Evolutionary Theory and Social Engineering (Occult Yorkshire 9)

“I’ve neglected to tell you so far about the role stress plays in Fabian evolutionary theory. Just as Hegel taught that history moves faster toward its conclusion by way of warfare, so evolutionary socialists were taught by Hegel to see struggle as the precipitant of evolutionary improvement for the species, a necessary purifier eliminating the weak from the breeding sweepstakes. Society evolves slowly toward ‘social efficiency’ all by itself; society under stress, however, evolves much faster! Thus the deliberate creation of crisis is an important tool of evolutionary socialists. Does that help you understand the government school drama a little better, or the well-publicized doomsday scenarios of environmentalists?”
—John Taylor Gatto

At the beginning of World War II, Norman Glaister and his friends joined Common Wealth, the new political party formed by Sir Richard Acland. Acland began as a “junior whip” for the Liberals. His politics apparently changed course and, in 1942, he broke from the Liberals to found Common Wealth with J. B. Priestley, thereby opposing the coalition between the major parties (ref). He helped form the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in 1957, of which my grandfather was a co-founder and, according to family history, for which he helped design the famous symbol (the peace symbol now used by CraigsList). “Common Wealth’s interest in optimizing social organization consistent with its principles also led it to develop close links with the School of Integrative Social Research at Braziers Park.”[1] But we know all this.

Of Common Wealth, etc., George Orwell wrote: “I think this movement should be watched with attention. It might develop into the new Socialist party we have all been hoping for, or into something very sinister.” Orwell, like Kitty Bowler, believed that Richard Acland had the potential to become a fascist leader. Richard Acland also wrote a bunch of books, including his homage to Mein Kampf and What it Will Be Like in the New Britain, in which he talks about the need to break down the family unit. It was published by Victor Gollancz in 1942 (Gollancz was another member of the 1941 Committee, and Alec Horsley sent him regular donations). Sixty years later, Gollancz, the publishing house, would be part of Orion House Publishing, which is owned by Hachette, one of “The Big Five” publishing houses. In 1992, Hachette merged with Matra, the French automobile and missile building company. Gollancz, a.k.a. Orion, a.k.a. Hachette, a.k.a. Matra, would publish my book Matrix Warrior: Being the One, in 2003, about the need to break down, not just the family but the entire social “unit.” When I was offered the contract with Gollancz in 2002, I had a brief period of conscience-wrestling over the thought of making money for a company that would use it to build weapons of mass destruction. I had no idea how ironic Gollancz’s affiliation was, in light of its original alleged ideological goals—or how closely that irony touched upon my own family background.


Yet here we are again. It is all of a piece, even though many of the parts have been lost or concealed to history—and not only my own. Growing up, I never had the slightest idea that socialism not only overlapped with, but was in some sense either a parallel project to or a cover for, social experimentation involving sex, drugs, and strange rituals. I was always under the impression that these areas were worlds apart (at least until the 1960s). A natural assumption, on discovering this strange overlap, is simply that the leftist reformers of my family and beyond were freethinkers and sexual libertines, and that, back in the day, they had to be discreet about it. But how well does this perhaps-too-easy assumption hold up when the sexual experimentation overlaps, not only with social and psychological research, but with the criminal underworld and the sexual exploitation of children for profit?

When it comes to attempting to map the shape of the past, there is always the tendency to try and create a narrative out of the available data and so force it to fit into that context. Ideally, the data reveals the context, and as it does so, the emerging context recontextualizes the data, allowing the two to feed into and support each other until a more or less complete picture emerges. Yet, when what is being explored is by definition incomplete, hidden, and inherently unfamiliar, even controversial, the chances of ever reaching a full picture are slim at best. Knowing and acknowledging the difference between fact and theory is never more crucial than when exploring the realms of hidden history (family or otherwise), since it inevitably overlaps with the phenomenon of conspiracy—that is, of individuals working together in secret, to bring about desired, usually criminal, ends.

