Tonight we are going to be covering a fair bit of ground actually.
And so, you bear with me, it's not been an easy presentation to prepare at all
actually.
And it's taken me quite some time and...
yeah, looking at some things which are not quite pleasant to look at at times.
But we are going to go through it.
And the talk is Exposing the Fruit of Evolution.
It's part two.
And obviously there was a part one and probably some of you and I guess
definitely some of you weren't here for the first part.
So what I'm going to do is just very briefly go through the first part which
was Exposing the Roots of Evolution.
But before we do that, I always do this right at the beginning, a definition of
evolution.
So we know we are batting on the same wicket.
The Oxford English Dictionary says it's the origination of living things by
development from earlier forms, not by special creation.
And my understanding is adaptation, natural selection are scientific
principles, testable, but evolution is not.
Adaptation, for example, people have quoted things like peppered moths or
Darwin's finch beaks or something like that.
But evolution, as I mentioned in the first part, I traced it right through as a
philosophical root.
And certainly Sir Karl Popper referred to it as a metaphysical research program.
Sir Karl Popper, by the way, was a very, very well-known leading philosopher,
an Austrian chap.
So let's just recap on the first part of the talk I did a few weeks ago which was
Exposing the Roots of Evolution.
And I referred to Charles Darwin's 6th edition of Origin of Species in 1888.
And he lists in the preface there about others who had gone before him.
You see, the thing was that Charles Darwin, when he wrote his original in
1859, others had already been thinking about and writing about and lecturing
about evolutionary ideas before him.
But I guess there was pressure on him, so when he came to the 6th edition he gave
credit where credit was due.
So he listed about 22 people before him, including Aristotle, he mentions there in
the footnotes, also connected with Pericles.
So there he says, passing over the illusions to the subject in classical
writers.
Well, last time I spoke, I made a beeline for the classical writers and tracing back
something of the ancient philosophy of evolution a long time before Charles
Darwin.
So we went, and it was quite a shock to some people, about Brahmin thinking,
philosophical ideas, in India, some 3,000 years or so before Charles
Darwin.
And the quotation here from Mahabharata, which says, these, that is the creative
processes, this is the whole process of the universe and everything else coming to
being, in succession acquire the attributes of the immediately preceding
ones from which they have originated.
Each has not only its own special attribute, but each succeeding one has the
attributes of all the previous ones.
I showed a number of references of some of the Hindu writings, but if you want to
look at it in more detail, because I am only whizzing through this, then please
have a look on the Edinburgh Creation website and you will see the full talk.
Then I passed through from the evidence linking from the Hindu Brahmins,
Pythagoras was influenced by Egyptians, Babylonians and others, including the
Brahmins.
And many of his ideas came through the Brahmin understanding, a form of
pantheistic evolution.
They had an understanding of reincarnation, which is quite different
because obviously the soul leaves the body and comes back into another creature or so
on.
But they had this upward tree of life, as I spoke about last time, which from the
beginning was this evolving process.
On the other hand, a contemporary of Pythagoras was Thales.
He branched out, instead of pantheistic, meaning God is the universe, is a
consciousness and everything, Thales instead was a naturalistic evolutionist.
He said basically everything came through entirely natural processes.
And there were a whole lot of people like Democritus and Epicurus and others that
came through that line.
I went on to Plato in Timaeus.
He said, these are the principles on which living creatures change and have change
into one another, the transformation depending on the loss or gain of
understanding or folly.
Well, that was not quite the understanding we have today, but nevertheless he was
talking about transformation of creatures from a lower to a higher form.
And then there was Aristotle, more of a fixed understanding.
But Plato and Aristotle, their understanding was debated and worked
through right through the Middle Ages, through to the Enlightenment time.
Quotation from Voltaire, When I first read Plato and came upon this gradation of
beings which rises from the lightest atom to the supreme being, I was struck with
admiration.
A big debate in France and in Britain and other parts of Europe.
I mentioned Lord Mombardo, James Burnett, who was here in Edinburgh.
And he spoke about, even back in 1768 in fact, he spoke about the orangutan being
as an animal betwixt a monkey and a man.
And he spoke about almost anticipating Heichel's recapitulation theory in the
womb.
And then he had an influence on Erasmus Darwin.
Both of them were Freemasons at the oldest Masonic lodge here in Edinburgh.
And Erasmus Darwin wrote two books, Zoonomia and Temple of Nature,
which had a big influence on a lot of people in the Enlightenment period.
And again were free runners for his grandfather, his grandson rather,
Charles Darwin.
Interestingly enough, Charles Darwin doesn't give credit to either Lord
Mombardo or Erasmus Darwin.
Probably because of some of their spiritual beliefs they had with it too.
Well, let's now move on to the talk we are addressing this evening.
