Part 3 DNA: Pirates of the Sacred Spiral ...The Pirates’ Position on DNA

DNA: 

Pirates of the Sacred Spiral 

By Dr. Len Horowitz

Chapter 4. 

The Pirates’ Position on DNA

“The artist may be well advised to keep his work to himself till it is completed, because no one can readily help him or advise him with it . . . but the scientist is wiser not to withhold a single finding or a single conjecture from publicity. ” 

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 

Essay on Experimentation 

If you knew a treasure was buried close by, but pirates held the only map to it, you would hardly expect them to simply hand the secret intelligence over to you. They would most likely do whatever possible to keep the treasure’s value secret and precise whereabouts hidden. Indeed, this treasure—DNA—holds the power over life and death. Those who have controlled it have gained great wealth and power, and the pirates are currently in a position of stealth strength. 

The most responsible way to tell “all about DNA” is from both sides of the debate. We could simply regurgitate what has been stated and repeated ad nauseam regarding DNA, its structure, and alleged primary function of directing the assembly of new life from DNA-copied RNA, and protein synthesis at ribosomes—protein assembly stations, but given the previous three chapters of introduction we would not want to disappoint you. Nor would we want to remain remiss by withholding the whole truth. 

Alternatively, DNA: Pirates of the Sacred Spiral presents the following discussions taking into account what has been said about DNA by the world’s leading representatives of the subject—Rockefeller University and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory spokespersons. We will, however, intersperse facts that are missing, commentaries, and critique providing more advanced science and political perspectives. 

For these discussions we will refer to DNA-related “propaganda” featured in the public and scientific domains by these two most authoritative collaborating sources of intelligence in this field. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and Rockefeller University, both in New York, are well known by DNA investigators as being the first and foremost citadels for this fare. The authenticity of their material is easily validated by visiting their online presentations and papers. 

For those yet to be familiar with Dr. Horowitz’s earlier books, Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional? and Healing Codes for the Biological Apocalypse, both of these institutions require a bit of introduction. So we will begin here to relay “all about DNA.” 

Pioneering DNA Research at Cold Spring Harbor 

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSH), according to their advertising, “is a research and educational institution.” For more than a century, the laboratory has conducted research programs “focusing on cancer, neurobiology, plant genetics, genomics and bioinformatics.” It espouses a broad educational mission, including the recently established Watson School of Biological Sciences,” and the Dolan DNA Learning Center (DNALC) for the dissemination of public information—what you might consider after reading this book “promotional propaganda.” 

According to CSH’s “100 Year History,” their Biological Laboratory was established in 1890 by John D. Jones, the son of John H. The Jones family had diversified their holdings earned initially at sea in shipping and whaling to continue “amassing a sizable fortune” directing the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company. 

The Jones family was well-positioned, and also prolific. John H. Jones, founder of the Cold Spring Harbor Whaling Company and father of the Biological Laboratory’s initial patron John D. Jones, had 84 first cousins. Eugene G. Blackford, a founder of the Biological Laboratory, introduced to the fish market Red Snapper, which was named for him (Neomaenis blackfordi). 

For more than 100 years, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSH) in New York, intimately collaborating with Rockefeller University, has researched cancer, neurobiology, plant genetics, and human genomics. The above lists a few more institutional affiliates. The complete list presented on this Dolan DNA Learning Center (DNALC) website provides a virtual “who’s who” in the world of DNA analysis, biotechnology, and genetic engineering. The DNALC for the dissemination of public information is the chief propaganda arm of CSH and the genetics industry. DNALC’s website takes you to virtually every major “Genome Center” throughout the world including notables such as the U.S. Department of Energy Human Genome Program, the National Human Genome Research Institute, Stanford Human Genome Center, Whitehead Institute Center for Genome Research, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) featured later for its leading “pirates,” Amgen, Inc.—”the world’s largest biotech firm,” and the BioSpace Bioscience Company Directory—listing “over 400 biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, with company profiles, news, and links to corporate web sites.” See: www.DNALC.org/

By the late 19th century, Eugene Blackford, a fishery commissioner of New York State, “was instrumental in persuading members of the Jones family to apply their unused assets to the service of modern science. In 1882, several acres of land and an abandoned woolen mill at the head of the harbor were ceded to New York State as the site of a hatchery for the culture of salt and fresh water species.

“In 1889, Blackford aided Brooklyn Institute President Franklin Hooper in securing from John D. Jones a second gift of land and several derelict Bungtown buildings to found the Biological Laboratory. The first General Course in Biology, begun on July 7, 1890, was actually taught at the fish hatchery; however, within several years a whaling warehouse (now Wawepex Building) was outfitted with a darkroom, workrooms, and lecture rooms. 

“In 1898, Charles Davenport, a professor of evolutionary biology at Harvard University, [and infamous leader of the international eugenics movement] became director of the Biological Laboratory. Over the next several years, he introduced a series of courses that investigated ‘the normal variation of animals in the harbor, lakes, and woods, and the production of abnormalities, . . .’” 

