Infowars.com researcher Aaron Dykes analyzes top players in the global system who’ve called for Eugenics to become the new religion of the world state. Under the New World Order, individuals are relinquished of their freedoms and control over everything in society, including life and death, falls to the State. Note below where figures like White House science advisor John P. Holdren and Bertrand Russell discuss using an international authority to distribute food to the world, and withhold it from over-populated regions

ALBERT E. WIGGAM: “Had Jesus been among us, he would have been president of the First Eugenics Congress.” (The New Decalogue of Science, 1923)

PART 1: Eugenics – Religion of the Future

JULIAN HUXLEY AND EUGENICS: Huxley said of Dean Inge’s dictum, “Eugenics is capable of becoming the most sacred ideal of the human race, as a race: one of the supreme religious duties” in his 1936 Galton lecuture that:

“I entirely agree with him. Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of the religion of the future, or of whatever complex of sentiments may in the future take the place of organized religion.” (Huxley 1936)

SIR FRANCIS GALTON, FATHER OF EUGENICS: “It must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious, tenet of the future, for eugenics co-operate with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races…. I see no impossibility in Eugenics becoming a religious dogma among mankind.” (Eugenics: Its Definition Scope and Aims, 1904)

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW (In response to Galton’s 1904 paper): I agree with the paper, and go so far as to say that there is now no reasonable excuse for refusing to face the fact that nothing but a eugenic religion can save our civilization from the fate that has overtaken all previous civilizations.

Charles B. Davenport, head of the Eugenics Records Office and director of the Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, wrote a 1916 booklet also given as a lecture, entitled “Eugenics as a Religion” which included a 12 point creed. Further, the American Eugenics Society ran a sermon contest in 1926 paying prizes to religious leaders who best incorporated the tenets of the new religion in their Sunday sermons.

PART 2: Under the New World Order, the State is God

As former Constitution Party presidential candidate Michael Peroutka wisely observed, “The whole concept of New World Order is something else, it really says that the State is God.”

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW: “Under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.”
– George Bernard Shaw, “The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism” pg 470, 1928

BERTRAND RUSSELL: “The dependence of emotional disposition upon the ductless glands, said Mr. Russell , was a discovery of great importance, which would in time make it possible to produce artificially an disposition desired by Governments.” (Birth Control News, Feb. 1924; Quoted in G.K. Chesterton ‘Eugenics and Other Evils’)

BERTRAND RUSSELL: “Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . . Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” (Impact of Science on Society, Page 50)

BERTRAND RUSSELL: “The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.” (Impact of Science on Society, 1953)

FOOD AS A WEAPON

HENRY KISSINGER, NSSM #200: Curtailing food supplies to targeted states, in part to force compliance with birth control policies

“There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.”

“Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now… Would food be considered an instrument of national power? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?”

BERTRAND RUSSELL: “To deal with this problem [increasing population and decreasing food supplies] it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilence, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling. What method of preventing an increase might be preferred should be left to each state to decide.” (The Impact of Science on Society)

ECOSCIENCE (Ehrlich, Ehrlich and Holdren) – Toward a Planetary Regime
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist… The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” (Page 942-3)

“If voluntary birth reduction methods did not work a nation might have to resort to ‘the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food or to the water supply” – June 1972 Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist and author of The Population Bomb

BERTRAND RUSSELL: “I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.” (Impact of Science on Society, p. 26)