The Fruits of Evolution, Part 2, that's what we're looking at.
And we're looking at particularly three aspects.
And in fact, I think probably I could have done another talk on the third one,
the sexual revolution, but we'll try our best.
Eugenics, ethnic cleansing and the sexual revolution.
So let's move first of all to eugenics.
And what is eugenics?
Well, it basically means that it's well-being, translated eugenes,
it's well-being or well-offspring.
Trying to produce well or good offspring.
And interestingly enough, we had this quite recently.
I think it was last week or a couple of weeks ago.
In The Independent, I don't know whether you were following all the furore caused
at the time by something which Dr. James Watson, he was one of the chaps that
cracked DNA code back in the 50s with Crick.
And he was saying basically, this is summed up, this is The Independent,
and Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA Pioneer.
And it says at the bottom there, fury over scientist theory.
All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same
as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.
Now that caused a big stink.
And in fact, I think he was due to speak here in Edinburgh, but it was cancelled
because people were very upset about what they thought were racist remarks and so
on.
And even harbouring back to the time of eugenics, which is going to be our main
subject tonight.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Crick, his colleague in the DNA work back in the
50s, he said in 1978, no newborn infant should be declared human until it has
passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment, and that if it fails these
tests, it forfeits its right to live.
Interesting enough, it's actually not new.
Maybe the complexity of DNA and genetic understanding is, but the philosophy is
not.
Now here's a quotation straight from Plato's Republic.
We must, if we are to be consistent, and if we are to have a real pedigree
herd, make the best of our men with the best of our women as often as possible,
and the inferior men with the inferior women as seldom as possible, and bring up
only the offspring of the best.
And no one but the rulers must know what is happening, if we are to avoid
dissension in our guardian herd.
And we shall have to devise an ingenious system of drawing lots, so that our
inferior guardians can, at each mating festival, blame the lot and not the
rulers.
Our rulers will have to employ a great deal of fiction and deceit for the benefit
of their subjects.
Each generation of children will be taken by officers appointed for the purpose,
who may be men or women or both, for men and women will of course be
equally eligible for office.
These officers will take the children of the better guardians to a nursery,
and put them in charge of nurses living in a separate part of the city, obviously
when they are grown up, not as babies.
The children of the inferior guardians and any defective offspring of the others will
be quietly and secretly disposed of.
They must be, if we are to keep our guardian stock pure.
And as I said, that was from Plato's Republic, 375 BC.
And as I mentioned before, Plato was a big influence in evolutionary thinking.
And here we have something of his, really the forerunner, foreshadowing the
whole thing about eugenics.
Now, before Charles Darwin came and wrote his books, basically our western culture
before then had been very much influenced by Christian understanding.
The Christians understood from their Bible that human beings were made in the image
of God, therefore people should be respected, irrespective of colour or
whatever.
And in fact, the early church councils, there were a whole variety of different
nationalities represented amongst the bishops.
And there was the command of Christ to take the message right through to all the
ethnic groups.
And Augustine, who was one of the church leaders in the 5th century, he said,
whoever is anywhere born a man, no matter what unusual appearance or how
peculiar in some part, they are human, descended from Adam.
In other words, they are equally valid before God, not a distinction as such.
We get to Charles Darwin, and his personal tutor at Cambridge University was
Professor Adam Sedgwick.
And after Sedgwick had read Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859,
the same year he wrote this letter to Charles Darwin.
There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as physical.
A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.
It is the crown and glory of organic science that it does through final cause
linked material to moral.
You have ignored this link, and if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done
your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it.
Were it possible, which thank God it is not, to break it, humanity in my mind
would suffer a damage that might brutalise it and sink the human race into a lower
grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records
tell us of its history.
A kind of a warning he was giving, almost prophetically, to Charles Darwin
himself.
Charles Darwin, of course, we tend to shorten it to The Origin of Species,
but they liked long titles in those days.
But the part of it is Preservation of Favoured Species and the Struggle for
Life.
And he understood that, and he also understood he was influenced to some
extent by Malthus, who had talked about mass extinctions in the past.
And he said, in A Descent of Man, later in 1871, But there appears to be at
least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of
society not marrying so freely as the sound, and this check might be
indefinitely increased.
Now, he was not straight outright saying eugenics, but he was beginning to point
towards it.
But he was very careful in some of the things he actually spoke about publicly.
He wrote another thing, A Descent of Man.
I guess this was also very much influenced by Malthus.
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races
of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout
the world.
At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaffhausen has
remarked, will no doubt be exterminated.
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will
intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than a
Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now, between the
negro, or Australian, and the gorilla.
Huxley was known as Darwin's bulldog.
Basically, Darwin was a scientist.
He liked very much the solitude of his research and everything else.
He didn't really like the big public heated debate at times, but Huxley loved
it, and he was that kind of man.