For many years Davenport (See figure 4.2.), directed three institutions at Cold Spring Harbor: “the Biological Laboratory, the Carnegie Department of Experimental Evolution, and the Eugenics Record Office.” [Emphasis added.] 

“Darwin’s theory dealt with large populations of living things and did not explain how traits are passed from one generation to the next. It was the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel who brought the hereditary process down to the individual organism and provided a hereditary mechanism to drive evolution. 

“Gregor Mendel, died in 1884, more than a decade and a half before the importance of his work was understood. His paper, Experiments in Plant Hybridization, published in 1865, provided the basis for the mathematical analysis of inheritance. From results of controlled crosses of garden peas, he formulated laws to explain how traits are passed from one generation to the next as discreet bits of genetic information. He showed that the expression of a pair of contrasting physical characteristics is controlled by a pair of genes, one of which is donated by each parent. 

Professor Charles Davenport, Eugenics Pioneer and Director of CSH By the early 1900s, prominent American and European industrialists, including the Carnegies, Vanderbilts, Morgans, and Rockefellers, envisioned a world in which social and political pressures brought by the proletariat might be efficiently managed through various methods of population control. On behalf of common interests shared by the Royal Families of Britain and Germany, they heavily funded Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and its director, Charles Davenport, a pioneer in the “science” of eugenics. Davenport et. al., professed conditions such as “feeblemindedness,” alcoholism, poverty, and shyness were caused by damaged genes. They effectively persuaded American, and later German political leaders, to enact eugenic laws for “ethnic cleansing” and “racial hygiene” that contributed to the rise of the Jewish and Black genocides of the Twentieth Century. See: www.DNALC.org/

“Although Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin, his work lay fallow, unrecognized until the beginning of the 20th century. In 1900, Hugo de Vries of the University of Amsterdam and Carl Correns of the University of Tübingen rediscovered Mendel’s paper and published research that confirmed his earlier work. 

“The year following the rediscovery of Mendel’s paper, Andrew Carnegie sold his Pittsburgh steel mills to J.P. Morgan for an estimated $400 million. Believing that “the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced,” he established the Carnegie Institution of Washington as one of several philanthropies through which to divest himself for an honorable death. [Meaning he, thus, kept his vast fortune and estate properties tax free and under family control.] The Carnegie Institution and John D. Rockefeller’s Institute for Biomedical Research, founded the same year, were the nation’s major sustained sources of support for the basic biological research during the first four decades of the 20th century. [Emphasis added.]

“Learning that the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole had approached the newly-formed Carnegie Institution for support, Charles Davenport quickly counter-proposed the establishment of a field station “to investigate experimentally the origin of species” at Cold Spring Harbor. Davenport’s proposal succeeded, and he became the first director of the Carnegie Institution’s Station for Experimental Evolution, while also retaining leadership of the adjacent Biological Laboratory [and Eugenics Record Office]. 

“. . . The renaming of the Carnegie operation as the Department of Genetics, in 1921, signaled the completion of the transition from experimental evolution to modern genetics. . . . Carnegie researchers logged almost immediate success. George Shull, who was among the first full-time staff members appointed by Davenport, began breeding experiments with corn in 1905. . . . His results, published in 1908, demonstrated the phenomenon of ‘hybrid vigor’ and formed the basis of modern agricultural genetics. 

“At the same time Davenport and Shull were initiating research at Cold Spring Harbor, Thomas Hunt Morgan was setting up his ‘fly-room’ at Columbia University. Trained as an experimental evolutionist, Morgan started breeding experiments with the fruitfly, Drosophila, which proved an ideal organism for genetic studies. Over the course of a decade and a half, Morgan and his astoundingly bright cadre of graduate students used linkage—analysis of the co-inheritance of traits—to demonstrate that genes are in a linear arrangement on the chromosome. Their 1915 book, The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity, provided the major theoretical basis of modern genetics. 

“The work of Thomas Hunt Morgan established the fruit fly as a workhorse of genetics research. Calvin B. Bridges, who was among Morgan’s most brilliant students, spent several summers at Cold Spring Harbor, and was a staff member of the Carnegie Institution of Washington until his death in 1938 at the age of 49.

In 1954, an unprecedented U.S. Congressional investigation into tax-exempt foundations identified the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations engagement in a globalist agenda. The Committee stumbled upon the rewriting of American history by the Rockefeller and Carnegie oligarchy. Norman Dodd, Research Director for the Congressional Committee, found the following stunning statement of insidious purpose in the archives of the Carnegie Endowment: “The only way to maintain control of the population was to obtain control of education in the U.S. They realized this was a prodigious task so they approached the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion that they go in tandem and that the portion of education which could be considered as domestically oriented be taken over by the Rockefeller Foundation and that portion which was oriented to International matters be taken over by the Carnegie Endowment.

