1983

NO LIMITS TO GROWTH

Who Was Behind Thomas Malthus?

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

[Print version of this article]

This work is most timely now that a Malthusian scourge is spreading its evil throughout the western world. President Trump acted against this anti-human ideology of the British Empire—withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, defining the environment as clean air and water rather than the lie that carbon is a “pollutant.” The incoming Biden Administration is fully committed to the Green New Deal and Green Finance; and to the takeover of economic policy from elected sovereign governments by a central bank cabal—eliminating access to credit for industry and agriculture under the anti-scientific fraud that carbon emissions cause climate change. Such an economy would be unable to sustain a population of more that 1-2 billion people, the expressed intention of Prince Charles and his friends in the western banking elite. It is an unfortunate reality that Pope Francis has joined this de-population movement, in keeping with the Malthusian tendencies of many of the founders of his Jesuit Order, as exposed here by LaRouche.

LaRouche provides the intellectual ammunition to defeat this genocidal ideology, to restore the intention of America’s Founding Fathers, to end the Satanic British Imperial ideology, and to build a world based on the common aims of mankind for scientific and cultural cooperation and development.

We reprint here a section of Chapter 2 of LaRouche’s 1983 book, There Are No Limits to Growth, his devastating critique and refutation of the 1972 book, The Limits to Growth, published by the Malthusian Club of Rome. Chapter 1 was reprinted in the December 11, 2020 issue of EIR. The full book is available at store.larouchepub.com.

In the preceding chapter, we reported that the Club of Rome’s supposed “scientific work,” The Limits to Growth, was a hoax. The data on resources used for the book was vastly inaccurate in crucial categories. The method of computer calculations was based on the astonishing assumption that all technological progress was suddenly and continuously stopped over a period of more than thirty years. The authors, and at least numerous of their leading backers, knew that the book, The Limits to Growth, was fraudulent. Yet, during the 1970s, the Club of Rome, and most other leading “neo-Malthusians” based their campaigns more or less strictly upon the conclusions of that fraudulent book.

What was their true motive for pushing a Malthusian doctrine in which even they did not believe?

This writer and his associates have conducted thorough research, for longer than a decade, into the leading figures behind the international “neo-Malthusian” movements and projects. They have come to know representative creators and leaders of the Club of Rome, and allied organizations, and have listened to such persons describe in their own words, their true motives for creating the present-day neo-Malthusian hoax.

There is the case of Dr. Alexander King, a Paris-based British subject, formerly Director of the OECD organization adjunct to NATO, and a principal behind-the-scenes architect of the creation of the Club of Rome. Dr. King volunteered, in a published interview, that his true motives for sponsoring neo-Malthusian propaganda have been racialist. He insisted that the Anglo-Saxon racial stock was becoming dangerously outnumbered on this planet, and that therefore, neo-Malthusian propaganda and programs must be employed to reduce substantially the populations of darker-skinned “races.” Among “darker races,” King included, with some vehemence, “the Mediterranean race,” a term usually understood to signify Arab, Turk, Greek, Italian, and Spaniard.

There is the case of Britain’s Lord Solly Zuckerman, South African by pedigree. This high-ranking British official, who insists that he is more important than Dr. King in the creation of the Club of Rome, is currently serving as head of an Anglo-Soviet Malthusian association, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), an association cofounded with backing of the U.S.A.’s McGeorge Bundy, a Bundy described by Harvard University’s famous John Kenneth Galbraith, as “head of the [U.S.] Establishment.” Lord Zuckerman’s views are reasonably described as dangerously savage, and his power most extensive.

In the case of leading U.S. backers of neo-Malthusian projects, there is the case of General William Draper, associated with the New York investment house of Dillon, Read. This Draper was a vocal participant in a 1932 meeting of the trustees of New York City’s American Museum of Natural History. At this meeting, those assembled praised Adolf Hitler’s imminent rise to power in Germany, Draper leading in special praise for the Nazis’ “racial hygiene” doctrines. His Draper Fund, which backs the Population Crisis Committee, is explicitly dedicated to promoting savage population reduction of those peoples of Africa and elsewhere which Anglo-Saxon racialist fanatics view as “inferior races.”