So he was very much a spokesman for Charles Darwin.
And he said in one of his speeches, No rational man, cognisant of the facts,
believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior,
of the white man.
The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within
the reach of our dusky cousins.
The white man may wash his hands of it, and a Caucasian conscience be void of
reproach for evermore.
So his understanding, very popular at the time, was that there was no way you'd ever
get an African, for example, being a scientist, or a research scientist,
or a professor of science, or in politics in a major way, or any kind of influence
like that.
That would just be completely out of the question.
Herbert Spencer was the one that coined the phrase, Survivor of the fittest,
at the time of Charles Darwin.
And he said, the principle of survivor of the fittest implies that people who are
burdens on society should be allowed to die, rather than be helped by society.
We get now to Sir Francis Galton, who is the father of eugenics,
recognised as such, and he was the cousin of Charles Darwin.
And they spent quite a lot of time discussing things.
And he wrote this, I do not see why any insolence of caste should prevent the
gifted class, when they had the power, from treating their lower caste,
compatriots, with all kindness, as long as they maintain celibacy.
But if these continue to procreate children, inferior in moral, intellectual
and physical qualities, it is easier to believe that the time may come when such
persons would be considered enemies to the state, and to have forfeited all claims of
kindness.
Very much echoes of Plato, a long time before.
There is Leonard Darwin.
He was the son of Charles Darwin, and he was the chairman of the Eugenics
Society, and very influential in this period.
And one of the things he said, he wrote a book called Eugenic Reform in
1926, and he dedicates it to his father, Charles Darwin.
He says, dedicated to the memory of my father, for if I had not believed that he
would have wished me to give such a help as I could toward making his life's work
of service to mankind, I should never have been led to write this book.
He says again, in the same book, in considering whether any method of
selecting the better types of multiplication, or the worse types for
elimination, can from a practical basis for eugenics reform, those eugenicists
who, like myself, are hoping to be able to utilise the methods which have been
effective in organic evolution, are inevitably led to consider what
guidance can be obtained from a study of the action of natural selection.
In other words, his bible, as it were, was Charles Darwin's origin species.
They had to work out, evolution had to permeate every aspect of society,
including social evolution, and working it out based on the fundamentals of Charles
Darwin.
He also says, in his birth control review, of all the problems which will have to be
faced in the future, in my opinion, the most difficult will be those
concerning the treatment of the inferior races of mankind.
Now, let's get to the German evolution and eugenics.
You see, there came a point, both in America and other parts, Sweden,
other parts of Europe, where sterilisation took place.
So people who were regarded as being unfit, they were sterilised so they
couldn't have children.
There were tens of thousands of them.
In Germany, I think something like 375,000 were sterilised.
But, it was on German soil that the ideas of evolution really took off, and
especially with eugenics.
Charles Darwin himself, in a letter, he was very excited because he said,
the support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our
views will ultimately prevail.
So he was very, very excited about that.
And, here's an interesting one, his cousin, a letter from Francis Galton
to his niece, Millie, which was in 1909.
But he says, a eugenics review, under the title of Russian Hygiene,
has been started in Munich by a very capable man, Dr. Plertz, who is the editor
of a really solid anthropological periodical.
The society that issues the review has five honorary members, among whom are
Heikl and Weizmann.
And I am asked to be an honorary vice-president, which honour I have gladly
accepted.
In other words, Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, was the
vice-president of the first, what was called the racial or race hygiene,
which was eugenics, German version of what was happening in Britain and America.
And it was established, and Francis Galton, as I said, was the honorary
vice-president for it, and really excited about what the Germans were doing.
So, who was Professor Alfred Plertz?
Well, he became the director of the German Society for Race Hygiene at this
particular time, at the beginning of the 20th century.
Highly regarded in Germany and abroad.
He said, the hygiene of the entire human species coincides with that of the Aryan
race, which represents a civilised race par excellence.
To further it, that is the Aryan race, is the same as furthering all of humanity.
And Francis Galton, in a letter to Alfred Plertz, personally said, we take the
highest interest in your eminent and important eugenics.
So, he was really, really right behind what was happening in those early days in
Germany.
One of the people that Francis Galton mentioned was Professor Ernst Teichel,
who was a zoologist.
And he was, interestingly, a very, very staunch evolutionist, but he was also
a pantheist.
He believed in a consciousness that went through everything.
Do you remember I traced through in the first part of my talk, about you had
evolution coming through from a sort of a Brahmin root, and it branched two ways.
You had the pantheistic, that was a Pythagoras kind of characters,
right through those people.
And then you had the naturalist, that was Thales, and Epicurus,
and Democritus, and so on.
So, you had the same root for both, but they seemed to be very separate,
but they were rooted the same way.
