by Phillip D. Collins ©, July 25th, 2005

“A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy.”

– Aldous Huxley

The Alchemy of Warfare

As I have established in previous articles, Darwinism was but one more permutation of an ancient occult doctrine of transformism. This occult belief originated in Mesopotamia roughly 6000 years ago and was actively promulgated by the various Mystery cults. It also comprises the ruling class religion of today. At the heart of the doctrine is the claim that man is gradually evolving towards apotheosis. Throughout the years, the religion of apotheosized man has recycled itself under numerous appellations. Darwinism was but one more installment in this seamless ideational continuum. In this series, I am going to examine one of the chief facilitators of man’s purported evolution: war.

In his book Evolution and Ethics, Darwinian Sir Arthur Keith wrote:

If war be the progeny of evolution–and I am convinced that it is–then evolution has “gone mad,” reaching such a height of ferocity as must frustrate its proper role in the world of life–which is the advancement of her competing “units”, these being tribes, nations, or races of mankind. There is no way of getting rid of war save one, and that is to rid human nature of the sanctions imposed on it by the law of evolution. Can man … render the law of evolution null and void? … I have discovered no way that is at once possible and practicable. (105)

Thus, Keith established the centrality of war to evolutionary development. Jacques Barzun eloquently reiterates this contention:

Darwin did not invent the Machiavellian image that the world is the playground of the lion and the fox, but thousands discovered that he had transformed political science . . . War became the symbol, the image, the inducement, the reason, and the language of all human beings on the planet. No one who has not waded through some sizable part of the literature of the period 1870-1914 has any conception of the extent to which it is one long call for blood . . . (100)

Indeed, Darwinism totally altered political science. Now questions of governance and the administration of human affairs assumed an evolutionary framework. The ruling class has a stake in engineering global conflicts. Not only do wars cull “surplus populations,” thus satisfying the Malthusian precepts of Darwinism, but also they tangibly enact the dialectical framework intrinsic to evolutionary theory. This framework is Hegelian. The organism (thesis) comes into conflict with nature (antithesis) resulting in a newly enhanced species (synthesis), the culmination of the evolutionary process (Marrs 127). It is the hope of the elite that, through the continuous promulgation of warfare, this harmonious synthesis shall be tangibly realized. In this context, war serves an alchemical function.

Over the years, the various scientific dictatorships of the world have assumed convergent trajectories. While making war with one another, these scientific dictatorships simultaneously synthesize and birth new authoritarian regimes. Why? In reality, these scientific dictatorships have been little more than variants of the same socialist totalitarian system. Thus, the ostensible conflicts among these competing socialist regimes actually represent incremental phases in a process of coalitional integration. The final Hegelian synthesis is intended to be a global scientific dictatorship.

War is integral to the elite’s evolutionary script, facilitating the dialectical convergence of the many scientific dictatorships littering the globe. The Hegelian synthesis of the world’s various scientific dictatorships into a global government stipulates continual war. In turn, such perpetual conflict requires the manufacturing of adversaries to engage in fraudulent skirmishes. In short, war is alchemy. By synthesizing metallurgy, physics, occultism, and several other fields of study, the alchemists hoped to ultimately achieve the transmutation of man himself. Today, the power elite strives towards the same end, but through the synthesizing of global powers instead. War is one of the chief means by which this synthesis is achieved.

The Report from Iron Mountain

The plans for perpetual warfare were most thoroughly delineated within The Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace. Released in 1966, this document purported to be the product of a Special Study Group of fifteen men whose identities were to remain secret. For several years, the authenticity of the report has been in question. This skepticism only intensified when the document’s author publicly declared that the report was a “satire.” However, other parties with substantial credibility have defended the authenticity of The Report from Iron Mountain. For instance, Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who acted as an advisor to President Kennedy, stated:

During the Kennedy Years, people within the government and their close associates in academia and industry discussed frequently and quite seriously many of the major questions phrased by Leonard Lewin in Report From Iron Mountain. I had been assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense before the Kennedy election and was there when the McNamara team of “Whiz Kids” arrived. Never before had so many brilliant young civilians with so many Ph.D.s worked in that office. It was out of the mouths of this group that I heard so frequently and precisely the ideas that Lewin recounts in his “novel.” (287-88)

The Report from Iron Mountain became a proverbial hot potato and changed hands several times. Its authorship was even attributed to William F. Buckley, a veritable icon among neoconservatives. Irrespective of who authored the document, its precise delineation of ruling class tactics and its accuracy in prognosticating future events is difficult to deny.