The case of Draper is not exceptional among circles associated with the American Museum of Natural History. This institution was established during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, to promote the doctrines of Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley, which those circles have consistently understood over the intervening hundred years to mean a fight to reduce the population levels of non-Anglo-Saxon “racial stocks.” During this century, the famous families of Morgan and Harriman have been most prominent in this institution; since World War I, the Harriman family has been the chief promoter of Nazi-like racialist doctrines in the name of genetics within the United States. It was not properly surprising that these families played a dominant role in putting Hjalmar Schacht’s protégé, Adolf Hitler, into power in Germany, expressing special delight in Hitler’s racial doctrines. These were the families, especially the Harriman family, which pushed through a 1920s immigration law in the United States, designed to stop significant immigration of such “darker-skinned races as the Mediterranean” into the United States, stipulating an annual quota to this effect.

During the late 1930s, there was a clamor in the United States for lifting the quotas against immigration of Jews threatened by Adolf Hitler’s rampages. The Harrimans mobilized to prevent such special arrangements. One boatload of Jews fleeing Hitler was turned back from the United States, many returning, rejected by Harrimanite racialism, to their doom. Of the three millions or more who might have been saved from Hitler’s racial persecutions, had the United States exerted leadership to this purpose, only a relative handful escaped. The Harrimans, including today’s former Governor W. Averell Harriman, were enthusiastic supporters of the Italian fascist, Benito Mussolini, from the late 1920s into approximately 1938, and many among the Morgan circles continued to back Hitler until a similar late date. It was only after 1938, that Britain’s Winston Churchill and others discovered and warned that the Anglo-American-Swiss creation, Adolf Hitler’s Germany, was running out of control of its masters.

The circles of the American Museum of Natural History have contributed a leading part in imposing neo-Malthusian policies in the United States during the recent decades. Rather than taking such wicked fellows at their words in this matter, we shall set their confessions to one side at this point in our report.

Rather than examining typical, prominent personalities responsible for the present-day neo-Malthusian rampage, we shall shift our attention now to the social stratum they represent. We shall pose, and answer the question: What is the distinctive, characteristic philosophy of this social stratum, which prompts them to promote a propaganda doctrine they themselves know to be scientifically absurd?

We begin with the “case of the Reverend Professor Thomas Malthus himself. Who and what was behind his writing of his 1798 An Essay on the Principles of Population? It was the same stratum of wealthy families behind Malthus then, which has been behind the orchestration of neo-Malthusian propaganda and movements again, today.

During the year 1751, the leader of the cause of American Independence, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, wrote and published a pamphlet, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, in which he argued, on premises of economic principles, for increasing rapidly the population of North America. A friend and admirer of Franklin, Gianbattista Beccaria, translated this pamphlet into Italian, and published it in Italy. The Italian edition of this pamphlet was greeted with an attempted rebuttal published by Gianmaria Ortes, a leading spokesman for the powerful rentier-financier families of Venice.

Ortes’s attack on Franklin found its way to Britain, and, at a somewhat later date, an ambitious young graduate of Oxford University’s divinity school, Thomas Malthus, plagiarized and published Ortes’s arguments as his own Essay on the Principles of Population. At that time, Malthus was in the service of the British Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger. It was Pitt who sponsored the first, 1798 publication of Malthus’s famous work. As Pitt stated to the British Parliament, it was Malthus’s On Population which was used as the pretext for the 1800 reform of the British Poor Law; Britain ceased to give financial assistance to its own “useless eaters.”

That was the origin of the name “Malthusianism.”

In honor of Malthus’s achievement, the British East India Company created the first professorship in political economy to be established in Britain, appointing Malthus as first occupant of this position, at the Company’s Haileybury College, where its own agents were trained. All the notable British economists—excepting the special case of Dr. Karl Marx—from Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham, through John Stuart Mill—were, like Malthus, agents of the British East India Company. Most, like Bentham, Malthus, David Ricardo, James Mill and John Stuart Mill, were associated with and coordinated by Haileybury.

This connection among British political economy, Malthusianism, and the African slave-trade and China opium-trade, is indispensable for understanding the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’ eruptions of Malthusianism among the English-speaking nations, for reasons we shall document here. To understand Malthusianism’s influence on the continent of Europe, one must understand also the intimate connection between the backers of the Venetian Gianmaria Ortes and the British East India Company.