But here we have Teichel, and he wasn't the only one, because he set up the Monist
League in 1906, and there were something like 60,000 members.
And many of them were leading scientists in Germany, who were pantheists.
There was a revival of, like very much we see like New Age, and pagan ideas we see
in our culture today.
Alongside the same time, I don't know if you went up to Sauerwein, another name for
Halloween on the Royal Mile on Wednesday, but you had a whole lot of people,
revival of pagan stuff going on there, and processions and so on.
So, there was this kind of thing going on in Germany, side by side, evolution and
revival of pagan ideas.
And Teichel said, pantheism is the world system of the modern scientist.
Pantheism is only a polite form of atheism.
Einstein, for example, was a pantheist, very much in the line of Spinoza,
the same kind of idea.
Now, here's an interesting thing, because he's probably better, he's quite
well known, I think, for what he called the recapitulation theory.
And he basically was convinced that, in the womb, you would have this
progression of evolutionary process from the simpler forms to the more complex
forms right up to the human being.
The sad thing was, he did some great drawings, he was a very good artist,
but he actually was caught out being a bit fraudulent with some of his diagrams,
and it was not actually accurate.
If you look at the one on the left-hand side, that's his diagrams.
But if you look on the right-hand side, you see the actual photographs.
You actually see up-to-date analysis of what they really look like, and actually
very, very different indeed.
So Teichel was completely wrong in his understanding of that.
He hoped very much to find a transitional form, common ancestor through to humans,
called Pythacanthropus allelus.
And it never emerged.
That was a friend, I think, who did the painting for him.
And he told his students that if they went off to Indonesia, they would eventually
find what he was looking for.
In fact, it was Eugene Dubois who found what was called the Java Man, and it was
debated back and forth over it.
Was it transitional form?
Then it was a gibbon.
It turned out, I think, it was just a homo erectus, which is fully human.
But here's something about Teichel, his quote.
He said, it's impossible to want to plant human education, that is, amongst African
and Asian tribes, where the necessary ground for it, human brain development,
is lacking.
They have scarcely elevated themselves above that lower stage of transition from
the anthropoid apes and ape men.
So again, it's very typical of that period that it would just be impossible to be
able to educate some of the African and Asian tribes, because they weren't evolved
enough.
Let's move on now.
It progresses through to ethnic cleansing.
There was a man, he was a French sociologist, La Pouge, in 1887.
And he said, he predicted this, in the next century, that would be for the
1900s, people will be slaughtered by the millions for the sake of one or two
degrees on their cephalic index, that is the cranial measurement popular
with anthropologists, because they measured it by the brain and the skull and
so forth.
The superior races will substitute themselves by force for the human groups
retarded in evolution.
And the last sentimentalists, whoever they were, I suppose regarded human beings as
all being equal in the eyes of God, will witness the copious extermination of
entire peoples.
How accurate he was in his prediction.
He could see how things were going.
And in fact, it began to escalate, because of evolutionary thinking in the
education system right through.
And what was called the Herero Massacre.
Now this was in South, it used to be called South West Africa, it became known
later as Namibia.
And it was a time of colonialists pushing and ransacking, going in and taking
resources, whatever they wanted from Africa.
And the Europeans were doing it, you know, move over Africans, it's ours.
And after the Conference of Berlin in 1885, Africa was carved up amongst
different nations.
And Germany got South Western Africa, or Namibia as it's called now.
And there was this tribe called the Herero.
Now they got fed up, because the Germans treated them like dirt basically,
because they raped the women, they murdered the men for no real reason,
often, beaten to death for small offences.
And this chap was sent by Kaiser Wilhelm II to sort them out, and General Lothar
von Trotter, the Rotter.
And off he went, and he said, I believe that the Herero nation as such should be
exterminated.
The exercise of violence and crass terrorism and even gruesomeness was and is
my policy.
I destroy the African tribes with streams of blood and streams of money.
Only following this cleansing can something new emerge which will remain.
In other words, get rid of this stuff.
This is what Malthus has been talking about.
This is what we need to do.
We need to clear our path so we can have something better that will emerge out of
the chaos.
Professor Eugene Fischer was regarded very much as being sort of father of German
genetics really, a leading scientist at that time.
And he went off to study the Herero tribe that were massacred.
And the heads had been chopped off and everything.
He examined the skulls.
He sent them off for laboratory examination in Germany.
And he became very influential.
In fact, the German government rewarded him as Director of Eugenics at the Kaiser
Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology.
Later on, he co-wrote the Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene 1921 with
Professors Edwin Bauer and Fritz Lenz.
It became the university textbook on Eugenics in Germany.
And this, when Hitler was in prison, he read and had a big influence on his
life.
And later on, Hitler actually promoted him to the rector of the University of Berlin
where he taught eugenics to Nazi doctors.
