Executive Intelligence Review
This article appears in the April 8, 2011 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

The Empire's Genocide Policy,
Key Threat to Man's Survival

by Nancy Spannaus

[PDF version of this article]

April 2—The British Empire, which rules the planet today as an imperial monetary system, stands in a long succession of empires which have successfully destroyed their subjects, and themselves, by clinging to their oligarchical ways. Today, that empire, and its servants, represent the primary obstacle to the survival of both mankind and the planet as a whole, and the job of patriots in the United States, and every other nation, is to take away their power, once and for all.

To defeat the Empire, however, we must understand it in its naked essence as the oligarchical principle which has ruled the whole succession of empires since the Roman Imperium: especially by the suppression of the expression of mankind's creative powers through science and technology. Over the course of recent decades, the infection of the oligarchical disease has corrupted peoples so thoroughly that they can barely recognize either the enemy, or their own unique mental capabilities as human beings. Here, we briefly identify that infection as it has played itself out in two of its most spectacular demonstrations of evil—the original Roman Empire and the Hitler period—and then, exemplify its operation within the Obama Administration today.

From Rome to Ruin

The Roman Empire ruled and looted the world for approximately 500 years, with a policy of permanent warfare, degradation, and suppression of the human qualities of its population that has been a model for every empire since.[1] Within Italy, for example, the Roman ruling class presided over a population of soldiers and dispossessed landless peasants and slaves, a large portion of whom they supported on the dole, and kept "happy" with public entertainment (the fabled "bread and circuses").

Fundamental to the Empire's ability to control its population was its commitment to spreading irrationalism, and suppressing atechnological progress. Roman imperial spokesmen proudly boasted of their "practicality" in comparison with the creative Classical Greek culture. The oligarchs saw no need to foster technological improvements in agriculture or industry to reduce or altogether replace human muscle power—even if those improvements already had been devised. They would rather treat the people, from slaves to pauperized tenant farmers, as cattle.

The stupidity of this oligarchical decision was stunning in its implications for the real "sustainability" of Roman society. Over at least 600 years of Roman rule, from the Second Century B.C. to the Fourth Century A.D., there were no improvements in methods of agriculture—from tillage, to fertilizer, to tools. They refused to use water wheels and water pumps as a means of improving productivity of the mills or mines, despite their much greater efficiency. Instead they used slave labor, claiming it was "uneconomical" to develop pumps which used water wheels—despite the fact that this technology had been developed in Greece as early as the Fifth Century B.C.

To compensate for the lack of productivity of its agriculture, the Roman Empire sought loot where it could steal it—especially by imposing enormous taxes. As the masses of impoverished farmers increased, they became easy prey for the northern German tribes (in some cases, even looked to them for liberation). The Empire collapsed—demographically, and eventually, politically. By A.D. 500, St. Ambrose was writing of the "corpses of half-ruined cities" in Italy's once-fertile Po Valley. The anti-technology, as well as pro-war policies were genocidal, reducing the Empire's population in A.D. 600 to almost 40% less than in A.D. 200, and absolutely less than it had been in 200 B.C.

Given this lawful result of the imperial system, did the imperial oligarchy decide to change its ways? Not fundamentally. The only difference between the British incarnation of the Roman Empire, launched after the 15th-Century Renaissance, and the original Rome, was that, in line with the ideas of Paolo Sarpi, the British incorporated a limited role for technological invention—just enough to try to ensure that the Empire could not be defeated by sovereign nation-states.

Dirty Bertie and Hitler

The genocidal philosophy of the "modern" British Empire can be found most directly in the writings of Lord Bertrand Russell, whom Lyndon LaRouche has fittingly called the most evil man of the 20th Century. Russell represented the thinking of the British oligarchy in every area of politics, economics, strategy, and so-called science: Man is a beast, and the more powerful beasts—the ruling class—should ensure that he remains that way, ignorant and not too numerous.

To get a clear idea, focus on two dramatic aspects of the avowed atheist Russell's program: 1) his 1946 advocacy, in the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, of a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, should it not agree to a world government controlling nuclear weapons; and 2) his 1951 attack on economic progress in the essay "The Impact of Science on Society." These are not contradictory programs! Russell's concept, like that of the Olympian Zeus, is to utilize devastating technological power for control, but to deny the life-saving power of technology for letting mankind develop as the co-creator of the planet.