British Political Economy

A relatively advanced study of political economy had been fostered in Tudor England through the influence of the Erasmians, and had continued in a vigorous form through the period of Thomas Gresham. At least, it was vigorous and competent by the standards of Europe at that time. From the time of the coronation of James VI of Scotland as King of England, in 1603, Britain dropped out of school. The teaching of modern economic science was well-advanced as a regular practice among prominent institutions of France, Italy, Germany, and Russia, more than fifty years before the first appearance of a formal doctrine of political economy in Britain.

Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, modern political economy was taught on the continent of Europe, chiefly, under the rubric of “cameralism.” This cameralism was based on such fifteenth-century pioneer economists as George Gemisthos (Plethon) and Leonardo da Vinci, as the leading work in Tudor England had been. The principles of government of the French political scientist, Jean Bodin and his Six Books of the Commonwealth, typified the directions of political-economic policy-making of the influential Les Politques of France and the republican (Commonwealth) faction in Britain. The Neapolitan school associated with Tommaso Campanella was most influential, beginning the turn of the seventeenth century. Out of the convergence of such currents emerged the political-economic policy-making of the seventeenth century Politiques of France, such as Richelieu, Mazarin, and the famous successor to Mazarin, Jean-Baptiste Colbert. Modern economic science proper, was developed by Gottfried Leibniz, beginning Leibniz’s brief, 1671 Society and Economy.

The successful, early eighteenth-century development of the economy of Russia, during which the scale and quality of mining and industry exceeded that in Britain, was based on Leibniz’s counsel to Czar Peter I. Leibniz’s economic science was taught in eighteenth-century Germany, under the title of “physical economy,” as part of the cameralistic program which later produced such figures as Freiherr vom Stein and the Humboldt brothers. It was channeled in France and Italy through the Oratorian teaching-order and its orbit. It was based in Russia at Leibniz’s Petrograd Academy. It was introduced into the United States before Smith’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, chiefly through Dr. Franklin. Yet, although the house of Hanover briefly sponsored a project to make Leibniz the Prime Minister of Britain, Leibniz’s economic science never reached the shores of that country.

The first effort to develop a doctrine of political economy in Britain dates from a 1763, long carriage ride, during which the notorious Second Earl of Shelburne dictated to Adam Smith the specifications for a plan to wreck the economies of the English colonies in North America. At that time, Smith was a leading subordinate of David Hume in the British Secret Intelligence Service, and formally Professor of Moral Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. Hume was Lord Shelburne’s subordinate in the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) during operations against France, and Shelburne himself was, like his grandfather, Sir William Petty, founder of the London Royal Society, of the highest-ranking families in the Scottish branch of the SIS. Like his grandfather, Lord Shelburne was a Jesuit by reputation and background, closely linked to the same circle of French (Clermont) Jesuits as Voltaire, the French Physiocrat Quesnay, and the Jesuit-Swiss Nine Sisters’ Scottish Rite Freemasonic grand lodge in Paris. He was one of that curious breed of Scottish-French-Swiss Jesuits (sometimes nominally Protestant) which, during the lifetimes of Shelburne, Franklin, and Lafayette, intersected a leading figure of that curious network, the Duke of Orléans.

It was David Hume who was most influential in outlining the so-called moral principles which have governed the underlying axiomatic assumptions of British political economy from Smith, through Bentham, Malthus, Ricardo, the two Mills, Jevons, Marshall, and Keynes. It is Smith’s 1759 The Theory of Moral Sentiments which supplies everything which is original in his 1776 plagiarism of A. Turgot’s Reflections on the Formation and Distribution of Wealth, Smith’s famous anti-American tract, his Wealth of Nations. One passage from his 1759 book is exemplary:

... the care of the universal happiness of all rational and sensible beings, is the business of God and not of man. To man is allotted a much humbler department, but one much more suitable to the weakness of his powers, and to the narrowness of his comprehension: the care of his own happiness, of that of his family, his friends, his country.... But though we are ... endowed with a very strong desire of those ends, it has been entrusted to the slow and uncertain determinations of our reason to find out the proper means of bringing them about. Nature has directed us to the greater part of these by original and immediate instincts. Hunger, thirst, the passion which unites the two sexes, the love of pleasure, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply those means for their own sakes, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of nature intended to produce them.