So we can see how this begins to grow.
Let's just look at an Englishman, H.G.
Wells, better known for The Time Machine and War of the Worlds and science fiction
books.
Nevertheless, he was a very, very staunch evolutionist and eugenicist.
He wrote, There is only one sane and logical thing to be done with a rarely
inferior race, and that is to exterminate it.
And again, he said, The elites of the future will kill off the diseased,
ill-formed or unintelligent members of the human race.
So it wasn't just the unevolved races, but it was also those who were sick
amongst us.
Those who were genetically not up to it.
They were unfit.
And that could include the elderly.
I suppose you could kill off people with cancer too.
And there was a whole lot of other people as well.
And then we get to Adolf Hitler and right-wing socialism, the National
Socialist Party.
Now, a lot of people think about Hitler.
He was a complete nutter who just suddenly appeared and he did some good things.
I think the VW Beetle car and the roads and the Autobahn and all the rest of it.
My wife is German, by the way, and she told me about some good things
that Hitler did.
But nevertheless, we tend to think about Hitler as being a pretty nasty character.
But you have to bear in mind he was a product of his age.
He was surrounded by a committee of leading scientists who were staunch
evolutionists and eugenicists.
He had been influenced by a number of these scientists in his readings and
research.
Yes, there were occult influences.
If you look at the swastika flag behind him, everywhere they went they took the
swastika.
It was taken from a Hindu symbol.
It was an Aryan supremacy.
Because in the Hindu understanding, we trace it right back again, you had the
Aryan with the supreme white cast.
And then down to the skin's colour, right down to the black skin, they were
the lowest, they were the Sudra.
So there was this greatly, highly evolved race, the Aryan white-skinned people.
And he actually honestly thought that they were doing a wonderful thing to do what
they did.
And this sign, this swastika, actually means well-being, translated from the
Sanskrit swastika, and it means well-being.
So basically it's another way of saying eugenics.
We are out to do a wonderful thing.
We want to see the world evolve.
We understand evolution and we want to work it through in a social way.
So he said, man must pass through many further stages of metamorphosis.
All creative forces will be concentrated in a new species.
The two types of man, the old and the new, will evolve rapidly in different
directions.
One will disappear from the face of the earth, the other will flourish.
This is the real motive behind the National Socialist Movement.
By the way, just mentioning too, Hitler's bedtime reading was a book by
Blavatsky called The Secret Doctrine.
It was an occult book, she was a leading spiritualist and one of the forerunners of
what you call the New Age Movement these days.
But in his copy he had written many notes in the margins.
He was very influenced by occult understanding, but Blavatsky too spoke
about this Aryan supremacy and this evolutionary process.
So again, the two things were coming together.
She was coming very much through an Indian Hindu Brahmin way of understanding,
through a Gnostic tradition.
She was a leading Freemason, except amongst the Eastern Lodge, which is a
women's thing.
And so you had that as well behind it, side by side.
And of course we know the history of the, well, 6 million Jews, but 11 million
people who were exterminated.
Just a couple of horrible pictures.
Then we look at Karl Marx.
Now, he of course was, that was Marxism, that was left-wing socialism.
And of course, Nazism and Marxism, Socialism, Communism, they were at each
other's throats later on.
But here we go.
He said, although developed in a coarse English manner, this is the book,
i.e.
The Origin of Species, that contains the foundation and natural history for our
view.
That was a letter to his friend Friedrich Engels in 1860.
That was just after he had read Darwin's Origin of Species.
And Engels himself said, just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic
nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history.
So it's just following through really.
Leon Trotsky later on said, Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the
entrance to the temple of the universe.
Later on we have Lenin and Stalin.
And a time of terrible suppression as Communism began to spread with the
millions of lives that anybody intellectual, anybody who was in
opposition to it, was eliminated by the millions.
And then of course there was the Asian version of it with Mao Zedong,
the Cultural Revolution, again with tens of millions of people who were
exterminated.
And Pol Pot of course in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge more recently.
And what was called the Killing Fields, pretty horrendous too.
A few million people there were liquidated.
There's a chap called Dr. Hendrik Vo-Wurud, don't know how to pronounce
that, Architect of Apartheid.
Now he went over, he was very much studying psychology, but he actually went
over to Germany and studied at Hamburg and other German universities.
He was very much influenced by the understanding of eugenics at the time.
And he came back to South Africa, eventually became Prime Minister.
And Apartheid was framed and developed very largely through what happened with
him.
And as we know, it's not so long ago we had that problem, still to some extent do.
Rwandan massacres, that is more recent.
And horrendous, I think there were probably about a million people,
800,000 or something that were slaughtered or something like that.
But that was pretty horrible, not so long ago.
Now the Hutu and Tutsi were two tribes.
