THERE is a disturbing piece in the opening chapter of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World that concerns a group of students who are being shown round a laboratory at the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre, where laboratory specimens are being prepared for a horrifying method of genetic engineering known as Bokanovsky’s Process. A young employee by the name of Mr. Foster begins to explain how there is far more to this procedure than meets the eye:

“We also predestine and condition. We decant our babies as socialised human beings, as Alphas or Epsilons, as future sewage workers or future…”

At this point Foster quickly checks himself and, instead of employing the term “future World controllers,” changes his expression to “future Directors of Hatcheries”.

Although Huxley’s work is incredibly prophetic in terms of presenting what he saw as the (il)logical progression of modern science and its further perversion in the hands of a globalist elite, are we really expected to believe that a salivating vulture like Jacob Rothschild wouldn’t actually pay someone to creep into a dystopian crèche or kindergarten in the middle of the night and physically strangle each potential competitor with his bare hands? Indeed, despite the baronial titles and estates that often end up in the possession of such families over the course of several centuries, the clear absence of any authentically aristocratic dimension to such people inevitably means that bloodlines of this type drift into the steady decay of superfluity. As if they had not already been founded on mercantile principles, of course, but as I explain in one of my books on Julius Evola in relation to the Roman ruling class:

“To question the patricians, therefore, meant questioning the gods to whom they were bound through the combination of ancestral blood and daily ritual.”

Whilst this may sound as though the Rothschilds of this world may be excused for their rapacious behaviour, despite the fact that the only ‘ritual’ in their lives involves counting the number of digits on their bank statement, I went on to mention that the kind of aristocratic longevity that was secured through ritual and initiation

“did not preclude an outsider from being adopted, however, or a member of the aristocracy from being cast out on the basis of personal ineptitude. Ultimately, the holy ritual was more important then the biological reality of genetics and these exceptions to the rule also appeared among the familial priesthoods of Egypt, Peru and feudal Japan. Given that the establishment of initiation within Traditional societies is spiritual in character, it logically follows that to occasionally suspend the principle of blood in favour of natural aptitude is nought but a return to origins.”

Evola, by way of Revolt Against the Modern World (p.41), says as much himself:

“In this way natural relationships not only are secondary, but they may also be reversed; thus according to the [Laws of Manu], ‘the brāhmana who brings about the Vedic birth of an older person and who teaches him his own duties becomes his father, according to law. Even if he is himself a child.’”

One tends to spiritual parentage and progenitorship, the other – at least in my hypothetical denouement of what might happen in the context of Huxley’s Brave New World – to infanticide. In the meantime, we are left with a degenerated aristocracy which throws up debauched reprobates like Boris Johnson. A caste through which the suspension of ancestral blood has led to nothing more than a natural aptitude for plunder.