Questions of morality and individual freedom were not addressed in The Report from Iron Mountain. In fact, the report only briefly mentions the concepts of human liberty and ethics, regarding them as anachronistic concepts embraced by bygone generations. The study concerned itself solely with the perpetuation of an absolute State and an elitist power structure. The report stated:

Previous studies have taken the desirability of peace, the importance of human life, the superiority of democratic institutions, the greatest “good” for the greatest number, the “dignity” of the individual, and other such wishful premises as axiomatic values necessary for the justification of a study of peace issues. We have not found them so. We have attempted to apply the standards of physical science to our thinking, the principal characteristic of which is not quantification, as is popularly believed, but that, in Whitehead’s words, “…it ignores all judgments of value; for instance, all esthetic and moral judgments.” (Lewin 13-14; emphasis added)

Evident in this statement is the power elite’s fanatically religious adherence to the doctrine of scientism. The doctrine of scientism rigorously promotes the ecumenical imposition of physical science upon all fields of inquiry. Researcher Michael Hoffman most succinctly revealed the inherent folly of scientism:

The reason that science is a bad master and dangerous servant and ought not to be worshipped, is that science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its own agenda, be it Darwinism or “cut, burn and poison” methods of cancer “treatment.” (49)

The dominant epistemological paradigm of today is one governed by scientific determinism. Now, institutionally accredited science is the infallible dogma of a new theocracy. Human beings are reduced to quantifiable entities for the scrutiny of priests donning lab coats. Atop the highest plateau of this epistemological hierarchy sits the power elite, whose scientism selectively excludes any data that could be disproportionate with the ultimate agenda: complete social control. According to The Report from Iron Mountain, “the desirability of peace, the importance of human life, the superiority of democratic institutions, the greatest ‘good’ for the greatest number, the ‘dignity’ of the individual, and other such wishful premises” are disproportionate with the “yardstick” of physical science. Since science “ignores all judgments of value; for instance, all esthetic and moral judgments,” there is no place for “axiomatic values” in a global scientific dictatorship.

The document proceeds to examine the necessity of war, declaring:

The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its “legitimacy,” or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, of reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer… It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state by virtue of the residual powers inherent in the concept of nationhood. (Lewin 39, 81)

With the ever-present threat of war, the absolute State could maintain a standing army and implement a policy of compulsory service for its citizenry. According to the study, this system of obligatory service would provide the socially maladjusted and economically disadvantaged elements of society with a function. Thus, these “potential enemies of society” could be placated and pacified. The report elaborates:

We will examine… the time-honored use of military institutions to provide anti-social elements with an acceptable role in the social structure… The current euphemistic clichés–”juvenile delinquency” and “alienation”–have had their counterparts in every age. In earlier days these conditions were dealt with directly by the military without the complications of due process, usually through press gangs or outright enslavement…

Most proposals that address themselves, explicitly or otherwise, to the postwar problem of controlling the socially alienated turn to some variant of the Peace Corps or the so-called Job Corps for a solution. The socially disaffected, the economically unprepared, the psychologically uncomfortable, the hard-core “delinquents,” the incorrigible “subversives,” and the rest of the unemployable are seen as somehow transformed by the disciplines of a service modeled on military precedent into more or less dedicated social service workers…

Another possible surrogate for the control of potential enemies of society is the reintroduction, in some form consistent with modern technology and political processes, of slavery… It is entirely possible that the development of a sophisticated form of slavery may be an absolute prerequisite for social control in a world at peace. As a practical matter, conversion of the code of military discipline to a euphemized form of slavery would entail surprisingly little revision; the logical first step would be the adoption of some form of “universal” military service. (Lewin 41-42, 68, 70)

It is interesting to examine the new definition of peace presented in The Report from Iron Mountain. It reads: “The word peace, as we have used it in the following pages… implies total and general disarmament” (Lewin 9). Under such conditions, resistance against tyranny is virtually non-existent. With the exception of combatants, whose behavior will be closely monitored by their superiors in the military and whose dominant concern shall be survival on the battlefields of the elite’s perpetual war, no one else shall have the weapons with which they could resist tyranny. Indeed, “war is peace.” The “peace” afforded for the New World Order at the expense of others shall mean perpetual “war” for the rest of humanity.

Sci-fi Predictive Programming for Future Conflict

This state of affairs mirrors George Orwell’s famous “science fiction” roman a’ clef, 1984. In this literary classic, Orwell presented a world order where the chief element of societal stability was war. The “machine,” which represented a nation’s technical and industrial infrastructure, had been transmogrified into a strategic weapon against its own population. Shamefully wasteful governmental programs were enacted to keep the citizenry perpetually impoverished. This Hobbesian war of “all against all” was perpetuated by a small elite for the purposes of maintaining their power.