The Tutsi beforehand, going back a long time ago, they tended to be the ruling
class.
And the Hutu were the majority, and they were more of a servant class.
So they already had that tribal sort of tension beforehand.
But what happened was, first of all, Germany had an influence in Rwanda,
followed by the Belgians coming in.
And the Belgians actually differentiated between the Hutu and the Tutsi,
not so much on their cultural history, but on the basis of evolutionary
understanding.
So that cards were issued for each one.
And oppression came.
The Belgians rewarded the Tutsi minority with places in government or places of
authority and so forth.
And the Hutu majority eventually had had enough.
And it broke out in civil war.
We know the results of that.
So that was an influence there.
Well, let's have a look at the sexual revolution.
You have to bear in mind, in that same particular period I was talking about,
19th century through the early 20th century, evolution had become so
essentially regarded as scientific foundation, therefore everything had to be
influenced by it.
So you had leading professors of philosophy and ethics and so on,
were beginning to redefine morality and ethics.
So here's a quotation from Professor Friedrich Jodl from University of Vienna.
And he said, morality too is a product of evolution, as in a state of continual
transformation.
Professor Arnold Jodl said, the new world view actually rests on the theory of
evolution.
On it we have to construct a new ethics, which of course had included sexuality.
In fact, a lot of them in Germany and America and Britain and Europe were
debating, leading academics, let's redefine sexuality.
So some were saying, polygamy is fine, you know, you can have as many wives as
you want, or adultery, let's redefine it, or same sex relationships or whatever.
A whole variety of different things were being discussed and opened up in that
particular time.
Well, it really breaks open with Dr. Alfred Kinsey.
And he was a zoologist.
He had actually studied gall wasps and got his PhD on that.
And later on he took an interest in human sexuality.
He became a professor at Indiana University.
And he was given permission to do research on human sexuality.
And a lot of people regarded him as the, really the sort of the pioneer of what we
call the sexual revolution.
And so you see that picture on the right hand side with this, another book by
somebody else.
What can you learn from the Kinsey report?
And there's a woman saying, oh my goodness, you know, all these things we
learn, we never knew about, it's all been suppressed and that's all out in the open
now.
And the time of Kinsey.
So some of the things that Kinsey's, he wrote a male report.
His research had a team of researchers which produced the male reports of from
children right through to older men.
Something like 5,300 of them interviewing them.
And that was 1948.
And then the female reports in 1953.
This was for America.
So his conclusions were, from his research, 50% of men have extramarital
affairs.
29% of women have extramarital affairs.
37% of men have had at least one homosexual experience.
10% of men are exclusively homosexual.
6% of the population is exclusively heterosexual.
Premarital sex is good for you.
And we should express ourselves sexually in any way we like, provided it's mutual.
And we need to cast off religious and cultural inhibitions which are so harmful.
In other words, if we got rid of those, the old-fashioned sort of Christian ideas
or something, we got rid of that idea of guilt and everything, and that
suppression, we're free from that.
We wouldn't feel it was bad at all about anything like this.
And that was basically summed up a lot of his results.
Well, here was somebody who was very, very happy about it.
He's got a big smug smile.
I think he's 81 now.
Hugh Hefner, who came up with Playboy, the pornographic magazine.
And he said, we believe we are filling a publishing need only slightly less
important than the one just taken care of by the Kinsey Report.
He obviously said that when he was younger.
And that was in the first issue of Playboy.
Well, as things developed, Kinsey's reports became the foundation for
sexuality.
And one person, Dr. Mary Calderon, was nicknamed the high priestess of sex
education.
She became an associate professor at New York University.
But beforehand, she'd been a former medical director of Planned Parenthood
Federation of America.
She co-founded SECUS, which is Sex Information Education Council of the
United States, with Professor Lester Kirkendall, who was the head of Department
of Family Life at Oregon State University.
Now, Kirkendall mentored Professor Derek Calderwood, who became the head of the New
York State Education Department in 1970.
Calderwood, there, in developing a degree in human sexuality, included things like
nude workshops, nude body workshops, which meant students exploring each
other's sexual bits.
Both men with each other, women with each other, men with women.
That was part of the training of that type of thing.
Now, Dr. Walder Pomeroy was one of Kinsey's fellow researchers, a very
influential chap, and he was a founding member of this SECUS.
Now, some of the statements that have come out of SECUS are as such, back in 1980.
Rational understanding and acceptance of the wide range of possible expressions of
sexuality constitute one goal of education for sexuality.
In other words, it's very important that people are liberated to express themselves
however they wish.
Another one.
A child's sexuality should be developed in the same way as a child's inborn human
capacity to talk or to walk.
And the parent's role should relate only to teaching a child the appropriateness of
privacy, place and person, in a word, socialization.