“The opportunity for a busman’s holiday in a bucolic setting made Cold Spring Harbor a summer destination for American geneticists. Nettie Stevens of Bryn Mawr College was in residence during the summer of 1906, continuing research published the previous year demonstrating that sex is determined by Mendelian inheritance of distinctive X and Y chromosomes. Calvin Bridges, one of Morgan’s brilliant students at Columbia, spent the summer at Cold Spring Harbor during 1914, the year of publication of his seminal paper explaining the inheritance of a sex-linked trait and locating a specific gene on a specific chromosome.

“In 1916, Carnegie scientist Clarence C. Little was among the first scientists to demonstrate a genetic component of cancer. He found that Japanese “waltzing” mice were susceptible to transplanted sarcomas, while other strains were almost entirely resistant. After leaving Cold Spring Harbor in 1923, he later became a founder of the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine, which was to become the nation’s primary supplier of purebred mice for research. 

“Carnegie scientist Clarence C. Little, became director of the American Cancer Society for 16 years. This line of research was continued at Cold Spring Harbor by E. Carleton MacDowell, who in 1928 discovered a strain of mice, C58, which invariably succumbed to spontaneous leukemia. He went on to breed numerous strains of mice with increased resistance or susceptibility to cancer. Little’s and MacDowell’s mouse strains, and numerous genetic combinations derived from them, proved essential to modern cancer research. 

“Davenport was among the group of scientists who turned their attention to human genetics. In 1907, he worked out the inheritance of eye color, and later described the genetics of hair and skin color. He became a major proponent of the eugenics movement, the goal of which was the application of genetics for the betterment of humankind. 

“In 1910, Davenport persuaded Mrs. E.H. Harriman to devote a fraction of her late husband’s railroad [and banking] fortune to eugenics research. She purchased 75 acres of property on which she established the Eugenics Record Office, adjacent to the Carnegie station. Davenport assembled a human trait handbook and over a period of 15 years trained more than 250 field workers to collect [human] pedigree data. House-to-house surveys and examination of patients’ records in hospitals, prisons, and mental institutions yielded information that resulted in approximately 750,000 genetic records on file. 

A 1905 picture of the Carnegie Building at Cold Spring Harbor. The building held the archives of the laboratory, including books, papers, correspondence, and photographs relating to the “scientific” work of eugenics on behalf of leading industrialists who were concerned that overpopulation of “dysgenic” people might challenge their socioeconomic and political agendas. Today, the archives support the research of scholars from around the world who, in keeping with CSH’s political biases, and population control agendas of their funding industrialists, continue to collect and disseminate materials (largely propaganda) relating to the contributions of leading geneticists.

“Davenport’s application of Mendelian genetics contributed to the understanding of a number of physical disabilities, such  as color blindness, Huntington’s chorea, and epilepsy, that are caused by a defect in a single gene. However, he and other eugenicists grossly oversimplified the analysis of complex behaviors that are influenced by many genes [along with psychosocial programming]. They crossed the line into science fiction when they claimed to show the Mendelian inheritance of traits such as feeblemindedness, pauperism, shyness, moral control, nomadism, and shiftlessness. They also tended toward heavy-handed preaching about what constituted the right genetic stuff and admonished that carriers of serious genetic defects should not reproduce. [That is, should be coercively sterilized. Emphasis added.] 

“At its best, the American eugenics movement contributed the first basic understanding of humans as genetic organisms. At its worst, it was self-righteously bigoted. [Author’s question: Is bigoted worse than genocidal?] Regardless [easy for them to write; less easy for victims’ families to accept], American eugenicists were pronounced guilty by association with the radical brand of inhumane genetic improvement that arose in fascist Europe during the 1930s. The Eugenics Record Office was closed in 1940 [as those who funded it, along with “Hitler’s” racial programs, felt embarrassed and politically compelled to continue more discretely their selective depopulation programs. Emphasis added.] 

Among the founders and early patrons of eugenics “were such notable American entrepreneurs as Walter Jennings and George Pratt, founders of the Standard Oil Company; J.P. Morgan, the banker; Marshall Field III, the Chicago storekeeper; William K. Vanderbilt, whose family built a fortune on the Staten Island Ferry and the New York Central Railroad; Louis Tiffany, whose stained glass creations were already legendary, and national celebrities including Fred Astaire and George Gershwin.” 

“The membership applied its wealth and enthusiasm with remarkable results, . . . The Laboratory’s first full-time investigator, Hugo Fricke, did some of the earliest work on the effect of X-rays on living cells. [In other words, x-rays were used to cause genetic damage in various species including select human “volunteers.”] Reginald Harris became the Biological Laboratory’s first full-time director in 1924. No stranger to the institution, he had come to Cold Spring Harbor as a summer researcher in 1918 and married Davenport’s daughter Jane in 1922. . . . In 1930, resident endocrinologists drew national attention when adrenal cortical hormone purified at Cold Spring Harbor was used as the first cure for Addison’s disease. [Author’s note: It is widely known that the adrenal hormone cited, ACTH, rather than “cure” Addison’s disease, merely serves as a replacement for the natural hormone with certain side-effects. Diffuse hyperplasia, that is, excessive growth of the adrenal cortex, and in many instances tumor development, results from ACTH administration. Moreover, the interest in this disease and so-called “cure,” given their eugenics funding and research focus, was likely associated with Addison’s disease patients development of black skin pigmentation due to their primary hormone insufficiency. These eugenic researchers would have certainly been interested in developing a “cure” for black skinned people.] 