Yet, is such a world confined to the pages of “science fiction.” Hardly. In fact, they provide the very inspiration for The Report from Iron Mountain. The Iron Mountain cabal confessed this much, stating that:

Up to now, this has been suggested only in fiction, notably in the works of Wells, Huxley, Orwell, and others engaged in the imaginative anticipation of the sociology of the future. But the fantasies projected in Brave New World and 1984 have seemed less and less implausible over the years since their publication. The traditional association of slavery with ancient preindustrial cultures should not blind us to its adaptability to advanced forms of social organization (Lewin 70)

That which the Iron Mountain cabal euphemistically refers to as an “imaginative anticipation of the sociology of the future” was actually predictive programming. Hoffman elaborates: “Predictive programming works by means of the propagation of the illusion of an infallibly accurate vision of how the world is going to look in the future” (Hoffman 205). Also dubbed “sci-fi inevitabilism” by Hoffman, predictive programming is analogous to a virus that infects its hosts with the false belief that it is:

  • Useless to resist central, establishment control.
  • Or it posits a counter-cultural alternative to such control which is actually a counterfeit, covertly emanating from the establishment itself.
  • That the blackening (pollution) of earth is as unavoidable as entropy.
  • That extinction (“evolution”) of the species is inevitable.
  • That the reinhabitation of the earth by the “old gods” (Genesis 6:4), is our stellar scientific destiny. (8)

Such an ideational contagion may have already been injected into America’s collective conscious before the staggering events of September 11, 2001. For instance, intimations of psychological conditioning emerge in the 1997 film Starship Troopers. Based on the sci-fi novel by Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers is one more self-fulfilling prophecy promulgated through popular culture. It heralds the erection of a national security state, the very existence of which is dependent upon the existence of an enemy from “beyond.” Synopsizing the theme of the film, literary critic Geoffrey Whitehall makes an interesting observation:

Against, yet within, its clichéd ontological galaxy, Starship Troopers mobilizes the beyond to critique this dominant us/them narrative. It seeks to reveal how identity/difference, a relation of fear, founds a political galaxy… fear is the order word of a security discourse. Historically, a discourse of fear bridged what it meant to be human in the world under Christendom (seeking salvation) and the emergence of modernity (seeking security) as the dominant trope of political life in the sovereign state. The church relied on a discourse of fear to “establish its authority, discipline its followers and ward off its enemies,” in effect creating a Christian world politics. Under modern world politics, similarly, the sovereign state relies on the creation of an external threat to author its foreign policy [emphasis - ADDED] and establish the lofty category of citizenship as the only form of modern human qualification. (182)

It is very interesting that, the very same year of Starship Troopers’ release, former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski published The Grand Chessboard. In this overtly imperialistic tract, Brzezinski wrote:

Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. (Brzezinski 211; emphasis added)

A “truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat” did appear. His name was Osama bin Laden. Is this a mere coincidence or is it more sci-fi predictive programming? Starship Troopers was premised upon the same thesis that would underpin American foreign policy four years later… consensus facilitated by an external threat. That both a textbook in geopolitics and a pop culture film presented a common catalyst for socio-political change is highly suspicious to say the least. One thing is certain… an ideational contagion had been unleashed and, four years later, would become painfully evident in the public’s acceptance of the draconian Patriot Act.

On the August 3, 2003 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge made the following statement: “…the President intuitively realized we are at war. It is a permanent condition. That’s why they made permanent changes in the government. That’s why we have a Department of Homeland Security” (emphasis added). In the words of evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith, war is the progeny of evolution. International terrorism has conveniently provided the hidden alchemists with a war. In hopes of fulfilling their occult Darwinian doctrine, the elite intend this war to last for a very long time. After all, war is evolution.

In future installments in this series, I will examine consciously engineered wars throughout history and attempt to reveal their role in the elite’s alchemical agenda for humanity.

Sources Cited

About the Author

Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for The Hidden Face of Terrorism. He has also written articles for Paranoia Magazine, MKzine, News With Views, B.I.P.E.D.: The Official Website of Darwinian Dissent and Conspiracy Archive. He has an Associate of Arts and Science. Currently, he is studying for a bachelor’s degree in Communications at Wright State University. During the course of his seven-year college career, Phillip has studied philosophy, religion, and classic literature. He also co-authored the book, The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century, which is
available online here