The Occult Tesla Part 9

Thomas Huxley’s War on the Soul and the Rise of Social Imperialism

Part 1: Newton, Rosicrucianism and the Imperial Control of Science
Part 2: Tesla’s Eugenics (and other Black Magick)
Part 3: Tesla and his Nazi Friend… The Strangest Friendship
Part 4: Tesla’s Martians and H.G. Wells
Part 5: Tesla: From Extreme Empiricist to Father of A.I. Gods
Part 6: Why Tesla Flattened Space and Attacked Einstein
Part 7: Tesla Evolves a New Species!
Part 8: Bulwer’s Dream and the Coming Race

As outlined in the new film H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds and the Dawn of a New Age, Thomas Huxley’s nest of Royal Society influencers tended to move in between spiritualist/occult activities attempting to channel spirits, perform alchemy and astral projection across the ‘luminiferous ether’ while simultaneously conducting ‘respectable scientific work’ by day.

Leading members affiliated with Huxley’s elite scientific network in London’s Royal Society often overlapped with Sir Edward Bulwer-Lytton’s occult revival, and Huxley was himself a member of London’s elite Atheneum Club alongside Bulwer-Lytton.

Thomas Huxley was also a leading innovator of a new approach to empire dubbed ‘social imperialism’ by another influential occultist named John Ruskin, who was a founding member of the South London Working Men’s College. This network of imperial socialists centered in the Working Mens’ College formed the nexus of a new movement created to direct the justifiable rage of the mobs of poor and oppressed towards ends that would:

1) Tend to result in toppling nations whether animated by just or unjust leadership under a concept of eternal class struggle and

2) Would undermine the spread of the American system of national economics both in the USA itself and globally during the second half of the 19th century and beyond.

Unlike the British imperial school of “capitalism” which relied on independently operating private central banks, total free trade, speculation, and looting, the American system of national economics which periodically came to prominence in the USA was based on protectionism, national banks under the law of the sovereign nation state instead of private financiers, public works and the continuous increase of the productive powers of labor through industrial progress and new scientific discoveries.

This later component of the American system was itself premised on the concept that not the markets, utility or desires “caused” economic value, but rather that economic value was caused by the increased power of citizens to make discoveries, and apply those discoveries into making life better for themselves and the world. To the degree that this was done, the Malthusian population limits could forever be broken, which the British Darwinists demanded never be permitted to occur, for fear that the system of Empire itself would come undone.

Hence, just as Isaac Newton was created largely to mimic the discoveries of real scientists like Johannes Kepler or Gottfried Leibniz earlier (outlined in part 1 of this series), so too was the newly emerging science of political economy co-opted and hollowed of its essence by a grouping around John Ruskin, Lord Palmerston, David Urqhardt and Giuseppe Mazzini which came to be known as ‘communism’.

[Note: The details of this story were most clearly developed in Richard Poe’s essay How the British Invented Communism and Blamed it on the Jews, and Andrew Laverdiere’s The British Empire Returns To A 168 Year Crime-a Scene. ]

This new ideology, shaped over years within the corridors of the British Museum, would adopt certain elements of the American System as outlined by such figures as Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, and Henry C. Carey, eliminate the essence of the system and then infuse a myriad of Trojan horse assumptions into the British-made doppelganger. Among those trojan horses were included 1) the belief in forever class struggles, 2) the obsession with eliminating entrepreneurship (aka: the actual cause of the middle class and the assumed cause of inequality), 3) religion (dubbed ‘the opiate of the masses’ and cause of alienation), and 4) the rejection the possibility of any harmony of interests between industrialist, farmer, worker and entrepreneur.

This latter concept of ‘a Harmony of Interests’ was in fact the title of Lincoln advisor Henry C. Carey’s 1852 book which took direct aim at the new thesis promoted by the social imperialists of London.

A Manchester industrialist named Friedrich Engels soon became a regular attendee of Ruskin’s salons which steered the growth of this new utopian doctrine internationally. By 1844, Engels began working with a young revolutionary named Karl Marx and in 1847 (just in time for Young Europe proletariate upheavals across Europe), the duo co-authored the Communist Manifesto creating a cohesive, internally consistent model outlining the scientific management of society.

This new model stood in convenient contrast with the British system of political economy outlined by Adam Smith in 1776 which promoted a set of fallacies wrapped in “scientific” language, namely:

1) that wealth was created by animal desires expressed by free markets

2) that the decisions of all people are bounded only by rational self-interest animated on a pleasure/pain principle of buying low and selling dear, and

3) That sovereign nation states must NEVER play a role in economics by engaging in regulation, protectionism, national banking etc…

The obvious controlled opposition between Smith’s ‘science’ of free trade and the new system of 'centralized’ scientific management would result in a convenient dualism which the empire would use many times to induce its victims to get enmeshed into a spiders’ web.

Marx expressed his understanding of this formula within his defense of free trade in his ‘The Question of Free Trade’:

“But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries the antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade”.

John Ruskin and Thomas Huxley’s Peculiar Socialism

Despite promoting a thing called “socialism” in their many lectures and writings, John Ruskin and Thomas Huxley were unabashed misanthropes who despised technological progress as much as they despised the overpopulated poor.

In the mid-19th century, it was well understood that the only viable form of socialism (ie: a society founded upon social values governing the behavior of the economy) was premised on the concept that ‘all men are created equal’, endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights of each sovereign citizen and the General Welfare mandate as outlined in America’s founding documents.

In contrast to these social principles, John Ruskin had the following to say: “The Americans, as a nation set their trust in liberty and equality, of which I detest the one, and deny the possibility of the other.”

Ruskin, whose teachings went on to directly inspire Cecil Rhodes, Lord Milner, Arnold Toynbee and Thomas Huxley, outlined his peculiar form of socialism saying:

“In the case of the old families, which… however decadent, still truly are, the noblest monumental architecture of the kingdom, living temples of sacred tradition and hero’s religion, so much land ought to be granted to them in perpetuity as may enable them to live thereon with all circumstances of state and outward nobleness. their income must be fixed and paid them by the state, as the king’s is… Their land should be kept in conditions of natural grace [under'] such agriculture as develops the happiest peasant life… agriculture which… must reject the aid of all mechanism except that of instruments guided solely by the human hand, or by the animal”.

Along with Ruskin (and British Prime Minister William Gladstone), Thomas Huxley acted as first principal of the South London Working Men’s College which formed the basis of the International Working Mens’ Association (aka: First International) launched in London in 1864.