“Harris saw that the rapid influx of ideas from chemistry, physics and mathematics was splintering biology into a number of subdisciplines. Thus, in 1933, he organized the first Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology as a means to increase dialogue between the various scientific factions. . . . 

Pictured here is the non-denomination chapel at Jekyll Island, Georgia. The arched glass picture window boasts eugenics supporter Louis Tiffany’s own stained-glass mural dedicated to his unique benefactors parishioners that, according to the inscription, were granted Divine authority to control the world’s wealth. These eugenics supporters and Cold Spring Harbor Labs benefactors included some of the world’s leading banking, energy, and transportation industrialists. They gathered here to plan the formation of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank. Most people today falsely believe that Congress “created” the Federal Reserve. The 1913 “Act” that Congress “passed,” and President Woodrow Wilson signed into law, was authored by this select group of private industrialists who met in deep secrecy and prayed in this chapel. Present were the following bankers and eugenics/CSH patrons: Frank Vanderlip, President of National City Bank of New York; Henry P. Davidson, senior partner of J. P. Morgan Company; and Charles D. Norton, President of Morgan’s First National Bank of New York. These three powerful bankers invited Mr. Paul Moritz Warburg of M. M. Warburg Company of Hamburg, Germany, which was the chief German representative of the European banking family, the Rothschilds. Mr. Warburg masterminded the entire document that we recognize today as the Federal Reserve Act. As a partner of Kuhn, Loeb and Company Bank of New York, he searched for a title that would not alert Congress as to the true intent of the document he had prepared. He used the word “Federal” in the title which gave the false impression that this document involved the Federal Government. 

“The merit of Harris’s idea was apparent, and the Rockefeller Foundation began long-term support of the Symposium the following year. The Cold Spring Harbor Symposium has continued annually, except for a three-year hiatus during World War II.” During that war, the Rockefellers, their family-controlled Standard Oil Company, and their European partners most leading CSH patrons, heavily funded Hitler and his Nazi eugenicists as will be discussed in greater detail later. (See figure 4.5 for additional interesting discussion.) 

The Dolan DNA “Learning” Center 

The Dolan DNA Learning Center (DNALC) is an operating unit of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and “the world’s first science center devoted entirely to public genetics education,” according to its promotions. (See www.DNALC.org/.) The “official mission” of this organization, “approved by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Board of Trustees,” was stated as follows: 

The DNALC extends the Laboratory’s traditional research and postgraduate education mission to the college, precollege, and public levels. Its multidisciplinary staff has experience in elementary, secondary, and collegiate instruction; biochemistry and molecular biological research; design, photography, and fine arts; science journalism; public relations and development; and opinion research [i.e., polling for public persuasion]. Federal grants provide about half of the DNALC’s annual operating budget of nearly $2,500,000, with the balance provided by foundations, individuals, program fees, and royalties. 

The social imperative [Author’s note: the word imperative implies society could not exist without “genetics research”even though humanity had thrived for millennia without it] of genetics research demands the development of educational resources to build a genetically literate public that supports basic biological research [i.e., mass persuasion on behalf of the genetic pharmaceutical industry and related political agendas], understands elements of personal genetic health, and participates effectively in policy issues involving genetic technology and information. The goals of the DNA Learning Center are: 

· To serve as a clearinghouse for information on DNA science, genetic medicine, and biotechnology. 

· To provide an interactive learning environment for students, teachers, and nonscientists. 

· To explore and develop new instructional technologies to make DNA science accessible to the public, and especially, young people. 

· To train educators for laboratory-based teaching in genetics. 

· To extend enrichment activities to under-served populations — including minorities, the disabled, the economically disadvantaged, and those living in rural/non-urban areas. 

· To provide a forum for public discussion of personal, social, and ethical implications of DNA science. 

A tour of DNALC’s website takes you to virtually every major Genome Center throughout the world including notables such as the Department of Energy Human Genome Program, the National Human Genome Research Institute, Stanford Human Genome Center, Whitehead Institute Center for Genome Research, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) to be discussed later in relation to the privatizing of the Human Genome Project, Amgen, Inc.—“the world’s largest biotech firm,” and BioSpace Bioscience Company Directory—“a listing of over 400 biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, with company profiles, news, and links to corporate web sites.” All in all, visitors to the DNALC, a “nonprofit” entity, can quickly conclude the organization operates successfully as a virtual mouthpiece—the principle propaganda arm—for the worldwide genetic biotechnology industry.

Eugenics Information from the DNALC 

Eugenics is defined as the “scientific investigation of genetic differences between the races.” It includes the genetic predisposition for diseases that people of varying races and ethnicities may have. Curiously, the following discussion regarding eugenics, sources from the DNALC website. It conveys highly pertinent history regarding The Pirates of the Sacred Spiral, such as the central role played by CSH patrons including J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, the Carnegies, the Vanderbilts along with leading eugenics investigators such as Charles Davenport. 

