The Royal Society: An Illustrious Group of Fellows


'Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice, And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.' ~ St Paul to the Ephesians

What links Thomas Malthus, Charles Darwin, J.Robert Oppenheimer, Lord Rothschild, Clement Attlee, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Richard Dawkins, Isaac Newton, Charles Galton Darwin, Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous, who wrote Brave New World, David Attenbrough, Henry Wellcome, John D Rockefeller, Tim Bernard Lee, Bertrand Russell and many, many other 'luminaries'?

Answer: The Royal Society, but also, most of them either did or do now support eugenics in some form or other. The Royal Society have, if we are honest, been at the forefront of the building of the promotion of the application of science, medicine and technology without recourse to what we would call conscience for what is now centuries. I obtained a book recently that made me question the role of this Society in the forming of the culture of death that we now inhabit. For me it is the names on the roll call that get me wondering about their role and several passages in the book, The Royal Society Tercentenery, published by The Times, in 1960, made me wonder how powerful has this institution been? The Society has been at the forefront of, I think we can assume, every revolution in British culture and society since the 1600s. Just listen to this for creepiness value and see how it contrasts with what the Catholic Church has always understood as the moral foundations for the application of new discoveries in natural science:

'There can be no official view in science. The Society, according to its motto, is bound to no masters words and neither are its Fellows.  This independence, which 300 years ago marked a breaking free from Aristotle and the masters of antiquity, can be taken today to mean independence from set orthodoxies, preconceived philosophies and prejudice deriving from day to day policy.'
'The society has been internationalist in its interests from the beginning and has so been recognised. It has survived in form the American War of Independence, the Napoleonic Wars, two World Wars and a period of tensions with Russia without damage to its relations with overseas scientists'.
International cooperation in research leans more heavily on organization than ever before.  Whether the subject is space, oceanography, or questions of units and symbols, there is an advantage and influence in promoting agreement from the existence of a national body of scientists whose tradition is to consider issues on their merits. Without claiming more for the Society than its due, this has been the reputation won by its representatives on international bodies - regardless of the issue discussed.
Participation by both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh in the celebrations is from one point of view, a matter domestic to the Society. The one is Patron, the other a Fellow; and the Society is royal by Charter. But there is another, more constitutional way of looking at the matter. Whereas various other countries have national academies in the sense that the state is responsible for them, the Royal Society has been an independent organization from the beginning. It is in touch with government departments, both in its own right and through various of its Fellows. But it is not of them - and in fact there lies much of the strength of the Society. It is a means by which opinion can be brought to bear, and it acts also as a non-official purveyor of research and grants. In conditions in which the greater part of the funds needed for research come directly or indirectly from the Treasury, this is an already useful safeguard - and it is likely to grow in importance. In this sense it may be said that the Society is necessary to the state, but it is not responsible to it; and in the peculiar British way of doing things the cloak of royalty is then appropriate.'

The book goes on to cite as achievements of Fellows of the Society a range of scientific achievements.  These include developments in medicine, radio astronomy, genetic research, nuclear research, the development of computer technology, geophysics, electrical engineering, space exploration, developments in supersonic flight and agriculture.

Too many people in the world...especially poor types!
One thing I did not know before I read this book is that two luminaries who have made a dramatic impact upon the world as we know it today published their works as Fellows of the same Society. These two individuals were Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin.

In fact, it turns out that in the long years of the incubation of Darwin's theory of evolution, 'at Downe House in Kent he was much influenced by Sir Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, but the flash of inspiration had come from his chance reading of the Essays on Population by Malthus in 1838.'

'Darwin postponed publication until all his evidenced was marshalled, but in 1858 (Alfred Wallace Russell) Wallace sent him the draft of a paper with an identical point of view. He also had been inspired by the recollection of the Malthus essay when lying stricken by a fever in Singapore.  The happy sequel to this remarkable coincidence was the publication of their two essays on the theory of natural selection, followed by The Origin of Species a year later.'

How interesting it is that the 'flash of inspiration' (would that be 'natural selection' and the 'survival of the fittest'?) for Darwin's Origin of Species was a book by an over-population propagandist whose predictions concerning food resources and populace's consumption were dismally, hopelessly wrong. Not that this fact stops those in power and influence using his theories to update his pretty appalling views to the 21st century in their attempts to spread abortion, artificial contraception and sterilisation around the globe with a dash of environmentalism put into the mix in order to create panic over the issue of population.



Thanks for that one John Robert Oppenheimer. Thanks Royal Society! Amazing what you can create when you dispose of any previous 'orthodoxies' or 'pre-conceived philosophies' and answer to, basically, er, nobody!

Charles Galton Darwin went on to apply to human beings what his grandfather discovered and, inspired by the same Malthusian fallacies that prompted his grandfather's scientific breakthroughs, wrote works such as The Next Million Years, which argued the case for social coercion by the state or other institutions in encouraging the population of the the lower classes to limit breeding.

