue with Glaucon
‘Well, I think the first one to catch the eye is wisdom. And it seems to
have an unusual feature.’
‘What is that?’
‘It is truly wise, I think, this city we have described. It has good judg¬
ment, doesn’t it?’
‘Yes.’
‘Now this thing, judgment, is clearly knowledge of some sort. Good
decisions, I take it, are the result of knowledge, not ignorance.’
‘Obviously.’
‘But our city contains many types of knowledge, of very different
kinds.’
‘Of course it does.’
‘Is it the knowledge possessed by its carpenters which entitles us to call
c our city wise, and say it possesses good judgment?’
‘Certainly not,’ he said. ‘That merely entitles us to call it good at car¬
pentry.’
‘So a city is not to be called wise because of its knowledge and judg¬
ment in making the best possible wooden furniture.’
‘Absolutely not.’
‘How about its knowledge of making things out of bronze, or any other
knowledge of that kind?’
‘No, nothing like that,’ he said.
‘Nor the knowledge of how to grow crops from the soil, since that’s
called farming.’
‘So I believe.’
‘Is there, then,’ I asked, ‘among any of the citizens of this city we have
d just founded, any branch of knowledge which makes decisions about the
city as a whole – deciding on the best approach to itself and to other cities
– and not about one particular element in the city?’
‘There most certainly is.’
‘What is this knowledge, and in which group is it to be found?’
‘It is the knowledge possessed by the guardians,’ he said. ‘And it is
to be found in the rulers, whom we have just been calling the perfect
guardians.’ 11
‘And what is the label you give your city on the strength of this know¬
ledge?’
‘I call it sound in judgment, and truly wise.’
e ‘So which do you think our city will have more of? Metalworkers, or
these true guardians?’
‘Metalworkers,’ he said. ‘Far more.’
‘Of all the groups which have a branch of knowledge of their own, and
which are identified as a group, wouldn’t the guardians be the smallest?’
‘Easily the smallest.’
‘In which case, the wisdom of a city founded on natural principles
depends entirely on its smallest group and element – the leading and
ruling element — and the knowledge that element possesses. The class
which can be expected to share in this branch of knowledge, which of all
branches of knowledge is the only one we can call wisdom, is by its nature,
apparently, the smallest class.’
‘That’s very true,’ he said.
Sir Francis Galton (*1822;†1911): Hereditary Genius
Sir Francis Galton, was an English Victorian era statistician, polymath, sociologist, psychologist, anthropologist, eugenicist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist, and psychometrician. He was knighted in 1909.
Galton produced over 340 papers and books. He also created the statistical concept of correlation and widely promoted regression toward the mean. He was the first to apply statistical methods to the study of human differences and inheritance of intelligence, and introduced the use of questionnaires and surveys for collecting data on human communities, which he needed for genealogical and biographical works and for his anthropometric studies.
He was a pioneer in eugenics, coining the term itself and the phrase “nature versus nurture”. His book Hereditary Genius (1869) was the first social scientific attempt to study genius and greatness.
As an investigator of the human mind, he founded psychometrics (the science of measuring mental faculties) and differential psychology and the lexical hypothesis of personality. He devised a method for classifying fingerprints that proved useful in forensic science. He also conducted research on the power of prayer, concluding it had none by its null effects on the longevity of those prayed for. His quest for the scientific principles of diverse phenomena extended even to the optimal method for making tea.
Joseph Goebbels principles of propaganda
„We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem… We are coming neither as friends or neutrals. We come as enemies! As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we.“ — Joseph Goebbels
„The people’s community must not be a mere phrase, but a revolutionary achievement following from the radical carrying out of the basic life needs of the working class. A ruthless battle against corruption! A war against exploitation, freedom for the workers! The elimination of all economic-capitalist influences on national policy. Maintaining a rotten economic system has nothing to do with nationalism, which is an affirmation of the Fatherland.“ — Joseph Goebbels
A lesser known fact is that Goebbels stratagems were “inspired” by Edward Bernays (who authored the book entitled “Propaganda” in 1928).
Bernays stated the following in his 1965 autobiography:
They were using my books as the basis for a destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. This shocked me, but I knew any human activity can be used for social purposes or misused for antisocial ones.
Further References
. (1950). Goebbels’ Principles of Propaganda. Public Opinion Quarterly
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1086/266211
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (2006). Propaganda and the German Cinema, 1933-1945. The History Teacher
Plain numerical DOI: 10.2307/493610
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
Propaganda and mass persuasion: a historical encyclopedia, 1500 to the present. (2013). Choice Reviews Online
Plain numerical DOI: 10.5860/choice.41-2561
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (2005). The “jewish War”: Goebbels and the antisemitic campaigns of the Nazi propaganda ministry. Holocaust and Genocide Studies
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1093/hgs/dci003
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (1993). Manufacturing a consensus: Nazi propaganda and the building of a ‘national community’ (volksgemeinschaft). Contemporary European History
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1017/S096077730000028X
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
Origins of the “conspiracy meme”
For more detailed information visit: conspiracy-theories.eu
The term “conspiracy theory” was invented and put into public discourse by the CIA in 1964 in order to discredit the many skeptics who challenged the Warren Commission’s conclusion that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald, who himself was assassinated while in police custody before he could be questioned. The CIA used its friends in the media to launch a campaign to make suspicion of the Warren Commission report a target of ridicule and hostility. This campaign was “one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”
This writes political science professor Lance deHaven-Smith, in his peer-reviewed book which was published by the University of Texas Press. He reports the story of how the CIA succeeded in creating in the public mind uncritical, reflexive, automatic, (System 1) stigmatization of those who challenge official government explanations (cf. ostracism).