You may wonder why the DNALC, operating in the best interests of its corporate, institutional, and individual sponsors, would broach this controversial and embarrassing topic at all, let alone feature it on its website. The answer is well known in social psychology, behavioral science, and advertising. Technically it is called a “double-sided message.” 

Since previous authors, including Dr. Horowitz, Stephan Kuhl, John Loftus and Mark Aarons, Joseph Borkin, Paul Manning, and others, published books and numerous articles in recent decades exposing previously secreted eugenics records, the “cat was let out of the bag.” CSH could ill afford to keep quiet about their “red herring.” Slyly they developed the following treatment of the subject which barely blemishes their reputation. The double-sided message is, “Sure we did this, but we’re really great people otherwise!” Here’s how they worded it: 

Examine the Chronicle of how society dealt with mental illness and other “dysgenic” traits in the final installment of our newest website: DNA Interactive. Meet four individuals who became objects of the eugenic movement’s zeal to cleanse society of “bad” genes during the first half of the 20th century. Then meet a modern-day heroine for a personal account of mental illness and the lesson it holds for living in the gene age.

A second more obvious reason eugenics is allowed to be featured by the DNALC is due to the power its patrons wield in forming the mass mind. How many people, after all, visit their website for information about eugenics—a socially accepted form of genocide? How many people have even heard of the word “eugenics?” This author has done an informal poll. Not many! Especially compared to the populations exposed to mainstream media propaganda that effectively forms the mass mindset of public opinion about the “urgent need” for genetic engineering for evolutionary enrichment in a frantic climate of alleged “overpopulation.” Really, the DNALC, CSH, the U.S. Department of Energy, and their directors in the Anglo-American economic community, have nothing to fear. They can, thus, afford to be brazen. 

In fact, the opening line of their eugenics fluff relays the most salient point of these authors’ position. Here’s their article: 

“The philosopher George Santayana said, ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ This adage is appropriate to our current rush into the ‘gene age,’ which has striking parallels to the eugenics movement of the early decades of the 20th century. Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to breed better human beings by encouraging the reproduction of people with ‘good’ genes and discouraging those with ‘bad’ genes. Eugenicists effectively lobbied for social legislation to keep racial and ethnic groups separate, to restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe, and to sterilize people considered ‘genetically unfit.’ Elements of the American eugenics movement were models for the Nazis, whose radical adaptation of eugenics culminated in the Holocaust.”[Emphasis added. Notice the word “radical” is comfortably placed above to distinguish between Hitler’s ilk, and those eugenicists in America funded by CSH patrons that also, as you will learn more, funded Hitler and his Third Reich.] 

“We now invite you to experience the unfiltered story of American eugenics primarily through materials from the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, which was the center of American eugenics research from 1910-1940.” [Emphasis added.]

This allegation of “unfiltered” truth contradicts, in fact, what the institutes’s own disclaimer. It reads: “During a two-year review process, involving a 14-member Advisory Panel, this site has developed an editorial policy to protect personal privacy and confidentiality. For this reason, names and places have been deleted from pedigrees, medical documents, and personal photographs.” 

Okay! So there is some filtering. Let’s continue. . . . 

“In the Archive you will see numerous reports, articles, charts, and pedigrees that were considered scientific ‘facts’ in their day. It is important to remind yourself that the vast majority of eugenics work has been completely discredited. In the final analysis, the eugenic description of human life reflected political and social prejudices, rather than scientific facts.” [Emphasis was added here because this statement reveals a potential liability, possible lethality, in contemporary genetic research as well as century old eugenics—that is, political and social prejudices. Have political and social prejudices changed dramatically since the time of Hitler? If they had, America and its allies would have no justification for its myriad wars. Keep this in mind as you read the following section concerning the powerful political and economic forces behind the eugenics movement. Ask yourself, “Are current genetic science endeavors susceptible to the same, or similar set of socioeconomic, and more importantly, political forces?” 

Social Origin of Eugenics 

“You may find some of the language and images in this Archive offensive,” Professor Allen began. “Even supposedly ‘scientific’ terms used by eugenicists were often pervaded with prejudice against racial, ethnic, and disabled groups. Some terms have no scientific meaning today. For example, ‘feeblemindedness’ was used as a catchall for a number of real and supposed mental disabilities, and was a common ‘diagnosis’ used to make members of ethnic and racial minority groups appear inferior. However, we have made no attempt to censor this documentary record to do so would distort the past and diminish the significance of the lessons to be learned from this material. 

“When many people first learn about eugenics, they wonder how intelligent people, including highly educated scientists, could have believed so many seemingly bizarre ideas. How could anyone accept the simplistic notion that complex human behaviors are determined by single genes or that mental tests designated more than three/fourths of all Russian and Polish immigrants to the U.S. as feeble minded? 