This quoted exercise in the Calvinist dogma of predestination is the essence of the rationalization which the Scottish Presbyterians and others offered in defense of such practices as the British East India Company’s African slave-trade and China opium-trade. Man, according to this Calvinist’s argument, is not morally responsible for the consequences of his actions for humanity in general. If his blind indifferentism to morality, in following nothing but his hedonistic impulses, causes cruelty and other great harm to large numbers of humanity, then God is to be blamed for having provided such a Calvinist with his hedonistic instincts.

This Calvinist’s defense of immoral practices is the essence of Smith’s own doctrine of the “Invisible Hand.” Smith, like Hume, like Bentham, Malthus, Ricardo, James Mill’s defense of genocide against peoples of India in 1819, John Stuart Mill’s doctrine of “utility,” and the work of Jevons, Marshall, and Keynes, among others, bases himself on that radical rejection of any knowable moral law by David Hume, that moral “indifferentism” which enraged Immanuel Kant to write his own Critique of Pure Reason against British empiricism.

More significant than Smith in the history of British political economy, is the most intimate of Lord Shelburne’s accomplices and protégés, Jeremy Bentham. Bentham’s theme is the same cited from Smith’s 1759 text, but Bentham is more savagely to the point, more radical a follower of Hume. On this account, Smith’s 1759 text is to be compared immediately with Bentham’s 1780 An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, and Bentham’s principal text explicitly on the subject of political economy, his 1787 In Defense of Usury. Otherwise typical of Bentham’s radicalism is his In Defense of Pederasty, and his design for a brainwashing prison suited for the society of George Orwell’s 1984, The Panopticon Writings.

This was the prevailing moral philosophy among those circles which adopted the Venetian Gianmaria Ortes’s policy as British Malthusianism. Before turning to the immediate circumstances under which Malthus’s book appeared, we show the character of the connection to Venice.

During the interval 1589 to 1603, the Venetian and Genoese financial “black nobility” of Italy and adjoining countries conducted a bloody struggle within England, to discredit and destroy Elizabeth I’s designated heir to her throne, the boy Essex, and to secure the succession for the Genoese asset, James VI of Scotland. Genoa had controlled Scotland since its mercenary forces, Robert Bruce and his Templars, had subjugated the nation during the early fourteenth century, and controlled Scotland’s principal connections on the continent, the French-speaking areas of Switzerland and adjoining portions of France, since the period of the fifteenth century when Britain, Genoa, and Charles the Bold of Burgundy had been allied against France’s Louis XI.

Following his coronation in 1603, King James I of England granted his foreign financial backers a tax-farming monopoly over the public debt and tax collections of England. The Francis Bacon who had been a leading asset of the Genoese (Pallavicini) interest in the 1589-1603 coup d’état, was made the Chancellor of the Exchequer, until public opinion refused to tolerate any longer Bacon’s rampaging embezzlements. Out of this came the seventeenth-century Civil War in Britain, and the foundations of the City of London’s financial center and the Bank of England.

As part of the same process, the Genoese and Venetian financial interests moved the Atlantic division of their Levant Company, from its ruinously looted base in Portugal, to Britain and the Netherlands, where this Levant Company produced the British and Dutch East India Company, an arrangement consolidated with the reforms of 1688-1689. This is what Hume and Shelburne represented; it was the British East India Company which consolidated its grip over the British government by Shelburne’s agreement with King George III of 1782-1783.

A few observations on the period 1603-1783 must be added, so that the character of the British and U.S.A. backers of neo-Malthusianism today may be accurately understood.

As we have noted, the takeover of Britain by foreign, Genoese and Venetian interests, was directly as well as indirectly the cause of the seventeenth-century Civil War in England. It was the fall of the Commonwealth, with the Stuart Restoration of 1660, which accelerated the emigration of British republicans into the colonies in North America. These 1603-1689 developments determined the profound difference in culture generally, and moral philosophy which increasingly separated Britain from America during the eighteenth century.