Charles Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton, established the British Eugenics Society that would become in later years The Galton Institute, which would have as its own luminaries such figures as Marie Stopes, Margaret Sanger, Arthur Balfour of the Declaration that would create the State of Israel (also in The Royal Society), William Beveridge (founder of the NHS that now kills the elderly), Margaret Pyke, Professor Steve Jones (also of the Society who promotes human embryology), John Arthur Keynes (of Keynesian economics) and Neville Chamberlain, despite the fact that, in the wake of Hitler, eugenics had been dealt a rather nasty blow. Obviously not, in the minds of those who built post-war Britain, a fatal blow.

The two wars had, of course, reduced human population upon the planet somewhat dramatically and laid the foundations for the two revolutions that would hit Britain and the Western world, the sexual revolution and technological revolutions that bring us to where we are today - the internet and communication revolutions brought to us in no small part by the founder of the world wide web, a notable Fellow of the Royal Society himself.

Julian Huxley with C.P Blacker discussing world population trends...
A key figure in the Royal Society with a particular interest in eugenics includes Julian Huxley, who was also, conveniently, the first Director-General of UNESCO - an international body within the United Nations with a  particular interest in population control and population issues.

That will, of course, be the same UN institution which this week have said, explicitly, that religious objections have no rights in spreading abortion, artificial contraception and sterilization into those nations which have not yet accepted it as it extends the same 'rights' to those nations which have. So watch out Poland and, obviously, watch out Ireland because if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would wonder whether the goal of the secularization of the West and the destruction of Christianity might not have, as its end game, a huge desire by the rich and powerful to impede the breeding of the poor and powerless. It is worth noting too that Huxley was a key figure in the Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA) formed by eugenicists that was to become Abortion Rights, the group that scream at people who pray the Rosary outside BPAS and Marie Stopes. Current notable Professors who are Fellows of the Royal Society who are, I would suspect, playing their part in the field of human embryology and fertilization, as well as IVF.

I dare say I shall write more on this matter in time, but suffice to day that James Delingpole, who did so much to expose the data fraud that has marked climate research in the UK is not a big fan of this institution and the power it wields, especially, seemingly, over such broadcasting corporations as the BBC and the mainstream media that continues to pump out doom-mongering for the human race over the issue of climate.

From the architects of the Industrial Revolution to the architects of the sexual revolution, the broadcasting and communication revolution and the technological revolution in which we are presently situated, the Royal Society has been at the forefront of change, at a national and supranational level, its Fellows working within government, institutions forming an international network of illuminated experts. If you want to understand the dramatic role that this Society has had in changing Britain, for better in ways, but in many ways terribly worse, then, if you've got an hour or two, watch the Olympics Opening Ceremony - a real explanation of the powerful role this Society has played, in our society. Sadly, many, if not all of the Fellows, are notorious eugenicists. Here, once again, is one of the Fellows, discussing the issue of infanticide with a man, Peter Singer who has been invited by Fordham University to talk to Catholics while advocating infanticide.




Fellows of this illustrious society brought you the atom bomb, the pill, abortion, abortifacients, the deathly NHS, the welfare state and a host of social evils into which the British population, as well as other populations have been enticed. The Society is comprised by those who have been on the left and right of British politics. As far as I can see, the one thing that binds a sizable number of these Fellows together, is, saddeningly for us and the whole World, the evil of eugenics. The dystopia that has been under construction and is still under construction has been built and is being built by them. As they boast in their book, 'the Society is necessary to the state, but not responsible to it.' Is there any other independent organization in Britain that can claim that it is 'necessary to the state, but not responsible to it'?

Comments


Hi,
Punch into google search SAVITA HALAPPANAVAR , THE MURDER OF THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH--VADAKAYIL
Psychologists will say-- If someone starts telling you what country you're in , or telling you screamingly obvious facts about that country, ( Ireland is a Catholic country etc ) it's time to look to start worrying, and buzz off from there--- EL PRONTO--
-- for they now intend to teach you a lesson you will never ever forget.
If you make the mistake of looking them in the eye , tellin' you are NOT Catholic or Irish , but a Hindu Indian --
-- then only God save you from Catholic vindictiveness, we in India are too familiar with this during our 400 years of slavery, to white Catholics.
Wise men will tell you that people simply do not bring up the country they are in , in a context just like that unless they are being racist.
Wisdom dictates -- Savita’s tearful termination pleas were taken less seriously because they were perceived as the pleas of an unchurched , uncouth , pagan foreigner who should have some more respect for Irish Catholic beliefs and values.
Which Indian doctor will tell a Catholic white woman that you are in HINDU INDIA now?
Capt Ajit Vadakayil
..
The Bones said…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43155122/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-girls-aborted-india-years/

Will that be the same India that has aborted 12 million unborn children for the crime of being female?

Over to you Captain.