“To understand why eugenics gained such a following in the first three decades of the 20th century, one needs to examine the economic, social, and political context in which it flourished. Science, or what is claimed to be science, is a product of culture—like any other human activity. What seems in hindsight to be naive or absurd, must have seemed reasonable in its own era. This is especially true when scientific ideas are used to explain social problems. 

“American eugenics developed in the wake of turbulent economic and social problems following the Civil War. The rapid growth of American industry, coupled with the increased mechanization of agriculture, created the first major migration away from farms, and cities expanded faster than adequate housing. Wholesale exploitation of labor created militant labor union organizations. Price fluctuations bankrupted many businesses and precipitated a series of depressions, starting in 1873, and reoccurring about every decade through the early 1900s. This further fueled labor unrest. The situation was made worse by an ever increasing tide of immigrants, mostly from southern and eastern Europe, which peaked just before, and again after, World War I. 

“Social Darwinism had attempted to explain away social and economic inequalities as the ‘survival of the fittest.’ However, by the turn of the century, this simplistic idea had been turned on its head. A declining birthrate among the wealthy and powerful indicated that the captains of industry were, in fact, losing the struggle for existence. The working class not only was organizing against them, but they were also out reproducing them. At the same time, traditional approaches to solving the problems of the urban poor—charity, social work, and religious institutions—were proving of little help.” [Emphasis added. Author’s note: These conditions persist today except for the fact that many modern ailments, arguably all man-made, mass medication, and unprecedented levels of media distractions, have effectively placated the populations of developed nations, while plagues such as AIDS have effectively ravaged most underdeveloped countries] 

“Solving the new problems of industrialization demanded a change from laissez-faire to managed capitalism—toward the increased role of government and planning in the economic and social sphere. This new philosophy became known as progressivism. Embedded in progressivism was the idea of scientific management—long-range planning by university-trained experts. This new managerial class became increasingly vital to the economic process. In a country that had nurtured a reverence for invention, the use of scientific management [i.e., sophisticated “population control.”] had a special appeal. Progressive reformers had a strong faith in science as the cure-all that would herald in a new era of rational control of both nature and human society. Under these conditions, it is not surprising that the revelations of a new science of genetics gave birth to a new science of social engineering—eugenics.”[Emphasis and clarification added.] 

This allegedly frank discussion of eugenics—a pseudo-scientific genocidal movement that came, and supposedly vanished, following Hitler’s disgrace, is reminiscent of an annual report published in 1968 by CSH and Rockefeller affiliated Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It may be recalled from Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident of Intentional? (Horowitz, 1998), that Sloan had labored for years as the Chief Executive Officer for the Royal-Family-of-England-controlled General Motors Corporation. As the Second World War was winding down,  Sloan joined the board of directors of New York City’s Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases that had collaborated with researchers at CSH. Soon thereafter, Sloan founded the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research to administer the hospital’s research activities. In 1968, Everett Case, Sloan Foundation president, articulated the seriousness of this time using virtually the same language used by Professor Allen to describe the socio-political correlates and antecedents for eugenics. Case wrote: 

The multiplication and growth of many of our besetting social problems seem all too reminiscent of the behavior of the cancerous cell. Who would have predicted at the beginning of this decade that racism would infect and inflame the minds of even a vocal minority of the Negroes who, in this country, have been its principal victims? Who would have foretold the rise in resort to violence not only among the swelling ranks of the criminals but also as a means of social protest and even as a weapon of dissent?(Case, 1968) 

Case’s next paragraphs were most enlightening and relevant to this eugenics/genocidal agenda discussion: 

More effective techniques for the control of population growth are at hand. The genetic code has been deciphered, and the elements of DNA can now be made synthetically. So, too, the hundreds of young scientists who have earned Sloan fellowships in basic research have made important contributions to our understanding of both the macrocosm and the microcosm. 

It is different when one leaves the laboratory or the field experiment, and the disciplined minds they attract, for the sprawling, clamorous, and slippery problems which confront, say, the President of the United States or the Mayor of New York City. It is easy to ascribe outbreaks of urban violence to the intolerable conditions of the ghettos. It is easy to ascribe those conditions to the neglect or apathy of the landlords, to the massive immigration of unskilled and disadvantaged Negroes from the South, to the cupidity of the real estate operators and the building trades, or to the ineptitude and corruption of city officials. It is much harder to get at the root causes of such phenomena, and even more difficult to discover and apply effective cures. . . .

Science . . .whatever its problems, including the apprehension of a popular revulsion against its untoward consequences, it is clear that science is an enterprise too dynamic to be “turned off” if we would, and too fundamental to our security and our economy to be abandoned if we could. Certainly the search for the causes and possible cures of cancer must be accelerated, not brought to a halt. Together with technology, engineering and management, moreover, science has an indispensable role to play in any effective assault society may launch upon the stubborn complexities of our urban problems.(Case, 1968) 

Dr. Horowitz concluded from this, and other related documents, (Horowitz, 1998) that the Sloan Foundation then implemented special grant programs. These were consistent with the COINTELPRO’s (Black Nationalist Hate Group) campaign against Black Americans. It was allegedly instituted to dissuade Black America against violent revolution. It also refined resources channeled to the Black underclass consistent with the targeted objectives of National Security Memorandum 46, for “public management,” as discussed previously by Horowitz (2001). Assuredly, these programs and governmental policies fulfilled Alfred P. Sloan’s goal to take advantage of people’s “ignorance of the principles of capitalism and free enterprise.” This opportunity included the genocidal capability of the medical industrial complex that included genetic engineering, cancer research, and other iatrogenic (man-made, drug-induced) forms of population control. Consider these parallels as well as you read further in Allen’s official eugenics essay. 