In Britain, over the course of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the foreign-controlled ruling interests became so dominant and so integrated into the ruling landed and financial aristocracies, that what had been once foreign and what domestic became more or less indistinguishable, at least to the degree the Scottish and English components of the British ruling strata were united in policy. The persistence of this rule, and the top-down impact on popular life, transformed the British subjects in philosophical outlook, to the point that nineteenth-century British subjects, like those of today, accept the immoral dogma of Hume, Smith, Bentham, et al. as “common sense” and “human nature.” Except for a vestige of republicanism in England, typified by Franklin’s friend, Dr. Joseph Priestley, and Irish and Scottish republicanism, by the 1790s the philosophical outlook of John Milton was nearly eradicated among the population of Britain.

The republican circles of North America became thus the center of republican philosophy and culture among the English-speaking peoples. The effects of this philosophical difference upon the respective practices of the two nations are typified by evidence from the U.S. census of 1790 and correlated evidence of that period. The U.S. adult population had a literacy rate in excess of 90 percent, more than twice that in Britain. Exemplary of this, the American was known widely throughout Europe as “the Latin farmer” because of the degree of familiarity with classics among U.S. citizens. The leading political literature, the popular literature which won support for the U.S. Constitution, for example, shows that the adult Americans of the 1790s were vastly superior to those of today, in terms of that quality which Percy B. Shelley defines as the “power to receive and impart profound conceptions respecting man and nature.” This cultural superiority of the American citizen over the British subject during that period was echoed in the fact that the Americans produced and received as income twice the amounts of wealth of the British. Insofar as the American patriots were of English origin—and many of them were of Scottish and German origins—they were the followers of John Milton, to the point, that in that sense, the American Revolution was a successful repetition of the seventeenth-century Civil War in Britain.

These developments in Britain and America were situated within the general pattern of developments in Europe as a whole during these two centuries. It is in this context, that the connection of the Venetian, Genoese-Swiss, and British financial oligarchies is most clearly shown.

The same circumstances underlying the Genoese coup d’état of 1589-1603 in England prompted the seventeenth-century Catholic monarchs of France to lead the Protestant League of Europe, a leadership shaped successively by Cardinal Richelieu, by the Pope’s own appointed successor to Richelieu, Cardinal Mazarin, and Mazarin’s successor, Jean-Baptiste Colbert. The Catholic Party of Europe, led by the Venetians’ assets, the Habsburgs, included the French-speaking Swiss Protestants as well as the Venetian Jesuits, and also, usually, the Protestant monarchies of Britain and the Netherlands—when French bribes in the pocket did not outweigh avowed loyalties in the consciences of the Restoration Stuarts. If the labels from that period are therefore often outrageously misleading, such is the commonplace state of leading political affairs in history, into the present day.

The real issues of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’ wars in Europe were not between Catholics as Catholics and Protestants as Protestants. The ranks of both Protestants and Catholics were bitterly divided against themselves on issues more fundamental than the matter of nominal adherence to the Papacy. The one view, among both Catholics and Protestants, is efficiently traced back through the 1439 Council of Florence. It is the viewpoint of fifteenth-century Catholic, neo-Platonic humanism, as epitomized by the powerfully influential writings of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa on theology, natural law, and scientific method. The opposing view, erupting afresh as Venetian and Genoese policy, was a revival of the standpoint of Roman imperial law, the View of man, and of man in the universe traditionally associated with Byzantine, Roman, Persian, Babylonian empires, and the ancient Philistine city of Tyre, a tradition traced to the Chaldeans of Ur.

The first, republican view, is founded on the premise that the human individual is absolutely distinguished from the beasts by virtue of a divine potentiality, on whose account human life is sacred to society, and for which reason the function of the state is to protect and develop those creative-mental potentialities of each and every member of society, and to afford those developed potentialities protected opportunity for fruitful expression. The opposing, oligarchical view of man, like that of Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Bentham, views man as a hedonistic variety of talking beast, whose knowledge and self-interest are limited to perceptions of pleasure and pain. That oligarchical, degraded view of man is expressed by the cited passage from Adam Smith. It is expressed succinctly also by Bentham’s An Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation.