CIA Document #1035-960
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
Note: Released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The document shows how the term “conspiracy” is being utilised to prevent critical rational analysis and “dissenting” perspectives.
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy’s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission’s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission’s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein‘s theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane’s book is much less convincing that Epstein‘s and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission’s records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy’s brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.
e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator. He was a “loner,” mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.
f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the “ten mysterious deaths” line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
Parapsychology: CIA testing Uri Geller
The CIA was very interested in various methods to manipulate and exploit the human mind. Besides illegal experiments which involved psychotropic drugs and torture, they were also interested in parapsychology as the document at hand shows.
The objective of this group of experimental sessions was to verify Geller’s apparent paranormal perception under carefully controlled conditions with the goal of understanding the physical and psychological variables underlying such ability.
Operation Northwoods
Operation Northwoods was a proposed, and almost implemented false flag operation against the Cuban government that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The plans detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.[2] The proposals were rejected by John F. Kennedy.[3][4][5]
The next million years by Charles Galton Darwin
Sir Charles Galton Darwin, KBE, MC, FRS was an English physicist who served as director of the National Physical Laboratory during the Second World War. He was the son of the mathematician George Howard Darwin and a grandson of Charles Darwin. More at Wikipedia
Hormonal modification
“Another type of discovery may be connected with hormones, those internal chemical secretions which so largely regulate the operations of the human body. The artificial use of hormones has already been shown to have profound effects on the behaviour of animals, and it seems quite possible that hormones, or perhaps drugs, might have similar effects on man. For example, there might be a drug, which, without other harmful effects, removed the urgency of sexual desire, and so reproduced in humanity the status of workers in a beehive. Or there might be another drug that produced a permanent state of contentment in the recipient—after all alcohol does something like this already, though it has other disadvantages and is only temporary in its effects. A dictator would certainly welcome the compulsory administration of the “contentment drug” to his subjects.” p183
Oligarchical monopoly
“Widespread wealth can never be common in an overcrowded world, and so in most countries of the future the government will inevitably be autocratic or oligarchic; some will give good government and some bad, and the goodness or badness will depend much more on the personal merits of the rulers than it does in a more democratic country.” p.194
Normative government
“To think of it as possible at other times is a misunderstanding of the function of government in any practical sense of the term. If the only things that a government was required to do were what everybody, or nearly everybody, wanted, there would be no need for the government to exist at all, because the things would be done anyhow; this would be the impracticable ideal of the anarchist. But if there are to be starving margins of population in most parts of the world, mere benevolence cannot suffice. There would inevitably be ill feeling and jealousy between the provinces, with each believing that it was not getting its fair share of the good things, and in fact, it would be like the state of affairs with which we are all too familiar. If then there is ever to be a world government, it will have to function as government do now, in the sense that it will have to coerce a minority – and indeed it may often be a majority – into doing things they do not want to.” p.191
THE NEXT MILLION YEARS
BY
CHARLES GALTON DARWIN
The_Next_Million_YearsDownload
- George Pember Darwin (1928–2001) worked developing computers, and then (1964) married Angela Huxley, daughter of David Bruce Huxley. She was also a granddaughter of the writer Leonard Huxley and a great-granddaughter of Thomas Huxley, “Darwin’s Bulldog”.
After the death of his first wife, Leonard married Rosalind Bruce (1890–1994), and had two further sons. The elder of these was David Bruce Huxley (1915-1992), whose daughter Angela Huxley married George Pember Darwin, son of the physicist Sir Charles Galton Darwin (and thus a great-grandson of Charles Darwin married a great-granddaughter of Thomas Huxley). The younger son (1917-2012) was the Nobel Prize winner, physiologist Andrew Fielding Huxley.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huxley_family
Further References
. (2009). Scientific Cousins: The Relationship Between Charles Darwin and Francis Galton. American Psychologist
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1037/a0013339
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (2001). Sir Francis Galton and the Birth of Eugenics. Annual Review of Genetics
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1146/annurev.genet.35.102401.090055
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (1998). Francis Galton: And eugenics today. Journal of Medical Ethics
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1136/jme.24.2.99
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (1985). Essays in eugenics. The History of hereditarian thought ; 16
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1038/064659b0
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (2002). A life of Sir Francis Galton. From African exploration to the birth of eugenics. Human Genetics
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1086/374096
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (2013). Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity. In Brenner’s Encyclopedia of Genetics: Second Edition
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-374984-0.00060-7
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (2003). Francis Galton: Pioneer of Heredity and Biometry. Journal of Heredity
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1086/521468
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (2008). Sir Francis Galton and the roots of eugenics. Society
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/s12115-008-9058-8
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (2008). A new perspective on Darwin’s Pangenesis. Biological Reviews
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2008.00036.x
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (2005). Eugenics: Some lessons from the past. Reproductive BioMedicine Online
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)62222-5
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (2011). Race, racism, and Darwinism. Education and Urban Society
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1177/0013124510380723
DOI URL
directSciHub download
Show/hide publication abstract
. (2011). Francis Galton centenary. Significance
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00507.x
DOI URL
directSciHub download