The latter essay is brutally frank in its attack on population:

"At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars.... War has hitherto been disappointing in this respect ... but perhaps bacteriological war may prove effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it?"

And what does this so-called scientist say about the role of science in increasing mankind's ability to sustain larger and larger populations, because man can develop greater and greater productive power by utilizing science and technology? In the same essay, he writes:

"Science can abolish poverty and excessive hours of labor. In the earliest human communities, before agriculture, subsistence was precarious, and death from starvation must have been frequent. At that stage, man had the same mixture of misery and carefree enjoyment as still makes up the lives of other animals.

"Agriculture was a technical advance. The way it was used should be an awful warning to our age. It introduced slavery and serfdom, human sacrifice, absolute monarchy and large wars....

"Both industry and agriculture, to a continually increasing degree, are carried on in ways that waste the world's capital of material resources....

"The indisputable fact is that industry—and agriculture, insofar as it is used to make artificial fertilizers—depend upon irreplaceable materials and sources of energy....

"If bad times become common, it must be inferred that industry will dwindle and that the industrialization characteristic of the last 150 years will be rudely checked...."

Russell, of course, is lying about the effects of developing advanced agriculture and industry—in the same way that British imperial tool Parson Malthus did in the 18th Century, and Prince Philip, the British Royal Virus, does today. There is no "limit" to the ability of man to utilize his mind to solve problems created by shortages of resources; new resources can, as they have been through human history, be discovered and created. The only problem is the policy, currently implemented through the British-thinking financial empire, that treats mankind like another animal, and prevents a human scientific culture, reminiscent of that ushered in by the Italian Renaissance, from dominating the planet.

The British Empire for which Russell speaks has killed untold millions with his genocidal policies, many of which murders were carried out by surrogates, ranging from Adolf Hitler's regime, to the World Bank-IMF, and the environmentalist movement.

As EIR has documented at length, the Hitler movement was not only sponsored, philosophically and financially, by the British Empire, but it was the quintessential "green" movement.[2] As in the case of Russell, there was no contradiction to the Nazi movement between high technology for war (and killing), and "back to nature" irrationalism for the rest of the population. They both proceeded from the bestial idea of man which the Nazi philosophy espoused, the idea that man is merely an animal who consumes resources—and must be discarded when he costs too much.

From this "utilitarian" idea came the Hitler "health" policy of 1939, which set up the apparatus for eliminating "lives not worthy to be lived," and from there, inexorably, to the mass-murder policy in the concentration camps. And while the British establishment backed off from the explicit endorsement of that "eugenic" policy after the crimes of the Hitler regime were exposed after World War II, it simply repackaged the policy in another form, euphemistically called the "conservation of nature."

One key transitional figure was Julian Huxley, of the infamous family of collaborators with the Malthusians in the 19th Century. Huxley was an avid proponent of the Darwinian pseudo-science of natural selection, and advocate of racial breeding, otherwise known as eugenics, throughout his life. In 1959-62 he was the president of the British Eugenics Society. His personal commitments notwithstanding, however, Huxley agreed with his British imperial colleagues that a postwar mass movement to enforce genocide should best focus on "saving the environment," rather than directly on population control. He played a pivotal role in founding two of the most prominent organizations to that effect, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

In both these organizations, the oligarchical principle is expressed by 1) a fraudulent counterposition between "saving nature" and human scientific and technological progress, and 2) by an overt hostility to populating the planet. Listen to WWF founder Prince Philip and Malthusian ideologue Paul Ehrlich:

"In the event I am reborn, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation," said Philip to the Deutsche Presse Agentur in August 1988.

"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.... We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions," wrote Ehrlich in his 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb.

It is precisely those kinds of decisions which are today condemning all mankind to destruction.

British Genocide Policies Today

The ugly reality is that the in-your-face genocide policies of yesteryear have become so institutionalized in the post-World War II world, that many people can't even recognize them. And they have systematically killed our scientific capabilities. Only a dramatic dumping of these policies and those who impose them, can allow us to carry out the scientific renaissance we need in the face of the current galactic challenges.

Start with population. It has been seen as a "threat" increasingly over this period, and the alleged threat of "overpopulation" has been written into U.S. government policy documents since 1974 (Henry Kissinger's National Security Strategy Memorandum 200) and 1980 (Jimmy Carter's Global 2000).