During the same period as Malthus produced his 1798 An Essay on the Principle of Population, the essential political division within European civilization was described by the poet, dramatist, and historian, Friedrich Schiller, as a division between the republican tradition of Solon of Athens, and the oligarchical tradition of the mythical Lycurgus of Sparta. The republican tradition, in the proper, broad usage of this term for that philosophical outlook, is traced in Western Europe through the influence of St. Augustine’s writings, the great reforms of Charlemagne, and Cusa’s elaboration of the principles of natural law upon which constitutions of nations and the law among nations are defined in principle. On the opposing, oligarchical side, it is the rampant sodomy of the Spartan aristocracy, whose young aristocrats killed enslaved helots at whim, to keep the helot population in check, which aptly expresses the policies and practices of the Venetians’ Habsburg-led “Catholic Party” of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

It is from the philosophical outlook typified by Lycurgus’s Sparta, and evil creator of the “Spartan model,” the temple of the Cult of Apollo, at Delphi, that modern Malthusianism and neo-Malthusianism are produced. This is most directly illustrated by consulting the writings of the leading apologist for the philosophical outlook of Delphi, Aristotle, especially his evil Politics and Nicomachean Ethics. There is no evil practiced by the Malthusians’ factional forces which is not recommended in those latter two literary sources. This is the standpoint of David Hume, of Adam Smith, of Jeremy Bentham, and Lord Shelburne’s circle generally. This is the moral-philosophical standpoint of the British East India Company then, and the neo-Malthusians now.

Before turning to the U.S. backers of Malthusianism, one additional set of facts concerning Malthus’s immediate orbit is indispensable: How the British East India Company took control of the British government over the interval 1782-1783.

By 1782, the war against the United States had brought the indebted British government to the point of bankruptcy. In this period, Shelburne made several attempts to gain control over the government. His efforts of 1783-1784 succeeded. Together with Francis Baring, banker of the British East India Company, Shelburne negotiated an agreement with King George III which placed Shelburne’s tool, William Pitt the Younger, in the position of First Treasury Lord. This was only the first step. According to surviving records, the grand total of the sum which John Robinson paid on Shelburne’s behalf, to buy up the entire British Parliament of 1784 was £200,000; Laurence Sullivan of the British East India Company arranged the financing of this purchase. So, Shelburne’s tool, William Pitt the Younger, began his long rule as Prime Minister.

During the same year, 1784, Shelburne launched his reorganization of the British East India Company itself, giving it increased powers and wealth, and consolidating its position as virtually identical with the British Secret Intelligence Service. Jeremy Bentham emerged as Shelburne’s leading specialist in dirty tricks—including, in due course, sending the British SIS agents, Danton and the Swiss Marat, from their training stations in London, to lead the Jacobin Terror in France. This was the establishment of which Malthus, Ricardo, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, and others were assimilated as officials. These were the Malthusians.

These men were Jesuits. Contrary to the official history of the Jesuits, the order was actually created, not in Paris, but by the Contarini family of Venice in Venice itself. Ignatius Loyola, on a pilgrimage to Palestine, was held over in Venice, and recruited to head up a Venice-created secret intelligence service modeled in all essential features on the intelligence service of the ancient Cult of Delphi, the Peripatetics. The Jesuit order was originally a spin-off from the Hospitaller Order of St. John, at the time known as the Order of Malta, which was itself controlled by Venice. For good reasons, the Papacy suppressed the Jesuits during the eighteenth century, and the order’s headquarters was moved to Russia, where it remained (at least, officially) until the Venetian Capodistria’s direction over the 1815 Congress of Vienna facilitated bringing the Jesuits back to power in Western Europe, where the order functioned as the secret intelligence arm of Prince Metternich, and became engaged, in this capacity, as an accomplice of the British SIS in the wave of assassinations and assassination attempts against President Abraham Lincoln and members of his government.

Sir William Petty, Lord Shelburne’s grandfather, was trained under Mersenne’s direction at the Jesuit college at Caen, where the Jesuit agent René Descartes had been trained. The inner circle of the Scottish crew which Charles II brought back to Britain in 1660 were Jesuit agents. Shelburne himself was Jesuit-trained in France, and was kept from topmost official positions in Britain chiefly because of the popular sentiments on the subject of Jesuits. More concretely, Shelburne was a product of the Bolingbroke circle, to which he was linked in France through his father-in-law, John Cartaret. Later, Benjamin Disraeli summed up the matter:

Lord Shelburne adopted from the first the Bolingbroke system; a real royalty, in lieu of the chief magistracy; a permanent alliance with France instead of the Whig scheme of viewing in that power that natural enemy of England; and, above all, a plan of commercial freedom, the germ of which may be found in the long-maligned negotiations of Utrecht, but which, in the instance of Lord Shelburne, were soon in time matured by all the economical science of Europe....