In other words, a parent's role is simply that the children should only do sexual
exploration, whatever they wanted to do, in the right place at the right time.
And, obviously, the right person too.
But, there was a real sense of trying to bring freedom to the child to explore
these type of things.
There came a spate in the 80s of sex education books for adolescents with
children.
One was Boys and Sex, Girls and Sex by Dr Wardle Pomeroy, one of Kinsey's
co-researchers.
And it was advised for over 11s, detailing sexual description for them to
try out all sorts of sexual intercourse positions and various other things,
what to do.
He advised them it's like taking a car out on a test run before you buy it.
In other words, try out all these things as you go through life before you
eventually settle down with somebody you really like.
1986, another book came out which had a big influence in America, Learning About
Sex, the Contemporary Guide for Young Adults by Gary Kelly.
It was voted on to the best books list for young adults by the American Library
Association and highly recommended by Professor Calderon.
That was Mary, who co-founded CICAS.
It contains encouragement for premarital sex, homosexual, lesbian sex, bestiality,
that's sex with animals, and adultery, or extramarital sex as being quite normal.
Something which shocked people back in the 80s was the North American Man-Boy Love
Association quotation from one of their conferences.
Children must have unhindered right to have sex with members of any age of the
same or opposite sex.
Now, let's look at Kinsey's methods of collecting data.
We've seen something of the progression of where it's going.
But let's see how Kinsey actually got his data.
And here was a warning by Dr. Abraham Maslow, who was a leading psychologist,
and was friends to begin with, with Kinsey, but they had disagreements.
And it was over this.
This is a letter he wrote to a friend.
When I warned him, that's Kinsey, about volunteer error, he disagreed with
me and was sure his random selection would be okay.
As I expected, the volunteer error was proven, and the whole basis for Kinsey's
statistics was proven to be shaky.
All my work was excluded from his bibliography.
In other words, what he was saying was this.
Kinsey was basically, he wanted to home in on certain categories of people,
and I'll show you a bit later.
And then they would get the volunteer, they would actually collect the people,
they'd invite their friends, and from that he would get his statistics.
So what did he do, Kinsey and his team?
Well, of the 5,300 males, he interviewed 1,400 who were sex offenders in prison.
In other words, that's about 25%, I think, of the male interviewees were in
for sexual offence in prison for it.
Which is rather a large percentage.
He excluded, for example, majorities, bear in mind this is America in the 1940s
and 50s, and that sort of period where it was very sort of bible-belt, right-wing,
sort of Christian-based for most people.
And he deliberately avoided most of that.
And he homed in on other groups for his data collecting.
So, there were 32 contact groups.
Seven groups were male prostitutes.
He records in his male report there were several hundred of them, male prostitutes.
There were pimps, prisoners, and criminals amongst these seven groups.
And of course, they then collected, introduced their friends to be
interviewed.
The contacts who were interviewed were also pre-primed because they said,
we always assume that everyone has engaged in every type of activity.
That was an assumption from Kinsey and his team that every human being, particularly
in the male report we are talking about, all males have experienced everything.
That was his assumption.
There was one senior high school, Woodroffe Senior High School in Peoria,
in Illinois, It was chosen and it was known to be particularly high in the
percentage of people who were dabbling or involved with homosexual activity.
Very unusual high percentage.
But there was one person who managed to get 350 reports from students there
without permission of parents or of the school until he was found and he was
thrown out.
Of the data on children, there was research on 375 children from the age of 2
months through to 15 years old.
There were technically trained experts which were used to bring children to
climax.
That is mentioned in the male report, chapter 5.
One of these technically trained experts claimed he had had sexual relationships
with 600 boys, 200 girls, sexual intercourse with countless adults of both
sexes with animals of many species, 17 incest relationships and incest with
his grandmother and father.
And then Pomeroy says, and this is the Institute for Sex Research, he said the
data here was a basis for a fair part of chapter 5 in the male volume concerning
child sexuality.
Because of these elaborate records we were able to get data on the behaviour of many
children.
In other words, a high section of the report on this, of children's sexuality,
was based on one man who had had all this experience with these...
it's a lot of people actually, add them all up, probably well over a
thousand by the time he's gone through that.
So that was one of the main... and obviously very keen to whether he was
exaggerated, whether he was lying, we don't know.
But certainly they took it down, it was a great influence in their
research.
Pomeroy, bear in mind, he was an associate researcher with Kinsey, he said incest
between adults and younger children can also prove to be a satisfying and
enriching experience, when there is a mutual and unselfish concern for the other
person.
When we look at Kinsey and the homosexual statistics, he said that 10% of males are
homosexual.
But you have to bear in mind, when he was doing his research in those days,
he was taking his statistics from people, many of them were practicing homosexuals,
he himself was bisexual, and so there was a bias written into his whole
understanding at the beginning.