Professor Allen continued, “Genetics appeared to explain the underlying cause of human social problems—such as pauperism, feeblemindedness, alcoholism, rebelliousness, nomadism, criminality, and prostitution—as the inheritance of defective germ plasm. Eugenicists argued that society paid a high price by allowing the birth of defective individuals who would have to be cared for by the [corporate] state [which also risked heightened proletariat and ethnic revolts] Sterilization  of one defective adult could save future generations thousands of dollars.[Clarifications added.] 

“Eugenicists and their wealthy supporters also shared a mutual antipathy for political radicalism and class struggle. They were alarmed by the increasing strength of militant labor unions and the rise of the American socialist party, especially after the success of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. These movements were, to some extent, correctly judged to be associated with immigrants from southern Europe, especially Italians, eastern Europeans, and Jews. These new immigrants were seen as troublemakers, and the eugenicists purported to have data showing that the problem was in their genes. The solution to the problem was simple—selective immigration restriction [sterilization, and other forms of “racial hygiene”]. 

“Eugenics was seen as a way to solve all of these combined problems because it placed the cause in the defective germ plasm of individuals and ethnic groups, and not in the structure of society itself. Eugenics used the cover of science to blame the victims for their own problems. Eugenicists seemed to have the weight of rigorous, quantitative, and thus scientific evidence on their side. To those with economic and social power—and imbued with the new spirit of scientific planning—eugenicists appeared to offer a rational and efficient approach of treating social problems. [Emphasis and clarification added.] 

“In an era troubled by rapid and seemingly chaotic change, eugenics offered the prospect of a planned, gradual, and smooth transition to a more harmonious future. With its emphasis on planned breeding, eugenics provided the biological counterpart to new theories of scientific control and rational management in business. Just as a new group of professional managers was making a place for itself in American economic life, eugenicists emerged as scientists with a special expertise in the solution of perennial social problems. Eugenics provided what seemed to offer an objective, scientific approach to problems that previously had been cast almost wholly in subjective, humanitarian terms. Whereas charity and state welfare had treated only symptoms, eugenics promised to attack social problems at their roots.”

Rockefeller University’s Rockefeller Archive Center 

A brisk click on the link Rockefeller Archive Center from Professor Allen’s lead page brings you to a Rockefeller University site that features the words “Visit the New Virtual Exhibit: Seeking the Secret of Life: The DNA Story in New York.” Figure 4.6 documents curious close associations between Cold Spring Harbor (CSH), Rockefeller University, and on the other side of the DNA double helix graphic, symbols for the Royal bloodline—the British Royal Crown and the British Royalty’s Lion. This might strike you as odd. Rockefellers are little known to be related to European royalty.[ I looked everywhere available to me for the image in the book, they do not want us to find that connection dc ]

From this welcoming page visitors may enter the virtual exhibit, and tour its “rooms,” conveniently directed by a strip of DNA. 

What is DNA? 

“Somehow, every point in the structure of nucleic acids was reached with great difficulty by the paths of error and controversy,” stated Phoebus A.T. Levene, among the earliest geneticists at Rockefeller Labs, in the opening text of the website. 

The tour moves to explain that “DNA is a complex molecule containing life’s instructions." Today DNA is a household word. The daily news is filled with stories about DNA profiling, DNA testing for inherited diseases and the development of gene therapy, genetically modified foods, and the biotechnology industry. Fifty years ago scientists worked out the chemical structure of the DNA molecule: one of the most important scientific discoveries of the 20th century. But one hundred years ago, chemists were just beginning to isolate and analyze the molecules that lie within the nuclei of cells. 

Chemical Definitions and DNA Structure 

DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. Phoebus A.T. Levene examined how DNA’s four nucleotide components are linked together. This work was completed much later by James Watson and Francis Crick at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, England. Using x-ray crystallography, they showed that DNA is shaped like a twisted ladder. Alternating sequences of DNA’s building blocks, they noted, were strung together in a double helix. These blocks were named nucleotides. They consist of a deoxyribose sugar, a phosphate group, and one of four nitrogen bases—adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C). Phosphates and sugars of adjacent nucleotides link to form the long DNA crystal polymer. Experiments showed that the ratios of A-to-T and G-to-C in DNA are constant throughout life. Figure 4.7 presents this graphically. 

The alternating deoxyribose and phosphate molecules form the twisted uprights of the DNA ladder. Complementary pairs of nitrogen bases form the rungs of the ladder whereby A is always paired with T and G always paired with C. 