I really don’t want to theorize about conspiracy, only to lay out the evidence of conspiracy and let it speak for itself. At the same time, without some speculation, there’s the danger that the material being presented will be confusing and overwhelming to the reader, raising too many questions for them to process. What does it all mean? What am I suggesting by presenting all of this apparent evidence—evidence of what? Clearly, even by choosing to write all of this down, I must have some idea of what it means. So then why be evasive about that, especially when so much of the material seems quite contradictory?

The main hypothesis, or even deduction, which I think this data demands is that seemingly unconnected, even disparate, groups and individuals appear to have been collaborating in ways that throw into question their public aims and characters. At which point, everything truly begins to look like a massive conspiracy. This may be a premature deduction. The easiest example that came to my mind while working on this piece was that of a body, human or otherwise, experienced from the inside, for example by a single blood cell. There may be an experience of the heart, the liver, the intestines and the digestive tract. It may be possible to observe these different organs performing their various tasks, and to notice that certain processes are occurring, for example, that food coming into the stomach via one channel is being processed by a separate system and then conveyed down another channel. From the inside, there is no awareness of being on the inside of anything, because the body is its own internal environment. It’s only through noticing the ways in which the various organs seem to be cooperating with each other and assisting with various processes that the idea of a larger body, containing everything, can be inferred.


It may be the same with the various groups and individuals which this work is exploring. The fact they take part in shared processes and seem to collaborate, while serving ostensibly separate, even opposed ends, suggests they are part of a larger system directing them externally. There is no need to assume that the majority of these individuals or groups are aware of being used by a larger governing intelligence, any more than a heart or a liver necessarily knows that it’s working for the body. The way to recognize such a controlling intelligence is twofold: to trace the connections between apparently unconnected agencies; and to attempt to deduce from this the processes being implemented through these agencies. This then allows for the hypothesis of a containing body, whatever that might be, without really saying anything about it outside of its methods, means, and apparent aims.

In “The Childhood Origins of the Holocaust,” the psycho-historian Lloyd de Mause talks about Weimar culture, the flourishing of the arts and sciences in Germany during the Weimar Republic, in the period between Germany’s defeat in World War I and Hitler’s rise to power. De Mause writes how it

“may have produced ‘exuberant creativity and experimentation’ but also created “anxiety, fear and a rising sense of doom.” By the end of the 1920s, so many reactionary anti-democratic backlash parties had spontaneously sprung up that Weimar was called ‘a Republic without republicans.’ People began to call for ‘emancipation from emancipation’ and ‘a restoration of authoritarian rule.’”

What de Mause is describing, in bald terms, is how a period of social and sexual freedom allows for a release of collective unconscious or “id” material in a people, and how this then leads to a corresponding reaction from the controlling ego, i.e., to even more severe social restrictions. It’s possible to extrapolate from this—an observable trend in history, both individual and collective—how such a principal could be consciously applied at the level of social engineering. If the aim, say, is totalitarianism, first promote the opposite ideas pertaining to individual freedom, sexual liberation, artistic expression, human rights, and drug experimentation. Such a hypothetical form of deep psychosocial engineering could, hypothetically, proceed over generations, propagating a set of values to one generation so as to create an opposing reaction from the next. It could also proceed at a more localized, short-term level, over periods of months, days, and hours, even down to a micro-level, such as when a TV show promotes “radical” or anti-capitalist values, while at the same time serving as product placement for corporations.

A very broad example of this might be how the promotion of individualistic, capitalist, consumer values over the second half of the 20th century led to a supposed dead-end and “environmental crisis” in which individualism is frowned upon and seen as something to be curbed (often via draconian laws) in order to save “the planet” (collective). It also goes the other way, as when the collective “countercultural” values of the 60s, promoting peace and harmony, led to the capitalist feeding frenzy of the 80s—many of the feeders being former hippies who “wised up.”