But more recent research, this is from the University of Chicago, in 2001,
says a real figure for active homosexuals, exclusive homosexuals, would be about
1.5%.
But you have to bear in mind, this is 2001, rather than 1948.
Now, 1948, people were not so widely... it's almost like if something becomes
normal, acceptable, and is advertised on television and everything else,
then it becomes more acceptable, so more people try it.
So there should actually be a higher percentage than in the time of Kinsey.
Now, let's have a look at something about the side effects, or the result,
or the fruit, of the sexual revolution.
What I call sowing the wind, I call it sowing the wind because I see it as not
being a really objective scientific investigation.
Sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.
In 1900, the percentage of illegitimacy was about 1%.
2006, last year, illegitimacy, 60%.
1920, the divorce rate was below 17%.
2006, divorce rate above 50%.
Broken homes means broken lives.
So we have an increase.
And to 2006, 63% of teen suicides, this is what the psychologists say,
have come from broken homes.
And all this list here are the percentages from broken homes.
71% from broken homes, high school dropouts.
75% children in chemical abuse centres.
80% rapists.
85% youth offenders in prison.
85% children with behavioural problems.
90% runaways and homeless children.
That is a huge increase.
Very, very worrying.
Let's just look briefly at sexually transmitted diseases.
One leading expert in a British medical journal said, The sexually permissive
section in our society shows little but ignorance, indifference or contempt for
the venereal diseases.
We venerealologists wonder what can be done to contain them as they threaten to
get out of hand.
We wonder how high our grafts will climb.
So I've got these ones.
And I've not got the most up-to-date information on this.
So I'm running out of time towards the end.
But these are ones taken mostly from about 1990.
And of course there have been more since 1990.
But herpes is one of the common diseases.
And bear in mind there are about 60 sexually transmitted diseases.
And I'm just going through a few of them.
Herpes, over 25 million people infected in America in 1990.
Unfortunately at least 50% of babies born to infected mothers would die or suffer
neurological damage.
Chlamydia, 30-50% of babies born suffer from eye infections or in many cases
pneumonia.
Cost in 1990 of treatment for chlamydia was $1.3 billion.
PID or Pelvic Inflammatory Disease.
Half a million new cases every year.
60,000 women infertile as a result.
90,000 women suffer chronic abdominal pain.
And pain sexually affects the sexual enjoyment.
Cost of over $1 billion 17 years ago.
Cervical cancer.
Mostly caused through pre-extramarital sex.
Not in every case, but majority is cervical cancer through that kind of sex.
12 million sufferers in the United States alone.
750,000 new ones every year.
In Britain, I don't know whether you have been following the news, the talk about
vaccinating schoolgirls in Britain.
Cost of 1.4 billion pounds over the next 10 years.
Up to that sort of price.
AIDS.
Well, I know of course about AIDS.
It's absolutely rife in Africa and so on.
But here, or America rather, in 1989, they were reckoned to be 1.5 million
sufferers of AIDS in America.
In 1992, 60,000 had died.
40% of babies on average, if their mother has got AIDS, will be infected and most of
them die.
2006, the cost in America was 22 billion pounds.
I would like to say, in conclusion, eugenics was a movement driven by
evolution as a philosophy, and not by real science, and caused untold carnage to the
lives of hundreds of millions of people.
I'd also like to say that Kynes' sexual revolution was based on a biased agenda of
evolution, and not on real science.
And it has equally caused carnage to many millions.
And the cost of this experiment must be in the realm of hundreds of billions of
pounds.
If you put together, not just treating sexually transmitted diseases,
but people in hospital, treatment, AIDS victims and so on, then you put
together all that high percentage I put down of broken homes, of prison,
of, you know, looking after people in prison.
I know one person, for example, runs a home, residential home,
just for four teenage girls, four of the most difficult ones.
Just four of them.
It costs about half a million pounds a year to look after four, come from broken
homes.
And they've been brought up to have sex with anybody you want kind of thing.
And sometimes they've even had boys coming in through the windows and had to kick
them out and so on.
So that is just one example.
So if you put it all together, including the whole drugs industry,
which is about, in America, I think it was about 250, 260 billion dollars.
You add that all together, you're probably talking about hundreds, not thousands,
certainly hundreds of billions of dollars for a whole lot of stuff and all that goes
on with the society.
So, my last part is this.
I believe it's time to rethink in our culture.
And I just want to read to you at the end something from Romans, chapter 1 in the
Bible, which says, the Apostle Paul is saying, For I am not ashamed of the gospel
of Christ, for it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may
be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
For since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead,
so that they are without excuse.
Because although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God,
nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts
were darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools.
Therefore God also gave them over to uncleanness in the lusts of their hearts,
to dishonour their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God
for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator.
Thank you very much.