Closely related is the imperial policy of restricting science and advanced technology, a policy we have seen grow dramatically since the early 1970s as well, with the consequent near abandonment of the nuclear industry, and high-end machine-tool development, in the United States. While some try to camouflage this policy as a result of the high cost of such investment, that is a transparent fraud.

And why hasn't the American population, once the most progress-proud people on Earth, revolted against this shift? So far, they have been lulled into a virtually insensate state, in which they have tolerated the slow, systematic takedown of their society and standard of living, and turned toward existentialist "pleasures" to take away the pain (including the pain of thought for the future). This is also a characteristic of imperial control.

No sane person could deny that Barack Obama has fully embraced this suicidal (for the U.S.) imperial program. Two of the key markers are his appointments in the area of health and science policy.

Dr. Donald Berwick was given a recess appointment as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Summer of 2010. Berwick was a perfect choice for Obama, because he had made his career in figuring out ways of cost-cutting in medical services—and Obama's health-care policy, just approved by the Congress in the Spring of 2010, was based, like Adolf Hitler's, on the genocidal premise that there are lives not worthy to be lived.

In 2010, Berwick was named an honorary knight commander of the British Empire. The service for which he was honored by Queen Elizabeth II was his role as consultant and advisor to the British National Health Service (NHS) from 1996 to 2003. During this period, Prime Minister Tony Blair reorganized NHS treatment decisions around the creation of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), notorious for denying treatments to Britain's elderly, very young, and very sick. The NHS system during the decade of NICE has otherwise been devastated by cuts in national health spending.

Berwick fully embraces NICE's Hitlerian approach: Measure how expensive medical treatment is, so you can cut what is "too expensive," in the name of providing "quality," not "quantity." Another name for genocide.

Obama's science policy advisor, Dr. John Holdren, is even more explicit in his Nazi character than Berwick; but, unlike Berwick, he was able to sail through the Senate confirmation process with unanimous backing. Holdren, a physicist turned environmentalist, worked closely with his mentor Paul Ehrlich in the 1970s, calling for coercive population reduction and mass sterlization. He also sought to stop development of fusion energy, on the grounds that it would give humanity cheap energy!

In the book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, which he wrote with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, the proposals read:

"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. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. 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" (pp. 942-43).

Not since Russell and H.G. Wells have such genocidal global policies been put forward explicitly. Of course, Holdren outright denied he still held these views, during his confirmation hearing in 2010. But once confirmed, he carried out policies precisely in continuity with those views.

Holdren's first major public input came with Obama's proposal to kill manned space flight, allegedly in the name of putting more investment into "science." That's a sick joke (see NASA article, this issue).

Holdren's other anti-science input has been less public, but it did surface recently in the context of the escalating galactic crisis, when it became known that the Obama Presidency intervened to take the DESDynI radar satellite program out of the President's NASA budget request. On March 4, a group of 18 prominent geophysicists, seismologists, and electrical engineers wrote to the Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction, urging them to intervene to restore Obama Administration funding for the DESDynI radar satellite program, "a top priority Tier I research mission recommended for launch this decade" by the National Research Council.

The scientists wrote that "NASA's DESDynI radar satellite would contribute essential support for national priorities regarding the mitigation, assessment, and response to catastrophic natural and anthropogenic events (earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, fires, oil spills, etc.).... The DESDynI radar satellite would enable detection of fault zones that are actively accumulating elastic strain to be released in future earthquakes, it would enable the rapid detection of surface faulting and liquefaction after an earthquake, and it would enable estimating the next generation of precise fault slip models for use in assessing ground motion...."

A source well-informed about White House operations subsequently alerted EIR that this cancellation was made specifically by Holdren and his panel of so-called science advisors, thus making him directly responsible for this potentially genocidal act.

One might say that the appointment of Holdren represents just one more piece of evidence that President Obama is mentally unfit to hold his office as President. Kick out Obama—and we're on our way to getting seriously down to work on the galactic problems we face.

[1] The material on the Roman Empire is taken from the article "How the Romans nearly destroyed civilization," by Kenneth Kronberg, published in EIR's Special Report of July 1994, "Stop the 'New World Order': Hitler in Blue Helmets."

[2] See "The Historical Roots of Green Fascism," by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, EIR, April 13, 2007; part II. Much more can be found on the EIR Archive.

Subscribe to EIW