A more mundane but apropos example would be that of the “New Labor” movement in Britain in the 1950s. From “Going Public,” by Peter Morgan, Socialist Review, Feb 1995, emphasis added:

“The nationalizations created a cheap infrastructure to get Britain’s economy moving again—largely for the benefit of private industry. It was all the old and bankrupt industries that were nationalized—the most unprofitable 20 percent of British industry. For workers, however, there seemed to be little change. A series of studies by the Acton Society undertaken between 1950 and 1952 showed there was a widespread feeling that public ownership had merely provided ‘jobs for the boys’ and the ‘same old gang’ in power again. . . . Thus nationalization signified no new beginning for Labor. It didn’t mark a shift in the distribution of wealth in favor of the working class. Control remained essentially in the hands of many of the same capitalists who were then able to use the compensation they received from the government to invest in more profitable industries. Workers were accorded no greater say in decision making, and gained no economic benefit. Labor’s plan had nothing to do with socialism—it provided a state overview and assistance for the revival of British capitalism.

It’s possible to trace a direct correlation between this kind of social engineering and the psychological and biological model (and possibly agendas) of the Fabians, regarding evolutionary management through stress. Adversity breeds character, necessity is the mother of invention, and so on. The many bohemian artistic communities-come-survival camps that arose in the 1930s (in tandem with National Socialism), and that combined sexual freedom, self-expression, and back-to-nature primitivism (paganism), may have started with the thinnest end of the wedge being gently inserted into the child-psyche (naked children encouraged to explore their sexuality rather than being shamed about it); but pretty soon, the id monsters were running the show.

From the LSE Vegetarianism thesis quoted previously:

“During the twenties the influence of Freud on the progressive school movement—and indeed on progressivism generally—was marked, and Freudian theory was used to underpin the liberation of the child from adult repression and to justify the belief that the natural impulses should have free expression. In certain of the schools this produced a move towards a libertarian and anarchic ideal. The progressivism of the period, however, largely used Freud as a dissolvent of conservative social values, taking up the attack on traditional religion and upon patriarchal authority. It was, however, an essentially selective reading of Freud, one that passed over the darker Hobbesian aspects of his thought, focusing instead on its libertarian potential, which was then grafted on to an essentially non-Freudian model of-man and his destiny—one that derived from the older romantic tradition.” (Emphasis added)

In Freudian terms, when the id gets out of hand, there’s a corresponding reaction from the superego, which, like a Hollywood version of the übermensch, comes seeking not love but revenge. As the darker impulses take over, over time, sexual abuse becomes part of the unofficial curriculum. And, since sexual abuse leads to trauma, it seems especially telling, and alarming, that trauma can be reframed—whether by early Fabian “evolutionary socialists” or by today’s spiritual spokesmen like Esalen-biographer Jeffrey Kripal or LSE-student Whitley Strieber—as a means to access the divine and/or accelerate evolution.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Wealth_Party The Common Wealth was founded in July 1942, during World War II, by the alliance of two left wing groups, the 1941 Committee and the neo-Christian Forward March movement, led by Acland (as well as independents and former Liberals, who believed that the Liberal party had no direction). Disagreeing with the electoral pact established with other parties in the wartime coalition, key figures in the 1941 Committee began sponsoring independent candidates. After the electoral success of Tom Driberg with their support in 1942, there was a move to form the 1941 Committee into a political party through a merger with Acland’s Forward March. Many members disliked the idea of being a political party rather than a social movement, so the word “Party” was never formally part of Common Wealth’s name.





11 thoughts on “Evolutionary Theory and Social Engineering (Occult Yorkshire 9)

  1. interesting body analogy, 99% autonomic, and yet the cells must be conscious, even the molecules. “I is someone else”…”If the brass awakes as a horn, it can’t be to blame”…”It is wrong to say I think: one should say I am thought.” However the heart is another matter, no? how could there be freedom if we knew who was in control. Still, no accident Darwin and Freud got shoved down our throats, the frauds. yes and no freedom and control up and down sight and sound the ball is round

  2. “It may be the same with the various groups and individuals which this work is exploring. The fact they take part in shared processes and seem to collaborate, while serving ostensibly separate, even opposed ends, suggests they are part of a larger system directing them externally. There is no need to assume that the majority of these individuals or groups are aware of being used by a lager governing intelligence, any more than a heart or a liver necessarily knows that it’s working for the body.”