Disraeli gilds, not the lily, but the toad. Shelburne’s alliance with France was with the Duke of Orléans, anti-Franklin France, and with the Grand Priory of the Order of St. John in France. These were the forces which overthrew and beheaded King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, which directed the rise of the Jacobins to power, and the Jacobin Terror, and which brought to power, beginning 1786, the “free trade” policy and Finance Minister, Jacques Necker, by means of which the most powerful industrial nation of Europe, France, was bankrupted in 1789. This was all accomplished in concert with the (then officially suppressed) Jesuits, and the leading Swiss banking families based in Geneva and Lausanne.

The same Hospitaller order from which the Jesuits were taken as a peripatetic rib, today fly their flag over Switzerland, and gave that nation the education of the John Calvin who was trained in the same Paris operations which sent Ignatius Loyola to Venice. So, Genoese Geneva became nominally Protestant, and Genoese-owned Scotland became Presbyterian, whereas anti-Papacy Venice deployed a nominally Catholic Jesuit order. In France, where the Scottish Rite, the Jesuits, and the Swiss Calvinists were invariably allies in the same wicked operations, under the umbrella of the Grand Priory of St. John, there were no functional differences among the three. These gentlemen were governed by common principles which they viewed in practice as a higher degree of faith than their respective nominal professions to a Protestant or Catholic denomination. The same is true in France today, and also in the United States, at least at the highest ranks of the Scottish Rite and Hospitallers. This is part of the key to Malthusianism, including the Jesuit order’s shameless promotion of the Club of Rome within the precincts of official institutions of the Vatican itself, reaching even into the Pontifical Academy of Science—little wonder the Church’s attempts to combat Malthusian anti-life dogmas have so often seemed to fail for mysterious causes.

As to whether some members of the Jesuit order, or ordinary Presbyterians or Scottish Rite Freemasons are respectively Christian or Judaic in any strict sense of the terms, we are not attempting to determine here. We are not meddling into the internal affairs of organized religions, but merely noting meddling in the name of religious bodies into policies of nations, and, in this instance, in a very wicked fashion. The fact is, as we have indicated, that the Jesuit order as an order, the upper ranks of the Scottish Rite as a Jesuit-created Rosicrucian cult, and the banking circles united as the Calvinists of the Church of Scotland or of French-speaking Switzerland and France, are consistently one and the same force dedicated to Malthusianism and related projects. Shelburne’s case is the evil epitome of the worst in each of them all.

These fine gentlemen established their greater power over Britain, and within the United States, beginning 1787-1792, beginning with British Secretary Henry Dundas’s master plan for expanding the opium-trade into China. So, the British East India Company, following in the footsteps of the Dutch East India Company before it, shifted its investments from the perishable cargo of the African slave-trade into the more compact, and vastly more lucrative China opium-trade. It had been the Jesuits, during their operations in China and India during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who had made the organization of this traffic possible on such a scale.

Such is the character of these Malthusians. Adam Smith had defended the opium-trade in a manner consistent with his Scottish Calvinist’s Jesuitical morality:

... the care of the universal happiness of all rational and sensible beings, is the business of God and not of man. To man is allotted a much humbler department ... to apply these means [immoral hedonism] for their own sakes, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of nature intended to produce by [such hedonistic instincts].

In the case of the British East India company and its American agents, the African slave-trade and China opium-trade, and, in the case of the leading American families, treason, were pursuits of profit by means of which they and their descendants might become wealthier, more powerful, and even all the more paragons of respectability.

The African slave-trade, the China opium-trade, monstrous usury, and the profitable occupation of treason, were the hallmarks of moral character and philosophy of the British East India Company and its American agents. These were the Malthusians then; their descendants, and the Swiss and “black nobility” descendants, are the force behind neo-Malthusianism today.