International Forecaster Weekly

The Real Elite Are Not At Davos

So if these are not the string-pullers and masters of the universe that the media loudly proclaims them to be, who are the string-pullers? The question is bound to provoke much meaningless debate and speculation about who is at the top of the pyramid...

James Corbett | January 23, 2016

We are told by the well-coiffed liars of the mainstream media that the world's "elite" have descended on Davos, Switzerland for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum where the rich and powerful hobnob over hot cocoa as they find better ways to swindle the public, wreak havoc and ride out the coming financial crisis. As usual, though, the talking heads are not just wrong; they're doubly wrong.

    First, the word "elite" when applied to the psychopaths who have risen to the top of our current economic dungheap is a blatant misnomer. "Unconvicted criminals" is, for the most part, a more apt description.

    And second, the gaggle of glitterati, hangers-on and nouveau riche that hog the headlines at Davos can hardly be considered the "elite" even in the sense that the MSM liars mean it. Oh sure, there are some attendees with some genuine clout in the world of business and finance (BP's Bob Dudley, GM's Mary Barra, John McFarlane of Barclays, Stuart Gulliver of HSBC, Paul Polman from Unilever, etc.) and some political puppets who have been sElected to enact their agendas in government (Trudeau, Biden, Kerry, Netanyahu, Tsipras). There's even debt plantation master Lagarde from the IMF to make sure they're all on track. But there's an awful lot of eye candy, celebrity and minor players to distract the press and the public from the real movers and shakers. To use the word "elite" to describe the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio, Kevin Spacey and Bono seems to stretch the word's meaning to its breaking point.

    So if these are not the string-pullers and masters of the universe that the media loudly proclaims them to be, it begs the question: who are the string-pullers? The question is bound to provoke much meaningless debate and speculation about who is at the top of the pyramid, but we can move at least one rung up the ladder by following the track from last week's column on eugenics.

    Las week we explored the pseudoscientific quackery of the eugenicists who enshrined the idea that the "elite" psychopaths at the top are "elite" because they are a race of genetically superior people. Although the idea seems laughable at this point, at the turn of the 20th century it was nearly universally believed by anyone and everyone in upper class circles and polite society. It was touted by politicians and presidents, praised by pundits and pamphleteers, affirmed by professors and professionals. Worse, it was enshrined in laws that forcibly sterilized the "feeble-minded" and other "degenerates," laws that remained on the books for much of the century.

    But for the cadre of gentlemen scientists who developed and propounded this ideology, it was not just a theory; it was a religion. To their credit, they were devout enough adherents to this religion to practise what they preach. A quick look at the family trees of the key families involved with the formulation and promulgation of eugenics will show the very same inbreeding that was found amongst the royalty of old and the descendents of the American robber barons. And this time, the inbred elite believed they had a scientific underpinning for their penchant for marrying cousins and nieces: by breeding only among themselves, they could insure their “pure” genes would not become debased by the “dysgenic” genes of the commoners.

    Charles Darwin, for one, was obsessed with inbreeding, and well he had reason to be. For generations the Darwins had intermarried with the Wedgwoods, and Charles was no exception. He married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood. Both were descended from the founder of the famed pottery dynasty, Josiah Wedgwood, who had himself married his third cousin. Darwin, to his credit, began to suspect that there were possible drawbacks to such inbreeding when three of his ten children, frail and sickly, died in childhood, and another three were childless despite long-lasting marriages. This was not unique to Charles and Emma: of 62 descendents of Josiah Wedgwood, only 24 had children who survived to adulthood. So concerned was Charles by this phenomenon—especially when his own botanical research demonstrated the detrimental effects of inbreeding in the plant kingdom—that he petitioned parliament to include a question about marriages to cousins on the 1871 British census (a request that the Parliament turned down).

    Charles' misgivings did not stop the Darwin-Wedgwoods from continuing to marry each other and a select few families in elite British scientific elites, including the Galtons and the Huxleys. Nor did the failure of this applied study in eugenics to produce a “superior” human being dissuade the family from pursuing eugenics research with maniacal fervour.

    Francis Galton coined the term eugenics, established the first eugenics research laboratory at University College London, started a monthly journal called The Eugenics Review and founded the Eugenics Society of Great Britain. The member rolls of the British Eugenics Society read not only as a who's who of elite British scientific circles in the early 20th century, but also an extended family tree of Darwin and Galton themselves. Members included:

Leonard Darwin – He succeeded Francis Galton as society president from 1911. Although he had no scientific degree or training, he did worry about the breeding habits of the commoners and he did marry his first cousin. He was Charles Darwin's son.

John Maynard Keynes – President of the society from 1937-44. He was a celebrated economist who argued for a world central bank and global currency. His younger brother married Charles Darwin's granddaughter.

Charles Galton Darwin – A prominent member of the society who believed that the lower class' drive to produce large families threatened the future of the human race. He was Charles Darwin's grandson.

Julian Huxley - President of the society from 1959-62. He was a biologist who was well-known for arguing that human “stocks” needed to be controlled and managed like agricultural stocks. He gave the Galton memorial lecture twice, received the Darwin Medal from the Royal Society and the Darwin-Wallace Medal from the Linnean Society, and his half-niece married Charles Darwin's great-grandson.

    From among the ranks of these tight-knit, interbred society arose people of power and influence, people who in large part are responsible for shaping the world as we know it.

    Take John Keynes. Today he is best known for the economic doctrine, Keynesianism, that now bears his name. Although his theory was vastly more complex than is generally understood (and his actual writings have been read by very few), its modern formulation should be familiar to readers of Paul Krugman and other master misinformers of the economic world. In a nutshell, this neo-Keynesianism holds that central bank money printing is the answer to all of our economic ills. This line of thinking is more or less directly responsible for the QE nightmare that we are only now beginning to feel the effects of, and has even brought us such sterling examples of broken window fallacy arguments as Krugman's assertion on national television that a fake alien invasion would be a big boon for the economy.

    Or take Julian Huxley. His grandfather, T.H. Huxley, was known as "Darwin's bulldog" for his fierce defense of Darwin's work. Of course Huxley's motivation was at least partially to mix his DNA with Darwin, a dream that came true a few generations later. Meanwhile Julian's brother, Aldous, was warning of the Brave New World we are sleep-walking into via a novel that he later admitted was inspired by his familiarity with real-world mind control experiments. But Julian was busy promoting eugenics through the organizations he helped to found: UNESCO (whose founding document he wrote and which explicitly advocates eugenics) and the World Wildlife Fund (proponent of depopulation and carbon eugenics).

    Another Eugenics society member (this time from the American branch of the movement) we discussed last week: Margaret "cleaner race" Sanger, who referred to black people as weeds and said that the best thing a family can do to an infant is to kill it. She went on to found Planned Parenthood, one of whose mid-20th century board members was William H. Gates, Sr., better known as the father of Microsoft founder Bill Gates. Bill made sure to name-check his father and his position in Planned Parenthood in early interviews about his foray into "philanthropy." Since then, the Gates' generous "philanthropy" has brought us such boons to humanity as a sterilization microchip, the Common Core disaster and deadly, no-consent vaccine "trials" in India.

    Oh, but did we mention Gates is in Davos this week for the festivities there? Maybe that's what the MSM meant by "elites." Funny they won't discuss his appearances at the Bilderberg Group.

    Indeed it's quite breathtaking to think about the influence that these interlocking eugenicist families have had on the shape of the world we're living in today. But identifying the families themselves is the easy part. Identifying what they've done to bring about their eugenics agenda and what they're working on next is the hard part...