    – For what it’s worth, the above reflects my opinion pretty much exactly. Also, I literally learned about John Taylor Gatto last night, in a Cara St Louis podcast where she described him as the man who understood conditioning through education better than anyone else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nA225uhfOI&index=2&list=LL88XV5DAlsoHUZU2_cJ8ugw

    • That link has been removed since you posted it. I found another interview with her but stopped listening once she began talking about how the royal bloodline psychopaths are “born that way.”

      • Sorry about the dead link, it was a podcast in which she was outlining the origins of our modern educational/indoctrination system.

        I don’t really have a position on whether psychopathic traits can exist at birth, so that statement in itself wouldn’t bother me. If people are being influenced by an overarching control system of some sort then perhaps people are born with certain inclinations (the horoscope concept), and must attain a degree of inner development in order to break free of our particular system.

        Just thinking out loud, but this idea does fit in with my general belief that there are concentric circles of laws controlling human beings, which can be progressively overcome as one becomes less mechanical and more creative/aware.

        I’m sure I’ve read a quote of Gatto’s on your blog many times and just never noticed the name until someone called attention to him.

        • It’s less about having a position on whether psychopathic traits can exist at birth (tho I do consider it highly unlikely) as having a position about responsible reportage. For a person to state publicly that some people are born psychopaths merely as a way to making another point, without backing the statement up with any evidence or even theory around it, means this is not a responsible person or one I want to take seriously. If there IS evidence that psychopathic traits can exist at birth, that would be worth a whole discussion in itself. The interviewer doesn’t even question it. Only within a matrix in which wild allegations are routinely made and then blithely accepted as reasonable statements could such a thing go unremarked on. 2nd matrix hell.

          On top of this are all of the potential social and ethical ramifications if such a statement is taken as true. It’s crazymaking. I know you are a generally pretty balanced and careful thinker, so I bring it up with that in mind….

  3. “how could there be freedom if we knew who was in control.”

    Interesting paradox.

    Glad you found JTG. Did you literally learn about him last night? I’ve been quoting him for the past 8 blogposts.

  4. Luke Rudkowski: But the way I view things–we have all of these so-called powerful elite like Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Rothschild, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton…I confronted and faced all of them and I looked them in the eye. And what I hope to do in my videos is to show you that these people have no official power. These people get their butt kissed every single minute of their lives. They have people grooming them. They have people worshipping them. They have people bowing down to them, cowering around them. And the perception, especially in alternative media, is these people are so powerful. They’re so scary. We can’t do anything. What I hope to show in my videos…

    *** these people are just normal human beings like me and you. ***


    Peter Ulrik Röder: About this subject of psychopaths – there are so many of them. I watched 35 Faces of Death and horrible torture videos – it’s hard for me to blame

    *** normal Western psychopaths ***

    after seeing all this crap.

    Abe: Now I wonder, what does “normal” actually mean?

  5. — At which point, everything truly begins to look like a massive conspiracy. This may be a premature deduction. —

    Abe: By the way, Jasun, for some time now, in fact for over a year, I wanted to recommend to you a book which I think could greatly benefit the theoretical side of your research; please give it a try. I bet you would be handsomely rewarded.

    “By hiding the Other inside the subject in the guise of the unconscious, Freud preserved and protected its anonymity. … Thus the Other, after having been Sex (an intraphysical Other) and then the Demon (an external Other) become the Unconscious (an intrapsychic Other). … The origin of our own desire, the fact that its source is in that of another, has always been misunderstood. … In this sense one might indeed say …. that the origin of our desire is unconscious. But I refuse to speak in this way, because I am not willing to hypostatize the unconscious. … The Freudian unconscious, that mythic hypostasis peopled with all sorts of occult mythic forces in conflict with one another, and to whose quarrels we have to submit as inevitably as to bad weather, simply does not exist! The Freudian unconscious does not truly exist, any more than did the Demon that it succeeded as the mask of the Other. The Id, the Superego, Eros, Thanatos, and the rest have neither more nor less actual existence than Asmodeus, Beelzebub, Leviathan, and the various demons. The figures of traditional demonology, like the more abstract figures of the psychoanalytical pantheon, have only a cultural existence. Culture has found, thanks to Freud, a new line of stabilization: it has wedded itself to psychoanalysis and is in the process of being pervaded by it entirely, in the same manner as, for almost a milliennium, it was pervaded by demonology.”