Due to the “obligatory pairing of adenine-to-thymine and guanine-to-cytosine, Watson and Crick proposed that one half of the DNA ladder serves as a template for recreating the other half during DNA replication. By 1958, two lines of evidence came together to provide proof of this hypothesis. First, an enzyme was discovered—DNA polymerase—that adds complementary nucleotides to the template provided by a half DNA molecule. 

“Second, an ingenious experiment used nitrogen isotopes to follow the construction of new DNA molecules during successive generations of bacteria. This showed that one strand of each DNA molecule is passed along unchanged to each of two daughter cells. This ‘conserved’ strand acts as the template for DNA polymerase to synthesize a second complementary strand, which completes each new DNA molecule. 

“DNA is found mostly in the cell nucleus, but another type of nucleic acid, RNA, is common in the cytoplasm." Watson and Crick proposed that RNA must copy the DNA message in the nucleus and carry it out to the cytoplasm where, at a subcellular organelle called the ribosome, proteins are made based on the code. Crick also predicted the existence of an ‘adaptor’ molecule that reads the genetic code and selects the appropriate amino acids to add to growing protein polypeptide chains. 

Later it was learned, “several types of RNA are involved in the utilization of genetic information. In the nucleus, the DNA code is ‘transcribed,’ or copied, into a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule. In the cytoplasm, the mRNA code is ‘translated’ into amino acids. Translation is orchestrated at the ribosome—itself partly composed of RNA—with transfer RNA (tRNA) playing the role of adaptor. 

“The genetic code had to be a ‘language’—using the DNA alphabet of A,T,C, and G—that produced enough DNA ‘words’ to specify each of the 20 known amino acids. Simple math showed that only 16 words are possible from a two-letter combination, but a three-letter code produces 64 possible words. Operating on the principle that the simplest solution is often correct, researchers assumed a three-letter code called a codon. 

“Research teams at the University of British Columbia and the National Institutes of Health laboriously synthesized different RNA molecules, each a long strand composed of a single repeated codon. Then, each type of synthetic RNA was added to a cell-free translation system containing ribosomes, transfer RNAs, and amino acids. As predicted, each type of synthetic RNA produced a polypeptide chain composed of repeated units of a single amino acid. Several codons are ‘stop’ signals and many amino acids are specified by several different codons, accounting for all 64 three-letter combinations. . . . The triplet genetic code further refined the definition of a gene as a discrete sequence of DNA encoding a protein—beginning with a ‘start’ codon and ending with a ‘stop’ codon.” 

DNALC Rebuttal 

From here, further physical explanations of DNA-to-RNA to-protein synthesis become highly technical and confusing, and downright contradictory. If simplicity is the litmus test, there is obviously something very wrong or missing in this Cartesian method of regenerating life. Take for instance the following DNALC explanation of RNA-messaging inconsistencies: 

“Dogma and logic dictated that the mRNA code is a faithful representation of the DNA from which it is transcribed. This exact correspondence between mRNA sequence and DNA sequence was generally upheld in experiments with bacterial cells (prokaryotes). However, inconsistencies surfaced as recombinant-DNA techniques allowed researchers to explore the genes of higher cells (eukaryotes). Then, it was found that mRNA transcripts appeared to be shorter than their corresponding genes.This difference became obvious in electron micrographs of DNA: Pirates of the Sacred Spiral mRNA bound to its complementary DNA template—where regions of DNA without corresponding mRNA form loops. 

“In fact, the protein coding information in genes is interrupted by non-coding sequences called introns, which results in ‘split genes.’” The entire DNA code is faithfully transcribed into a temporary form of RNA (pre-mRNA), but this is edited in the nucleus to yield a mature mRNA. The process of RNA splicing involves removing non-coding regions, nucleic acid, and splicing together adjacent coding regions, exons.” 

All of this may, however, be an artifact of the recombinant DNA techniques employed. More importantly, the mechanistic model of genetics expressed above by the DNALC has become largely, if not entirely, undermined by recent advances in water science, electrochemistry, nanotechnology, and the physics of bioelectric phenomena. 

For this reason, we now turn our interest to the control of genes from outside of cells, that is, from the environment, including from potentially Divine sources. In contrast to the DNALC, we will primarily focus on the electromagnetic matrix of universal, and/or spiritual, energy discussed in previous chapters. Alternatively, we recognize that modern mainstream DNA evangelists have heavily invested in hormones and neurohumors (blood chemicals) to explain genetic regulation of growth and development. They barely allude to, likely for fear of embarrassment, natural energy as a far more rational and holistic approach to understanding life’s physical manifestation and underlying science of creationism. Cellular up-regulation occurs from the energetically empowered Sacred Spiral. You will now learn about this bioacoustic and electromagnetic creationistic system beginning at the level of your DNA.

This next chapter, Gene-Environment Interaction(117) is a lengthy one, and would make this one to long, so we will cut this one here.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a journalist, I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of artistic, cultural, historic, religious and political issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyrighted material can be removed on the request of the owner.