The only slavery imposed on the modern World is that slavery by which the international community exports child murder across the globe to kill off and reduce the population of the poor in particular.

Having aborted 12 million little girls, India is in no position to talk about women's rights.
Lynda said…
Ireland has had the lowest maternal death rate in the world for 30 years. It excels in obstetrics and maternal medicine. Abortion is not medicine. Abortion is the opposite of medicine. The international Media has simply regurgitated the pro-abortion propaganda put out by the Irish Media, in particular the Irish Times, and it's gross abuse of the woman's death for this purpose. The facts have been ignored as they don't suit their agenda, which is to legalise abortion here in Iteland. The sad death of the mother has nothing whatever to do with abortion - it is medicine a woman needs when she has a life-threatening condition. We will know in time if there was any medical negligence. Sadly, sometimes people cannot be saved, even when they get the best medical treatment. An International Symposium on Excellence in Maternal Healthcare recently held in Dublin confirmed the incontrovertible fact that abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life. All of the lectures are online. As for the tendentious use of "Catholic", it has no relevance. All human beings ought to condemn the intentional killing of innocent, defenceless children in utero - because it is objectively and gravely wrong. Reason makes this natural law knowable by all human beings, not just Catholics.
Katie said…
Thanks for the article. It seems to me that Prospect Magazine is one of the publications which they use to get these ideas in front of the general public and to give the impression to non-scientists that hey everything here is very ethical nothing going on so move along there.
Hughie said…
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support allegations, and that is all they are, that this unfortunate woman was told either that she was in Ireland and it was a Catholic country OR that because it was a Catholic country abortion was illegal.

I presume the Captain is a Hindu. Indian, and Hindu, Gynaecologist Hema Divakar, president-elect of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) for 2013-2014, gave an interview to The Hindu newspaper and defended her Irish colleagues. She said: “Based on information in the media, in that situation of septicaemia, if the doctors had meddled with the live baby, Savita would have died two days earlier.

“Delay or refusal to terminate the pregnancy does not in itself seem to be the cause of death. Even if the law permitted it, it is not as if her life would have been saved because of termination.”

She further explained: “Severe septicaemia with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), a life-threatening bleeding disorder which is a complication of sepsis, major organ damage and loss of the mother’s blood due to severe infection, is the cause of death in Savita’s case. This is what seems to have happened and this is a sequence which cannot be reversed just by terminating the pregnancy.

“Based on available information, Savita would have reported pain and infection and doctors would have indicated a miscarriage as the 17-week foetus may not have grown as expected. Its growth would have been deteriorating because of the infection. Having understood that the baby was not going to make it, the couple would have asked for termination. But as Savita’s infection may have required aggressive treatment at that stage, doctors must have felt the need to prevent complications. The usual [practice] is to meddle the least till the mother is stable.”

Asserting that it is wise to wait in cases with such complications at 17 weeks, Dr. Divakar said: “As per reports, the baby’s heartbeat stopped after three days. But that was expected.”

But of course, highjacked by the anti-life brigade, why would the media in Ireland, here and abroad have any interest in the truth?
Genty said…
In answer your post, Capt. Vadakayil, may I point out that the circumstances of what led to the Savita's miscarriage and septicaema are not fully known. The whole story will come out in due course and therefore it would be premature to blame the doctors for allowing a womsn to die for purely ideological grounds.
While on the subject of ideology, let me remind you of India's robust caste system. There are 160m Dalits (Untouchables) in India, an estimated 25 per cent of the populatiion.
"Only 27 percent of Dalits women give institutional deliveries in India; 83 per 1000 live birth children born in Dalit community are probability of dying before the first birthday; half of India’s Dalit children are undernourished, 21% are severely underweight & 12% die before their 5th birthday; public health workers refused to visit Dalit homes in 33% of villages."
Source: National Human Rights Commission Report on the Prevention and Atrocities against Scheduled Castes
this site
Simon Platt said…
I agree with Hughie, especially "But of course, highjacked by the anti-life brigade, why would the media in Ireland, here and abroad have any interest in the truth?".
Simon Platt said…
Apropos of the Royal Society, I for one don't believe their protestations of independence and open-mindedness. Scientists like me are just as prone to all kinds of temptations as the rest of humanity, including the temptation to seek approbation from our peers or from the powers that be. And that risks corrupting our judgement. The Royal Society is, in my view, a particular case in point, and its fellows would do well to recognise that.
pelerin said…
There is a trailer running at the moment on the BBC for a future programme called 'Why poverty?'. Directly underneath is '4 born every minute.'


I suppose the BBC would argue that they are not actually saying that population increase is the cause of poverty (not having yet seen the programme I have no idea of its content) but by placing that information directly under the heading they sure are pushing the idea.
pelerin said…
The programme 'Four born every second' (not minute as I wrote before) is on BBC l tonight after the 10 o'clock News.