    — Jean-Michel Oughourlian, in: The Puppet of Desire: The Psychology of Hysteria, Possession, and Hypnosis (1991)


    This study of the psychology of desire derives from a theory of imitative or ‘mimetic’ desire developed by the cultural critic and theorist Rene Girard. The theory is essentially that all human beings have an instinctive tendency, a kind of social and psychological gravitation, to imitate unwittingly not only the actions but also the attitudes and desires of others. The author, a practicing psychiatrist, extends and amplifies this theory from the viewpoint of psychopathology and applies it to the study of hysteria, possession, and hypothesis. He argues that these phenomena are best understood as expressions of mimetic behaviour, and he traces the history of the ideas concerning hysteria, possession, and hypnosis and relates them to the development of Freud’s theory of neurosis. The author points out that mimetic desire is not an inherently pathological force. It may be normal and healthy, but in certain circumstances it can lead to relations of dependency and rivalry that can cause serious psychological problems. It can also take on extreme or bizarre forms without necessarily becoming unhealthy; an example of healthy but extreme unconscious identification with an other (who may be either a person or a cultural figure) is shamanistic possession. The author discusses this kind of phenomenon among African tribes and coins the term ‘adorcism’ (the opposite of exorcism) to refer to the process of invoking it. The theory of desire as presented in this book is other-oriented, as opposed to Freud’s theory of desire, which istrictly object-oriented. The author sees Freud’s theory as more in a long history of strategic misinterpretations of the psychology of desire, such as the classical theory of hysteria and the medieval theory of demonic possession.

    *** His critique of Freudian theory is radical, and in fact it would not be too much to say that he has moved toward the first new and well-developed theory of psychopathology since Freud. ***

  6. Jean-Michel Oughourlian (*1940) is the author — “recognized both in France and the United States for his collaboration with René Girard and his work on the mimetic theory of desire. Since the early 1970s he has devoted both his clinical work and his research to applying and developing Girard’s theories in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, and psychopathology. He is the author of several books (see below), in which he developed clinical points of view around mimetic theory of desire.”


    In 1982, he wrote “Un mime nommé désir” (The Puppet of Desire), a book on the phenomena of trances, hysteria, and possession that broke with the Freudian currents of the time and created a new psychology based on mimetic desire as the motor of relationships and the foundation of the self.

    In 2010, he published “Psychopolitique”, which analyzes current affairs from the perspective of Girardian theory and suggests a way out of the postmodern crisis by sketching the portrait of the leader of tomorrow.

    He has sought to track down the motivations of human behavior and the mechanisms of which men and women are unwittingly the plaything. His contribution to psychological and psychiatric theory consists in questioning the Freudian primacy of the unconscious and affirming that “the unconscious is the other”, that is to say, the concrete other person, whose desire serves as a model for our desires, making us into conscious apprentices or blinded marionettes.

    In The Puppet of Desire, he explains the story of the Loudon possessions, which he deciphers with the help of the mimetic theory, showing that at bottom it is the mother superior of the convent, infatuated with a young prelate, who draws the other sisters along with her by transmitting her Madame Bovary-like desire to them, plunging all of them into a generalized hysteria. Neuroses and even psychoses are interpreted as being so many strategies of the self for hiding the truth about the reality of desire, whose fundamental alterity people refuse to recognize.

    “The clinical manifestation of mimetic desire is rivalry”, says Oughourlian. Insofar as imitation is, of all human weaknesses, the one that people have the most trouble admitting, it never presents itself as such. The patient accuses his model of wanting to steal his job, wife, or identity, betraying against the grain the surreptitious alterity that moves through him. Pulling oneself out of the rivalrous impasse implies becoming fully conscious of one’s proper dependency and admitting one’s debt toward the other’s desire. This is a difficult undertaking, which requires on the psychotherapist’s part an acute understanding of psychology and psychopolitics and on the patient’s part the gradual overcoming of his pride.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s